> Mozilla is focused on deploying its roughly $1.4 billion worth of reserves to support “mission driven” organizations, according to a new report.
> The nonprofit, also the parent of Firefox, is investing in artificial intelligence startups that are working on safety and governance issues in AI.
Why?, they want to go bankrupt?, do they like burning money?
I would understand investing in AI Tech... Brilliant if they use Mozilla contributors.
I would understand but investing in other startups... with due diligence and something that might make a difference
> that are working on safety and governance issues in AI.
what... why... what the hell... that's governments job, not mozillas...
> that's governments job
Why do people take these AI "safety" research projects at face value? The real reason you need AI that is "safe" and "governable" is so that when you start having it promote advertisers content or support the current administration, you don't have to worry about it going "off the rails" and promoting a competing product to criticizing the administration.
I'm sure plenty of researchers in this space also believe they are working for the good of humanity, but I suspect the real am is much more practical and perfectly aligned with the business interests of all the companies sponsoring this type of work.
Uh, I mean, I think we've seen first hand that generally one aspect of safety we want is to not produce sexualised images of children.
But compromised Mozilla's solution will then be passed as 'independent' so that a corrupt government can accept it without officially kneeling to BigTech. Publicity stunt a'la foundation.
The charitable entity known as the Mozilla Foundation and the development entity known as the Mozilla Corporation are not the same. Nothing wrong with the foundation doing these things with their spare cash, it literally does not impact Firefox at all.
Mozilla's AI investment strategy is more than Mozilla Foundation spending spare cash.[1]
The concern, I think, is that their spare cash is dwindling and thus financial prudence might be beneficial - especially for those who rely on the core Mozilla propositions like Firefox.
> is that their spare cash is dwindling
They're an NGO, you can just... look this up, it's public.
[dead]
That’s one interpretation. Another is that people typically support foundations not simply because they “do good,” but because they advance a specific cause the donor personally values. For example, if I donated to a foundation focused on developing cancer treatments, and that same foundation later shifted its efforts to addressing melting ice caps, I would likely feel frustrated, since that was not the purpose for which I chose to support it, and I don't really care that both actions "do good" in the world.
I assumed they meant data governance.
Except that government, at least in the U.S., is not doing their job. This administration doesn't want to regulate AI.
[dead]
Wowz just like Star Wars! Heckin updoots xD
Sorry, I can't take Mozilla seriously when they're doing anything other than Firefox or Thunderbird. Enough of this crap. Dressing it up with juvenile capeshit references doesn't help.
Yes please let them focus on making Firefox economically sustainable without Google. Then worry about all the fluffy dogood stuff
The problem is that there is no way to make Firefox economically sustainable without Google (or some other search provider, but google won that war comprehensively). Browsers are fully commoditized and subsidized. Funding the browser with a combination of outside revenue sources and search deals is the way everyone does it.
It can, they just need to approach it not like a big corporation with a multi million dollar a year CEO but as a grassroots project.
If something like KDE can build a whole desktop on a shoestring budget with some donations, Firefox can too. And I'd gladly donate to it. Problem is I can't because you can only donate to the foundation. And I don't want to fund their dogood distractions, just firefox.
Besides, the search deal will end one way or another. Either Firefox will lose so much marketshare that Google no longer bothers, or the DoJ will finally ban the search deals. Relying on it is ultra stupid.
With all due respect a web browser is much more complicated than a desktop environment. Firefox is like 30 million lines of code, much of which is active attack surface. A high performance JIT JavaScript engine alone might be more complex than KDE. Random people can fix UI bugs and contribute to simple desktop apps in a way that they likely cannot in general do with the deep internals of a browser.
With all due respect, that's all the more reason to put all the resources they can behind browser development, rather than scattering it across unrelated projects.
KDE includes a web browser. Which spawned Safari in fact.
And Chrome!
> Mozilla is focused on deploying its roughly $1.4 billion worth of reserves to support “mission driven” organizations, according to a new report.
Back of the envelope math says that's worth 50-70 million dollars a year, taking into account inflation. A cracked developer is worth 1/2 a million per year, both of Mozilla's core offerings are OSS so benefit from free code contributions. Is that not enough for a dozen highly paid software engineers, a well paid CEO and infra? This is ignoring future donations.
what is the math you're doing, exactly?
also, I don't think a dozen devs is enough to support a competitive browser
anyway, companies are far(!) from just devs
If it focused JUST on Firefox and appealed to the privacy conscious tech community which is relatively small but wealthy, they could make it sustainable via a combination of open source support and donaitons imo.
How about building a "rebel alliance" to take on Chrome instead?
No money in that.
Are they being chased by Jabba the Hutt’s bounty hunters?
[dead]
I would rather Mozilla spend their money focusing on reducing Firefox's enormous memory usage or maintaining Thunderbird.
They could build interesting protocols into Firefox like IPFS or ENS, or develop alternatives. $1.4 billion can accomplish a lot -- if you stay in your lane and don't yeet it into a capital intensive field with uncertain returns like AI.
> Mozilla is focused on deploying its roughly $1.4 billion worth of reserves to support “mission driven” organizations, according to a new report.
$1.4 billion would be a very good start for an endowment which one day could maybe fund, a browser?
>Creating a rebel alliance to fight the Empire
>Receive most of their funding from the Empire
It's a trap!
And this is why I will NOT:
donate to this sham foundation
Buy their Thunderbird pro mailservice
Or shovel money in any of their other hair-brained schemes.
Haha this seems doomed because the community reflexively hates this technology.
>“It’s that spirit that a bunch of people are banding together to create something good in the world and take on this thing that threatens us,” Surman told CNBC in an interview. “It’s super corny, but people totally get it.”
If you have to explain why you chose the name, it might not be a good name :/
Even Apple conceded that building it from scratch is prohibitively expensive. Mozilla would do better to use that money for the browser, but then again, Mozilla has never known how to operate. It's a mere miracle fluke that they're not bankrupt.
Firefox has burned enough goodwill with me over the years. Them putting ads in the URL bar was the last straw and I switched to LibreWolf. Haven't looked back since, its basically a drop in replacement and works with all my previous container/add on workflows. May need to mess with fonts, but that's it.
You had ONE JOB Mozilla, ONE JOB
Correct, it’s to make their non-profit executives rich.
Did the article not link or name the report? Or did I miss it?
Mozilla has great ideas but just because YOU have a great idea it does not mean that you are the best entity to implement it. Mozilla is going to bankrupt itself by spending an excessive proportion of its money on moonshots. They would have way more impact if they redirected all that money into a great browser AND educating normies about privacy. Like way bigger impact.
Right now, Mozilla keeps fighting wars it cannot win.
cringe
They are controlled opposition, for goodness sake!
Anthropic is the rebel alliance. Or more like the Free French, who refused to collaborate. But having billions to train is table stakes now. No cheeky upstart is ever going to beat physics like that.
Please just don't
It's like watching the standards-based web commit suicide.
Ah, so that's why firefox bugs are open for 10+ years and there's no one to work on these.. screw them.
Mozilla can seemingly focus on anything except Firefox.
This is almost like GRRM trying hard not to focus on Winds of Winter.
And like I everything they’ve ever done in the last 20 years it will fail.
[deleted]
No, just don't.
Given the Mozilla track records and bias, looks like they need another woke LLM that is woker and DEI-er (is that even a word?) than the existing major models.
I'd rather they focus on finally bringing Firefox back where it belongs, instead of spending resources on useless identity wars.
Mozilla isn't even able to run an established browser, and they want to create new tech? Please.
How about building a better AI-free browser first, Mozilla?
Is that too much to ask for?
Growing and investing in Firefox remains our biggest priority. Mozilla Corporation’s leading aim is to grow as a meaningful, differentiated browser, trusted by over 200mil people. In 2025 the team made great progress shipping tab groups, vertical tabs, smart tabs, many sidebar integrations with AI companies and more. Mozilla Corp welcomed Anthony Enzor-DeMeo, the first technologist to serve as CEO in over 15 years. In 2026 there will be a focus on building tools and features for those who want AI, and for those who do not. We are the only browser who does this - and likely the only one that will.[1]
Ah, replicating things that already exist as extensions. So useful.
In inferior execution, Sideberry is still miles ahead compared to the "native" option
> In 2026 there will be a focus on building tools and features for those who want AI, and for those who do not. We are the only browser who does this - and likely the only one that will.[1]
I don't want any AI features to exist in the Firefox source code, since this increases Firefox's attack surface for no real gain to the product I want to use. The AI-enabled browser should be a separate product line for people who want that.
The sooner the AI bubble pops and takes all of these companies out, the better the world will be.
Which companies do you expect to be taken out?
Google and Microsoft will obviously remain. I have a hard time envisioning that OpenAI or Anthropic will go under - especially Anthropic, who are reportedly raking in billions from Claude subscriptions.
Just from my armchair predictions, it's not really any of the juggernauts who have to worry, but rather the many companies springing up to try SaaS offerings with LLMs at the core. A bubble pop there could certainly cause some strife, but I'm just not seeing the mechanism by which these too-big-to-fail tech companies and the heavily invested "frontier AI companies" are going to suddenly cease to exist.
I think the dotcom bubble is a fairly apt metaphor in the key sense that the web didn't go anywhere - just a lot of small players lost their tickets on the gravy train. "Big tech" as it existed at the time of the bubble pop trundled along and continued making gobs of money.
Already packed an emergency stash of popcorn just to sit back and watch that fabulous disaster.
For me it's nachos, homemade cheese-and-cream-and-onion-and-garlic dip, and some fine wine.
The problem is, when multi trillion dollars go poof everyone is going to feel the pain, even those that wisely stayed away from investing in the bubble.
For fk sake!
Conspiracy theory time? Conspiracy theory time.
I think the trillion dollar companies have enough money, they can hire people as 'plants'.
Okay, before this is marked as crazy talk: Historically this has happened, this isnt a new invention. A company needs to survive, not be ethical. Using third parties give plausible deniability.
I look at the atrocious state of LibreOffice, and I'm pretty sure someone from Microsoft is screwing things up. Might just be a little bit of friction and fake concern over a useful change. Maybe they even find someone who already does this and fund it as a full time job.
I look at Firefox, and I wonder if Google somehow is significantly influencing things there. Google keeps Firefox alive to prevent anti-trust. But they make sure funding is diverted from browser to wasteful projects.
When I worked for a fortune 20 company, we had a major, irrational push away from python into Microsoft Power Automate. Other people were convinced either our director was a Microsoft plant, or was getting some sort of kickback.
Here is my question:
What is the business called where people do this? Like if these companies paid a third party, what is this categorized as? (For instance, paying for reddit upvotes and comments is called 'Reputation Management')
Co‑opetition?
Some have used the term "Strategic accommodation".
Interesting you bring this specific Mozilla/Google example up since this is the closet thing to seeing this happen in real time:
"Courts and press have noted that Mozilla relies heavily on Google’s search‑default payments, which keep Firefox viable. Recent antitrust proceedings have wrestled with whether (and how) to restrict these payments: a judge ultimately allowed Google to continue non‑exclusive payments to distribution partners like Mozilla while barring exclusivity and some tying/bundling—an outcome many observers said preserved Mozilla’s “lifeline” without materially threatening Google’s core position. That is textbook co‑opetition coupled with what many would call strategic accommodation."
But at least it seems we have powerful Linux plants at Microsoft, they're doing great :)
[dead]
Ah yes, go fight some of the companies with the highest ever investment numbers. Anything else than focusing on that one browser that is a cornerstone of the free web
Ah yes, Mozilla, that organization that has no record whatsoever fighting companies with the highest ever investment numbers; like who do they think they are?
Look at how well they've been doing. They're just scraping by with a minimal and declining market share propped up by cash from their single biggest competitor.
They're not fighting anything. They're being paid to be a weak antitrust excuse.
I love Firefox and I use it all the time but this situation worries me deeply.
The Mozilla of 2002 is vastly different than the Mozilla of recent.
Name one Mozilla project that beat its corporate competition.
the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.
I have zero trust in Mozilla with their ability in the marketplace currently. I held out using their products while they stagnated for nearly a decade because I value the privacy they once provided.
Mozilla has failed to compete in the browser landscape and it feels icky most of the stuff they have attempted to do, which didn't even yield them any money.
Great work, you robbed the bank and you're still poor and everyone hates you.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Mozilla had some distractions, yes, but Firefox is a fine browser, and it supports full-featured uBlock Origin including on Android.
Firefox is mostly fine despite the actions of Mozilla Corp. Not because of them.
Transparently - I've been relatively deep in the extensions space across every major browser (Chrome/Safari/Edge/Firefox).
Based on my interactions with their browser team during this process - I'm no longer a supporter of Firefox. I want to credit the engineers and support personnel I interacted with there for doing their best despite their company policies, but their policies became insane (And since you mentioned ublock - here's Gorhill, the author, expressing basically the same opinion here: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issueco...)
I won't recommend using it: I don't think it's trying to serve its users, I don't think it's trying to serve their developers. I think it's coasting on historical good will, and it's essentially been on life-support as a cash grab from Google since they laid off their engine team in 2020.
Combined with increasingly non-sensical product releases (ex - this one) and "security marketing" that doesn't match reality... I find the whole thing fairly distasteful at this point.
It is a fine browser but as its marketshare keeps declining it works less and less well because webdevs don't bother testing for it anymore.
I'm already getting tons of captchas from the likes of cloudflare in Firefox on Linux. Because somehow I'm suspicious. That's not the sign of a browser doing well.
> Mozilla is focused on deploying its roughly $1.4 billion worth of reserves to support “mission driven” organizations, according to a new report.
> The nonprofit, also the parent of Firefox, is investing in artificial intelligence startups that are working on safety and governance issues in AI.
Why?, they want to go bankrupt?, do they like burning money?
I would understand investing in AI Tech... Brilliant if they use Mozilla contributors.
I would understand but investing in other startups... with due diligence and something that might make a difference
> that are working on safety and governance issues in AI.
what... why... what the hell... that's governments job, not mozillas...
> that's governments job
Why do people take these AI "safety" research projects at face value? The real reason you need AI that is "safe" and "governable" is so that when you start having it promote advertisers content or support the current administration, you don't have to worry about it going "off the rails" and promoting a competing product to criticizing the administration.
I'm sure plenty of researchers in this space also believe they are working for the good of humanity, but I suspect the real am is much more practical and perfectly aligned with the business interests of all the companies sponsoring this type of work.
Uh, I mean, I think we've seen first hand that generally one aspect of safety we want is to not produce sexualised images of children.
But compromised Mozilla's solution will then be passed as 'independent' so that a corrupt government can accept it without officially kneeling to BigTech. Publicity stunt a'la foundation.
The charitable entity known as the Mozilla Foundation and the development entity known as the Mozilla Corporation are not the same. Nothing wrong with the foundation doing these things with their spare cash, it literally does not impact Firefox at all.
Mozilla's AI investment strategy is more than Mozilla Foundation spending spare cash.[1]
[1] https://stateof.mozilla.org/ledger/
The concern, I think, is that their spare cash is dwindling and thus financial prudence might be beneficial - especially for those who rely on the core Mozilla propositions like Firefox.
> is that their spare cash is dwindling
They're an NGO, you can just... look this up, it's public.
[dead]
That’s one interpretation. Another is that people typically support foundations not simply because they “do good,” but because they advance a specific cause the donor personally values. For example, if I donated to a foundation focused on developing cancer treatments, and that same foundation later shifted its efforts to addressing melting ice caps, I would likely feel frustrated, since that was not the purpose for which I chose to support it, and I don't really care that both actions "do good" in the world.
I assumed they meant data governance.
Except that government, at least in the U.S., is not doing their job. This administration doesn't want to regulate AI.
[dead]
Wowz just like Star Wars! Heckin updoots xD
Sorry, I can't take Mozilla seriously when they're doing anything other than Firefox or Thunderbird. Enough of this crap. Dressing it up with juvenile capeshit references doesn't help.
Yes please let them focus on making Firefox economically sustainable without Google. Then worry about all the fluffy dogood stuff
The problem is that there is no way to make Firefox economically sustainable without Google (or some other search provider, but google won that war comprehensively). Browsers are fully commoditized and subsidized. Funding the browser with a combination of outside revenue sources and search deals is the way everyone does it.
It can, they just need to approach it not like a big corporation with a multi million dollar a year CEO but as a grassroots project.
If something like KDE can build a whole desktop on a shoestring budget with some donations, Firefox can too. And I'd gladly donate to it. Problem is I can't because you can only donate to the foundation. And I don't want to fund their dogood distractions, just firefox.
Besides, the search deal will end one way or another. Either Firefox will lose so much marketshare that Google no longer bothers, or the DoJ will finally ban the search deals. Relying on it is ultra stupid.
With all due respect a web browser is much more complicated than a desktop environment. Firefox is like 30 million lines of code, much of which is active attack surface. A high performance JIT JavaScript engine alone might be more complex than KDE. Random people can fix UI bugs and contribute to simple desktop apps in a way that they likely cannot in general do with the deep internals of a browser.
With all due respect, that's all the more reason to put all the resources they can behind browser development, rather than scattering it across unrelated projects.
KDE includes a web browser. Which spawned Safari in fact.
And Chrome!
> Mozilla is focused on deploying its roughly $1.4 billion worth of reserves to support “mission driven” organizations, according to a new report.
Back of the envelope math says that's worth 50-70 million dollars a year, taking into account inflation. A cracked developer is worth 1/2 a million per year, both of Mozilla's core offerings are OSS so benefit from free code contributions. Is that not enough for a dozen highly paid software engineers, a well paid CEO and infra? This is ignoring future donations.
what is the math you're doing, exactly?
also, I don't think a dozen devs is enough to support a competitive browser
anyway, companies are far(!) from just devs
If it focused JUST on Firefox and appealed to the privacy conscious tech community which is relatively small but wealthy, they could make it sustainable via a combination of open source support and donaitons imo.
How about building a "rebel alliance" to take on Chrome instead?
No money in that.
Are they being chased by Jabba the Hutt’s bounty hunters?
[dead]
I would rather Mozilla spend their money focusing on reducing Firefox's enormous memory usage or maintaining Thunderbird.
They could build interesting protocols into Firefox like IPFS or ENS, or develop alternatives. $1.4 billion can accomplish a lot -- if you stay in your lane and don't yeet it into a capital intensive field with uncertain returns like AI.
> Mozilla is focused on deploying its roughly $1.4 billion worth of reserves to support “mission driven” organizations, according to a new report.
$1.4 billion would be a very good start for an endowment which one day could maybe fund, a browser?
>Creating a rebel alliance to fight the Empire
>Receive most of their funding from the Empire
It's a trap!
And this is why I will NOT:
donate to this sham foundation
Buy their Thunderbird pro mailservice
Or shovel money in any of their other hair-brained schemes.
Haha this seems doomed because the community reflexively hates this technology.
>“It’s that spirit that a bunch of people are banding together to create something good in the world and take on this thing that threatens us,” Surman told CNBC in an interview. “It’s super corny, but people totally get it.”
If you have to explain why you chose the name, it might not be a good name :/
Even Apple conceded that building it from scratch is prohibitively expensive. Mozilla would do better to use that money for the browser, but then again, Mozilla has never known how to operate. It's a mere miracle fluke that they're not bankrupt.
Firefox has burned enough goodwill with me over the years. Them putting ads in the URL bar was the last straw and I switched to LibreWolf. Haven't looked back since, its basically a drop in replacement and works with all my previous container/add on workflows. May need to mess with fonts, but that's it.
You had ONE JOB Mozilla, ONE JOB
Correct, it’s to make their non-profit executives rich.
Did the article not link or name the report? Or did I miss it?
They meant State of Mozilla 2025 seemingly.[1]
[1] https://stateof.mozilla.org/
Mozilla has great ideas but just because YOU have a great idea it does not mean that you are the best entity to implement it. Mozilla is going to bankrupt itself by spending an excessive proportion of its money on moonshots. They would have way more impact if they redirected all that money into a great browser AND educating normies about privacy. Like way bigger impact.
Right now, Mozilla keeps fighting wars it cannot win.
cringe
They are controlled opposition, for goodness sake!
Anthropic is the rebel alliance. Or more like the Free French, who refused to collaborate. But having billions to train is table stakes now. No cheeky upstart is ever going to beat physics like that.
Please just don't
It's like watching the standards-based web commit suicide.
Ah, so that's why firefox bugs are open for 10+ years and there's no one to work on these.. screw them.
Mozilla can seemingly focus on anything except Firefox.
This is almost like GRRM trying hard not to focus on Winds of Winter.
And like I everything they’ve ever done in the last 20 years it will fail.
No, just don't.
Given the Mozilla track records and bias, looks like they need another woke LLM that is woker and DEI-er (is that even a word?) than the existing major models.
I'd rather they focus on finally bringing Firefox back where it belongs, instead of spending resources on useless identity wars.
Mozilla isn't even able to run an established browser, and they want to create new tech? Please.
How about building a better AI-free browser first, Mozilla?
Is that too much to ask for?
Growing and investing in Firefox remains our biggest priority. Mozilla Corporation’s leading aim is to grow as a meaningful, differentiated browser, trusted by over 200mil people. In 2025 the team made great progress shipping tab groups, vertical tabs, smart tabs, many sidebar integrations with AI companies and more. Mozilla Corp welcomed Anthony Enzor-DeMeo, the first technologist to serve as CEO in over 15 years. In 2026 there will be a focus on building tools and features for those who want AI, and for those who do not. We are the only browser who does this - and likely the only one that will.[1]
[1] https://stateof.mozilla.org/tools/#corp
Ah, replicating things that already exist as extensions. So useful.
In inferior execution, Sideberry is still miles ahead compared to the "native" option
> In 2026 there will be a focus on building tools and features for those who want AI, and for those who do not. We are the only browser who does this - and likely the only one that will.[1]
I don't want any AI features to exist in the Firefox source code, since this increases Firefox's attack surface for no real gain to the product I want to use. The AI-enabled browser should be a separate product line for people who want that.
The sooner the AI bubble pops and takes all of these companies out, the better the world will be.
Which companies do you expect to be taken out?
Google and Microsoft will obviously remain. I have a hard time envisioning that OpenAI or Anthropic will go under - especially Anthropic, who are reportedly raking in billions from Claude subscriptions.
Just from my armchair predictions, it's not really any of the juggernauts who have to worry, but rather the many companies springing up to try SaaS offerings with LLMs at the core. A bubble pop there could certainly cause some strife, but I'm just not seeing the mechanism by which these too-big-to-fail tech companies and the heavily invested "frontier AI companies" are going to suddenly cease to exist.
I think the dotcom bubble is a fairly apt metaphor in the key sense that the web didn't go anywhere - just a lot of small players lost their tickets on the gravy train. "Big tech" as it existed at the time of the bubble pop trundled along and continued making gobs of money.
Already packed an emergency stash of popcorn just to sit back and watch that fabulous disaster.
For me it's nachos, homemade cheese-and-cream-and-onion-and-garlic dip, and some fine wine.
The problem is, when multi trillion dollars go poof everyone is going to feel the pain, even those that wisely stayed away from investing in the bubble.
For fk sake!
Conspiracy theory time? Conspiracy theory time.
I think the trillion dollar companies have enough money, they can hire people as 'plants'.
Okay, before this is marked as crazy talk: Historically this has happened, this isnt a new invention. A company needs to survive, not be ethical. Using third parties give plausible deniability.
I look at the atrocious state of LibreOffice, and I'm pretty sure someone from Microsoft is screwing things up. Might just be a little bit of friction and fake concern over a useful change. Maybe they even find someone who already does this and fund it as a full time job.
I look at Firefox, and I wonder if Google somehow is significantly influencing things there. Google keeps Firefox alive to prevent anti-trust. But they make sure funding is diverted from browser to wasteful projects.
When I worked for a fortune 20 company, we had a major, irrational push away from python into Microsoft Power Automate. Other people were convinced either our director was a Microsoft plant, or was getting some sort of kickback.
Here is my question:
What is the business called where people do this? Like if these companies paid a third party, what is this categorized as? (For instance, paying for reddit upvotes and comments is called 'Reputation Management')
Co‑opetition?
Some have used the term "Strategic accommodation".
Interesting you bring this specific Mozilla/Google example up since this is the closet thing to seeing this happen in real time:
https://www.opensourceforu.com/2025/09/court-ruling-secures-...
"Courts and press have noted that Mozilla relies heavily on Google’s search‑default payments, which keep Firefox viable. Recent antitrust proceedings have wrestled with whether (and how) to restrict these payments: a judge ultimately allowed Google to continue non‑exclusive payments to distribution partners like Mozilla while barring exclusivity and some tying/bundling—an outcome many observers said preserved Mozilla’s “lifeline” without materially threatening Google’s core position. That is textbook co‑opetition coupled with what many would call strategic accommodation."
But at least it seems we have powerful Linux plants at Microsoft, they're doing great :)
[dead]
Ah yes, go fight some of the companies with the highest ever investment numbers. Anything else than focusing on that one browser that is a cornerstone of the free web
Ah yes, Mozilla, that organization that has no record whatsoever fighting companies with the highest ever investment numbers; like who do they think they are?
Look at how well they've been doing. They're just scraping by with a minimal and declining market share propped up by cash from their single biggest competitor.
They're not fighting anything. They're being paid to be a weak antitrust excuse.
I love Firefox and I use it all the time but this situation worries me deeply.
The Mozilla of 2002 is vastly different than the Mozilla of recent.
Name one Mozilla project that beat its corporate competition.
the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.
I have zero trust in Mozilla with their ability in the marketplace currently. I held out using their products while they stagnated for nearly a decade because I value the privacy they once provided.
Mozilla has failed to compete in the browser landscape and it feels icky most of the stuff they have attempted to do, which didn't even yield them any money.
Great work, you robbed the bank and you're still poor and everyone hates you.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Mozilla had some distractions, yes, but Firefox is a fine browser, and it supports full-featured uBlock Origin including on Android.
Firefox is mostly fine despite the actions of Mozilla Corp. Not because of them.
Transparently - I've been relatively deep in the extensions space across every major browser (Chrome/Safari/Edge/Firefox).
Based on my interactions with their browser team during this process - I'm no longer a supporter of Firefox. I want to credit the engineers and support personnel I interacted with there for doing their best despite their company policies, but their policies became insane (And since you mentioned ublock - here's Gorhill, the author, expressing basically the same opinion here: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issueco...)
I won't recommend using it: I don't think it's trying to serve its users, I don't think it's trying to serve their developers. I think it's coasting on historical good will, and it's essentially been on life-support as a cash grab from Google since they laid off their engine team in 2020.
Combined with increasingly non-sensical product releases (ex - this one) and "security marketing" that doesn't match reality... I find the whole thing fairly distasteful at this point.
It is a fine browser but as its marketshare keeps declining it works less and less well because webdevs don't bother testing for it anymore.
I'm already getting tons of captchas from the likes of cloudflare in Firefox on Linux. Because somehow I'm suspicious. That's not the sign of a browser doing well.
Firefox is a fine browser despite of Mozilla