3 ms·

> As a side note, can someone at Mozilla please make it so that I can donate directly to Firefox? Is that not possible for some reason? If I knew that Mozilla w

by sofixa 4y ago

> As a side note, can someone at Mozilla please make it so that I can donate directly to Firefox? Is that not possible for some reason? If I knew that Mozilla wasn't going to spend my money on some stupid new idea, and it would directly to supporting Firefox development, I would defintely pay a subscription each month to Firefox, and feel like a lot of other people would too. I don't see why so many people are against Mozilla using donations how they see fit. They need to diversify because relying on a single project, a free browser, in a single market segment which is saturated with free browsers, is a massive risk. Firefox's survival mostly hinges on Google's money, which of course Google have a massive interest in (they need a competitor to Chromium). However if that were to change, Firefox is going to struggle even more to keep up. So, in my opinion, Mozilla need to diversify with alternative projects that could bring in money and reputation, and maybe even through integrations users for their other projects. To be able to do that, they need flexibility on how to spend the donations. To see what could happen if there are strict limits on what funds can be used for, check out Atlanta's MARTA system. They have to split incoming funds evenly between operational and capital expenditures budgets, which results in bullshit like them having the money for shiny new trains but not enough for basic repairs. Mozilla probably don't want to find themselves with tons of money for Firefox, but not enough to keep the lights on in general (legal, office, C-suite, other projects). So I see where you're coming from, but it's just unrealistic.

sprash 4y ago
> I don't see why so many people are against Mozilla using donations how they see fit. Because people donating to Mozilla are expecting that those funds are used for the browser and not a string of experiments that fail miserably. People rightfully feel betrayed and stop donating. > Mozilla need to diversify Exactly wrong. Mozilla needs to concentrate on the Browser and should cut off all excess expenses and useless experiments. The goal should be to minimize cost and thus reduce the reliance on Google money which should be replaced by pure donation money.
animuchan 4y ago
I agree in principle, but they tend to diversify into alternative projects that leave bad taste in one's mouth. Rust being the notable exception of course. Rust is probably what Mozilla will be remembered for when Google pulls the financial support for Firefox.
- sofixa 4y ago
  It's funny you chose Rust, because at face value, ignoring how useful the language is, creating a programming language from scratch for a browser seems a bit overkill and a waste of money/focus. So you should either trust Mozilla the organisation to spend funds wisely, or not. Forcing them to spend only on Firefox can still result in "waste" from a purist perspective (like a programming language) while at the same time massively constraining them. And i quite like some of Mozilla's alternative projects. Pocket is cool and genuinely useful. Thunderbird could use some love but is pretty decent.
  - TuringTest 4y ago
    > It's funny you chose Rust, because at face value, ignoring how useful the language is, creating a programming language from scratch for a browser seems a bit overkill and a waste of money/focus. Rust was the right technical approach for this browser, given the existing technology and the problems they had to solve to update the rendering engine.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      It ended up being the right choice, but it's classic yak shaving.
  - animuchan 4y ago
    Pocket may be cool, but the way they forced it down everyone's collective throat was... bad. They later bought the company, so now it's a kind-of-Mozilla product inside another Mozilla product, which doesn't sound nearly as egregious as it was at launch: a forced third-party browser extension that couldn't be meaningfully disabled.
creesch 4y ago
> I don't see why so many people are against Mozilla using donations how they see fit. They need to diversify because relying on a single project, a free browser, in a single market segment which is saturated with free browsers, is a massive risk. It is entirely possible to implement a donation model that does work towards both. Simply allow users to determine what percentage of their donations goes to Firefox but set the max percentage to something like 90%.

by sofixa 4y ago

sprash 4y ago

> I don't see why so many people are against Mozilla using donations how they see fit. Because people donating to Mozilla are expecting that those funds are used for the browser and not a string of experiments that fail miserably. People rightfully feel betrayed and stop donating. > Mozilla need to diversify Exactly wrong. Mozilla needs to concentrate on the Browser and should cut off all excess expenses and useless experiments. The goal should be to minimize cost and thus reduce the reliance on Google money which should be replaced by pure donation money.

animuchan 4y ago

I agree in principle, but they tend to diversify into alternative projects that leave bad taste in one's mouth. Rust being the notable exception of course. Rust is probably what Mozilla will be remembered for when Google pulls the financial support for Firefox.

sofixa 4y ago
It's funny you chose Rust, because at face value, ignoring how useful the language is, creating a programming language from scratch for a browser seems a bit overkill and a waste of money/focus. So you should either trust Mozilla the organisation to spend funds wisely, or not. Forcing them to spend only on Firefox can still result in "waste" from a purist perspective (like a programming language) while at the same time massively constraining them. And i quite like some of Mozilla's alternative projects. Pocket is cool and genuinely useful. Thunderbird could use some love but is pretty decent.
- TuringTest 4y ago
  > It's funny you chose Rust, because at face value, ignoring how useful the language is, creating a programming language from scratch for a browser seems a bit overkill and a waste of money/focus. Rust was the right technical approach for this browser, given the existing technology and the problems they had to solve to update the rendering engine.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    It ended up being the right choice, but it's classic yak shaving.
- animuchan 4y ago
  Pocket may be cool, but the way they forced it down everyone's collective throat was... bad. They later bought the company, so now it's a kind-of-Mozilla product inside another Mozilla product, which doesn't sound nearly as egregious as it was at launch: a forced third-party browser extension that couldn't be meaningfully disabled.

creesch 4y ago

> I don't see why so many people are against Mozilla using donations how they see fit. They need to diversify because relying on a single project, a free browser, in a single market segment which is saturated with free browsers, is a massive risk. It is entirely possible to implement a donation model that does work towards both. Simply allow users to determine what percentage of their donations goes to Firefox but set the max percentage to something like 90%.