Supposedly, I am a human, who does very human things.
Do people realize that if Firefox dies (in the many ways that could be interpreted), all of these downstream forks will also die right?
Like, the work to in essence remove unwanted parts of a code base is admirable but its an utterly miniscule fraction of the work that goes into maintaining a modern browser, keeping up with standards, sending people to be voices at conventions, etc.
Literally Firefox.
I feel like the reasons are obvious and I am constantly amazed at people who choose offshoots that end up having problems jsut as bad or worse than Chrome.
Firefox actually uses an engine independent of Chromium
Firefox keeps developer documentation for the actual open web in a a clear fashion better than anyone else with MDN.
Firefox is responsible for all of the heavy lifting for any of the browsers downstream of it that people seem to want to switch to so that Mozilla is less supported and the browsers they are on also break (which is bizzare footgun behaviour in my opinion, and exactly why the people who are idealists inherently can’t win. They shoot themselves in the foot with idealism so hard that companeis don’t even have to care about their opinions).
Firefox has more resistant than the engine makers of any other browser to anti autonomy web changes like Chromes manifest 3, tvarious new tracking mechanisms and more.
Excuse a little bit of snark at hypothetical responses below, but Im just so frustrated Ill let off a little steam here:
bUt Ai.
So they have a few AI features you have to purposefully find or stumble into, and that means you are going to do everything in your power to make sure your last actual chance to avoid completely Google domination dies too?
You are basically begging for the even more intense enshitification that will come if Firefox actually dies.
bUt SoMeOnE eLsE cAn CoNtInUe DeVeLoPmEnT
Oh yeah? Someone else is going to take on this project with a massive amount of legacy code, inside knowledge and hundreds of people working on it constantly to keep it completely up to date??
You must have been confused when I mentioned above Mozilla does the heavy lifting for the browsers down stream. Just because someone makes a fork that removes features doesnt mean they are equipped to handle the level of work done in the code they are downstream of.
Anyways, the bottom line is, for now, if you actually value open source, the answer is Firefox.
He never stopped doing bad things, he just started rehabing his image
Why would he give a shit what people think about him? Others rich people don’t because when you’ve got enough money you can insulate yourself entirely from what the world thinks.
This is the most ridiculous line of reasoning.
Firstly, many rich people care. Many care about their “legacy”. They want their names on big donations, and on school campuses.
Secondly, many rich people spend inordinate amounts on PR advisement firms, demonstrating that there are significant dollar values put into caring about this. We’re talking about PR for the person, not even for a business.
Nor do the people judging him so harshly.
They judge from what is known. You judge from giving him the benefit of the doubt between the cracks.
The fuck? Why would he donate money and save countless lives just to benefit from it via some claimed business link?
This is such a bizarre misrepresentation of what my comment is clearly saying.
I am clearly pointing out that he is still doing evil and you are being blinded by some fancy curated numbers.
I don’t even know how you got to that conclusion.
I doubt you actually believe this, at least if we are understanding the words as written.
Just based on the website we are talking on, I am going to assume we have a few shared moral similarities, at least at a glance.
We think murder, rape, discrimination based on inalienable traits, domestic abuse, religious fanaticism, theft outside of exceptions are wrong.
If we start going down even that quickly thought up list, and just look at surveys from groups throughout the world, we start chunking massive percentages of people off of our “good” list very quickly.
These are nowhere near exact numbers because the point isn’t about any specific one of these, but about disqualifying behaviours and points of view.
Most people don’t murder, but many support it. Let’s just say we are only thinking about people who will murder at some point in their lives, and guesstimate that at 1% off the list.
99% good
Most people don’t rape… or do they? How many third world or religiously fanatic nations treat rape as standard, within marriages, on people of lower status, etc.
Even in western nations, the numbers of people who are sexually assaulted by people they know are more like 1 in [single digit number], and then further surveys always reveal that there is probably significant under-reporting going on, with many people unable to believe they were raped, told to be silent, and who ultimately rationalize away the event.
Now you go to countries with religious fanaticism, and many if not most condone rape in some fashion, especially spousal rape.
I would estimate, that the amount of people who rape, extremely roughly guesstimating, is around 1/10th the population, if not higher.
Some will overlap with the murderers of course, but this is just a thought experiment, and I already think this guess is on the low side, so lets move on.
89% good
Discrimination is where we start chunking hard. Even if you try to be charitable here, surveys show that even within western countries many are ok with and regularly discriminate against people for their inalienable traits. You go to poorer countries or countries with less stable situations and this gets even worse.
Lets just guesstimate that of the non overlaps, this takes 3/10 off the list, giving quite a bit of leeway to people with less blatant instances.
59% good
I could keep going but I hope you see the point I am making here and why I think that if just about anyone here sat down and truly pieced together what the average person was like, with whatever their personal list of disqualifiers from being a good person were, they would quickly come to the conclusion, that most people are not good, and could easily come to the conclusion that many were horrible, depending on what horrible meant in that context. Horrible doesn’t have to be saved for only hitler just because its not used for someone who steals a candy bar.
So many people have a very binary view of others, and Lemmy’s the same, as the downvoting shows.
What a ridiculous argument you’ve made here. The voting system is literally binary. No one can vote 7/10 on messaging, 4/10 on points.
Does this offset his earlier negative behaviour? I honestly think it might do.
This is exactly why hes done it. You don’t know what hes actually responsible for. You don’t see the pharmaceutical investments hes made, farmland he owns, or his bad takes (like recently suggesting that we should abandon the climate because he’s dipping his toes into the AI space).
You see some flashy figures and figure, well that must be a good guy!
Some “nuance” that is.
This is some serious self eating idealist talk here.
In life you must realize there are many situations where you think about the context and consequences of your choices, and you choose the closest to viable option.
Firefox is that.
It sucks that there is that google deal, but ultimately the world effects of firefox dying are wide reaching despite its diminishing numbers and so much greater than so many casually Mozilla doomer takes realize.