this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
1048 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
60370 readers
3221 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Mozilla has bad resource management, that's a fact.
However turning into a loan shark app business? I really don't think so. Unless another browser enters the market and takes off (which is extremely difficult given the tons of features browsers are built to support for all sorts of websites) Mozilla never has to worry that much about money since Google is their top funder; and Google's main reason to fund them is to not deal with all sorts of legal issues and fines they'll recieve for creating a monopoly.
Didn't Mozilla just do a big roadmap talking about what they plan to do in the future and it was basically all AI and Activism with no mention of Firefox?
I hope to see Firefox grow, but who knows. Especially if antitrust actions or a continued drop in Firefox usage cuts off the Google money and makes Mozilla go poof.
But of course at least Gecko is Foss so it can't disappear entirely if the community doesn't let it.
Can you name any other non profits, around for as long as mozilla, and as large as mozilla, that have become "something similar" to a Chinese malware producer?
Is openai similar to a Chinese malware producer?
The moment Opera was sold to China it was obvious that it's time to jump ship.
What happened with Opera was very predictable. When it comes to companies and corporations, and when their software products are proprietary, the pattern is always the same. They make something that might be good, maybe very good. Good enough to get some level of popularity. That's how they start. Over time though, the profit driven model inherent in corporations pressures them to implement questionable features - things that might generate more revenue, but are things people might tolerate at best. At some point they become more anti-features than questionable. And eventually both the company and their product devolve into garbage and we find out they've been basically an arm of the surveillance state the whole time.
Mozilla is not immune to corruption. The deal people are referring to here is that Mozilla sets the built in default search engine to whoever is the highest bidder. If I recall, there was a brief period where either Microsoft or Yahoo was going to be that company. But generally it's Google. And not everything Mozilla does with Firefox is considered good for privacy. That's why we have smaller projects like Mull - basically somebody takes Firefox, removes all the problematic parts, and adds extra security and privacy features.
But those projects have a tendency to come and go, because maintaining a complex piece of software like a browser is challenging and costly, and those projects do not generate enough revenue to be self-sustaining.
So Mozilla isn't perfect, but they are a nonprofit organization, which does provide them with a revenue model that allows them to strike a decent balance, and on the whole Firefox is a net good, and has always been one of the most important bulwarks for the free and open web. And the fact that Firefox is entirely open-source forces them to stay good.