4 ms·

> The saving grace here might be that Firefox won't implement the proposal. As others have said, FF doesn't have a lot of leverage left to influence those type

> The saving grace here might be that Firefox won't implement the proposal. As others have said, FF doesn't have a lot of leverage left to influence those type of decisions, but Safari might. Not sure what their position is on this proposal. The one pager has a section on stakeholder feedback [0], but doesn't name them for some reason. [0] https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md#stakeholder-feedback--opposition https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

apostacy 3y ago
Looking at it in terms of leverage and market-share is a huge mistake that Mozilla keeps making. Mozilla doesn't have a platform like Google does. What exactly is Mozilla even competing for? Popularity? They should hunker down and make the best browser they can, implementing their best web. It worked 20 years ago, and in many ways the circumstances are the same. We have tech monopolies proposing ludicrous "content security" mechanisms. Where would Mozilla have been if they tried making some sort of half baked "less evil" form of Microsoft Janus DRM[1]? People are going to get sick of how intrusive DRM is becoming, and there should be an alternative waiting for them. Every person who has content they thought they purchased "expire" and be erased from their device, or who can no longer use their expensive projector after the latest mandatory update. I evangelized heavily for Firefox in the 1.x days. People were sick of IE6, and were glad to have Firefox. I worked at a computer store and probably converted 100+ people. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_(DRM) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_(DRM)
- wmf 3y ago
  What exactly is Mozilla even competing for? Popularity? Mozilla's revenue is proportional to usage so they need enough users to cover their development costs.
  - 20after4 3y ago
    If only the wikimedia foundation would fork firefox, then the open web might have a chance. Wikimedia is honestly the only organization with the right ideology, the right business model, and enough money to do something like this sustainably.
    - epolanski 3y ago
      I thought Wikimedia was quite shady itself when it comes to funding and money management?
      - 20after4 3y ago
        Wikimedia is much much less shady than Mozilla in a bunch of ways. Some people might take issue with the way they spend their money, or the tactics they use to raise money, but I don't think I would consider them shady. Full disclosure: I was employed as a software release engineer at the Wikimedia Foundation from 2015 through 2022.
      - wmf 3y ago
        Mozilla and Wikimedia both have a reputation for wasting money by trying to branch out beyond their main product. Wikimedia is totally overfunded so wasting money doesn't threaten their survival but they've also been criticized for begging for donations that they don't need. Personally I don't see a reason to combine them.
        20after4 3y ago
        Coincidental observation: Your username is the same as the initialism used internally to refer to the Wikimedia Foundation.. The WikiMediaFoundation: WMF
lucideer 3y ago
> FF doesn't have a lot of leverage left to influence those type of decisions FF didn't have leverage in 2005 but we're still somehow living in a post-IE world. Leverage and market share aren't a concern, community support is all that's needed. The issue is that Mozilla Corp have been rapidly burning community bridges at pace of late, topped off by the fact that 2005 Mozilla wasn't dependent on Microsoft for their income.
bobbylarrybobby 3y ago
It scares me when people talk about forcing apple to allow non WebKit browsers on iOS. iOS is the only thing stopping chrome from actually winning the browser war.

apostacy 3y ago

Looking at it in terms of leverage and market-share is a huge mistake that Mozilla keeps making. Mozilla doesn't have a platform like Google does. What exactly is Mozilla even competing for? Popularity? They should hunker down and make the best browser they can, implementing their best web. It worked 20 years ago, and in many ways the circumstances are the same. We have tech monopolies proposing ludicrous "content security" mechanisms. Where would Mozilla have been if they tried making some sort of half baked "less evil" form of Microsoft Janus DRM[1]? People are going to get sick of how intrusive DRM is becoming, and there should be an alternative waiting for them. Every person who has content they thought they purchased "expire" and be erased from their device, or who can no longer use their expensive projector after the latest mandatory update. I evangelized heavily for Firefox in the 1.x days. People were sick of IE6, and were glad to have Firefox. I worked at a computer store and probably converted 100+ people. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_(DRM) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_(DRM)

wmf 3y ago
What exactly is Mozilla even competing for? Popularity? Mozilla's revenue is proportional to usage so they need enough users to cover their development costs.
- 20after4 3y ago
  If only the wikimedia foundation would fork firefox, then the open web might have a chance. Wikimedia is honestly the only organization with the right ideology, the right business model, and enough money to do something like this sustainably.
  - epolanski 3y ago
    I thought Wikimedia was quite shady itself when it comes to funding and money management?
    - 20after4 3y ago
      Wikimedia is much much less shady than Mozilla in a bunch of ways. Some people might take issue with the way they spend their money, or the tactics they use to raise money, but I don't think I would consider them shady. Full disclosure: I was employed as a software release engineer at the Wikimedia Foundation from 2015 through 2022.
    - wmf 3y ago
      Mozilla and Wikimedia both have a reputation for wasting money by trying to branch out beyond their main product. Wikimedia is totally overfunded so wasting money doesn't threaten their survival but they've also been criticized for begging for donations that they don't need. Personally I don't see a reason to combine them.
      - 20after4 3y ago
        Coincidental observation: Your username is the same as the initialism used internally to refer to the Wikimedia Foundation.. The WikiMediaFoundation: WMF

lucideer 3y ago

> FF doesn't have a lot of leverage left to influence those type of decisions FF didn't have leverage in 2005 but we're still somehow living in a post-IE world. Leverage and market share aren't a concern, community support is all that's needed. The issue is that Mozilla Corp have been rapidly burning community bridges at pace of late, topped off by the fact that 2005 Mozilla wasn't dependent on Microsoft for their income.

bobbylarrybobby 3y ago

It scares me when people talk about forcing apple to allow non WebKit browsers on iOS. iOS is the only thing stopping chrome from actually winning the browser war.