Mozilla’s now director of public policy once asked me, with a straight face, why I was giving them a hard time and holding Mozilla to a higher standard: “we’re just another Silicon Valley tech company.”
But that’s not what you tell people publicly, is it, Mozilla?
Still, it’s time y’all got this.
Mozilla is a half-billion-dollar for-profit corporation – whose CEO makes >$3M/yr – that has a foundation do its PR.
@aral ı wonder what browser you are using. ı also wonder why mastodon doesn't have a non-js version (ı'm not a fan of firefox nor chromium nor konqueror either)
@aral @onat I suppose I don't really have that much of an issue with that considering that if you aren't running Mastodon locally, you're putting your data on someone else's machine... sending login credentials to another machine ... etc.
That host ( brutaldon.org ) is currently hosted by @djsundog .
I don't believe it is hard to host locally - so that's an option. It is 'small web' in my opinion (:
@aral Yes, Mozilla's CEO is also not a great role model and not every decision for e.g. Firefox was perfect. It might be Big Tech and not I can see why you wouldn't call them ally. But to me Mozilla (or their products) seem not as bad as GAFAM (or their products). I'm reluctant to call Mozilla an enemy among the ranks of evilness as other Big Tech.
Do you think some differentiated judgement does make sense or really they don't deserve getting cut any slack?
@floppy If anything they’re worse: they have everyone believing they’re a not-for-profit fighting for human rights etc., when that’s just PR and they’re just another Silicon Valley Big Tech company.
@louisrcouture @floppy Read the thread, my other posts here, (or the Mozilla section in https://ar.al/2019/01/11/i-was-wrong-about-google-and-facebook-theres-nothing-wrong-with-them-so-say-we-all/) and do your own research into Mozilla Corporation.
@aral Mozilla is the best we have right now, even if it's not perfect. All the hate it gets does not create better products, it just pushes people to Chrome and it's clones.
@andreipetcu It’s definitely not the “best we have right now.” That’s probably GNOME Web in terms of ethics. Sadly, it’s the “best we have under the Silicon Valley model.”
And there, again, folks should use it without being used by it by using Librewolf instead.
What we need is a to fund an organisation from public funds, to create a browser for the public good.
I know, how communist of me ;)
@aral This is a complicated issue , because mozilla efforts for foss are evident, but it should be realised that privacy cannot be copromise even if the company is unable to make profit without going big tech way , so they needs to overcome this problem. Still we should not forget the tor browser the best browser for privacy and security
@aral is there even an option left? Like there is basicly firefox and then chrome forks, right?
What's there to do for a lazy mildly caring person?
@JonossaSeuraava Yeah, it’s not looking good.
Last I looked Librewolf was doing a good job of remaining current and stripping out Mozilla’s bullshit from their fork of Firefox: https://librewolf-community.gitlab.io/
Not a long term solution. Ideally we’d fund an independent not for profit org with EU taxpayer money to build an independent browser for the common good.
@aral @JonossaSeuraava If JS is not needed (and I know some people in this thread will hate me for this, but usually it's not needed), then the situation isn't so bad. Netsurf is already pretty usable, @alcinnz has built some cool browsers from scratch, etc.
So currently the way it looks to me is: requiring Chrome features is very similar to requiring Flash, or some other proprietary plugin.
@csepp I tried netsurf, but it doesn't appear like it is functional for most webpages. It works for wikipedia though.
@vega In my experience, it works for everything that works without JS, which includes quite a few sites. They are working on supporting JS, which is IMHO a pointless waste of time. They'll never finish it and it's time they should be spending on accessibility and making the UX not be trash. But at its core it does work.
@vega @csepp Just tried Netsurf on Linux Mint 20.1, to see if the websites I manage are usable; but it crashes with an assertion error when loading my page.
Looks like the bug from https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=940273 .
So if anyone here wants to make Netsurf available to a broader audience, I guess fixing the version that's provided with current Ubuntu LTS could be quite effective.
@Dashtop I don't really mind slowness. I also doubt that plain HTML would be slow to render, but Netsurf supports a lot of CSS features too. Unless you have infinite resources like the Chrome team and can implement most of the rendering on the GPU side, supporting all of that will be slow.
But that complexity and reduction in portability is not worth it IMHO.
@tommi Counterpoint: Web elements default styling is simply wrong.
On far too mamy sites, I invoke Reader Mode, read via Pocket, or go to a console-mode browser (usually w3m).
Design can be good, but far too often isn't. Most often to me, web design isn't the solution, web design is the problem.
@aral would one conclude that is then just netscape 2.0? netscape 1.0, the company, was also great at the pr hustle.
@aral Too bad there are no good alternatives. We've messed up miserably and I'm afraid it's too late to fix the problem now 😢 I'd love to be proven wrong though! (yes, I'm looking at you EU)
@aral The worst part is that with this bs, Mozilla will just get the few remaining users to leave Firefox, which will essentially mean a Google monopoly
Like the only big reason I know of for people using Firefox is the privacy, if that's gone what's the point
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!