Books can go on it too. No matter the free storage space on my iPad, it relentlessly nerfs stuff to iCloud rendering its utility on long aeroplane journeys completely worthless.
People "want" a lot of contradictory things. People "want" them to be less financially reliant on Google, while also "focusing" on a browser in a market that is entirely commoditized and subsidized by 3 of the 10 largest companies in the world - and having a wholly implementation independent browser engine when it's so massively difficult and capital intensive that even Microsoft gave up on it.
I want them to actively seek foreign sovereign tech funding which come with stipulations that commit Mozilla to certain levels of privacy and anonymity.
I want them to go cap-in-hand to other countries and say "if you don't fund us then you are letting the US and surveillance capitalism get between your citizens and their government" and "do you really know what Chrome is doing with your data?"
I don't want to pretend they are simply part of a browser marketplace, but rather have them realize they are part of a civil rights effort, with powerful non-market forces they can ally with.
And I want those governments to commit to progressive enhancement guidelines like https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/technology/using-progressi... so new alternatives like Ladybird can start, and further require their agencies to test on a Firefox branch with no AI, no location tracking, full ad-blocking, etc. because while the market is free to ignore certain non-profitable users, a government should not be allowed to ignore some of its citizens.
I don't think these are contradictory, you're listing what many have wanted all along. There are funding models that would support exactly the above.
Microsoft stopped building their own browser engine because it didn't suit their business needs and they could still get a controlling share with significantly less effort by recycling webkit/blink for the umpteenth time. That makes total sense for them. Mozilla has, in the past, guided and pushed back on corporate interests.
Today, a large portion of the web now stands, built from the bones of the original khtml project, which was unceremoniously made by a handful of volunteers on the KDE project. Let's not pretend a rendering engine it's an entirely _impossible_ task. It is a LOT of work, and I laud the effortor of the few tireless individuals that make it their work, but in the end it's another piece of software, not unlike an OS. The history goes:
KHTML -> WebKit -> Blink
Meanwhile:
Mosaic -> Netscape -> Gecko
Maybe we find maintaining the second lineage is too great a burden and the web just becomes a defacto standard, guided entirely by 3 corporations. It's not what we want, but I guess at this point it's probably what we deserve.
I agree with you, there are 1,000 different chat apps and just one Firefox. And the world needs Firefox more than it knows.
It looks like they might want to get into hosting/selling services to users on this.
From the FAQ:
> Is there going to be a hosted version if I don't want to deploy it myself?
> Yes, we are planning to launch Thunderbolt for regular users but we do not have a release date yet.
There is "only one Firefox" but Firefox exists in a market that is not just commoditized, but subsidized to the tune of billions by 3 of the 10 largest companies in the world.
The world may need Firefox but it's funny how people complain about Mozilla's dependence on Google while also complaining about every attempt to become more financially independent from Google.
They could start getting some of that goodwill back by not paying their CEO a multi-million dollar salary and opening donations to actually help fund Firefox.
The anti-trust lawsuits with Google have Mozilla realizing they can't just be a company kept afloat by Google. Mozilla's priorities have been pretty complacent, basically just maintaining Firefox, sometimes Thunderbird, and a couple side services that have little financial incentives.
The current state of Mozilla is pretty odd since they rebranded to make it more apparent they're a non-profit, while also attempting to become more profitable pushing out new products and services.
Mozilla needs money to support the development of Firefox (and the payroll of its high-salary executives).
For now, they mainly rely on Google for that money. Google pays them to avoid antitrust cases, to show the courts that they are not a monopoly and that "alternatives" exist. For example, the DOJ once proposed that Google be forced to sell off Chrome.
However, if another entity has control over your budget, they also have control over your product. If Firefox becomes "too good" to be a true competitor in the consumer space, the funding might be reduced or even cut off.
Creating a new source of revenue allows Mozilla to improve Firefox even beyond the point Google feels "comfortable" with.
Mozilla could stop doing everything else and slow burn their existing $1B into developer salaries over the next decade. They are actively choosing not to.
1. It's unfair to assume that their primary funding source stops in one scenario and not in the other.
2. 1 billion dollars is a lot of money. Even the interest off it is huge.
3. 10 years is a very long time in tech.
4. I would greatly prefer the money Mozilla earned due to Firefox being a thing was put into developing Firefox, yes. The current Mozilla organization seems to be a mechanism for providing third homes for the executives, starting projects nobody wanted them to start, sullying the Firefox brand with them, and then abandoning them. There's a VC cancer infesting the supposed "free software community" called Mozilla.
>1. It's unfair to assume that their primary funding source stops in one scenario and not in the other.
Wait, what? I thought your whole premise from one comment ago was that they "stop doing everything" and exclusively slow burn away their endowment. They're dead by 2029 if they do that.
If they don't do that, then you're just talking about how they currently operate.
The money paid by Google so Chrome does not look like a monopoly is earned by Firefox and specifically for Firefox to exists as a viable-enough competitor. If anything, maintaining Firefox properly is the branch that earns that money.
Mozilla should stop doing all these side quests -- look at their track record! -- and they should get rid of the fat executive layer. They should transparently report what they're using their money, instead of saying they burn hundreds of millions of dollars in "software development" while firing the Servo developers.
Actually, it makes much more sense if Google pays Mozilla to maintain an alternative that never becomes truly competitive.
I don't think actual competition benefits Google in a commercial sense. If we considered the situation purely rationally, Google's most logical decision would be to use their budget as leverage, threatening off the books to prevent any strategy that might make Firefox "viable again", under the assumption that Google focused primarily on market share, while Mozilla focused purely on survival.
Yes, Google definitely has an incentive to keep Firefox inferior. If it became a real competition, that money flow would likely stop.
However, if Firefox drops to ~0% usage, it will definitely stop, as that ruins Google's monopoly defense, which is the motivation for it! Firefox usage is supposedly already as low as 2.33%.
Even worse, they would go bankrupt after like 2-3 years. And almost no serious non-profit has an endowment that can fund them in perpetuity. They are almost always firewalls that buy time/safety in response to crises (e.g. financial crisis or covid), meant to run in parallel with ongoing revenue that comes in regularly.
It's great if you can get your endowment so big you never have to worry about revenue but outside of, say, elite universities or middle eastern sovereign wealth funds that rarely happens.
To be clear, it's not from the Mozilla Corporation (which develops Firefox), it's from MZLA Technologies (which develops Thunderbird). Both bodies are under the Mozilla Foundation.
Firefox hit a peak of 32% and has fallen ever since. Effectively Firefox crashed at the same time IE did, and I can’t see in what way Mozilla ever attempted to recover.
apparently if you set to zero, it just disables the feature but I can't see that option here. I don't use shorts at all, I want the feature gone from my ui
author here. Yeah, they make their laptops by hand in their lil shop in Berlin, low volumes makes things more expensive. I get it you can get a lot more performance per buck elsewhere, but I want to support a company that creates open hardware and open source software. Also it is the most repairable and upgraded laptop in the world atm.
the law in the UK doesn't require any of that. It didn't even required Apple to do it. Ofcom is praising Apple for doing it even though it was not required. Social Networks need to do it.
Agree the icons are unnecessary and silly. Apple should know better.
The corners haven't bothered me much, I like seeing a bit of a gap down there, and I haven't had issues dragging it but that could be because I'm using a regular USB mouse and not a trackpad.
I've been a macOS user (or OS X rather back then) since 2003. It was truly a blessing to finally get a proper UNIX™ on the desktop. I was on Linux in the 7-8 year period before that.
Everything after Snow Leopard has been downhill in my opinion :3 macOS still my favourite unix but it started feeling is no longer my unix anymore, I'm just a glorified tennant.
