I just saw a post complaining about the Mozilla layoffs.

I wanted to point out that the vast majority of their income (over 85% in 2022) is from having Google as the default search engine - Ironically, the anti monopoly lawsuit against Google will end this.

Expect things to get worse.

Please don’t assume it was just a cruel choice.

S1 S2

  • Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    Honestly I’ve been saying for some time that Mozilla’s resources would be much better spent making Firefox a soft fork of Chromium. Primarily: use the Blink browser engine and V8 JS engine, with only the changes to those that they deem absolutely necessary, and maintain a privacy-forward Chromium-based browser. Maybe try and enlist the help of Brave, Vivaldi, and other browsers that are currently Chromium but which prefer more privacy than Google offers.

    It’s not zero effort, and especially as Google continues to develop Chromium with assumptions like the removal of Manifest V2 it might take some effort to maintain, but it cannot possibly be as much effort as maintaining an entire browser.

    • AndrewZabar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      Honestly I’ve been saying for some time that Mozilla’s resources would be much better spent making Firefox a soft fork of Chromium

      No no nonononono. The moment you do that you become at the mercy if whatever they choose to do, including changes that will sabotage you. There are examples out there such as Novell, who should have made a Linux-based client OS for the Netware architecture. For the longest time prior to a brief period where they had their server GUI (sloppy, inefficient and barely completed as it was) that you literally could not do any GUI-based configurations without a Windows client. How is that not begging for the competition to screw you every chance they get?

      Firefox stands on its own and that’s how it needs to be.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        They wouldn’t be at the mercy of anything. That’s…how open source works. If it changes in a way that breaks things for you, don’t pull that change. At that point, if the change is drastic enough to require it, you can turn that soft fork into a hard fork and hope that Edge, Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, etc. join you; something that would significantly hamper Google’s ability to maintain their dominance of the browser engine market. That’s a choice that they simply don’t have today when being based on Firefox and Gecko means using an inferior browser platform.

        • AndrewZabar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yyyyeeeah, all ideally. Things don’t always go ideally. Something will always happen. That’s the truth no matter what, and I’d think it’s best to eliminate externals as much as possible. That’s my position. No actual right or wrong here.

          • Zagorath@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            The point is that with open source you can effectively leech off of Google for now, while still retaining the flexibility to nope out and do your own thing at any point you decide.

            Considering just how severely behind they are already (as I mentioned in my other comment, they’re often 3–5 years behind other browsers in implementing new web standards or operating system features), I see anything they can do to reduce how much they need to maintain independently as a good thing. In an ideal world where they had all the funding and development power they could want I might say sticking with the completely independent Firefox would be great. But that just isn’t where they’re at today.

            • frozenspinach@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              You can’t for a number of reasons. As other people have said this catastrophically underestimates the complexity of maintaining a code base for a browser.

              they’re often 3–5 years behind other browsers in implementing new web standards

              I don’t even think that’s remotely true. My understanding is that it’s on the order of a few months to a year, and it relates to things that are negligible to the average end user. They are edge case things like experimental 3d rendering. The most significant one I can think of is Webp, but they resisted adoption for principled reasons relating to Google’s control over that format and aggressive pushing of it, which is a good thing not a bad thing, and an important example of how rushing to adopt new standards it’s not necessarily just a sign of browser health but also an anti-competitive practice intentionally pushed by companies that have money to throw around for that purpose.

              • Zagorath@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                I don’t even think that’s remotely true.

                I’ve seen two cases that actually directly impacted my ability to use Firefox. I can only presume there are many more. Those being supporting the column-span CSS property (available since 2010 in other browsers with vendor prefix, and early 2016 without, while being late 2019 for FF) and supporting iPad OS’s multi-window functionality (introduced mid 2019, Firefox has had it for just a handful of months now). I have first hand experience telling me very directly that this is true.

                There’s also been a lot of talk about Firefox’s lack of support for PWAs. I’ve not experienced that myself to be able to comment more than to say I’ve noted others have complaints.

        • frozenspinach@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          They wouldn’t be at the mercy of anything. That’s…how open source works.

          That’s how Chromium works.

          Anyone can see the source, but it doesn’t mean that anyone’s code makes it into Chromium, because Google picks and chooses. Chromium has a “reviewer pool” of Google developers doing all the picking and choosing. Getting into the reviewer pool takes months to years of building up a contribution history and being vetted by the Google team.

          They’re completely at the mercy of how Google integrates things like DRM, or web standards that Google wants to push, like a deeply integrated into the browser and actively maintained with little to no alternative. The engineering overhead of sustaining and increasingly complex fork of Chromium is unsustainable and unless you have the development capability to compete, Google controls the destiny of any chromium browser.