I am shocked. Shocked! /s

  • Mwa@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Hmm why cant they move to a pre hosted mastodon server

  • CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 day ago

    Does it matter that they don’t run an instance?

    As long as they have accounts and keep them up to date, that is the main thing.

    How many open source projects actually run and moderate instances?

    • LWD@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The effectiveness of the internet as a public resource depends upon interoperability (protocols, data formats, content), innovation and decentralized participation worldwide.

      - Mozilla Manifesto, Principle 6, emphasis mine

  • Corgana@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    This sucks (Was it really costing much money to run?) but as long as Firefox continues to work with full-flavor ublock I’m happy.

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Weird that they called it a “Beta”, like running a chat server you didn’t code is somehow an experiment. Just say you couldn’t be arsed running it anymore.

  • zante@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    I guess hating Mozilla is very much in fashion. The tech chatterati have made it so.

    They’ll move on, as they always do. I just hope Firefox is still here.

    • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Critiquing Mozilla when they make mistakes is not the same as hating them. It is healthy to keep these organizations accountable

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The issue is all signs point to them pivoting to AI and ad driven nonsense - they’ll move on, but if the product goes to shit so will I. The rest is noise.

  • Mina@berlin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    139
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    @dantheclamman

    I am definitely starting to hate #Mozilla.

    As a remark: I have always been fine with their deal with Pocket and having Google as their default search engine. In the end, there are bills to be paid.

    Until I learned that e.g. Mozilla Corporation’s CEO is on a multi-million dollar salary, and they’re hiring ai and ad people.

    Not OK for an entity where many highly skilled people code for free.

    It’s not what users want the cash to be spent on.

    Leaving the Fedi is the final drop

    • Vincent@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think you might be overestimating how much code is contributed by unpaid volunteers…

    • CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Why does it matter that they don’t run an instance? Most open source projects do not.

      As long as they keep an account on an instance and keep it up to date, this is the main thing.

      Hate is a strong emotional decision for a company making an internet browser…

        • CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          No. It’s trying something. If company’s get punished for investing and trying something, others won’t even try in future. I respect they tried. If I was in charge, I wouldn’t have bothered.

          • Mina@berlin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            @CrypticCoffee

            I wonder, how increasing CEO pay year by year worked out for them.

            Certainly, definitely not in growing the user base, but also not in revenue that would make up it.

            • CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Separate issue entirely. I’m talking specifically about Fediverse investment and why that was the final straw.

              I thought the discussion was about that and not a “I hate Mozilla” greatest hits.

              You can always throw in that Google fund them and a 10 year old bug that hasn’t been resolved if that was your purpose.

              I guess ranting can help you feel better, so I hope it helped.

                • CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  I read it, just had nothing to add.

                  For the record, I disagree with the AI funding, CEO pay and pocket stuff. It doesn’t make me hate them though. They build the biggest open source alternative to Google dictating standards for web. That’s massive. I strongly dislike google for a multitude of reasons and hating a company that challenges that is a strange position to take. If Firefox goes, we’re mega fucked.

                  Maybe place your anger with the actual bad actors in the browser space.

    • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I was cool with them buying Pocket. But as a long time user of Pocket, I feel it has horribly stagnated. Far more features have been lost than have been gained.

      • Kushan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Stagnation is Mozilla’s MO. Fuck, go look at Thunderbird and be transported back to the 90’s.

        Even Microsoft is updating outlook - fucking outlook is innovating, Outlook being the cancer on email that’s held it back for decades, is being updated.

      • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        And JFC the monthly subscription price for Pocket is steep for what it offers.

          • Mina@berlin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            @morrowind

            Exactly! Mozilla wants people to know, they don’t give a shit.

            A few years of party for executives are still possible, and just before Firefox and Thunderbird go into oblivion, quickly into a new management position at an ai company (or whatever may be the hype, then).

            Mark my words!

      • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        It seems like the kind of thing the Foundation would run anyway (or sponsor as a separate project), rather than the Corporation being involved at all.

    • Mwa@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Same,i wish they can make their browser fast and actually private since gecko is slower then chromium (and maybe webkit?) its even worse on windows

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      with how many singular developers managed to do it based on Firefox when Mozilla couldn’t pull their shit together, idk why anyone would still be holding their breath. just switch to a competent fork.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          21 hours ago

          that’s what’s i said, but they’re all better functioning than firefox

            • pyre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              20 hours ago

              but there is a base, and it isn’t good. the forks are. you said you want a good browser. they’re not making it. the forks are good. idk what you’re arguing about.

              • slacktoid@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                18 hours ago

                Most forks take an ESR version and build on top of that. Who is gonna make that ESR base?

                You’re saying the equivalent of ‘I don’t care about the Linux kernel cause Ubuntu is better and everyone should use that’ of arguments.

                Not saying you are literally saying ^

                • pyre@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  17 hours ago

                  have I said anywhere that Firefox should cease to exist or Mozilla shouldn’t do security patches or whatever because i thought we were talking about having a good browser experience.

    • Eiri@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      I understand that they need to diversify so that they’re not so dependent on Google’s default search engine money. I don’t know how they should do that.

      But I’m not sure what they’ve been doing has been all that good of an idea.

      • TheFrirish@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        They’re 80% dependent on google there is no choice. Mozilla’s behaviour since they got the google deal was the begining of the end. I honestly believe that due to Mozilla’s current leadership it would be best for open source developers to all refocus on the ladybird project. I don’t have any affiliation to that project and I understand how huge of an undertaking it is to build a web engine from scratch but the gecko engine is polluted by the Mozilla’s execs and by extension Google.

        To make it clear Google controls Firefox by, in practice, owning an 80% share of Mozilla.

      • slacktoid@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        well paying execs multimillion dollar salaries aint helping thats for sure!

        Also. What’s the point of their mastodon server? It’s cool but so what

      • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        make their browser engine useable for 3rd parties and sell support, make an electron-like product and add premium features… there are so many browser-based products that people sell, and owning 1 of the only viable browser engines should be huge… the fact that firefox is still only barely able to be embedded is a travesty

        it’d be especially valuable if they made a premium electron product that provided security/privacy guarantees, performance benefits, etc - they should siphon some of the profit off the number of for-profit companies that build electron apps

        • Eiri@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          I kinda like the idea but I also kinda hate it.

          I really wish PWAs worked properly cross-platform instead. :(

          • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            totally agree, but also you can do more with an electron-like app - elevated privileges, less sandbox, etc because the user expects such things from an installed “native” app

          • toastal@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            SSB was killed after it sat behind an about:config flag, then their telemetry (that most power users disable) reported folks weren’t using. But what average users would be using a setting they would need to poke around to find. It’s a real shame too since I want to say it was PeppermintOS that was largely built around PWAs.

    • Nytefyre@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      They don’t know how to do that and never did.

      It’s always been “Uhhh let’s have people make Firefox accounts, yeah!” When, in this day and age, the last thing people need is yet another account to keep track of.

      “Lets get into AI, yeah!” Said no one ever.

      Like, is it too much to fucking ask for a simple, privacy-centric, security (not overreaching), performance priority browser?

      I mean look around how many forks of Firefox that there are out there, having to do the legwork because Firefox isn’t that much of the shit it thinks it is.

      • abbenm@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        I’ve never understood the argument. It seems to have kind of been collectively hallucinated into existence by waves of internet comment sections over the years. But these aren’t mutually exclusive, and nobody has made a case that the resources for these other features are compromising the ability to deliver core browser functionality.

        They also seem to assume that it’s development decisions, rather than Google leveraging its search dominance and financial muscle, that are tied to changes in market share. I actually think these value-adds can be good, can punch above their weight and can, if they are smart in picking their spots, do so without necessarily compromising their ability to advance the development of Firefox.

        And nobody ever stops, breathes in and out, collects the evidence and makes the actual case. It’s just kind of assumed, asserted, repeated, assumed again, repeated again ad nauseum. Because enough people have seen other people say it, so they say it too knowing it leads to upvotes.

        The ones closest to citing evidence, thankfully understanding at least how a real argument would actually work, are also the most unhinged, which probably isn’t a coincidence.

        • Nytefyre@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Why would I take the time and energy out of my day to jump through hoops to prove my case. At the very likely chance that someone like you will refute it anyways and waive it off like you did with my comment?

          Not worth it.

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    Can we all just use a “bad browser” that isn’t “as good” as these exploitative mainstream browsers by specifically giving up on websites that require a browser that exploits us? We shouldn’t need to be exploited.

  • kbal@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Mozilla 2012: We’re winning the browser war and saving the web. You’re welcome.

    Mozilla 2017: Competing with Chrome is hard. What if we break all existing extensions and never let people replace them all?

    Mozilla 2021: Through inclusiveness and the power of positive thinking we will facilitate leadership towards in-depth studies of what we can do to improve social media.

    Mozilla 2024: Running a small mastodon instance is just too hard, we give up.

    • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Mozilla 2017: Competing with Chrome is hard. What if we break all existing extensions and never let people replace them all?

      This is the one that broke my back. Understandable that XPCOM extensions had to go, but leaving nothing to replace them, and then going on to push their trash UI redesigns without giving us any recourse to change them back - that was just unforgivable.

      Then again, that was still well before they started pushing spyware in their own browser, so in retrospect, those were very quaint times!

    • LWD@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      2 days ago

      Just a little comment on 2021: It seems disingenuous, from their perspective. Steve Teixeira, In a lawsuit, is claiming that not only did Mozilla try to get him to fire employees who were disproportionately minorities, but they were within a group that was producing a profit for Mozilla.

      In other words, Mozilla might have been preaching inclusivity publicly while practicing exclusivity privately.

    • Nytefyre@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      Mozilla in early 2000s: We’re glad we’ve broken you away from Internet Explorer’s chains. You’re welcome.

    • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      I adore Firefox. Just tired of Mozilla trying features (FF Panorama) and hobbies (Notes) and then abandoning them

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      We aren’t fickle. We adhere very strongly to our principles but it’s easier to direct people to a name when they aren’t interested in understanding why.

    • LWD@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Like all products, Firefox still maintains a small core of uncritical, devoted fans. To them, Mozilla can do no wrong.

      The problem is, up until a few months ago, Mozilla advocated for privacy and other public facing values that lined up with their manifesto. Now, they are breaking away from that, and the true believers are shifting too: becoming hostile to privacy.

      The people who liked Firefox because of its privacy stance, or because they were looking for an alternative to Big Tech, on the other hand, aren’t 100% likely to become a true believer, and those people are the critics. Often, those critics have been around for years going on decades.

      • abbenm@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I see this as revisionist history. Mozilla has long been beloved for a whole host of FOSS reasons, that align with the same reasons FOSS enthusiasts like anything FOSS. I do think there are fanbases for things who think their object of adoration can do no wrong (e.g. Sneako fans probably). They are out there, but I don’t see that as being true of Mozilla.

        I’ve seen supporters of Mozilla make nuanced points about it being an imperfect but important diversification of options that prevents Google from dominating the browser space, often in thoughtful interactions with fans of (say) the Brave browser or Opera browser over the fact that they rely on Chromium which is sustained by Google.

        Those convos have more going on than uncritical adoration, and imo it’s important to let those nuances breath so that they, rather the oversimplifications, can be our primary takeaways.

        Interestingly, while talking in mournful past tense about Firefox’s having lost their way, in this same thread there are people a few comments above denying that criticism of Mozilla is prevalent here. You guys should scroll up (or down) and say hello to each other.

    • abbenm@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I mean there’s just no way around it. And I’m the most unapologetic Mozilla fanboy you will meet. What was the point of making a server if it was going to just die a few months later.

      You need to be in control of your projects and your vision at least enough to know if you can make a credible commitment to the thing you launch. And, like others here, I’m honestly kind of surprised that this, of all things, was too much for Mozilla to handle.

        • Vincent@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          I think “the Fediverse” is generally understood to refer to ActivityPub-based projects, or even more narrowly, “things that can be seen from Mastodon”. At least I understood it as such, even if that’s not technically correct.

    • toastal@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I would be mad if this would be next to fall since I use it. I don’t self-host Matrix since it is too expensive being built on a fundamental ‘eventual consistency’ model mirroring all text & attachments for all users in every DM & room to your storage—not to mention the Python implementation server & even the Rust one use much more system resources than other open chat options. It’s the same for Mastodon specifically too which but Ruby this time—with eventual consistency chewing up GiBs of storage making small players shut down instances. I would not be surprised tho if their Matrix server fell next just based on hosting cost.

      Wanting to get folks off proprietary garbage like Slack, Telegram, & Discord was the right idea but moving to Matrix will prove to be a mistake as nodes are too expensive to run therefore leads to the centralization we need to escape. With the poor performance of the flagship Element client too, casual users think it is too damn slow (literally takes 2 minutes to even get to a screen with text in my browser & it isn’t even done syncing). There are more mature technologies with lower running costs that could have/should have/can be embraced.