this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
215 points (98.6% liked)

Open Source

36598 readers
331 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 20 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Imagine how much open source software could be developed for $500 million/year. What the fuck has firefox done?

[–] SpicyColdFartChamber@lemm.ee 13 points 20 hours ago

They've paid their CEO.

[–] B0rax@feddit.org 5 points 18 hours ago

500 million would pay for almost 5000 full time developers.

[–] phantomwise@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago

Hopefully Mozilla won't die until Ladybird or Servo is ready 😅

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago
  1. Finish off Firefox
  2. Break up Chrome
  3. Profit
[–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 55 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Oh look we're back to the "open source software can't survive on its own without gobs of money and million-dollar CEOs wah wah wah" again.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 day ago

Fiy, the Mozilla Foundation is one of the highest rates charities on Charity Navigator.

They don't always make the best choices as far as product direction, but as a charity, they are quite respectable.

[–] sunglocto@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You say that as if we're lying. Mozilla's entire revenue is from the search deal. If it goes away, you can kiss the entire company goodbye. Not saying that OSS is inherently unable to survive or anything like that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Wtf you on about?

The grand majority of all costs for Firefox are in engineering salaries. And there is no million dollar CEO relating to the nonprofit's expenses, that CEO is paid for from funds from the for profit organization.

Browsers are CRAZY expensive to build and maintain. And teams of engineers are crazy expensive.

[–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Thank you for repeating the talking points.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] boboliosisjones@feddit.nu 94 points 2 days ago (7 children)
[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

CEO is paid for from the for profit. The majority of costs are engineering salaries for Firefox.

[–] crumbguzzler5000@feddit.org 15 points 1 day ago

Yeah, but their job is like reeeally hard!! They deserve it. /s

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 38 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well goodbye mozilla it wasn't great knowing you. Hopefully you are able to fuck over the devs and golden parachute your c-suite bastards one last time.

[–] brax@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Maybe, but what are the odds of a fork taking off? It was started under the codename "Phoenix" and went by "Firebird" for some time before becoming "Firefox".

Maybe it's time for a fork to rise from the ashes and take off...

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Any fork will die a slow and painful death of it can't get the necessary funding for project management and maintainer salaries.

It will also dwindle, hard, towards irrelevancy.

In world where the only viable browser is one owned and operated by Google.

[–] unique_hemp@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 20 hours ago

Even worse - it looks like Google might be forced to sell Chrome to some AI company.

[–] phantomwise@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

I'm not that pessimistic, development for Ladybird seems to be going well and those crazy people are building it from scratch rather than basing it on Chromium or Firefox. There's also Servo. When Mozilla dies the forks will hang on for a while then we'll have alternatives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2YGzaaDXgQ

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is going to probably sound like a stupid idea, but I mean this earnestly:

Can we just make Internet 2? Just a new underlying protocol with less restrictive browser requirements, sure you might need to use Chrome to log in to your bank, but we could just host everything else on the fedinet. Just like back in the old days, webrings hosted on closet servers and rented racks.

Google didn't build the internet so why do they have so much clout about how it's run? We can just start over again with self hosting. This time we even have all the knowledge we gained from already doing it the first time. I'm picturing an entire second layer of internet unlinked with the first one. Kind of like onion sites I guess, the more I think about this the more I'm realizing that the tor network is probably exactly what I'm talking about. Just that, but instead of hosting pirated content or weird porn or bitcoin assassins it's just a low stakes noncorporate internet protocol. You probably won't want to do a lot of transactions on it, but social media or personal websites or video hosting would probably be fine.

[–] N0x0n@lemmy.ml 2 points 23 hours ago

The thing you describe is probably I2P and epsites.

[–] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 days ago

The fork that takes off will be the one where the Firefox devs move to. Which isn't predictable. We could make our own foundation, without the blackjack and hookers (cause based on how mozilla was doing things it sure seems like all they did), and make it more as a means for the devs to get paid for their work.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 days ago (2 children)

and before that it was Netscape

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why can't they just use the Wikipedia model? That should bring in enough to cover development and operating costs.

[–] Adalast@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because a browser is several orders of magnitudee more complex than a website.

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wikimedia is even using php still. Firefox created Rust I believe, in order to advance.

[–] denshi@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Rust was originally created by a Mozilla dev as a hobby project. Also, the Mozilla rust team was fired in 2020 during a "restructuring".

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 hours ago
[–] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 20 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Maybe, just as a crazy thought here, jwz was right. Mozilla and Firefox exist for 2 purposes - to build the standard reference browser, free of corporate crud (like, say, Google WebExtensions); and to be an absolute attack dog against ridiculous corporate desires.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 days ago (9 children)

Its interesting they don't have all the services Proton does. I'd pay them for a email and VPN combo.

[–] bishbosh@lemm.ee 16 points 2 days ago (7 children)

How much active development does a browser engine need? If Mozilla died would I quickly be finding a larger chunk of websites that aren't supported? Because as it sits, Firefox feels like one of the most corporate pieces of open source software I use daily, and I need to know just how tragic it would be if Mozilla died.

[–] zenforyen@feddit.org 15 points 1 day ago

In the old days, a few motivated nerds could write a browser. Now all you can realistically do is take a browser engine and build some user interface around it. That what most "alternative browsers" do - tweaking or repackaging.

These days, a browser is like it's own operating system with sandboxing, various Interfaces to periphery devices, hardware acceleration for GPU and all the bells and whistles taken for granted now.

I'd say that imagining it to be on a scale similar to working on the Linux Kernel is more right than wrong.

So we definitely very much want Firefox to survive, or it will be much worse than the Linux/Mac/Windows trilemma. Microsoft Edge is chromium under the hood too. Any many desktop "apps".

[–] solrize@lemmy.world 27 points 2 days ago

If Mozilla died would I quickly be finding a larger chunk of websites that aren’t supported?

Likely yes, as Google will keep enshittifying the web unless stopped by antitrust or whatever. Which isn't looking so likely.

[–] Majestic@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 day ago

A ton. Mozilla is already behind on all kinds of miscellaneous less used standards implementations compared to Chrome AFAIK. On top of that there are security fixes needed monthly and realistically you need to be able to push emergency patches within 48 hours or less (really 1/4 or 1/2 that) or people are going to flee because they got cryptolockered because of you.

How quickly would sites be unsupported? Hard to say. Most likely large chunks of the internet would start blocking Mozilla user agents as an out of date security threat for their userbase before it actually ran into actual implementation problems. The problem would be that, websites and services no longer even bothering to try to support Mozilla and making changes that break things, and of course security holes and exploits which would likely eventually lead to no-click complete computer compromises and other very bad things. Once it falls far enough behind on standards a lot of sites will block it for that reason because they don't want bug reports or to spend money chasing down an issue potentially caused by an out of date piece of software.

Google or whoever owns Chrome would keep pushing new web standards at a fast pace to kill and bury any attempts to keep Firefox running. At that point there's nothing really stopping them closed sourcing large parts of Chrome to kill privacy forks and lock down control of the web which most big websites would be fine with as Google's interest is in getting through ads and preventing the end user from control over their own computer in favor of the interests of the website owner.

It would be apocalyptic potentially for what remains of the open web and user freedom.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Except it isn't. And we know it isn't because the amount you spend on Firefox vs the rest of Mozilla is peanuts

[–] frozenspinach@lemmy.ml 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not even remotely true, this is a myth. Most of what they spend is on development, operations, and legal. They publish their 990 online which gives the breakdown. IIRC the foundation gets like 2%.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›