this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2023
798 points (99.4% liked)

Selfhosted

39980 readers
683 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"the company looked at the history of social media over the past decade and didn’t like what it saw.... existing companies that are only model motivated by profit and just insane user growth, and are willing to tolerate and amplify really toxic content because it looks like engagement... "

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 83 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Maintaining a web browser is an intensely cost and time prohibitive endeavor, especially nowadays. The FOSS community can maintain a lot of things but the sheer scale of Firefox, the need for expertise, the necessary labor, it just can't be done by volunteers and donations, at least not without using Chromium. They have to get a cash infusion from somewhere.

I don't like it anymore than you do but ultimately the issue isn't Mozilla, it's the state of the technology market. Silicon Valley is no place for a non-profit organization right now, no matter how much we need it.

What we need is regulations and anti-trust, but even that may not truly save us.

They need money. That's it. That's the long and short of it.

[–] valen@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] Matt@lemdro.id 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those donations cannot be used for Firefox development due to the structure of Mozilla.

[–] Midnitte@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not entirely sure that's true. The money goes to Mozilla and Mozilla will use it to fund Firefox (and other projects). It seems to work exactly how one would expect it to work - you just can't donate directly to a project such as Firefox.

There are limits to how much money they can move to projects due to their structure as a 501(c)3, (but all of their projects are towards an open web) so maybe not all of the funding goes to Firefox, but it still does go to Firefox.

[–] Matt@lemdro.id 4 points 1 year ago

Firefox is part of the for-profit Mozilla Corporation. Donations go to the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation. Even though Mozilla Corporation is owned by Mozilla Foundation, donations cannot be transferred to it since it is still legally a for-profit business. The funds donated to Mozilla Foundation are used for advocacy work.

[–] Zana@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I get paid next week and will definitely be donating, thank you for the link!

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This seems like a reasonable and insightful take. Is there a way a non-profit could still survive in silicon valley? For ex, IETF isn't a profit focused organization.

[–] Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure if this qualifies exactly but the FOSS 3D package Blender has been surviving for quite some time. They're in Amsterdam, not silicon valley, but they seem to do really well off primarily donations and funding from some big companies.

[–] IAm_A_Complete_Idiot@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the key there is funding from big companies. There's tons of standards and the like in which big companies take part - both in terms of code and financial support. Big projects like the rust compiler, the Linux kernel, blender, etc. all seem to have a lot of code and money coming in from big companies. Sadly there's only so much you can get from individuals - pretty much the only success story I know of is the wikimedia foundation.

[–] Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I may be wrong but I thought they were majority user funded.

edit: looking at their funding reports it seems that way, but I may be misinterpreting it.

[–] IAm_A_Complete_Idiot@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wikimedia foundation is, none of the other things I listed are.

[–] Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I meant Blender, they seem to be majority funded by regular people.

[–] IAm_A_Complete_Idiot@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I just checked their financial report for 2022 and it looks like 50% came from patron funding (which looks like entirely companies like Google), 5% from epics grant, and then 10% corporate membership. 20% came from individuals, and the rest from random other miscellaneous things like the blender market. If you search blender foundation annual report 2022, the finances breakdown will be near the end of the slides.

[–] Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ahh, that was just me misunderstanding what patron meant, my bad.

It looks like on blender's website there's 6 entities on there, and one of them does seem to be an individual fwiw. Here's his website: https://aras-p.info/.

The rest all seem to be corporations though - meta, aws, some game company I've never heard of, AMD, and epic.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's stopping web standards from being made simple or unchanging enough for a smaller project to maintain a functional web browser?

[–] SpaceScotsman@startrek.website 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At this point the web is about as complex as an operating system in terms of complexity. That needs really strong specific standards in order for it to work, and in turn projects like web browsers are huge and complex.

If someone wanted to build a web browser that only followed the simpler parts of the specifications, it wouldn't work for many websites* and people would not use that browser.

*Whether or not sites need to be so complex is another question entirely, but the reality right now is that they are

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Occasionally when I do web stuff I look into the big frameworks but quickly get overwhelmed and go back to simple html/css/js, so yeah I kind of just don't get what the point is or why anyone needs or wants complexity there. Large websites always do most stuff serverside anyway it seems, so where is this complexity even getting used? It is very mysterious to me. Suspect Google etc. are pushing stuff no one needs in this regard as well to move the web towards something only they can handle.

[–] dan@upvote.au 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

simple html/css/js,

There's a very large number of DOM and browser APIs now though... Even with basic JS without libraries or frameworks, you can still build fancy 2D and 3D graphics (WebGL), interact with USB devices, allow input via game controllers, stream H264 video, implement custom caching, use push notifications, and a bunch of other things. The web browser has to implement all of that complexity. They're all useful in different scenarios.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

That's a good point, I guess I haven't been too aware of all that stuff.