dblohm7

38 ms·

481.
by dblohm7 6y ago
> Their reddit sub is rather hostile to any feedback and reminds me of stackoverflow nastiness. “Their” Reddit sub is not an official forum any more than this HN thread is.
482.
by dblohm7 6y ago
Yet another Albertan. I would expect the AB government to not directly fund something like this. P3? Privately owned and operated? Still unlikely.
483.
by dblohm7 6y ago
I want to see an AV1 decoder written one Halide.
484.
by dblohm7 6y ago
“Demise” is nothing less than hyperbole.
485.
by dblohm7 6y ago
Indeed. Those developers would just be picked up by FAANG instead.
486.
by dblohm7 6y ago
Google’s recruiters and their truckloads of money are happy to reach out regardless. You want the talent capable of building and maintaining a web engine? Be prepared to pay for it.
487.
by dblohm7 6y ago
Who said that it’s all base salary? Ever heard of bonuses?
488.
by dblohm7 6y ago
As a Gecko developer, I would agree with this.
489.
by dblohm7 6y ago
> Gutting the Servo team makes me wonder if management is going to move the rendering engine from Gecko to Blink. Not happening.
490.
by dblohm7 6y ago
> while originally presented as the for-profit serving the non-profit, the reality appears to be the other way around. Would you care to elaborate?
491.
by dblohm7 6y ago
I don't want to invalidate what you've said, so please don't interpret my comment that way. I would encourage you to think a bit more about a few things: > For example, Google executives don't release statements after
492.
by dblohm7 6y ago
Sometimes it feels like there are people out there who want Mozilla to fail and gleefully seek ways to make that happen (even by doing something as simple as amplifying misinformation), even though it is not really in their interests to d
493.
by dblohm7 6y ago
Two reasons, one primary and one secondary: 1. Mozilla's revenue from the Google search deal depends on users searching for things using Firefox. More searches through the Firefox search bar, more revenue for MoCo. 2. Marketshare == de
494.
by dblohm7 6y ago
It would also help MoCo funding simply if more people used Firefox.
495.
by dblohm7 6y ago
I don't disagree with your concept in theory, but I also don't think there is any evidence to suggest that MoCo's trademark royalty payments (as IIRC that's how they are structured according the financial docs) to MoFo a
496.
by dblohm7 6y ago
> If you think that Mozilla not using "corporate doublespeak" is an impossible standard, I am left speechless. If you think that is a reason to abandon Mozilla, you've just proved my point.
497.
by dblohm7 6y ago
I don't disagree with your concept in theory, but I also don't think there is any evidence to suggest that MoCo's trademark royalty payments (as IIRC that's how they are structured according the financial docs) are adjus
498.
by dblohm7 6y ago
[I am a Mozilla employee, and yes, I do recognize how my position influences my perspective.] One thing that always frustrates me a bit whenever Mozilla comes up on HN or elsewhere is that we are always held to impossibly high standards.
499.
by dblohm7 6y ago
https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/
500.
by dblohm7 6y ago
While donating to Mozilla Foundation is a great cause [1], none of those funds go to funding Mozilla Corporation, and thus Firefox. If you want your funds to go toward MoCo (and thus Firefox development), your best bet is to subscribe to Mo
501.
by dblohm7 6y ago
> standards compatible Yet we are increasingly seeing developers who won't follow those standards. What are we as developers going to do about that?
502.
by dblohm7 6y ago
> Personally I'm still upset about that time they fired a guy for having a fetish and then pretending they cared about inclusivity. Citation?
503.
by dblohm7 6y ago
> It blows my mind that no company is currently able to challenge Chrome. I think that as developers we could be doing more to help with that. Using Firefox, testing with Firefox, avoiding Blink-only APIs, etc...
504.
by dblohm7 6y ago
While donating to Mozilla Foundation is a great cause [1], none of those funds go to funding Mozilla Corporation, and thus Firefox. If you want your funds to go toward MoCo (and thus Firefox development), your best bet is to subscribe to Mo
505.
by dblohm7 6y ago
While donating to Mozilla Foundation is a great cause [1], none of those funds go to funding Mozilla Corporation, and thus Firefox. If you want your funds to go toward MoCo (and thus Firefox development), your best bet is to subscribe to Mo
506.
by dblohm7 6y ago
While donating to Mozilla Foundation is a great cause [1], none of those funds go to funding Mozilla Corporation, and thus Firefox. If you want your funds to go toward MoCo (and thus Firefox development), your best bet is to subscribe to Mo
507.
by dblohm7 6y ago
I think you should look back at Mozilla's mission before making a statement like that. As Kvark wrote above [1]: > Mozilla is not a software company today that tries to be an internet activist. Mozilla is an activist company that al
508.
by dblohm7 6y ago
Not only that, but often times Costco's Kirkland branded item is made by the same supplier as the adjacent name brand.
509.
by dblohm7 6y ago
> So Firefox prevents this perfectly reasonable thing? WTF. Not true. You can get them signed without publicly redistributing them.
510.
by dblohm7 6y ago
Does anybody remember that Optimus Maximus Keyboard? That was a disappointment.

More ›