4 ms·

> Why not just tell it like it is. Indeed. Mozilla should be honest. That's what builds trust. We all know they need money, so if this gives them money to imp

> Why not just tell it like it is. Indeed. Mozilla should be honest. That's what builds trust. We all know they need money, so if this gives them money to improve FF, fine by me. But they need to quit the marketing bullshit-speak.

andrepd 5y ago
They need money to improve FF so they will get it by fucking up FF? Sounds counterproductive to me.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  No, they need money to pay for their CEO. She had to fire 250 engineers to pay her salary last year, she might not have another 250 left to fire this year.
  - krferriter 5y ago
    The salary of 250 engineers is way more than her own salary, but yes it is a bad look to be firing engineers while raising executive pay.
- pixelgeek 5y ago
  It is but it also happens often enough in business that you have to wonder what it is that drives it? Is it some business school process or management training BS? It usually only happens when "trained" business people get involved that this sort of BS happens.
- tomrod 5y ago
  To be fair, this issue is also reflected with the mobile upgrade that wiped most of the functionality, extension integration, and good will. Whomever they have hired to (1) perform UX research and (2) make executive decisions aren't performing, IMHO.
  - tempest_ 5y ago
    I did not use the mobile version until after they redid the design. I dont really have a lot of complaints about it. I like the dark mode and the address bar at the bottom it has ad blocker. What all changed between those versions ?
    - tomrod 5y ago
      Drastically reduced universe of extensions Poor design of tab history (chronological order) No more about:config Change in the text rendering engine causes some websites to be unreadable (esp. news, arstechnica, and reddit), accessibility out the window There are many more, but I don't mean to rehash because it's been a passionate discussion for many over the past year.
      - intelMgmntEnema 5y ago
        >No more about:config So few realize the importance of this. Some say "well only in Android" or "use nightly". The plan is clearly to incrementally erode freedom to a final state of dysfunction under the guise of gaslit improvements and false switches. They actually argue that removing about:config was for our own good. Printing webpages to PDF is also something we're supposedly better without. But we shouldn't complain, for they've abandoned the crusty old obsolete concept of configurability for brave new ones. Pocket, guerilla advertising, binary over variety, cloudflare, dom.battery.enabled, privacy.resistFingerprinting.alwaysdisabled and an emoji level of privacy. Why design good software when they can design good users? They're not all bad though. At least they saved us all from the terrifying overwhelming burden of RSS, right? They're attitude is that, yeah, the internet is becoming a roiling cloaca, which is accepted and inevitable, yes? So rather than resist and try to improve it, adapt and contribute to it's descent.
        jamienicol 5y ago
        > The plan is clearly to incrementally erode freedom to a final state of dysfunction under the guise of gaslit improvements and false switches. That's quite the accusation, and completely baseless. about:config was removed from the stable version on android to prevent users breaking their installations. It's interesting you mention privacy.resistFingerprinting, as it alone is the cause of countless bug reports and support tickets from users who don't understand the implications. If you're confident enough to go digging in about:support then you can run beta or install a fork with it enabled. There's no alterior motive.
SilasX 5y ago
Except they only need money because they frittered away the massive Google subsidy on pointless projects rather than building up an endowment while sticking to core goals. … which, in fairness, is itself a species of selling ads! But setting a search engine default is far more benign than what they’re planning here.
formerly_proven 5y ago
Mozilla probably "needs" money much like the Wikimedia Foundation "needs" money and so desperately begs for donations ("How much is Wikipedia worth to you?"). The WMF spends like 20 % or less on Wikipedia, 80 % is unrelated stuff. Mozilla probably spends a small fraction of its money on Firefox and pisses away most of it as well in e.g. management payouts or random sidequests.
- soundnote 5y ago
  They do need non-Google sources of revenue.

andrepd 5y ago

They need money to improve FF so they will get it by fucking up FF? Sounds counterproductive to me.

dotancohen 5y ago
No, they need money to pay for their CEO. She had to fire 250 engineers to pay her salary last year, she might not have another 250 left to fire this year.
- krferriter 5y ago
  The salary of 250 engineers is way more than her own salary, but yes it is a bad look to be firing engineers while raising executive pay.
pixelgeek 5y ago
It is but it also happens often enough in business that you have to wonder what it is that drives it? Is it some business school process or management training BS? It usually only happens when "trained" business people get involved that this sort of BS happens.
tomrod 5y ago
To be fair, this issue is also reflected with the mobile upgrade that wiped most of the functionality, extension integration, and good will. Whomever they have hired to (1) perform UX research and (2) make executive decisions aren't performing, IMHO.
- tempest_ 5y ago
  I did not use the mobile version until after they redid the design. I dont really have a lot of complaints about it. I like the dark mode and the address bar at the bottom it has ad blocker. What all changed between those versions ?
  - tomrod 5y ago
    Drastically reduced universe of extensions Poor design of tab history (chronological order) No more about:config Change in the text rendering engine causes some websites to be unreadable (esp. news, arstechnica, and reddit), accessibility out the window There are many more, but I don't mean to rehash because it's been a passionate discussion for many over the past year.
    - intelMgmntEnema 5y ago
      >No more about:config So few realize the importance of this. Some say "well only in Android" or "use nightly". The plan is clearly to incrementally erode freedom to a final state of dysfunction under the guise of gaslit improvements and false switches. They actually argue that removing about:config was for our own good. Printing webpages to PDF is also something we're supposedly better without. But we shouldn't complain, for they've abandoned the crusty old obsolete concept of configurability for brave new ones. Pocket, guerilla advertising, binary over variety, cloudflare, dom.battery.enabled, privacy.resistFingerprinting.alwaysdisabled and an emoji level of privacy. Why design good software when they can design good users? They're not all bad though. At least they saved us all from the terrifying overwhelming burden of RSS, right? They're attitude is that, yeah, the internet is becoming a roiling cloaca, which is accepted and inevitable, yes? So rather than resist and try to improve it, adapt and contribute to it's descent.
      - jamienicol 5y ago
        > The plan is clearly to incrementally erode freedom to a final state of dysfunction under the guise of gaslit improvements and false switches. That's quite the accusation, and completely baseless. about:config was removed from the stable version on android to prevent users breaking their installations. It's interesting you mention privacy.resistFingerprinting, as it alone is the cause of countless bug reports and support tickets from users who don't understand the implications. If you're confident enough to go digging in about:support then you can run beta or install a fork with it enabled. There's no alterior motive.

SilasX 5y ago

Except they only need money because they frittered away the massive Google subsidy on pointless projects rather than building up an endowment while sticking to core goals. … which, in fairness, is itself a species of selling ads! But setting a search engine default is far more benign than what they’re planning here.

formerly_proven 5y ago

Mozilla probably "needs" money much like the Wikimedia Foundation "needs" money and so desperately begs for donations ("How much is Wikipedia worth to you?"). The WMF spends like 20 % or less on Wikipedia, 80 % is unrelated stuff. Mozilla probably spends a small fraction of its money on Firefox and pisses away most of it as well in e.g. management payouts or random sidequests.

soundnote 5y ago
They do need non-Google sources of revenue.