6 ms·

> I have nothing against straight ads. I do. They are actively hostile to the user experience. I will criticise any update to software that deliberately makes

> I have nothing against straight ads. I do. They are actively hostile to the user experience. I will criticise any update to software that deliberately makes the user experience worse.

symlinkk 6y ago
Ok, well suggest a different way they can make money then. No, donations are not cutting it.
- tux3 6y ago
  Note, I've heard that Mozilla takes donations, but I don't think Firefox does. Personally I don't mind at all if Mozilla wants to display ads in Treeherder or in their corporate offices, I wouldn't even feel like I want to pay to remove those :) My point being, I don't expect firefox donations would amount to very many millions, but it's important to note that today the option doesn't really even exist.
- sellyme 6y ago
  > Ok, well suggest a different way they can make money then. Don't. If that means not doing further development, great. Leave that to people who want to make the software better, not worse. If you can find a way to monetise software, that's fantastic, but if that monetisation requires degrading quality I have no respect for it.
  - symlinkk 6y ago
    Guess what, “the people who want to make the software better” can start today! Just fork it, it’s all open source! Wait, why hasn’t that happened yet? Is it because those people have bills to pay? Hmm...
    - sellyme 6y ago
      > Wait, why hasn’t that happened yet? You mean apart from Pale Moon, Basilisk, Waterfox, Tor, XB, Iceweasel, Swiftfox, Swiftweasel, Cometbird, and IceDragon? Yeah no idea why that thing that has happened several times hasn't happened.
- yabatopia 6y ago
  Charge for it, like any other product. Opera used to do it, a long time ago. I think it was about $40 for a license.
  - boring_twenties 6y ago
    How's that going to work when Firefox is free-as-in-freedom? Or are you suggesting they go closed source?
- anonymousab 6y ago
  > No, donations are not cutting it It probably doesn't help that you can't choose to donate to/for Firefox. If you disagree with other things Mozilla is doing, perhaps moreso than the things you agree with, then you don't really have much options. For many people, advertisements - especially ones enabled without announcement, sneakily - are simply an unacceptable red line, nomatter how important Mozilla thinks they are.
  - symlinkk 6y ago
    Right, now the goalposts have shifted. You aren’t donating because “you can’t donate specifically to Firefox, only to Mozilla as a whole”. What ridiculous excuse will you people come up with next?
    - jhasse 6y ago
      I would donate to specific bugs.
    - scaladev 6y ago
      Alright, I'll bite. I donate quite a bit of my income to FOSS projects (which is pretty low due to living in the third world, so it's not a lot of money). I would gladly donate specifically towards Firefox development, but they are not spending donations on Firefox at all, and I would rather spend that cast (which I don't have a lot of) towards some other technical goal like Wayland infrastructure development, instead of wasting it (as I see it) to advance some social goal in the US which is completely alien to me. I should also add that I never disable any telemetry in Firefox or anything that helps them earn a cent or two (as long as it does not abuse my privacy too much, and there were not a lot of those during 15+ years of using Firefox exclusively.)
    - corobo 6y ago
      It's not really shifting the goalposts if your suggestion was donate to Firefox and the answer is you can't.
    - orestarod 6y ago
      The problem is not that your donations will go to other things but including Firefox. The problem is that there is no way for the money of your donations to end up in funding Firefox development. Mozilla Foundation money does not flow towards Firefox corporation.

> I have nothing against straight ads. I do. They are actively hostile to the user experience. I will criticise any update to software that deliberately makes the user experience worse.

symlinkk 6y ago

Ok, well suggest a different way they can make money then. No, donations are not cutting it.

tux3 6y ago
Note, I've heard that Mozilla takes donations, but I don't think Firefox does. Personally I don't mind at all if Mozilla wants to display ads in Treeherder or in their corporate offices, I wouldn't even feel like I want to pay to remove those :) My point being, I don't expect firefox donations would amount to very many millions, but it's important to note that today the option doesn't really even exist.
sellyme 6y ago
> Ok, well suggest a different way they can make money then. Don't. If that means not doing further development, great. Leave that to people who want to make the software better, not worse. If you can find a way to monetise software, that's fantastic, but if that monetisation requires degrading quality I have no respect for it.
- symlinkk 6y ago
  Guess what, “the people who want to make the software better” can start today! Just fork it, it’s all open source! Wait, why hasn’t that happened yet? Is it because those people have bills to pay? Hmm...
  - sellyme 6y ago
    > Wait, why hasn’t that happened yet? You mean apart from Pale Moon, Basilisk, Waterfox, Tor, XB, Iceweasel, Swiftfox, Swiftweasel, Cometbird, and IceDragon? Yeah no idea why that thing that has happened several times hasn't happened.
yabatopia 6y ago
Charge for it, like any other product. Opera used to do it, a long time ago. I think it was about $40 for a license.
- boring_twenties 6y ago
  How's that going to work when Firefox is free-as-in-freedom? Or are you suggesting they go closed source?
anonymousab 6y ago
> No, donations are not cutting it It probably doesn't help that you can't choose to donate to/for Firefox. If you disagree with other things Mozilla is doing, perhaps moreso than the things you agree with, then you don't really have much options. For many people, advertisements - especially ones enabled without announcement, sneakily - are simply an unacceptable red line, nomatter how important Mozilla thinks they are.
- symlinkk 6y ago
  Right, now the goalposts have shifted. You aren’t donating because “you can’t donate specifically to Firefox, only to Mozilla as a whole”. What ridiculous excuse will you people come up with next?
  - jhasse 6y ago
    I would donate to specific bugs.
  - scaladev 6y ago
    Alright, I'll bite. I donate quite a bit of my income to FOSS projects (which is pretty low due to living in the third world, so it's not a lot of money). I would gladly donate specifically towards Firefox development, but they are not spending donations on Firefox at all, and I would rather spend that cast (which I don't have a lot of) towards some other technical goal like Wayland infrastructure development, instead of wasting it (as I see it) to advance some social goal in the US which is completely alien to me. I should also add that I never disable any telemetry in Firefox or anything that helps them earn a cent or two (as long as it does not abuse my privacy too much, and there were not a lot of those during 15+ years of using Firefox exclusively.)
  - corobo 6y ago
    It's not really shifting the goalposts if your suggestion was donate to Firefox and the answer is you can't.
  - orestarod 6y ago
    The problem is not that your donations will go to other things but including Firefox. The problem is that there is no way for the money of your donations to end up in funding Firefox development. Mozilla Foundation money does not flow towards Firefox corporation.