10 ms·

What kills me is that I was unaware of just how badly Mozilla was struggling. As an avid Firefox user, I would have paid a monthly subscription to help keep the

What kills me is that I was unaware of just how badly Mozilla was struggling. As an avid Firefox user, I would have paid a monthly subscription to help keep the Mozilla dream and values alive. A world with just Google/Chrome is too depressing.

josteink 6y ago
> What kills me is that I was unaware of just how badly Mozilla was struggling. It's been fairly evident these last 5 years (since Brendan Eich was forced out and Baker entered?) that Mozilla has been growing really fat on Google money. They have (or have had) initiatives for pretty much everything not the core product: social justice initiatives, “diversity” campaigns, internet newsletters, AI (sic), router-firmware, online services (startup competitors), in-browser ads and what not. What has been most common for most of these initiatives (besides a complete lack of direction) is that many of them haven't made sense from an engineering point of view, and many have been wildly at odds with the community Mozilla has managed to build around Firefox. Many (most?) of them seemed either fluffy on technical details/merit, or just completely political, some even divisively so. (Not to mention Brendan Eich was kicked out for purely political reasons in a SJW witch-hunt) In short, for the last half decade, it seems Mozilla has put politics first and engineering second. For a political player that might make sense. For a software-company, not so much. So what is Mozilla? To me, it's the browser-company. For Mozilla itself... It seem they have another idea? It's getting increasingly unclear and vague. While having "infinite" Google-funding, that sort of lack of focus wasn't that big a problem, since they could afford it. But now with the very near and real threat of that funding going away, there's a lot of fat to cut in order to maintain within budget. The Mozilla I love and know (and I don't say that about many companies!) would swiftly cut its political arm, and all the other dead-end projects, and focus on its core products: The open-source browser and possibly email client too. And make sure they have a good mobile-story to tell, because that's where the users are heading. The new Mozilla seems to cut all that and keep the pointless political activism, and dead-end technological adventures without any clear technological story about how they're supposed to make sense. For me it sounds like a completely managerial failure, from end to end.
- hazz99 6y ago
  > Not to mention Brendan Eich was kicked out for purely political reasons in a SJW witch-hunt It’s hardly an “SJW witch-hunt” when your boss is donating thousands of dollars for the explicit purpose of ensuring you don’t have the same rights as other people. That action seems very much at odds with being an effective leader. You must take care of your team.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    One feature of totalitarism is suppression of dissenting political views. Somehow modern democracy (de)evolved from "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" to current cancel culture.
    - hazz99 6y ago
      This has nothing to do with cancel culture, and everything to do with being a bad leader. > Somehow modern democracy (de)evolved from "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" to current cancel culture. Brendan has a right to express his opinion. Mozilla has a right to fire him for it. There's nothing totalitarian here.
      - dogma1138 6y ago
        Would Mozilla be still in its right to fire them if the situation was reversed?
      - josteink 6y ago
        They only did so after the SJW lynch-mob showed up on twitter and demanded him fired. Personally I'm not OK with rule by lynch-mob, and I hope you see how allowing such a culture to take hold may one day backfire, also on the things you hold dear.
        rocqua 6y ago
        Thing is, if people really feel like "I can't support this company while X is there" are they just supposed to be quiet? Cancel culture is probably toxic to public discussion. But what is the alternative if people want to vote with their feet? If people want to make choices based on their morals, that seems awesome to me. It's only if people are bluffing things into being canceled that I see an issue here.

josteink 6y ago

> What kills me is that I was unaware of just how badly Mozilla was struggling. It's been fairly evident these last 5 years (since Brendan Eich was forced out and Baker entered?) that Mozilla has been growing really fat on Google money. They have (or have had) initiatives for pretty much everything not the core product: social justice initiatives, “diversity” campaigns, internet newsletters, AI (sic), router-firmware, online services (startup competitors), in-browser ads and what not. What has been most common for most of these initiatives (besides a complete lack of direction) is that many of them haven't made sense from an engineering point of view, and many have been wildly at odds with the community Mozilla has managed to build around Firefox. Many (most?) of them seemed either fluffy on technical details/merit, or just completely political, some even divisively so. (Not to mention Brendan Eich was kicked out for purely political reasons in a SJW witch-hunt) In short, for the last half decade, it seems Mozilla has put politics first and engineering second. For a political player that might make sense. For a software-company, not so much. So what is Mozilla? To me, it's the browser-company. For Mozilla itself... It seem they have another idea? It's getting increasingly unclear and vague. While having "infinite" Google-funding, that sort of lack of focus wasn't that big a problem, since they could afford it. But now with the very near and real threat of that funding going away, there's a lot of fat to cut in order to maintain within budget. The Mozilla I love and know (and I don't say that about many companies!) would swiftly cut its political arm, and all the other dead-end projects, and focus on its core products: The open-source browser and possibly email client too. And make sure they have a good mobile-story to tell, because that's where the users are heading. The new Mozilla seems to cut all that and keep the pointless political activism, and dead-end technological adventures without any clear technological story about how they're supposed to make sense. For me it sounds like a completely managerial failure, from end to end.

hazz99 6y ago
> Not to mention Brendan Eich was kicked out for purely political reasons in a SJW witch-hunt It’s hardly an “SJW witch-hunt” when your boss is donating thousands of dollars for the explicit purpose of ensuring you don’t have the same rights as other people. That action seems very much at odds with being an effective leader. You must take care of your team.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  One feature of totalitarism is suppression of dissenting political views. Somehow modern democracy (de)evolved from "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" to current cancel culture.
  - hazz99 6y ago
    This has nothing to do with cancel culture, and everything to do with being a bad leader. > Somehow modern democracy (de)evolved from "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" to current cancel culture. Brendan has a right to express his opinion. Mozilla has a right to fire him for it. There's nothing totalitarian here.
    - dogma1138 6y ago
      Would Mozilla be still in its right to fire them if the situation was reversed?
    - josteink 6y ago
      They only did so after the SJW lynch-mob showed up on twitter and demanded him fired. Personally I'm not OK with rule by lynch-mob, and I hope you see how allowing such a culture to take hold may one day backfire, also on the things you hold dear.
      - rocqua 6y ago
        Thing is, if people really feel like "I can't support this company while X is there" are they just supposed to be quiet? Cancel culture is probably toxic to public discussion. But what is the alternative if people want to vote with their feet? If people want to make choices based on their morals, that seems awesome to me. It's only if people are bluffing things into being canceled that I see an issue here.