5 ms·

Mozilla (the Company) has always had problems. They want to be something they're not. But the people on the Mozilla engineering team are top-notch and rarely af

Mozilla (the Company) has always had problems. They want to be something they're not. But the people on the Mozilla engineering team are top-notch and rarely affected by company drama (and probably feel the same way as you do about it). Mozilla is one of the few places you can do this specific type of really interesting engineering work, without having to be at Google/Apple/etc. (ex-Mozillian here :) )

beagle3 6y ago
Why ex?
- capableweb 6y ago
  Quick look at the profile (unless you recognize the name) reveals Gregory is the founder of ReadMe.com (when you guys moved from io?!), so supposedly ex to start his own company!
  - gkoberger 6y ago
    Last summer! It's the most expensive thing I own haha
    - bigyikes 6y ago
      Wow, did that help business, or was it more of a vanity thing? I was thinking domains didn’t matter all that much.
      - gkoberger 6y ago
        I think pg sums it up the best: http://www.paulgraham.com/name.html http://www.paulgraham.com/name.html "The problem with not having the .com of your name is that it signals weakness. Unless you're so big that your reputation precedes you, a marginal domain suggests you're a marginal company." I'd say there's a few major reasons: protecting the name and signaling we're a real company to larger corporations. For us, we also host websites that allows JS/CSS/HTML, so being able to put our assets on a separate domain helps with security issues.
        billiam 6y ago
        Whew, that is the sentiment of a true plutocrat and elitist. You're weak unless you're rich and pay to rent in the good part of town. Sure, it's desirable to look serious to commercial partners and investors, but mostly it's an Internet branding tax. Most of your customers will Google your site.
        bawolff 6y ago
        I definitely look down at people with .info domains. The effect is alive. (TLDs are stupid at this point. If it was up to me we would kill all of them except .com and .org)
        Reelin 6y ago
        > kill all of them except .com and .org A bit tangential, but ignoring reality for a minute wouldn't it make more sense to kill .com and .org as well and retain only the country codes (ie .us, .uk, .cn, etc)? At least it would make the various jurisdictional issues clear. (In a perfect world, I also wish there were legislation forcing any and all local government entities to use appropriate <service>.gov.<country> domains. It is incredibly difficult to explain to the average person why a few government websites have .com or .org or other random TLDs, and the inconsistency of it all makes things easier for scammers.)
        bawolff 6y ago
        Hmm that's an interesting idea. I personally like the idea of "cyberspace" transcending national boundries (i know, eyeroll), which is why i'm a fan of only .com, but your proposal makes a certain amount of sense.
        3131s 6y ago
        What? How does limiting TLDs to only .com make any sense and how does that help with transcending national boundaries? I'm no fan of how new TLDs have been rolled out either... Take a look at the Public Suffix List because you'll need to do away with a lot of TLDs.
- gkoberger 6y ago
  I left 8 years ago! I loved it there, but left to start ReadMe.com. But I still love the people there (and created https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24135032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24135032 recently)
nerdponx 6y ago
What happens to the Firefox core dev team if the Mozilla Foundation's main revenue source -- the Google search tie-in -- dries up? Google is probably just waiting for the day that Firefox market share is below a threshold of viable competition, at which point they'll pull the plug on the search engine contract and it's game over for the Mozilla Foundation, unless the Mozilla Corporation can step in and save it, which clearly it is not in a position to do.
- Topgamer7 6y ago
  Some search engine will be willing to pay for the spot, whether bing, ddg, or something more esoteric (ali-something?)
- m3at 6y ago
  It's possible Google will keep paying what is peanuts to them not to be technically an absolute monopoly (by keeping Firefox alive at insignificant usage level)
  - Zenbit_UX 6y ago
    That actually seems like the more nefarious route, and thus the more likely one for Google.
  - rndgermandude 6y ago
    I think that's what's already is happening and has happening for some time. While google keeps generously funding them (even after the Yahoo debacle), they at the same time sabotage the Firefox market share every way they can (I am talking about actual sabotage, not just being "better", and not just the Firefox market share, they got caught sabotaging the original Edge as well). This way they can still say to regulators around the world that they do not have a quasi monopoly on browser (engines). "Look there is independent Apple and independent mozilla, at least!"

beagle3 6y ago

Why ex?

capableweb 6y ago
Quick look at the profile (unless you recognize the name) reveals Gregory is the founder of ReadMe.com (when you guys moved from io?!), so supposedly ex to start his own company!
- gkoberger 6y ago
  Last summer! It's the most expensive thing I own haha
  - bigyikes 6y ago
    Wow, did that help business, or was it more of a vanity thing? I was thinking domains didn’t matter all that much.
    - gkoberger 6y ago
      I think pg sums it up the best: http://www.paulgraham.com/name.html http://www.paulgraham.com/name.html "The problem with not having the .com of your name is that it signals weakness. Unless you're so big that your reputation precedes you, a marginal domain suggests you're a marginal company." I'd say there's a few major reasons: protecting the name and signaling we're a real company to larger corporations. For us, we also host websites that allows JS/CSS/HTML, so being able to put our assets on a separate domain helps with security issues.
      - billiam 6y ago
        Whew, that is the sentiment of a true plutocrat and elitist. You're weak unless you're rich and pay to rent in the good part of town. Sure, it's desirable to look serious to commercial partners and investors, but mostly it's an Internet branding tax. Most of your customers will Google your site.
        bawolff 6y ago
        I definitely look down at people with .info domains. The effect is alive. (TLDs are stupid at this point. If it was up to me we would kill all of them except .com and .org)
        Reelin 6y ago
        > kill all of them except .com and .org A bit tangential, but ignoring reality for a minute wouldn't it make more sense to kill .com and .org as well and retain only the country codes (ie .us, .uk, .cn, etc)? At least it would make the various jurisdictional issues clear. (In a perfect world, I also wish there were legislation forcing any and all local government entities to use appropriate <service>.gov.<country> domains. It is incredibly difficult to explain to the average person why a few government websites have .com or .org or other random TLDs, and the inconsistency of it all makes things easier for scammers.)
        bawolff 6y ago
        Hmm that's an interesting idea. I personally like the idea of "cyberspace" transcending national boundries (i know, eyeroll), which is why i'm a fan of only .com, but your proposal makes a certain amount of sense.
        3131s 6y ago
        What? How does limiting TLDs to only .com make any sense and how does that help with transcending national boundaries? I'm no fan of how new TLDs have been rolled out either... Take a look at the Public Suffix List because you'll need to do away with a lot of TLDs.
gkoberger 6y ago
I left 8 years ago! I loved it there, but left to start ReadMe.com. But I still love the people there (and created https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24135032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24135032 recently)

nerdponx 6y ago

What happens to the Firefox core dev team if the Mozilla Foundation's main revenue source -- the Google search tie-in -- dries up? Google is probably just waiting for the day that Firefox market share is below a threshold of viable competition, at which point they'll pull the plug on the search engine contract and it's game over for the Mozilla Foundation, unless the Mozilla Corporation can step in and save it, which clearly it is not in a position to do.

Topgamer7 6y ago
Some search engine will be willing to pay for the spot, whether bing, ddg, or something more esoteric (ali-something?)
m3at 6y ago
It's possible Google will keep paying what is peanuts to them not to be technically an absolute monopoly (by keeping Firefox alive at insignificant usage level)
- Zenbit_UX 6y ago
  That actually seems like the more nefarious route, and thus the more likely one for Google.
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  I think that's what's already is happening and has happening for some time. While google keeps generously funding them (even after the Yahoo debacle), they at the same time sabotage the Firefox market share every way they can (I am talking about actual sabotage, not just being "better", and not just the Firefox market share, they got caught sabotaging the original Edge as well). This way they can still say to regulators around the world that they do not have a quasi monopoly on browser (engines). "Look there is independent Apple and independent mozilla, at least!"