I used to want to donate to Mozilla Foundation, but I've long lost any hope that the corporation would spend that money in a way that makes sense to me. The pessimist on me would expect donated money to be spent on more built-in "campaigns", "studies" or ads. Or maybe a bonus for their executives.
I just want Firefox to be faster. I'm donating to Floorp (a Firefox fork), at least they seem focused on making the browser better.
I get why people are pissed at Mozilla, but I do feel like people on HN also underestimate how much hating Mozilla is becoming a hacker tribal signifier. It almost feel like each commenter is competing to out-hate the others or to add a layer of “in fact its so bad that we should (consequences)”.
Like, in general, I find that any HN thread where most of the comments are just agreeing, one-upping and yes-anding while invoking the same talking points and terminology (CEO ghouls, etc.) is probably a topic we might need to chill out on.
Completely agree. For all the hate Mozilla gets on HN, I’ve been using Firefox every day for a decade and it pretty much just works, supports a rich collection of (vetted!) extensions, and performs exceptionally well with sometimes hundreds of tabs.
Mozilla makes mistakes just like any organization but they’ve done and continue to do more for an open Internet than most.
Firefox works, but it’s got thousands of annoying issues (many of them just paper cuts, but still).
The CEO’s salary is enough to fund >30 extra devs. Imagine how many of those issues could have been ironed out over the years.
The issue with the salary is not that it costs the same as 30 developers – good leadership can make a difference worth >30 developers over the same timespan (especially in an organisation with 1000s of staff). The problem is that the Mozilla leadership hasn't been great, which makes the high salary especially difficult to defend. It's unclear to me that you need to pay an extremely high salary to get a good Mozilla CEO - something like 2-3x the average staff engineer would make sense.
> It's unclear to me that you need to pay an extremely high salary to get a good Mozilla CEO - something like 2-3x the average staff engineer would make sense.
It's unclear to me that you need to pay more than $150K total compensation for a good SW engineer.
Yet many over here are getting paid double that.
Salaries are rarely based on value created. They are based on what others pay.
If salaries were based on value added, a lot of software dev salaries would be orders of magnitude higher.
Hmm if this is true why is it so rare that software devs quit their jobs and make more money freelancing or starting their own companies?
I started out freelancing.
You have to spend large amounts of time finding clients and being a salesman as you sell yourself and your services to them.
Once you do that, you have to prove that you're the person you promised. Unfortunately, most clients reaching out to freelancers are very....difficult.
After you've done the job, you have to be your own accountant and billing department. I should mention here that collecting from a lot of clients is often a frustrating endeavor and you will almost certainly be scammed at least once (at which point you have to do the math on handing most of your profits over to a lawyer and risking getting a bad reputation as a legal risk).
Because you're contracting, you are on the hook for higher taxes than normal to cover stuff like social security. Unless you are getting bottom-dollar insurance (the stuff with a $10,000+ deductible where you still get bankrupted if your medical bills are bad), you are probably paying tens of thousands in health insurance.
Want holidays, vacation, or just a day off? That means you are missing a paycheck (at least missing a bunch of billable hours) and may have upset clients. If you need to make $100,000 at a corporate job, then you'll need to charge at least $150,000. If you want to work a normal 2,000hr/yr, then you are going to have to sell your client on $75/hr while they're seeing $25/hr or less from some overseas "talent".
Also don't forget that lots of the highest-paying jobs aren't open to freelancers. Even if you contract, you'll be going through an agency charging big money then giving you a tiny fraction of what they take in.
After I got married and had kids, I was busy enough without running a business. I want to spend time with my kids while they are still kids. I may make less as a FTE, but I work a lot fewer hours and have way less work stress.
As you're describing, your salary is also based on what a company adds to you in terms of value.
I accept the pay I'm offered not because it is based on the value I add, but because I know I'm getting screwed over and have no real recourse. Businesses have all the power whether you are trying to negotiate your FTE salary or a short-term 1099 contract.
If US programmers were to organize into a union and add some level of credentialism to keep out the fake programmers with no skills, I'm fairly convinced that you would see salaries increase dramatically.
Instead, because there's no unified representation, you get Microsoft laying off 9,000 people then (allegedly) trying to apply for over 14,000 H1B visas to suppress wages even further knowing there's nobody able to speak out against it.
It’s uncommon in the US because freelancing means having to source your own - usually both expensive and crappy - healthcare.
It used to be incredibly common in the UK - half the decent devs in London were contractors making 2-3x what permanent employees made. It’s now uncommon because the government nerfed it with IR35 rules.
What are those IR35 rules all about?
Probably something along the lines of "if you only have 1 customer you're an employee"…
It's illegal in most of EU but several countries do not check. So I know PWC in italy hires external contractors but tells them to be in the office at 9 and so on… just a scam to not pay sick leave, parental leave, vacations and pension basically.
Devs are often either not good business people and/or don't want to be. Freelancing, in any industry, involves a lot more than just doing the actual job.
Also, as others have already mentioned, salaried with is much more stable.
At least these are my primary reasons, and those of some others I've spoken to on the matter.
We all cannot afford job instability, with mortgages to pay.
Also a lot of value add comes from corporations which produce things of complexity greater than the sum of their constituent parts.
If you already have a platform in use by the entire world, that matter of scale makes it much easier to find value adds more than a sole proprietor could ever dream of.
It's for these reasons I'm wary of talking about "value add" only being from the developers directly implementing a feature. Without support, IT, security, Product, HR, etc, I could not deliver that value add.
I 100% agree! It's almost like income stability is valuable!
I make my employer a million dollars a year by making a 0.1% improvement in a billion-dollar-a-year business.
No billion-dollar-a-year business? No million dollars of value created.
Maybe 5% of them?
Easily I'd say close to half would make quite a bit lower than 300K.
Nobody pays for Firefox, so I’m not sure how you would determine value added. Development could also stop today and most of us would never notice the absence of upgrades.
You could probably calculate it based on how much ad revenue one can gain by having your own default search engine be the default in Firefox.
At least, that's probably how Google determined value added when deciding if it's worth the return when they funded (read: paid for development at) the Mozilla Corporation.
Or would be negative
> It's unclear to me that you need to pay more than $150K total compensation for a good SW engineer.
I, and many good or great SWE's, wouldn't even begin to entertain such a low offer. Your numbers are a little off.
As one of the people at a corporation who sees the actually salaries people get paid...
Most developers make less than $150k in their local currency. A lot of the ones claiming to make more than that are inflating their numbers.
And this was before the mass layoffs that have been pushing down dev salaries.
All engineers in Europe (except maybe Switzerland) would kill for 150k a year. ESPECIALLY remote.
A lot of engineers in the US would consider 150k a year to be a good salary too. Calling 150k "low" is indicative that the person saying that lives in a bubble and has not bothered to look outside it. Lots of software engineers are employed in the US outside of Silicon Valley or NYC.
From personal experience, it's definitely possible to earn more than 2x that in total compensation before taxes as an individual contributor in Europe. Maybe not all of Eastern Europe, but I can't really speak to that.
Possible probably, but not at all common.
Thousands of software engineers have been laid off in the past few years and the trend doesn’t seem to be slowing down. I expect that there will, at some point, be quite a large number that would entertain a hundred and fifty thousand dollars versus no job.
It can be tricky to narrow down definitions but there are at least a million and probably less than 5 million software developers in the US. The last few years have seen ~100k students graduate with CS degrees each year. Thousands of layoffs over the timespan of years isn't going to impact it all that much. If you played your cards right you could get a $100k+ starting salary at a BigCo (not necessarily a FAANG) 10 years ago, I only expect that to have expanded, and anyone with a handful of years of experience is going to be above that and should consider shopping around for >$150k if they aren't there already.
> If you played your cards right you could get a $100k+ starting salary at a BigCo (not necessarily a FAANG) 10 years ago, I only expect that to have expanded
CompSci graduates have a noticeably high unemployment rate at the moment.
I agree that it’s not like everybody is losing their jobs, but the layoffs aren’t because of some cataclysmic economic event like in 00 or 08. Tech companies are choosing to lay off software engineers. Either these companies genuinely don’t need those engineers at all, which would drive down comp because it strengthens management’s negotiating position, or they do need them but have enough money to get by with skeleton crews until the cost of software engineers goes does, which also itself drives down compensation because it strengthens management’s negotiating position.
Either way there is downward pressure on SWE comp, and it’s being exercised by folks that can outlast every last one that insists that they wouldn’t even look at 150k. If your bosses decide you’re worth 70k max and nobody in your industry is unionized you will be looking at 40k being competitive
You are doing a fantastic job of making my point.
No good CEO would entertain it either.
> They are based on what others pay.
That's the excuse given to make you accept those higher salaries. The truth is that there are not infinitely many positions for a CEO. There are certainly more people who can be competent CEOs than CEO positions.
If you give an indecent salary to your CEO, you will get a CEO who looks for a crazy salary. That doesn't mean it's the most competent CEO you could get. Try offering a decent salary and you'll see that people still apply. You may not get the typical narcissistic profile, but it's probably not a loss.
I feel the role of a CEO and CTO is to suck souls and make sure everyone is under constant surveillance. If people work less as a result they don't really care.
In my experience, a CEO pretty much sets the company culture. And it feels really weird to choose someone who's here for money/title to set your culture. But of course, the CEO is not chosen by the employees, but rather by other people who are also here for the money/title :-).
In a startup, the CEO also convinces VCs to invest. And again it's interesting: VCs have no clue about the technology, so you would think they try to invest for CEOs who set a good company culture. But instead they get convinced by the CEOs who bullshit them the best. Which makes sense: not only VCs don't have a clue about the technology, but somehow they think they actually do understand. I have heard a few discussions between CEO and VCs in startups (talking about the technology I was actually working on), and it was hilarious.
> If people work less as a result they don't really care.
They just don't know. Even if they genuinely try to ask feedback from the employees, it's biased. Employees generally don't give honest feedback because it's a risk for them (especially if the company culture is bad, which is where the feedbacks would matter the most).
I think that factors in cost of living in silicon valley. I don't think devs even in other areas of the US make that much.
I was offered a job at a big tech but I'd have had to move to the US to their campus because they hate remote work. And they offered only 120k (they probably figured that sounded like a ton of money to a European). But I started looking at the cost of living there and it was insane. I'd have had to share a flat and it would have to be far away, not a few km from the office like I'm used to. No way.
Of course then Trump started happening and I was so glad I didn't move there. I'm kinda LGBTQ too so I'd be royally screwed if I'd been there now
That's the other way around - life in SV is expensive because of all those high salary workers.
I would say it's both. A high market rate for labor pushes CoL up (because people have lots of money to spend), but a high CoL also pushes the market rate for labor up (because you can't get anyone to work for you if you don't pay them enough to make ends meet). Trying to decide which one is the root cause is a classic chicken-and-egg problem.
The CEOs and managers don't understand that for every square meter of office space you need like a dozen square meters of residential space. It's very easy to have excessive amounts of office space that make you think you can hire more people, but in reality you have already exhausted your local recruiting pool.
It doesn't matter what the cost of living is in SV. Their employee in a low cost if living area is as productive.
Yeah that's why I was so surprised they were adamant the job was on-site there. It was an IT job. Easily remotable or done from an office in any place in the world.
> I think that factors in cost of living in silicon valley. I don't think devs even in other areas of the US make that much.
Depends on the specific job, company (big tech vs not), and city. Seattle, NYC and a handful of others may pay on par with bay area.
For a senior at random faang or equivalent, that might mean $300k-$500k / yr. More for some NYC positions in the finance industry.
Wow that's almost 10 times as much as me :) Still wouldn't live there though, especially now.
> Mozilla CEO
Laura Chambers is just an interim CEO. I am not sure how Mozill Foundation/Corporation is exactly linked in the decision making. But the key people are still Mark Surman and Mitchell Baker who is the Chairwomen of Mozilla Corporation.
If Laura is getting paid lots like Mitchell Baker, it is still an issue. But, wouldn't she be just a scapegoat? I am pretty sure as Chairwomen, Mitchell Baker still has more power than Laura the CEO when it comes to Mozilla Corporation. I have felt this is just to chill the uproar against Mitchell Baker. Now everyone will blame the next CEO. But I wonder how much power she has. I could be wrong of course.
Baker left the board in early 2025 https://www.theverge.com/business/615977/m
Has it been good leadership, though?
They invested BILLIONS of dollars on things like:
* Firefox OS * Mozilla Persona * Mozilla VPN * Firefox for TV (e.g. Amazon Fire) * Lockwise * Mozilla Hubs
Did anyone ask for those things? What a huge waste for all of that to be built and abandoned.
Did you read my comment?
> The problem is that the Mozilla leadership hasn't been great, which makes the high salary especially difficult to defend.
> It's unclear to me that you need to pay an extremely high salary to get a good Mozilla CEO - something like 2-3x the average staff engineer would make sense.
By objective measure I’d agree with you but you can’t deny the reality of the job market.
If someone is a truly effective CEO they’d be able to get many, many times more than 2-3x staff engineer salary at pretty much any other company out there.
I think there is a small set of people who would do a good job running Mozilla. Of these people, a very large chunk would do this for $500k annually (this is still enough money for almost anyone to lead a very comfortable life). Being money-driven might make you _worse_ as Mozilla CEO.
Great point. A company that needs to be steered by morality needs leadership that is willing to take the helm because their values align.
But they're not. Firefox market share has tumbled and I'm getting more and more captchas because my browser is now so rare it's considered "suspicious". It's not a flaw in the product itself but it does affect its usability. Marketshare of at least 5-10% is crucial to be on the radar of web devs. Especially because the competition besides Safari is basically all one single browser because they share the engine.
Idk I switched to Firefox earlier this year and it's honestly been really painless. Not sure why a CAPTCHA would trigger based on browser ID when those are so easily spoofed. Why would someone be running a bot on a less popular browser? I have not noticed any change.
The one thing I do notice is that on some very poorly built websites there will be a bug and it's because they haven't checked in Firefox or because I am blocking things that are no longer blockable on Chrome, but this is rare.
For me it's those horrible cloudflare and recaptcha things. I get them soooo much. And also that stupid cloudflare "We're checking if you're human" page.
I am on Linux though. Perhaps Firefox on Windows or Mac fares better. But these problems are from the last year or two and don't happen in chromium also on Linux.
There’s a difference in arguing that Mozilla should pay market rate for a CEO and arguing that the current CEO is worth market rate. I’m arguing the former, not the latter.
> my browser is now so rare it's considered "suspicious".
I've noticed this as well. Also some banking sites don't even work with it anymore.
> my browser is now so rare it's considered "suspicious".
thanks to AI crawlers, every browser is now considered suspicious
If they're in it for the money, instead of the mission, then I say good riddance. That's how we get where we are now.
2-3x staff engineer pay is a LOT of money. More than enough.
I disagree, hiring a CEO for well below market pay because they believe in the mission is a recipe for disaster. Very likely you’ll end up with someone whose heart is in the right place but can’t execute.
2-3x staff engineer salary is a lot of money. But no matter how much I believed in a mission if I could make 10-20x that and set myself up for life financially I’d have a very hard time turning it down.
As opposed to now, where you've got someone who is willing and able to tank the entire project, but it looks good on paper? Is that the kind of person you want to be competing for?
I get what you're saying, but I really can't agree. The mission is important in a non-profit. It's part of what makes them work.
There's people in the FOSS realm running VERY competent operations for simple living wage, or less.
Take KDE for example. It's easy to argue they've accomplished MORE than Mozilla has in the last decade.
Their desktop ships with every Steam Deck (along with some niche laptop manufacturers) and they have a vast ecosystem of applications. Albeit some more rapidly developed than others.
Their structure is entirely different than Mozilla so it's hardly a direct comparison. But the main point is that Mozilla's traditional corporate structure seems to be a millstone.
They could have stashed most of their Google funding and kept a solid team of passionate maintainers paid in perpetuity. Goodwill could have volunteers contributing directly to Firefox, instead of forking it.
It's not clear CEO pay is driven my market forces at all. Pay seems almost completely divorced from competency.
> Very likely you’ll end up with someone whose heart is in the right place but can’t execute.
There's no reason to believe that. But it's still better than someone whose heart isn't in the right place and can't execute.
Or, arguably even worse, someone whose heart isn't in the right place and can execute.
This.
Unfortunately, in our current "Greed is God" late-stage capitalist world, it's virtually impossible to find a competent tech CEO who is willing to work for mere honest wages. And (evidently) too difficult to even find one who's willing to work for 30X.
I think if you are paying 30x engineer salary you are always going to find CEO’s that optimize for money.
This should be the top comment.
Pretty much.
But if you do need to have a CEO, and offering 2-3X gets you zero qualified applicants...then you are forced into strategies which have undesirable side-effects.
What does it mean to be qualified?
The issue I have is a lot of CEOs appear to be wholly unqualified for their positions and their salaries are completely unjustifiable. So many of them don't even have a glancing understanding of the product or company that they are in charge of. Their primary role is getting a higher stock valuation so the board can be happy.
A good example of this is how many tech CEOs have dumped ungodly amounts of money on "AI" because that's what the market demands. Or how many CEOs hire and fire based on what other companies are doing, not what their company needs.
The fact is, "qualified" is often at odds with "competent". Most of the 30x CEOs are only qualified in chasing stock prices, not competently running a company for the long term.
That’s a problem with your selection process, not the lack of qualified applicants. It’s funny that the qualification that people require often seems to be ‘has done this thing to no great success elsewhere’.
I've had this conversation at least three times on HN. I'm convinced anyone who says that Firefox has a thousand issues simply doesn't use Firefox. But, I'm always open to being wrong. Can you point out the specific issues Firefox has that make it a second rate experience?
Fx user here since it was called Phoenix and cookies were called delicious delicacies in the options, and Mozilla browser before that. IMO as a power user, it is a second-rate browser. The bar is set by [Opera v12](https://get.geo.opera.com/pub/opera/linux/1216/).
* no spatial browsing, not even as an extension. This feature alone I would use literally thousands of times a week. * no fit to width * no cycle display images enable/disable/cached * cannot edit menus or icons as simple configuration file * no tab thumbnails * reader mode that actually always works every single time, not just when the browser feels like it * no editable key bindings * no shortcuts for highlighting next/prev URL, next/prev heading, next/prev element * no presentation mode * no panelise web page * no navigation bar
My argument is primarily against commenters on HN who claim Firefox to be unusable, bug-filled, and then blame Mozilla for the current Blink-based browser apocalypse.
You feel that Firefox doesn't have a bunch of features that you would use - but those are not bugs. I recognize this is HN - where there will definitely be a higher percentage of power users, but an open source project not having the features you want doesn't make it a second-rate browser, it just means it would take more work for you to customize. Listing cred of having used FF in the Mozilla days is the same as saying Linux is second rate because you installed Caldera back when people were still scared of Y2K.
As a daily FF user - Firefox is great. And more users should give it a whirl, especially ones that haven't used it in a decade.
You cheated me out of a sincere and genuine conversation. I resent that behaviour.
> The CEO’s salary is enough to fund >30 extra devs
I keep seeing this line as if people think CEOs shouldn't exist or aren't worth their compensation. That is incredibly incorrect thinking. Good CEOs and bad CEOs are two different creatures and lead companies to very different places. Just like you want to pay more for highly skilled developers, you want executive pay to be competitive to hire someone capable of the job.
Put it this way, you could pay me $1m in annual compensation to be Mozilla's CEO (sounds like a good deal?), but I am sure I will be the most terrible CEO in the history of the company and cannot even run the company properly at a daily basis.
CEO pay has grown wildly in recent decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation_in_the_...
Does mean that CEOs are wildly more effective? Or just wildly better at diverting profit to themselves? I'd argue the latter.
Further, CEOs and wannabes have a strong incentive to structure organizations such that they depend ever more on the CEO, justifying massive compensation and of course feeding their egos. But I would argue that beyond a certain size, having to route everything important through one guy is an organizational antipattern. So yes, I'm very willing to argue most CEOs shouldn't exist. Or at least most CEO positions.
My understanding is that every employees compensation (from the janitor to the CEO) is basically a function of “how different would the outcome for the shareholders be if this person was replaced with someone else”.
Obviously Apple wouldn’t be Apple without Jobs, Tesla without Musk, and Amazon without Bezos.
Moving on from founders, we saw the cardinal difference between Balmer and Nadella for Microsoft.
So there’s some merit to their role. One could argue that from a shareholders perspective it’s the only role that matters. Every other role is an opaque “implementation detail”.
> Obviously Apple wouldn’t be Apple without Jobs
Right, that explains why Tim Apple got 100 million dollars in 2022, he was just that good at channelling the spirit of Jobs.
> I keep seeing this line as if people think CEOs shouldn't exist or aren't worth their compensation. That is incredibly incorrect thinking. Good CEOs and bad CEOs are two different creatures and lead companies to very different places.
If the “bad” CEOs don’t take pay cuts or subsequently struggle to find work, then that thinking is obviously not as “incredibly” incorrect as you claim.
Real talk: what are the issues with Mozilla's? I hate plenty of CEOs so I'm familiar but I've never heard... really anything, good or bad, about Mozilla's.
This is desktop market share, their "stronghold":
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1j07hrt/heres_how_...
That alone is enough to disqualify all of them. Now look at mobile - the biggest market ever. Firefox does not exist on mobile. That is a reason to remove the leadership and the board with it.
which is quite ironic as Firefox Mobile is better than Chrome as Android Chrome does not implement many features, the most important one being extensions.
So I see the logic, but at the same time, I'm wondering why it's important for Firefox to gain a lot of users on... any platform, really? Like it's broadly good for more people to use Firefox, but also, is that Mozilla's actual mission? Because I would personally say that Mozilla is not out to make "the most popular browser," they're out to make "the best browser." Ideally the best would be the most popular but there's a lot in the way of that that doesn't necessarily mean anything negative about Mozilla or Firefox.
You can have the best browser in the world, and it's not gonna help you if nobody tests for it because its market share is approximately 0%. We're already seeing people getting stuck in endless captchas because they're using a weird browser that behaves differently to 95% of other users, and shitty websites inadvertently relying on bugs in Chromium which results in stuff not working, or running slow as molasses, in FF.
I've been running into both pretty much daily. As a long time Firefox users (since 2.0 almost exclusively), it didn't used to be like that, it's a recent phenomenon.
Much can also be said about them removing features and not implementing things people keep asking for for decades; for example, the vertical tab feature request was there for more then 20 years, I think?
It's not a criticism of developers, they're doing what they can, it's obvious set by managers.
Without market share you are irrelevant to influence web standards. Part of the Firefox mission is to defend a open internet, not to lag behind Google implementing whatever APIs their services need to the detriment of every other player.
Those things go hand in hand though. If they truly were the best people would line up to use it.
I still use it because it's the least bad option. They have a long history of ignoring the community in favour of the mainstream, ironically a user group they have lost a long time ago. So now they're just alienating their remaining supporters in order to cater to users that don't even remember they exist.
Raking in 100s of millions and not improving Firefox is one thing. Another is spending those millions on acquiring companies that produce no revenue, aka setting money on fire.
Zen Browser has been producing the features people have been asking for from Firefox with $0. I can't imagine what motivated devs like those could produce with just 1% of the money Mozilla burns.
It's not that they haven't done great things for the web. It's just that we expect more from their most popular product considering the money that they're rolling in.
It's not 100s of millions. The previous CEO made between 2.4 to 7 million (she was really good at giving herself raises) and wasn't there long enough for that to add up to even one hundred million. Still she was very overpaid with the marketshare ever declining and the new one gets even more.
Nobody else got that kind of raise at Mozilla and they probably were much better at their jobs.
But hundreds of millions it was not.
I think the GP comment is talking about Mozilla Corp under her leadership, not her personally. She also didn’t buy other companies for herself.
> I keep seeing this line as if people think CEOs shouldn't exist or aren't worth their compensation.
Yes. This is absolutely true. Most CEO’s are not worth this kind of money. In fact, most CEO’s could disappear overnight and cause zero disruption to the operation of the company.
I think the complexity of the job is _far_ overrated, and the main reason people think they’d suck at it is because they have no/less confidence.
People that become CEO’s are purely better at faking that confidence. If you are lucky, the confidence is built on skill instead of bluster, but they both get paid the same regardless.
CEO should exist, and it's normal that their compensation is the highest of the company.
However it shouldn't be a 268 to 1 ratio with the median worker like the SP500 average. There is no way the CEO is worth that much money to the company.
At a very large company, I think some individual decisions the CEO makes will have much more impact on the company than the work output of 268 employees. I think some CEOs really are probably worth that kind of money. People like Steve Jobs.
However, most ceos aren’t genius superstars. And I don’t think CEO pay really makes sense given supply and demand. I think there’s plenty of people who could do at least as good a job as many CEOs do, and would happily do so for a lot less money.
I suspect a lot of CEO pay is an arse-covering exercise by the board. If the board hires a super expensive CEO, and that person turns out to be terrible, the board can say they did everything they could do to get the best ceo. But if the board hires someone for much less money who turns out to be a turkey, they might be blamed for cheaping out on the ceo - and thus the company’s downfall is their fault.
Is the Mozilla CEO really so amazing at their job that they deserve such insane compensation? I doubt it. I bet there’s dozens of people at Mozilla today who are probably smart enough to do a great job as CEO. They just won’t be considered for the role for stupid reasons.
I disagree (not a CEO). What’s the median worker at a company like Walmart or Amazon paid? To think that a CEO of those couldn’t improve (or degrade) the company’s performance by many thousand times more than a Walmart or Amazon worker seems strange to me. They’re paying them to not make those companies into Sears or J.C.Penney.
Investors (and the boards they hire) pay CEOs for results. That range of results is very wide for large companies.
> They’re paying them to not make those companies into Sears or J.C.Penney.
Guess who turned Sears and J.C. Penny into what they are today?
A mix of bad CEOs at those companies and good CEOs at Target, Walmart, and Amazon. I don't believe the median worker held any blame at those companies.
From that, I’d conclude that CEO capability and effectiveness really matters and paying up for a good one is worth it.
That is a false binary. It's also plausible that those individuals had as much effect on important outcomes as the guy at the front of a marching band does on the music, with other factors making the difference.
Also possible is that the CEOs grossly overcentralized the companies such that they increased the apparent importance of CEO decisions and then just took some big gambles. Heads they get paid a lot of money; tails their bets pay off and they get hailed as geniuses who get paid even more money.
Jeff Bezos competed Sears to death.
Jeff Bezos? The Internet?
> I keep seeing this line as if people think CEOs shouldn't exist or aren't worth their compensation.
Yes indeed. There is no CEO in existence worth 30 of the employees that work under them. It's certainly true that good and bad CEOs exist, and that a good CEO can be a force multiplier that deserves higher compensation. But 30x (and often more!!) is an insane overinflated view of CEOs' worth to the company. The only reason they get away with it is that they are hired by the board of directors, which is.. other CEOs. So a good old boys' club is keeping salaries high completely divorced from any actual value provided.
Everyone's acting like a competent CEO is some kind of rocket scientist unicorn.
In reality they don't do all that much. And most of the decisions are driven by data and advice from Gartner that just recommend the highest bidder, not some magical insights.
After all the CEO works for the board which is made up of shareholder representatives. They have very little industry knowledge and they just want the company to jump on the latest hype and "industry practices". They're usually very risk-averse.
So the CEO is kinda tied by what's happening in the industry anyway. The only CEOs that are capable of breaking that are the ultra confident ones like Jobs or Musk.
In theory, every one of the CEO's reports (other than their administrative staff) is capable of stepping into the CEO's job. If they aren't capable (albeit some with coaching and support) that calls into question the company's overall hiring and promotion practices.
In that case, for every CEO there's literally a dozen other people at that company alone who could do their job. Why do we keep repeating that good CEOs are in short supply?
Moreover study after study has shown little correlation between CEO pay and quality of decision-making. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Mayer#Yahoo!_(2012%E2%...
And finally, rich people eventually look for other ways to feel valued. Status is a big one. Having the top job at the company is a big perk in and of itself. If they don't feel privileged to be the CEO, why the hell even take the job?
> I am sure I will be the most terrible CEO
If you just do nothing, you'll be better than the last 10 years of Mozilla's CEOs.
Well just look at that one CEO instead of doing the same mistake you accuse others of.
I have seen CEOs that where earning 250k in the EU with thousands of employees. The issue is an entitlement issue, where today's world makes people think that they deserve millions of dollars for leading a company, same issue as developers expectings hundreds of thousands for their work. Its a corruption of the system which is both a effect and a cause of the current death of capitalism in the US.
How did your CEO become CEO? Mine got there because he was golfing buddies with another CEO that was golfing buddies with another CEO that was golfing buddies with the company that ultimately bought out my old CEO.
How does that make them "worth it"?
> but I am sure I will be the most terrible CEO in the history of the company
Look, I've interacted with CEOs and frankly the job isn't nearly as hard as you are making it out to be. The most important aspect of the job is socializing, not managing the company like you might assume. It's putting on a good show and making potential clients like you. It's every bit just being a good salesperson.
There's a reason, for example, my CEO currently lives in California even though his company is halfway across the country and has no offices in CA.
Now, that isn't to say the Job of a founder CEO isn't a lot more difficult, it is. However, once a company is established the CEO job is a cakewalk. There's a reason companies like FedEx had a CEO literally in his 80s that gave up the reigns right before he died.
If you have the ability to schmooze, sit through meetings, and read power-points. Congratulations, you have what it takes to be a CEO.
This is a remarkably short sided and inexperienced sounding take on what that position does.
So like every other piece of software!
It is strange because the hate on Firefox does not fall in sync with the quality of Firefox. As if the product itself dont matter. Had it been Pre 2020 it may have made more sense.
Apart from a few years between IE 7 and Chrome, the past few years is the only time where I would rate Firefox as the best browser, especially for Multi Tab usage. Chrome back on top since 2024 after spending years working on memory efficiency as well as multi tab ( meaning tens to hundreds ) optimisation.
So while Mozilla in terms of management and their strategy ( or lack of ) has been the same, they get much of the hate because people now dislike Google and Chrome and needs a competitor. It is as if they dislike Google so they also dislike the Google sponsored Mozilla Firefox.
For all the site I visit, I have never had problem with Chrome, mostly because I guess everyone tested their website with it, much like old IE days. Where I used to have problems with Safari pre version 18, Firefox has always worked. I remember I have only encounter rendering issues once or twice in the past 3-4 years on Firefox.
There are lots of Webkit fixes landing in Safari 26. So 2025 may finally be the year where browser rendering difference is now at an acceptable minimum. Partly thanks to Interop. At least for the past 6 months I have yet to ran into issues on any of the three major browser. And this is progress.
I don't hate Firefox. It is my daily driver. I hate that Firefox went from the dominant browser by market share, to the minor, insignificant player it is today.
I hate that Firefox is so irrelevant that most web devs don't test on it. For many sites that's fine, because web standards are web standards, and Firefox supports them quite well. But whenever I run across a broken site, or even one that mostly works, but gives me papercuts, and then fire up Chrome and see that it works fine there, a little bit of me cries inside.
Mozilla should be focusing a lot more on user acquisition, and on figuring out why so many of their users have left.
The hate on Mozilla. This entire thread is people saying that Firefox is great, but Mozilla is shit. Why do you think that hate on Mozilla is the same as hate on Firefox?
> As if the product itself dont matter.
That's sort of the point. Firefox is an excellent, even amazing browser. But because of the way Mozilla has handled it, it's become largely an also-ran, and its continued existence seems highly dependent on its primary competitor in the browser space. That's just incompetent given the quality of Firefox.
Chrome's marketing budget is nearly as large as Mozilla's entire budget. They spent a couple of years actively targeting Firefox users with Chrome ads on the frontpage of google.com, and got Adobe Flash and Java and most of the free antivirus solutions to auto-install Chrome and make it the default browser.
I have yet to hear anyone on HN present an argument for how Mozilla could effectively counter that onslaught. Certainly not without using methods that they would also have complained about. (Though nobody seems to hold Chrome's bloatware tactics against them for some reason).
The thing is that in 2020 it was too late. Firefox have been lagging behind Chrome for so long, that the headstart they had when Chrome was launched didn't matter.
For example, Chrome had process in tabs when it was released in 2008. Firefox had a ticket in bugzilla open by the community that had been ignored by Mozilla for years, before Chrome was released. Even when it was released, Mozilla's first reaction was "meh, we don't need that".
There are making mistakes as an organization, and there is taking exorbitant sums of money from advertising partners and having your costs inflate to match these donations, rather than something, anything to help the sustainability of Mozilla.
Imagine if at any point in the last 2 decades leadership in Mozilla had started an endowment[0] instead of them spending many billions of dollars on ineffective programs, harebrained acquisitions, and executive salaries. They could have had a sustainable, long-lasting model that would have kept Mozilla relevant and strong for decades to come.
Instead, Mozilla sold itself out to become a shield for Google while being grossly mismanaged to the point that it is entirely reliant on a deal that at any point could be rugged from them. At no point in the last two decades has resolving this ever been a meaningful focus beyond panhandling for donations that barely cover executive compensation.
I still try to use Firefox and I desperately want to be proven wrong in my opinion that Mozilla's leadership is incompetent, or malicious, or both, but I've been hoping for this since Chrome was released.
I want them to succeed and be who they were before, but Mozilla leadership does not.
[0] Wikimedia did this nearly a decade ago and it's been a huge success and makes Wikimedia more resilient! There's a model for this!
Mozilla is making my cost inflate? That's weird. I started using Firefox a decade ago paying 0 and I'm still paying 0. I guess 10x0 is still 0.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you
How is Firefox making cost inflate at all? That is not explained.
>Completely agree. For all the hate Mozilla gets on HN, I’ve been using Firefox every day
Completely agree, Mozilla and Chrom is a lot like a president election, they both suck hard, you're kinda stuck choosing the lesser of two evils. I mean Kamala isn't great, but me, as a dainty woman who happens to have a penis and does not happen to have documentation surrounding my residency in the US, Kamala isn't so bad in comparison! Kamala is firefox.
I feel like the only people who hate firefox are frontend devs
I’m more of a full-stack but I develop “Firefox first” on my projects if I can and leave it to my tester to see that it works on Chrome. X-browser issues turn up rarely, I wind up having more trouble with Safari than anything.
I know Mozilla does worse on benchmarks, but I never complain about performance. Recently I tried some sites from one of the spammiest sectors on the web and found I couldn’t move the mouse without my Chrome lighting up like a Christmas tree and navigating me to crap sites, but the Firefox experience was that I had to click on something for all hell break loose.
We have an internal app that has screen with a JavaScript table thingie with 40,000 rows loaded locally. Crazy? Yeah. It performs great on Chrome and lags pretty bad on the fox. That’s the only bad screen, and we have a lot of screens.
Personally I don’t like it that they have an office in San Francisco. Emotionally I think, “the only thing anybody should be building in San Francisco is a homeless shelter.” Practically though, I think a browser company can’t “think different” if is steeped in the Bay Area culture, not least if they can get in a car and go visit people at Google and Facebook. If they were someplace else they might have a little more empathy for users.
Like you I have found Firefox to work pretty well in real world applications. The one place I found it did fall over was Microsoft Office Online. FF runs like molasses in a large online Excel spreadsheet vs Chrome.
Microsoft is absolutely terrible at Firefox support. I feel like they do it in purpose. In fact when I set my user agent to Edge half the issues in O365 disappear! Suddenly things actually work.
The latest crap is that it now requires me to sign in every single day on Firefox. And often after I sign in it immediately goes to "hang on while we're signing you out". Meanwhile they're pushing edge heavily as a vehicle of copilot promotion. So I'm pretty sure this is just intentional breakage..
> “We have an internal app that has screen with a JavaScript table thingie with 40,000 rows loaded locally. Crazy? Yeah.”
Crazy, no; a loop over 40,000 items should take a fraction of a second, and at 1KB per row it’s less than 1% of a 4GB memory stick.
The 1 billion row challenge leader parsed a billion rows of CSV - 10 GB of data, through a Java/graal VM - in 0.33 seconds!
This works because you're deliberately targeting a set of features Firefox supports, and the overwhelming majority of the time they're a subset of what Chrome (and increasingly, Safari) support
Read over the various web platform blogs out there, and keep a tally of how many times you'll see "Firefox gains support for XYZ in 139, bringing it to widespread availability. Chrome has supported this since 32 and Safari since version 16"
And many of these are fantastically useful features. Sure, they're not ground breaking building blocks like in the old days when IE didn't even support certain types of box model, but they're echos of the past
Worse than that, where I work I can only install an LTS Firefox so I am stuck with relatively old features, but, hey, I’m in React land using components with some time lag in their development that don’t use these new features. I was kinda shocked to see that mainstream toolkits aren’t using <dialog/> given that it is a huge leap forward for accessibility… screen readers do not see anything they’re not supposed to see, end of story. Trouble is that it does cause trouble for frameworks that depend heavily on portalization.
The one that's shocked me the most is when I was writing some CSS for a recent project using Lit components, and nesting doesn't work at all.
Component level CSS is simple enough that I didn't really have to go out of my way to do anything above and beyond, and if I had to I could just use a loader that uses sass or postcss or something similar, but it was a bit surprising.
That said, I have really enjoyed Lit. I wrote the original components for this project in 2023, and haven't really touched them till earlier this week. Bumped all package dependencies, and did the usual things you'd do for an upgrade, and they have had a stable API over the two years they've existed.
Regarding Dialog, a few years ago, when it was brand new, I was working on a project that used LiveView and SurfaceUI. We had a few modals that were used throughout the app, and I was in the process of migrating them to use Dialog before getting laid off. The tricky part, at the time, was that a Dialog invoked through pure HTML, no JS, lacked certain features that were available to the JS APIs. The HTML side has caught up, and the JS APIs have improved, but I've not touched frontend professionally in that time.
Just my two pennies. Firefox is the best vendor for adhering to spec. In contrast, Webkit drags its feet while Chromium releases and deprecates experimental API willy nilly.
There has been one debugging niche where I've found Chromium preferable: Chrome sometimes gives better WebRTC signaling error messages than Firefox.
I'm in the same boat as you. Even if there's slight issues with Firefox, being able to synchronize my profile with my phone using the Firefox app outweighs all of that. AFAIK, Chrome doesn't have that.
In the past I was annoyed with Firefox due to sluggishness and propensity to defects. But since 2 years I have been using Firefox daily and I am quite happy with it. They are doing at least somethings right.
lol market share doesn’t lie
I think you're going to have trouble defending this position.
Chrome hasn't been the best browser for most of its market share lead.
Internet Explorer 6 was never the best browser despite leading market share more than any browser in history.
lol of course it does? Every day at every scale of every category of every product or service.
Many people on HN hold Mozilla to impossible and conflicting standards. It is simultaneously a compromised propaganda arm of Google for taking the Google bribe, while also being compromised money-grabbing wankers diluting their mission when they try to generate alternative revenues of income. I realise that HN has different people posting different arguments, but I've seen many people post both over the years.
All of that is frequently married with an the amount of vitriol that seems out of place and downright bizarre. There is typically a lack of constructive discourse or suggestions, beyond vague hand-waving about how they should "just do better", or "just do this or that". Well, if it's that easy then why don't you start a browser?
In-between all of that there is the inevitable political vitriol and flaming about Mozilla. Have we gotten a flamewar about Brendan Eich (who left over 11 years ago) yet? It's the Godwin Law of Mozilla/Firefox.
These threads bring out the absolute worst of the site and many people with more nuanced views probably make a habit of staying out of them. When I've commented on this before I've been accosted with highly aggressive personal attacks. So now I often just hide them.
It’s not about getting overly vitriolic. It’s simply that they said this:
“The Firefox Browser is the only major browser backed by a not-for-profit that doesn’t sell your personal data to advertisers”
And then, they changed it:
https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2025/03/02/mozilla_introduce...
Google also had an unofficial motto: “Don’t be evil” and said:
“Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating”
https://time.com/4060575/alphabet-google-dont-be-evil/
And they changed it.
So- sure, sometimes people change their minds.
But, Google never promised it wouldn’t sell your data.
Mozilla did, and users continued to use it, many without knowledge of it; it should be a banner over all the pages: “Hey, we sell your data. Click here to acknowledge.”
I cant buy your firefox data.
I can buy a huge block of aggregate data that has some things of yours in it.
- Advertisers buy user data from Firefox, who can then resell or provide this data to others.
- Others buy that data.
- Big data companies and others aggregate this information.
- Cookie or IP are not necessarily required to identify users; thumbprinting, datetime, and behavioral matching can identify users adequately.
- Advertisers and analytics giants can ingest data that includes PII, if it’s encrypted, and that can be decrypted.
- New methods of tracking have replaced old ones and new methods are even better than old ones.
- This data can be used to group users in many ways, so it can know essentially who you are, when you do things, what you will do, and who you’ll do them with.
- This information is used for targeting ads, but can be used for other purposes.
- Technology to utilize this data has been evolving much more quickly.
- Why just target ads? Why not provide users with a version of reality that optimizes their consumer behavior?
- Why attempt to ensure control through enforcement? Why not control motivation and thought?
- Why have political elections? Why not control decisions?
Firefox isn't supposed to be a business to begin with. Mozilla is a nonprofit organization, isn't it?
If they can't survive off of donations, then they don't deserve to exist. If they want to sell user data or search defaults, Mozilla should fork Firefox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2H8wx1aBiQ
When Zuck said this, I could feel the smarm, but I respect his honesty, and I know what he's not saying. Mozilla is trying to spit the same game about its Google search default deal, as if that is the same thing. It's not, because when Facebook does it, it's a for-profit corporation selling out its users. When Mozilla does it, it's a nonprofit organization selling out its users to the single largest for-profit web property in the history of the Internet.
Google is a monopolist. They should lose the right to pay off their competition.
That's not what a nonprofit is. They do not survive off of donations alone. They have to have a public or charitable purpose. They can sell products and services for any amount or profit. They are required to reinvest the profits and not distribute them to owners.
They had my faith until they started selling user data. I've written about this before. When they pulled the Mr. Robot stunt, Mozilla fully jumped the shark while riding Firefox. Let's just say I'm not feeling charitable towards them ever since. I think that's justified.
Selling user data isn't what Firefox is; it's what Mozilla is. Firefox is free software.
fair enough. how do you feel about duckduckgo? I see ddg as doing the same thing Mozilla is: selling anonymized, aggregate data to help marketers find out what is being searched for, but not connecting it to the individuals.
If you know about the third party doctrine and you still collect user data while praising the ideal of privacy, I think you’re serving at least two masters, and Mammon is one. Privacy may be another, but I’m free to doubt your commitment to privacy while serving idols. I don’t believe that anonymization is the issue, though it’s related. It’s about creating a system of control, and I have no desire to be part of that system.
They’re outsourcing the liability and accountability of gathering the data in the first place while saying they value my privacy. I know they do: they’re cashing the checks.
[flagged]
Not every front, they gave us MDN and Rust, both of which will probably outlive them. KaiOS (the continuation of Firefox OS) is very popular in less developed areas of the world. Not that they managed to make anything off that.
MDN was a consolidation of several vendors’ web documentation efforts (I still remember Opera’s Web Fundamentals course fondly), which they collectively decided to put under Mozilla’s stewardship because surely Mozilla, among all of them, would maintain it neutrally and for the public benefit. It was a good run and Mozilla did do a good job at the maintenance for the last decade, but with their recent monetization efforts around MDN, I’m not hopeful for the future. (This is also why I’m incensed by Google’s web.dev—it’s not just the domain name, it’s that they are reneging on that old agreement.)
I was a cofounder of MDN (originally "DevMo"), and we did not use Opera or other materials, we used Netscape's DevEdge content which was released to us. You may be thinking of a later reformulation to unite with others outside Mozilla. See
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/about#our_journey
Sorry, I probably did not phrase that well: I did not mean to imply that (what ultimately became) MDN was built on others’ materials. Rather, my impression was that other browser developers had agreed on taking down their own web documentation in favour of directing people to MDN, and that the Opera course (itself quite new at the time) was among the casualties.
Checking the Wayback Machine, looks like my subjective time was quite warped then: I had read the course around 2010 (which was actually called the Web Standards Curriculum[1,2], oops) and was sure it had been memory-holed with a redirect to MDN (along with the rest of Dev.Opera) when Presto was still alive (so before 2014), but it turns out that that did not happen[3] until 2018, matching your timeline.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20100119040913/http://dev.opera....
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20111128034924/http://www.w3.org...
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20171013125336/https://www.w3.or...
Their handling of MDN has been disappointing. Laying off their staff, asking for unpaid contributors, and selling more advertising space was greedy business.
They're currently running a REDIS advertisement that looks like a critical error. The ad is a bright red toast!
_Speaking personally_, MDN is Mozilla's most valuable resource. It is the only resource I want to survive Moz's leadership.
The Mozilla corporation made sure to wash its hands of all those successes.
kaios is basically dead
>Google is a convicted criminal that suppressed competition and is now awaiting sentencing
>Google's illegal monopoly
>Google's criminality is the one mitigating favor
As someone who switched from Firefox to Chrome a while ago, these remarks made me curious enough to research the case.
The judge ruled based on "billions of dollars Google spends every year to install its search engine as the default option on new cellphones and tech gadgets".
The crime of the century laid bare before our eyes. A search engine company caught red-handed paying companies to set its search engine as the default search engine as everyone everywhere knew and saw for decades. Utterly reprehensible.
Okay. If you think they should be above the law, that's who you are. Those are your values. Thanks for letting us know.
I'm of the humble view that it's at least as important to enforce the law when it comes to the most powerful corporations in the world, as it is to enforce it on the average person.
But maybe you see things differently.
Sure, the law should be enforced against them. The law's the law. I wasn't trying to imply they should not face the full penalties the law requires, here. Obviously they should. No one is above the law.
The tone of your post just carried an impression of criminality in the sense of wanton fraud or murder rather than an organization using its money to put itself in a position to make more money via consensual contracts with technology product providers and running afoul of "wait, you can't be too good at running a business" regulations.
Aren't you implying that actual fraud, as well as things like copyright infringement, would be anything more than an organization using its money to put itself in a position to make more money via consensual contracts and running afoul of "wait, you can't be too good at running a business" regulations?
Fraud usually implies deceiving someone or something.
Which is just a company being better at business than you. Selling promises and breaking them is a very good business model, in a free market without government intervention, since it makes a lot of profit. If you were good at business, you wouldn't give money to those companies. Hence, them being better at business than you.
> The tone of your post just carried an impression of criminality in the sense of wanton fraud
Oh, they also did that [1]. If a bank did this kind of stuff, perpetrators would see jail.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue
Well, since this discussion is about the law as well:
>In September 2022, a ruling in the case dismissed claims there was collusion between Google and Facebook regarding the matters covered in the agreement.
The scope of the part of this ruling alluded to by this wikipedia quote is extremely limited. All it says is that facebook didn't explicitly promise to not develop header bidding in the future, so the agreement is not a collusion between fb and google.
In essence, all that it says is that this lawsuit is limited to Google's fraud and monopoly behaviour, and does not extend to Facebook.
In many other matters, the judge allowed the litigation to go forward. Just check out the document below [1] and ctrl-f "the complaint plausibly alleges".
[1]: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yor...
IMO buying defaults isn't as bad as Google's rigging the ad market. At least others have outbid them for search defaults in the past and in other markets.
That one is definitely a lot worse and a danger of a monopoly/extremely powerful market player. I would argue that a monopoly is not inherently "bad"* but has much more ability to do bad things if it chooses to, with not much potential recourse from others.
https://economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/ad-v...
*Strictly in an ethics and fairness sense. It might (or might not) be worse for consumers. Just worse in a kind of boring rather than nefarious or deeply harmful way.
This is great: https://aframe.io/
A-Frame is awesome; I use it to share all the photospheres I take with friends and family. I'm not aware of another easy, cross platform way to do that.
That’s very... VRML of them. Not that VRML was bad as a concept, just surprised to see it make a comeback.
Kinda inevitable after we got good VR headsets.
I was in grad school when VRML came out, I used it for things like visualizing 3-d slices of 5-d energy surfaces embedded in a 6-d phase space. I almost went to the VR CAVE to try it out but didn't quite, ironically I work in the social sciences cluster now and the former CAVE is our storage area and still has some big projectors on the floor which were expensive once.
A grad student who sat next to me, who I had endless arguments about "Linux vs Windows" told me that VRML was crap and the evidence was that it wasn't adequate to make 3-d games like Quake.
Today I'd compare A-Frame to Entity Component Systems (ECS) like Unity. A-Frame still has an object graph and it still has the awful primitives that VRML had that Horizon Worlds is stuck with, but you can make complex shapes with textures and import real models.
My one trouble with it as a developer is memory management, if you load too much geometry on an MQ3 it "just doesn't work." I got stuck on a project with it, I've got a good idea how to fix it but it was enough of a setback that I've been working on other things sense.
I did learn a lot more about the ECS paradigm this year when I was in a hackathon and joined up with a good Unity programmer and a designer to make a winning game (brought my mad Project|Product Management skills as well as my startup-honed talent of demonstrating broken software on stage and making it look perfect.) Now I play low-budget games and have a pretty clear idea how you'd implement them with an ECS framework so one day I'll put down the controller and make another crack at my VR project.
Thank you for proving my point.
If you think what I said was a vitriolic personal attack, I have no idea what I could say that you wouldn't construe as one, and honestly, don't care enough about Internet debates to try; best of luck.
[flagged]
[flagged]
> hating Mozilla is becoming a hacker tribal signifier
I respectfully disagree. It's one of the conclusions one can reach upon following Firefox development over the last decade. I'm not going to imply it's the "correct" one. It is a common one in hacker communities.
> It almost feel like each commenter is competing to out-hate the others or to add a layer of “in fact its so bad that we should (consequences)”
Unfortunately, I can't say much besides that this isn't my intention at all, and that I don't sense anything like that from the comments. I can't know for sure the intent behind other poster.
You imply it’s the hackers or Hacker News that has changed to create a negative atmosphere. From my perspective, however, it’s the direct result of a very long series of hostile-to-hackers decisions made by Mozilla.
To quote myself:
> I get why people are pissed at Mozilla
My issue is that when you try to have discourse but everyone’s on the same side, it can easily devolve into a circlejerk where everyone is trying to see who can most dramatically burn the strawman. These kinds of feedback loops are just bad—it doesn’t really matter who the target is or how malicious they are—because they cause the participants to drift further and further from the reality of the conflict.
In the best case, if the target really is bad, the participants may just look foolish when they later deploy their anti-strawman ballistic missile against someone who actually has a slightly good pro-target argument they hadn’t thought of. In the worst case, this is how mobs work themselves up to eventually justify violence against a target that’s totally harmless.
One thing’s for sure though, once a circlejerk like this starts, rational thought ends.
You seem to be really keen on whining about how people here hate on Mozilla, but seem not to be interested in arguing the merits of Mozilla and its actions over the years, and whether or not they deserve that hate.
So basically, you're a part of the problem you're complaining about. You're just being the contrarian looking down on the rest of us for having an opinion.
Tell me, why shouldn't we criticize Mozilla? What wonderful things have they done over the past several years? How does their behavior and performance make Firefox's cratered market share understandable and ok and reasonable? How is their failure to find alternative revenue streams, over and over again, ok and reasonable?
Many people in these threads are listing concrete evidence of Mozilla's poor behavior and performance, and you're just continuing, over and over, to whine about some sort of circlejerk you've imagined up. Either actually argue a useful point about Mozilla itself, or just stop posting about this.
I don't see how you're responding to the parent's comment. You seem to be exemplifying it tbh.
The parent isn't saying Firefox and Mozilla are without problems. In fact, they actively recognized them! So I'm not sure why you respond as if they don't.
The parent is saying that the complaints are often used as social signaling. The fact that this happens makes it harder to address legitimate issues. Which Mozilla, without a doubt, has issues.
The result of all this is very apparent: it helps Google. You can even think Mozilla is evil, but you have to ask: is Mozilla more evil than Google? It's hard to argue yes. Frankly, they don't even have the capacity to do as much harm
[dead]
This was probably the day that Firefox jumped the shark for me:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robo... | https://web.archive.org/web/20250701115346/https://www.theve...
I still use it, but I lost all respect for the management. This level of tone deafness should cause everyone on the board and c suite to personally write an open letter of apology to the users, but instead we got a half-hearted victim-blaming non-apology:
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/update-looking-glass-add... | https://web.archive.org/web/20250701115352/https://blog.mozi...
This is really rather telling. Here is how Mozilla articulates what they think users have a problem with:
> We’re sorry for the confusion and for letting down members of our community. While there was no intention or mechanism to collect or share your data or private information and The Looking Glass was an opt-in and user activated promotion, we should have given users the choice to install this add-on.
Mozilla is willfully inept. They think that pre-loading third-party non-free code and ads without my knowledge or consent is not an issue! Moreover, Mozilla thinks that this doesn't conflict with Mozilla's interpretation of what opt-in means and the values it embodies.
Mozilla is looking more and more like controlled opposition. Mozilla undermined their own users' faith in Mozilla's add-on/extension capabilities and act like releasing the source after the fact resolves any issue at all regarding doing this without consulting users or receiving prior affirmative consent.
This comment is getting long enough as it is. I'll just leave this here.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/manage-firefox-data-col...
Using Firefox is also ingroup signaling. I have been using Firefox since quite some time before they had even fully settled on the name Firefox— the days of "Firebird" and the "Firesomething" extension making fun of the rename. I used to wear a Firefox T-shirt to school when I was a kid. I remember reading jwz's blog with wonder and admiration when I was in high school, and reading all the secret lore pages like about:mozilla. Firefox is dear to me and it has been for a very long time now.
Perhaps these feelings are "tribal" in some metaphorical sense, but that's because the fate of Firefox has already long felt personal to me, not because it seems like something people on this website (which I care much less about than Firefox!) seem to think I should care about.
(That said, I do think Firefox still works very well, and it's fast and capable. From a technical point of view these are far from the darkest days in Firefox's history.)
> It almost feel like each commenter is competing to out-hate the others or to add a layer of “in fact its so bad that we should (consequences)”.
On a site that gives people attention and points for saying strident things that emotionally resonate with people? How surprising!
That aside, Firefox's origin is in a hacker rebellion against corporatist awfulness. It was the browser of choice for a lot of people here for a long time. Watching its continuing flailing and ongoing failure has been excruciating. I still use it, but more out of stubbornness than anything. So whether or not it's fashionable to hate on Firefox, I think there's a lot of legitimate energy there.
> … Firefox's origin is in a hacker rebellion against corporatist awfulness
It literally was not.
The Mozilla project and foundation (which led to the MPL) was a dying corporation's attempt to ensure that its source code would outlive its destruction by a monopolist. There was some push from hacker idealists inside said corporation to make this happen, but it still took the corporation's positive action in order for this to happen and not result in everything being sold to the highest bidder in a firesale.
Firefox was an independent hacker's reimagining of what just Mozilla the Browser might be if it didn't have all the other parts which made Mozilla the Suite. After it picked up steam and development stalled on the excessively complex suite, it was adopted back into the Mozilla Foundation and has become what people have used for a couple of decades.
Pure speculation on my part, but I think reasonably well informed: if Firefox hadn't been adopted back into the Mozilla Foundation, it's highly unlikely that the Foundation would have remained relevant but it's also highly unlikely that Firefox would have survived even as long as it has. There simply wasn't enough momentum for it to become a Linux-like project, and Firefox would have disappeared from desktop even faster.
> Firefox's origin is in a hacker rebellion against corporatist awfulness.
There sure is good reason to criticize Firefox but what's crazy to me is that this generally leads to using Chrome. You're not a rebel if you turn to the enemy, you're a saboteur
> It almost feel like each commenter is competing to out-hate the others or to add a layer
Let's start hating and discussing how much Chrome leads are paid too.
I don't really agree. By sitting at the big tech table you give up a lot of ethics.
I think it's similar to NGOs like Greenpeace. I respected them when they were using rubber boats to blockade toxic waste dumping. Now they have a millions earning CEO rubbing shoulders with the pollutors and ostensibly "changing the system from within". Which creates watered down measures and too much dependency on the industry. Just like Reagan's "trickle down" fallacy this doesn't work. Money and power corrupts.
Also yes a lot of us use Firefox but not because we still love it so much. But because it's the least worst option. Kinda the only option if you want to run the real Ublock Origin now.
Though weighing "Let me pay for firefox" browser against potential conflicts of interest that Mozilla has wrt that browser is only prudent.
As someone who spends a lot of time on HN, I fully agree with you. I am beyond bored of seeing the same things just continually reposted and take over some good threads. I actually got to a point where I would not click on comment threads that had anything to do with anything that Elon touches, because it just got ridiculous.
On the flip side though, I know there are a ton of readers who only occasionally Read the interesting story, who are part of today's lucky thousand who haven't heard yet. For that reason, my position has become somewhat moderate in that I think the hyperbolic hate posts are still ridiculous, including some informative and reasonable comments is probably good. To be clear though, The majority of this thread is not that :-D
Unfortunately, I strongly believe these posts often get scraped by social media aggregators or sentiment analysis platforms. So, when public sentiment appears to have "dropped by X%" because we all chilled out, it becomes a justification for decisions by non-technical program or product leaders even though users actually disliked what was being done. I see the only way forward through continued expression, so I'm assuming our happy compromise would be to have constructive negative feedback and try to hold our peer commenters accountable to quality over "upboat" mentality.
I've got a petty reason for hating Mozilla but it's not from a developer perspective, it's from a user perspective. For years all i've wanted is to use my my Google chrome state over to Firefox. I don't want to do an import, I want to type in my gmail credentials and just have all my tabs and passwords to use. If they gave that feature to me i'd have switched years ago.
It’s not just Mozilla. HN in general has become quite a hostile and unpleasant place to hang out digitally.
It's not just HN. The public Internet in general has become quite a hostile and unpleasant place to hang out digitally.
I disagree. It is perfectly possible to hate on FF for purely technical reasons. But after 30 years I'm much more familiar w/ the FF codebase than with other browsers, so I still use FF even though I have a Love/Hate relationship with it.
It's not so black and white. Firefox is my daily driver, this doesn't mean that I can't have concerns about the direction of the Mozilla Foundation or express them online with others who share those concerns.
I think the reason for that is that we are still using the Firefox that was made 5 years ago. Then the whole team that was working on making the browser more modern and speedier was fired (as I understand it anyway).
I love Firefox, and I’m happy that there’s a foundation working on it that magically gets funded, but I see that money going to things I don’t care about far too often to be comfortable with it. It always seems Firefox is an afterthought.
> It always seems Firefox is an afterthought.
I'll bet if Mozilla thought they could get away with canceling Firefox, they would.
It feels like Firefox is treated as lead generation for whatever new boat Mozilla builds to sell Firefox users down the river on next time. It's "finished" in that regard; it is a widget that passes network traffic to Mozilla and third parties, and in exchange, Mozilla gets a pittance from Google. How any of this is supposed to be accepted with a straight face is beyond me.
Or maybe we are genuinely upset that a browser we've supported and watch grow for decades at this point has fallen so low. Market share matters a ton, and Mozilla has been a very poor steward of Firefox's market share.
Maybe stop ascribing incorrect motivations to those of us who are angry but also care very deeply. I'm so tired of others assuming some sort of ill intent or virtue signaling or whatever, and using that as a way to derail a conversation.
They have ads on MDN. It's over.
Honestly, the result of it is highly beneficial to Google.
Like it or not, that's the end result. Hacking on a chromium browser doesn't de-googleify the internet, it deepens the moat.
Did we forget the old joke?
There's two types of programs:
- Those with bugs
- Those that nobody uses
Do we really want to hate on Mozilla so much that we'd lick the big boot just out of spite? I have plenty of problems with how Mozilla has handled many issues, but it's laughable to compare these to Google or Microsoft. Seriously, WTF
Or maybe... Mozilla has to change?
[dead]
[flagged]
He wasn't fired. He stepped down because of the uproar not in Mozilla itself but in the user communities. Because that's what the shareholders care about, disgruntled employees don't affect the share value but a dark shadow over the brand does.
I was personally also happy to see him go. You can't be inclusive when you try to deny people you have nothing to do with their equality.
I don't agree I'm not inclusive. I don't mind if other people have other opinions. I'm totally fine if they go to church, want to stay in the closet if they're gay etc. They're not doing themselves any favours but that's fine. I'm not trying to stop them from marrying.
Where it gets exclusive is trying to prevent other people from being what they are by campaigning for laws. The figurehead (not just any employee!) of an organisation that purports to be inclusive shouldn't be doing that. It's not opinions but limiting other people's rights that I have a problem with. It's the same reason I won't buy things from Musk.
When I said I was glad he left I was a bit harsh though, true. I would have been fine if he had stayed and disavowed his actions.
[flagged]
The sheer volume of sidequest projects they've put resources into that were clearly self-indulgence projects from internal staff, that had no obvious market need or target user-base put me off years ago.
They're kept in existence as a cost of doing business for the likes of Google, purely to ward off browser monopoly claims, and absolutely do not deserve to be taken seriously, or be given private funding.
I feel like these are stuff that the C-suite needs for justifying their pay. If it is "boring browser development", it will show that they are doing nothing, redundant, and cannot have bonuses and salary raise.
I‘d argue you don‘t need a C-suite to develop firefox and that‘s the root of the problem.
So a foundation model instead, like discussed in: [Open Source Security] Open Source Foundations with Kelley Misata of Suricata #openSourceSecurity https://podcastaddict.com/open-source-security/episode/19338... via @PodcastAddict
I'm genuinely curious, no experience in any of that.
Yep.
Also worth reading: Reinventing Organisations by Laloux.
Incredible book - absolute book of the year for me. They talk about the history of organisations and how organisations can be run differently & better. And they research companies who are trying this stuff out today, and talk about what they do. The modern CEO idea is pretty silly on the face of it. We take the - ideally - smartest person at a company, divorce them from grounded reality, then burden them with all the hardest decisions your company has to face. All while disempowering the people on the ground who do all the actual work. In many ways it’s a pretty stupid way to run a company. There’s plenty of other options.
Just the other week the economist did an interview with the CEO of Supercell, a Nordic video game company. They have the same idea - the ceo in many ways doesn’t run the company, which frees him up to do actually useful work. And it lets the team leads take initiative and lead. Much better model in my opinion.
They're trying to diversify their revenue so it doesn't all come from Google. All these 'self-indulgent projects' are attempts to actually make enough money to compete with a multi-trillion dollar company's resources because they know they can't compete long-term.
The parent is referring to things like Coop (social media), SkyWriter (IDE), Persona, Solo (website builder), “data futures”, Servo [1], “big blue button”, most of them have little to no potential for revenue.
Meanwhile you can’t really have more than a few YouTube tabs open in FF otherwise it starts freezing, and it’s been behind Safari in adding new features for a while.
[1] including Servo here since it seems to have had no real roadmap to become integrated into FF, making it more of a vanity project - it’s already thirteen years old at this point
> including Servo here since it seems to have had no real roadmap to become integrated into FF
They integrated at least a couple of components from Servo into Firefox before they cancelled it, so I don't think that's fair.
> it’s already thirteen years old at this point
Mozilla only developed it for 8 years.
> The parent is referring to things like
> you can’t really have more than a few YouTube tabs open in FF otherwise it starts freezing
> it’s been behind Safari in adding new features for a while.
I think that would be believable if a massive portion wasn't spent in venture capitalism based gambling, where they put 90% of their eggs in the AI basket, of which, 70% are small unknown groups, 30% is just hugging face which really doesn't need their money, but at least that was a good bet.
Because they are a non-profit, they have to spend their money every year. That’s why Mozilla is/was over employed and following all these projects that die, because they need these engineers to work on something.
My friend worked at Mozilla 15 years ago, arguably during their golden years and he said it was a joke how much money they wasted because they had to spend it.
That’s not how NFPs work. I’m on the board of a NFP, we absolutely are able to save money year to year. The big difference between us and a regular corp is we don’t have shareholders or paid board members.
I wasn’t clear. Mozilla was making > 400M from the Google deal. They needed to spend most of the money otherwise why would they be a nonprofit. So they would spent the vast majority of it on boondoggles, lots of all-hands in expensive locations, $400k salaries etc.
There are many NFPs with multi-billion dollar endowments, I don’t really understand this line of reasoning…
They have cut back on those a lot now, haven't they?
Charitably, I'd like to believe that all these side quests were in search of actual, real, substantial, alternative revenue streams, in order to reduce dependency on Google.
The problem, of course, is that all of these side projects just flat out failed. Maybe they were self-indulgence projects or maybe they were pursued in earnest, but either way, they failed.
I maintain Waterfox, so I recognise this isn’t a great look criticising another fork. But there’s a contradiction in abandoning Mozilla over spending and leadership concerns whilst supporting Floorp, which initially used open source extensions to build up their USP, then switched to a non-open licence to prevent others from doing what they had done.
They only reverted after community backlash (or being “inspired” if I recall correctly). You’re comfortable supporting a project that actively betrayed open source principles, whilst writing off Mozilla for issues like executive compensation.
It doesn’t strike me as more morally consistent than supporting the organisation that actually develops the underlying engine?
It's kind of disheartening to see what happened to the Mozilla Foundation. And it makes me kind of afraid of what's going to happen to linux once Linus is out. It seems that a great project requires a great BDFL, otherwise it will be taken over by ghouls.
Isn't the Linux ecosystem much more healthy and decentralized than Mozilla? We're so so blessed with Linus and everyone is afraid of the moment the project has to stand without him. But I'm confident he's aware and working towards that point in time. I'm not too much into it though, so this is more or less assumptions.
Same with e.g. PostgreSQL.
But these are fundamentally different type of projects. Many businesses and products run on top of Linux and/or PostgreSQL. There is a very clear and obvious incentive to contribute, because that will help you run your business better.
With user-oriented software such as a browser, this is a lot less clear-cut. Organisations like Slack, or Etsy, or Dropbox: sure, they've contributed resources to stuff they use like Linux, PosgreSQL, PHP, Python, etc. But what do they get out of contributing to Firefox? Not so obvious.
I think this is one reason (among others) that Open Source has long been the norm in some fields oriented towards servers and programmers, and a lot less so in others.
With PostgreSQL my biggest concern is what happens when we no longer have Tom Lane, Petere, etc. Rather than the project dying I see the opposite happening; it gets feature crept by contributors adding in their own custom behaviour and it becoming too complex.
There's always a large overhead of adding something new and it's always the experienced devs on the project that know where the right balance is.
No project or development style is perfect and they all come with their own set of upsides and downsides. PostgreSQL is no exception. Maybe the PostgreSQL 20 years from now will be a different type of project with different types of trade-offs. That doesn't mean it will be worse. I'm not so worried about this.
Linux is a trademark of Linus. Which is why Linux Foundation which is run by corporates like Microsoft, Google etc is staying aside. After Linus, it would like corporate board memebers changing CEOs at their wish.
The Linux Foundation also runs several other projects, none of which do I see being ran terribly poorly from a corporate meddling point. I can only hope that is a strong signal of things to come.
Did I say anything is run poorly? Or good for that matter? The difference is intent. Run for community and run for corporate are both different. Currenlty Linus is the only thing standing in the way of LF pulling another Rust Foundation. Cos it's run by corporates as well. Time will tell.
What do you mean by "pulling another Rust Foundation"?
Rust foundation has not been very community friendly. That's cos corporates run it. There was a fork of the language called crab or something cos of this at one point. Take Linus out of the scenario, it's the same thing that's probable about Linux Foundation.
Has he ever hinted about successors?
I did a quick search. Names were named by him here [1] in 2024 - but not as successors per se. More like candidates for important roles in the future. This [2] interview from 2020 touches the subject as well.
I interpret it in a way that he tries to cultivate an environment where a good leader/successor/main-whatever emerges somewhat naturally.
[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/990534/ [2] https://itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/torvalds-say...
(Prime example of my personal behavior which I really don't like: Put a half-baked assumption/hearsay on the internet. Get 2 replies. Start actually researching the topic only afterwards.)
> Isn't the Linux ecosystem much more healthy and decentralized than Mozilla?
Is it? IME Linux kernel development is a somewhat toxic place.
>IME Linux kernel development is a somewhat toxic place.
I think that's why it's healthier. A bit like the human immune system.
GHOULS doesn't even begin to describe the people who take over these foundations. They are parasites who seek out nonprofits to infiltrate, and once they gain a position of power they bring in their pals and set up shop. Suddenly the CoC is weaponized to crush dissent, the decisions are made behind closed doors, and the organization starts contributing to political organizations that help their class of parasites spread. And there are WAY more of them than there are good-hearted honest people starting foundations. When a new foundation is created, these parasites line up to see who can corrupt it first.
There is a sad parallel to Wikimedia Foundation, rooted in the same argument: We don't know the correct price. These entities are effectively monopolies with no competitors, and there is no public negotiation on what the annual budget of these entities should be.
So once they get away with nag screens on the world's biggest billboards, CEO pay is suddenly 'justified'.
But that illusion only works when there is zero oversight.
> But that illusion only works when there is zero oversight.
Certainly when it comes to Wikipedia: there is oversight. I know people don't like the fact that Wikipedia spends money on things other than server racks, but spending money on developing the community is a pretty legitimate thing to do! How else can you maintain such an encylopedia? You need to attract knowledgeable people to write and review articles!
I don't think there are objections to Wikipedia developing the community.
The objections are primarily around the aggressive and deceptive fundraising.
Wikipedia collects donations by essentially saying (in some years more directly, otherwise more implying) "if you don't donate Wikipedia WILL DIE", rather than "Please give us some money so we can build an even bigger community to make Wikipedia even better".
They are also making the banners incredibly obnoxious. From "donate or ask later", full-screen interstitials, to delayed popups that interrupt you after you've started reading, and with increasing frequency. During their "yearly" fundraisers (I think it's actually 2-3x a year, masked behind "local" vs. "global" campaigns) they pop them up every few days on every device you use, and now they're introducing "experimental" banners every month (again per device) so several times per month, and more frequently if they delete cookies. [1]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising#Proposed_ch...
At some level this is true, but I'm also 98% sure that if you do that, you get far fewer donations. Fewer donations = less money to do good work. This means you can't provide money to support foundation projects (these are quite valuable and promote exchange of knowledge amongst Wikipedia contributors, and also onboard new people to make a better encyclopedia). Eventually not doing this leads to the pool of contributors shrinking, which leads to burnout, and eventually to a slow death spiral.
The exact same way it always worked.
It's also obscenely disingenuous to ask for donations like they do with this current model. Downright insulting.
If only.
A very informative comment.
I wish there were a way to donate to the devs who work on Firefox directly.
Like a pool where we donate and money goes to devs to work on user-centric features (eg: I’d also want to exclude those working on first party spyware and adware).
The devs who work on firefox as paid well by mozilla. You could probably donate to volunteers who make some of the more useful extensions that you use maybe?
Agreed. Until I upgraded phones and just couldn't be bothered anymore, I kept around an old build of Firefox from before they messed up extensions. I have to run nightly now to get my extensions and just pause updates at relatively bug-free builds. It's absurd how they took the one selling point and lost it. I've even switched to edge canary because it gives me extensions and didn't have a few regressions (that eventually got fixed) that prevented smooth video watching
> It's absurd how they took the one selling point and lost it.
No, it's obvious. Google Pays for Firefox. Google doesn't want Adblock Extensions.
No, contrary to you and GP, the stable version of Firefox for Android (on the Google Play Store) supports all Firefox extensions, including ad blockers.
There was a short period in the switch-over from Fennec (old FF for Android) to Fenix (new FF for Android) when the stable version didn’t support all extensions, but this hasn’t been the case anymore for years now.
> There was a short period in the switch-over from Fennec (old FF for Android) to Fenix (new FF for Android) when the stable version didn’t support all extensions, but this hasn’t been the case anymore for years now.
They got rid of extensions in August 2020 and brought them back in December 2023.[1] Fenix has lacked full extension support for more than half of its existence since release, and it has been less than two years since extensions were brought back.
1. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/new-extensions-youll-lov...
https://github.com/Floorp-Projects/Floorp-core [a submodule of their main repo] is noticeably missing any licensing information
I went there to find out how they're tracking upstream releases, because that's my major heartburn about any fork of one of the biggest attack targets on a personal computer. Since 12.0.14 doesn't tell me anything about what version of Firefox it's built against, I guess https://github.com/Floorp-Projects/Floorp/blob/v12.0.14/brow... is the best one can do and since it says 128.anything and the current production release is 140.0.4 I got my answer
That's the latest ESR (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/notes/), which seems good enough for Tor Browser.
That reminds me of the people who give money on the street and say “but not for drugs or alcohol”.
Oh well, thanks for mentioning Floorp, I'm gonna try it right now.
I use Firefox, but I'm curious about whether I'll 'feel' a difference with Floorp, in terms of performance.
I don't feel that firefox is slow on anything I use it on other than Android. Its reasonably responsive on all the machines I have ever used it with including some pretty old laptops. It seems pretty smooth, its been a while since I used chrome.
The only thing that firefox seems slow to me on is some of the online browser benchmarks. Day to day? I don't even notice. One thing that I noticed that -can- slow down firefox rendering a lot is using dark reader, but that isn't FF fault.
It would be possible to create a new foundation that works on Firefox and is not Mozilla.
It is possible to create a new foundation that works on a new browser product based on Gecko indeed. You just can't call it Firefox because of trademark ownership.
It would be interesting to see how it collaborates / competes with the origin project, how fast and how far they diverge etc.
You can if you arrange with Foundation to license the trademark under non-profit terms. Not that this is likely to be done by anyone, but if anyone could do it, I’d like to think the Servo group could.
It might not be that hard to finance Firefox improvements. We should establish a Firefox improvement group. And then set a plan for bug improvements roadmap. Then publish that roadmap and set up a fund for the programmers.
I think what you are asking for is better steering of the Mozilla foundation. And maybe better steering for Firefox development. Possibly with less opinions. We might be better off supporting servo devs instead.
It's not the pessimist in you, it's your rational brain doing basic pattern recognition.
Mozilla has consistently been losing donor trust for over a decade.
I just want to see a pie chart with how they spend any donations. I also don't mind their forays into stuff like free speech and internet privacy, but beyond that they should stay out of politics. That said I have donated a few times since I use firefox as my primary browser. Their activities are far superior to anything that Brave and Google are up to
When donations feel like they're funding bloat instead of a better browser, it's hard to justify hitting that donate button
No worries, if you donate to "Mozilla", i.e. the Mozilla Foundation, you're unlikely to fund built-in "campaigns", "studies" or ads. You're more likely to fund sociology-style campaigns and studies that have absolutely nothing to do with Firefox (https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/what-we-fund/), because the development is done by the corporation.
Yet when you search for "donate to firefox" you will first find one of two Mozilla Foundation donation page... Just making it possible to actually donate "to Firefox" would probably help a lot...
I agree with your opinion of that corp which as of today exists solely to employ the highly paid CEO for doing less than nothing. Or something on those lines.
But Firefox (+ forks) is a lost cause. One simple non-statistical reason, I mean it seems so, is that whenever I see that “I donate to Firefox fork” mentioned somewhere, it’s almost always a different fork. So maybe now Firefox will die a 100 deaths.
Donate to Ladybird, Firefox and forks are unfortunately over.
Ladybird has a chance to become a new truly open source browser written from scratch.
ladybird is 5 to 10 years off
next year the fire starts.
> Ladybird is currently in heavy development. We are targeting a first Alpha release for early adopters in 2026.
I'll do my part and use it as soon as it's "released" alpha. This is very cool!
I'm regularly building and playing around with it and the progress is remarkable. I don't think they will need 5 years before it's a usable alternative.
Yeah, always thought this was incredibly short-sighted.
You have an orders-of-magnitude smaller non-profit-ish thing going toe to toe with THREE of the hugest and most powerful companies to ever exist -- and generally holding their own for freedom.
It's good to be critical and influence, they do make bad decisions sometimes.
But COME ON, given what they're up against, most of the time I want y'all to just shut up and keep giving them money.
The article doesn’t advocate for donations, however.
Sounds exactly like paying taxes in Seattle...
I would happily pay monthly for Firefox - but not to Mozilla Corporation. Will Pay to developers, development support and operations - not to pad the CEO salary.
How are you expecting to run an entity with developers, support, and operations without any leadership?
I don't know if you have ever worked in a larger team that lacked someone to make decisions, take responsibility and set a strategy, but in my experience that is almost always a disaster.
I'm worked on many larger teams and leadership is independent of compensation.
The fact that "high performance leaders" need to make tens of millions of dollars is one of the greatest lies being told in the modern age.
Right now my chief in the fire company where I volunteer makes the same amount of money I do: $0.00. He is the greatest leader I have ever personally met, and I've been around for a while.
When I was in the Army, my company commander (a Captain) made ~4x what the newest private did. The highest-paid officer makes ~9x.
There are government senior executives and university professors running labs with budgets and teams that make Mozilla look like a lemonade stand for practically nothing.
Mozilla should ask the Linux Foundation what their budget is, what their leadership structure is, and do that.
Mozilla, no matter what they say or think or try, is and will always be a web browser developer. A web browser. Anything else is a side project, a hobby. A distraction. Every single molecule of fuel used by their brains while at work and every single microwatt of power used by their infrastructure should be wholly and aggressively dedicated to building the tools and organization needed to create the best web browser possible.
Bloated payrolls are tolerable if the decisions made are wise, responsibility is taken, and strategies exist and make sense.
Mozilla seems to have none of these.
But man they're spending a shit-ton on "AI"!
Three examples off the top of my head — PostgreSQL, FreeBSD, and Debian — are doing just fine without someone "taking responsibility" (when have Mozilla's CEO ever done that?).
Debian has an elected leader that is not paid and has pretty limited authority overall.
There's also the Linux kernel, with Linus doing both managerial and technical work, running circles around Mozilla's leadership in both. He makes just a few millions per year, less than Baker did even two years ago AFAIK.
PostgreSQL is just a community of volunteers as far as I'm aware, not full-time developers employed by the project.
FreeBSD seems to have three paid directors: https://freebsdfoundation.org/about-us/our-team/
Debian has a leader and also seems to be more a volunteer organisation than a full company: https://www.debian.org/intro/organization
All of the people on Postgres, FreeBSD, and Debian combined make a tiny fraction of what the Mozilla CEO does.
Like what?
I agree that probably the three mentioned projects don't total a 6 million USD budget, which is the CEO salary at Mozilla, but is only close to it.
I think all of these projects have contributors who are getting paid at other companies for the work, notably Linux. Not quite so for Firefox. I mean, tell me where does Linus get his income? You think that can be fully replicated for Firefox?
They wrote "pad the CEO salary", not "support any leadership"
Compare to Torvalds. You may or may not like his leadership, but nobody feels sour about his salary.
It can be done; an example is Igalia: https://www.igalia.com/jobs/
> We are a worker-owned, employee-run company with more than 20 years of experience building open source software in a wide range of exciting fields.
If there's enough money to go to the developers actively working on a product to make it sustainable, I think a lot of people would get on board with that and would pay for FF.
> If there's enough money to go to the developers actively working on a product to make it sustainable
That's a big if. AFAIK most open source project developers don't get remotely enough donations to support them working on it full-time. The ones that do are the exception, not the norm.
I've been in organisations with great developers but no leadership. It's a shit show.
Leadership doesn’t mean earning more money.
I’m fine with twice the amount of a developer. Taking into account responsibility, public involvement and special clothing. Travel costs and so on are separate. The developers are doing the hard work.
There is not “team” if a MBA or lawyer gets 38 times the wage of an actual person doing the work.
Worth thinking of it also "the other way". As long as some people (developers) accept an MBA above them getting 38x, without adding much value, this will happen.
I don't personally like it (so generally did not allow to happen to me), but if some people feel "safer" getting lower pay (less chance of getting fired, easier to get re-hired as there are more low paid positions than high paid positions), the natural result is that it will happen.
My experience is that both high and low paid positions are not as "safe" as people think they are (seen multiple changing in various organizations types), so people should care more about finding a reasonable organization.
I think you need a CEO, you just don't need a CEO that is paid $7m/year. That's ludicrous. What amazing decisions have they been making that were worth that amount? Have they really contributed more than a team of 70 developers could?
There are plenty of competent people that could be CEO for far less, like $200k/year.
It doesn't even have to be that. Take that and bump it 5 times like a million dollars. Throw in more cash if they can increase Firefox's market share. Have clauses to penalize anything about opt-out telemetry or anti-privacy features. I'm happy to add more carrots as well as more sticks.
All said and done, that will still be way more reasonable than that ludicrous salary.
I would be fine with $6 million if it was making at least that much more in revenue because of the CEO, but I highly suspect that it is not. I think $600K would be PLENTY and would pull in talented execs and managers.
> don't know if you have ever worked in a larger team that lacked someone to make decisions, take responsibility and set a strategy
I had once. The ultra micro-managing boss went to surgery and was off for two months. The whole company happily cruised along, numbers kept going up, his toxic pressure was absent, people kept working and making things.
I don't know how it would go for long term, but these were some of the best months.
If the CEO changes his salary to 200k then fine I have no problem with that. CEOs are overpaid relative to skill and that does not sit well with my sense of generosity.
It's bizarre. In Japan, the custom is to revere your elders, in the US its apparently whoever is titled "leader". All of HN shivers in exaltation at the mention of the word.
The reality is that Firefox would have done much better had Mozilla fired their CEO 15 years ago and never hired another one. All of them executed significantly worse than mere government bonds did.
Leaving aside the (valid) sibling commenters here pointing out that it can be done well, but you're making a strawman argument - the gp never said anything about eliminating managers or organisational structure.
They specifically targetted two things:
1. directing funding towards Firefox development. Mozilla have been criticised for spending large portions of their income on non-Firefox endeavours while not publishing breakdowns of Firefox-specific spending in their annual reports
2. The CEO's salary: the commenter said nothing about not wanting the CEO position to exist, merely a desire for the funding to the Foundation to not be excessively funnelled into salary increases while the company's resources contract. Which seems reasonable.
CEO is typically needed for-profit purposes on a scale. Donating for devs to build browser without that purpose does not need CEO. Just a lead engineer and accountants.
> How are you expecting to run an entity with developers, support, and operations without any leadership?
Unfortunately, CEO is not always leadership.
Aside from that, leadership can come from the people doing the work. It is working in many cases.
If dev work is paid for by the community, the CEO payments can increase since the budget of Mozilla will stay the same but now have less cost to carry elsewhere?
I don't know, but ask Mitchell Baker or the board because that's exactly what happened during her tenure.
Yet we happily do that for everything else.
Either software developers have to figure out how to out compete the CEO ghouls (without becoming CEO ghouls themselves), or we just have to accept that the CEO ghouls will take their cut. There's no version of this where you can pay for a service, but also dictate how that money is spent.
I think that's because those everything else are products with an opaque structure, and Mozilla, and for example Wikipedia, are more transparent. Really highlights why some people don't open up, either themselves, their source code, or their organizational structure: it's just inviting endless criticism.
Adding to the point, donating to Mozilla (or Wikipedia) is optional, and paying for a product is not, legally. So if I'm buying clothing, it's whatever, I need my clothing, and the price is just the functional gateway of getting it. But in case of a Mozilla donation, I'm trying to do something good in the world. And if I discover that it's wasted, then I'm not just getting nothing - I am worse off, because I supported a bad cause.
This has been part of my conclusion too.
There's an irony that in providing people the option of not paying, you are also inviting them to find flaws in your organization to avoid paying. We are all aware that Microsoft sucks, yet there's never any doubt that you'll have to pay for a 365 subscription if you're a serious business. At the same time we'll also gladly accept that small companies don't donate to the Linux foundation, because they have to pay their bills.
By using the control we advocate for (forking projects, reducing funding, etc) we only harm the projects that afford us that control. Not paying Mozilla does nothing to reduce the control of Google over chrome. It only hurts the one browser that gives you the choice.
I think you are being too pessimistic. Maybe it is difficult for this to happen for Firefox due to its system already subverted. However, it is not true of OSS in general. Folks already directly donate to creators/maintainers with no executive in between.
That's true, although I will point out that we've long had a funding crisis in OSS. Tons of very valuable, very necessary OSS work is being done for no or little pay.
Add to that the value capture that happens outside of that exchange. We may say that valkey is well enough funded to continue development, but that doesn't account for the immense value that is being captured by the big cloud providers charging a premium for hosting it. Azure, AWS and GCP are only as valuable as they are because there's some software you can run on them. The cheaper that software, the more they get to charge.
This is sort of a general problem with the American system of "philanthropy". We can say that the Linux Foundation is developing the Linux kernel independently for free, and that various other companies then donate, but that ignores the fact that the Linux kernel has been tremendously valuable for those same companies. In a more real way, they are paying for the development of the kernel, but they are not paying anything even close the value they are deriving from it. Value is in that way being extracted from the Linux kernel outside of the Linux Foundation, and that looks a lot like "an executive in between".
Isn't this the idea of charity though? To give without expecting something in return? I think open source software had a tremendous positive impact even if some companies also made profit out of it. How would it have been otherwise? Only walled gardens with no possibility of doing anything (like forking) and probably a miserable developer experience.
You give the examples of Azure, AWS and GCP - do they really have that much secret sauce? My impression is that AWS is mostly giving a new name to open source stuff. If all would decide tomorrow to double their prices competitors will appear immediately. And my guess is that their profit is due to forgotten or over-provisioned resources of other organizations anyhow.
I think we should focus on the benefits for society of open source, not on reducing the profit that some will make from it here and there.
Firefox's entire appeal is that it is not like every other corporate entity. Its legitimacy hinges on how far it can separate itself from intrusive corporate interests.
If Mozilla goes the same way, Firefox loses all goodwill it gathered over the years and stops being an option against Chrome et al.
>There's no version of this where you can pay for a service, but also dictate how that money is spent.
Well then I’m just not going to pay.
What I'm trying to get at is the irony that making that choice just incentivizes everybody to not give you that choice.
We almost always have that choice. It's just unpalatable to some.
That's an interesting perspective I hadn't heard before
I'll need to think about this more but one difference that comes to mind after giving it some thought is that donations are a choice. Buying food is not really optional. I'm not going to the store and giving them 50€ because I hope they continue to operate, I give them the money as an equal exchange
There is a group of people who would choose to shop more frequently at a certain place, or tip more, if their favorite place is having trouble, but as far as I know this is only a small effect and market forces decide for 95% whether a place can continue to pay its bills. With open source software development like at Mozilla, barring other income sources, they rely on those 5%. The donators don't need to accept that their money is spent on drugs and mansions¹, the way that they do when buying groceries and the big boss might indeed use the profits in that way
¹ I have no clue what else you would do with the 7M USD a year that someone else quoted. Even at a 50% tax rate (idk what the tax rate is for someone who operates a non-profit in the USA), an average person could literally retire after six months of telling others what to do at this "non profit"
I can't get around doing it for good products that are better than their competition. Firefox isnt that. I'd pay if it meant supporting enthusiastic engineers that try to make the best browser and strive to compete with Goliath. I'm not going to pay for the inflated sallary of the CEO of a product that is worse than the competition.
>Yet we happily do that for everything else.
Is it because we're >happy< to do it, or there's no choice?
Or in slightly less fatalistic words: In any entity with more than 1-2 employees you need someone to make decisions and be accountable for them. The normal solution is to have a director/CEO for this. You may be able to get away with paying them slightly less than market rates if they are doing it for a good cause, but if you want someone competent you will need to pay them a relatively high salary to compete with other employers.
Expecting Mozilla to somehow function without a CEO, unlike pretty much every other charity in the world, is just not reasonable.
Happily? We seem to have a choice here, ergo the expressions of preference to exercise that choice.
Yes exactly! Except for developers who I don't like and except for the development of features I don't like and except for certain functions within the code which I don't fancy, and also they have to use tabs instead of spaces if they want my hard earned money! Also which text editor is each developer using?
We need more paid stuff. Making everything advertising funded has given advertisers too much power over society. We don't see real human opinion anymore, we see advertising friendly opinions.
Nothing can compete with the ad model + ad blocker.
The suckers can watch the ads, and we can ride for free. (And we can complain that the content progressively caters to the suckers and not us).
Ads have many more perverse effects than wasting your time or being ugly, and you can't fix all of those with an ad blocker. They're a constant pressure to make everything retain your attention for the longest time possible, or to editorialize out content that would detract from clicking them.
You also end up paying for all this advertising indirectly, in the price of everything you buy. So you might think you get free content, but you're really not. And let's not even mention the insanity of constantly pushing everyone to consume more trash in a world that really doesn't need it.
Did you notice that chrome removed the ad blocker extensions?
Google is also getting pretty aggressive about blocking people with ad blockers from YouTube. I think it is great. I ad-block everywhere, but if people don’t want me around for that reason, that’s their right. If I wanted to watch short videos, I’d actually have to become a paying customer somewhere!
Ad blockers still work in Chrome
They just sunset the most popular extension, not sure what people actually use now
As people have said in this very thread, people are using Ublock Origin Lite, which blocks display ads and youtube ads. Which is all 99% of users care about.
It's not easy when the purchasing power of the working class has been falling steadily for the last 45 years. We have now blown past Gilded Age-levels of economic inequality and there's no signs of stopping.
This is a very, very Western-centered take. It's been growing in most other areas of the world, although from a much lower starting point. I'd say it's been "reverting to the mean".
> when the purchasing power of the working class has been falling steadily for the last 45 years
Yeah? How much did an always-on pocket sized computer connected to the internet cost in 1980?
Manufacturing a pocket sized computer has become equivalently easier as it is cheaper to purchase.
This is a weird strawman and it has almost nothing to do the parent's claim. The guilded age is 1870-1890's.
I was replying to the bit I quoted?
Even if you had managed to come up with a point by selectively quoting the post, that would still be bad. The good-faith way to engage with somebody’s post is to reply to the meaning of the overall post. It might be necessary to cut some parts out for logical flow, but that shouldn’t change the meaning of what you are replying to.
Attacking a point by attacking its supporting points is a pretty standard way of going about arguing.
Sure, but not just by contradicting arbitrary sub-sentence snippets of text devoid of context. An attack against a supporting point should be related to the way that it supports the overall argument.
It’s fully the first half of the comment rather than a few words taken out of context
This is my kept-warm take on Signal.
Signal personal should continue being free. Signal needs to develop a business line for enabling authenticated, private communications to individuals on Signal.
There's at the very least an entire area of secure healthcare messaging which is full of terrible bespoke systems, or just goes over SMS, which would more effectively and with better user experience go over signal (i.e. the ability to send longer messages, encrypted attachments etc.)
This is the Threema business model: https://threema.com/en
Public app, and a separate business offering - both with E2EE
Germanys healthcare systems goes Matrix
Yes, and we are still paying money for it. In fact, now we pay twice, once with our attention and then ...
Firefox is free, none of its users are paying for it.
Agreed. I'd pay £10/m for a browser that fits with my use case. I imagine there's a critical mass of other people willing to do the same.
Hard agree. I pay for monthly hosting like FreshRSS, Wallabag, etc and support the devs who make those projects. Privacy and developer support. And it's not that much.
Definitely interested in making Firefox, Thunderbird, etc sustainable too.
Welcome to the world of MacOS X, where there is a very healthy ecosystem of pay-once apps made by everything from giant corporations, to boutique software shops to individual developers.
I have found that whatever software I need or want, I can always find the best-in-class option to buy for a very reasonable price.
The best part: If you experience a bug or a problem, it's usually fixed within a few days at most after you report it.
JUst pointing out that apple dropped that "X" off in 2016
I don't understand what these comments are actually criticizing in terms of side projects. They got rid of stuff like Rust, Firefox OS, Pocket, etc. Mozilla has streamlined to make web browsers and web browser accessories. VPN/Relay are both profitable projects that inhibit surveillance, so clearly that's not the issue. Do you want, not just these projects gone but the CEO gone? That happened already too, https://fortune.com/2024/02/08/mozilla-firefox-ceo-laura-cha...
We've been through a decade of the Mozillas blackholing money with zero telegraphing of any intent to bring financial sustainability to Firefox. The (expensive! ugly?) rebrand did not include any meaningful recommitments (which filtered down to me, anyway). I've just now clicked around the Foundation's website trying to figure out what my prospective donation might have gone towards and it's still kept very vague. Am I donating to Firefox, to non-software activism, to a podcast? I couldn't even find a single mention of Firefox on https://www.mozillafoundation.org in a minute of looking.
I don't mind side-projects, I mind that Mozilla looks completely directionless from the outside. It might even look like a Google-funded adult daycare. I can't trust that.
Whoops, it happened. An internet argument changed someone's mind. :)
According to their latest financial transparency report[1], software development as a line item is about 60% of their expenses. However, your question wasn't about where revenue has gone, it was about where new donations would go. That lead me to the donation FAQ which reads:
> At Mozilla, our mission is to keep the Internet healthy, open, and accessible for all. The Mozilla Foundation programs are supported by grassroots donations and grants. Our grassroots donations, from supporters like you, are our most flexible source of funding. These funds directly support advocacy campaigns (i.e. asking big tech companies to protect your privacy), research and publications like the *Privacy Not Included buyer's guide and Internet Health Report, and covers a portion of our annual MozFest gathering.
If I'm reading this correctly, this means you are not able to donate to Firefox development at all. This explains the lack of Firefox on their website. Any mention of it as a product of the foundation would be misleading about where the donations go. From the point of view of the Mozilla Foundation, Firefox is just another revenue stream for outreach efforts.
This really bums me out, because I'm a huge fan of Firefox. It's my go to browser on my computer and my phone. I advocate for it as much as possible. I've donated before, but I've likely never actually financially supported development of Firefox. I support the EFF, so it's possible I could have donated to this foundation on its own merits. But I didn't.
[1]: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-202...
[2]: https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/donate/help/#frequently...
> If I'm reading this correctly, this means you are not able to donate to Firefox development at all
Yes, this is what so many people here on HN have complained about for years :) and is also being raised by the OP:
> To be clear, I very much support the Foundation, and it does amazing work, but I want to know this money in particular would directly support Firefox development.
I just took a look at that site after reading your comment. It almost appears as if Mozilla just isn't interested in making a browser anymore.
"In the early 2000s, the Mozilla community built Firefox. We toppled the browser monopoly, gave users choice and control online, and helped create a healthier internet.
Twenty years later, Mozilla continues to fight for a healthy internet — one where Big Tech is held accountable and individual users have real agency online."
They list a bunch of projects on the site that are kind of all over the place. It's almost as if they don't know yet what they want to do. Mozilla is synonymous with Firefox and the Mozilla browser before that, but it is clear from the site that browsers do not fit in with their future. I'm not even sure they know what their future is. They look like a research organization that's dong research for the purpose of finding something to do? They are also accepting applications for funding.
The only purpose Firefox has in this organization is to fund exploratory research via the Google search deal. There is no plan. These people don't deserve our money and are not responsible enough to be custodians of a project as important as an independent browser.
A new organization should fork Firefox, rebrand it, contribute real resources and monetize it enough to keep it healthy. I'm not talking about junk like Zen or Floorp where they just put a skin on Firefox and have no real development resources to speak of. Someone should do to Mozilla what Mozilla did to Netscape.
Personally, I think that's a more worthwhile approach than what Ladybird is doing, although I'm rooting for them to succeed.
I'm curious, how capital intensive/wasteful were these aimless projects? Compared to their operating expenses? What better way could they have spent this money? (Development isn't exactly a good answer, if it's not a lot of money, it won't exactly buy a lot of R&D and even if it did, R&D doesn't necessarily translate to more income).
> They got rid of stuff like Rust
They got rid of everything. Relay and VPN are both five years old. Other than MDN, everything they've done, including "browsers and browser accessories" have been killed. For company as old as Mozilla, if your two oldest offerings are less than a quarter of your lifespan, what does that say?
And on the browser front, they're really not making a whole lot of anything. Ignoring fixes and web standards work, the latest version has.... Vertical tabs? Which there's been an extension for since pretty much forever. Some AI stuff? Changing the background of the New Tab page? I'm supposed to be excited for this? This is supposed to make me want to give them money?
Meanwhile there are startups like The Browser Company who are actually doing exciting things with the web (that people use! that are exciting enough to raise funding for!), and users love it. You can't say "we're building the best browser" and then not even ship anything.
The interface is fine, they need to make sure they are participating in web standards and implementations of those in their browser. I would love if they froze development for a year and just fixed bugs that have been around for 1+ years.
99% of consumers don't care about web standards, they just care that their site works. Nobody is paying for the minimum viable browser. It's not going to get anyone up in the morning.
What gets people excited are quality of life improvements, like video chat picture in picture, or new ways of grouping and managing tabs (your reminder that Mozilla killed Tab Candy). Firefox only got a cookie cutter clone of Chrome tab groups on v137.
There is no shortage of ways browser vendors can ship features that make browsing the web better without getting in anyone's way. Hell, they could have a build of Firefox that just has all the new stuff and merge it back to trunk when it's been proven out.
The thing is, for people like my mom, every other browser has features she uses and likes. Firefox hardly does more in the core experience than it did fifteen years ago when they started shipping every six weeks. My mom has every single department store's app installed on her phone, she's not choosing a browser based on how much it may respect your privacy.
It takes time to win back trust.
I keep seeing comments on HN that misunderstand what's happening with Mozilla and it's kind of frustrating.
Right now, if you were to take away Google's money, Firefox would not be able to compete with Chromium and Safari. It would die.
All these side-projects are attempts to find a source of revenue aside from Google and are necessary to Firefox's survival. So saying they should stop doing them, completely misses the point.
Unless we want Firefox to die, we should understand Mozilla's situation and encourage this exploratory process, not hate on it.
>Right now, if you were to take away Google's money, Firefox would not be able to compete with Chromium and Safari. It would die.
I think the only way for it to prosper is to take away Google's money. I firmly believe it could do better browser development on 5% of the income it's currently receiving.
It'll be a heck of a culture shock at the foundation, though.
If you had put all the money Mozilla executives have spent on buying then winding down bizarre startups, occasionally connected to them, in index funds instead, you would probably have an actual revenue stream to support Firefox, other than what they have now, which is nothing, because like their leadership, these purchases never amounted to anything other than damaging their brand.
I think it’s fascinating how languages shape our society. In this case, the ambiguity between free as in “at no cost” and free as in “freedom” is probably hurting the FOSS landscape. In French, there are two very distinct terms for this: “gratuit” vs “libre”. And it doesn’t sound as an oxymoron to pay for a “logiciel libre”.
Isn't English actually the only language where "free" can also mean "at no cost"?
German is the same as French in this regard, we have "kostenlos" (literally cost-less) "gratis" (the same) and "umsonst" (which interestingly can also mean "in vain").
The German "frei" can mean "free of charge" sometimes: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frei#Usage_notes
(Native German speaker here), it's a very rare use of the word "free" and usually only used in fixed terms like "Freibier", it wouldn't even work for other drinks, e.g., you can't say "Freisaft" or "freier Saft" for free juice, it has to be kostenlos there.
The other Wiktionary example of "freie Krankenversorgung" sounds wrong to be, but it seems to be used rarely in some more formal or legal contexts, no one would say it like this in a casual conversation. Google results also show a 4x difference between frei and kostenlos here in favor of kostenlos. But both are low since "Krankenversorgung" is already a very unusual word. I suspect many of those uses might be bad translations from English.
"Freier Eintritt" seems to be used quite often.
“Frei” can have the meaning of “kostenlos” (https://www.dwds.de/wb/frei#d-1-1-7), but these are limited circumstances that are usually perceived as metaphorical idioms. “Freie Software” has no direct connotation of being “free as in beer” (unlike “Freeware”).
I think in some way it has become that, but I assume the roots are different. People might have said "Freier Eintritt" before it became associated with money. One might be able to see this in "Portofrei" which does not mean "free as in beer" but no postage required - for my feeling it doesn't feel like "Freier Eintritt" yet, it does not have as much money connotations (though when it wanders to the front like in "freiporto" it feels more to be about money).
I do think there is a spectrum. Funny things like "Freifahrt" or even "Freifahrtschein", or "Freikarte", or "Freiexemplar", "Freiparken", "Freiminuten" or "Freivolumen" (people might use "Inklusivvolumen") - so I'd argue when used as part to form a new word it is a synonym for "kostenfrei" (not yet in "Freiwild" which changed a lot).
The use as a suffix "-frei" is something different I think. I'm pretty sure it has kept its meaning of "-los" ("-less") since a long time ago.
How could I forget about Freibier. Unverzeihlich.
Spanish has separate words (gratis and libre) and so does Dutch (gratis and vrij).
I think people on tech forums overestimate the significance of this in today’s world.
Back in the early days of FOSS, when almost everyone who used software was also a programmer, it made a difference.
Today, nearly all people who would care about libre software licenses, are aware of their existence. The vast majority of computer users today are just attempting to do some other task and do not give a shit about the device or the legal consequences of using it, even if you warn them. They simply don’t care about software.
On the other hand, how come that the desired connotation is not the immediately prevailing one in the land of the free which is not the land of no cost.
Nobody thinks of it as "land of the free" nowadays
> Nobody thinks of it as "land of the free" nowadays
I feel like it is, but it’s not headed that way, though neither is the world:
https://github.com/t3dotgg/SnitchBench/blob/main/snitching-a...
Well, the prompts used in testing ( https://github.com/t3dotgg/SnitchBench/tree/main/prompts) are pretty serious and basically about covering up public health disasters with lobbyists, so I'm not sure this is the kind of freedom you might want.
Still, the contacted_media field in the JSON is pretty funny, since I assume it's misfiring at a rate of several thousand of time daily. I can only imagine being on the receiving end of that at propublica and wapo. That bitch Katie was eyeballing Susie again at recess and she hates her so much? Straight to investigations@nytimes
> though neither is the world
That doesn’t excuse or justify it. And the reason the world is headed that way is in large part because of the US doing it. Clearly it was a mistake to trust one country to do the right thing. When they proclaimed themselves “leaders of the free world”, the rest of the free world should’ve raised an objection. Worse still, the US is so high on their own supply they believe they’re the best at everything, despite ample evidence to the contrary, which breeds stupidity and arrogance in a vicious cycle. And like every other junk produced in the US, they’re exporting that attitude too.
That has been true for a long time, even when liberals were happier with american policy.
I do. Bit of a rough patch at the moment tho.
Consider re-evaluating your beliefs.
The more someone has to tell you that you're free, the less you actually are. C.f. North Korea.
If that was true, the US wouldn't have been free for almost its entire existence. Our national anthem, the lyrics to which are over 200 years old, call the nation "the land of the free". I doubt you would claim that the US has in fact been a tyranny for that entire time, so your metric must therefore be flawed.
I will not reconsider. I will work to make my belief reality.
It has become quite a stretch.
> in the land of the free which is not the land of no cost.
Maybe it is exactly what that means, and we’ve just been interpreting it wrong all this time.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AtK_YsVInw8
> Free installation. Free admission, free appraisal, free alterations, free delivery, free estimates, free home trial, and free parking.
Freedom isn't Free. There's a hefty fuckin' fee
“Gratis” meaning “no cost” is an English word, albeit an uncommonly used one.
Technically that’s a Latin word that just happens to have kept the same spelling and meaning in English.
> kept the same spelling and meaning in English
So it's also an English word, then?
Arguably it’s really only an English word once it deviates from the original spelling and meaning. Like how the original British English “Aluminum” is now the American English word for the metal represented by the newer British English “Aluminium”, all of which borrowed from, but didn’t outright steal, the Latin roots.
You’ve made the faux pas of presenting the spiel that a word’s etymology or genus means it cannot be English.
While an entrepreneurial view, this mammoth disinformation is equivalent to plaza cafe sofa schmooze.
(I know this isn’t the most coherent post I’ve ever made, but I wanted to make a point by cramming in as many borrowed words as I could)
I’m enjoying the schadenfreude (note, the English word, not the German one) of watching this thread unspool.
English has not been in its final form forever, therefore there was a language or languages that preceded it. English words derive from one of these previous languages. Since a word from another language cannot be an English word, English does in fact not have any English words except ones that sprang arbitrarily out of nowhere.
> Since a word from another language cannot be an English word
This is false, so your argument is also false.
As per my other reply, I'm genuinely shocked that you took my comment to be serious. It's basically as satirical one can get of the position that a word cannot be a word in multiple languages. Poe's law and all that I suppose.
> English words derive from one of these previous languages. Since a word from another language cannot be an English word [...]
You sabotage your own argument with these two sentences.
I genuinely am shocked that someone could read what I wrote and think I was serious. Poe's law strikes again.
Technically it’s now both a Latin and English word. And several other languages as well.
In Russian as well, свободный vs бесплатный. Free software = свободное ПО, free beer = бесплатное пиво
I have seen OS projects use the word "libre" in English before to distinguish between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech" uses of the word. But I can't remember which projects I've seen using that.
LibreOffice?
is an "as in free beer" project.
The intention was great, but I find the word awkward. Leebraayyy
It looks/sounds foreign and feels a bit pretentious to use in conversation
.. or I feel like some gringo speaking broken Spanish
> It looks/sounds foreign and feels a bit pretentious to use in conversation
“Entrepreneur” is worse on both counts, yet I don’t see those complaints about it. Must be because it’s associated with money.
Sure sure, and Omelette, but once the word hits everyday usage it starts to feel different. There is a awkwardness hump to get through - and libre has a large one. So I feel it'll never catch on unfortunately
It already caught on once. It's already in the dictionary (though OED suggests it is obsolete). Though English was probably much closer to the Norman/French influence then. It may be the Tudor influence on unifying England under a common language was what killed the historic use of libre.
It’s a popular line of fragrances from YSL. ;)
In British-English "libre" is French from Latin roots (liber). Though Spanish has the same word, I'd guess all Latin languages do.
We get liberty, liberal from the same root.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libre gives a pronunciation which matches my own (lee-bruh).
Lee-breh?
«Freedom software» is what they should call it.
It would remove the awkward ad-hoc parentheses at every instance.
Besides: The Americans will LOVE it!
Japanese: muryou (cost free) vs. jiyuu (freedom)
I paid for Mozillla Pocket Premium and they canceled their product within a few months, did not properly open-source the server, did not export my "permanent library" and refunded 6$. As the websites in the "permanent library" are partially offline, that data is now lost. No thanks, not buying again.
I suspect that they don't actually maintain the permanent library, but rather a formatted view of the content that used to be there. Some of the sites I have the URL saved have transitioned to paywall and/or merged, goes offline or disappeared for some reason, so I can't actually read many of the links I exported from it. Though for the one that actually catches interest, I'll look for it in archiving service, but it's a tiresome work to search for it one by one.
I still don't get over the fact Mozilla bought it and shattered it less than a decade later. Perhaps it doesn't make enough "impact" to justify their time and resources, and if this behavior subsists, I would be more discouraged to give them money ever again.
The permanent library was strange. Not very transparent what happened there. I am still shocked they did not invest in the original idea (tag and archive web page), but instead tried to build another content stream with recommended articles and such.
Browser is the most intimate piece of software we have on our computer. Paying for it (vs someone else paying for your browsing) is a no brainer.
From day one Orion browser [1] has been designed with this business model in mind.
Napkin math also shows that if only 5% Firefox users decided to pay for it, Mozilla would not only replace Google search deal revenue but also align incentives with its users, leading to a better product down the road.
With ~200M Firefox users and Google paying ~$400M annually, a $5/month subscription from just 7% of users would fully replace that search deal revenue.
nobody is going to pay $5 a month for firefox. they might pay 99 cents a month or $10 a year or something.
I willingly pay $5/month for Kagi. I'd willingly pay $5/month for Firefox.
Unfortunately, Kagi works with Russian companies and pays them money, which in my book is a no-no. I do not want any of my money to contribute to the Russian economy in any way, because I know what is happening to people in Ukraine.
(I was a Kagi subscriber, no more, because of this)
Any link to the coverage on what made you change your mind?
Cloudflare also seems to be OK to work with R companies...
One of the core problems of the internet is that the "everything-is-free-if-watch-ads-but-you-can-also-easily-block-them" paradigm of the last 25 years has created a generation of people with an innate entitlement to free services.
Asking these people to directly cover the cost of the services they use incurs a level of incredulity and anger on par with charging to breath.
Like OP, I think now that we see enshittifcation happening all over the place, there is also a growing market of people who are willing to pay for something of high quality that won't be enshittified. Kagi is actually good example: who would've paid for a search engine 10 years ago?
Personally, I try more than ever to give my money to privately owned non-vc funded companies or open-source projects. I avoid big publicly traded tech companies as much as possible, because I've lived to see how modern business models + the constant need for growth plays out, and I'm done with it.
The problem is that people like yourself don't even register on the radar.
Nebula for example is the choice answer to the enshitification of YouTube. Lots of the top creators push it to billions of viewers. Pretty much everyone who does the YouTube rounds knows about it.
Yet they only have ~750,000 subscriptions.
That is an awful conversion rate, and why these creators will be stuck making ad supported yt content for the foreseeable future. People overwhelming do not want to pay directly.
I think people like me do register on the radar, see platforms like substack, kagi, bandcamp or patreon to mention a few. Linux is more popular than ever and keeps slowly growing.
It won't happen overnight, but there are now viable businesses out there with non-ad business models. Yes they're not as large as Google, but I don't think they need to be either.
3/4 million paying users for Nebula seems like a success story. No one expects a service with niche educational-type information to take off like a free hot video game.
Completely unrelated but being that typographically close to "onion browser" made me confused for a second or two
I tried Orion and it was the crashiest app I used on my macbook air. I still love kagi search though
I haven't had that issue, although I mostly run Orion on older systems since the support is excellent on older macOS as well. Were you using extensions?
I use both kagi and Orion, both on mobile and Mac, and I have to say that there a few bugs. On the other hand, paying for a software and a service feels good.
My only real complain with Orion is that it's not open source. I get the rationale behind, but still I don't like it.
converting 5% of users to paying is frankly beyond plausibility, if they got 0.1% I'd consider that a miracle
Only if the product sucks. Kagi converts at much higher than that. It incentivizes you to create a better product, a wonderful positive feedback loop.
I pay for Kagi. I generally find it to be adequate at the moment --- not wonderful, but better than other options available. And unlike other options, Kagi is improving slowly over time.
That said, your point about the incentives is spot on. It is the primary reason that I pay for Kagi: they have the incentive to deliver good results and even improve. They even talk about this on their website [1].
[1] https://help.kagi.com/kagi/search-details/search-sources.htm...
I have a Firefox account. I will gladly pay a yearly fee for it! It provides significant value to me.
For example I pay Bitwarden $10/year for both myself and my wife. We will be moving to a Bitwarden family plan soon as our kids are getting old enough to have online accounts. Similar pricing structures for Firefox accounts would be totally reasonable!
Clearly some people would prefer a free way to use Firefox and that’s ok, too. In the same vein Bitwarden have a free plan. This kind of pricing structure already works in the market. Please copy it.
Mozilla, please stop screwing up and just make a great Firefox!
Yeah idk why that they just did not have an structural subscription like that or like patreon community etc
without google money,doing this maybe can be make profitable
I've grown very tired of all the whining about the Mozilla Corporation. The browser, MDN, and certificate trust auditing work need more money than the foundation is getting. Making the browser paid for would kill it. This means that they need to find another way to pay the bills.
People whined about search licensing and it now seems there is a court order imminently about to kill those deals. That leaves either running other services or putting ads in the browser both of which attracted much complaining.
And no, forking is not the answer. Mozilla does the lion's share of security work and maintenance. If the mother ship dies the forks will slowly wither and die as they don't have the funding to replace Mozilla. If Mozilla can't make the numbers work a fragmented mess of forks will not do better. A few of these forks have made the problem worse for themselves by insisting on bringing back and maintaining the exploit ridden mess that was XUL based add ons.
> The browser, MDN, and certificate trust auditing work need more money than the foundation is getting.
I don't believe this to be based on any facts, and it's certainly ignoring that MoCo makes money that doesn't come from the foundation. In 2023 Mozilla had over $650M in revenue and only $260M was spent on software development expenses.
Having a paid offering doesn't take away from search deals. Nor is it ideologically orthogonal.
Here's the thing: Mozilla is addicted to blowing cash on non-software projects. It's addicted to blowing cash on software that is far outside its core offering. It's a graveyard of projects that it buys or builds in earnest, gets the userbased hyped for (sometimes with resistance) and then kills the damn thing in a few years.
Other than Firefox and its various flavors like Firefox Focus, what actually even still exists? A HIBP front end, Thunderbird (again?), Bugzilla, Firefox Relay, MDN, and Mozilla VPN. No, SeaMonkey doesn't count.
The trail of bodies behind Moz as it lumbers on is worse than Google's discontinued products when you compare based on the size of the org. We joke about Google launching new projects, but Mozilla projects are almost certain to be killed. Possibly the single most valuable thing to come out of Mozilla in 20 years was Rust (and by proxy, Servo) and they've managed to not just let it slip through their fingers, but to yeet it as far away as they could muster.
You don't need an MBA to understand that this isn't how to run a software company. It's not about money! If they picked literally any one thing and whole-assed it and made sure users actually a) cared and b) liked it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> I've grown very tired of all the whining about the Mozilla Corporation.
The whining is because they have mismanaged so much. The only clearly visible strategic direction is to fire and keep firing developers, which does not bode well for the future of the product. All the side products and distractions seem to be experiments of business folks. The company isn't run by product people.
There are many comments from people wanting to pay for Firefox, but not to Mozilla.
As an independent alternative, the Ladybird browser (https://ladybird.org/) is being developed and could possibly benefit from more financial support.
Security is my top priority (even above privacy) when it comes to internet browsers. My impression has always been that browser technology is a very hard subject and incredibly difficult to do right. This approach is the main reason I keep a distance from any software that is not widely adopted. Even if it's innovative and novel. This being said: If I switch to ladybird today, am I a beta tester or is this a project I can count on?
Ladybird is advancing rapidly but I personally wouldn't use it as a daily driver yet. It's quite a small project in comparison to the giants like Chromium and Safari, but despite their talents and the from-the-ground-up approach free from legacy crap, it lacks a lot of functionality and performance enhancements for it to be a daily driver at the moment.
Give it another year or two and things may change, but if you daily drive it now you'll be either a beta tester or a volunteer part of the Q&A team.
Out of all the new and upcoming browser engines, I think the usability ranking is Flow, then Ladybird, then Servo, with none of them being a great daily driver yet.
Thanks for the respond! I'll definitely follow the project and happy to jump when the point is there.
I'll try it out once I've finally set up my virtual machine.
> am I a beta tester
You'd be a pre-alpha tester
Ick.
I mind that it's written in c++ less, than that their forum for feedback seems to be twitter, and they are trying to adopt swift as their language...
Hard pass.
"How to drop the Firefox market share to 0%?"
1.Waste the budget on irrelevant side projects.
2.Neglect user expirience and cut features.
3.Add a price tag to alienate users.
4.Perhaps a humiliation ritual like mandatory 2FA and "Login to Firefox"
5. heavily push pocket and add annoying blank space left and right of url in the toolbar in the default settings
> annoying blank space left and right of url in the toolbar
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who hates that.
You know you can remove that, right?
Of course, but I have to deal with it every fresh install.
Personally I really hated getting Pocket shoved in my face, but it seems some people missed it.
No I didn't miss it but it made me hate it so much I wouldn't even try it. And I wouldn't have used it even if I liked it, in order to disincentivise this behavior.
I’m used to this behavior in Microsoft Land. OneNote was pretty good but I’m sure they killed it by putting three icons for it on the taskbar and making the ‘print’ dialog print everything to OneNote if you didn’t quadruple-check what you were printing to. I liked the local XML files cause I could write scripts that extracted stuff from them. Then they killed it for me by making it cloud only. Then they just killed it.
OneDrive was dead to me in the first week because (a) it was the default save location for Office and (b) if it was broken I could not save at all. That’s how to be sure somebody never uses a product ever again! It’s shocking to see how vertical integration can so utterly fail —- DropBox can make a product that doesn’t fail catastrophically on a large number of platforms, kernel integration and all dooms Microsoft’s product on their core platform.
Yeah me too. Even at work, Microsoft provides "adoption management" courses, on how to push users to use new apps or features we're introducing. Sometimes even consulting. I find this behaviour repulsive. But Microsoft is evangelising this to our business leaders. It's not even real knowledgeable people that are doing it, it's only sales guys. They just want to show pretty graphs to our leaders with rising adoption numbers. They don't care about our business at all.
I'm always fighting against it because the users hate it as much as I do, and usually I manage to get it stopped or watered down.
It was nice for its Kobo integration and (for now - apparently Kobo is considering alternatives) there is no direct alternative.
You forgot the "claim a license on everything users do with it" and "promise to never ever sell data and then un-promise".
Mozilla Corporation is the problem.
You forgot:
5. Fire all developers that actually work on important stuff
You missed 0. - where does the budget come from https://untested.sonnet.io/notes/defaults-matter-dont-assume...
[dead]
It's become a meme, but consider WinRAR. Odds are, it's installed on your machine and you haven't paid for it. It just works. It brings up a polite nag box but it doesn't sell your data. It doesn't invade your privacy. It just works and makes enough money to keep getting updated.
It sounds hokey but, perhaps, Firefox should be trialware. Don't cut off the people who can't pay. Make a browser that just works and see how many people will pay for it even if they can use it without paying.
What is the size of the team that makes WinRAR or SublimeText? How frequently are these programs updated? I suspect web standards change more frequently than compression algorithms.
WinRAR is such a simple app compared to a browser. It probably only needs two or three full time developers to stay updated.
I was going to say "a better example is Reaper, a full-fledged DAW that has a similar business model..." then I realized even Reaper is probably a small piece of software when you consider what behemoth a modern browser is.
Does anyone choose to install WinRAR when 7zip or the default windows options exist these days? I haven’t downloaded it since the 00s
I do
Just out of nostalgia or are there good reasons?
First time I tried 7Zip, I didn't like it.
Haven't switched since then.
I also have a license so I don't go to hell.
I'd wonder if there's enough willing to pay within individual consumers or professionals that would support a browser development team, and my impression is that file compression and browsers are pretty much a software commodity where they can be easily swapped with other options. I doubt there would be a lot of uptake on licensing within companies, and any bundling a licensed copy with an OEM build PC would probably involve mozilla paying them instead of the other way around.
It seems like the browser only exists with a very important secondary motivation, for microsoft and IE it was tying the web and windows together with activex, and for chrome it was to give their ads/services a good presentation. The other alternative I wonder about is the Document Foundation with LibreOffice, where their offering is distinct from MS Office, and there's still space for other players to exist healthily.
If Mozilla made a popup for payment that came up on every application start people would lose their fucking minds. I mean riot in the streets, assassinate Mozilla CEO levels of insanity.
The sheer entitlement of Firefox users knows no bounds. They made a tiny little pocket button, which you can turn off, btw, and people shat on it for months on end and said Mozilla is dead and switched to Chrome. Because we all know Chrome, fucking Google Chrome, respects their users.
After a certain point we have to call a spade a spade. I mean, Mozilla could write every user a check for 100 dollars and assholes would still complain. The greatest adversary to Mozilla isn't Google, it's their own users.
See, the problem is that Chrome markets to the average Goo Goo Ga Ga internet idiot. To them, Computer is magic box, and a browser is an operating system. They don't give a flying fuck that Google records their location 24/7, or that Google builds profiles on them, or that Google killed Manifest V2, or whatever. Google could shit in their mouths and call it ice cream and they'd believe it.
Meanwhile, Firefox users care about privacy and the internet at least a little bit. That means Firefox is held to a standard 1000x greater than Chrome ever could be. For every 1,000 mis-steps Chrome and Google can make, Mozilla is allowed one.
The WinRAR model is actually a brilliant (and weirdly wholesome) example. It trusts users to do the right thing, doesn't punish them for not paying, and somehow it still survives
Works for Sublime as well.
Mozilla has already millions of dollars than can be put into Firefox's development instead of the business they're getting into. It doesn't need even more money, it just needs to put part of it into engineers who would make Firefox what we need.
If I could pay Mozilla to not do specific things, it'd be pretty tempting
Some people say that the hate for Mozilla Corp is not deserved. But the thing to understand is that ten of thousands of people have rooted for Firefox. Even if not contributing to the code or money, supported it, pushed for it, like telling everyone to use it, ensuring that what they do works well with Firefox despite corporate interest regarding the market share and all. Lots of people have proudly distributed Firefox/Mozilla marketing stuff to help with that. People have accepted what was forced to be done to accept the money from Google to support the project.
And there, in parallel, there are greedy executive in Mozilla that took a big cut of the money, and wasted shitload of it in stupid and useless things that went to trash In the end, achieving really little.
Yes firefox is a little bit better than in the past, but like just a single digit percent better compared to what it should have been if the money wasted was really used to develop the project. Interesting other projects that could have changed the world were underfunded, like thunderbird (that never thrived as much as now since the Corp is not charge anymore) and market shares are still as low as ever...
The "paid Firefox" the author wants already exists, as LibreWolf ships almost the exact same code minus the telemetry, ads, and Google defaults for free. If people wanted that, they'd already be using it. The real problem isn't the business model, it's Mozilla's leadership, which has been compromised to hell and back at this point. No pricing experiment like this will fix the exodus.
Aren't they just piggybacking on Mozilla's work though? The point is to make the work that Mozilla is doing sustainable, not to pay someone else to ship a slightly modified version of it.
Yes, forks do indeed piggyback off of their code; that's the point of free and open source software anyway. And Mozilla, in its current state and current leadership, is not sustainable and still won't be with people paying for Firefox. Its marketshare is dwindling, and people are moving to forks such as Zen or to other browsers like Vivaldi. Adding a paid version will just make that trend go faster. And you don't even need to make a fork, because user.js tweaks such as Arkenfox or Betterfox exist anyway.
The point is that people want to fund the development of the actual browser engine which is more important than the customization scripts that those forks maintain. The engine is what people are worried about.
This is basically an optional way to pay for the features that a decent fork like librewolf provides.
This is really just a long way to donate really in some sense directly to firefox somehow just because everybody feels like mozilla takes the donated money and tries on some "zanky" product
See The Ville_Lindholm comment really, those were my first thoughts too but I wouldn't really donate to mozilla like ever.
Ladybird's cool though. Maybe donating to them makes more sense but I understand they are not mature but that's exactly the point, they need way more funding (IMO) to get to a genuinely stable browser and need all the help that they can get as compared to the past.
Sure, we all like to stick the big firefox guy to beat the monopoly of google, but firefox/mozilla survives on a single deal by google, and if google ever stops the deal of paying for search engine, it can really shut down mozilla or maybe hinder it extremely.
I do hope that ladybird grows in a way where I can use it in compared to firefox in like hopefully 5 years since browsers are a mess.
I don't think paying for Firefox is going to lead to Mozilla making decisions that benefit Firefox.
Probably would take that money and immediately spent it more on https://mozilla.vc/
I'll happily pay when what happened to Netscape, happens to Mozilla.
> Right now, people are leaving because they dislike Mozilla’s business model.
This is not true for the vast majority of people leaving. It might be true in the hyper focused tech bubbles that we frequent, though they certainly don't represent the vast majority of users.
First, all the normal people left. Those leaving now, like me, are former Mozilla fans, techies, die hard Firefox users. That hate the Mozilla business model.
I like Firefox idk
I like firefox too, as a browser. I dislike it as a means to track me and serve me ads that Mozilla Corporate deems 'acceptable'.
Ads make me the product. I do not want to be the product.
> I dislike it as a means to track me and serve me ads that Mozilla Corporate deems 'acceptable'.
Have you forgotten that Firefox gives you a banner, a new tab, and a link to settings to simply turn off these features that upset you?
I agree in the abstract: I'd rather pay for a product that I need, use, and love, than be the product, and have it supported through ads or unfortunate deals like Mozilla has with Google (default search engine).
But I also need to believe that the money I'm paying is being spent wisely. Given how poorly Mozilla has been managed over the past decade or so, I wouldn't care to give them any of my money. I've watched Firefox go from nothing to the dominant browser and now back to a tiny minor player that gets dropped off site compatibility lists. It makes me incredibly sad that this is the state of affairs, but... there it is.
Mozilla needs to be spending a ton more money on user acquisition in order to become relevant again. I would be happy to support that, but I have no faith that's where my money would go, or that they'd spend it to that end effectively.
There should be a donation box solely for Firefox. If that exists, that is no different than paying for Firefox. We will see how many people would actually "pay" for Firefox.
If I am a customer, not a donator, I have different rights and expectations.
I want to be a customer. Of a Firefox that blocks ads, not serves them to me.