Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mozilla Announces "Open Web Docs" Following Last Year's Layoffs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    pal666
    Senior Member

  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post
    If you cannot have private ownership, you have to have public ownership, which means the people own it
    it's non-sequitur. you can't own it, that's all. i.e. of course it's people but usually very small number of them.
    Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post
    it is a majority rule
    no, it's a terrorist gang rule with majority serving as slaves

    Leave a comment:

  • qarium
    Senior Member

  • qarium
    replied
    Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
    Funny how they can't afford business critical staff like this, yet can afford all of the failed moonshots they've wasted and keep wasting money on.
    I guess this is the big weakness of open source software projects managed by non-profits. If you're a business and see as big of a downturn in both revenue and market share as Firefox has seen, then you can be sure that the board of directors will get rid of management. Current Mozilla Foundation management however hasn't just avoided being fired for complete incompetence, they've seen huge pay raises.
    exactly in a commercial business a market share loss of 85% would not result in 400% higher payment instead it would result in 85% lower payment. and for sure 85% lower payment would be the soft version in most cases as you said this would be result in "get rid of management" completely.

    but the reason for all this is simple... Brendan Eich was a right-wing persons with right-wing political ideals (anti gay marriage) as a right wing man he was man of STEM/MINT (Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) means a engineer/technician

    but she instead is a left-wing person "Winifred Mitchell Baker" a "Baker was trained as a lawyer."
    she is not a person of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics)
    Baker is in fact a member of "322 skull and bones" and she is a socialist/communist and she hates right-wing people like Donald Trump also also she hates Brendan Eich because he is right-wing.

    it is 100% clear if the right-wing people do not fork firefox soon the complete mozilla/firefox project will be gone. market share will be 0% and the complete project will totaly collapse.

    it is 100% clear Baker does not work for the "we the people" the 99% instead she works for the 1% elite her Goal is not Open-Source/software for the 99% people her goal is to make monopole companies like google and microsoft even more powerfull and even more rich.
    qarium
    Senior Member
    Last edited by qarium; 27 January 2021, 04:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • L_A_G
    Senior Member

  • L_A_G
    replied
    Originally posted by cl333r View Post
    They don't expect, they just try to make sure the docs have a chance to survive. When you don't have the money to keep the staff you have no choice but to fire them.
    Funny how they can't afford business critical staff like this, yet can afford all of the failed moonshots they've wasted and keep wasting money on.

    I guess this is the big weakness of open source software projects managed by non-profits. If you're a business and see as big of a downturn in both revenue and market share as Firefox has seen, then you can be sure that the board of directors will get rid of management. Current Mozilla Foundation management however hasn't just avoided being fired for complete incompetence, they've seen huge pay raises.

    Leave a comment:

  • qarium
    Senior Member

  • qarium
    replied
    Originally posted by extremesquared View Post
    You've overcompensated and lost touch with the real world. Idiocy in management takes many forms, and this new form of idiocy in management does not invalidate the very real work done by non-white-males.
    right but in practice this works a little bit different. only white male and asian males can compete in the meritocratic meaning if you give university places by one single meritocratic list means you make performance test of very candidate and then you give the people at the Top a university place and the rest they just do not get a place. and only white and asian males can compete in this meaning.

    all others for example women only get a chance if you do not one list of mertiocratic performance you do 2 lists one for males and one for women. yes then you have women coming into university but only because you do 2 lists instead of only 1 list. they simple can not compete.

    same or anything what is non white and non asian males... they can not compete.

    yes there is "real work done by non-white-males" but they simple can not compete.

    so if you have a project like mozilla and you are in competition against google chrome and microsoft edge you do simple thing: you only hire white and asian males because they are the best and they can compete.
    by this you win the competition against google chrome and microsoft edge.


    Originally posted by extremesquared View Post
    Culture has to change. We need to start asking ourselves "Do we really need to pay the salary of this person with an MBA / Law / Humanities degree who likely cannot tie their own shoes?" Identity politics are just a way to create tribal squabbles so that this trend may continue while we are distracted.
    yes right universities and their "degree"s are the main problem why people who can not compete can not enter the market to do "real work done by non-white-males"

    however as soon as your project like mozilla firefox need to compete with google chrome or microsoft edge you simple just hire white and asian males. it is very simple rule of nature.

    Leave a comment:

  • Aeder
    Senior Member

  • Aeder
    replied
    Man, I thought this forum couldn't get any shittier considering it has almost no moderation but now I get to read comments that are off topic political rants decorated to look like they are about the article every few threads.

    Leave a comment:

  • extremesquared
    Phoronix Member

  • extremesquared
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post

    absolutely right. only white males do the work and all others are only political activists social justice worriors you call it "Activist Tyrannies"
    You've overcompensated and lost touch with the real world. Idiocy in management takes many forms, and this new form of idiocy in management does not invalidate the very real work done by non-white-males.

    Culture has to change. We need to start asking ourselves "Do we really need to pay the salary of this person with an MBA / Law / Humanities degree who likely cannot tie their own shoes?" Identity politics are just a way to create tribal squabbles so that this trend may continue while we are distracted.

    Leave a comment:

  • phoron
    Senior Member

  • phoron
    replied
    I think you are all a little confused. Some more than others, and many seem to live in so right wind societies that they think that right wind believers claiming "social justice" are in some way leftists. But anyway, I'm not against copyright (not strongly pro either), but copyright is not property. That's a useful lie for some.

    Socialism and capitalism are economic theories on how to organise the use of material goods (work time, raw materials, manufactured products, etc.). Those are finite means (of production, or means in general). Finite means need to be allocated in some way, in theoretic socialism everyone produces as many goods as he can and everybody gets so many goods as he needs, in theoretic capitalism everyone gets so many goods as he can and everybody works so much as he needs. But that's because this is for finite goods.
    Immaterial goods that can be copied infinitely for marginal 0 cost, and need only work to exist but not to duplicate, are so intrinsically different from physical goods that capitalism or socialist theory simply does not apply. People living in a system pretending to be capitalist or socialist will pretend to apply it to immaterial goods too, but it simply makes no sense. You don't need to allocate goods that you can duplicate for free. And if the law doesn't allow you to duplicate it for free, or allows you to control who or how, or whether it's secret, that's an artificial construct and besides the point. It's no inherent property of software or information.

    So no, Free Software is not communist and not capitalist. It's software. It's something else. Health, love, science, air is not socialist or capitalist. Some things are not. Then some people earn money producing immaterial goods in a socialist or capitalist society (not really, societies claiming to be...) and they think that money is real and the product of their work must be just the same as the product of a construction worker or miner or farmer, who get the same kind of money for it (in different quantity maybe). But software is absolutely not what the XIX/XX economic theories intended to organise.

    Leave a comment:

  • qarium
    Senior Member

  • qarium
    replied
    Originally posted by dirlewanger88

    If you think Marxist thought leaders seek to implement what their propaganda actually talks about, I have a bridge to sell you. Marxism has always been about a certain class of people seizing power by tricking useful idiots with fairytale ideals.
    absolutly right... they sell a socialist dreamland but nothing what they sell in propaganda is true

    after generations the socialist/marxist form a "Red Nobility" this means this Red Nobility own all and the other citizens own nothing.

    this red Nobility just sell propaganda lies to the public just to stay in power.

    Leave a comment:

  • qarium
    Senior Member

  • qarium
    replied
    Originally posted by dirlewanger88
    Mozilla are just reaping what they sow. Get woke, go broke. If they want a chance to thrive again they need to start hiring way more white males and far fewer activist trannies.
    absolutely right. only white males do the work and all others are only political activists social justice worriors you call it "Activist Tyrannies"

    Leave a comment:

  • qarium
    Senior Member

  • qarium
    replied
    Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

    If you cannot have private ownership, you have to have public ownership, which means the people own it. IF the people own it. it is a majority rule. If it isn't majority rule, the People DO NOT own it. (In which case it becomes something worse like communism)
    yes but you miss one important point: The Red Nobility....

    in any socialist/communist state after 1-2 generation you have "Red Nobility" because the old leaders of the communist state give the power to their children instead to another person of the society.

    and after the Red Nobility is formed then the normal civilians do no longer own anything because only the Red Nobility owns all.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X