Hacker News Reader

Comment by lenerdenator | Hacker News Reader

Mozilla needs to learn that when you're an operation running honestly as a non-profit and no one's getting rich (comfortable != rich, btw), there's nothing wrong with the donate nag in a blank new tab.

Wikipedia figured that out long ago. They probably wouldn't be around without that nag box asking for donations.

View on HN

There is something deeply wrong with the donate nag: The money goes to funding Mozilla-branded nonsense (e.g. misguided adventures into the VPN space), overpaid executives and bloated administration (as they actively shed developers [1][2]), and not the browser.

I would considering donating except I can't donate to support what I would like to support.

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-leadership-growt...

[2] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/06/mozilla_foundation_la...

That's the other problem:

Mozilla just needs to focus on Firefox.

Something about doing one thing and doing it well...

Firefox needs to be its own thing. At this point all the "Mozilla Foundation" and "Mozilla Corporation" stuff and all the side quest software everyone seems to be rat-holing on, have nothing to do with making a great alternative browser.

I wouldn't have a problem with Mozilla doing other things if they did it well and it didn't involve them compromising on their values.

Isn't the Mozilla Foundation (non-profit org) distinct from Mozilla Corporation?

overpaid executives and bloated administration

It sounds like Mozilla needs to be DOGE'd too.

Edit: this was what came to mind: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/lswv11/my_firefox_...

Wikipedia is really not a good example here. They ask for way more than they need to run Wikipedia itself.

Personally, I refuse to let any nagware on my computer. Free software is supposed to be a better experience than shareware.

however are the cost of developing a web browser and hosting an internet encyclopedia ran by volunteer comparable ?

mozilla use paid labor, engineer who are very expensive. wikipedia it's mostly hosting a html page and a few media.

Yet wikipedia has much more user to whom it can show the donation nag when mozilla has a much more limited userbase.

i think that mozilla taking google money to put them as default search engine is fine, people who care about privacy are allowed to change it whenever they want.

In 2023 the Wikimedia Foundation had 700 paid employees/contractors working for them.

At the end of 2023 Mozilla Corporation had 964 employees and Mozilla Foundation had 118.

So the difference isn’t that large…

Google - mozilla contract alone gives mozilla 500 000 000$.

Wikimedia budget is 170 000 000$.

I'm sure that developing a browser is more expensive, would mozilla be able to make it work with at best a third of the budget ? I don't think so..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com