7 ms·

> No matter how well-intentioned the folks at Mozilla Foundation/Corporation might be, it's difficult for human beings to avoid getting side-tracked when their

by pbiggar 13y ago

> No matter how well-intentioned the folks at Mozilla Foundation/Corporation might be, it's difficult for human beings to avoid getting side-tracked when their wallet are running thin and there's easy money up for grabs out there. As a former Mozillian, I can't begin to describe how inaccurate this is. Discussion of money, or revenue, were relatively rare compared to the things that Mozillians actually care about. Here's a list of things that were discussed about 100x more than advertising revenue: - building the mozilla community - open source - rust and servo - where to go for lunch - javascript performance - keeping the web open - making firefox builds fast - firefox memory usage - proprietary codecs vs vp8

anon1385 13y ago
>proprietary codecs vs vp8 VP8 is proprietary. I'd appreciate it if downvoters could point me towards the standards body that oversees the VP8 standard. Apparently I just missed the news when it was submitted to an independent standards organisation… (This debate makes me appreciate how RMS must feel trying to educate people about the difference between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-freedom)
- scrollaway 13y ago
  "In May 2010, after the purchase of On2 Technologies, Google provided an irrevocable patent promise on its patents for implementing the VP8 format, and released a specification of the format under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.[6] That same year, Google also released libvpx, the reference implementation of VP8, under a BSD license.[7]"
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - syjer 13y ago
      This is quite old: the patent "issue" is more clear, see http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/google-mpeg-la-agree-to-royalty-free-terms-for-vp8-video-codec/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/google... . There is still an issue with Nokia ( http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ ) but at the moment it looks like that everybody is ignoring them.
    - pgeorgi 13y ago
      Every codec's situation is unclear. MPEG-LA doesn't provide indemnification either, and they would be stupid to do so. As an example, there are license pools for MP3, and companies generally pay them. Yet over the course of several years, German customs cleared out displays with mp3 players at Cebit because their creators didn't know that there's another patent to license. Now, that isn't too bad for someone providing indemnification: It would be a matter of the pool paying that third party, and including that in their future pool fees. "Unfortunately" a patent holder is generally allowed to control distribution entirely (eg refuse to license to any single party they dislike). Indemnification in that case would probably mean reimbursing the costs of development and production (and maybe lost future income).
  - anon1385 13y ago
    None of that changes the fact that it is proprietary. Free to use does not mean the same thing as non-proprietary. The definition of VP8 is entirely defined and controlled by a single corporation (Google), not by a standards body. For example XUL is proprietary, even though the specification is available under a CC licence, because it is controlled by a single vendor, not an open vendor-neutral standardisation process. Unless VP8 has been submitted to some standards body that I'm unaware of it remains proprietary. Evidence of such a submission and ratification is the only thing that would be relevant to this discussion. The licence of various implementations, or any patent grants are irrelevant to its status as proprietary.
    - eurleif 13y ago
      Your definition of "proprietary" is different from everyone else's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software
      - anon1385 13y ago
        That is a page about software implementations not standards. We are talking about standards. For example, there are various implementations of both H.264 and VP8 that meet that definition of non-proprietary software. The licence of those implementations has no bearing on the status of the standards themselves. I could write a proprietary, closed source VP8 or H264 encoder and again that would make no difference at all to the status of the standards because it would just be an implementation.
        eurleif 13y ago
        >That is a page about software implementations not standards. We are talking about standards. You are, apparently. Why do you think that's what anyone else is talking about? >For example, there are various implementations of both H.264 and VP8 that meet that definition of non-proprietary software. H.264 is patent-encumbered.
        13y ago
scrollaway 13y ago
The lack of interest in pushing Persona forward has made me wildly change my stance on Mozilla. Third party authentication is an important building block of the web which is currently dominated and virtually owned by Google and Facebook. Persona does everything right, yet it is not being pushed forward anymore; I have my doubt as to whether it ever was. In "keeping the web open", it is such a low hanging fruit I simply don't understand the complete disinterest behind Persona - is Mozilla just waiting to see if a protocol with a cuter name comes along?
- kevingadd 13y ago
  They pushed Persona pretty hard (and integrated it into their properties) for quite a while. Nobody cared; everyone prefers privacy-compromising login services like Facebook Login. The battle's lost.
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    Yeah the userbase has spoken - they don't want Persona. People prefer what they know i.e. Twitter/Google/Facebook login. Business also prefer Twitter/Facebook/Google login, because they can get more info this way.
    - scrollaway 13y ago
      I don't get this mindset. It was pushed for barely a few months. Firefox took years to even come close to making a serious dent in the market share. Should they have given up after a year and said "The userbase has spoken and prefers IE"? Persona as an alternative needs to be there and officially supported by Mozilla. I know they use it internally and "support" it, but the way they stopped all forms of promotion towards it etc makes it sound as if the protocol is abandoned. Who cares what trendy new oauth2-based method RandomBlog#123 implements? Open source in general is very incremental. If it's there and solves a problem, it is a tool in the software engineer's belt. When it becomes apparent that companies don't permanently support their oauth2 "customers" and revoke all their API keys etc and Business asks "we can't have that happen again", then Persona becomes attractive. When updating the "log in with facebook" buttons will become tiresome because of social networks changing every few years, suddenly "logging in with the browser itself" becomes relevant. It's an opportunity and they don't see the gain in it, but this is what "Keep the web open" is all about. Preventing every website in the world to depend on Google and Facebook's good graces. Protecting users from the really, really stupid password auth system.
sentenza 13y ago
Thank you for thinking about and alleviating the memory usage problems. Firefox has seriously improved in this regard and now runs decently even with pathological numbers of open tabs (Yeah, I know.).
kijin 13y ago
Sorry if I came across as arguing that Mozillans care more about money than about the great things you mentioned. But one doesn't need to care a lot about money in order for money to become a major factor, perhaps unconsciously, in your long-term decision-making. I remember there being public anxiety whenever there was doubt about whether Google would renew the search deal. Over time, that kind of anxiety takes a toll. Perhaps it's less of a concern for ordinary employees, but top-level executives definitely think about money a lot. $300M/yr is a lot of money to take for granted.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  > perhaps unconsciously, in your long-term decision-making That's why long-lived organizations have internal checks and balances. Even if the individuals eventually fail sometimes, the organization can identify and self-correct.
  - kijin 13y ago
    > That's why long-lived organizations have internal checks and balances. Checks and balances are for preventing individuals' interests from swaying the organization. They're useless when the whole organization's interest, or even survival, is at stake. Mozilla is almost completely dependent on its partnership with Google, and apparently, the majority of Mozilla's board members are okay with this. And of course this decision has everything to do with the fact that 90%+ of the organization's revenue would evaporate if they refused the partnership.
    - rbanffy 13y ago
      > They're useless when the whole organization's interest, or even survival, is at stake. Instead of debating theoretical scenarios, wouldn't you like to describe what such a situation would look like so we could reason what layers of internal or external controls would have to kick in so the issue could be corrected?
      - 001sky 13y ago
nycdev 13y ago
> former Mozillian Why did you leave? I'm interviewing there at the moment and would love some pointers They have some bad reviews recently on glassdoor but everyone there seems pretty passionate
- ygjb 13y ago
  ask away. also if you want to see the passion come through, go to reddit and search for AMAs from many of our teams there!
- pbiggar 13y ago
  I left to found CircleCI.com :) Just read the reviews. I left in 2011, before the FirefoxOS stuff had really kicked off. I can believe the strategic direction complaints in the reviews, but I didn't experience it too much myself.

by pbiggar 13y ago

anon1385 13y ago

>proprietary codecs vs vp8 VP8 is proprietary. I'd appreciate it if downvoters could point me towards the standards body that oversees the VP8 standard. Apparently I just missed the news when it was submitted to an independent standards organisation… (This debate makes me appreciate how RMS must feel trying to educate people about the difference between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-freedom)

scrollaway 13y ago
"In May 2010, after the purchase of On2 Technologies, Google provided an irrevocable patent promise on its patents for implementing the VP8 format, and released a specification of the format under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.[6] That same year, Google also released libvpx, the reference implementation of VP8, under a BSD license.[7]"
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - syjer 13y ago
    This is quite old: the patent "issue" is more clear, see http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/google-mpeg-la-agree-to-royalty-free-terms-for-vp8-video-codec/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/google... . There is still an issue with Nokia ( http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ ) but at the moment it looks like that everybody is ignoring them.
  - pgeorgi 13y ago
    Every codec's situation is unclear. MPEG-LA doesn't provide indemnification either, and they would be stupid to do so. As an example, there are license pools for MP3, and companies generally pay them. Yet over the course of several years, German customs cleared out displays with mp3 players at Cebit because their creators didn't know that there's another patent to license. Now, that isn't too bad for someone providing indemnification: It would be a matter of the pool paying that third party, and including that in their future pool fees. "Unfortunately" a patent holder is generally allowed to control distribution entirely (eg refuse to license to any single party they dislike). Indemnification in that case would probably mean reimbursing the costs of development and production (and maybe lost future income).
- anon1385 13y ago
  None of that changes the fact that it is proprietary. Free to use does not mean the same thing as non-proprietary. The definition of VP8 is entirely defined and controlled by a single corporation (Google), not by a standards body. For example XUL is proprietary, even though the specification is available under a CC licence, because it is controlled by a single vendor, not an open vendor-neutral standardisation process. Unless VP8 has been submitted to some standards body that I'm unaware of it remains proprietary. Evidence of such a submission and ratification is the only thing that would be relevant to this discussion. The licence of various implementations, or any patent grants are irrelevant to its status as proprietary.
  - eurleif 13y ago
    Your definition of "proprietary" is different from everyone else's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software
    - anon1385 13y ago
      That is a page about software implementations not standards. We are talking about standards. For example, there are various implementations of both H.264 and VP8 that meet that definition of non-proprietary software. The licence of those implementations has no bearing on the status of the standards themselves. I could write a proprietary, closed source VP8 or H264 encoder and again that would make no difference at all to the status of the standards because it would just be an implementation.
      - eurleif 13y ago
        >That is a page about software implementations not standards. We are talking about standards. You are, apparently. Why do you think that's what anyone else is talking about? >For example, there are various implementations of both H.264 and VP8 that meet that definition of non-proprietary software. H.264 is patent-encumbered.
        13y ago

scrollaway 13y ago

The lack of interest in pushing Persona forward has made me wildly change my stance on Mozilla. Third party authentication is an important building block of the web which is currently dominated and virtually owned by Google and Facebook. Persona does everything right, yet it is not being pushed forward anymore; I have my doubt as to whether it ever was. In "keeping the web open", it is such a low hanging fruit I simply don't understand the complete disinterest behind Persona - is Mozilla just waiting to see if a protocol with a cuter name comes along?

kevingadd 13y ago
They pushed Persona pretty hard (and integrated it into their properties) for quite a while. Nobody cared; everyone prefers privacy-compromising login services like Facebook Login. The battle's lost.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  Yeah the userbase has spoken - they don't want Persona. People prefer what they know i.e. Twitter/Google/Facebook login. Business also prefer Twitter/Facebook/Google login, because they can get more info this way.
  - scrollaway 13y ago
    I don't get this mindset. It was pushed for barely a few months. Firefox took years to even come close to making a serious dent in the market share. Should they have given up after a year and said "The userbase has spoken and prefers IE"? Persona as an alternative needs to be there and officially supported by Mozilla. I know they use it internally and "support" it, but the way they stopped all forms of promotion towards it etc makes it sound as if the protocol is abandoned. Who cares what trendy new oauth2-based method RandomBlog#123 implements? Open source in general is very incremental. If it's there and solves a problem, it is a tool in the software engineer's belt. When it becomes apparent that companies don't permanently support their oauth2 "customers" and revoke all their API keys etc and Business asks "we can't have that happen again", then Persona becomes attractive. When updating the "log in with facebook" buttons will become tiresome because of social networks changing every few years, suddenly "logging in with the browser itself" becomes relevant. It's an opportunity and they don't see the gain in it, but this is what "Keep the web open" is all about. Preventing every website in the world to depend on Google and Facebook's good graces. Protecting users from the really, really stupid password auth system.

sentenza 13y ago

Thank you for thinking about and alleviating the memory usage problems. Firefox has seriously improved in this regard and now runs decently even with pathological numbers of open tabs (Yeah, I know.).

kijin 13y ago

Sorry if I came across as arguing that Mozillans care more about money than about the great things you mentioned. But one doesn't need to care a lot about money in order for money to become a major factor, perhaps unconsciously, in your long-term decision-making. I remember there being public anxiety whenever there was doubt about whether Google would renew the search deal. Over time, that kind of anxiety takes a toll. Perhaps it's less of a concern for ordinary employees, but top-level executives definitely think about money a lot. $300M/yr is a lot of money to take for granted.

rbanffy 13y ago
> perhaps unconsciously, in your long-term decision-making That's why long-lived organizations have internal checks and balances. Even if the individuals eventually fail sometimes, the organization can identify and self-correct.
- kijin 13y ago
  > That's why long-lived organizations have internal checks and balances. Checks and balances are for preventing individuals' interests from swaying the organization. They're useless when the whole organization's interest, or even survival, is at stake. Mozilla is almost completely dependent on its partnership with Google, and apparently, the majority of Mozilla's board members are okay with this. And of course this decision has everything to do with the fact that 90%+ of the organization's revenue would evaporate if they refused the partnership.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    > They're useless when the whole organization's interest, or even survival, is at stake. Instead of debating theoretical scenarios, wouldn't you like to describe what such a situation would look like so we could reason what layers of internal or external controls would have to kick in so the issue could be corrected?
    - 001sky 13y ago

nycdev 13y ago

> former Mozillian Why did you leave? I'm interviewing there at the moment and would love some pointers They have some bad reviews recently on glassdoor but everyone there seems pretty passionate

ygjb 13y ago
ask away. also if you want to see the passion come through, go to reddit and search for AMAs from many of our teams there!
pbiggar 13y ago
I left to found CircleCI.com :) Just read the reviews. I left in 2011, before the FirefoxOS stuff had really kicked off. I can believe the strategic direction complaints in the reviews, but I didn't experience it too much myself.