this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2022
102 points (99.0% liked)
Firefox
18506 readers
47 users here now
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nope because for some removed things there are practical no alternatives available that you could use. Awareness and reliability is a huge factor.
Removing everything without providing alternatives is a key point why people leaving because promises alone are worth nothing if you do not act up on it. People just do not care if there is a logo with google or mozilla, as long as they have something in their hand they can use for their websites. Instead you see paypal and others doing something which they overlook, deliberately or not, plays no role.
No, since employees from Google are not direct representatives for the Corpo. The main Browser is still based on Chrome. It does not change anything that free volunteers maintaining issue tickets, reviewing things etc. your statistic does not include bounty hunters and such people, because no one put them into statistics because they usually do not do this on a regular basis. The external libaries included are also very often not coming from Chrome, there are also libs included coded by others. Also not in any statistic. So no Google does not control the outcome. It is up to you what you implement, and up to Chromium people decide what they accept as trustworthy or not because they only release the open parts, and everyone can inspect them, this is not in Googles control. What they can control directly is only Chrome but what has this to do with Mozilla or Firefox or the overall web, right nothing. Sometimes Google also create their own stuff because they simply invent it or there is no practical alternative that they could implement. I just say this for the reference, QUIC for example.
The web uses that what is reliable, usually open source and gets maintained. If there are no frameworks available no one can code alternatives tools, so that is the underlying problem. There is simply no competition as the govt also only depend on organisations instead of coming with their own stuff, because it is cheaper to let other people do the work than providing your own frameworks and solutions.
I know people that worked on golang and chromium outside of google and then tell me how difficult it is working on it because Google has final decision making power on those projects even though they're open source.
They have a higher voice but you, if you want to still can reject their decision. The drama about manifestv3 was also more echo chamber, vivaldi, brave and others ditched it so adblockers still work. Yet no one has, as of a today a solution. People only come up with, remove ads ... end. This is not what developers or content creators want, they want practical solution without compromising something and ads is simply reliable system. There are also other things that play a role for such decisions, malware etc. Points that some people just ignore. Most people see it from their own perspective and not from developer or content creator perspective. I do not need it or want it ... okay f# it its bloatware or shit ... this is basically how every discussion is about it.
If you pay for development you of course should automatically get a higher voice in your own project and Chrome is simply - theirs. This does not change the underlying truth that you can fork Chromium, adjust it and are finished. If you check the fork history of what people made of Mozilla, there is practical no one from impact, not even Pale Moon as they limit several things drastically. The rest are clown forks with 2 changes ... calling it hardened and independent even if its not because you rely on Mozilla and that is it, not even mention Mozillas failed attempt on Mobile OS and their crippled mobile browser....
Again if govt would provide alternatives as base or fund independent projects by independent people and not rely on others the situation would be better. Then monopolies had a much harder time to compete.
Nobody is saying that using Mozilla's engine in particular (or Apple Safari, for that matter) gives you more independence from Mozilla (or Apple). We are talking about the power inbalance that would result if every single popular browser relies on the same basis managed predominantly by one player (which happens to be Google).
Like you yourself said, Google does "pay for development" so "of course should automatically get a higher voice in [their] own project and Chrome is simply - theirs".
Given that "their own project" is used by everyone (to the point that competition that doesn't use it is "DYING"), this means their engine is the de-facto standard, and thus "Google automatically gets a higher voice" when it comes to the development of web standards. That's the problem.
Nobody is saying that Google shouldn't have a higher voice over its own project. What we are saying is that Google shouldn't have a higher voice over web standards. We are saying that we need competition to not die.
I literally implied that using Apple (or Mozilla) doesn't give you independence from Apple (or Mozilla). Either there was a misunderstanding or you are actually saying I was right.
And I even prefaced it with "Nobody said..." because it's actually irrelevant to the point.
F-Droid is not a browser. Of course it's not a replacement.
Remember we are talking about Chrome and Chromium-based browsers. We are not talking about replacing "Google Play", nor any other Google service (it would be nice, but it's not the point).
I'm not sure if I undestand that sentence.
But "web standards" are just design documents that in many cases aren't even properly respected or that end up with extensions or features that deviate from what was defined. At the end of the day web developers end up developing for Chromium engines and testing it there. The implementations matter a lot more, specially when there's a significantly major one that sits over the rest.
The Mozilla Foundation created their own. Yet they are dying. Creating your own does not solve the problem. You need people to actually use it.
But at least I think you agree with me that Google actually gets a higher voice than the competition.
If you think that this power imbalance is fine, and that it's ok for one private company to have such an influence over such an important standard... well.. that's your opinion and I'd have to "agree to disagree".
There doesn't need to be a replacement for ad revenue. The web functions just fine when it's just a bunch of passion projects without ways to monetize other than some scattered donations. If anything, it's much better and healthier.
The best browser is one that does not bend to the needs of the rent-seeking parasites who have ruined the modern web.
Rember when reddit still relied on donations?
I wonder if any of those donators got anythingbackk after they killed Aaron Schwartz and monetized the platform.
I am afraid this is incorrect open source has massive funding issue. The reality vs what you theoretically could do are different things, usually only bigger projects getting lots of funding and donations.
The web is also basically just one big ad. Yt, lemmy, everyone practical only advocates and advertise a website, link, info whatever. So yes you need actual solutions, getting rid of ads and replace it with donations never works. Starts here with the fact that people copy and paste entire paywalled content on the website because they refuse to support websites just because they want money for the content. People want everything free and not help, always was the case and always will be the case because its too easy to bypass systems.
I'm not saying donation is a replacement for that revenue, I shouldn't have even mentioned it. We don't need donations either. There does not need to be a stream of money coming in to make putting html online worthwhile.
You're too stuck in the mindset of the current web. We do NOT need to bend further to those trying to make money off the web.
Wishful thinking does not win a price, if it would be up to be I would declare monopiles illegal establish world piece in a blink but this is not realistic.
Reality is that people tend to take open source, never donate, and that is it, when the project dies because no one supports it, they go to the next project and the process repeats itself. Only bigger projects without real competition getting attention and funding.
How many bloggers and smaller projects went broke because no one helped, instead you see ... oh f#ck it I bypass your paywall, adblock you to death to ensure you never dare again that you make some buck on my behalf. This is what people really think. There are exceptions but typically people trying to enforce their own believes and opinions on others and this reflects funding. Oh you use ads, f-u not on my watch friend ... and this is what people actually do in the real world.
For example I cannot sponsor lemmy monthly as they do not accept BAT system as donation option and I find it complicated to setup bitcoin to do that, so I let it go. Its that simple, I have no bad intention but for me its more effort and more complicated so I let it go, does not mean I have no good faith or I am not willingly to help when I can, so I help spreading the word but overall when it comes to money people consider twice to support you or not.
Even bigger pages like new york times are forced to go with paywalls because they slowly dying because lack of support, how f#ed up is that. Open web, starts with funding. Otherwise you only help those who have enough money to sit it out, which is google, or in that example google news and why should people help randoms that bleed to death, because they end up anyway on the same big pages once the competition is gone.
THere are three solutions
.. and that is pretty much it, one time donations, well sure, can happen but you need to pay your bills monthly.
It's not wishful thinking. People still host websites for the sake of doing it and never intend to make any money. They will continue to do so, even as the dominant model of the web has shifted. It is not wishful thinking or too idealistic. It already exists and has as long as the web has been around.
None of those "solutions" you propose are necessary. Forget about replacing ad revenue: let it all burn.
This, entirely
Those examples are rare examples and are not the standard. Even Martin Brinkman with 150k+ clicks a day had to gave up and sell his page. You cannot pay your bills with hopes and dreams and you cannot expect someone to produce lots of articles when no one supports you.
Yop, some pages no one heard of it, or pages with 1 post per year like Stallman.org or what. In meantime Google news spits out 100 news a second that actually impact the web and not your 10 clicks a day page.
Totally from another planet dude, cringe. Had to laugh at your bs...
I know they are rare and irrelevant. The point is we don't have to cater to the standard or what's popular. We don't have to cater to those trying to pay the bills with the web. The web does not have to be a revenue stream. If all that's left is irrelevant pages no one cares about, so be it.
You keep responding as if I'm saying we can continue the current model of the web by simply removing ads and replacing them with nothing. I'm not. I'm saying the web as it is should burn.
And don't call me "dude".
So you say we should give up on independent journalism and only let bots on Google news post important infos. I mention Google news to provoke because Mozilla has no own news network that comes close. I am not even telling something new here, the own community came up with ideas for social networks, email systems, news systems - not pocket btw, vpn systems, etc pp. Things Google successfully established. There are also drawbacks like Google+ but you cannot always win. You need to know when its best to review you options and cut things when they become a burden.
..... impressive solution....
Why are you just pivoting into "Mozilla bad" and summarizing Google projects? What are you even talking about?
And yes, the web should burn. If it cannot exist without squeezing money out of people and generally being abusive, it should not exist.
Wishful thinking, this would be in a Star Trek world, believe me I also want such a world too but reality is people are selfish, egoistic, ignorant and god knows what... The whole NFT thing showed us clearly, to name one example ... this is what the web cares about .... not idealism or good faith and wishes...
Lets assume you are disabled, your only option is to make money over the web ... what then .. so your logic here cannot be applied, you want that this person starves to death rather than make some cash or what ...
Everything has downsides, always..
OK then by your logic then how is Lemmy functioning without ad revenue?
Furthermore why are youusing a platform without ads if you like ads so much? Go back to reddit.
It worked for ~20 years before ad banners became a thing.
I agree with you that if we don't like their decision then we can fork but we don't have time or money to maintain the fork.
That is why funding and help is essential, this must come from above to at least provide people with opportunities and a guidance beyond ... oh better use x than y.
I'm sorry but your first two points have nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about the fact that site devs work in function of their users' browser. Since such a crushing majority uses Chrome and cousins, the web is being shaped after Chrome and cousins' capabilities.
If the commit are counted for employees, that means they committed with their professionnal adress, hence in the context of their work, hence directly representing the corpo.
No, the statistics was based on a list of commits that includes one-time contributors.
Irrelevant, external lib's devs don't decide anything, the coders still decide how their import and use the lib.
Who are the Chromium people? The Chromium projects is an entity that was created by Google, is their any sign that it is run by people who don't work for Google?
Because there is no competition. I already explained, people use what they can use and you cannot expect that people code their own frameworks.
Commits do not reflect the entire work, as a committer can commit work based on someone else, which means they can include in their commit the zlib code to provide support into the Browser. You cannot give a random user commit rights.
Again commits include also work from third-party projects. It says nothing about the influence also again no bug bountry work that only getting merged by official approved committer. Apparently you do not understand how Chrome development works.
It is relevant, if there are no alternatives you can include you code your own, which is what you accuse Google off with sabotaging the web. No alternatives, you are forced to provide your own. It is that simple. Was the case with QUIC.
Not every employee represents the Corp. You can work for Google but you are not dictated by them, so your - every employee must kneel thing - never happen. Typically new standards are in depth in discussion with the community as well as the proposals are clearly visible. People as well as chromium users can decide and act up on the information. There is no secret meeting, of we want to destroy the web or what you accuse google off. They implement of course third-party projects from others if its reliable and usable. Most what I refer too are average people, ex employee, bug hunters, free volunteers, etc. Its also mentioned in the Chromium blog.
Mozilla is so irrelevant that no one talks here about them, instead we talk about your misinterpretation on who gets commit rights, and who does the actual work.
I am not even going into some details that a Browser is not the only application, yet this point is also not mentioned in the Video, Spotify etc they all are based on frameworks, there was at that time not much alternatives to those frameworks. Alternatives are often created only afterwords to address shortcomings.
The question discussed in the video is not WHY firefox is dying, it is the consequence of that. Other engines exist, maybe Blink is better, the fact is anyway that it has a huge market share, so they have a lot of power on how the web evolves.
Hence, Google has that power. Because Google is the main entity behind Chromium. You can play with word, saying the 80% of contributors is not 100%, that it doesn't give explicit instructions to its employees, that maybe the commit count should be slightly different as to include bounty hunter, libs,... It remains that, as you admit yourself in other thread, Google has the biggest voice in Chromium development.
The video is also not about engines and what engine someone should use, if you argue on this you do not understand the underlying problem. The engine is to render the content, based on APIs and other things. This has nothing to do with monopolies. As everyone could theoretically create their own standards but you need funding, money and that typically only comes from those who have the money. So this is the underlying point.
Your math and numbers are just incorrect as you refuse to accept that the Browser is not one big project, it is more a multi media all-in-one project and there are others involved, this you do not understand, as you clearly displayed.
I admit nothing I say how things are and if you pump 1 billion into it you should get the voice, this is just normal and Mozilla does the same, as they have also the last word on what pull request they integrate. This is normal and not something essential that has something to do with control, you cannot just give random people commit rights, there must always be a review process. If you want a sit on the table you need to pay you way into it, this is just how this works, and with only words, hopes and dreams you will simply get a lower voice. It is like saying oh I know better than elon musk, but he actually spend 3 billions to sit on the twitter table, so of course he calls more shots than you, this is why the government needs to fund projects and not advertise organisations.
Your refusal to accept that there is no Mozilla fork while there is in mass successfully forks such as Brave, Vivaldi and so many others... is just cringe. Mozilla has only clown forks that make no impact on the web as they are mainly run by sentimental people and not actually people who develop standards, pump their money into it and this is when your logic miserably fails.
There is nothing and people care only about what you can take... This is how web works .. not with hopes, dreams and blah... funding, proposal, review, frameworks, alternatives and documentation... You simply INVEST into something and then you can spread it for the mass. Google did that with success, provided free services, advertised it and gained control. Things Mozilla missed, instead they run in Googles shadow, behind, too late, slow ... incompetent. I blame the CEO actually he is as incompetent as Microsofts CEO but they are in a much better positions that allows more mistakes.
And that's not admitting that Google has the biggest voice in Chromium development?
Of course it is normal that Google has the biggest voice in their own product, problem comes when that product and its soft forks nearly have the monopoly on web browsers. Because then it means that Google has the biggest voice in the future directions taken by the web.
I don't understand why yoiu still write two paragraphs about the services that Mozilla doesn't offer, or the forks it doesn't have, as I told countless time that it is irrelevant to the discussion.
Biggest voice according tho whom, you or what. You do not even understand that Chrome is not entirely build by Google. Its a multi all-in-one-application just stitched together by Google, the rest is included or developed by Google because there are no alternatives that you can use or they invented it. No its not admitting. Its how things just work, do you give random stranger your car keys and trust him and then afterwards get accused to manipulate the market because that user wanted to use your car to buy another car. No. Reality is you sit with them on a table, get one hand on the wheel, earn trust and then you can ask and influence form the inside, proving you are worthy. Then you develop standards and people would actually listen. Ignoring them, saying oh they are the devil and mother G is root issue for all the evil in the world, boring ...
It is relevant since the web uses what exist and not what your hopes, dreams and promises stitch together. There is no competition, this is underlying problem, due to lack of funding, govt even advertise organisations because they make deals with them see Microsoft and the Pentagon etc. History here is long, the problem is you influence the web proving something and Mozilla provides nothing. Why use Mozilla, share your data and trust with them and then switch to other apps and providers because you depend on other programs and services anyway, when you can have the all in one package with Google, this is what people in the world care about. It is not practical to depend on 100 apps, and services when you anyway end up sharing data, then better use one provider and that is it. They are just reliable enough and they simply have the user base.
The 1 Percent idealistic people sure as hell do not represent the web. Points you ignore. Web shit out Mozilla in an instant. And no clown fork will help.
5-10 years from now Brave smoked Firefox and it does not surprise me one single bit. They just offer what people want, search, sync .. you name it, vpn, god knows what is not already planned or possible with more support. So you trust one entity and do not rely on 100 others. Mozillas user base will shrink together of people with sentiments and people who invested time and money into project, sadly this will be the end, but not a surprise, ironically without money from mother G they would be already dead in the water .. So you bash the hand that feeds you... cringe