• AgreeableLandscapeOP
      16·
      4 years ago

      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
        5·
        4 years ago

        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.

        • DrivingForce
          9·
          4 years ago

          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
            23·
            4 years ago

            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.

            • nutomicA
              10·
              4 years ago

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

              • Ephera
                3·
                4 years ago

                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.

                • DrivingForce
                  1·
                  4 years ago

                  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
      7·
      4 years ago

      if will become the reason mozzilla dies… just wtf

  • Ephera
    91·
    4 years ago

    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.

      • 0x1C3B00DA
        8·
        4 years ago

        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
      21·
      4 years ago

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

      • Ephera
        4·
        4 years ago

        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
          6·
          4 years ago

          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
            5·
            4 years ago

            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)

      • Bilb!
        52·
        4 years ago

        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?

  • cruon
    51·
    2 years ago

    deleted by creator

    • AgreeableLandscapeOP
      14·
      4 years ago

      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.