11 ms·

If only Mozilla (the parent organization) wasn’t horrible. Can’t a non-crazy nonprofit make a browser?

wkat4242 2y ago
What's so horrible about it? I don't like how they're pampering to the ad industry now but other than that I think they're pretty decent.
- 6510 2y ago
  If I donate to your project I hope the money goes towards your project. If you spend it on beer or buy Jacuzzi I'm happy too. If you chose to spend it on other projects ill be excited to learn what they are. https://future.mozilla.org/projects/ https://future.mozilla.org/projects/ Do you use any of that? Is there anything there I should be using? (honest question) It seems premature to donate to things I don't know. > Solo helps entrepreneurs expand their web presence with a suite of AI-backed tools for building websites, optimizing for SEO, and showcasing your best work. > Solo will instantly create a beautiful website so you can grow your business. > Improve brand visibility: SEO keywords are automatically added to help drive search traffic. View statistics by connecting a Google Analytics account. I'm very biased no doubt, it reads like I donate to progress the commercial web, more canned template websites, product SEO and to promote the use of google analytics. I'm sure it is awesome to some people, to me it is the opposite, I'm sure it is a project that should exist some place but I don't want to pay for it. The web browser can still be infinitely improved.
  - krabizzwainch 2y ago
    Clicked the future projects link. Thought the DidThis project sounded interesting. Aaaannnddd it's already a dead project as of 2 months ago.
  - emptysongglass 2y ago
    I mean Llamafile is great and is built on fantastic tech, but no I definitely want my Mozilla money to go to Firefox, not what Thing is currently in vogue by Mozilla execs.
  - debugnik 2y ago
    > If I donate to your project I hope the money goes towards your project. Firefox is not a project of the Mozilla Foundation, but the Mozilla Corporation, so you just can't donate to Firefox at all; in fact, the money flows the opposite direction between them. I know it's frustrating but this argument is misleading yet keeps showing up in every thread.
    - 6510 2y ago
      Fascinating, thanks for the explanation/correction, it makes it even worse than I thought.
  - kumarsw 2y ago
    I don't know about their other expenses, but SEO/advertising is probably one of their better uses of money even if we don't like it. It's hard to gain market share against a browser that is pitched each time you do a Google search no matter how good the product is.
- infotainment 2y ago
  They also fired a whole bunch of software engineers (including everyone working on Servo), and then massively boosted their executives' salaries, so that was certainly something.
  - peutetre 2y ago
    As a criticism that applies equally to Google. Google lays off engineers: https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/11/24034124/google-layoffs-engineering-assistant-hardware https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/11/24034124/google-layoffs-e... Google boosts their executive's compensation: https://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-google-executive-pay-cfo-president-200-performance-stock-payout-2024-5?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-google-executive-pa...
    - fastily 2y ago
      IMO it’s a matter of principle. Mozilla is supposed to be a non-profit that exists to support the development of a FOSS browser and its related projects. Over the years it seems like they’ve strayed from this mission, behaving more and more like the big corporations they claim not to be like
      - peutetre 2y ago
        > IMO it’s a matter of principle. Eh? So Chrome should be used because Google has no principles? Here's the Mozilla Manifesto: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ They explicitly state that they want the internet to benefit the public good as well as commercial use. Principle number 9 is: "Commercial involvement in the development of the internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial profit and public benefit is critical." Mozilla clearly strikes that balance better than Google does.
        fastily 2y ago
        No, I never said anywhere that chrome should be used. As a matter of fact, I use Firefox myself. My original observation was that Mozilla presents itself as a benevolent non-profit yet behaves like soulless for-profit tech company, abandoning valuable FOSS initiatives and carelessly laying off employees, all while increasing executive pay
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
Mozilla can't be worse than google (or brave/opera etc)
fnqi8ckfek 2y ago
Mozilla let's me use ublock origin, Google doesn't.
mazambazz 2y ago
I think you need to be a little bit crazy to enter the browser space. It's not for the feint of heart.
- christophilus 2y ago
  *faint of heart
weikju 2y ago
> Can’t a non-crazy nonprofit make a browser? Here’s to hoping LadyBird remains non crazy and can be relevant by the time of their planned alpha release in 2026.
- lobsterthief 2y ago
  To be honest it needs a different name if it’s going to hit critical mass adoption with the average consumer.
  - rascul 2y ago
    What's wrong with ladybird?
    - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
      Netscape, Edge, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, All have a pop appeal to them (the names) "Ladybug" makes a reference to a bug. And not a thrilling one.
      - rascul 2y ago
        It's bird though, not bug.
        ac29 2y ago
        Ladybird is the UK term for what Americans call Ladybugs
        freehorse 2y ago
        Then it is going to be adopted everywhere fine except the UK.
        peutetre 2y ago
        I don't see why it wouldn't. Ladybird Books has been around for 157 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladybird_Books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladybird_Books
mynameyeff 2y ago
What are your qualms with Brave Browser?
- rascul 2y ago
  I'm not convinced that it's much more than a Chrome skin with an integrated crypto scam.
  - bufferoverflow 2y ago
    You don't have to use the crypto features.
    - Meph504 2y ago
      when the defense of a project is that you can turn off the bad features, you aren't really making a chase better than say chrome or anything else. A product built on trust, shouldn't involve having to go turn off untrustworthy elements.
      - mynameyeff 2y ago
        The crypto part isn’t something you turn off. It’s buried in a menu somewhere. For all intents and purposes, it’s a pretty elegant UX.
      - Ageodene 2y ago
        You don't need to "turn off the bad features" because they are opt-in to begin with.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        I shouldn't need to opt into or out of features that shouldn't exist in the first place, much less in a browser.
        2y ago
steelframe 2y ago
> If only Mozilla (the parent organization) wasn’t horrible. Well, they're not getting any of my money, and they're not selling my eyeballs to any advertisers. For a while I used a filesystem written by a convicted murderer. I'm not sure at what point I'm supposed to avoid software because of who wrote it.

What's so horrible about it? I don't like how they're pampering to the ad industry now but other than that I think they're pretty decent.

6510 2y ago
If I donate to your project I hope the money goes towards your project. If you spend it on beer or buy Jacuzzi I'm happy too. If you chose to spend it on other projects ill be excited to learn what they are. https://future.mozilla.org/projects/ https://future.mozilla.org/projects/ Do you use any of that? Is there anything there I should be using? (honest question) It seems premature to donate to things I don't know. > Solo helps entrepreneurs expand their web presence with a suite of AI-backed tools for building websites, optimizing for SEO, and showcasing your best work. > Solo will instantly create a beautiful website so you can grow your business. > Improve brand visibility: SEO keywords are automatically added to help drive search traffic. View statistics by connecting a Google Analytics account. I'm very biased no doubt, it reads like I donate to progress the commercial web, more canned template websites, product SEO and to promote the use of google analytics. I'm sure it is awesome to some people, to me it is the opposite, I'm sure it is a project that should exist some place but I don't want to pay for it. The web browser can still be infinitely improved.
- krabizzwainch 2y ago
  Clicked the future projects link. Thought the DidThis project sounded interesting. Aaaannnddd it's already a dead project as of 2 months ago.
- emptysongglass 2y ago
  I mean Llamafile is great and is built on fantastic tech, but no I definitely want my Mozilla money to go to Firefox, not what Thing is currently in vogue by Mozilla execs.
- debugnik 2y ago
  > If I donate to your project I hope the money goes towards your project. Firefox is not a project of the Mozilla Foundation, but the Mozilla Corporation, so you just can't donate to Firefox at all; in fact, the money flows the opposite direction between them. I know it's frustrating but this argument is misleading yet keeps showing up in every thread.
  - 6510 2y ago
    Fascinating, thanks for the explanation/correction, it makes it even worse than I thought.
- kumarsw 2y ago
  I don't know about their other expenses, but SEO/advertising is probably one of their better uses of money even if we don't like it. It's hard to gain market share against a browser that is pitched each time you do a Google search no matter how good the product is.
infotainment 2y ago
They also fired a whole bunch of software engineers (including everyone working on Servo), and then massively boosted their executives' salaries, so that was certainly something.
- peutetre 2y ago
  As a criticism that applies equally to Google. Google lays off engineers: https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/11/24034124/google-layoffs-engineering-assistant-hardware https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/11/24034124/google-layoffs-e... Google boosts their executive's compensation: https://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-google-executive-pay-cfo-president-200-performance-stock-payout-2024-5?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-google-executive-pa...
  - fastily 2y ago
    IMO it’s a matter of principle. Mozilla is supposed to be a non-profit that exists to support the development of a FOSS browser and its related projects. Over the years it seems like they’ve strayed from this mission, behaving more and more like the big corporations they claim not to be like
    - peutetre 2y ago
      > IMO it’s a matter of principle. Eh? So Chrome should be used because Google has no principles? Here's the Mozilla Manifesto: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ They explicitly state that they want the internet to benefit the public good as well as commercial use. Principle number 9 is: "Commercial involvement in the development of the internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial profit and public benefit is critical." Mozilla clearly strikes that balance better than Google does.
      - fastily 2y ago
        No, I never said anywhere that chrome should be used. As a matter of fact, I use Firefox myself. My original observation was that Mozilla presents itself as a benevolent non-profit yet behaves like soulless for-profit tech company, abandoning valuable FOSS initiatives and carelessly laying off employees, all while increasing executive pay

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

Mozilla can't be worse than google (or brave/opera etc)

fnqi8ckfek 2y ago

Mozilla let's me use ublock origin, Google doesn't.

mazambazz 2y ago

I think you need to be a little bit crazy to enter the browser space. It's not for the feint of heart.

christophilus 2y ago
*faint of heart

weikju 2y ago

> Can’t a non-crazy nonprofit make a browser? Here’s to hoping LadyBird remains non crazy and can be relevant by the time of their planned alpha release in 2026.

lobsterthief 2y ago
To be honest it needs a different name if it’s going to hit critical mass adoption with the average consumer.
- rascul 2y ago
  What's wrong with ladybird?
  - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
    Netscape, Edge, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, All have a pop appeal to them (the names) "Ladybug" makes a reference to a bug. And not a thrilling one.
    - rascul 2y ago
      It's bird though, not bug.
      - ac29 2y ago
        Ladybird is the UK term for what Americans call Ladybugs
        freehorse 2y ago
        Then it is going to be adopted everywhere fine except the UK.
        peutetre 2y ago
        I don't see why it wouldn't. Ladybird Books has been around for 157 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladybird_Books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladybird_Books

mynameyeff 2y ago

What are your qualms with Brave Browser?

rascul 2y ago
I'm not convinced that it's much more than a Chrome skin with an integrated crypto scam.
- bufferoverflow 2y ago
  You don't have to use the crypto features.
  - Meph504 2y ago
    when the defense of a project is that you can turn off the bad features, you aren't really making a chase better than say chrome or anything else. A product built on trust, shouldn't involve having to go turn off untrustworthy elements.
    - mynameyeff 2y ago
      The crypto part isn’t something you turn off. It’s buried in a menu somewhere. For all intents and purposes, it’s a pretty elegant UX.
    - Ageodene 2y ago
      You don't need to "turn off the bad features" because they are opt-in to begin with.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        I shouldn't need to opt into or out of features that shouldn't exist in the first place, much less in a browser.
        2y ago

steelframe 2y ago

> If only Mozilla (the parent organization) wasn’t horrible. Well, they're not getting any of my money, and they're not selling my eyeballs to any advertisers. For a while I used a filesystem written by a convicted murderer. I'm not sure at what point I'm supposed to avoid software because of who wrote it.