lemminator @ lemminator @lemmy.today

Posts

0

Comments

56

Joined

5 mo. ago

"...you’re funding the foundation itself..."

But that's what I don't want. I don't care about the foundation, as it doesn't share my values.

"I’m sure if more people donated, they could actually be incentivized to make such an option available, but they barely get any donations compared to the revenue they make from the Google subsidy, so it’s just unreasonable to expect them to put in that additional effort, especially when the primary thing the vast majority of the money goes to is Firefox staff, development, and related server hosting anyways."

This is the problem though. How many people don't donate because, like me, they don't want to pay for a bloated CEO salary, or unrelated projects? I don't find it unreasonable at all, rather it would help them focus on what their base actually cares about. They have a lot of fat to cut, and this would point out where their resources should be spent, compared to how their resources are currently spent.

Are they going to make as much money from donations as Google gives them? no, but that's a good thing. It'll help them focus.

I feel like my point was pretty clear, but to spell it out: Mozilla is mis-managing their resources. I want to make sure the resources that I give to them only go towards what I consider to be worthwhile projects.

But I don't want to donate to the "open internet" or the non-profit, I want to donate directly to Firefox. How can I ensure that the money I spend gets spent on that and only that?

But that's not donating to Firefox, that's donating to Mozilla, which I don't want to do, because they seem to be wasting their money.

Yeah, donations. And yes, more cost-cutting measures. They need both, to gain more revenue, and to cut costs. They seem pretty bloated to me.

Sure, but can I spend money on just Firefox? or does it go to unrelated activities? I'm OK spending money on FF, I'm not OK paying for the CEO.

"They already take in donations..."

Where can I dontate to Firefox? Not Mozilla, and not a fund that goes to CEO-pay or other expences, but straight to Firefox

2 options:

1. Ask their users for money. It's a tried and true system that works for a lot of projects.
2. Stop spending their existing money on dumb things that nobody is asking for. A good start would be to cut out the CEO's pay.

Does Firefox do reproducible builds? This bug report makes me think it doesn't (at least for Linux): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=885777

But maybe they do for Windows/Apple/Android?

Well, we don't know that, because we didn't let him try. He did originally poll better than Trump in texas.

A source for what?

Of course she's to blame. She had an easy win, against the lowest approved president we've had and chose genocide and billionaires over winning.

I always find it telling when people blame those who couldn't stomach voting for genocide, instead of blaming the Democratic leadership for running on a platform of genocide.

https://qutebrowser.org/ and Librewolf

It was probably Chick Tracts: https://www.chick.com/products/tract?stk=0046

That doesn't detract from OP's point. I want Mozilla to be a good, privacy respecting organization, but they aren't anymore, and chromium has nothing to do with that.

Have they considered just asking for money? Also getting rid of the giant holes that they keep pouring their money into?

A lot of people love Firefox, and would happily donate. They could also trim a lot of fat at Mozilla quite easily.

You can, but the last time I did that the instructions were incomplete, and you still had to auth through Mozilla. That was a few years ago, so things might have changed since then.

If you liked vimperator, you might like https://qutebrowser.org/

I'm not sure what a "consequential" is, but I'm not a Trump supporter, nor am I a conservative. I proudly voted against him.

The disconnect is obvious to me, but to spell it out: They were terrible candidates that the majority of General Election voters didn't want. Those voters made that quite clear before the primaries, and were ignored. Then the Primary Election voters got behind the bad choice anyway.

But General Election voters had already abandoned the Democrats, and rightfully so. The Primary Vote was only among those that were willing to vote for whatever terrible candidates the DNC pushed on them.