I wasn't defending Mozilla so much as comparing, and specifically comparing a non-profit with two definitely-for-profit corporations. To me, it seems like even

I wasn't defending Mozilla so much as comparing, and specifically comparing a non-profit with two definitely-for-profit corporations. To me, it seems like even without knowing anything about Mozilla or the for-profits the balance of probability for which is least likely to be "evil" falls on the non-profit side. Additionally, the point about Google paying Mozilla is a little silly (even if it were still true): one of the corporations we're comparing here is literally Google, so whatever Mozilla is doing is rather unlikely to be worse than what Google is. Of course, for this specific case of non-profit and for-profit, there's a decade and more of history bearing out the sense that Mozilla is far better than the corporations from this particular political/privacy/no-ulterior-motives stance. Additionally, I don't see why monetary/resource efficiency is relevant: the thing that actually matters is the product, and while being efficient/nonfrivilous is likely to help make a good product, it doesn't actually seem like a relevant end goal. Everything else equal, I'm still going to buy from a company that "wastes" 99% of its money if its product is better than the one that doesn't "waste" anything.