staktrace

Maybe you should contribute to one of the many "fix bugs for money" websites where you can specifically donate money to get bugs in open source products fixed. It's even better because it doesn't have to be a Mozilla employee who does the actual fix.

This is a bit of a silly argument, because money is fungible and dollars are dollars. Donating money to the Foundation means less of the Corporation's dollars have to go to supporting the Foundation (Edited to add: which they do via dividend payments), and so more of the Corporation's dollars go to Firefox.

This is a bit of a silly argument, because money is fungible and dollars are dollars. Donating money to the Foundation means less of the Corporation's dollars have to go to supporting the Foundation, and so more of the Corporation's dollars go to Firefox.

> And for Mozilla it was a huge distraction, one they could ill afford.

This is demonstrably false. Rust was designed for use in browser development, and it has successfully been adopted into Firefox. The payback is increased security, stability, and Firefox developer productivity.

The original purpose of Rust and Servo was to build a better browser. Rust was designed with browser development in mind, and is used increasingly in Firefox. That was an investment that has paid off in spades. (Edited to add: But I agree it's not a "product" in the "provides revenue" sense)

I don't see how losing Firefox would end up with an "even more silo'd, broken up Internet". Firefox can't fight that by itself so just having Firefox by itself isn't going to make much of a difference to what Big Tech is going to do with the Internet.

But anyway, you're entitled to your opinion.

> Get the most secure and most user friendly, privacy first, standards compatible and feature rich browser out there and you'll survive for another decade at least. Get distracted by new and shiny stuff and I'd be surprised if it lasts another five years.

What's the point of survival in the kind of world this would result in? To paraphrase, this kind of life is not a life worth living. The internet activism part is core to Mozilla's mission, without that there's no point to having Firefox at all. Chrome is a perfectly functional browser.

I can hear your rebuttal now: oh Firefox offers better privacy. Sure, in the browser Firefox offers better privacy. But the Internet as a whole is sick, so having a good browser without activism to fix the Internet is just papering over the real problems.

The Debian Foundation also doesn't have to compete against Google on a product that costs millions of dollars to build and maintain, and that Google throws billions at in marketing.

I feel sorry that your life has been surrounded by people with so little empathy.

Rust is largely community-owned now. There are some Mozilla employees still working on rust, but not many.

People aren't clicking on ads to buy things because they've all been laid off. Economies are circular.

The structure is set up that because it reflects the goals of Mozilla. Firefox the browser is not the end goal, it's a means to making the internet a better place. And that's what the Foundation is about. The corporation also pays dividends to the Foundation in order to help fund their efforts, because it's the Foundation's work that matters more (in the long term) than Firefox.

Mozilla's mission is to make the internet a better place for everybody. Having an open web browser is a part of that, but nowhere near sufficient to accomplish the goal. The "vanity ambitions" you are talking about are the things that actually make a long-term difference in people's lives. Having a great competitive browser with a silo'd, broken up Internet is not a desirable end-state.

Like MIDI

WebAuthn is basically this, public key crypto applied to web login.

We have this problem at Mozilla. The Firefox codebase is a monorepo and source of truth for the WebRender project which lives in a subtree. The source of truth used to be a separate github repo and it was synced into the monorepo regularly but we flipped that around and now we sync back out to the github repo. PRs do come in against the github repo and we have a bit of ad-hoc tooling that imports the PR into our monorepo's code submission flow (bugzilla+phabricator). It lands in the monorepo assuming it passes review and tests, and then gets synced back to the github repo.

That being said the tooling we have is not great - there's still some manual steps in this flow, and it's not ideal.

For the webgpu project that's in a similar situation but gets a lot more external contributions, we will eventually try some sort of two-way sync.

So sorry I don't have a good solution for you but you're not alone with respect to this problem :)

Both Firefox and Chrome have implementations of scroll anchoring which is intended to fix this. The implementations are different and neither is perfect, but in a lot of cases they do help with jumping.

You could improve it by making it not a one-liner! Usually making it a multiple-liner can improve readability. And unless you're typing it into the command line directly everytime you run it (as opposed to putting it in a file that you invoke) it doesn't really matter how many lines it has.

In this respect (and probably others) Mozilla is more like a ragtag army of rebels than a uniform-wearing platoon of soldiers. The blog is hosted on WordPress because the person who started it found it most convenient, and it never got migrated anywhere else. We also have hundreds of different github organizations and repos (despite also hosting our own "official" mercurial server), use lots of different communication tools, spread documentation over multiple wikis and bug trackers, etc.

But yes, this is an "official" blog from Mozilla employees on the graphics team, of which I too am a member.

No one voted for climate change either, yet here we are. Sometimes you just have to deal with reality.

This describes my experience exactly as well.

Another good reason to get an EV, don't have to visit gas pumps again! :)

Fair point. Another argument in favor of multiple one-ness is that of monocultures. In general things that become a monoculture are more vulnerable to sudden death. For long term survival diversity is good, and I imagine that planet-level conciousnesses would spawn daughter conciousnesses as they expand to other planets. Those daughter conciousnesses would further evolve and reproduce rather than being strongly tied to the parent.

I've often thought along these same lines (c.f. Asimov's Galaxia concept) but I think that this one-ness will inherently be limited by distance. Thoughts can be propagated across a planet pretty quickly but if we become a multi-planet civilization I would expect each planet to have it's own "one mind" (or whatever you want to call it) simply because of communication latency.

As an admin why would you not also run the beta version of the browser in a limited setting? That would have helped you find out about this issue sooner, since the experiment was enabled there for a while.

Step 1: publish the algorithm Step 2: listen to feedback

Firefox currently can be built with tup, although it's still experimental and not used in production.

Maybe you should try submitting some content then, instead of just shooting down others.

The article indeed credits Scott Adams (the Dilbert author) with the term "skill stacking".

With your line of reasoning, would you prefer a world where all the munitions were held by megavillains, or a world where both megavillains and regular people had access to the munitions?