3 ms·

I think those are comparing very different organizations with different aims. There's a big difference between employing a bunch of people to actually build a c

by abeppu 4y ago

I think those are comparing very different organizations with different aims. There's a big difference between employing a bunch of people to actually build a complex product that you expect normal people to actually use, vs supporting the governance of OSS projects that are built by other people, largely employed by companies using or offering services around those projects.

prepend 4y ago
They are very different. But my point is that Apache is very successful and produces lots of great software. You don’t have to pay $100M in developer salaries to produce great software. Mozilla is not that great despite having lots and lots of employees. Perhaps rethinking their approach would be useful. But if their revenue goes away, it doesn’t mean Mozilla the browser goes away. Maybe Mozilla should just be a governance process rather than a software developer. The browser would probably have similar quality.
- fabrice_d 4y ago
  The Apache Foundation doesn't produce the software, people paid by various companies do. This is quite similar to the Mozilla Foundation and Corporation relationship. Who would employ people to work on Firefox if the corp side shuts down eg. because they lose their revenue?
- tdeck 4y ago
  It's hit or miss. Many Apache projects are basically open source abandonware. It's great that there's an organization to manage the rights to these projects but Apache doesn't have much power to keep them going.
  - prepend 4y ago
    That’s a good point and I agree. But it’s not like they detract from the other products. I think for open source foundations it’s not about average product value but overall value of the portfolio. If these were business lines then of course it’s bad to have stinkers or abandoned products. But with Apache products it doesn’t cost them anything (or almost nothing) to keep them around and have amazing products (httpd, spark, lucene, etc) ad well. I think the issue with Mozilla is that their browser has really floundered despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars on development. That’s the problem they need to fix. It would be curious to see what Google’s spend is on Chromium and Chrome. I’d be surprised if they have 100 developers working on it.
account42 4y ago
Glad that you identified not fostering a community of outside condtributors as one of Mozilla's failings.

by abeppu 4y ago

prepend 4y ago

They are very different. But my point is that Apache is very successful and produces lots of great software. You don’t have to pay $100M in developer salaries to produce great software. Mozilla is not that great despite having lots and lots of employees. Perhaps rethinking their approach would be useful. But if their revenue goes away, it doesn’t mean Mozilla the browser goes away. Maybe Mozilla should just be a governance process rather than a software developer. The browser would probably have similar quality.

fabrice_d 4y ago
The Apache Foundation doesn't produce the software, people paid by various companies do. This is quite similar to the Mozilla Foundation and Corporation relationship. Who would employ people to work on Firefox if the corp side shuts down eg. because they lose their revenue?
tdeck 4y ago
It's hit or miss. Many Apache projects are basically open source abandonware. It's great that there's an organization to manage the rights to these projects but Apache doesn't have much power to keep them going.
- prepend 4y ago
  That’s a good point and I agree. But it’s not like they detract from the other products. I think for open source foundations it’s not about average product value but overall value of the portfolio. If these were business lines then of course it’s bad to have stinkers or abandoned products. But with Apache products it doesn’t cost them anything (or almost nothing) to keep them around and have amazing products (httpd, spark, lucene, etc) ad well. I think the issue with Mozilla is that their browser has really floundered despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars on development. That’s the problem they need to fix. It would be curious to see what Google’s spend is on Chromium and Chrome. I’d be surprised if they have 100 developers working on it.

account42 4y ago

Glad that you identified not fostering a community of outside condtributors as one of Mozilla's failings.