MARK SURMAN, PRESIDENT, MOZILLA Keeping the internet, and the content that makes it a vital and vibrant part of our global society, free and accessible has

  • tetris11@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Well, how did they do it in 90s-2010s? Genuinely asking. What’s changed that they can no longer do this.

    • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Netscape, which was essentially the predecessor to Mozilla, was a well funded VC-backed startup. That’s how they did it.

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        and only now the investors are asking for their return? Or the investors aren’t re-investing and that’s the problem?

        • Ants Are Everywhere@mathstodon.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          @tetris11 @GnuLinuxDude

          Mozilla Corporation – which makes Firefox – is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation. The foundation is a nonprofit.

          A nonprofit can’t generate a lot of business income unrelated to its mission. Firefox used to generate a lot of income, so it had to be spun off into a taxable entity called Mozilla Corporation.

          The corporation doesn’t have investors in the usual sense.

          • tetris11@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Christ that’s a messy inheritance model. Hopefully Firefox will be spun off to, and will have to focus solely on the browser.

    • abbenm@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Web standards have grown dramatically more complex since then. (To me, this raises a question in and of itself, I think it would be good to try and develop standards intentionally easy to maintain to avoid embrace-extend style dominance from individual companies).

      You now have HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, WebGL, WebAssembly, WebRTC. You have newer and newer layers of security, and you have multiple platforms (Apple, Windows, desktop, phone) to develop for. It’s a mountain that has grown out of what was once just a unique type of slightly marked up text file.

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Well, on the standards front, they tried — google just kept shifting the goalposts and forcing everyone to follow.

        On the technology front, you could maintain these things with a very small team of developers whose total salary is but a small percentage of the CEO’s current pay.

        • abbenm@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          I entirely agree with you about Google perpetually shifting the goalposts, which increases complexity and works to their advantage. I would say I think of the standards and technology as being, in many ways, integrally related.

          I think the idea though, is that it has indeed grown so vast that you need, effectively, teams of teams to keep up. There are browsers done with small teams of developers, but the fruits of those, imo, are not super promising.

          Opera: moved to Chromium.

          Vivaldi: also on Chromium.

          Midori: moved to Chromium.

          Falkon: Developed by the KDE team. Perhaps the closest example to what you are thinking of. It’s functional but lags well behind modern web standards.

          Netsurf: Remarkable and inspiring small browser written from scratch, but well behind anything like a modern browsing experience.

          Dillo: Amazing for what it is, breathing life into old laptops from the 90s, part of the incredible software ecosystem that makes Linux so remarkable, so capable of doing more with less. It’s a web browser under a megabyte. Amazing for what it is, but can barely do more than browse text and display images with decent formatting.

          Otter: An attempt to keep the Old Opera going, but well behind modern standards. Also probably pretty close to what you are suggesting.

          Pale Moon: Interesting old fork of pre-quantum Firefox but again well behind modern web standards.

          All of the examples have either moved to Chromium to keep up, or are well behind the curve of being modern browsers. If Firefox had the compromised functionality of Otter it might shed what modest market share it still has, not to mention get pilloried in comment sections here at Lemmy by aspiring conspiracy theorists.

          I do love all of these projects and everything they stand for (well, the non-chromium ones at least) but the evidence out there suggests it’s hard to do.

            • abbenm@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 minutes ago

              Oh shoot, that’s actually the best example of all, and, in fact a great counterpoint to all of those examples above. If Ladybird does it and can sustain it, then Mozilla really has no excuses.