Why can’t they just use the Wikipedia model? That should bring in enough to cover development and operating costs.
Oh look we’re back to the “open source software can’t survive on its own without gobs of money and million-dollar CEOs wah wah wah” again.
Wtf you on about?
The grand majority of all costs for Firefox are in engineering salaries. And there is no million dollar CEO relating to the nonprofit’s expenses, that CEO is paid for from funds from the for profit organization.
Browsers are CRAZY expensive to build and maintain. And teams of engineers are crazy expensive.
I think it’s actually a good thing. Let’s hope a new fork like Floorp or something will not just fork but take the lead and innovate!
Firefox has not been innovating enough in the past 10 years. It’s slow its not having any good features either.
They’ve been innovating ways to get us to use their services, tho. Pocket, anyone?
Maybe, just as a crazy thought here, jwz was right. Mozilla and Firefox exist for 2 purposes - to build the standard reference browser, free of corporate crud (like, say, Google WebExtensions); and to be an absolute attack dog against ridiculous corporate desires.
Its interesting they don’t have all the services Proton does. I’d pay them for a email and VPN combo.
Pre buy out, Opera was kind of moving towards what Proton is doing now.
Now Vivaldi sets to continue that trajectory.
It’s weird that Mozilla didn’t. If they do it now they’ll look like copycats, and they’ve burnt a lot of supporters with their TOS boogaloo it would take a lot from them to claw back some of those supporters
right? thats a golden opportunity right there. they are sure taking their time with their email service.
How much active development does a browser engine need? If Mozilla died would I quickly be finding a larger chunk of websites that aren’t supported? Because as it sits, Firefox feels like one of the most corporate pieces of open source software I use daily, and I need to know just how tragic it would be if Mozilla died.
It requires a lot, you can try running an older version of a browser to see
Or look at all the memes people made about up to date chrome being better than out of date explorer
A ton. Mozilla is already behind on all kinds of miscellaneous less used standards implementations compared to Chrome AFAIK. On top of that there are security fixes needed monthly and realistically you need to be able to push emergency patches within 48 hours or less (really 1/4 or 1/2 that) or people are going to flee because they got cryptolockered because of you.
How quickly would sites be unsupported? Hard to say. Most likely large chunks of the internet would start blocking Mozilla user agents as an out of date security threat for their userbase before it actually ran into actual implementation problems. The problem would be that, websites and services no longer even bothering to try to support Mozilla and making changes that break things, and of course security holes and exploits which would likely eventually lead to no-click complete computer compromises and other very bad things. Once it falls far enough behind on standards a lot of sites will block it for that reason because they don’t want bug reports or to spend money chasing down an issue potentially caused by an out of date piece of software.
Google or whoever owns Chrome would keep pushing new web standards at a fast pace to kill and bury any attempts to keep Firefox running. At that point there’s nothing really stopping them closed sourcing large parts of Chrome to kill privacy forks and lock down control of the web which most big websites would be fine with as Google’s interest is in getting through ads and preventing the end user from control over their own computer in favor of the interests of the website owner.
It would be apocalyptic potentially for what remains of the open web and user freedom.
If Palemoon can still run the bulk of the web on a forked version of the old firefox engine, I doubt you’d notice anything breaking in the short term.
If Mozilla died would I quickly be finding a larger chunk of websites that aren’t supported?
Likely yes, as Google will keep enshittifying the web unless stopped by antitrust or whatever. Which isn’t looking so likely.
Except it isn’t. And we know it isn’t because the amount you spend on Firefox vs the rest of Mozilla is peanuts
Not even remotely true, this is a myth. Most of what they spend is on development, operations, and legal. They publish their 990 online which gives the breakdown. IIRC the foundation gets like 2%.
Ceo makes how much?
CEO is paid for from the for profit. The majority of costs are engineering salaries for Firefox.
What difference would it make if CEO got a minimum wage if there is no stable income stream for the company regardless?
Yeah, but their job is like reeeally hard!! They deserve it. /s
Slightly more than 1% of their annual revenue.
Well goodbye mozilla it wasn’t great knowing you. Hopefully you are able to fuck over the devs and golden parachute your c-suite bastards one last time.
Maybe, but what are the odds of a fork taking off? It was started under the codename “Phoenix” and went by “Firebird” for some time before becoming “Firefox”.
Maybe it’s time for a fork to rise from the ashes and take off…
Any fork will die a slow and painful death of it can’t get the necessary funding for project management and maintainer salaries.
It will also dwindle, hard, towards irrelevancy.
In world where the only viable browser is one owned and operated by Google.
There are already several forks that are fairly popular.
The fork that takes off will be the one where the Firefox devs move to. Which isn’t predictable. We could make our own foundation, without the blackjack and hookers (cause based on how mozilla was doing things it sure seems like all they did), and make it more as a means for the devs to get paid for their work.
and before that it was Netscape
I thought Netscape turned into Mozilla, which was different from Firebird
Correct. Firefox was a rewrite separate from the old Netscape/Mozilla SeaMonkey codebase.
