Ephera
84M

I think, this is good. Competing with Google costs a ton of money and their primary source of money being Google is a shitty circumstance. This opens up a different revenue stream, making them more independent from Google, and it seems to be done in a privacy-friendly way.

Yes, I would also prefer, if the open-source community or the FSF or whomever could put out a stellar free software browser which solely serves the user, but that happening is just not realistic in the slightest.

@dragonX
44M

They have no plan on retiring google as firefox’s default search engine.

@0x1C3B00DA
84M

Because Google is their primary income. They can’t plan to remove it until they build up other income streams. They obviously want to find other ways to fund development

@overtab
14M

Is Icecat not good enough? Iceweasel is also pretty good, IMO.

Ephera
44M

Yeah, but neither of those could compete with Chrome, if they wouldn’t constantly rebase on top of Mozilla’s work. They are dependent on Mozilla getting funding.

@overtab
64M

If your goal is to compete with Chrome, fair enough. Personally, I just want a browser that works and that respects my freedom. I don’t care how good the Google malware is as it’s still malware.

As for depending on Mozilla’s funding (and thereby Google’s money), I think Free software is very resilient and they would continue where Mozilla left off if their funding ever got cut (see the Palemoon project as an example).

@kevincox
54M

The problem is that if Firefox (and derivatives)'s market share drop too low then developers won’t continue to support them. This is already happening to some extent with websites missing features or flat out refusing to run on Firefox.

Then you won’t be able to use Firefox to browse a lot of the web, and Google will basically have full control.

So Firefox being popular isn’t just good for Mozilla and the people that use it. It is critical for the open web in general. (Unless we can find another Chrome competitor)

fatboy
74M

wtf are Mozilla doing? It’s like they want to end up in the toilet next to Internet Explorer?

@someone
-54M

For me they already are. Firefox is a total joke at this point.

@dragonX
64M

I want my browser to be nothing more than a browser!
They are trying to alienate their user base, and they will end be succeeding!
I hope another non-profit will emerge and continue the development of a forked Firefox!

@someone
24M

I hope another non-profit will emerge and continue the development of a forked Firefox!

This already exists, use PaleMoon.

@dragonX
64M

I might switch if:

  • it is up to date with security patches
  • has multiprocessing capabilities
  • uses the new firefox rendering engine
  • is compatible with firefox addons as I heavily rely on them for automating many tasks
  • can install ublock origin
    ???
@someone
34M

It doesn’t have some of these. So LibreWolf it is.

Bilb!
44M

PaleMoon is really old, slow Firefox code with poor add-on compatibility. I personally don’t think anything Mozilla is doing with Firefox bad enough to make that compromise, but YMMV. Maybe something more focused in scope and more tightly bound to upstream Firefox like LibreWolf is a solution?

@someone
24M

I guess so.

@Echedenyan
-2
edit-2
4M

really old

Wtf.

slow Firefox code

… A WILD FIREFOX!!! where??? and slow??

poor addon compatibily

Yes, as every browser must use webextensions, right?

@cruon
4
edit-2
4M

People were complaining when they laid off all those employees that they needed new sources of income, and perhaps while not the most ethic, it’s understandable given the position they’re in now. Plus, on the user side, disabling top sites is as easy as including user_pref("browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.feeds.topsites", false) in your user.js and there will almost certainly be a dedicated config entry for it once it ships.

GNU IceCat is, once again, the only viable libre web browser.

@someone
-54M

This is the company we are expected to support so Google doesn’t have a monopoly over the web? Lol, if so Google can have it.

@AgreeableLandscape
admin
creator
144M

I disagree. Look, Mozilla obviously isn’t perfect, but it’s worlds ahead of Google, which actively participates in US espionage and imperialism, meanwhile Mozilla is showing non-personalized ads.

@someone
-14M

They also layed off most people doing good work in the middle of a pandemic, actively removed features from their browser, supported Google on antitrust because no one else pays them and are wasting time with stupid shit like “,unfck the internet”. I’d say let Google have it, if they pull a Microsoft at least than we can motivate people to make content for gemini.

@AgreeableLandscape
admin
creator
10
edit-2
4M

I still don’t see Mozilla as being blatantly evil and imperialist as the big four tech companies.

@someone
-24M

Use Palemoon. It’s Firefox before it went downhill and is a community project.

But, weren’t Pale Moon and Goanna engine outdated?

@someone
2
edit-2
4M

They are both actively maintained afaik.

@ufrafecy
19
edit-2
2M

deleted by creator

@AgreeableLandscape
admin
creator
16
edit-2
4M

Definitely not a fan of nonprofits having employees with massive salaries. IMO, to be a true nonprofit you need to both pay employees well (as in a wage that lets them live comfortably, not just minimum wage) but also not so much that they get rich from it.

Really wish Mozilla was a worker co-op. Then the employees can say “that’s bullshit” and vote to have Baker kicked out.

Ephera
54M

Problem is that other companies will pay someone in a CEO position that much, so someone with the experience of Baker would need a lot of integrity and passion to not take that big of a salary, from another company.

Isn’t that the point though? Why would you want someone willing to work for another corp. It means they are no better than any other CEO.

Ephera
-14M

Well, I wouldn’t rely on someone working their ass off and taking on tons of responsibility out of the goodness of their heart.
Having such a job means you need to rely on your family to support you. And I know no one who’s so passionate about free software that they will gladly be a burden to their family for no extra money.

Besides, I do not think that Mozilla’s CEO should just by default get less than other CEOs and be cool with that. I think, they deserve a pay that’s comparable to others in a similar position.

@nutomic
admin
104M

No one is saying that the CEO shouldnt get any money at all. But 3 million per year is clearly ridiculous.

Ephera
34M

I agree. I wouldn’t know what to do with 3 million.

But I know that if I told my family that I was offered a job for 3 million, to do the same thing that I’m doing now for say 200k, and I declined, they would tell me I’m ridiculous and probably seize to support me, because I could’ve bought them anything they want and instead selfishly only cared about my own interests.

Maybe that illustration is ridiculous, too, but all I’m trying to say is that it’s easy being an idealist when you’re not in that situation yourself.

My family would disown me if I did not donate most of that 3 million salary. So I think we have very different morals in our families. A lot of human civilization’s problems would be solved if humanity did not horde wealth and resources for personal gain.

@k_o_t
admin
7
edit-2
4M

if will become the reason mozzilla dies… just wtf

Subscribe to see more stories about technology on your homepage


  • 0 users online
  • 27 users / day
  • 35 users / week
  • 135 users / month
  • 461 users / 6 months
  • 2836 subscribers
  • 1240 Posts
  • 3034 Comments
  • Modlog