zlacker

[return to "What will a Chromium-only Web look like?"]
1. ecmasc+86[view] [source] 2022-06-22 10:06:53
>>dochtm+(OP)
It will not be Chromium only. It will be chromium and safari and it already is. Apple will most likely never open up unless forced, which usually sucks but is a good thing due to the monopoly of the market.

Firefox is responsible for such a low percentage it's sad (the stats I have for the sites I work on it's usually on the 1-2% range). I think it's mainly because of the horrible leadership at Mozilla. I want to use Firefox and promote it but every time I think they've changed Mozilla does something new that boils my blood. You can donate to Mozilla, but not directly to Firefox and they seem to spend a lot of money on political projects. It's a 'get woke, go broke' situation and I have watched the fall of Mozilla in real time over the past years.

I really wish Mozilla changed focus, I would gladly pay for Firefox+ or something if I knew that the money went to Firefox development and not to some racist white male hate project.

So I'll continue using Brave and hope for the best, the future the author is talking about is basically already here.

◧◩
2. Santos+h9[view] [source] 2022-06-22 10:30:05
>>ecmasc+86
> Firefox is responsible for such a low percentage it's sad (the stats I have for the sites I work on it's usually on the 1-2% range). I think it's mainly because of the horrible leadership at Mozilla. I want to use Firefox and promote it but every time I think they've changed Mozilla does something new that boils my blood.

This is repeated ad nauseum on this site and needs to be called out. The Mozilla management may be rather self serving but Firefox is a fine browser and more than viable alternative to Chrome. The reason they're losing market share is because Chrome is bundled everywhere as default, not just Android, but often as part of desktop Windows too, by OEM. And now Edge, which is Chromium under the skin, is the default on MS Windows. So Firefox is used only by those who specifically seek it out, which means just a small portion of the tech community.

◧◩◪
3. ecmasc+Ob[view] [source] 2022-06-22 10:49:13
>>Santos+h9
Yes but before the tech community was all fire for Firefox. IT-guys installed it on work computers, school computers etc. We would recommend it to our families and install it for our less techy family when they would need our assistance.

Firefox had the IT-sector with them. I think this does a lot for spreading the usage. Even just one IT-guy can probably give Firefox hundreds of users. Now, this is no longer the case and increasingly they have not only just been just as good or worse than chromium but they have gone out and actively angered a lot of their core user base with political things.

It is a fine browser, I haven't said anything else. It is the leadership that is bad. I would definitely be one of their strongest promoters if Brendan Eich were CEO.

But no, they kicked him out for a bs reason and employed a PC-dictator that fires most of the company and gives herself a promotion even though the usage is falling drastically.

Then they post shit like this:

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplat...

https://book.mozillafestival.org/10-years-of-activism-commun...

and fund people like:

https://www.mozillapulse.org/profile/3116

If you consistently support specific political views it's not strange that the people who do not support these views will stop seeking them out and start recommending other browsers, how good Firefox may be doesn't really matter. They have turned Mozilla from a tech company to an activist company and now they will have to reap what they have sowed.

◧◩◪◨
4. opheli+3f[view] [source] 2022-06-22 11:14:44
>>ecmasc+Ob
Given the direction Brendan Eich has pursued at Brave, I'm personally very glad he didn't remain as Mozilla's CEO, regardless of political views.

Edit: Also, I don't think it's particularly reasonable to single out an individual being funded by Mozilla without a very good explanation as to why. Is there something that Leil Zahra has done which makes you think they are inappropriate to be associated with Mozilla? Or are you just upset by their identity as a queer person?

[go to top]