4 ms·

Uhhh... the final point in the mailing list message is this: --- > 12. This message is about the future and there’s a lot to work out. It’s explicitly not to

by Certhas 11y ago

Uhhh... the final point in the mailing list message is this: --- > 12. This message is about the future and there’s a lot to work out. It’s explicitly not to announce changes in daily activities at this point. People using Thunderbird will not see any change in the product they use. We have started this conversation early because Mozilla works best when our community is engaged. This is how we gather the people who are interested, and enable those folks to engage productively --- So this is exactly not a case of confronting people with made decisions, but discussing long term strategic considerations in the open. Bakers message is actually remarkably explicit about this, discussing various pros and cons explicitly out in the open. --- > 10. The fact that the Foundation is facilitating these discussions does not necessarily mean that the Foundation is or is not the best legal and financial home for Thunderbird. The intent is not to make technical decisions about support of Thunderbird by Mozilla employees, or merging repositories, etc. Point 6 above is the shared organizing principle for both of us. --- So Mozilla is actually not talking about no longer supporting Thunderbird, they are talking about decoupling the projects, possibly within Mozilla. When did it become hip to just randomly hate on Mozilla for everything? I use Firefox daily, and some random Pocket icon appeared there. I don't know what it is, it took me one right click and one left click to remove it from my toolbar, done.

oneJob 11y ago
When Facebook forces a user to opt-out it's acceptable to denounce their actions. How is the Pocket example different? One of my biggest, if not my biggest, complaint about the OSS community it the lack of sympathy toward non technical users. If I was a point-and-click, non-technical user do you think I'd have any clue what you meant by 'mailing list'? Not likely. And if I was that user what are the chances that I understand that the Pocket application was a third-party application and that my data was not staying with Mozilla? Would I understand that removing the icon did not remove the code for my install? Bigger picture here, and the point I was trying to convey in my original comment, is that this is another instance in a string of instances that, when each taken on its own might not be a huge deal, together paint a picture. The writing is on the wall, as they say. I'm not a Mozilla hater. But before I am a Mozilla user, I'm a citizen of the Internet. So when a participant of the Internet begins to lose their way, I figure I should do what good partners do, which is to plainly speak my mind in a manner that is respectful and open to listening. I think Mozilla is great, and I think they'd value others being constructively honest with them.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  > When Facebook forces a user to opt-out it's acceptable to denounce their actions. How is the Pocket example different? Except Pocket is still opt-in; you have to click the button for it to do anything. I think springing these integrations was a poor move strategically for Mozilla, but it's not like they installed Alexa toolbar on everybody's browser. The code for the extension is even open source.
- bad_user 11y ago
  I haven't seen any denouncing of Facebook in a long time, even though they keep getting worse every month. I assume it is because people accepted they are assholes, they won, they can't be replaced and that's that. And personally I consider the backlash against Pocket to be either undeserved kneejerk reactions, or a discreditation strategy sponsored by Mozilla's competition. Because seriously, why aren't we seeing the same backlash against Chrome, which includes proprietary bits not present in Chromium (like the PDF viewer) and that explicitly does not support extensions on Android because of Google's fear of losing ad revenue? Or maybe we should talk about how Chrome does not encrypt data by default, most users giving access to Google for their whole browsing history. We could talk about IExplorer^WEdge or Safari and how Apple and Microsoft are blocking alternative browser engines on their mobiles, but that's not as fun as bashing the only open browser that's backed by a non-profit without ulterior motives. But then lives without our double standards would be boring.
  - EdiX 11y ago
    >Because seriously, why aren't we seeing the same backlash against Chrome Because people who don't like the things you listed use firefox, not chrome.
  - toyg 11y ago
    The difference is that Google and Facebook have always been commercial entities with a profit motive, they are not public utilities. Exactly because Mozilla is (supposed to be) something else, it's held to a higher standard by its users and donors. > We could talk about [...] how Apple and Microsoft are blocking alternative browser engines But we do. In a way, Mozilla is what it is because a lot of people were pissed off at MS.

by Certhas 11y ago

oneJob 11y ago

When Facebook forces a user to opt-out it's acceptable to denounce their actions. How is the Pocket example different? One of my biggest, if not my biggest, complaint about the OSS community it the lack of sympathy toward non technical users. If I was a point-and-click, non-technical user do you think I'd have any clue what you meant by 'mailing list'? Not likely. And if I was that user what are the chances that I understand that the Pocket application was a third-party application and that my data was not staying with Mozilla? Would I understand that removing the icon did not remove the code for my install? Bigger picture here, and the point I was trying to convey in my original comment, is that this is another instance in a string of instances that, when each taken on its own might not be a huge deal, together paint a picture. The writing is on the wall, as they say. I'm not a Mozilla hater. But before I am a Mozilla user, I'm a citizen of the Internet. So when a participant of the Internet begins to lose their way, I figure I should do what good partners do, which is to plainly speak my mind in a manner that is respectful and open to listening. I think Mozilla is great, and I think they'd value others being constructively honest with them.

johncolanduoni 11y ago
> When Facebook forces a user to opt-out it's acceptable to denounce their actions. How is the Pocket example different? Except Pocket is still opt-in; you have to click the button for it to do anything. I think springing these integrations was a poor move strategically for Mozilla, but it's not like they installed Alexa toolbar on everybody's browser. The code for the extension is even open source.
bad_user 11y ago
I haven't seen any denouncing of Facebook in a long time, even though they keep getting worse every month. I assume it is because people accepted they are assholes, they won, they can't be replaced and that's that. And personally I consider the backlash against Pocket to be either undeserved kneejerk reactions, or a discreditation strategy sponsored by Mozilla's competition. Because seriously, why aren't we seeing the same backlash against Chrome, which includes proprietary bits not present in Chromium (like the PDF viewer) and that explicitly does not support extensions on Android because of Google's fear of losing ad revenue? Or maybe we should talk about how Chrome does not encrypt data by default, most users giving access to Google for their whole browsing history. We could talk about IExplorer^WEdge or Safari and how Apple and Microsoft are blocking alternative browser engines on their mobiles, but that's not as fun as bashing the only open browser that's backed by a non-profit without ulterior motives. But then lives without our double standards would be boring.
- EdiX 11y ago
  >Because seriously, why aren't we seeing the same backlash against Chrome Because people who don't like the things you listed use firefox, not chrome.
- toyg 11y ago
  The difference is that Google and Facebook have always been commercial entities with a profit motive, they are not public utilities. Exactly because Mozilla is (supposed to be) something else, it's held to a higher standard by its users and donors. > We could talk about [...] how Apple and Microsoft are blocking alternative browser engines But we do. In a way, Mozilla is what it is because a lot of people were pissed off at MS.