No announcement yet.

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

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    Mozilla Firefox are going down because of the parasites they have who suck all the money resources.

    in 2018 she earns 2,4 Millionen US-Dollar per year it is simple how this parasite operate she gets more money every year and she "keeps firing employees that help improve the community"...

    there is a simple solution for this: FORK Firefox the people who really do the work should FORK firefox and by this they remove the parasites like Mitchell Baker.

    sadly there is no other way to remove such parasites. it is same like the BLM leader of Debian...
    it is time to FORK Debian and by this remove the Marxist/socialists...

    marketshare was down by 85%= """400% payrise"""
    You're hating on her for taking advantage of an unrestricted market, and then condemning a model that would explicitly not allow something like this to happen. I'm not convinced you know what those things are.


    • #32
      Does Mozilla accept contributions from the public? If they do, I'm wondering why we would want to fork Firefox.


      • #33
        She thought her salary was just fine. Until she heard that someone else was making considerably more.


        • #34
          Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
          Does Mozilla accept contributions from the public? If they do, I'm wondering why we would want to fork Firefox.
          I don't think they do. I'm pretty sure it's a look, but no touchy type of source code.

          Sadly the elephant in the room is that a browser is so complex that only the deep pockets of a multi billion $ company can fund it's development.

          The best approach would be something like what GNOME is doing with Epiphany. Let Apple & others develop the engine and write the rest of the browser with FOSS users in mind. Apple has been nice with webkitgtk, allowing it to live in the official repos, but I doubt Google would ever allow something similar.

          As for Firefox... it's lackluster security and telemetry has put me off a lot. However, with project Fission and some internal privacy rework, I could see myself using it.
          Last edited by kvuj; 25 January 2021, 11:42 PM.


          • #35
            Apologies for a tangential comment, but whenever I read articles about Mozilla, I feel sad and wonder what could have been.

            Phoenix 0.1 was a breath of fresh air for what I perceived at the time as a stagnating Mozilla Organization, but once Firefox was promoted over the Mozilla Application Suite (circa Firefox 0.9), I was worried that Firefox would inherit the organizational heft that had previously suffocated the Mozilla Application Suite. It obviously didn't happen all at once, in fact Mozilla Firefox had notable success for the better part of a decade after it was promoted over the Mozilla Application Suite, but it certainly felt like it was only a matter of time until its momentum was undermined and its fortunes turned; all that was required was the spotlight of genuine competition- enter Google. Arguably the seeds could have been planted as early as when Mozilla Firebird started being referred to as a product rather than a project. Obviously Google has resource levels and leveraged ubiquity that the Mozilla Foundation doesn't, but Mozilla Firefox's decline seems as much do to with internal decision-making as external competition; if it hadn't been Google Chrome that ate Mozilla Firefox's lunch, it would have been some other emerging entity. The end product is only as good as the bureaucracy encompassing it; arguably for many organizations but certainly when it comes to Mozilla Foundation/Corporation, less would be more.

            Several years ago, when it initially looked like Thunderbird might be ejected from the Mozilla Foundation's gravitational hold, I was actually excited for Thunderbird despite the unknowns that it was facing. As for Mozilla Firefox, the only thing that would bring me back is a revolution within Mozilla.
            Last edited by eidolon; 26 January 2021, 12:05 AM.


            • #36
              Originally posted by kvuj View Post

              But socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Not anarchy.

              From wikipedia...:
              Copyleft licences such as GPL rely on the concept of private ownership of intellectual property: GPL needs copyright to exist, and I can't see how copyright is very compatible with socialism. It is the very opposite of social ownership.

              Also, open source was invented and prospered in advanced market economies, which is a sign that it creates value in a market-sense. Part of that is due to the licence: you can contribute code, which costs money in terms of developer time, to a project. Your contribution may be extremely valuable to you, such as Facebook's work on low-memory management, but it is useless without the rest of the project of which it is a piece. The licence guarantees that the rest of the project, which enables your contribution, can't be taken away, so it removes the risk of contributing. And if it is cheaper to contribute a few improvements but not reinvent the entire kernel, you get much more bang for your buck. And probably each contribution binds you more tightly to the project. Economically, sustainable open source projects make sense. They are not a socialist enterprise, they are a capitalist enterprise: they are simply more efficient, in a market sense, for some types of projects.

              I am not sure this is true of the former MDN though. Perhaps the documents should have been sent to Wikipedia, which is also thriving, but under a different model. I don't quite know how Wikipedia works as well as it does, but the facts speak for themselves.


              • #37
                Originally posted by board View Post

                It seems like a lot has to do with mismanagement of resources, but not just the kind that you mentioned:
                I wouldn't have an issue with her salary if it were warrented. she is a leech, dont get me wrong. but mozilla has time and time again tried and failed at developing other sources of income, while neglecting their primary one.

                Firefox used to be a truly great web browser, but now it's a relic of what it used to be. the main reason is not enough developers are being tasked for it. their are many small tasks, features that need to be implemented, bugs that need squashed etc.

                considering the ammount of time they put into developing in some cases retarded other projects, its clear they have the man power to some degree, or the funding to make changes to do so.

                I get trying to diversify income, but it should never be done at expense of their main product which is Firefox.


                • #38
                  I'm a little surprised that the developers are sticking around at all after last month's shenanigans. The public Mozilla blog devolved into directly opposing messages from engineering and management regarding privacy goals. On the same page.


                  • #39
                    Same model as AMD. We can't do it we just pray that the community will do it for us for free.

                    I dislike this model because it's not the small contributor that is gaining much while the company is gaining more.

                    And same as AMD they act retarded when u report a bug so no thanks they don't deserve any help.


                    • #40
                      LOL thats funny i am german and you want to tell me that germany is socialist dreamland.

                      all you said is plain wrong. first of all Marxist/Socialist system is NOT "Democratic"
                      also Marxist/Socialist is not "Free Market"
                      Marxist/socialist is Authoritarian dictatorship and instead of free market you have planned economy .
                      this is called "statism or etatism"

                      our system is not based on Socialism our system is based on Corporatism
                      and Corporatism is historical based on the National-Socialism (1933-1945) system a corporation between big corporations and the government.
                      also modern people do no longt know that National-Socialism is not National-Marxism it is complete different idelogy and it is not Statism/etatism instead it is Corporatism.

                      "Including Germany, your place - mostly countries with more or less a system based on socialism. I know, denied by right-wing extremists."

                      the right wing extremists you call are just more educated that people like you we know the difference between Socialism and Corporatism our social market economy in germany is based on Corporatism and not Socialism.

                      "Do you (want to) know where the most happy people live"

                      you just believe media propaganda i life in germany and i am german and i do not know any happy person not a single one.
                      Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia