4 ms·

I generally agree with this (FOSS fans can be wildly too demanding, especially for the tiny amount of cash donated) But is the comment above really too high a

I generally agree with this (FOSS fans can be wildly too demanding, especially for the tiny amount of cash donated) But is the comment above really too high a standard? If a paid version of Firefox doesn't (1) at least strip the adware out, and (2) actually fund Firefox development, then what would even be the point? If you want to blanket donate to everything Mozilla, you can already do that today. https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/ https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/

sokoloff 7y ago
I think a default search engine and default first tab is fine as two examples where that list of demands is excessive. And depending on what “no network connections to third-party hosts unless I’ve explicitly opted in” means, this probably breaks CDNs, multi-host content serving, and lots of common js distribution mechanisms in ways that normal users will find confusing and result in “Firefox doesn’t work” if that’s the default it ships with.
- thrower123 7y ago
  I'm not sure why that is excessive, except that Mozilla made (maybe still does, I'm not sure) most of their money from getting paid to put search engines as their default. How hard is it to pop a dialog in the installer or on first run to let you pick? I don't think that is unreasonable. And the default tab just means loading a blank tab up. The last time I used Firefox, this was already a setting that you could pick.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    When I last installed it, the default tab was the Firefox home page (or some other Mozilla landing page), which seems perfectly reasonable to me. I find a lot of open source software insufficiently opinionated. Can't decide? Make it an option. Want to be "fair" to all? Make it an option and prompt the user during installation! As a user, I like when I have options but when some kind of sensible default has been pre-selected to shorten the time and mental effort between deciding to install and the first "wow" moment.
    - brianpgordon 7y ago
      You may be surprised at what the default looks like now- https://i.imgur.com/hGe837H.png https://i.imgur.com/hGe837H.png
- bwat49 7y ago
  Agreed, I was totally on board with the parent comment until those points. All browsers have a default search engine and start page... it's expected.
  - asymptotically2 7y ago
    >All browsers have a default search engine and start page... it's expected. Maybe on the first launch you could get a wizard allowing you to pick your search engines, or to have none at all.
- smolder 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure the poster meant no 3rd party connections initiated by Firefox independently of what's in the actual HTML it's loading. No telemetry, in other words. I strongly agree that telemetry features should be excluded.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Really? Isn’t the telemetry in the HTML on most sites? I assumed they were looking to block any cross-origin fetch that they hadn’t whitelisted.
lightbritefight 7y ago
Its pretty out there to expect to dictate a companies budget because you opted to buy a product from them. Will you only buy a big Mac if McDonalds commits the money to ball pit maintaine only?
- magduf 7y ago
  No, it's not really that "out there", you just don't see it because the vast majority of companies take the money you give them, and spend it on one of two things: 1) operations, or 2) shareholder dividends/profits/etc. (with most going to #1 for normal companies). Operations, of course, includes employee salaries, building rent, utilities, but also new development/R&D, advertising, etc. (I might not be using the totally correct business definition of "operations" here; bear with me.) Most companies do NOT spend a lot of money on things which do not help their bottom line or benefit (or return profit to) their shareholders. At best, they'll spend some token amount on some donation, in return for getting their name plastered on stuff, which in effect a form of advertising, just a better one than handing money to some media company for ad time or something, and creates something beneficial for the community (such as sponsoring a museum exhibit).
  - c256 7y ago
    Your analogy is off, because (for example) the OP specifically said that they didn’t want the money to be spent on other things Mozilla does even if those things generate more money for Firefox in the end. That’s the analogy for spending the money on rent or advertising, or building a ball pit (be it called Pocket or VPN) in order to bring in more users.
    - magduf 7y ago
      I thought he was implying Mozilla Foundation's outreach and advocacy programs.
skinnymuch 7y ago
I don’t care about “adware” and would likely be annoyed that I paid for something and it had less things in it. I use the Pocket feature for example. So for me the point would be why would I pay if my features are being reduced. Or things are changed that I don’t care about. So then for me it would become what’s the point of paying. You can’t make everyone happy. And not everyone feels the same way about things. L
bwat49 7y ago
donating to mozilla specifically does NOT go towards firefox development, unfortunately. It just goes towards mozilla foundation's advocacy stuff.

sokoloff 7y ago

I think a default search engine and default first tab is fine as two examples where that list of demands is excessive. And depending on what “no network connections to third-party hosts unless I’ve explicitly opted in” means, this probably breaks CDNs, multi-host content serving, and lots of common js distribution mechanisms in ways that normal users will find confusing and result in “Firefox doesn’t work” if that’s the default it ships with.

thrower123 7y ago
I'm not sure why that is excessive, except that Mozilla made (maybe still does, I'm not sure) most of their money from getting paid to put search engines as their default. How hard is it to pop a dialog in the installer or on first run to let you pick? I don't think that is unreasonable. And the default tab just means loading a blank tab up. The last time I used Firefox, this was already a setting that you could pick.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  When I last installed it, the default tab was the Firefox home page (or some other Mozilla landing page), which seems perfectly reasonable to me. I find a lot of open source software insufficiently opinionated. Can't decide? Make it an option. Want to be "fair" to all? Make it an option and prompt the user during installation! As a user, I like when I have options but when some kind of sensible default has been pre-selected to shorten the time and mental effort between deciding to install and the first "wow" moment.
  - brianpgordon 7y ago
    You may be surprised at what the default looks like now- https://i.imgur.com/hGe837H.png https://i.imgur.com/hGe837H.png
bwat49 7y ago
Agreed, I was totally on board with the parent comment until those points. All browsers have a default search engine and start page... it's expected.
- asymptotically2 7y ago
  >All browsers have a default search engine and start page... it's expected. Maybe on the first launch you could get a wizard allowing you to pick your search engines, or to have none at all.
smolder 7y ago
I'm pretty sure the poster meant no 3rd party connections initiated by Firefox independently of what's in the actual HTML it's loading. No telemetry, in other words. I strongly agree that telemetry features should be excluded.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Really? Isn’t the telemetry in the HTML on most sites? I assumed they were looking to block any cross-origin fetch that they hadn’t whitelisted.

lightbritefight 7y ago

Its pretty out there to expect to dictate a companies budget because you opted to buy a product from them. Will you only buy a big Mac if McDonalds commits the money to ball pit maintaine only?

magduf 7y ago
No, it's not really that "out there", you just don't see it because the vast majority of companies take the money you give them, and spend it on one of two things: 1) operations, or 2) shareholder dividends/profits/etc. (with most going to #1 for normal companies). Operations, of course, includes employee salaries, building rent, utilities, but also new development/R&D, advertising, etc. (I might not be using the totally correct business definition of "operations" here; bear with me.) Most companies do NOT spend a lot of money on things which do not help their bottom line or benefit (or return profit to) their shareholders. At best, they'll spend some token amount on some donation, in return for getting their name plastered on stuff, which in effect a form of advertising, just a better one than handing money to some media company for ad time or something, and creates something beneficial for the community (such as sponsoring a museum exhibit).
- c256 7y ago
  Your analogy is off, because (for example) the OP specifically said that they didn’t want the money to be spent on other things Mozilla does even if those things generate more money for Firefox in the end. That’s the analogy for spending the money on rent or advertising, or building a ball pit (be it called Pocket or VPN) in order to bring in more users.
  - magduf 7y ago
    I thought he was implying Mozilla Foundation's outreach and advocacy programs.

skinnymuch 7y ago

I don’t care about “adware” and would likely be annoyed that I paid for something and it had less things in it. I use the Pocket feature for example. So for me the point would be why would I pay if my features are being reduced. Or things are changed that I don’t care about. So then for me it would become what’s the point of paying. You can’t make everyone happy. And not everyone feels the same way about things. L

bwat49 7y ago

donating to mozilla specifically does NOT go towards firefox development, unfortunately. It just goes towards mozilla foundation's advocacy stuff.