3 ms·

> Notwithstanding that, they still put out firefox Firefox was created by pre-Baker Mozilla which was an organisation focused mostly on - to coopt the terminol

> Notwithstanding that, they still put out firefox Firefox was created by pre-Baker Mozilla which was an organisation focused mostly on - to coopt the terminology used by those who coopted Mozilla later - "software justice". When Eich was ousted (for voicing an opinion he shared with people like Barack Obama [1]) and Baker took his place she set a course towards different goals: Mozilla was going to focus more on social justice because it was not enough to only build software. She clearly did not realise - or did not care - that it was through creating viable open alternatives to proprietary browsers and related software that Mozilla was in fact doing the best it could towards achieving the aim of a more just world. Baker needs to be ousted, she can go lead some NGO somewhere if she wants to fly social justice flags. Let Mozilla be led by those who understand that software freedom is an integral part of freedom of information access and an open internet which are essential to counteract the tendency towards authoritarianism which has plagued society since the dawn of time. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/3375059/Barack-Obama-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/33750...

the_third_wave 3y ago
To those who feel the need to vote down instead of coming with counter-arguments I want to ask what you think is wrong in my reasoning. As far as I can see Baker has been a net-negative for Mozilla both due the politicisation of the organisation as well as her financial mis-management. Tell me where I'm wrong instead of trying to get my message greyed-out. I was there (at the IETF conference) when the Netscape source was released, was among the first to build the code, have done my part with testing and patching and still use Firefox. I see Baker's mismanagement and misdirection of Mozilla as a tragic mistake. What are your arguments?
jjav 3y ago
> Firefox was created by pre-Baker Mozilla which was an organisation focused mostly on.. Yes, I'm familiar with the history (fun: I even have an original signed CD of the initial Netscape open source release, handed out at the release party in San Francisco which I attended). Mozilla of today could perhaps be more focused on the browser. Nevertheless, they continue to support it, maintain it and release it. If you want a browser today in 2023 that puts out user control and privacy first, this is it, Firefox.
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  > Nevertheless, they continue to support it, maintain it and release it. Baker's organisation continues to release the browser which pulls in several hundreds of millions from Google. This money is for the largest part not used to improve the browser or the software ecosystem surrounding it - Firefox sync is withering on the vine, Thunderbird has been spun off, Seamonkey has been spun off a long time ago, Servo has been terminated (the project is continued by volunteers), the Rust team has been let go, etc. The money is used for political activism and to fund Baker (who again raised her own remuneration, from $2.5 million to $3 million) [1] and her organisation. That Firefox still is being released is more despite of Baker's managerial decisions than thanks to them. Mozilla is kept alive by Google because the presence of Firefox on the market is an insurance against claims of a monopoly. That insurance is getting less effective now that Firefox has dropped to a low single digit market share so it remains to be seen whether Google will continue to shore up Mozilla for much longer. > If you want a browser today in 2023 that puts out user control and privacy first, this is it, Firefox. Yes, that is still true because of the work done by Mozilla developers and volunteers. Now imagine how much further the browser and related projects could have been had Mozilla been led by someone who would use the proceeds of the Google deal to further software and ecosystem development instead of what largely amounts to political virtue signalling, "color of change" and other PACs and similar activities. Baker is not the right person to lead this organisation, she is a political activist [2] better suited for an NGO or PAC. [1] https://techrights.org/o/2022/02/17/mozilla-salaries/ https://techrights.org/o/2022/02/17/mozilla-salaries/ [2] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplat...

the_third_wave 3y ago

To those who feel the need to vote down instead of coming with counter-arguments I want to ask what you think is wrong in my reasoning. As far as I can see Baker has been a net-negative for Mozilla both due the politicisation of the organisation as well as her financial mis-management. Tell me where I'm wrong instead of trying to get my message greyed-out. I was there (at the IETF conference) when the Netscape source was released, was among the first to build the code, have done my part with testing and patching and still use Firefox. I see Baker's mismanagement and misdirection of Mozilla as a tragic mistake. What are your arguments?

jjav 3y ago

> Firefox was created by pre-Baker Mozilla which was an organisation focused mostly on.. Yes, I'm familiar with the history (fun: I even have an original signed CD of the initial Netscape open source release, handed out at the release party in San Francisco which I attended). Mozilla of today could perhaps be more focused on the browser. Nevertheless, they continue to support it, maintain it and release it. If you want a browser today in 2023 that puts out user control and privacy first, this is it, Firefox.

the_third_wave 3y ago
> Nevertheless, they continue to support it, maintain it and release it. Baker's organisation continues to release the browser which pulls in several hundreds of millions from Google. This money is for the largest part not used to improve the browser or the software ecosystem surrounding it - Firefox sync is withering on the vine, Thunderbird has been spun off, Seamonkey has been spun off a long time ago, Servo has been terminated (the project is continued by volunteers), the Rust team has been let go, etc. The money is used for political activism and to fund Baker (who again raised her own remuneration, from $2.5 million to $3 million) [1] and her organisation. That Firefox still is being released is more despite of Baker's managerial decisions than thanks to them. Mozilla is kept alive by Google because the presence of Firefox on the market is an insurance against claims of a monopoly. That insurance is getting less effective now that Firefox has dropped to a low single digit market share so it remains to be seen whether Google will continue to shore up Mozilla for much longer. > If you want a browser today in 2023 that puts out user control and privacy first, this is it, Firefox. Yes, that is still true because of the work done by Mozilla developers and volunteers. Now imagine how much further the browser and related projects could have been had Mozilla been led by someone who would use the proceeds of the Google deal to further software and ecosystem development instead of what largely amounts to political virtue signalling, "color of change" and other PACs and similar activities. Baker is not the right person to lead this organisation, she is a political activist [2] better suited for an NGO or PAC. [1] https://techrights.org/o/2022/02/17/mozilla-salaries/ https://techrights.org/o/2022/02/17/mozilla-salaries/ [2] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplat...