13 ms·

“I've been working at Mozilla for many years, from peak to decline”

197 points by notlukejr 11y ago

mixmastamyk 11y ago
Reminds me of that quote about "A players hiring A players, but B players hiring C players" or Jobs' rants on the subject re Scully. For the record, I hate the latest UI changes to Firefox, I have chromium installed also and use it when needed. I don't need two of them. The big round tabs, the Fischer-price menus, the prefs with hardcoded white backgrounds, etc. If they hadn't fixed the memory leaks recently I'd go back to FF 20 or so.
- blue1 11y ago
  Try Seamonkey. I consider it FF for grownups. (or for ancient Netscape users, if you prefer :-))
enraged_camel 11y ago
I can't comment on the other points, but the author is right about Firefox. The last time I tried it (several months ago), it really came across as a browser that looks like Chrome but is worse in almost every way. It's lack of performance is what struck out to me the most, despite the fact that I have several extensions running. This is just anecdotal of course, so take it with a grain of salt.
- kozukumi 11y ago
  When I switched from iOS to Android at the start of the year I switched from Firefox to Chrome to give it a try again (because why not) and yup Chrome is better in pretty much every way IMHO. The only thing I actually dislike about Chrome when compared to Firefox is that Firefox saves the page state when navigating backwards but Chrome does not (such as on reddit if you have collapsed comment threads). Literally everything else about Chrome is better. Oh yeah and it actually syncs all my settings correctly unlike on Firefox where some changes never seem to sync for some reason.
- dageshi 11y ago
  I have never really had performance issues in either browser to be honest. They both work fine, I just prefer firefox, possibly above all else because I love the UI on firebug.
- RodericDay 11y ago
  I honestly wonder to what degree this is just a "perceptions being warped by preconceptions" thing. I use Firefox at home and Chrome at work and the differences in performance are insignificant compared to stuff like Chrome constantly asking me if I want to get tracked. also, iirc, Firefox did alright in benchmarks at many points in history.
  - ironsides 11y ago
    My wife was complaining about the performance of her computer. Shes running a MacBook Air, Chrome, Firefox and Quickbooks. Ran a system check and Firefox running 7 tabs (2 spreadsheets, 1 email, 1 pinterest and browising 3 ecom sites) was taking up over 1.4gb of ram. Seriously. Killed Firefox and the system responsiveness was considerably better. Its amazing that the memory bloat in FF has been allowed to go on for so long. But hey, IoT!
- Sahonon 11y ago
  To counter your anecdote with some more anecdote, I just switched from Chrome to Firefox and have felt that the latter has some serious performance advantages over the former.
  - nkurz 11y ago
    It's probably just me, but I always struggle with the "latter" and "former" construction, especially when they are reversed like that. I had to read it several times before I understood. In case it helps someone else, it translates as: To counter your anecdote with some more anecdote, I switched from Chrome to Firefox, and have felt that that Firefox has some serious performance advantages over Chrome. I wonder sometimes if my inability to parse sentences like this relates to my preference for C over C++. The "former" and "latter" abstraction reminds me of Eli's examples here http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2016/returning-multiple-values-from-functions-in-c/ http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2016/returning-multiple-values-... of first->first and first->second.
    - Sahonon 11y ago
      Sorry to have been unclear -- thank you for making the effort to read my measly comment, however! It does appear similar to the idea of abusing tuples, insofar as having to keep the meanings of each element in mind without any help from the syntax. shrugs I guess my nervousness around Internet commenting surfaces as excessively formal language. Apologies again for any future confusion :|
- MisterBastahrd 11y ago
  Author thinks that a browser that hijacks ads to show other ads is going to be a hit. The first technology that gets added to that thing via 3rd party plugin is going to be an ad blocker, because the entire idea is stupid.
AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
>Mr Eich is now making the Brave web browser (based on Webkit by the way) which is arguably one of the most promising new browsers right now. Go figure. Right about here my confidence in the veracity of this guy's claims plummeted. Brave offers nothing existing browsers can't already provide, except of course a diversion of ad revenue directly into Eich's pocket.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  Nothing existing browsers could provide, but also something existing browsers do not provide... a way to block ads without short changing content creators. For those unfamiliar with Brave, I can recommend this interview: https://opensource.com/business/16/2/brave-browser-interview https://opensource.com/business/16/2/brave-browser-interview
- Scarbutt 11y ago
  except of course a diversion of ad revenue directly into Eich's pocket. And in there lies some of the problems, a Mozilla exec creates a new project that overlaps with Mozilla's star product. Whether Brave is good or bad is irrelevant.
  - skylan_q 11y ago
    He's not a Mozilla exec. He got shamed out of his job for having had donated money to a group that was against same-sex marriage. Basically, all people who hold Christian values don't deserve to have a job.
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      There's a difference between holding christian values and acting on them. I have many religious friends in many wide and varied religions from all over the earth, and they're all great people, because the only time they'll ever even talk (nevermind act) about their religion is when you ask them to.
      - 11y ago
jorgecurio 11y ago
A while ago a hiring manager allegedly from Mozilla Vancouver posted a long rant that he went through 60 interviews yet couldn't find a junior dev which was downvoted to oblivion with angry comments. He shortly deleted all of his comments since then but reading this employees comments on slashdot makes me fit together the puzzle pieces....Mozilla has become a trust fund for incompetent people to earn a cheque every month. Google Chrome has really done a number on the browser market and surpassed the 25% mark for quite some time while Firefox has been dwindling to irrelevance. Failed to even eat into IE marketshare. https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=0 https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpr...
- ygjb 11y ago
  Sigh. That thread was my thread. * It was for a senior security engineer, not a junior dev * I looked at 63 candidates (as in applicants / resumes) * IIRC I screen interviewed around 10 * IIRC we advanced around 4 to the full interview process I deleted my comments for 3 reasons: * Someone else took the initiative to link my comments to the Mozilla Vancouver office, and implied that we tried to fill that position locally * Despite identifying in my initial comment that it was an exceptional circumstance people were acting like it was the norm * In my initial comment I said interviewing 63 candidates, not reviewing 63 candidates; after the thread blew up I revised it to reviewed, but it's the internet :/ Mea culpa, but hiring qualified security people is really hard these days, and has been for years. One other very important note - when we were filling that role the guidance was the the position should be filled in one of our offices, not remotely. Once that restriction was removed, the position was filled almost immediately.
azinman2 11y ago
Was interesting to hear the entire perspective but the "marriage thing?" That wasn't exactly small. Imagine if gave money instead to the KKK... would that have been just "a racial heritage thing?" Backing something that separates families is divisive and not appropriate for an organization that is about openness and diversity, especially given the current tech climate of monoculture. Engineers can really be the worst offenders when it comes to hate-like views, I think in part because they're likely smarter than the average person so they've completely convinced themselves that they're the rational ones. I remember back when I was at Google in 2008. A survey on lgbt issues went around company wide. What came back was so completely shocking and insane, especially out of Russia and India. Burn them, kill them, they don't desire to live, etc. And this was a survey you gave back to your employer!!! Edit: as many people have missed my point let me clarify. The comparison against the KKK was simply to illustrate that who you donate to and support affects your organization, especially when that cause negatively impacts the personal lives of your employees (and goes against your org core values, and reinforces an existing problem of monoculture). I'm not saying prop 8 == KKK, I'm showing that personal beliefs matter when you're a leader.
- kozukumi 11y ago
  Well it is to be expected from places like Russia and India tbh. I am from the UK and such comments would be seen as shocking but we all know Russia hates gay people it makes sense that employees who grew up and continue to live in Russia are going to have very Russian views. Just because they work for a modern, progressive company such as Google (or Microsoft or Apple ...) isn't going to change their opinions on such things. You would have got the same kind of responses in America if you asked about how blacks should be treated/integrated into the company back in the 1950s.
  - binaryapparatus 11y ago
    > Well it is to be expected from places like Russia and India tbh. Every single person in the world knows that one hundred percent of all the people from the UK know damn well to stay away from generalizations. Oh wait.
binaryapparatus 11y ago
I am happy with firefox performance, using vimperator. When you remove all the UI it is one good browser. Big problem with potential decline is that I don't know of any substitute for ff+vimperator (or pentadactyl) that works half good as they do. I tried just about any browser + vimsomething combo.
javajosh 11y ago
How should a non-profit like Mozilla gauge it's success? Should it be going after browser market share (Firefox)? Developer brain market share (Rust, MDN)? Leadership positions (W3C)? Advocacy?
- ironsides 11y ago
  Use and performance of its core product, Firefox.
- macspoofing 11y ago
  Good question, but I think market share is what buys you access to 'leadership positions' and enables 'advocacy'. If Firefox has 1% market-share, nobody cares what Mozilla says or does.
  - ironsides 11y ago
    Also, its hard to see that same Foundation that is used to 300M checks being successful for very long after the revenue dries up.
- Twirrim 11y ago
  Market share isn't a bad gauge. Their revenue streams are theoretically dependent on it. Those search deals are dependent on impressions.
- bobajeff 11y ago
  I think it should be in terms of how well they are achieving their mission. Which is kind of open ended and varies over time. But can be summed up as keep the Web open and unrestricted. Their success can therefore be determined by how well they fight against things like: * monoculture of browser's/engine's (Internet Explorer, Webkit) * The use of vendor specific standards on web (ActiveX, NaCl, Flash Player) * The introduction and proliferation of non-open standards on the web. (H.264, HVEC, Widevine, Primetime, FairPlay, PlayReady) * The centralization of content and services onto a few dominant websites (Google, Facebook, YouTube)
knowtheory 11y ago
Non-profits are mission driven. Most people who work for non-profits are doing it at least in part because of belief in the mission (especially since non-profits typically pay less than market rate). The problem with technology non-profits is that the world around them changes pretty rapidly, and with substantial discontinuities. So if you're an employee and you've signed on to an org with an understanding of why your job and your project matters for The Mission, of course change can appear scary and confusing. On the other hand, especially when there is rapid turn over, or the ground keeps shifting under the org, there's a strong incentive by execs to try and find new territory one can set up upon. The tensions seem pretty obvious. This is the same issue that's come up with Wikipedia's search project too.
- jldugger 11y ago
  > Non-profits are mission driven. Nobody works for Mozilla Foundation. The employees work for Mozilla Corporation, a taxable / for profit entity entirely owned by Mozilla Foundation. They have precisely one revenue stream worth mentioning: search bar contracts. Those contracts are bid on by for profit companies, who will be bidding based on perceived value per search, searches per user, and total users. The introduction of Chrome should concern Mozilla Corp employees, and the ceding of market share to it should be terrifying. Your capacity for The Mission is diminished if user base declines, because bids will decline.
yuhong 11y ago
I wonder if a for-profit corporation with zero shareholders similar to Mozilla can be made possible. I wonder what would happen if AT&T and Verizon can be run in a similar way (with better executives of course).
- gherkin0 11y ago
  > I wonder if a for profit corporation with zero shareholders can be made possible. I wonder what would happen if AT&T and Verizon can be run in a similar way (with better executives of course). A mutual company is probably the closest thing you'll find to that (basically a company where you become a shareholder when you become a customer). I'm not sure how well that structure would work for a company like Mozilla, which has a weak relationship to its "customers," but I think it's work a short for large utility-like organizations like telcom companies. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mutualcompany.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mutualcompany.asp
  - yuhong 11y ago
    That is not what I mean. Obviously such a corporation would have a board of directors but no shareholders at all (including no dividends and control rights), just like Mozilla as described in the comment.
spenvo 11y ago
An aside: Mozilla's approach to Firefox extensions is both 1) responsible (they require extensions to be reviewed and signed by Mozilla), 2) untenable for developers (mine took forever to be reviewed). I published three Chrome extensions last year, and decided to port my more ambitious one to Firefox. (all at http://www.metafruit.com http://www.metafruit.com) Now I feel somewhat bad for complaining since I'm not an extension reviewer myself, and I feel they've taken on a tall order for the betterment of their community. But my Firefox port took four months to get to the front of the review process. Needless to say, my next extension is targeted only for Chrome. Chrome's approach is easy for developers but almost reckless for end users.
- GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
  It's completely absurd that an open source project has taken it upon themselves to mandate extension signing. It's as if Debian declared that you couldn't install packages which weren't signed by them, but don't worry, you can always recompile Debian yourself with that feature turned off.
  - akkartik 11y ago
    Seriously. I have a private extension that I wrote and gave up on getting reviewed because the process is painful, and now I can't run it on Firefox. They've successfully pushed me to the less stable nightly release. It's only a matter of time before some bug gets me off Firefox entirely, and it's back to the bad old pre-firefox days.
  - zanny 11y ago
    I have no problem with a Linux distro doing this. Though I'd consider several to already be doing this - any distro you cannot click to install through a GUI a package archive with I'd call blocking casual users from installing non-official software. Though most distros (I know at least Ubuntu / Suse enable this) let you just click package archives to install them.
  - kbrosnan 11y ago
    How does one protect the majority of users in the wide open case? For example see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1251911 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1251911 where the extension downloaded another extension and disabled the signing pref.
akerro 11y ago
I've been with Firefox since 3.0, my first browser, I recommended it to a lot of people for years... I'm sadly switching to Opera now.
- praneshp 11y ago
  Even after http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/25/opera-ceo-sale-to-chinese-consortium-wasnt-our-decision/ http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/25/opera-ceo-sale-to-chinese-c...?
  - akerro 11y ago
    What are other choices for sensible people? Opensource chromium that downloads binary blobs that control my microphone?
    - WoodenChair 11y ago
      IE, Safari... why are these not choices for "sensible people"?
      - akerro 11y ago
        Platform locked. Unable to use on BSD and Linux.
    - dublinben 11y ago
      GNU Icecat. https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/ https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
      - akerro 11y ago
        That's Firefox with GNU branding: >GNUzilla is the GNU version of the Mozilla suite, and GNU IceCat is the GNU version of the Firefox browser
        11y ago
cronjobber 11y ago
> Mozilla has quickly been identified by a few as a way to make a quick buck This is always, always so fascinating to me, to see how many people will never ever consider this, at least in public. There's this most basic of basic incentives, money, a huge pile of money sitting around, and everybody piously pretends it doesn't matter to everybody who's in control of it. So fascinating.
- zanny 11y ago
  Google for a long time has operated / operates in much the same way. Huge pile of adsense money, think of the best way to persuade others to waste it all on whatever insane idea you have.
- anon1007 11y ago
  Exactly! Why are Mitchell Baker and other execs at Mozilla being rewarded for lack-luster performance with nearly $1 million a year in compensation, meanwhile the actual programmers that toil on Mozilla's products go underpaid or even unpaid?
  - notlukejr 11y ago
    Source or link to actual salaries?
    - anon1007 11y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11230668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11230668 Notice also that this topic was quickly flagged off the front page, just like the linked one.
  - ubernostrum 11y ago
    I won't comment on whether I felt I was underpaid in my years at Mozilla (though I'll say I do make more now, at a for-profit company), but it is at least worth pointing out that Mozilla's bonus system extended to everyone. And until early 2015 it was based on company-wide performance, so even if you had a project that was languishing you could still get a good bonus if the company as a whole was doing well (in 2015 it switched to a significant chunk being based on individual performance and metrics, and I wasn't there long enough afterward to have a worthwhile opinion on how that change turned out).
discardorama 11y ago
Just because Mozilla started Firefox, does not mean we can't question it. I have felt for a while that Mozilla isn't totally aligned with its user's interests. For example: finding and deleting tracking cookies is still laborious in Firefox. You have to select domains one by one, hitting "Remove selected" each time. Why can't you select multiple domains at once and nuke them? Why can't it tell you which tab is using up CPU resources, so you can close it? And in "private browsing" mode: why are cookies still carried over? That's not so "private", is it?? The whole FirefoxOS thing sounded just like a solution looking for a problem. I have been in situations (Govt grants) where the grantees have too much money and will just throw it at random proposals which have no hope of working. This sounded just like that. Since they have so much money to burn, why don't they support worthwhile OSS efforts (like SSL, for example)? There are tons of little tools and libraries that we use in *nix land, that could benefit from some $$. Mozilla should offer "Mozilla fellowships" or "Mozilla sabbaticals", where they support a developer for a year or two fulltime to work on their projects. Most of Mozilla's work is done by volunteers anyways. Why should the execs get paid so much?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jvehent 11y ago
  Since they have so much money to burn, why don't they support worthwhile OSS efforts (like SSL, for example)? The NSS library is supported by Mozilla and Red Hat, mostly. There are tons of little tools and libraries that we use in *nix land, that could benefit from some $$. Mozilla is much more than just Firefox, Firefox OS and Thunderbird. Take a look at the hundreds of projects on https://github.com/mozilla/ https://github.com/mozilla/, for example. Mozilla should offer "Mozilla fellowships" or "Mozilla sabbaticals", where they support a developer for a year or two fulltime to work on their projects. There are many internships, community supports and developer support programs at Mozilla. The foundation also donated one million dollars to various prominent projects very recently: https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2015/10/mozilla-launches-open-source-support-program/ https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2015/10/mozilla-launches-open... Most of Mozilla's work is done by volunteers anyways I don't know if this statement is accurate. There are over 1,000 people employed by Mozilla directly working full time on the various projects. disclaimer: I work for Mozilla.
21echoes 11y ago
I'm much more on board with the comment this one is replying to: """ ... On top of that, do you guys honestly think that Firefox would not have slid down the same slope, given that it suddenly had Google, Apple, and Microsoft to compete with, some of whom effectively prevent Firefox from even running on their mobile platforms? It's like I'm living in a bizarro world sometimes when I consider that Slashdot fancies itself as informed tech geeks/nerds, and they don't seem to have any idea what they're ranting about anymore. """
- akkartik 11y ago
  The OP doesn't claim there aren't external problems. It claims there's no incentive to address external problems.
  - 21echoes 11y ago
    which is addressed by the bit I clipped: """ Sigh. Does anyone on Slashdot even know what Mozilla is doing anymore, or do they just actively seek anything minor they can to twist into pathetic negative rants? They've clearly already shifted their focus back onto Firefox lately, but apparently you haven't noticed. Apparently all you've seen is "hype", while selectively ignoring everything else. """ for there being "no incentive", Mozilla dev seems extremely focused on fixing these problems
    - akkartik 11y ago
      I'm disinclined to just take someone's word on the internet that it's "clear" that Mozilla is "extremely focused". OP has more inner structure, a coherent theory of why lack of focus may arise. So it feels more compelling. Then again, I have personal complaints that I've aired elsewhere on this thread, so I might be biased.
jug 11y ago
I recommend forner Firefox users to take a look at Vivaldi. Its only downside is that it further boosts Chrome's dominance by being based on Chromium. On the other hand, Chromium is a damn fine, standards-compliant renderer. Anyway, I have really enjoyed Vivaldi's user-first view, like Opera before it also got too much of a Chrome envy. There are browser settings galore and a generally customization-positive view by the developers and you can feel how it oozes "classic Opera" mentality. Also, they do none of those Firefox shenanigans as of late with bundld third party software or ads. They are simply focusing on becoming the best choice for a power user.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - nacs 11y ago
    Thats what GP already said: > Vivaldi. Its only downside is that it further boosts Chrome's dominance by being based on Chromium
- reitanqild 11y ago
  Problem is no other browsers has anything close to the ecosystem of Firefox. Chrome extensions seems (with a few exceptions) to be just locally stored web sites. A better alternative to Firefox might be Palemoon which is just an older version of Firefox with security patches. I am not in a position to judge if it is safe enough for anyone to use but I like it.
  - yuhong 11y ago
    Does it have "Slaughterhouse" (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=929539 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=929539 and http://bholley.net/blog/2016/the-right-fix.html http://bholley.net/blog/2016/the-right-fix.html) ? This is not the only incident where Mozilla people have suggested hiding bugs until an old ESR goes end of life BTW.
  - ygjb 11y ago
    Palemoon is not a viable alternative; Firefox and Mozilla, with all of their resources have failed to ship a fix for the most security relevant feature in the browser - a sandbox (it's coming, finally). Palemoon has eschewed the advanced necessary to get the Firefox codebase into condition to support a sandbox. Beyond that, unless something has changed, Palemoon doesn't have anything that resembles a security program, other than taking up security bugs from Mozilla that are likely increasingly less relevant as the code bases diverge.
oldsj 11y ago
I don't want to get involved in the Firefox vs X flamewar but don't talk shit about rust dude
ajonit 11y ago
There was a time when Google use to pay site owners for firefox downloads. The day they launched Chrome, the sam day promotion stopped. Since then the usage for FF is going downhill.
anon1007 11y ago
Relevant discussion on the issue of Mozilla's outlandish executive compensation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10101637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10101637 tl;dr: Mozilla is clearly failing as an organization, its programmers are underpaid, and its flagship product continues to shake down its users for donations, meanwhile its executives still get paid upwards of $800k a year for their mismanagement.
e15ctr0n 11y ago
Mozilla has pissed away its market share, its community, its goodwill and its influence in the world because of a series of bad decisions over the last 5 years: * breaking add-ons due to rapid updates [Everybody Hates Firefox Updates (evilbrainjono.net) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4209384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4209384] * switching to Australis [Australis is landing in Firefox Nightly (mozilla.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6755650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6755650] * removing options to customize the browser ["Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23 (mozilla.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968237] * getting rid of the Status bar and breaking add-ons that depend on it [Removing Firefox’s Status Bar and Rehousing Add-on Icons http://www.donotlick.com/2010/04/29/removing-firefoxs-status-bar-and-rehousing-add-on-icons-part-1-of-2/ http://www.donotlick.com/2010/04/29/removing-firefoxs-status... http://www.donotlick.com/2010/06/07/removing-firefoxs-status-bar-and-rehousing-add-on-icons-part-2-of-2/ http://www.donotlick.com/2010/06/07/removing-firefoxs-status... https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-happened-status-bar#w_where-are-my-add-ons https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-happened-status-ba...] * long review queues for add-on approval [Writing Extensions for Firefox Is Barely Worth the Trouble (omniref.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285744 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285744] * displaying ads in the browser [Firefox will show ads on the new tab page based on browsing history (geeksnack.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9587362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9587362] * banning unsigned add-ons and annoucing a new add-on development API that breaks existing add-ons [Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions (mozilla.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10038999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10038999] * forcing Pocket and Hello icons to appear on the toolbar with every update [Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration (mozilla.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809] * denying vehemently for months that there is no financial arrangement with Pocket [Mozilla to stop Sponsored Tiles in Firefox (mozilla.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10679519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10679519] and then casually admitting it in a Wired interview on other topics [http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when-the-web-needs-it-the-most/ http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when-the-we...] * spinning off Thunderbird as a "community project" [Mozilla Wants To Split Off Its Thunderbird Email/Chat Client (techcrunch.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654861] * neglecting browser performance, multi-process architecture and browser security. This year, the Pwn2Own contest refused to consider Firefox security hacks because the organizers "wanted to focus on the browsers that have made serious security improvements in the last year." http://it.slashdot.org/story/16/02/12/034206/pwn2own-2016-wont-attack-firefox-because-its-too-easy http://it.slashdot.org/story/16/02/12/034206/pwn2own-2016-wo... All these changes were dropped on the community without any prior warning, discussion or input. Firefox add-on developers responded to many of these changes by developing workarounds like Pale Moon, Classic Theme Restorer, The Addon Bar (Restored), etc. but by now many of them have burnt out. The burden of fixing Mozilla's mistakes is just too heavy. [The likely end of DownThemAll (downthemall.net) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10099240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10099240] Many of these decisions came out of "Google envy": * the drive to mimic Chrome instead of doubling down on what makes Firefox unique * the transformation in compny culture from a scrappy open source project to a bloated corporate hierarchy that enforces a fear-based workplace * empire building via a massive hiring spree (or, as Steve Jobs so memorably put it, a "bozo explosion") * the adoption of whiteboard-style interviews to hire employees off the street instead of considering long-time community members * the leasing of expensive offices in hipster locations like San Francisco instead of encouraging remote work which is ingrained in the company culture * chasing the latest buzzwords like mobile operating systems and IoT projects and spinning off core products like Thunderbird and Firefox OS as "community projects". (What's next? Autonomous cars?) Firefox markets share is already 8% and falling. Once Yahoo vaporizes, it will take Mozilla down with it. I'm looking forward to once again seeing a lean organization with a laser focus on making the best browser, period.
vmorgulis 11y ago
We need a reboot of the web from the start. Something simple (like markdown) that can be implemented in a wide range of languages (not only system languages). The complex web we have today is a dead end. It monopolizes too much ressources in few complex projects. We need a lot of different projects trying to achieve different goals. Some can be specialized (like only for a site or a task). Some can be whole-purpose. 3 or 4 layout engine is not enough.
examancer 11y ago
After reading this I wondered what accountability measures are in place for board members of the Mozilla Foundation. Many non-profits have elections for board positions where members of the organization or its community can help determine board membership and vote out bad directors. Mozilla Foundation's by-laws (http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-bylaws.pdf http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-bylaws.pdf) states "This Foundation shall have no members" (Article II). Existing directors are the only ones who can vote in board elections. They are only accountable to themselves. Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Foundation, meaning all voting shares are controlled by the Foundation's board. I find this to generally be a dangerous structure for a non-profit to have. Think twice about donating to any charity where the directors are well compensated and accountable to no one. If the board is stubborn there is nothing anyone can do to force them out. Hopefully with pressure the community can achieve some reforms. One I would push for immediately is adopting new by-laws that allow community involvement in board elections.
- yuhong 11y ago
  The funny thing is that for at least some for-profits it is not a horrible idea, with no shareholders to worry about. I already mentioned the telecoms as an example in another comment.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
yuhong 11y ago
I wonder if this or something similar is happening inside Mozilla: https://www.quora.com/CEOs-1/Are-there-any-CEOs-who-have-expressed-open-self-doubt-about-their-own-company?share=1 https://www.quora.com/CEOs-1/Are-there-any-CEOs-who-have-exp...
uxcn 11y ago
Firefox has lost a lot of market share to Chrome (something like 30% vs. 14%). Internet Explorer has too. Considering Google only launched a browser in '08, it's pretty impressive they're at something like 50%. Mozilla is still doing a lot of awesome stuff (web assembly, rust, servo, etc...), and I personally still choose Firefox over Chromium. As a user, I do have complaints about the direction on a number of things though. One of the simpler things I'm surprised I haven't seen yet is a decent native text editor, considering how much relies on editing text in a browser.
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  It's not impressive at all when they have one of the biggest marketing surfaces and budget in the world.
  - uxcn 11y ago
    It's not easy to get people to use something new. It's even harder to get a majority of people to use something new. If you consider that Microsoft has nearly the same magnitude resources, and their own widely deployed platform their browser is pre-installed on, it doesn't seem like a trivial accomplishment. Firefox also had a bigger market share than Microsoft.
cpeterso 11y ago
When Mozilla announced Firefox OS, some management factions pushed to cut Firefox to a skeleton crew and go "all in" on Firefox OS. Even though Firefox still had 30% market share and Chrome only 20%, they were ready to give up the desktop. Thankfully that didn't happen because others knew Firefox "kept the lights on." Imagine a Mozilla without Firefox OS, where the hundreds of engineer-years and hundreds of millions of dollars poured into Firefox OS had instead been invested in Servo and e10s/multiprocess Firefox.. And Brave makes me sad. No disrespect to Brendan and his team! Kudos to them for building an opinionated product that excites people. But many of Brave's praised features are things Mozilla considered but dropped due to fear of publisher retaliation or lack of focus. Things like: * Tracking protection in non-private browsing mode * Blocking third-party cookies from unvisited domains * HTTPS Everywhere integration * Partitioned user sessions * Promoting alternatives to toxic web advertising * Some sort of micropayment system * One-click Tor or secure VPN browsing [Disclaimer: I am a Mozilla employee, but these are my own opinions.]
- yuhong 11y ago
  >* Tracking protection in non-private browsing mode Mentioned in the Slashdot comment and would be a simple thing to add. Agree with some of the others though.
  - cpeterso 11y ago
    Yeah, tracking protection already works in non-private browsing mode. All that's needed is a one-line code change (and the will) to unhide the UI.
- fpoling 11y ago
  It is easy to blame Fireofx OS now for the waste, but 4 years ago it was not that easy to see that it would be a total disaster. It was just things that Mozilla was betting on did not come through. The real problem for me is why Firefox OS was not stopped 2 years ago when trends became clear. That is inexcusable given the amount of efforts Mozilla continued to spend on it.
  - deleted 11y ago
CelticSuperhero 11y ago
Not sure if this is true, but if this post is not fake, i would say Mozilla have lost the benefit of trust. Seeing what they have done in the last few years, makes this post look less like a fake.
CelticSuperhero 11y ago
http://logs.glob.uno/?c=mozilla%23seamonkey&s=2+Mar+2016&e=2+Mar+2016 http://logs.glob.uno/?c=mozilla%23seamonkey&s=2+Mar+2016&e=2... - Also very nice read, Mozilla guys bashing people from Pale Moon project. What for idiots.

197 points by notlukejr 11y ago

Reminds me of that quote about "A players hiring A players, but B players hiring C players" or Jobs' rants on the subject re Scully. For the record, I hate the latest UI changes to Firefox, I have chromium installed also and use it when needed. I don't need two of them. The big round tabs, the Fischer-price menus, the prefs with hardcoded white backgrounds, etc. If they hadn't fixed the memory leaks recently I'd go back to FF 20 or so.

blue1 11y ago
Try Seamonkey. I consider it FF for grownups. (or for ancient Netscape users, if you prefer :-))

enraged_camel 11y ago

I can't comment on the other points, but the author is right about Firefox. The last time I tried it (several months ago), it really came across as a browser that looks like Chrome but is worse in almost every way. It's lack of performance is what struck out to me the most, despite the fact that I have several extensions running. This is just anecdotal of course, so take it with a grain of salt.

kozukumi 11y ago
When I switched from iOS to Android at the start of the year I switched from Firefox to Chrome to give it a try again (because why not) and yup Chrome is better in pretty much every way IMHO. The only thing I actually dislike about Chrome when compared to Firefox is that Firefox saves the page state when navigating backwards but Chrome does not (such as on reddit if you have collapsed comment threads). Literally everything else about Chrome is better. Oh yeah and it actually syncs all my settings correctly unlike on Firefox where some changes never seem to sync for some reason.
dageshi 11y ago
I have never really had performance issues in either browser to be honest. They both work fine, I just prefer firefox, possibly above all else because I love the UI on firebug.
RodericDay 11y ago
I honestly wonder to what degree this is just a "perceptions being warped by preconceptions" thing. I use Firefox at home and Chrome at work and the differences in performance are insignificant compared to stuff like Chrome constantly asking me if I want to get tracked. also, iirc, Firefox did alright in benchmarks at many points in history.
- ironsides 11y ago
  My wife was complaining about the performance of her computer. Shes running a MacBook Air, Chrome, Firefox and Quickbooks. Ran a system check and Firefox running 7 tabs (2 spreadsheets, 1 email, 1 pinterest and browising 3 ecom sites) was taking up over 1.4gb of ram. Seriously. Killed Firefox and the system responsiveness was considerably better. Its amazing that the memory bloat in FF has been allowed to go on for so long. But hey, IoT!
Sahonon 11y ago
To counter your anecdote with some more anecdote, I just switched from Chrome to Firefox and have felt that the latter has some serious performance advantages over the former.
- nkurz 11y ago
  It's probably just me, but I always struggle with the "latter" and "former" construction, especially when they are reversed like that. I had to read it several times before I understood. In case it helps someone else, it translates as: To counter your anecdote with some more anecdote, I switched from Chrome to Firefox, and have felt that that Firefox has some serious performance advantages over Chrome. I wonder sometimes if my inability to parse sentences like this relates to my preference for C over C++. The "former" and "latter" abstraction reminds me of Eli's examples here http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2016/returning-multiple-values-from-functions-in-c/ http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2016/returning-multiple-values-... of first->first and first->second.
  - Sahonon 11y ago
    Sorry to have been unclear -- thank you for making the effort to read my measly comment, however! It does appear similar to the idea of abusing tuples, insofar as having to keep the meanings of each element in mind without any help from the syntax. shrugs I guess my nervousness around Internet commenting surfaces as excessively formal language. Apologies again for any future confusion :|
MisterBastahrd 11y ago
Author thinks that a browser that hijacks ads to show other ads is going to be a hit. The first technology that gets added to that thing via 3rd party plugin is going to be an ad blocker, because the entire idea is stupid.

AdmiralAsshat 11y ago

>Mr Eich is now making the Brave web browser (based on Webkit by the way) which is arguably one of the most promising new browsers right now. Go figure. Right about here my confidence in the veracity of this guy's claims plummeted. Brave offers nothing existing browsers can't already provide, except of course a diversion of ad revenue directly into Eich's pocket.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
Nothing existing browsers could provide, but also something existing browsers do not provide... a way to block ads without short changing content creators. For those unfamiliar with Brave, I can recommend this interview: https://opensource.com/business/16/2/brave-browser-interview https://opensource.com/business/16/2/brave-browser-interview
Scarbutt 11y ago
except of course a diversion of ad revenue directly into Eich's pocket. And in there lies some of the problems, a Mozilla exec creates a new project that overlaps with Mozilla's star product. Whether Brave is good or bad is irrelevant.
- skylan_q 11y ago
  He's not a Mozilla exec. He got shamed out of his job for having had donated money to a group that was against same-sex marriage. Basically, all people who hold Christian values don't deserve to have a job.
  - Mithaldu 11y ago
    There's a difference between holding christian values and acting on them. I have many religious friends in many wide and varied religions from all over the earth, and they're all great people, because the only time they'll ever even talk (nevermind act) about their religion is when you ask them to.
    - 11y ago

jorgecurio 11y ago

A while ago a hiring manager allegedly from Mozilla Vancouver posted a long rant that he went through 60 interviews yet couldn't find a junior dev which was downvoted to oblivion with angry comments. He shortly deleted all of his comments since then but reading this employees comments on slashdot makes me fit together the puzzle pieces....Mozilla has become a trust fund for incompetent people to earn a cheque every month. Google Chrome has really done a number on the browser market and surpassed the 25% mark for quite some time while Firefox has been dwindling to irrelevance. Failed to even eat into IE marketshare. https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=0 https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpr...

ygjb 11y ago
Sigh. That thread was my thread. * It was for a senior security engineer, not a junior dev * I looked at 63 candidates (as in applicants / resumes) * IIRC I screen interviewed around 10 * IIRC we advanced around 4 to the full interview process I deleted my comments for 3 reasons: * Someone else took the initiative to link my comments to the Mozilla Vancouver office, and implied that we tried to fill that position locally * Despite identifying in my initial comment that it was an exceptional circumstance people were acting like it was the norm * In my initial comment I said interviewing 63 candidates, not reviewing 63 candidates; after the thread blew up I revised it to reviewed, but it's the internet :/ Mea culpa, but hiring qualified security people is really hard these days, and has been for years. One other very important note - when we were filling that role the guidance was the the position should be filled in one of our offices, not remotely. Once that restriction was removed, the position was filled almost immediately.

azinman2 11y ago

Was interesting to hear the entire perspective but the "marriage thing?" That wasn't exactly small. Imagine if gave money instead to the KKK... would that have been just "a racial heritage thing?" Backing something that separates families is divisive and not appropriate for an organization that is about openness and diversity, especially given the current tech climate of monoculture. Engineers can really be the worst offenders when it comes to hate-like views, I think in part because they're likely smarter than the average person so they've completely convinced themselves that they're the rational ones. I remember back when I was at Google in 2008. A survey on lgbt issues went around company wide. What came back was so completely shocking and insane, especially out of Russia and India. Burn them, kill them, they don't desire to live, etc. And this was a survey you gave back to your employer!!! Edit: as many people have missed my point let me clarify. The comparison against the KKK was simply to illustrate that who you donate to and support affects your organization, especially when that cause negatively impacts the personal lives of your employees (and goes against your org core values, and reinforces an existing problem of monoculture). I'm not saying prop 8 == KKK, I'm showing that personal beliefs matter when you're a leader.

kozukumi 11y ago
Well it is to be expected from places like Russia and India tbh. I am from the UK and such comments would be seen as shocking but we all know Russia hates gay people it makes sense that employees who grew up and continue to live in Russia are going to have very Russian views. Just because they work for a modern, progressive company such as Google (or Microsoft or Apple ...) isn't going to change their opinions on such things. You would have got the same kind of responses in America if you asked about how blacks should be treated/integrated into the company back in the 1950s.
- binaryapparatus 11y ago
  > Well it is to be expected from places like Russia and India tbh. Every single person in the world knows that one hundred percent of all the people from the UK know damn well to stay away from generalizations. Oh wait.

binaryapparatus 11y ago

I am happy with firefox performance, using vimperator. When you remove all the UI it is one good browser. Big problem with potential decline is that I don't know of any substitute for ff+vimperator (or pentadactyl) that works half good as they do. I tried just about any browser + vimsomething combo.

javajosh 11y ago

How should a non-profit like Mozilla gauge it's success? Should it be going after browser market share (Firefox)? Developer brain market share (Rust, MDN)? Leadership positions (W3C)? Advocacy?

ironsides 11y ago
Use and performance of its core product, Firefox.
macspoofing 11y ago
Good question, but I think market share is what buys you access to 'leadership positions' and enables 'advocacy'. If Firefox has 1% market-share, nobody cares what Mozilla says or does.
- ironsides 11y ago
  Also, its hard to see that same Foundation that is used to 300M checks being successful for very long after the revenue dries up.
Twirrim 11y ago
Market share isn't a bad gauge. Their revenue streams are theoretically dependent on it. Those search deals are dependent on impressions.
bobajeff 11y ago
I think it should be in terms of how well they are achieving their mission. Which is kind of open ended and varies over time. But can be summed up as keep the Web open and unrestricted. Their success can therefore be determined by how well they fight against things like: * monoculture of browser's/engine's (Internet Explorer, Webkit) * The use of vendor specific standards on web (ActiveX, NaCl, Flash Player) * The introduction and proliferation of non-open standards on the web. (H.264, HVEC, Widevine, Primetime, FairPlay, PlayReady) * The centralization of content and services onto a few dominant websites (Google, Facebook, YouTube)

knowtheory 11y ago

Non-profits are mission driven. Most people who work for non-profits are doing it at least in part because of belief in the mission (especially since non-profits typically pay less than market rate). The problem with technology non-profits is that the world around them changes pretty rapidly, and with substantial discontinuities. So if you're an employee and you've signed on to an org with an understanding of why your job and your project matters for The Mission, of course change can appear scary and confusing. On the other hand, especially when there is rapid turn over, or the ground keeps shifting under the org, there's a strong incentive by execs to try and find new territory one can set up upon. The tensions seem pretty obvious. This is the same issue that's come up with Wikipedia's search project too.

jldugger 11y ago
> Non-profits are mission driven. Nobody works for Mozilla Foundation. The employees work for Mozilla Corporation, a taxable / for profit entity entirely owned by Mozilla Foundation. They have precisely one revenue stream worth mentioning: search bar contracts. Those contracts are bid on by for profit companies, who will be bidding based on perceived value per search, searches per user, and total users. The introduction of Chrome should concern Mozilla Corp employees, and the ceding of market share to it should be terrifying. Your capacity for The Mission is diminished if user base declines, because bids will decline.

yuhong 11y ago

I wonder if a for-profit corporation with zero shareholders similar to Mozilla can be made possible. I wonder what would happen if AT&T and Verizon can be run in a similar way (with better executives of course).

gherkin0 11y ago
> I wonder if a for profit corporation with zero shareholders can be made possible. I wonder what would happen if AT&T and Verizon can be run in a similar way (with better executives of course). A mutual company is probably the closest thing you'll find to that (basically a company where you become a shareholder when you become a customer). I'm not sure how well that structure would work for a company like Mozilla, which has a weak relationship to its "customers," but I think it's work a short for large utility-like organizations like telcom companies. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mutualcompany.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mutualcompany.asp
- yuhong 11y ago
  That is not what I mean. Obviously such a corporation would have a board of directors but no shareholders at all (including no dividends and control rights), just like Mozilla as described in the comment.

spenvo 11y ago

An aside: Mozilla's approach to Firefox extensions is both 1) responsible (they require extensions to be reviewed and signed by Mozilla), 2) untenable for developers (mine took forever to be reviewed). I published three Chrome extensions last year, and decided to port my more ambitious one to Firefox. (all at http://www.metafruit.com http://www.metafruit.com) Now I feel somewhat bad for complaining since I'm not an extension reviewer myself, and I feel they've taken on a tall order for the betterment of their community. But my Firefox port took four months to get to the front of the review process. Needless to say, my next extension is targeted only for Chrome. Chrome's approach is easy for developers but almost reckless for end users.

GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
It's completely absurd that an open source project has taken it upon themselves to mandate extension signing. It's as if Debian declared that you couldn't install packages which weren't signed by them, but don't worry, you can always recompile Debian yourself with that feature turned off.
- akkartik 11y ago
  Seriously. I have a private extension that I wrote and gave up on getting reviewed because the process is painful, and now I can't run it on Firefox. They've successfully pushed me to the less stable nightly release. It's only a matter of time before some bug gets me off Firefox entirely, and it's back to the bad old pre-firefox days.
- zanny 11y ago
  I have no problem with a Linux distro doing this. Though I'd consider several to already be doing this - any distro you cannot click to install through a GUI a package archive with I'd call blocking casual users from installing non-official software. Though most distros (I know at least Ubuntu / Suse enable this) let you just click package archives to install them.
- kbrosnan 11y ago
  How does one protect the majority of users in the wide open case? For example see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1251911 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1251911 where the extension downloaded another extension and disabled the signing pref.

akerro 11y ago

I've been with Firefox since 3.0, my first browser, I recommended it to a lot of people for years... I'm sadly switching to Opera now.

praneshp 11y ago
Even after http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/25/opera-ceo-sale-to-chinese-consortium-wasnt-our-decision/ http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/25/opera-ceo-sale-to-chinese-c...?
- akerro 11y ago
  What are other choices for sensible people? Opensource chromium that downloads binary blobs that control my microphone?
  - WoodenChair 11y ago
    IE, Safari... why are these not choices for "sensible people"?
    - akerro 11y ago
      Platform locked. Unable to use on BSD and Linux.
  - dublinben 11y ago
    GNU Icecat. https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/ https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
    - akerro 11y ago
      That's Firefox with GNU branding: >GNUzilla is the GNU version of the Mozilla suite, and GNU IceCat is the GNU version of the Firefox browser
      - 11y ago

cronjobber 11y ago

> Mozilla has quickly been identified by a few as a way to make a quick buck This is always, always so fascinating to me, to see how many people will never ever consider this, at least in public. There's this most basic of basic incentives, money, a huge pile of money sitting around, and everybody piously pretends it doesn't matter to everybody who's in control of it. So fascinating.

zanny 11y ago
Google for a long time has operated / operates in much the same way. Huge pile of adsense money, think of the best way to persuade others to waste it all on whatever insane idea you have.
anon1007 11y ago
Exactly! Why are Mitchell Baker and other execs at Mozilla being rewarded for lack-luster performance with nearly $1 million a year in compensation, meanwhile the actual programmers that toil on Mozilla's products go underpaid or even unpaid?
- notlukejr 11y ago
  Source or link to actual salaries?
  - anon1007 11y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11230668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11230668 Notice also that this topic was quickly flagged off the front page, just like the linked one.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  I won't comment on whether I felt I was underpaid in my years at Mozilla (though I'll say I do make more now, at a for-profit company), but it is at least worth pointing out that Mozilla's bonus system extended to everyone. And until early 2015 it was based on company-wide performance, so even if you had a project that was languishing you could still get a good bonus if the company as a whole was doing well (in 2015 it switched to a significant chunk being based on individual performance and metrics, and I wasn't there long enough afterward to have a worthwhile opinion on how that change turned out).

discardorama 11y ago

Just because Mozilla started Firefox, does not mean we can't question it. I have felt for a while that Mozilla isn't totally aligned with its user's interests. For example: finding and deleting tracking cookies is still laborious in Firefox. You have to select domains one by one, hitting "Remove selected" each time. Why can't you select multiple domains at once and nuke them? Why can't it tell you which tab is using up CPU resources, so you can close it? And in "private browsing" mode: why are cookies still carried over? That's not so "private", is it?? The whole FirefoxOS thing sounded just like a solution looking for a problem. I have been in situations (Govt grants) where the grantees have too much money and will just throw it at random proposals which have no hope of working. This sounded just like that. Since they have so much money to burn, why don't they support worthwhile OSS efforts (like SSL, for example)? There are tons of little tools and libraries that we use in *nix land, that could benefit from some $$. Mozilla should offer "Mozilla fellowships" or "Mozilla sabbaticals", where they support a developer for a year or two fulltime to work on their projects. Most of Mozilla's work is done by volunteers anyways. Why should the execs get paid so much?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jvehent 11y ago
Since they have so much money to burn, why don't they support worthwhile OSS efforts (like SSL, for example)? The NSS library is supported by Mozilla and Red Hat, mostly. There are tons of little tools and libraries that we use in *nix land, that could benefit from some $$. Mozilla is much more than just Firefox, Firefox OS and Thunderbird. Take a look at the hundreds of projects on https://github.com/mozilla/ https://github.com/mozilla/, for example. Mozilla should offer "Mozilla fellowships" or "Mozilla sabbaticals", where they support a developer for a year or two fulltime to work on their projects. There are many internships, community supports and developer support programs at Mozilla. The foundation also donated one million dollars to various prominent projects very recently: https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2015/10/mozilla-launches-open-source-support-program/ https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2015/10/mozilla-launches-open... Most of Mozilla's work is done by volunteers anyways I don't know if this statement is accurate. There are over 1,000 people employed by Mozilla directly working full time on the various projects. disclaimer: I work for Mozilla.

21echoes 11y ago

I'm much more on board with the comment this one is replying to: """ ... On top of that, do you guys honestly think that Firefox would not have slid down the same slope, given that it suddenly had Google, Apple, and Microsoft to compete with, some of whom effectively prevent Firefox from even running on their mobile platforms? It's like I'm living in a bizarro world sometimes when I consider that Slashdot fancies itself as informed tech geeks/nerds, and they don't seem to have any idea what they're ranting about anymore. """

akkartik 11y ago
The OP doesn't claim there aren't external problems. It claims there's no incentive to address external problems.
- 21echoes 11y ago
  which is addressed by the bit I clipped: """ Sigh. Does anyone on Slashdot even know what Mozilla is doing anymore, or do they just actively seek anything minor they can to twist into pathetic negative rants? They've clearly already shifted their focus back onto Firefox lately, but apparently you haven't noticed. Apparently all you've seen is "hype", while selectively ignoring everything else. """ for there being "no incentive", Mozilla dev seems extremely focused on fixing these problems
  - akkartik 11y ago
    I'm disinclined to just take someone's word on the internet that it's "clear" that Mozilla is "extremely focused". OP has more inner structure, a coherent theory of why lack of focus may arise. So it feels more compelling. Then again, I have personal complaints that I've aired elsewhere on this thread, so I might be biased.

jug 11y ago

I recommend forner Firefox users to take a look at Vivaldi. Its only downside is that it further boosts Chrome's dominance by being based on Chromium. On the other hand, Chromium is a damn fine, standards-compliant renderer. Anyway, I have really enjoyed Vivaldi's user-first view, like Opera before it also got too much of a Chrome envy. There are browser settings galore and a generally customization-positive view by the developers and you can feel how it oozes "classic Opera" mentality. Also, they do none of those Firefox shenanigans as of late with bundld third party software or ads. They are simply focusing on becoming the best choice for a power user.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- nacs 11y ago
  Thats what GP already said: > Vivaldi. Its only downside is that it further boosts Chrome's dominance by being based on Chromium
reitanqild 11y ago
Problem is no other browsers has anything close to the ecosystem of Firefox. Chrome extensions seems (with a few exceptions) to be just locally stored web sites. A better alternative to Firefox might be Palemoon which is just an older version of Firefox with security patches. I am not in a position to judge if it is safe enough for anyone to use but I like it.
- yuhong 11y ago
  Does it have "Slaughterhouse" (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=929539 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=929539 and http://bholley.net/blog/2016/the-right-fix.html http://bholley.net/blog/2016/the-right-fix.html) ? This is not the only incident where Mozilla people have suggested hiding bugs until an old ESR goes end of life BTW.
- ygjb 11y ago
  Palemoon is not a viable alternative; Firefox and Mozilla, with all of their resources have failed to ship a fix for the most security relevant feature in the browser - a sandbox (it's coming, finally). Palemoon has eschewed the advanced necessary to get the Firefox codebase into condition to support a sandbox. Beyond that, unless something has changed, Palemoon doesn't have anything that resembles a security program, other than taking up security bugs from Mozilla that are likely increasingly less relevant as the code bases diverge.

oldsj 11y ago

I don't want to get involved in the Firefox vs X flamewar but don't talk shit about rust dude

ajonit 11y ago

There was a time when Google use to pay site owners for firefox downloads. The day they launched Chrome, the sam day promotion stopped. Since then the usage for FF is going downhill.

anon1007 11y ago

Relevant discussion on the issue of Mozilla's outlandish executive compensation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10101637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10101637 tl;dr: Mozilla is clearly failing as an organization, its programmers are underpaid, and its flagship product continues to shake down its users for donations, meanwhile its executives still get paid upwards of $800k a year for their mismanagement.

e15ctr0n 11y ago

Mozilla has pissed away its market share, its community, its goodwill and its influence in the world because of a series of bad decisions over the last 5 years: * breaking add-ons due to rapid updates [Everybody Hates Firefox Updates (evilbrainjono.net) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4209384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4209384] * switching to Australis [Australis is landing in Firefox Nightly (mozilla.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6755650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6755650] * removing options to customize the browser ["Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23 (mozilla.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968237] * getting rid of the Status bar and breaking add-ons that depend on it [Removing Firefox’s Status Bar and Rehousing Add-on Icons http://www.donotlick.com/2010/04/29/removing-firefoxs-status-bar-and-rehousing-add-on-icons-part-1-of-2/ http://www.donotlick.com/2010/04/29/removing-firefoxs-status... http://www.donotlick.com/2010/06/07/removing-firefoxs-status-bar-and-rehousing-add-on-icons-part-2-of-2/ http://www.donotlick.com/2010/06/07/removing-firefoxs-status... https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-happened-status-bar#w_where-are-my-add-ons https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-happened-status-ba...] * long review queues for add-on approval [Writing Extensions for Firefox Is Barely Worth the Trouble (omniref.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285744 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285744] * displaying ads in the browser [Firefox will show ads on the new tab page based on browsing history (geeksnack.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9587362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9587362] * banning unsigned add-ons and annoucing a new add-on development API that breaks existing add-ons [Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions (mozilla.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10038999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10038999] * forcing Pocket and Hello icons to appear on the toolbar with every update [Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration (mozilla.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809] * denying vehemently for months that there is no financial arrangement with Pocket [Mozilla to stop Sponsored Tiles in Firefox (mozilla.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10679519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10679519] and then casually admitting it in a Wired interview on other topics [http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when-the-web-needs-it-the-most/ http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when-the-we...] * spinning off Thunderbird as a "community project" [Mozilla Wants To Split Off Its Thunderbird Email/Chat Client (techcrunch.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654861] * neglecting browser performance, multi-process architecture and browser security. This year, the Pwn2Own contest refused to consider Firefox security hacks because the organizers "wanted to focus on the browsers that have made serious security improvements in the last year." http://it.slashdot.org/story/16/02/12/034206/pwn2own-2016-wont-attack-firefox-because-its-too-easy http://it.slashdot.org/story/16/02/12/034206/pwn2own-2016-wo... All these changes were dropped on the community without any prior warning, discussion or input. Firefox add-on developers responded to many of these changes by developing workarounds like Pale Moon, Classic Theme Restorer, The Addon Bar (Restored), etc. but by now many of them have burnt out. The burden of fixing Mozilla's mistakes is just too heavy. [The likely end of DownThemAll (downthemall.net) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10099240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10099240] Many of these decisions came out of "Google envy": * the drive to mimic Chrome instead of doubling down on what makes Firefox unique * the transformation in compny culture from a scrappy open source project to a bloated corporate hierarchy that enforces a fear-based workplace * empire building via a massive hiring spree (or, as Steve Jobs so memorably put it, a "bozo explosion") * the adoption of whiteboard-style interviews to hire employees off the street instead of considering long-time community members * the leasing of expensive offices in hipster locations like San Francisco instead of encouraging remote work which is ingrained in the company culture * chasing the latest buzzwords like mobile operating systems and IoT projects and spinning off core products like Thunderbird and Firefox OS as "community projects". (What's next? Autonomous cars?) Firefox markets share is already 8% and falling. Once Yahoo vaporizes, it will take Mozilla down with it. I'm looking forward to once again seeing a lean organization with a laser focus on making the best browser, period.

vmorgulis 11y ago

We need a reboot of the web from the start. Something simple (like markdown) that can be implemented in a wide range of languages (not only system languages). The complex web we have today is a dead end. It monopolizes too much ressources in few complex projects. We need a lot of different projects trying to achieve different goals. Some can be specialized (like only for a site or a task). Some can be whole-purpose. 3 or 4 layout engine is not enough.

examancer 11y ago

After reading this I wondered what accountability measures are in place for board members of the Mozilla Foundation. Many non-profits have elections for board positions where members of the organization or its community can help determine board membership and vote out bad directors. Mozilla Foundation's by-laws (http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-bylaws.pdf http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-bylaws.pdf) states "This Foundation shall have no members" (Article II). Existing directors are the only ones who can vote in board elections. They are only accountable to themselves. Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Foundation, meaning all voting shares are controlled by the Foundation's board. I find this to generally be a dangerous structure for a non-profit to have. Think twice about donating to any charity where the directors are well compensated and accountable to no one. If the board is stubborn there is nothing anyone can do to force them out. Hopefully with pressure the community can achieve some reforms. One I would push for immediately is adopting new by-laws that allow community involvement in board elections.

yuhong 11y ago
The funny thing is that for at least some for-profits it is not a horrible idea, with no shareholders to worry about. I already mentioned the telecoms as an example in another comment.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

yuhong 11y ago

I wonder if this or something similar is happening inside Mozilla: https://www.quora.com/CEOs-1/Are-there-any-CEOs-who-have-expressed-open-self-doubt-about-their-own-company?share=1 https://www.quora.com/CEOs-1/Are-there-any-CEOs-who-have-exp...

uxcn 11y ago

Firefox has lost a lot of market share to Chrome (something like 30% vs. 14%). Internet Explorer has too. Considering Google only launched a browser in '08, it's pretty impressive they're at something like 50%. Mozilla is still doing a lot of awesome stuff (web assembly, rust, servo, etc...), and I personally still choose Firefox over Chromium. As a user, I do have complaints about the direction on a number of things though. One of the simpler things I'm surprised I haven't seen yet is a decent native text editor, considering how much relies on editing text in a browser.

Mithaldu 11y ago
It's not impressive at all when they have one of the biggest marketing surfaces and budget in the world.
- uxcn 11y ago
  It's not easy to get people to use something new. It's even harder to get a majority of people to use something new. If you consider that Microsoft has nearly the same magnitude resources, and their own widely deployed platform their browser is pre-installed on, it doesn't seem like a trivial accomplishment. Firefox also had a bigger market share than Microsoft.

cpeterso 11y ago

When Mozilla announced Firefox OS, some management factions pushed to cut Firefox to a skeleton crew and go "all in" on Firefox OS. Even though Firefox still had 30% market share and Chrome only 20%, they were ready to give up the desktop. Thankfully that didn't happen because others knew Firefox "kept the lights on." Imagine a Mozilla without Firefox OS, where the hundreds of engineer-years and hundreds of millions of dollars poured into Firefox OS had instead been invested in Servo and e10s/multiprocess Firefox.. And Brave makes me sad. No disrespect to Brendan and his team! Kudos to them for building an opinionated product that excites people. But many of Brave's praised features are things Mozilla considered but dropped due to fear of publisher retaliation or lack of focus. Things like: * Tracking protection in non-private browsing mode * Blocking third-party cookies from unvisited domains * HTTPS Everywhere integration * Partitioned user sessions * Promoting alternatives to toxic web advertising * Some sort of micropayment system * One-click Tor or secure VPN browsing [Disclaimer: I am a Mozilla employee, but these are my own opinions.]

yuhong 11y ago
>* Tracking protection in non-private browsing mode Mentioned in the Slashdot comment and would be a simple thing to add. Agree with some of the others though.
- cpeterso 11y ago
  Yeah, tracking protection already works in non-private browsing mode. All that's needed is a one-line code change (and the will) to unhide the UI.
fpoling 11y ago
It is easy to blame Fireofx OS now for the waste, but 4 years ago it was not that easy to see that it would be a total disaster. It was just things that Mozilla was betting on did not come through. The real problem for me is why Firefox OS was not stopped 2 years ago when trends became clear. That is inexcusable given the amount of efforts Mozilla continued to spend on it.
- deleted 11y ago

CelticSuperhero 11y ago

Not sure if this is true, but if this post is not fake, i would say Mozilla have lost the benefit of trust. Seeing what they have done in the last few years, makes this post look less like a fake.

CelticSuperhero 11y ago

http://logs.glob.uno/?c=mozilla%23seamonkey&s=2+Mar+2016&e=2+Mar+2016 http://logs.glob.uno/?c=mozilla%23seamonkey&s=2+Mar+2016&e=2... - Also very nice read, Mozilla guys bashing people from Pale Moon project. What for idiots.