3 ms·

Firefox is down bad right now. I have used it steadily for 20 something years now, and the cracks are really apparent now. It's also likely that Google will be

Firefox is down bad right now. I have used it steadily for 20 something years now, and the cracks are really apparent now. It's also likely that Google will be forced to stop giving Mozilla money for Firefox, leaving little hope for continued development. This might actually be the end of FF.

charcircuit 1y ago
Firefox could enter a revenue share parternship with Bing, or another search engine. Or they could follow in Brave's (and Google's and Microsoft's) footsteps in creating a search engine in order to own such a lucrative advertising surface.
- jeltz 1y ago
  Firefox does not have any revenue issues at all. If the Mozilla exec team did not have to make themselves rich and sponsor various personal pet projects they could easily afford to develop Firefox basically forever.
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    Yes, this. If cash is such a problem, exec comp packages have no business being as large as they are. That should be the first thing to get cuts. Personally speaking I’d be willing to donate if I knew my cash were going towards Firefox and Gecko. I already donate to other FOSS projects where it’s more obvious where the money is going.
- firefax 1y ago
  I'm surprised DuckDuckGo doesn't offer to sponsor them, but maybe they lack the income to make an offer comparable to Google?
vntok 1y ago
Somewhat counterintuitively, Google being forced to stop giving Mozilla money is arguably the best single thing that can happen to the project right now.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- godshatter 1y ago
  I'd rather they wipe out the current executive structure and replace it with someone who will simply invest the money they get from Google and use the proceeds to fund just the browser. Later, when they've had a few years of Google adding to the principal they can afford to do some other things.
norenh 1y ago
Could you name another browser with enough backing to be able to keep up? Besides Google Chrome (controlled and backed by the surveillance overlords) and Safari (Kept alive by Apple cultists) I see very few free alternatives that can stand on their own. The other options are various niche browsers that leech on one of these three that might have a few changes here and there but lacks the real capability to stand on their own legs. What I mean with capacity to stand on their own legs is that the group behind it should; * Be able to be a part in development of web-standards * Be able to keep up with ever changing web-standards * Be able to suggest and develop new web-standards if needed * Be able to maintain a modern web-browser This needs a relevant user-base, active developers and standard-committee members as well as infrastructure and cash-flow to maintain it for expected stuff like add-ons and various other bits needed (on-line checks, certificate handling, etc) that is expected from a modern browser. I am worried about Mozilla but I see no reason to declare that the end is nigh just yet. Firefox is still very much relevant to me, although I use mainly linux-distros and do not normally use webpages as applications (I browse with javascript disabled, unless there are specific needs). I would love to see some more options out there, but alternatives to Firefox are currently not on the horizon for me.
- 9cb14c1ec0 1y ago
  I'm hoping and praying for the Ladybird browser to succeed, as I despise the Mozilla organization (Firefox itself is ok, imo).
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  > Safari (Kept alive by Apple cultists) It’s tangential, but another reason why Safari is popular with some is that it’s refreshingly unbranded by browser standards. It doesn’t try to stand out and realizes it’s just another tool among many on your device. If anybody wants to pry some market share away from Safari, designing a browser that just quietly does its job and blends in without any fuss (no bespoke UI or design language or any of that) would be a good bet.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  I was hoping someone else would. I see support for firefox drying up as Mozilla just bleeds out. Ladybird seems cool, but I also think a fully functional browser needs a revenue stream and dedicated full time paid developers.

charcircuit 1y ago

Firefox could enter a revenue share parternship with Bing, or another search engine. Or they could follow in Brave's (and Google's and Microsoft's) footsteps in creating a search engine in order to own such a lucrative advertising surface.

jeltz 1y ago
Firefox does not have any revenue issues at all. If the Mozilla exec team did not have to make themselves rich and sponsor various personal pet projects they could easily afford to develop Firefox basically forever.
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  Yes, this. If cash is such a problem, exec comp packages have no business being as large as they are. That should be the first thing to get cuts. Personally speaking I’d be willing to donate if I knew my cash were going towards Firefox and Gecko. I already donate to other FOSS projects where it’s more obvious where the money is going.
firefax 1y ago
I'm surprised DuckDuckGo doesn't offer to sponsor them, but maybe they lack the income to make an offer comparable to Google?

vntok 1y ago

Somewhat counterintuitively, Google being forced to stop giving Mozilla money is arguably the best single thing that can happen to the project right now.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
godshatter 1y ago
I'd rather they wipe out the current executive structure and replace it with someone who will simply invest the money they get from Google and use the proceeds to fund just the browser. Later, when they've had a few years of Google adding to the principal they can afford to do some other things.

norenh 1y ago

Could you name another browser with enough backing to be able to keep up? Besides Google Chrome (controlled and backed by the surveillance overlords) and Safari (Kept alive by Apple cultists) I see very few free alternatives that can stand on their own. The other options are various niche browsers that leech on one of these three that might have a few changes here and there but lacks the real capability to stand on their own legs. What I mean with capacity to stand on their own legs is that the group behind it should; * Be able to be a part in development of web-standards * Be able to keep up with ever changing web-standards * Be able to suggest and develop new web-standards if needed * Be able to maintain a modern web-browser This needs a relevant user-base, active developers and standard-committee members as well as infrastructure and cash-flow to maintain it for expected stuff like add-ons and various other bits needed (on-line checks, certificate handling, etc) that is expected from a modern browser. I am worried about Mozilla but I see no reason to declare that the end is nigh just yet. Firefox is still very much relevant to me, although I use mainly linux-distros and do not normally use webpages as applications (I browse with javascript disabled, unless there are specific needs). I would love to see some more options out there, but alternatives to Firefox are currently not on the horizon for me.

9cb14c1ec0 1y ago
I'm hoping and praying for the Ladybird browser to succeed, as I despise the Mozilla organization (Firefox itself is ok, imo).
cosmic_cheese 1y ago
> Safari (Kept alive by Apple cultists) It’s tangential, but another reason why Safari is popular with some is that it’s refreshingly unbranded by browser standards. It doesn’t try to stand out and realizes it’s just another tool among many on your device. If anybody wants to pry some market share away from Safari, designing a browser that just quietly does its job and blends in without any fuss (no bespoke UI or design language or any of that) would be a good bet.
Workaccount2 1y ago
I was hoping someone else would. I see support for firefox drying up as Mozilla just bleeds out. Ladybird seems cool, but I also think a fully functional browser needs a revenue stream and dedicated full time paid developers.