6 ms·

Hi all, Waterfox dev here. I’d appreciate if people read the blog announcement here as well: https://www.waterfox.net/blog/waterfox-has-joined-system1 https:/

• lawrenceyan 7y ago
  As long as you're okay with it, there's nothing wrong with selling out dude. Everyone has to make a living. It's understandable.
  • girvo 7y ago
    How is it “selling out”? That particular phrase has a heap of nasty connotations along with it.
    • lawrenceyan 7y ago
      What would you prefer it be called instead?
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      • moultano 7y ago
        Maybe just selling?
        • michaelmrose 7y ago
          Why dress it up to spare people's feelings?
          • unityByFreedom 7y ago
            Saying "sell out" is editorializing. You can't say what will happen in the future. Plenty of for-profit companies provide services people want while keeping founders happy. You only hear about the bad ones.
            • krageon 7y ago
              It's okay for you to trust people when you don't actively hear about them being bad, just as it is okay for other people to take what they see elsewhere and think it informs the behaviour of cases they see as related.
              • unityByFreedom 7y ago
                Huh? Are you trying to say it's okay to have an opinion? I agree, and that's what editorials are for, opinions. Unfortunately, social media does not distinguish between editorials and fact-based journalism.
    • labster 7y ago
      It's selling out because it was a nonprofit project, and now the Man owns it, and will try to monetize it. This is textbook selling out. At some point, MrAlex94 will be made to compromise his principles. It might not be a big deal, it might even be good for users. But buying a product means that the company payed for control -- that's what property is. If System1 were fine with him developing it without their control, they would have just given him some money and said hey, do your own thing. But when you sell out, you give up control to The Man in exchange for that sweet, sweet cash. And, to be fair, cash has a lot of utility.
      • MrAlex94 7y ago
        > It's selling out because it was a nonprofit project, and now the Man owns it, and will try to monetize it. This is textbook selling out. I don't know if anyone is reading these comments anymore, but I'd like to point out that Waterfox has never been non-profit and even received investment (and similar criticism, which turned out to be unwarranted) in 2014. > At some point, MrAlex94 will be made to compromise his principles. People said the same in 2014, and 6 years on I never did. I'd hope that warrants some level of trust.
      • ngold 7y ago
        It honestly shocks me that more private no strings attached funding has not grown out of the trillions of dollar tech money made over the past couple of decades. If I had a billion I would throw money at the umatrix guy and ask nicely for a umatrix/origin browser. Make everyones life a little simpler.
        • CameronNemo 7y ago
          Unrelated, but I would be very happy to see umatrix settings be synced across Firefox instances.
        • unityByFreedom 7y ago
          Giving up control isn't easy, particularly when it's your money that's invested. That said, successful investors such as Y-Combinator do invest in people rather than a particular idea. I imagine VCs want to own the rights so they can pull the plug if something unexpected happens, like a founder has a major life event or something. Whether or not they limit themselves to only pulling strings in the most dire circumstances is another question.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• geocrasher 7y ago
  For those for whom an understanding could be reached, no explanation is needed. For those with whom an understanding would not be able to be reached, no explanation will suffice. There seem to be some that feel that because they use software that is Open Source, it is "theirs". There's no way to help somebody get over the loss of ownership of something they didn't actually posses.
  • OptionX 7y ago
    Waterfox is not a mainstream browser, therefore its fair to assume its users come to it in search of something that don't get in the major players. I'm assuming again, but I don't think is much of a leap, that those needs are privacy related and having control over the software you use. Not having a faceless company behind the software, like Google for Chrome, Microsoft with Edge or even Mozilla with Firefox is a draw for users. Now having said that reading that its been bought by a company, and one that does business in advertising no less can be quite jarring. Its like you shopping only in a mom and pop grocery for years that's out of the way and more expensive, but you do it to help local economy. Then one day you get there and and while you load up your cart the owners tells you they work under Walmart now. The very thing you tried to avoid. Of course such decision is in the waterfox dev, and he has the right to do as he pleases but is understandable that some people might have problem with the sale.
    • MrAlex94 7y ago
      > Those needs are privacy related and having control over the software you use. That’s fair enough, but I’ve tried to stay away from branding Waterfox as such to try and avoid issues like this. Nothing has even happened to Waterfox, but I understand that people are to be critical, I think it’s fair enough. > Then one day you get there and and while you load up your cart the owners tells you they work under Walmart now. I don’t think it’s quite the same though. As much as I’ve done Waterfox for the users, I’ve also done it for myself and how I’d want and expect a web browser to be. That’s not going to change either, but like I said it’s fair for people to be critical of that
  • bnegreve 7y ago
• rswail 7y ago
  It sounds like you have a solid foundation to build on, which is a Good Thing. The conspiracy theorists and those that demand purity but aren't willing to put their own money or effort in deserve no response.
  • squarefoot 7y ago
    The correct line of action IMO would have be to tell straight the situation (urgent funding needed), then attempt to crowfund the development, and only then in case of failure sell to someone else. That way nobody could have complained.
    • MrAlex94 7y ago
      > The correct line of action IMO would have be to tell straight the situation (urgent funding needed), then attempt to crowfund the development, and only then in case of failure sell to someone else. That way nobody could have complained. I’ve posted about it throughout the years (linked to one such in the blog) and even had donations set up and asked with every update post for people to help by either donating or to use the default search. It just wasn’t enough to grow.
  • use-net 7y ago
    bs, dude. Already the fork "LudditeFox" is in the making. A project to stay true to its loyal users.
• newscracker 7y ago
  I’m not going to diss you or downvote you here, but this statement (quoted below) reminded me of what the WhatsApp blog said when it was acquired by Facebook. There is no way you can guarantee, even for a few months, that System1 won’t change Waterfox in any of its privacy aspects. Anything can happen after acquisitions. So people who are wary have prior experience and history to rely on and fuel their skepticism. > At the end of the day, they were the right fit and aren’t going to change Waterfox in any of its privacy aspects, and I can finally grow out Waterfox to hopefully be more than it currently is.
  • MrAlex94 7y ago
    > e is no way you can guarantee, even for a few months, that System1 won’t change Waterfox in any of its privacy aspects. But if they did, they would legally have to notify the users of those changes (GDPR etc) and would lose all the users, rendering it pointless to have bought Waterfox. Not sure why they would shoot themselves in the foot like that.
    • krageon 7y ago
      This argument is hard to understand, given that this hasn't happened when companies did this in the past. At the end of the day, you can break your word as much as you like as long as there's a year or so between making the promise and breaking it.
      • MrAlex94 7y ago
        I'm not sure I understand the criticism to my previous comment. If System1 would change any privacy aspects (which they won't) and I assume people are going to assume for worst case scenario - users would need to be notified. Then, System1 would lose all trust and no-one would use Waterfox. > At the end of the day, you can break your word as much as you like as long as there's a year or so between making the promise and breaking it. But nothing has happened and people are just pointing fingers. Seems rather unreasonable. People had the same criticisms in 2014 when I received investment into Waterfox. The same sort actually and 6 years later...nothing had changed.
• orev 7y ago
  I hate to be the one to break this to you, but every company that has ever bought another company always started the sales-pitch with: “we don’t want to change anything. We just want to give you the resources to grow...” — blah blah blah. And they are always lying. It’s like a test to find who’s gullible enough to believe it. Since your deal is already done, there’s not much you can do, other than to watch out for things they will inevitably try to push on you.
  • MrAlex94 7y ago
    > And they are always lying. I’d like to believe I did enough due diligence to make sure that’s not the case.
    • krageon 7y ago
      Don't forget all that money.
• zzo38computer 7y ago
  I think that it is best to wait and see.
  • d00de 7y ago
    The waterfoxers will flee WF like hostages and come back to usenet, like on SQLnetNews