4 ms·

I was responsible for securing the funding for such tasks from the EU for Mozilla. This can work, e.g. [https://browser.mt/ https://browser.mt/]. However, the l

by kdavis 6y ago

I was responsible for securing the funding for such tasks from the EU for Mozilla. This can work, e.g. [https://browser.mt/ https://browser.mt/]. However, the latest layoffs have basically gutted this plan.

walterbell 6y ago
Is there any chance of the EU funding a Firefox fork that is optimized for integration with other EU initiatives, e.g. data sovereignty and individual data ownership, https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/11/1006555/eu-data-trust-trusts-project-privacy-policy-opinion/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/11/1006555/eu-data-...? If a fork is too big a bridge to cross, how about extending the roadmap of an existing-but-neglected Web Standard, contributing reference implementation code to Firefox? Mozilla wasn't built in a day, and neither will successors. Step one is to get funding for one person with a forward-looking vision and experience with the non-public history that got Firefox to this point. There is a narrow window to preserve a subset of the brain trust for core features (Servo?) before developers get scattered to the winds of other companies. Finally, if Firefox will eventually lose to Chrome, perhaps we need to step back and look at core protocols (like the Gopher reboot) and new security models (e.g. running each browser tab in a hardware-isolated virtual machine). Extensibility was a core offering of Firefox. There may be new optima on the trade-off chart of security vs. power, when running on newer hardware.
- kdavis 6y ago
  As to a fork, doubtful. It’s too large a project. Generally the EU wants to fund open projects not companies. So funding the implementation of a Web Standard in a Firefox, say, is “out”, but implementation of a browser extension is “in” as it’s (more-or-less) browser independent.

4 ms·

I was responsible for securing the funding for such tasks from the EU for Mozilla. This can work, e.g. [https://browser.mt/ https://browser.mt/]. However, the l

by kdavis 6y ago

walterbell 6y ago
Is there any chance of the EU funding a Firefox fork that is optimized for integration with other EU initiatives, e.g. data sovereignty and individual data ownership, https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/11/1006555/eu-data-trust-trusts-project-privacy-policy-opinion/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/11/1006555/eu-data-...? If a fork is too big a bridge to cross, how about extending the roadmap of an existing-but-neglected Web Standard, contributing reference implementation code to Firefox? Mozilla wasn't built in a day, and neither will successors. Step one is to get funding for one person with a forward-looking vision and experience with the non-public history that got Firefox to this point. There is a narrow window to preserve a subset of the brain trust for core features (Servo?) before developers get scattered to the winds of other companies. Finally, if Firefox will eventually lose to Chrome, perhaps we need to step back and look at core protocols (like the Gopher reboot) and new security models (e.g. running each browser tab in a hardware-isolated virtual machine). Extensibility was a core offering of Firefox. There may be new optima on the trade-off chart of security vs. power, when running on newer hardware.
- kdavis 6y ago
  As to a fork, doubtful. It’s too large a project. Generally the EU wants to fund open projects not companies. So funding the implementation of a Web Standard in a Firefox, say, is “out”, but implementation of a browser extension is “in” as it’s (more-or-less) browser independent.