Mozilla (Firefox) leadership bashing

cracauer@

cracauer@

Developer
I think the problems in Mozilla's management affect FreeBSD users more than users of other operating systems. Because our Chrome game is weak, and because we have a higher percentage of people who don't want to live in the Google universe.

This article does a good job enumerating the problems:

www.theregister.com

Firefox is fine. The people running it are not

Opinion: Mozilla's management is a bug, not a feature
www.theregister.com www.theregister.com

Jamie Zawinksi brings it to the point:

"Now hear me out, but What If…? browser development was in the hands of some kind of nonprofit organization?

In my humble but correct opinion, Mozilla should be doing two things and two things only:

Building THE reference implementation web browser, and
Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees.
There is no 3."

How do you feel about this?
 
I was perplexed by his comments. Firefox is already in the hands of a non-profit. One that he helped form.

In their own words, "Mozzilla is building a movement to reclaim the internet. Together we can build a future where our privacy is protected, AI is trustworthy and irresponsible tech companies are held accountable." As aggravating as their decisions have been we shouldn't loose sight of the fact that they are still head and shoulders beyond the other browsers that are available. We can hope that they do better still. Being THE reference implementation and fiercely defending the users on the standards committees are worthwhile goals, but they shouldn't be the only goals. Privacy, speed, functionality etc should be pursued as well.

Certainly, a new browser or fork could be pursued, and that wouldn't be a bad thing. Jamie would seem to be a credible candidate to be part of such an effort.

I tend to have more sympathetic to the views expressed in https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/let-me-pay-for-firefox/141297 - give users a way to actually support the browser. My understanding is that there is no way to currently do that given the organization structure.
 
cracauer@ said:
and because we have a higher percentage of people who don't want to live in the Google universe.
Click to expand...
I would describe it as having a higher percentage of people who want to live in the mystical Berkeley of politics and sociology fame. Being happily married to a graduate of that fine school, and having worked professionally with lots of people who are either on the staff there or at least educated, I know quite a bit about it. It's actually not "Berkeley", but the anti-reality, anti-development, anti-business, anti-authority, anti-law mindset that Berkeley had concentrated to its essence.

Disclaimer: I am politically a leftist progressive democrat.

Instead of an anecdote, a joke: How many Berkeley people does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 73. One to screw in a lightbulb, 72 to hold a protest in People's Park about the right of the lightbulb to remain dark.
 
TFA sounds like a bunch of sour grapes by some Rust fanatics whining about getting dumped by Mozilla.

Doesn't mean all is well at Mozilla, but I'll take what they write with a grain of salt.
 
hruodr said:
I also not, I use mostly firefox, but look:

chromium and firefox - myths and facts?

misc.openbsd.narkive.com misc.openbsd.narkive.com
Click to expand...
Interesting thread. It's from 7 years ago, though, before at least some of the more objectionable features were added to Chrome.

In any case, I agree that Chrome is more likely to keep you safe from third-party attacks (i.e., from black hats), but I still believe Firefox is less susceptible to first-party attacks (i.e., from Google and Mozilla) on your privacy.
 
cracauer@ said:
In my humble but correct opinion, Mozilla should be doing two things and two things only:

Building THE reference implementation web browser, and
Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees.
There is no 3.
Click to expand...
Yes, please, and thank you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top