5 ms·

Another diversion for Mozilla and further degraded Firefox delivery in my opinion.

orra 4y ago
Mozilla's mission is 'a better internet'. Democraticising AI fits right it. Mozilla gets slated for not innovating, and Mozilla gets slated for innovating. Mozilla gets slated when Google and Apple and Microsoft's anticompetitive practices marginalise Firefox, especially on mobile. Some folks are just never happy.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  Problem is this is not innovation. It's a political statement and a system that will never accomplish anything. Seriously, Read this article again and look at the way they phrase themselves. They don't say they're going to innovate, they say they're making a space for other people to join them and then innovate. They are not funding a project, they are making an initial investment, implying that they expect others to follow up on what they've started. Ineffective, lazy, and devoid of self-confidence Cool, You've promoted AI transparency, you've provided this generic framework for it, but at the end of the day none of the players in the field are going to adopt it, and you're not a leading AI company that can force its adoption in at least some small form. Take the hours spent on this "innovation" and instead implement a feature that Chrome has which Firefox doesn't.
  - orra 4y ago
    > Problem is this is not innovation. I'm objecting to undue criticism, compared to any other AI startup. > It's a political statement and a system that will never accomplish anything. You're speaking with undue certainty. > They are not funding a project, they are making an initial investment £30 million is more than tokenistic funding. > lazy A completely unwarranted descriptor on day one. > Take the hours spent on this "innovation" and instead implement a feature that Chrome has which Firefox doesn't. Developer skills aren't completely fungible like that. Besides, what if Chrome starts integrating with Bard?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - wokwokwok 4y ago
    I mean, what do you want? It’s so easy to be critical. Ok; you play then. What should they be doing? If they don’t, who is going to invest in open AI models? OpenAI? Ha! Let’s say you’re in charge then. What’s your product strategy? I personally think this is better than doing nothing, even if it isn’t perfect.
    - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
      >what should they be doing? If they want to make money while "making the internet a better place" they should develop their own LLM alternative with competitive cloud prices to GPT while releasing the model to everyone. If you tell me it's impossible to be competitive with GPT offering then they should not be wasting money on this endeavor
      - wokwokwok 4y ago
        How is investing in open AI models different from what you just asked for? Have you run the 65B llama model? It’s shit. The refined 7B model is significantly better. The problem isn’t making a big model and open sourcing it. Those already exist Specially, bloom and llama. Tooling around it and refinement tooling seems like it’s a pretty good investment right now. “Make a GPT4” is an incredibly trivial and narrow view of this space.
        AstixAndBelix 4y ago
        The have to sell something and recoup the investment
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      > What should they be doing? Take that 30 million. Split it into chunks of 10k. Find random unaffiliated contributors to Firefox and give it to them. Promise another 10k for their next substantial contribution.
      - ohgodplsno 4y ago
  - Adverblessly 4y ago
    > Take the hours spent on this "innovation" and instead implement a feature that Chrome has which Firefox doesn't. I think a better approach is to implement a feature that Chrome doesn't have. Their current approach is to make FF a clone of Chrome which just means that there are very few compelling reasons to use FF over Chrome. If they don't have an idea for such a feature, I'd suggest implementing a feature which FF had and Chrome doesn't - bring back the ability for extensions to modify the browser's UI elements. If all they can think of to do with their UI is to make it a clone of Chrome's, why not let someone else come up with something cool? I'd love to at least get the old search box back if nothing else (what at some point was still possible by setting showOneOff to false)
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      I'd be over the moon if they tried to outdo chrome as long as they keep to UI stuff instead of web features. Unfortunately with firefox being so far behind in terms of adoption all features they add in terms of the web content or JavaScript which aren't in chrome are DOA. It's unfortunately a similar story for extensions. Power user stuff is great but success in firefox will depend on the browser having features directly and really nailing down making those work well and be intuitive for the average person. Also bug fixes. All the bug fixes. Especially on Android, which I abandoned thanks to their PWAs not quite working right.
- gamjQZnHT53AMa 4y ago
  This site just hates Mozilla for all kinds of reasons. I agree completely with your point though. Mozilla would be sorely missed were they to disappear, and moves like these are absolutely in line with their goals. Mozilla != Firefox
  - orra 4y ago
    TBF the disdain for Mozilla is not a universal sentiment, but it's absurdly pervasive. There's the same nonsense on reddit at /r/linux.
  - dns_snek 4y ago
    How is Mozilla != Firefox when that's the only product keeping them relevant?
    - orra 4y ago
      Firefox is by far their biggest success. That's precisely why it's absurd to criticise them for branching out.
      - Adraghast 4y ago
        Can you elaborate? Sounds like a non sequitur to me.
  - computerfriend 4y ago
    Moves like this are in line with them disappearing. Which I do think may be one of their goals.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    What has Mozilla done that isn't Firefox or a PR fluff piece? Even Thunderbird was spun out.
  - vasco 4y ago
    Mozilla you remember has disappeared long ago. One look at their financials tells you all you need to know about what they care about nowadays, which seems to be to pay leadership large salaries.
- mjhay 4y ago
  The best way Mozilla can help make a better internet is to pour more resources into Firefox. The monopoly of Chrome is a huge threat to the open internet, and Firefox is uniquely placed to combat that.
lcnmrn 4y ago
What is Firefox? Mozilla took Netscape stripped it to bare components and made them better. Why not do that again? Take Chromium, strip it to bare components and make them better. We need a hard fork of Chromium today or it will happen in the future anyway.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  Even stripping down Chromium and hard forking will cause significantly more problems than it resolves. Google will always be pushing updates, and filtering which ones to incorporate and which ones to leave out will become a nightmare over time as the ones left out become increasingly more integrated. Plus Google will pull stupid shit like their anti-adblocker push. Hard forking Netscape worked when there was a much lower floor of behaviors and entrenched, anticompetitive conglomerates.
- vorticalbox 4y ago
  There is actually an argument to be made here for a single browser base that all browsers are built from. for one if we only have one rendering engine then compatibility is no longer an issue. I would mean that browsers could focus of innovation of browser features rather than keeping ones engine up to date.
  - sfink 4y ago
    > There is actually an argument to be made here for a single browser base that all browsers are built from. Yeah, but the argument is a really bad one. > for one if we only have one rendering engine then compatibility is no longer an issue. Yes, because it's no longer even a concern. Your single implementation will have bugs, because every implementation of a new feature has always had cross-compatibility bugs. Only now they're not bugs, they're backwards compatibility land mines that can never be fixed. > I would mean that browsers could focus of innovation of browser features rather than keeping ones engine up to date. Why? What would be the motivation to innovate on browser features when you've already won? It would enable new things to be done on the web, which would be good for the people doing those things, but would increase the revenue of the browser makers by $0. If you owned a business and could pay someone $200K to do something that makes $0, or instead pay them $200K to do something else that makes $50K-$5M, which would you choose?

orra 4y ago

Mozilla's mission is 'a better internet'. Democraticising AI fits right it. Mozilla gets slated for not innovating, and Mozilla gets slated for innovating. Mozilla gets slated when Google and Apple and Microsoft's anticompetitive practices marginalise Firefox, especially on mobile. Some folks are just never happy.

bioemerl 4y ago
Problem is this is not innovation. It's a political statement and a system that will never accomplish anything. Seriously, Read this article again and look at the way they phrase themselves. They don't say they're going to innovate, they say they're making a space for other people to join them and then innovate. They are not funding a project, they are making an initial investment, implying that they expect others to follow up on what they've started. Ineffective, lazy, and devoid of self-confidence Cool, You've promoted AI transparency, you've provided this generic framework for it, but at the end of the day none of the players in the field are going to adopt it, and you're not a leading AI company that can force its adoption in at least some small form. Take the hours spent on this "innovation" and instead implement a feature that Chrome has which Firefox doesn't.
- orra 4y ago
  > Problem is this is not innovation. I'm objecting to undue criticism, compared to any other AI startup. > It's a political statement and a system that will never accomplish anything. You're speaking with undue certainty. > They are not funding a project, they are making an initial investment £30 million is more than tokenistic funding. > lazy A completely unwarranted descriptor on day one. > Take the hours spent on this "innovation" and instead implement a feature that Chrome has which Firefox doesn't. Developer skills aren't completely fungible like that. Besides, what if Chrome starts integrating with Bard?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- wokwokwok 4y ago
  I mean, what do you want? It’s so easy to be critical. Ok; you play then. What should they be doing? If they don’t, who is going to invest in open AI models? OpenAI? Ha! Let’s say you’re in charge then. What’s your product strategy? I personally think this is better than doing nothing, even if it isn’t perfect.
  - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
    >what should they be doing? If they want to make money while "making the internet a better place" they should develop their own LLM alternative with competitive cloud prices to GPT while releasing the model to everyone. If you tell me it's impossible to be competitive with GPT offering then they should not be wasting money on this endeavor
    - wokwokwok 4y ago
      How is investing in open AI models different from what you just asked for? Have you run the 65B llama model? It’s shit. The refined 7B model is significantly better. The problem isn’t making a big model and open sourcing it. Those already exist Specially, bloom and llama. Tooling around it and refinement tooling seems like it’s a pretty good investment right now. “Make a GPT4” is an incredibly trivial and narrow view of this space.
      - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
        The have to sell something and recoup the investment
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    > What should they be doing? Take that 30 million. Split it into chunks of 10k. Find random unaffiliated contributors to Firefox and give it to them. Promise another 10k for their next substantial contribution.
    - ohgodplsno 4y ago
- Adverblessly 4y ago
  > Take the hours spent on this "innovation" and instead implement a feature that Chrome has which Firefox doesn't. I think a better approach is to implement a feature that Chrome doesn't have. Their current approach is to make FF a clone of Chrome which just means that there are very few compelling reasons to use FF over Chrome. If they don't have an idea for such a feature, I'd suggest implementing a feature which FF had and Chrome doesn't - bring back the ability for extensions to modify the browser's UI elements. If all they can think of to do with their UI is to make it a clone of Chrome's, why not let someone else come up with something cool? I'd love to at least get the old search box back if nothing else (what at some point was still possible by setting showOneOff to false)
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    I'd be over the moon if they tried to outdo chrome as long as they keep to UI stuff instead of web features. Unfortunately with firefox being so far behind in terms of adoption all features they add in terms of the web content or JavaScript which aren't in chrome are DOA. It's unfortunately a similar story for extensions. Power user stuff is great but success in firefox will depend on the browser having features directly and really nailing down making those work well and be intuitive for the average person. Also bug fixes. All the bug fixes. Especially on Android, which I abandoned thanks to their PWAs not quite working right.
gamjQZnHT53AMa 4y ago
This site just hates Mozilla for all kinds of reasons. I agree completely with your point though. Mozilla would be sorely missed were they to disappear, and moves like these are absolutely in line with their goals. Mozilla != Firefox
- orra 4y ago
  TBF the disdain for Mozilla is not a universal sentiment, but it's absurdly pervasive. There's the same nonsense on reddit at /r/linux.
- dns_snek 4y ago
  How is Mozilla != Firefox when that's the only product keeping them relevant?
  - orra 4y ago
    Firefox is by far their biggest success. That's precisely why it's absurd to criticise them for branching out.
    - Adraghast 4y ago
      Can you elaborate? Sounds like a non sequitur to me.
- computerfriend 4y ago
  Moves like this are in line with them disappearing. Which I do think may be one of their goals.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  What has Mozilla done that isn't Firefox or a PR fluff piece? Even Thunderbird was spun out.
- vasco 4y ago
  Mozilla you remember has disappeared long ago. One look at their financials tells you all you need to know about what they care about nowadays, which seems to be to pay leadership large salaries.
mjhay 4y ago
The best way Mozilla can help make a better internet is to pour more resources into Firefox. The monopoly of Chrome is a huge threat to the open internet, and Firefox is uniquely placed to combat that.

lcnmrn 4y ago

What is Firefox? Mozilla took Netscape stripped it to bare components and made them better. Why not do that again? Take Chromium, strip it to bare components and make them better. We need a hard fork of Chromium today or it will happen in the future anyway.

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
Even stripping down Chromium and hard forking will cause significantly more problems than it resolves. Google will always be pushing updates, and filtering which ones to incorporate and which ones to leave out will become a nightmare over time as the ones left out become increasingly more integrated. Plus Google will pull stupid shit like their anti-adblocker push. Hard forking Netscape worked when there was a much lower floor of behaviors and entrenched, anticompetitive conglomerates.
vorticalbox 4y ago
There is actually an argument to be made here for a single browser base that all browsers are built from. for one if we only have one rendering engine then compatibility is no longer an issue. I would mean that browsers could focus of innovation of browser features rather than keeping ones engine up to date.
- sfink 4y ago
  > There is actually an argument to be made here for a single browser base that all browsers are built from. Yeah, but the argument is a really bad one. > for one if we only have one rendering engine then compatibility is no longer an issue. Yes, because it's no longer even a concern. Your single implementation will have bugs, because every implementation of a new feature has always had cross-compatibility bugs. Only now they're not bugs, they're backwards compatibility land mines that can never be fixed. > I would mean that browsers could focus of innovation of browser features rather than keeping ones engine up to date. Why? What would be the motivation to innovate on browser features when you've already won? It would enable new things to be done on the web, which would be good for the people doing those things, but would increase the revenue of the browser makers by $0. If you owned a business and could pay someone $200K to do something that makes $0, or instead pay them $200K to do something else that makes $50K-$5M, which would you choose?