Mozilla’s leadership is directionless and flailing because it’s never had to do, or be, anything else. It’s never needed to know how to make a profit, because it never had to make a profit. It’s no wonder it has no real direction or vision or clue: it never needed them. It’s role-playing being a business.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world
on 08 Jul 19:36
nextcollapse
I dunno, Firefox of 3.0 times was the shit. It itself was the browser that should be, more welcoming to customization than Windows of the time was to porn winlockers. They also had XULRunner for alternative ideas. Gecko was the FOSS browser engine that various alternative “nice” MacOS and Linux browsers used.
Though between 2004 and 2008 only four years passed. Less than between Windows 2000 and Vista (let’s ignore XP as a more glossy consumer version of 2000).
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
on 08 Jul 20:38
collapse
let’s ignore XP as a more glossy consumer version of 2000
That feels like a dangerous argument;
2000 = NT 5.0
XP = NT 5.1
XP x64 = NT 5.2
Vista = NT 6.0
7 = NT 6.1
8 = NT 6.2
8.1 = NT 6.3
10 = NT 6.4
(Later NT 10.0 then 1507 for July 2015 when they made the switch to ‘agile’.)
Unless you are prepared to argue that everything since has just been an updated version of Vista.
Hot take. Under semantic versioning everything after vista has been in essence a new version of vista.
Going from NT 5.x to 6.x was a major jump.
The reason why Vista had no/terrible drivers was because they went from an insecure one driver bug crashed the whole system model to more secure isolated drivers that don’t crash the whole system model. Developers had to learn how to write new drivers and none of the XP drivers worked.
They went from a single user OS with a multi user skin on top, to a full role based access control user system.
They went from global admin/non-admin permissions to scoped UAC permissions for apps.
Remember on Vista when apps constantly had that “asking for permissions” popup? That was the apps not using the 6.x UAC APIs.
Given the underlying architectural situation everything since Vista has been vista with polish added (or removed depending on how you look at it)
Things will go beyond vista when a new major release with new mandatory APIs shows up.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world
on 09 Jul 09:25
nextcollapse
It’s just a versions list. And I’m mostly joking. Rather that the “feel” of using Windows between 2000 and XP didn’t seem to change much. (I prefer 2000)
Ok but XP was literally 2000 with a prettier default theme
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
on 08 Jul 19:39
nextcollapse
All firefox really needed to be once google took over everything, was to be a viable alternative and find a way to metabolize all this cash in a way that doesn’t damage google’s own cash machine or threaten it’s actual dominance.
For google the pitance they give firefox is a very cheap insurance policy against against anti-trust legislation.
Just like Intel with AMD, this shows how toothless the liberal anti-trust legislation are, even if they were really being enforced, they cannot handle a token 2nd player. It cannot handle controlled opposition if it’s credible and believable. So an actual thriving ecosystem doesn’t need to exist, we just get duopolies instead of monopolies but in practices we get ducked up the cloaca just the same.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world
on 09 Jul 13:14
collapse
This is the exact block I came to quote.
The rest of the article is good too, though.
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone
on 08 Jul 18:26
nextcollapse
mozilla and firefox need to learn more away from ai and more towards ethical not for profit governance. be the opposite of big tech and stand for the internet as a public utility and force or good and decency. instead of going ai bro, y'all need to stand up against racism and discrimination while pushing internet for everybody, free of profits.
anachrohack@lemmy.world
on 08 Jul 18:27
nextcollapse
y’all need to stand up against racism and discrimination
Felt kind of out of nowhere. How does a web browser stand up to racism?
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone
on 08 Jul 18:35
collapse
i was talking about both mozilla and firefox... and the internet has plenty to do with that as a communication device for good.
instead of using the internet for war and hate, use it for unity and openness.
SatyrSack@lemmy.sdf.org
on 08 Jul 18:41
nextcollapse
How would a web browser achieve that? The only thing I can think of is for the browser to choose what sort of web content should be filtered out and what should actually be displayed to the user, which I think we all agree is not what you would want your browser to choose.
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone
on 08 Jul 18:52
collapse
the web browser isn't a sentient entity; the web browser is developed by people who are part of an organisation with an ethos.
001Guy001@sh.itjust.works
on 08 Jul 19:14
nextcollapse
y’all need to stand up against racism and discrimination
I concur, I think they should push towards a more positive internet. Though I think they are a bit wary of doing it ever since the toxic backlash to this blog post
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone
on 08 Jul 19:38
collapse
which is exactly why they need a strong positive leadership that doesn't bend the knee to bigots.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 08 Jul 22:51
nextcollapse
stand up against racism and discrimination
What does this mean for a browser company? I understand this being an important company value, but I don’t want them filtering the internet or anything. Their primary goal should be to foster a privacy respecting web and a high performance, standards based browser.
I don’t think eliminating profit from the web should be a goal. I don’t care if websites make money, I just care they don’t profit from my data without me agreeing to it explicitly.
I think Firefox needs to become financially independent, and that means finding a privacy respecting business model. My personal preference is a micro payment system where I can pay websites for content in exchange for no ads. That provides value to me and websites that I’d otherwise block ads on.
If AI is part of that, sure, just make it opt-in and very obvious when it’s working.
Companies should be allowed to make a profit, you need that to cover bad years, invest in the future of the company, etc. A company without profit (unless it is a non-profit) will not survive.
I personally think it’s not about Mozilla. It’s about the Web.
You need to see the bigger picture always.
The Web as an application for global system of hypertext documents served from different computers is fine.
The Web wasn’t intended as a platform for platforms for global applications.
It’s used as one, because that allows a certain kind of people to gather power. Networked personal computers made the civil society too powerful. Needed a solution.
Why the Web and not just “Facebook native application” and “Google native application”? Well, it’s hard to maintain a hypertext document system made application platform. It limits competition. It also allows Facebook and Google popularity to affect web browser and web techologies popularity. If these don’t work in a browser, that browser is doomed.
While the verticals and monopolies themselves allow thieves and murderers in governments to control the Internet.
So - there weren’t that many websites, if you think about it, requiring any particular web technology when it came into existence. Those mostly started specifically for Google, Facebook etc services and/or policies. Say, HTML5 to phase out Netscape plugin API, which was presented as phasing out Flash (everybody hated Flash).
Mozilla followed those policies and appeared neutral, yes.
But in general the moment using Dillo or Netsurf or Links became plainly, completely not an option for the Web, it was decided. A world standard that has only a handful of compliant realizations is not a standard. It’s an oligopoly.
So, getting back to hypertext - Flash was hated by some because it didn’t allow to turn the whole webpage into an application, but that wasn’t its purpose. JS was a mistake, I think. Any interpreted content should have been embedded in its clear place separate from the rest of the page with its own plugin, similar to Flash applets. But - one can accept that in year 1996 they didn’t think of such consequences.
And remote big services not being standardized were also a mistake. I wrote a bit on that from time to time here, gets tiring to repeat - a lot of what the server side of many applications does is just routing to another client, computation and storage. One can devise a standard for remote services. So that local applications would be different, but would use the same pooled infrastructure, found and announced via trackers similar to torrents. With global identifiers of entities to allow interoperability, so that “post #12435324646dasgtshdryh” would be the same text on any of such storage services (having it) and at any point in time.
That, of course, is a bit late. In our current world things like Briar and other mesh are probably a better direction. One can have what I described over them too, but it will also require management of bandwidth and bottlenecks and stuff not reachable directly.
The fact that they are now selling our data seems like both a browser problem and a leadership problem. If the browser were fine, we wouldn’t be seeing a moderate exodus to choices like Librewolf and Zen.
neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 08 Jul 19:36
nextcollapse
Ladybird is a brand-new browser & web engine. Driven by a web standards first approach, Ladybird aims to render the modern web with good performance, stability and security.
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone
on 08 Jul 19:38
nextcollapse
the ladybird devs have a history of major transphobia though
NotAnonymousAtAll@feddit.org
on 08 Jul 19:57
nextcollapse
some context and/or link would help for everyone who just learned about this project and knows nothing about the devs
There was a pull request to change “he” to “they” somewhere in the code and the dev refused, saying people should leave “their politics” out of it. I wouldn’t say it’s transphobic specifically - it may also be misogynistic. Either way, it doesn’t look good.
i can offer some context to that, but first let’s clear up that all the documentation has since been updated to use second-person pronouns, making it both friendlier and gender neutral. kling is fully on-board with that change.
the issue came in right after the big wave of people doing drive-by “code of conduct” PRs. there was a plague of accounts that only did that, and had no other connections to either projects or people. this is obviously a form of political activism, and while it’s not malicious, it does get in the way for volunteer developers of big open-source projects who are usually already swamped with work they’re not paid for. so creating these giant documents that have not been pre-discussed with the team doing the project is disruptive and misguided. having a code of conduct is good, but it needs to match the project.
anyway, in the middle of this a big PR comes in which changes shitloads of documentation. the standard PR view doesn’t show each change, it just shows “n files changed, +n lines -n lines”, and a description talking about “gender-neutral language”. now, kling is not a “typical” developer. he’s a former addict who started doing serenity and ladybird as therapy/rehab. i don’t know what that’s like, but i imagine it means you don’t have a lot of mental overhead for things you don’t want to do. so kling saw the description and the massive change set and didn’t want to deal with it.
it took a while but he was convinced to change it. if he had not, i would not be as charitable.
Thanks for the context - I still intensely dislike the “political” reaction, but people can learn and change. I also don’t like that Canadian arch-jackass Tobi Lutke is a major supporter of the project; he’s a bit like Brendan Eich. I’ll reserve judgment until the browser launches. I’ll definitely be keeping an eye on it.
yeah that ties in to my other comment; it’s not political in american english culture (well it is, but only to chuds), but other countries don’t have the same context for this stuff. and when those cultural barriers are crossed without knowing the differences, there is bound to be friction.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 08 Jul 23:15
collapse
Brendan Eich
I honestly don’t understand the hate here. I get that he supported the bill to ban gay marriage and that’s terrible, but I’ve also heard that he left his politics at the door and treated everyone with respect, including the LGBT people at Mozilla. I honestly think he would’ve been a better CEO at Mozilla because he’s interested in the tech. His largest problem was making a personal contribution with his own money to an unpopular cause, and someone dug it up looking for dirt.
Isn’t that exactly how people should act? Leave your politics at home and work well with others. I work in a diverse group with a mix of immigrants, likely gay people, atheists and religious types, Trump supporters and critics, and even a couple furries. None of that matters and we work well together. In fact, most of the turnover we’ve had has been over compensation because our company has been stingy recently, and they all say they wouldn’t have considered leaving otherwise.
You can disagree on very important things and still work well together, it’s called professionalism. I dislike Eich’s views, but I believe he had way more professionalism than his loudest critics.
he supported the bill to ban gay marriage and that’s terrible,
but I’ve also heard that he left his politics at the door and treated everyone with respect, including the LGBT people at Mozilla
How on earth can you reconcile these two statements? “I respect you so much I’ll pass a law to make you illegal”?
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 09 Jul 13:39
collapse
I don’t understand how you can’t.
In a business setting, it’s called “professionalism”, and in a personal setting it’s called being a nice person. Most of my family is against gay marriage and don’t believe in gender fluidity, yet when my sister in law said her child is non-binary and would like to be referred to with they/then, they complied. Why? Believing those things doesn’t mean you hate LGBT people, it just means you disagree about policy. They love my sister in law and her kids, so they’ll do what they can to help them feel comfortable around them and want to participate in family gatherings.
I personally believe strongly that marriage should be available to all consenting adults, but I also believe gay marriage goes against God’s plan. Why? I believe everyone has the right to make their own choices and whether that’s acceptable to God isn’t my business. Maybe I’m misreading things, IDK, but my personal religious beliefs only guide my personal decisions and I believe I am supposed to love everyone regardless of their lifestyle. Whether someone else is sinning isn’t really my business, nor should it impact my love for them. And maybe they’re not sinning, again, IDK, it’s not my business.
I support same sex marriage (my church doesn’t) because I believe in freedom of choice, and that policy merely increases options for others and doesn’t decrease mine. Likewise for most LGBT policies, like bathroom use or gender change on IDs, you do you. We had an LGBT candidate at work (pretty obviously trans), and I was happily surprised that wasn’t an issue for my very conservative coworker during the interview (they’re an observant Muslim with conservative social views), and I went out of my way to make sure we both corrected for any subconscious bias we might have.
I don’t know Brendan Eich, maybe he’s actually a terrible person, idk. What I do know is he had a long career at Mozilla (nearly 20 years), and there were no public complaints about him until he was chosen as CEO. From all accounts, people were only mad about his $1k donation to prop 8, not about his conduct at work or anything of that nature. The board even asked him to stay in another capacity, but he left because he loved Mozilla and obviously he wasn’t able to be an effective leader if his presence encouraged people to recommend against using Firefox and other Mozilla products.
To me, it’s a crazy overreaction, he donated a pretty modest amount one time, six years prior, and had no complaints during his position as CTO. He absolutely got brigaded because someone decided to dig up donation records. If they didn’t, he probably would’ve been a successful CEO and refocused on the tech, instead of whatever nonsense the follow-up CEOs have been doing.
I disagree with Eich’s political views, but also think he was the best person for the CEO role. He seemed like a competent professional, and he was certainly technically competent given his long technical career at Mozilla.
neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 08 Jul 23:23
nextcollapse
This is very valuable context.
For citations, the only references I see to “pronouns” in their github project is in a section called “Human language policy” in CONTRIBUTING.md (link). Here’s the relevant part:
In Ladybird, we treat human language as seriously as we do programming language. The following applies to all user-facing strings, code, comments, and commit messages: … Use gender-neutral pronouns, except when referring to a specific person.
That sounds pretty cash-money to me.
There’s one additional reference in a pull request discussing whether or not to use “we” when referring to recommendations of the engineering team (as in “we recommend” vs “it is recommended”). Minutia.
I’m not as interested in litigating this matter than I am in putting it to bed (along with any and all definitive citations and evidence such that I can refer back to this comment thread in the future when the question inevitably comes up again.)
LucidNightmare@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 09 Jul 06:16
collapse
Thanks so much for this layout of everything. I wasn’t even aware of what was going on, and your comment put it all together. Cheers!
I’ll just copy a comment I made a while back. It was about the usage of “he” instead of gender neutral pronouns in the documentation:
So I looked further into this, and while I found awesomekling’s comment to be a cause of concern, I’m hoping it’s a cultural misunderstanding due to his Swedish background.
That comment is from 3 years ago, and since then there was a commit merged, that had the sole purpose of fixing these pronouns.
I’m hoping it’s a cultural misunderstanding due to his Swedish background.
Jag pratar inte Svenska but I know enough that it has gendered pronouns just like English. Actually, it’s better than English in that it preserved the neuter singular pronoun (which used to be “thou” in English) so there’s even less excuse in terms of linguistic background.
this is incorrect. we recently added a neuter singular pronoun. “hen” was introduced in 2009, and not widely used until like 2019. Also, in technical documentation, masculine pronouns were taught as the default to use (both in swedish and in english) when i was in university in the early 10s. this has changed now, but it definitely wasn’t on the table when kling was in school.
Interesting, thanks for the correction! I thought it was a medieval form that stuck around.
Masculine being the default was the case for English (and French) too, but not anymore, and certainly not by implying anything other than the masculine is “political”.
yeah smaller languages have taken longer to adapt to that change, because it started in the anglophone world and the concepts of gendered language don’t translate well. it’s like how the word “man” in english used to mean “human” and not be gendered at all, and when language is updated to remove the – now gendered – word and then translated, the translation stops making any sense because the context of a word is so different.
i always give massive leeway when language is involved, because the culture around progressive language is basically 99% centred on the US.
Not really. Mandarin for example has different characters for “he” and “she”, but they are homophones (“ta”, or “tamen” plural) so you can’t tell who’s who in spoken language. Hungarian doesn’t use gendered pronouns and Finnish doesn’t either (actually, now that I think of it, that may be where you borrowed yours - isn’t it “hen” too?)
i’m not really talking about the grammar, but about the cultural meanings of the words. there may be implied gender in a mode of speaking even in a language without gendered pronouns. my grandmother would always assume people i was talking about were male if i didn’t use a gendered pronoun (like i would be talking about a colleague by referring to them as “my colleague”) because that’s the “cultural default” here still. it has changed a lot in the past five-ten years but it’s still the default.
and i actually don’t know where we got “hen” from. i do know that it was not originally meant to be an actual gender-neutral pronoun, but as a placeholder where gender is unknown or unimportant. it was created to replace the more cumbersome “han/hon” in legal texts, and not meant to be used to refer to specific people. but we do that anyway because it helps adoption.
looking it up it does seem to be taken from finnish! their word is “hän”, which would be pronounced about the same. i learned something.
neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 08 Jul 19:59
nextcollapse
I think this may be the issue to which you are referring:
While this is troubling to read about, this narrative’s lack of evidence or references keep me from accepting it at face value. Old mastodon chatter (and perhaps deleted posts or scuttled instances) may be difficult to retrieve, but GitHub discussions shouldn’t be hard to find.
So I’m withholding judgement for the moment.
UPDATE: Commenter lime!@feddit.nu wrote this terrific comment that provides confirmation of the above narrative, corrective action that the LadyBird engineering team has taken taken, plus some vitally important context of the entire kerfuffle. A+ work.
You don’t consider it rather exclusionary to imply that only men use computers?
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
on 08 Jul 22:25
collapse
at one point or another we all have a penis in us.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
on 08 Jul 20:00
nextcollapse
with a project named ladybird you’d think otherwise.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 08 Jul 22:58
collapse
I suppose, unless you’ve watched King of the Hill.
SaltySalamander@fedia.io
on 08 Jul 22:31
nextcollapse
I truly couldn't give a single solitary fuck what opinions the devs of software I use have, no matter what that opinion is. As long as they're not trying to shove that opinion down my throat via their software, their opinions literally have no effect on me whatsoever. You either, whether you want to believe that or not.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 08 Jul 22:55
nextcollapse
Exactly. How FOSS devs spend their time and money isn’t my business, what is my business is foundation financials and whether the software is reliable and safe to use.
I strongly disagree with Lemmy devs on politics and how they run their instances, but that doesn’t impact me so whatever.
As long as ladybird devs don’t go out of their way to be jerks to trans people, I’m good. The worst I’ve seen is rejecting pronoun changes in code comments and docs, which isn’t a big deal.
mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de
on 08 Jul 23:15
nextcollapse
I think the problem is that certain views are much stronger indicators of someone being willing to eventually shove their views down your throat. If I was a big corporation shopping for, say, spam filter software, I’d rather sign a 3 year contract with a regular company than, for example, a company that is openly fundamentalist Christians. Why? Because the Christians are much more likely to start randomly making ridiculous changes that only make sense to other Christians, like spam filtering out anything with the word “Allah”, etc. They may not do that now, but I need to look further than just right now because I don’t want to get locked in to an ecosystem that is going to turn sour. Sure I can always switch, but why not just choose the one that has less risk of that at the onset?
Now some beliefs that I disagree with are less like this than others. For instance if the devs disagreed with me about their favorite movies, I’m not going to take that into consideration, because that’s not the sort of thing or the sort of person who is likely to abuse their power to aid that cause. But transphobia? That is exactly the sort of thing that someone, as has been proven many times now, will sit on and downplay until they are given power and influence to act on it. Using their software contributes to their influence, especially in the browser world.
Lastly, all other things equal, I’d rather use the product of a smart team full of smart people, than a dumb team full of dumb people. Transphobia is a dumb belief to have, it is a result of being unintelligent. Many smart people (and let’s be honest, especially developers) won’t want to work with someone like that. Whether you think that’s reasonable or not, it’s hard to deny. It’s certainly hard to picture any great trans developers wanting to contribute. So a lot of things add up, especially when looking a few links down the causal chain, to make it more than just a matter of whether they believe differently than I do.
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
on 09 Jul 02:37
nextcollapse
My assessment? Get fucked, Ladybird. I don’t want to trust my web security to people who think like this, especially since web security is very political and will only become more so as the Trump administration continues.
PushButton@lemmy.world
on 09 Jul 07:57
nextcollapse
After reading this, in particular the “The Facts” section, my understanding is: he got pulled into making a political statement about gender and he didn’t want to get involved with that.
Yet again, that “crowd” didn’t like Ladybird’s refusal to play, therefore that “crowd” does what they’re known best doing: cry high and loud on the internet playing the victim.
In a sense, that “crowd” shoved their political agenda down his throat, and that’s the only thing I personally find reprehensible here.
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
on 09 Jul 11:41
collapse
Refusal to make a “political” statement is very much political when the politics in question is about acknowledging non-men exist. There is no politically neutral choice when there are two options who are both political.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world
on 09 Jul 13:31
collapse
TL;DR;
A few days later, someone pointed out an issue in SerenityOS where a new contributor offered to update the documentation to include gender-neutral language instead of always assuming the person building the project was a man. Kling rejected it with the statement: “This project is not an appropriate arena to advertise your personal politics.”
…Kling and the Ladybird project doubled down on rejecting active inclusion in the name of being “apolitical.” Others tried to explain that rejecting inclusivity is inherently a political decision.
If you’ve watched enough of these things play out, it’s usually the doubling down that causes a lasting split, more than the original disagreement.
So not some kind of JK Rowling transphobia or even stock republiQan misogyny as much as a fairly tone-deaf executive position on documentation that became a thing.
Making documentation gender-neutral is not radical or ‘political’ other than it’s trying to reflect the reality that more than just men use and create code. It seems like Kling thought his project was under threat of takeover by some radical pansexual furry anarcho-collective (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and said something stupid like “documentation isn’t a place for political debate” which, is sort of true and also not relevant to the change requested.
As the article states, the real issue is the doubling down. That’s not good.
MummysLittleBloodSlut@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 09 Jul 07:14
collapse
like spam filtering out anything with the word “Allah”, etc
That’s valid tbh. Nice Muslims say Ilah. Mean monotheists say Allah.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
on 09 Jul 07:19
collapse
unless they start curating things like censoring specific words or searches.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
on 08 Jul 20:29
nextcollapse
For clarity, Mozilla isn’t one thing. There’s Mozilla Corporation (profit) and the Mozilla Foundation (nonprofit). Firefox is a product of Mozilla Corporation. And yes, the need to make a profit is a bug not a feature.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
on 08 Jul 20:35
nextcollapse
That’s a weird way of saying firefox is not fine.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works
on 08 Jul 21:59
collapse
Qutebrowser is my main and Lynx is my “feed” browser. Qutebrowser you don’t need anything else. it just works and you can script the thing to your hearts content.
For a long time I was using Floorp, and while I like floorp and the dev team behind it, I just stopped using it as my main. Sure it’s a fork of firefox and they’re at the whims of mozilla which lately has been clearly evident with the slow updates to floorp.
Qutebrowser just works. The dev for it is a nice dude who is easily accessible for help. the community for it is also very helpful. the integration with things like greasemonkey make scripting and customizing anything so painfully easy. I mean there’s a great script for it right now that completely 100% circumvents youtube ads and it’s been working for months straight without any need to update. It also meshes extremely well with my Bitwarden.
threaded - newest
I dunno, Firefox of 3.0 times was the shit. It itself was the browser that should be, more welcoming to customization than Windows of the time was to porn winlockers. They also had XULRunner for alternative ideas. Gecko was the FOSS browser engine that various alternative “nice” MacOS and Linux browsers used.
Though between 2004 and 2008 only four years passed. Less than between Windows 2000 and Vista (let’s ignore XP as a more glossy consumer version of 2000).
That feels like a dangerous argument;
Unless you are prepared to argue that everything since has just been an updated version of Vista.
What might be a valid argument in 5.x might not be an argument for 6.x.
But IMO, Windows 7, 8, 10 and 11 have more in common with vista than vista has with XP.
Hot take. Under semantic versioning everything after vista has been in essence a new version of vista.
Going from NT 5.x to 6.x was a major jump.
The reason why Vista had no/terrible drivers was because they went from an insecure one driver bug crashed the whole system model to more secure isolated drivers that don’t crash the whole system model. Developers had to learn how to write new drivers and none of the XP drivers worked.
They went from a single user OS with a multi user skin on top, to a full role based access control user system.
They went from global admin/non-admin permissions to scoped UAC permissions for apps.
Remember on Vista when apps constantly had that “asking for permissions” popup? That was the apps not using the 6.x UAC APIs.
Given the underlying architectural situation everything since Vista has been vista with polish added (or removed depending on how you look at it)
Things will go beyond vista when a new major release with new mandatory APIs shows up.
It’s just a versions list. And I’m mostly joking. Rather that the “feel” of using Windows between 2000 and XP didn’t seem to change much. (I prefer 2000)
Ok but XP was literally 2000 with a prettier default theme
All firefox really needed to be once google took over everything, was to be a viable alternative and find a way to metabolize all this cash in a way that doesn’t damage google’s own cash machine or threaten it’s actual dominance.
For google the pitance they give firefox is a very cheap insurance policy against against anti-trust legislation. Just like Intel with AMD, this shows how toothless the liberal anti-trust legislation are, even if they were really being enforced, they cannot handle a token 2nd player. It cannot handle controlled opposition if it’s credible and believable. So an actual thriving ecosystem doesn’t need to exist, we just get duopolies instead of monopolies but in practices we get ducked up the cloaca just the same.
This is the exact block I came to quote.
The rest of the article is good too, though.
mozilla and firefox need to learn more away from ai and more towards ethical not for profit governance. be the opposite of big tech and stand for the internet as a public utility and force or good and decency. instead of going ai bro, y'all need to stand up against racism and discrimination while pushing internet for everybody, free of profits.
Felt kind of out of nowhere. How does a web browser stand up to racism?
i was talking about both mozilla and firefox... and the internet has plenty to do with that as a communication device for good.
instead of using the internet for war and hate, use it for unity and openness.
Can we use it for godot and openness instead?
Only if you want to be left waiting
How would a web browser achieve that? The only thing I can think of is for the browser to choose what sort of web content should be filtered out and what should actually be displayed to the user, which I think we all agree is not what you would want your browser to choose.
the web browser isn't a sentient entity; the web browser is developed by people who are part of an organisation with an ethos.
I think the question was:
List the steps to be taken by the people at Mozilla to achieve this. Then think if those can reasonably be accomplished.
I dont want to unify with you.
I concur, I think they should push towards a more positive internet. Though I think they are a bit wary of doing it ever since the toxic backlash to this blog post
blog.mozilla.org/…/we-need-more-than-deplatformin…
which is exactly why they need a strong positive leadership that doesn't bend the knee to bigots.
What does this mean for a browser company? I understand this being an important company value, but I don’t want them filtering the internet or anything. Their primary goal should be to foster a privacy respecting web and a high performance, standards based browser.
I don’t think eliminating profit from the web should be a goal. I don’t care if websites make money, I just care they don’t profit from my data without me agreeing to it explicitly.
I think Firefox needs to become financially independent, and that means finding a privacy respecting business model. My personal preference is a micro payment system where I can pay websites for content in exchange for no ads. That provides value to me and websites that I’d otherwise block ads on.
If AI is part of that, sure, just make it opt-in and very obvious when it’s working.
Companies should be allowed to make a profit, you need that to cover bad years, invest in the future of the company, etc. A company without profit (unless it is a non-profit) will not survive.
I personally think it’s not about Mozilla. It’s about the Web.
You need to see the bigger picture always.
The Web as an application for global system of hypertext documents served from different computers is fine.
The Web wasn’t intended as a platform for platforms for global applications.
It’s used as one, because that allows a certain kind of people to gather power. Networked personal computers made the civil society too powerful. Needed a solution.
Why the Web and not just “Facebook native application” and “Google native application”? Well, it’s hard to maintain a hypertext document system made application platform. It limits competition. It also allows Facebook and Google popularity to affect web browser and web techologies popularity. If these don’t work in a browser, that browser is doomed.
While the verticals and monopolies themselves allow thieves and murderers in governments to control the Internet.
So - there weren’t that many websites, if you think about it, requiring any particular web technology when it came into existence. Those mostly started specifically for Google, Facebook etc services and/or policies. Say, HTML5 to phase out Netscape plugin API, which was presented as phasing out Flash (everybody hated Flash).
Mozilla followed those policies and appeared neutral, yes.
But in general the moment using Dillo or Netsurf or Links became plainly, completely not an option for the Web, it was decided. A world standard that has only a handful of compliant realizations is not a standard. It’s an oligopoly.
So, getting back to hypertext - Flash was hated by some because it didn’t allow to turn the whole webpage into an application, but that wasn’t its purpose. JS was a mistake, I think. Any interpreted content should have been embedded in its clear place separate from the rest of the page with its own plugin, similar to Flash applets. But - one can accept that in year 1996 they didn’t think of such consequences.
And remote big services not being standardized were also a mistake. I wrote a bit on that from time to time here, gets tiring to repeat - a lot of what the server side of many applications does is just routing to another client, computation and storage. One can devise a standard for remote services. So that local applications would be different, but would use the same pooled infrastructure, found and announced via trackers similar to torrents. With global identifiers of entities to allow interoperability, so that “post #12435324646dasgtshdryh” would be the same text on any of such storage services (having it) and at any point in time.
That, of course, is a bit late. In our current world things like Briar and other mesh are probably a better direction. One can have what I described over them too, but it will also require management of bandwidth and bottlenecks and stuff not reachable directly.
Both currently sucks.
The fact that they are now selling our data seems like both a browser problem and a leadership problem. If the browser were fine, we wouldn’t be seeing a moderate exodus to choices like Librewolf and Zen.
For those holding out for a hero: ladybird.org
Ladybird is a brand-new browser & web engine. Driven by a web standards first approach, Ladybird aims to render the modern web with good performance, stability and security.
the ladybird devs have a history of major transphobia though
some context and/or link would help for everyone who just learned about this project and knows nothing about the devs
There was a pull request to change “he” to “they” somewhere in the code and the dev refused, saying people should leave “their politics” out of it. I wouldn’t say it’s transphobic specifically - it may also be misogynistic. Either way, it doesn’t look good.
i can offer some context to that, but first let’s clear up that all the documentation has since been updated to use second-person pronouns, making it both friendlier and gender neutral. kling is fully on-board with that change.
the issue came in right after the big wave of people doing drive-by “code of conduct” PRs. there was a plague of accounts that only did that, and had no other connections to either projects or people. this is obviously a form of political activism, and while it’s not malicious, it does get in the way for volunteer developers of big open-source projects who are usually already swamped with work they’re not paid for. so creating these giant documents that have not been pre-discussed with the team doing the project is disruptive and misguided. having a code of conduct is good, but it needs to match the project.
anyway, in the middle of this a big PR comes in which changes shitloads of documentation. the standard PR view doesn’t show each change, it just shows “n files changed, +n lines -n lines”, and a description talking about “gender-neutral language”. now, kling is not a “typical” developer. he’s a former addict who started doing serenity and ladybird as therapy/rehab. i don’t know what that’s like, but i imagine it means you don’t have a lot of mental overhead for things you don’t want to do. so kling saw the description and the massive change set and didn’t want to deal with it.
it took a while but he was convinced to change it. if he had not, i would not be as charitable.
Thanks for the context - I still intensely dislike the “political” reaction, but people can learn and change. I also don’t like that Canadian arch-jackass Tobi Lutke is a major supporter of the project; he’s a bit like Brendan Eich. I’ll reserve judgment until the browser launches. I’ll definitely be keeping an eye on it.
yeah that ties in to my other comment; it’s not political in american english culture (well it is, but only to chuds), but other countries don’t have the same context for this stuff. and when those cultural barriers are crossed without knowing the differences, there is bound to be friction.
I honestly don’t understand the hate here. I get that he supported the bill to ban gay marriage and that’s terrible, but I’ve also heard that he left his politics at the door and treated everyone with respect, including the LGBT people at Mozilla. I honestly think he would’ve been a better CEO at Mozilla because he’s interested in the tech. His largest problem was making a personal contribution with his own money to an unpopular cause, and someone dug it up looking for dirt.
Isn’t that exactly how people should act? Leave your politics at home and work well with others. I work in a diverse group with a mix of immigrants, likely gay people, atheists and religious types, Trump supporters and critics, and even a couple furries. None of that matters and we work well together. In fact, most of the turnover we’ve had has been over compensation because our company has been stingy recently, and they all say they wouldn’t have considered leaving otherwise.
You can disagree on very important things and still work well together, it’s called professionalism. I dislike Eich’s views, but I believe he had way more professionalism than his loudest critics.
How on earth can you reconcile these two statements? “I respect you so much I’ll pass a law to make you illegal”?
I don’t understand how you can’t.
In a business setting, it’s called “professionalism”, and in a personal setting it’s called being a nice person. Most of my family is against gay marriage and don’t believe in gender fluidity, yet when my sister in law said her child is non-binary and would like to be referred to with they/then, they complied. Why? Believing those things doesn’t mean you hate LGBT people, it just means you disagree about policy. They love my sister in law and her kids, so they’ll do what they can to help them feel comfortable around them and want to participate in family gatherings.
I personally believe strongly that marriage should be available to all consenting adults, but I also believe gay marriage goes against God’s plan. Why? I believe everyone has the right to make their own choices and whether that’s acceptable to God isn’t my business. Maybe I’m misreading things, IDK, but my personal religious beliefs only guide my personal decisions and I believe I am supposed to love everyone regardless of their lifestyle. Whether someone else is sinning isn’t really my business, nor should it impact my love for them. And maybe they’re not sinning, again, IDK, it’s not my business.
I support same sex marriage (my church doesn’t) because I believe in freedom of choice, and that policy merely increases options for others and doesn’t decrease mine. Likewise for most LGBT policies, like bathroom use or gender change on IDs, you do you. We had an LGBT candidate at work (pretty obviously trans), and I was happily surprised that wasn’t an issue for my very conservative coworker during the interview (they’re an observant Muslim with conservative social views), and I went out of my way to make sure we both corrected for any subconscious bias we might have.
I don’t know Brendan Eich, maybe he’s actually a terrible person, idk. What I do know is he had a long career at Mozilla (nearly 20 years), and there were no public complaints about him until he was chosen as CEO. From all accounts, people were only mad about his $1k donation to prop 8, not about his conduct at work or anything of that nature. The board even asked him to stay in another capacity, but he left because he loved Mozilla and obviously he wasn’t able to be an effective leader if his presence encouraged people to recommend against using Firefox and other Mozilla products.
To me, it’s a crazy overreaction, he donated a pretty modest amount one time, six years prior, and had no complaints during his position as CTO. He absolutely got brigaded because someone decided to dig up donation records. If they didn’t, he probably would’ve been a successful CEO and refocused on the tech, instead of whatever nonsense the follow-up CEOs have been doing.
I disagree with Eich’s political views, but also think he was the best person for the CEO role. He seemed like a competent professional, and he was certainly technically competent given his long technical career at Mozilla.
This is very valuable context.
For citations, the only references I see to “pronouns” in their github project is in a section called “Human language policy” in
CONTRIBUTING.md(link). Here’s the relevant part:That sounds pretty cash-money to me.
There’s one additional reference in a pull request discussing whether or not to use “we” when referring to recommendations of the engineering team (as in “we recommend” vs “it is recommended”). Minutia.
I’m not as interested in litigating this matter than I am in putting it to bed (along with any and all definitive citations and evidence such that I can refer back to this comment thread in the future when the question inevitably comes up again.)
Thanks so much for this layout of everything. I wasn’t even aware of what was going on, and your comment put it all together. Cheers!
I’ll just copy a comment I made a while back. It was about the usage of “he” instead of gender neutral pronouns in the documentation:
So I looked further into this, and while I found awesomekling’s comment to be a cause of concern, I’m hoping it’s a cultural misunderstanding due to his Swedish background.
That comment is from 3 years ago, and since then there was a commit merged, that had the sole purpose of fixing these pronouns.
Jag pratar inte Svenska but I know enough that it has gendered pronouns just like English. Actually, it’s better than English in that it preserved the neuter singular pronoun (which used to be “thou” in English) so there’s even less excuse in terms of linguistic background.
this is incorrect. we recently added a neuter singular pronoun. “hen” was introduced in 2009, and not widely used until like 2019. Also, in technical documentation, masculine pronouns were taught as the default to use (both in swedish and in english) when i was in university in the early 10s. this has changed now, but it definitely wasn’t on the table when kling was in school.
Interesting, thanks for the correction! I thought it was a medieval form that stuck around.
Masculine being the default was the case for English (and French) too, but not anymore, and certainly not by implying anything other than the masculine is “political”.
yeah smaller languages have taken longer to adapt to that change, because it started in the anglophone world and the concepts of gendered language don’t translate well. it’s like how the word “man” in english used to mean “human” and not be gendered at all, and when language is updated to remove the – now gendered – word and then translated, the translation stops making any sense because the context of a word is so different.
i always give massive leeway when language is involved, because the culture around progressive language is basically 99% centred on the US.
Not really. Mandarin for example has different characters for “he” and “she”, but they are homophones (“ta”, or “tamen” plural) so you can’t tell who’s who in spoken language. Hungarian doesn’t use gendered pronouns and Finnish doesn’t either (actually, now that I think of it, that may be where you borrowed yours - isn’t it “hen” too?)
i’m not really talking about the grammar, but about the cultural meanings of the words. there may be implied gender in a mode of speaking even in a language without gendered pronouns. my grandmother would always assume people i was talking about were male if i didn’t use a gendered pronoun (like i would be talking about a colleague by referring to them as “my colleague”) because that’s the “cultural default” here still. it has changed a lot in the past five-ten years but it’s still the default.
and i actually don’t know where we got “hen” from. i do know that it was not originally meant to be an actual gender-neutral pronoun, but as a placeholder where gender is unknown or unimportant. it was created to replace the more cumbersome “han/hon” in legal texts, and not meant to be used to refer to specific people. but we do that anyway because it helps adoption.
looking it up it does seem to be taken from finnish! their word is “hän”, which would be pronounced about the same. i learned something.
I think this may be the issue to which you are referring:
hyperborea.org/reviews/…/ladybird-inclusivity/
While this is troubling to read about, this narrative’s lack of evidence or references keep me from accepting it at face value. Old mastodon chatter (and perhaps deleted posts or scuttled instances) may be difficult to retrieve, but GitHub discussions shouldn’t be hard to find.
So I’m withholding judgement for the moment.
UPDATE: Commenter lime!@feddit.nu wrote this terrific comment that provides confirmation of the above narrative, corrective action that the LadyBird engineering team has taken taken, plus some vitally important context of the entire kerfuffle. A+ work.
You don’t consider it rather exclusionary to imply that only men use computers?
at one point or another we all have a penis in us.
with a project named ladybird you’d think otherwise.
I suppose, unless you’ve watched King of the Hill.
I truly couldn't give a single solitary fuck what opinions the devs of software I use have, no matter what that opinion is. As long as they're not trying to shove that opinion down my throat via their software, their opinions literally have no effect on me whatsoever. You either, whether you want to believe that or not.
Exactly. How FOSS devs spend their time and money isn’t my business, what is my business is foundation financials and whether the software is reliable and safe to use.
I strongly disagree with Lemmy devs on politics and how they run their instances, but that doesn’t impact me so whatever.
As long as ladybird devs don’t go out of their way to be jerks to trans people, I’m good. The worst I’ve seen is rejecting pronoun changes in code comments and docs, which isn’t a big deal.
I think the problem is that certain views are much stronger indicators of someone being willing to eventually shove their views down your throat. If I was a big corporation shopping for, say, spam filter software, I’d rather sign a 3 year contract with a regular company than, for example, a company that is openly fundamentalist Christians. Why? Because the Christians are much more likely to start randomly making ridiculous changes that only make sense to other Christians, like spam filtering out anything with the word “Allah”, etc. They may not do that now, but I need to look further than just right now because I don’t want to get locked in to an ecosystem that is going to turn sour. Sure I can always switch, but why not just choose the one that has less risk of that at the onset?
Now some beliefs that I disagree with are less like this than others. For instance if the devs disagreed with me about their favorite movies, I’m not going to take that into consideration, because that’s not the sort of thing or the sort of person who is likely to abuse their power to aid that cause. But transphobia? That is exactly the sort of thing that someone, as has been proven many times now, will sit on and downplay until they are given power and influence to act on it. Using their software contributes to their influence, especially in the browser world.
Lastly, all other things equal, I’d rather use the product of a smart team full of smart people, than a dumb team full of dumb people. Transphobia is a dumb belief to have, it is a result of being unintelligent. Many smart people (and let’s be honest, especially developers) won’t want to work with someone like that. Whether you think that’s reasonable or not, it’s hard to deny. It’s certainly hard to picture any great trans developers wanting to contribute. So a lot of things add up, especially when looking a few links down the causal chain, to make it more than just a matter of whether they believe differently than I do.
This article appears to be pretty even-handed.
My assessment? Get fucked, Ladybird. I don’t want to trust my web security to people who think like this, especially since web security is very political and will only become more so as the Trump administration continues.
After reading this, in particular the “The Facts” section, my understanding is: he got pulled into making a political statement about gender and he didn’t want to get involved with that.
Yet again, that “crowd” didn’t like Ladybird’s refusal to play, therefore that “crowd” does what they’re known best doing: cry high and loud on the internet playing the victim.
In a sense, that “crowd” shoved their political agenda down his throat, and that’s the only thing I personally find reprehensible here.
Refusal to make a “political” statement is very much political when the politics in question is about acknowledging non-men exist. There is no politically neutral choice when there are two options who are both political.
TL;DR;
So not some kind of JK Rowling transphobia or even stock republiQan misogyny as much as a fairly tone-deaf executive position on documentation that became a thing.
Making documentation gender-neutral is not radical or ‘political’ other than it’s trying to reflect the reality that more than just men use and create code. It seems like Kling thought his project was under threat of takeover by some radical pansexual furry anarcho-collective (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and said something stupid like “documentation isn’t a place for political debate” which, is sort of true and also not relevant to the change requested.
As the article states, the real issue is the doubling down. That’s not good.
That’s valid tbh. Nice Muslims say Ilah. Mean monotheists say Allah.
unless they start curating things like censoring specific words or searches.
Right, so what does that have to do with ladybird
If that’s true, shame on them. But it doesn’t mean their browser isn’t good.
I’m not looking for a hero, I’m looking for stability.
Did you read the thing?
The fact that it’s aiming to be stable doesn’t mean it is. It’s still a work in progress unlike other browsers.
Currently, it’s pretty shit. It starts up in fullscreen with a non managed window, well, fuck that noise.
Why not just run a community build of Firefox, like IceCat?
If Firefox doesn’t keep up with web standards, neither will any of the forks
Why the downvotes??
For clarity, Mozilla isn’t one thing. There’s Mozilla Corporation (profit) and the Mozilla Foundation (nonprofit). Firefox is a product of Mozilla Corporation. And yes, the need to make a profit is a bug not a feature.
That’s a weird way of saying firefox is not fine.
<img alt="" src="https://d.furaffinity.net/art/wilde95/1597235855/1597235855.wilde95_comm_34.jpg">
I can’t keep browser hopping. I want to stay with firefox. Please don’t get worse!
I’ve been very happy with Waterfox so far. Made with the Gecko Engine but not maintained by Mozilla.
forks cant survive without firefox unfortunately
Qutebrowser is my main and Lynx is my “feed” browser. Qutebrowser you don’t need anything else. it just works and you can script the thing to your hearts content.
For a long time I was using Floorp, and while I like floorp and the dev team behind it, I just stopped using it as my main. Sure it’s a fork of firefox and they’re at the whims of mozilla which lately has been clearly evident with the slow updates to floorp.
Qutebrowser just works. The dev for it is a nice dude who is easily accessible for help. the community for it is also very helpful. the integration with things like greasemonkey make scripting and customizing anything so painfully easy. I mean there’s a great script for it right now that completely 100% circumvents youtube ads and it’s been working for months straight without any need to update. It also meshes extremely well with my Bitwarden.
I’ll never use a different browser again.
Excuse you, I don’t have a problem.
Called it
mozilla sucks
I just moved back to ff in November, because of ubo. I have to move again? Where to?
I run IronFox for Android and Librewolf on Desktop. Since they are both Firefox forks, migrating is not that bad.