Mozilla does not look any reliable for people that loves FOSS, yet our current web seems like it's either Firefox/Gecko or Chrome/Chromium browsers. I wish people were more aware of emergent projects like Servo or Ladybird - even better if they could donate to them. I'm positive either of them could be a serious competitor to the Chrome hegemony.
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
250 points (96.6% liked)
Linux
48698 readers
1511 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
You are really underestimating the complexity of the task of building a web engine.
Another problem is that Chrome is already ubiquitous and most of the web sites are simply ignoring the Gecko and only optimise against Chromium.
Don't get me wrong, I truly wish we had more completion and I hope those projects take off and with time become a viable alternative of Chromium but I am somehow doubtful.
You're right about the fact that building an engine is hard, but Socraticly speaking, then why are there so many blink-based browsers and so few gecko-based ones? The answer is because blink is easy to embed in a new project and gecko isn't.
If Mozilla really wants to take back the web (and I honestly don't think they actually do), then what they should really be doing is making gecko as easy to embed in a new browser as blink is. They don't do this, and I suspect that they have ulterior motives for doing so, but if they did, I think we would be much closer to breaking chrome's grasp on the web.
Because let's face it: Mozilla makes a pretty damn good browser engine. But they don't really make a compelling browser based off it. Ever noticed how Mozilla has been declining ever since they deprecated XPCOM extensions? It's because when they provided XPCOM, it enabled users to actually build cool and interesting new features. And now that they've taken it away, all innovation in browser development has stagnated (save for the madlads making Vivaldi).
They need to empower others to build the browser that they can't. That's what would really resurrect the glory days of Firefox in my opinion.
Building a free (as in beer) engine for others to build great browsers on, is a pretty thankless task. Individuals may take pride in such a task, but for a company that needs to pay their staff, it's a fruitless endeavor. I assume it's much harder to earn money, if people are not using your software itself, but the forks that add all the cool stuff.
I chuckled a bit while reading this, because what you wrote is exactly where Blink came from. It was a fork of webkit, which in turn was derived from KHTML. Then again, the fact KHTML was discontinued does support your point to an extent too, I guess.
But the point is, Chrome is doing exactly this - providing the engine free as in beer and letting people embed it however they like. And yet, what you're predicting, ie. not using the original but just using forks instead, doesn't seem to be happening with Chrome - they still enjoy a massive fraction of the market share. There's no reason to believe that this couldn't happen at Mozilla as well. People usually want the original product, and it's only a small fraction of people that are really interested in using the derivatives.
Hold on, why are we talking about this like it's something that's not happening? There's all kinds of forks of Firefox.
The difference is how you interact with the browser engine. Blink is very easy to embed into a new browser project. I've seen it done - if you're familiar with the tools, you can build a whole new browser built around the Blink engine in a few hours. You can write pretty much whatever you want around it and it doesn't really change how you interact with the engine, which also makes updates very simple to do.
With Firefox, it's practically impossible to build a new browser around Gecko. The "forks" that you see are mostly just reskins that change a few settings here and there. They still follow upstream Firefox very closely and cannot diverge too much from it because it would be a huge maintenance burden.
Pale Moon and Waterfox are closer to forks of Firefox than Librewolf for example, but they've had to maintain the engine themselves and keep up with standards and from what I've read, they're struggling pretty hard to do so. Not a problem that Blink-based browsers have to deal with because it's pretty easy and straightforward to update and embed the engine without having to rewrite your whole browser.
Unfortunately, since Google controls the engine, this means that they can control the extensions that are allowed to plug into it. If you don't have the hooks to properly support an extension (ie. ublock), then you can't really implement it... unless you want to take on the burden of maintaining that forked engine again.
That said, Webkit is still open source and developed actively (to the best of my knowledge - I could be completely wrong here). Why don't forks build around Webkit instead of Blink? Not really sure to be honest.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I suspect that they have ulterior motives
Rather than guessing at the motives of others, let's remember Hanlon's razor.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Honestly, I would be fine with Blink being default if Google would divest it from themselves and make it an independent open source project that they just contribute to instead of control. They have far too much power with that one bit of tech to shape the Internet as we know it, along with a large chunk of computing that happens offline thanks to the growing ubiquity of node.js/Electron
And they're actively using that control to restrict what we can even do with our own machines right now
load more comments
(8 replies)
chrome enshitification made me switch back to firefox after 7ish years of using it as my daily driver and likewise was true for netscape.
those two previous experiences tell me that i need to start making preparations to switch away from firefox; but i can't bring myself to do it because all of the other viable alternatives are chrome based. since google already has begun publicly enshitifying chrome further i think i'll end up going with just about any other browser project that i can find and i think that these two are the two most likely candidates.
are you aware of any others?
Various websites suck in one browser or the other or simply don't work in more than one single browser. We're not that far away from the days when Internet Explorer (IE) was the only thing that loaded a site (often for something work-related... groan)
That said, if you need Chrom(e/ium) and want a non-data-sucking version, I think Ungoogled Chromium is your best bet currently.
For the Firefox side of things, there are already several forks that aim to do things differently/better. Floorp is one I see recommended regularly. There seem to be a larger number of Firefox forks focusing on security/privacy than Google forks, but this is the most well-regarded from my research.
Simultaneous post-enshittification from both Chrome/Chromium and Firefox is probably (hopefully) leading towards more active development/contribution to these (and other) forks!
Its in a very alpha state, but check out Zen browser. Based on Firefox, incredibly fast and customizable. Their github page: https://github.com/zen-browser/desktop
load more comments
(1 replies)
Mozilla CEO is paid 7million a year. I don't have the number for the rest of the board, but it should be in the same range. I think that when people say this was a cruel choice, they talk about firing people instead of decreasing executive salaries.
Corporate cuts should always start with the greatest fat that does the least work - the ones at the top.
Because if the company has found itself in a place where headcount needs to be reduced, these are the people who led it there and deserve all of the blame for hurting the company to that degree. Plus, you should always start cutting where you get the lowest volume of productive work for the greatest money spent, and that is always at the top.
They have enough cash reserves to last 3 years without any income. But 15% of income is Google free. If Google disappears, they will surely get an income hit, but someone else will gladly pay some price for that position, perhaps half of what Google is paying. People are really blowing this out of proportion.
I think you're massively downplaying how much of a hit this will be.
Let's say you make $100k/year. Think about the lifestyle it allows. You've just been informed that it's now going part time, and you'll only be making $15k/year. How far does that get you?
Now, you're expecting someone else to pay for that advertising spot, so it won't be that bad. But who is even eligible? Microsoft's Bing is the obvious answer, and probably DDG. The rest of the default search engines aren't even general web searches.
Do you really think that either of them are going to pay any significant amount to be the default? Especially when most people are going to change it back to Google anyway, since these are automatically people willing to change to a different browser?
Sure, they might be willing to pay something. But it won't be anything close to what they had before.
Both Bing and Yahoo have outbid Google in certain countries in the past. There's a new wave of AI powered startups with tons of venture capital. I could imagine them making sizable bids.
But I get what you mean. The main difference to your scenario is: search money will definitely not totally disappear, Mozilla has huge savings, and they can just finally pivot and focus on making a real premium offer that people would want to pay for.
Do you really think that either of them are going to pay any significant amount to be the default?
I can see Bing doing it. And Google is so far gone that it would probably be an improvement
Ironically, the anti monopoly lawsuit against Google will end this.
People are quick to assume this, and there's a very good chance that they're right, but I don't think we should take it as a given. It's always possible that there could be some sort of court decision that allows Google to keep funding Mozilla after the "breakup" is complete.
In any case, we don't yet know what the outcome of the antitrust case will be, so I think it might be best to avoid making statements of certainty like this until we see how things really shake out.
We should definitely take the possibility of this happening very seriously though.
Found the one sane comment in this entire thread.
Google may or may not stop paying Mozilla as part of the antitrust scrutiny. I have no idea if there's actual reporting to this effect, or any form of legal analysis suggesting this is the most plausible outcome. If anything, antitrust scrutiny might lead to this funding being more secure and more robust.
So this might not happen, but this whole threads carrying on like it's a fait accompli.
Taking funding from your biggest competitor is a weird business choice.
Where should they be "taking" funding instead?
That's the Mozilla paradox right there. A company like theirs cannot survive on the market without breaking their own ideals.
Mozilla should approach proton to try and get accuired. I would love to see Firefox and Thunderbird become part of the proton landscape.
Well all it'll do is make Proton lose more money.
They are not positive ?
I think they are but Mozilla is not profitable and will be an expense source. Idk if it'll make Proton negative but it definitely won't improve their business.
mozilla is not profitable because of how much they pay their CEO.
its the same situation as reddit.
load more comments
(1 replies)
ideally donations like lots of other FOSS projects
Serious question, is there actually a FOSS project out there at the scale of something like Firefox that survives on only donations?
No because people choose diss cause it’s free. I mean they might say other things but then the vast majority do not donate to anything. People are cheap and that’s why we are where we are with all the ads.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
Aint it grand that a monopoly power got abused, got checked and our beloved FF is the victim of corpo parasites?
Not even sure what funding model would work for something as critical as web engine but if we don't figure it out, we will be sucking sundars dick going forward?
Disgusting... Clearly some edge lord using and shilling it, ain't enough
Clearly some edge lord...
I see what you did there
Mozilla could have allowed people the option to subscribe for a modest fee in addition to giving it away for free, to diversify their income and be less dependent on Google, but they have not been trying that hard to develop other revenue streams.
corpo parasites at the top were paid off to gut it from within... signal is going the same route imho
Rip, time to find new income sources
worse? If this means that they refocus on things that matter then I consider this better.
That depends on management, however it definitely could benefit the company.
I think the biggest issue is that a bunch of people are, probably unexpectedly, out of a job.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I think one thing you guys should keep in the back pocket, is that Mozilla jobs are the outlier. The average Open Source Developer salary is very close to the US Federal poverty line. They're paid mostly in comped passes to conventions. Most of the "averages" you see are compiled from data from companies like Mozilla. OSS devs are typically make around $30k in pure cash, even for ones working on large projects. The only OSS devs that make between the $95k and $150k (25th and 75th percentiles) you'll see online are ones that work for Mozilla, or Intel, or whoever.
What makes this possible is MIT licensing models that corpos shilled in the 2000's and 2010's that directly benefit corperate engineering costs, but don't contribute back nearly the value they extract. If the majority was GPL + copyright assignment, there would be income streams for leveraging OSS projects in closed source applications via licensing deals.
But the genie is out of the bottle on most of these things. See how Amazon is effectively forking an destroying existing OSS models via AWS provisioning of things like redis and elasticache.
The measley non Google portion of revenue is 81m dollar. If you pay a top dev 200k, you could pay 100 top devs 20m and still have 60m to play with.
This is even before considering a Bing/Yahoo/Ecosia deal.
Mozilla will be fine, but they'll likely need to be leaner. Lay offs will likely play a part in that. Just got to hope they size and structure it right.
view more: next ›