Steve Teixeira, Mozilla’s New Chief Product Officer
blog.mozilla.org
blog.mozilla.org
I'll probably have to stop soon. Firefox is just too buggy and incomplete.
The attitude of the developers on Bugzilla is just horrendous. Users take their time to submit detailed reports, with repro steps, explanations, references, and screenshots of how other browsers behave.
These tickets will sit in the queue for decades, sometimes with thousands or even tens of thousands of "me too!" and "is this fixed yet?" comments.
The only response you will see from anyone at Mozilla is internal paper-pushing. Assigning of categories, merging bugs, assigning to a team, or whatever. Almost never will you see an actual developer fix the issue.
Currently, Firefox the only major browser that:
- Doesn't consistently support colour management.
- Doesn't support HDR on sites like YouTube.
- Doesn't pick up the operating system PKI trust store.
- Doesn't play nice with Enterprise deployment and configuration management.
... etc ...
The core team has lost its way and is too busy playing with stupid pet projects with no business value.
The CPO should really start knocking some heads together and start asking tough questions like:
- Why are there open bug tickets old enough to drink and have little bugs of their own?
- Why is Firefox unable to correctly view content on the #1 video site in the world?
Etc...
Fix the basics!
This was super frustrating for me. I filed a related bug when loading the CACKey module stopped working.
While that bug didn't get fixed, I found out about two settings to do what you want.
Set security.enterprise_roots.enabled and security.osclientcerts.autoload to true in about:config and restart Firefox.
Doing that plus loading and trusting the appropriate certs in Keychain Access makes my CAC/PIV work.
Notice the word "roots" in "security.enterprise_roots.enabled"?
The PKI hierarchy is more than just "roots". A tree is more than just a stump.[1]
No amount of begging or pleading with the Mozilla dev team ever succeeded in convincing them to read the Microsoft documentation for how PKI works in Windows.
There's a set of constants in the Win32 headers that defines the various certificate trust stores in Windows. You know, "machine", "machine policy", "user", and "user policy" multiplied out to make combinations with "root", "intermediate", "crl", etc...
Over 20 years they have slowly, one at a time added a random subset of them. RANDOM. Just... one... at... a time... in some unfathomable order. It was mind-blowing to watch this unfold.
The simplest thing they could have done was simply support all of the stores by copy-pasting the whole block of constants and writing a for loop across all of them. Done. Fixed. Close ticket.
But noooo... got to keep those tickets open for decades and decades by making sure that whatever is there remains permanently incomplete.
It boggles the mind.
[1] As a random example of how this can be broken in Firefox is that it is unable to use LDAP to load an intermediate CA certificate. The use of LDAP is common on large Windows-based enterprise networks, because it's the default. It's trivial to "push" these intermediate CA certs into the local trust store of every machine using policy, at which point the protocol support no longer matters. Firefox could have simply picked up the certificate from the local store. It already has the code for doing this for Root certs, but refuses to use identical code for Intermediate certs.
How can you have an intermediate certificate in a trust store mean anything? Wouldn't its trust be based on the root that signed it? It seems to me either the intermediate cert is signed by a trusted root (in which case mission accomplished) or it isn't, in which case it's the root (not intermediate) that needs to get added?
Again, not anywhere near my area of expertise. Assuming my understanding is wrong, it would be helpful for me to learn how, and id appreciate the guidance.
Firefox supports only HTTP for retrieving an intermediate CA certificate, and can only do this "live".
Say you have a "leaf" certificate, and you already trust its Root CA, but there is no copy locally of the intermediate CA certificate. What now? Firefox will look for a HTTP URL in the leaf certificate pointing at the intermediate CA's certificate endpoint. It'll download and cache it on the fly.
This is fine... on the public internet with public CAs.
It's not generally robust on internal networks. For example, many "secure desktops" deployed in the military, security agencies, parliament, etc... don't have unfettered outbound access. They may need to talk to internal HTTPS endpoints but have no access to Internet-hosted CA endpoints publishing the intermediate certificate!
Windows solves this by allowing a single machine to download the CA certificates and the associated CRL files, and pushing this out to the workstations via policy. Firefox solves this by timing out and failing.
Similarly, HTTPS is the new-kid-on-the-block for PKI infrastructure! Its original use-case was for things like Smart Cards. Windows started out deploying certificates via LDAP, not HTTP! Firefox just does... nothing... if it sees only an LDAP URL in the certificate and you get an error.
Last but not least, truly paranoid admins don't just trust every public CA for every purpose. It's possible for a Windows network to deploy updated trust lists that restrict CA purposes. Similarly, it's possible to push out certificates you distrust and have anything using them rejected, whether or not the parent CA has published a CRL entry to revoke the certificate.
Right now, there's a lot of admins in Ukraine adding Russian CAs to such rejection lists. Get it?
Firefox has it's own unique and special way of managing all of this, and just ignores whatever the operating system tells it... except for a random subset here and there. That's not documented. You have to go read (and understand!) the C++ code to figure out what it does or does not do.
Oh, and to add injury to insult, the method for managing the Firefox certificate trust list changes semi-regularly, so most of the URLs in the docs are now 404s.
I've given up, and so have millions of other admins.
Firefox had a philosophical opposition to supporting enterprise customers on Windows, and they've paid the price for that philosophy with increasing irrelevance of their core product.
PS: Chrome / Chromium / Edge have their own issues, but nowhere near as bad. One major concern is that for non-public CAs used at a large scale, it's basically impossible to revoke certificates for any Chromium-based browser on unmanaged networks. It's still very difficult on managed networks. An example would be a University with tens of thousands of unmanaged workstations using an internal CA for things like VPN or WiFi access.
Mozilla has to ship its own cert store to have any sort of political power over CAs (which has almost always been a good thing).
My guess is it has more to do with browser development being an arms race. And Mozilla cannot just bank on its search ads, web ads, OS sales, office apps, or hardware to pay to keep up. And the biggest services all have and push their own browsers.
Think how much better Firefox had to be to unseat IE6. It was way better for years and still took a long time to gain market share. And it arose when the oligopolies were waning, often without their own browsers. Now most markets are cornered. And each big player has their own browser. (All largely based on WebKit.)
Give me the $500m a year and I'll give it a punt.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/13/mozilla-expects-to-generat...
I use FF on windows and in WSL2 Ubuntu and on FF Nightly on android. I do watch YouTube/Twitch a lot, of there's a problem with those sites in FF I'm not aware of it.
Maybe most people just aren't encountering these issues and they're prioritizing bugs that affect more devices?
Sad about the negativity in this thread. I hope FF stays around since TreeStyleTabs are like my most valued bit of software at the moment and it would be a pain to have to replace them.
But it's still the same BS.
HDR on Youtube is not 'the basics'. Don't be silly. And you listed it twice because you had nothing better to add.
If you want to attack the lone remaining independant browser maker because of some political disagreement you have with them, then fine. That is also stupid, but at least it's honest.
Don't lie to us or yourself by scraping together this frankly absurd list of minor gripes and passing it off as a serious technical complaint about how Firefox is managed and developed.
HDR on YouTube -- or anywhere for that matter -- is table stakes these days, and I don't think it's silly to say so. Would you buy a television that can't handle HDR in 2022? A phone that can't handle HDR in 2022?
Two points:
1. There used to be a time when Firefox was way behind, and their big "come back push" marketing argument was that they had essentially 100% compatibility on something like the top 1 million web sites. Now? Major features are missing on the number one video streaming site. That's not a small regression!
2. Browsers are essentially operating systems now. Applications are written for web browsers, not for Linux, Mac, or Windows. There's a reason even Microsoft is using Electron for most of their new applications. Essentially we now have Google-Web-OS and Apple-Web-OS, and even Microsoft has failed to deliver their own Web-OS (Edge). Mozilla's attempt is like the Linux Desktop compared to MacOS. It fails on the basics in the same way Linux can't get sound right or HDR video playback working. Meanwhile MacOS (and Safari!) has calibrated wide-gamut colour that Just Works.
We only interact with computers through two senses: sight and hearing. Mozilla can't get one of those two working consistently, correctly, or with the full capabilities of displays available for a decade. (I bet Firefox has languished in its sound capabilities also, but I'm not an audiophile, so I don't know the specific issues.)
I have a HDR laptop, a HDR TV, and a HDR phone. All three run browsers. Firefox is missing this key feature on all three platforms, making it a no-go for manufacturers, or anyone who wants to use the #1 video streaming site in the world... with their web browser.
This is my point: Mozilla has wasted time on vanity projects while they fired to Servo team.
The top comment on a similar post 10 months ago agrees with me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28813250
Maybe that commenter is irrational too?
You're doubling down on this HDR thing it seems. Vimeo only added HDR, and only for Apple platforms recently:
https://vimeo.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115015301027-Wat...
What rational basis do you have for believing that Firefox's lack of HDR support is a prime concern, and that they are not addressing it sufficiently, other than the fact that it mildly inconveniences you?
Privacy, telemetry, and Linux don't matter, sorry folks, if they did people wouldn't use Chrome or Edge. The most important thing is compatibility with major sites at this point. if people's banking or health insurance page reject Firefox, people are just going to use Chrome.
The mobile battery drain is a disaster as well. with less than 1% usage on android phones there should easily be room for many more users if you baked in ublock origin and fixed the performance because people actually do hate mobile ads.
> The most important thing is compatibility with major sites at this point. if people's banking or health insurance page reject Firefox, people are just going to use Chrome.
That's really not the primary issue, although it will drive people back to their preferred browser if that is an issue. Firefox is fighting an uphill battle against default browsers, which are Edge on Windows, Safari on MacOS/iOS, and Chrome on Android phones. You can't just say "We're compatible with all the sites that already work with the browser you use" and expect people to switch. You need genuinely useful and unique selling points that can be appreciated by the average person in order to overcome the default's inertia.
So the market grows in size, almost none of that growth being distributed to Firefox, hence the slow and endless bleed.
That's not an argument. Firefox made all of its share back in the day by being better than IE even though IE was everywhere on Windows computers.
Firefox gained marketshare against Internet Explorer by being significantly better than Internet Explorer. I remember enthusiastically switching to Firefox, especially because it had a mouse gestures addon and was just so much faster than Internet Explorer. I also switched to Chrome because it felt like a big jump from a Firefox that had become bloated and slow. I also got my family members to switch. It was just plainly obvious how much better they were at the time.
Since then I've used Safari, Firefox, Brave, Chromium, Chrome, and a variety of other browsers for long stretches of time. All of them have large sets of upsides and drawbacks associated with them, but Firefox doesn't really have much of anything that I can enthusiastically point to as reasons to switch for my non-tech obsessed family members. That's a problem that Firefox desperately needs to overcome if it wants to continue existing.
The people who wouldn't use the aforementioned browsers are Firefox's only hope - otherwise, why not just use Chrome or Edge? Firefox isn't going to win by being a more faithful Chrome copy (this current strategy has failed them for years).
> performance, ad blocking
Blocking privacy-invasive garbage and ads (aka spam) will often improve performance.
So you'd still indirectly benefit from a user-focused, privacy friendly browser even if you don't explicitly care about privacy.
Two reasons: 1. inertia - I’ve been using it for 17 years and it’s still good enough to not switch, and 2. Google already knows too much about me, I don’t want to give them even more data through their browser. So I guess I do care about privacy…
Firefox needs to find a space for itself in the browser market, not try (and fail) to take Chrome's space. Focus on offering features that Chrome doesn't offer and the people looking for those features will come. Stop removing customization and hackability.
Unfortunately, I think none of the people in control actually understand this, probably because they're the kind of people who are happy using Chrome themselves.
Mozilla can't push their browser. They don't have Android, Youtube, various other services with billions of users. Not even Microsoft is successful in pushing Edge (except for the corporate world) as they too have no giant consumer-facing services.
Moreover, Firefox is virtually absent on mobile (0.5% market share). On massive websites (some I see at work), Firefox doesn't even show up on dashboards, it's not even in the top 10. Some weird obscure regional browsers outrank it.
Technically speaking, Firefox is an irrelevant browser and has been for several years now. You may love it for sentimental or philosophical reasons, but the real world cares little about that.
Anyway, the bleeding will continue without a leverage to push the browser. It's not an engineering problem.
Why did IE so quickly destroy paid browser market then languish for so many years? Because they had a lock on desktop market share. Google and Apple just have to be mediocre because they own the hardware, services, and/or distribution.
Mozilla cannot take from other business arms to bankroll its browser. It has to sell defaults, ads, or find other markets.
The problem isn't just defaults, it's that Mozilla isn't giving people enough reasons to actually switch. A stock Firefox install isn't going to give you any major benefits over Chrome, and the only benefit (ad-blocking - but with an extension you need to install manually) isn't something Mozilla is looking to capitalise on.
Mozilla can win over the masses in one day by just embedding uBlock Origin and using that fact in their PR and marketing - no bullshit useless features such as "Colorways" or Pocket, no dubious social justice/political activism, instead, just say "the web sucks and Firefox makes it tolerable" with a side-by-side comparison of FF vs a stock browser on a popular newspaper's website.
My point is what FF did then was unusual, requiring the incumbent to be negligent for a long time. Chrome and its derivatives are moving quickly. (Perhaps even wrecklessly so given security implications of some of their 'standards'.) Chrome also sets the standards Mozilla must now follow to keep up, and exceed to overtake it.
Isn't it strange that even huge well funded competitors have all given up and just fork Chrome? They do it because they cannot compete starting from their own foundation. Chrome is too entrenched and moving too fast.
> Mozilla can win over the masses in one day by just embedding uBlock Origin and using that fact in their PR and marketing.
Brave has ad blocking preinstalled, so does Chrome to some extent. I don't think Mozilla would stand out with UO alone. And even if it did and became dominant what would that mean for creators who are ad supported?
But the incumbents are negligent. Their browsers, based on their business models, no longer serve the needs of their users. This is an opportunity for Firefox.
> Brave has ad blocking preinstalled, so does Chrome to some extent
Haven't used Brave so can't comment on it, but Chrome doesn't and can't have powerful adblocking due to its parent company's business model - not to mention that one reason to block ads would be privacy which is also a problem with Google, so it would be a non-starter even if it was blocking ads.
> even if it did and became dominant what would that mean for creators who are ad supported?
I wonder how we dealt with this argument back in the day where OSes were full of security holes and the antivirus industry was starting out?
It kind of is.
Back in the day Firefox managed to steal a significant chunk of Internet Explorer's marketshare just by being better.
It can pull off the same nowadays - there's a major disease currently plaguing the web that a browser is perfectly positioned to eradicate: advertising. The code is already written and licensed permissively (uBlock Origin) and all they need is to bundle it (just like they are currently bundling Pocket).
That's the ticket to Firefox's resurgence - be better than the competition in a way that the competition can't beat (because it would be counter-productive to their advertising-based business model). A simple side-by-side comparison of a major newspaper's homepage in FF vs Chrome will sell it to the masses.
That is the entire truth. Privacy, Telemetry and Linux are red herrings to increasing market share and do not make any money or help Firefox since the majority of users do not care about any of this. If a website isn't compatible with Firefox or is broken and has missing extensions, then the users will just move to Chrome and never look back.
Thanks to the re-usability of the Chromium engine it has created many derivatives, just like the ecosystem of Linux distros which people are free to choose. This is what Firefox could have been to cement the browser market and Firefox was once ahead at one point, but did nothing to keep it up and watched Google over take them.
What a disaster Mozilla has been for the past 14 years and yet they are still unable to make money outside of accepting Google's money.
So Mozzilla doesn't need to be a power user browser but it does have to appeal to the things tech people want. That's how it has a future that's how it keeps going. Because FF is open source, it doesn't need a revenue stream, shareholders or a board. At the end of the day it just needs enough people who love it to keep using and supporting it.
It would be a delusionally ambitious premature optimization for Firefox to target the majority of users. Firefox needs to target a niche well, then grow that niche. If that niche were stamp collectors or people who read historical romance novels, Firefox would barely lose any market share if it focused on them exclusively and converted them all.
The only remaining share of Firefox is because of these users. Good luck dropping the ball on that one and not ending with a 0% share.
How many people consciously make an informed choice about which browser they use, to begin with? When I entered college, we had a system that required you to install a spyware client that certified to the network that you were not running any file sharing software - unless you were on an unsupported OS (as identified by the user-agent string), in which case it just let you pass the registration process without certification. After figuring this out, I did this for my entire dorm floor, installing Firefox in the process (as that was the browser for which I knew a quick way of setting up a user-agent spoofing addon off the top of my head). The result was an additional about 30 Firefox users because of one power user's preference of it, which was entirely based on customisability and privacy considerations. Half of the people I set it up for probably wouldn't even have known how to replace or uninstall it if they turned out to hate everything about it, and conversely no amount of pandering to non-technical users would have gotten them to install it for themselves.
Agreed, very little. It doesn't mean privacy isn't important for Firefox right now because the only users they have left are those using it for privacy or ideological reasons.
Side by side scroll a recipe website with chrome vs adblocked FF on the same device. Chrome one is slower, half the content is ads, some of them autoplaying videos with sound!
FF experience is the pure content.
Dunno about all the other nonsense, a lot of the mobile web is utterly unusable without adblocking.
In 2020, after returning to the position of CEO, her salary had risen to over $3 million. In the same year the Mozilla Corporation laid off approximately 250 employees due to shrinking revenues. Baker blamed this on the Coronavirus pandemic."
I guess that would be the CEOs of Google (Chrome), Microsoft (Edge), and Apple (Safari)...
Mozilla excessively prides itself on progressive signaling, whilst internally running the place like the most cruel neoliberal companies out there.
Isn’t this just most companies?
And your performance is actually much worse than 80% discount in other companies. Any CEO with such results would be fired in 2 years anywhere else.
> Baker blamed this on the Coronavirus pandemic.
Sure, always blame external factors for your own incompetence. That's what politicians do every morning during breakfast.
Maybe that's now changed, but if it has, and Mozilla is actually losing users, I'd say it probably has more to do with those platforms choices than any particular woman you don't like.
It’s not 1998, he didn’t stand a chance.
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs but are not entitled to avoid scrutiny and I think he made the right call stepping down. I would personally never consider working at a company where he was in my management chain nor would I champion a browser from a company he leads.
As far as I know there were no accusations of Eich treating anybody differently. Just because he opposed something doesn't mean any worker under him was discriminated against.
Do you work for yourself? If not, do you know the views held by every person you work for? Do you know for a fact that none of them hold similar views to Eich and just haven't been "caught"?
My point on the majority position is that you quite possibly work with and for people who hold the same views as Eich.
I do work for myself, but in previous roles if I had found out about that, I would have made a change, but I’m reasonably confident it wasn’t the case in my managers or leadership. That said, perhaps someone was secretly against marriage equality, but I’d rather work with a bigot that feels they need to keep their hateful opinions a secret than with a bigot that feels they can be open about it.
I may be misremembering, but I don't think Eich was deliberately public about his support / donations. Political donations are public, but its not like he made a blog post or something. This is for all intents and purposes a private action.
I think being against marriage equality makes Eich a bigot, plain and simple. I don’t spend my time going around trying to unmask bigots but he had the unfortunate luck to have his hateful views exposed. Not only was his previous donation exposed, he subsequently made it clear he still felt that way.
I don't think rejecting gay marriage is really a big issue. If he was for calling for castrating gays or something I would be there with you, but he has shown that he can separate his personal views with work and is not advocating for harm against others.
I am going to explain what I perceive his position is. I could be wrong, but am probably decently close.
Eich likely believes the definition of a marriage is something along the lines of: a monogamous relationship which is theoretically capable* of producing new life.
* meaning excluding health situations like infertility. This is an exception not a rule.
You and he have a massive difference of opinion on that definition. You seem to think the purpose of marriage is an expression of love.
The problem with your definition is that it would allow for both polygamy and more than two people in a marriage. Maybe you are fine with those types of relationships being defined as a marriage, but the majority of people are not. Almost nobody would consider it bigotry to deny the right of a polygamist to engage in multiple marriages.
This means the majority of our society believes we have the right to deny marriage to consenting adults even if they are in love. We are now just debating the exact limits we should have.
I think due to your misunderstanding of Eich's views on marriage you don't understand how his views differ on gay marriage and interracial marriage. I'm guessing you think if Eich was alive 150 years ago he would not support interracial marriage. I am not sure if that is the case. There is nothing intrinsic to interracial marriage that would prevent it from meeting Eich's definition of marriage. Interracial marriage has long been a thing for groups that interacted with different races, perhaps for the entirety of the legal recognition of marriage. The denial of interracial marriage only became a thing somewhat recently.
Eich likely believes that marriage is not just an expression of love. There is a more fundamental purpose which is to create the best environment for the rearing and bearing of children. Gay relationships are incapable of causing a woman to become pregnant. That is of course not to say that a lesbian could not be pregnant, but that a lesbian relationship does not cause the pregnancy. There is a secondary purpose which is the automatic inheritance of wealth and titles, however, with wills and blood tests having legitimacy issues is less of an issue.
There is also another issue which is changing the definition to include something that was previously fundamentally excluded. Nobody denies that words can change their meanings, but changing to mean something that is contradictory to the previous definition is questionable. If there was an attempt to change the definition of a married person to include non married people Eich would be opposed to that attempt as well. That wouldn't be bigotry.
Basically, I don't think it is bigotry for Eich to not support the change in the definition. It has always meant a certain thing and he wants it to remain that definition. That isn't bigotry.
You don't have any answer to provide because if the requirement for marriage is any consenting adult who love each other there is no reason to not expand it to multiple people. The only reason would be an appeal to tradition, but that would discount gay marriage.
: ^ )
If you don't understand that, there's nothing else for me to say. Boxing me into some authoritarian stance doesn't really help your argument. Then again, I'm not really sure what your argument is, seems more like pigheaded trolling.
If anything, supporting against same sex marriage sounds pretty damn oppressive, but to each his own.....I guess?
Oppressing any side of free speech is bad, m-Kay.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplat...
This guy is sounding like bad news all around. I want the CPO to be someone with a strong tech background and I mean actual tech not tech bro. This guy's resume reads like a list of out of date buzzwords. This is another MBA suit that is going to make FF worse not better, mark my words.
That one made me laugh. Their "ML" can't even detect crypto scammers impersonating Elon Musk despite them using exactly the same name, profile picture and replying using very predictable texts that a basic regular expression can pick up.
>... I mean actual tech not tech bro.
... under which it becomes a lot more obvious what OP is referring to. "Actual tech" in the older, "Technology will transform the world for good!" sense, rather than, "Let's use technology to make the most money possible, fuck it," sense.
But I do blame the companies for repeatedly falling for these kinds of people.
I don't think Borland had Delphi and C++ Builder developed by "MBA suits".
Yeah, he might have morphed since then... I still think of him as one of the guys behind Delphi, but it's been damn near a quarter century since he left Borland. But denying he has any real tech chops is just way wrong.
Stop tracking people with telemetry. You don’t need to know how many users you have. People strip FF of telemetry anyways. Look at LibreWolf and learn.
Clean up the FF addons repository. So many addons are plain malware and invading peoples privacy surreptitiously.
Get rid of Pocket. Nobody uses it and it was forced on users.
Stop piggybacking on handouts from Google. There are other ways to source revenue. Make FF donationware if you must. I would happily send you £5.00 per month if it means I and others can continue to use FF.
I use it daily..
That said I find the articles they recommend interesting (and to steal my time ...).
Uhhh... what? If I was in Mozilla's shoes I would 100% want to know how many users I have.
>People strip FF of telemetry anyways. Look at LibreWolf and learn.
Some people do this. Not everyone does it.
Which they can trivially extract from the number of hits to the auto-update version checker endpoint.
That's enough. You don't need to track every single mouse-click, visited site, or anything else.
Great, make it opt-in then. People have various legitimate reasons to decide for themselves whether they want to enable it or not. Keep in mind that under the GDPR it must be absolutely opt-in and the current implementation is in breach.
> people like pocket
Just like people like uBlock Origin (and I'd argue a lot more people like uBO than Pocket) and yet it isn't embedded in the browser for some reason (despite being permissively licensed and actually doing something to protect privacy).
And it should be off by default, not opt-out.
How are they going to pay the CEO then? That alone is worth millions in salary every year.
This company is dead in the water. This new guy is a pacifier until the inevitable.
Unless FF becomes a compellingly better browser for the average user, it will keep on losing to the default Edge/Chrome/Safari.
So, at this point...millions per year.
However, I've been maintaining a small fork, with just small tweaks by my self, and LibreWolf has some patches too - for very little money.
Do you mind elaborating? I'd really just like some "Unmozillaed Firefox" or "Firefoxium" that removes some of the crap Mozilla tries to impose ("no, you can't install extensions from outside of the store", "using a userChrome.css? haha, no"). But all prominent FF forks are full of crazy "privacy enhancements" that mean virtually no web app will work.
I hope to see new experiments, and maybe new community.
I love the internal meme of areweXyet, and wish they hosted that metric for projects and goals outside Mozilla too.
The biggest problems are the lack of people who care and funding. How could a browser be profitable, it’s fucking free. Today that’s Googles endorsement, which is the last company they need to depend on.
How could people be convinced, what is the actual problem with Chrome holding dominance?
Not always good if trying to retain quality Mozilla developers.
They all talk experience but never the numbers being paid.
The solution is not a well paid employee! It's an employee that likes what it does, no mater the money
Does Mozilla have any growing product right now?
Not sure if this is possible but being lean enough to handle the eventuality of Google refusing to bid to be the default search partner.
That said, I've switched to using the firefox tarball. Start up performance isn't the only issue. Snap firefox doesn't seem to respect my dconf settings and I experienced some strange hangups that forced me to kill the browser.
He’s coming from a brief stint at Twitter and long stints at Facebook and Microsoft. What could he know about building something unambiguously good for the world?
I think any amount of time as a corporate decisionmaker can skew your moral compass, and he was at three companies that have history of being particularly damaging
His old memories from Borland, where he spent 1993-98 building Delphi and C++ Builder.
I've never seen the surname Teixeira before and I also wondered the same thing, since "eira" suggests Portuguese but the 'x' seems like Nahuatl or Mexican Spanish (like Tlaxcala).