Recent searches
Search options
The reason Mozilla gets away with it is because tech folks are great at following the code, but not so much at following the money (especially if that money funds their code).
But even that is victim blaming to a degree…
Understand that there are developers both inside and outside of Mozilla who genuinely care about doing the right thing and they are the victims here too. They have been – and are being – fundamentally misled by the folks who run Mozilla Corporation/Mozilla Foundation.
@aral just a tip for the future, if you reply to your own toot you create a thread which is shown in the UI nicely, I was at first very confused about this post but went to your account and understood that it was a continuation.
@aral developing and maintaining a browser is a giant task :/
Even icecat, which was 99% Mozilla code, so GNU project only had to maintain the small adjustments they made, failed.
Konqueror? Failed
What's the alternative funding you propose to get a good quality, open, updated, intuitive and secure browser like Firefox currently is?
@aral
I bet that those folks running Mozilla are also misleading themselves. They have to.
And I think your idea of funding browsers as a sort of public infrastructure would solve the issue -- but it's not likely to happen in the short term.
So, what could be a way out of this dependency? Because I'd rather not lose Firefox (and its derivatives). Cutting ties with Google and asking users for money would be a huge leap of faith, and have good chances of going very wrong ...
@aral
I often make the point myself:
"follow the money".
And what Mozilla did here is unforgivable imo. They could've just stay silent.
I've written before how I think Mitchell Baker is the big problem.
But my main problem is: what to do about it?
Normally I'd select a different product. But afaik, the whole problem with browsers is, I can choose 100% g
gle (chromium etc) or 80% ggle (Mozilla/Firefox).
I really had that 'choice', but I then still choose Mozilla/Firefox.
Thoughts?