Mozilla says Apple’s new browser rules are “as painful as possible” for Firefox
Mozilla says Apple’s new browser rules are “as painful as possible” for Firefox
Mozilla is “extremely disappointed.”
You're viewing a single thread.
How about you don't increase the salary of the CEO and other top employees by millions each year and use that money instead to hire a couple of people to work on the engine
I feel like of a group of dedicated Firefox engineers should fork the source code and start their own company.
If they would focus on adding really useful features at a rapid pace, people would be willing to pay for it.
Similiar to Kagi, if you make a really good software, you will get a group of dedicated people to support you.
Just a tech company without these super expensive CEOs that are not needed in a smaller company.
Servo is a fork of a Mozilla research project, it's moved to the Linux foundation.
They are rebuilding a web engine built for the internet today, rather than adapting the older web engines of yesterday. Mozilla already uses some of their components in Firefox.
But they are only building a web engine, for other people to turn into browsers, we views, electron alternatives etc.
Aren't there already a bunch of forks of Firefox already? How will one more help anything?
There is a difference between forks made by other people to tweak a project/do something specific for it, and the base project's dev team moving away from whatever it became.
I'm usually not in favor of such fork because the reason for moving away is sometime dubious; some project just rename themselves to "start fresh and drop legacy compatibility issue". But in the case of Firefox, Mozilla is the thing holding back features while adding bloat. Since it can't change to a saner structure with more long-term sustainability plans, devs/engineers could move into a fork to not be bound to that anymore.
Of course it's not that easy; for all the bad Mozilla (foundation or other, I don't care much that they are two entities at this point since one is owned by the other) is doing to the actual software, they do provide salaries. At least, for now.
Lol. Firefox cost of development is $500 milions a year. Stop bs. No one can develop a browser anymore, even Microsoft. And the salary of CEO is not the problem.
Cost of development was 221 mio in 2022
https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-2022-fs-final-0908.pdf
Same magnitude. We can not fork firefox with serious support
Yeah, I guess your point stands. But also, it's 221 mio for Mozilla as a whole. Firefox might again be a fraction of this. While e.g. the Linux foundation has a lower budget, with all the contributed work hours of volunteers / corporations, a fork of Firefox is more realistic than the 500 mio make it out to be.
It is not the same software. A lot of drivers are developed externally for Linux. You can not do that with Firefox. Firefox is the main project of Mozilla
I don't think your idea is bad but remember that the reason that small companies (like the one that makes arc) can maintain a browser is that they're using chromium, and maintaining a browser engine is the hard part
How many people know why CEO's get paid what they do?
A lot of it is they are actually worth more than me and you.
But the main thing that made CEO wages increase is that a law was passed for CEOs wages to be made public to discourage high wages. When that happened they competed against each other and the wage inflated.
Currently the negotiating position of businesses is far higher than that of workers because they are scared of not having a job/ don't know what they are worth. The workers need public salaries. But like a lot of things in this world the workers vote against their own interests.
I'm not really sure how to fix that. But I'm starting to feel like someone really needs to try.
I guess, but shouldn't that at least be somewhat based on how successful they are? Her salary went from 3 million in 2020 to 7 million in 2022 while the market share of Firefox went from 4.7% to 3%, for me it looks more like she knows its a dying company and she just wants to squeeze out as much money as she can.
I'm pretty sure any CEO will try squeeze as much money out of their company whether they are doing well or not. That's irrelevant.
I actually talked to a (small) CEO last week he said all CEO's either do it for ego or for money. That's all it is to them.
But that's not really the point you are making. The board chooses the rules of the game and its up to the CEO to win it, that's their job. In this case the board wasn't rewarding market share as that didn't interest them, they were rewarding other metrics which Mozilla improved on. I don't know anything about this company other than its my desktop browser but here is an article I just found
I'd take lunduke with a bowl of salt. That dude has had a hate boner against Mozilla for over a decade.
Interesting, thank you for sharing that, it just showed me once again that i don't know why people support Mozilla
I don't understand. What makes you say that?
The board not making the success of their main product a metric shows that they wanna move away from it or the mindset of "Google will pay use anyways since they don't wanna get in trouble for having a monopoly on browser engines" and rewarding her for the VPN which is just a whitelabled version of Mullvad with a worse client. Also keep in mind its a non-profit so rewarding her for making more money feels kinda weird