A Mozilla petition I feel might be pertinent.

[daemonspudguy]

If this is inappropriate, feel free to remove this, but apparently the French government has decided to try to force web browser vendors from censoring websites they deem unconscionable. I know this forum has historically had mixed feelings on Mozilla, but I still wanted to share this. https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/campa ... -websites/

[Moonchild]

I'd favour this effort if it weren't for the fact that Mozilla just uses this as a vessel to try and eek out more donations from people (while they do not need financial support from users, last I checked their financials ). No indication why they need funding for this campaign either. What are they going to do with this money to "win this campaign" as they state?... other than just dumping it into their foundation pool?
So that leaves a rather bitter taste in my mouth.

[suzyne]

while they do not need financial support from users, last I checked their financials

Here is a story by Bryan Lunduke that goes into their finances which is an interesting read.

https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-investigating-the-bizarre-finances-of-mozilla

[athenian200]

Here is a story by Bryan Lunduke that goes into their finances which is an interesting read.

https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-investigating-the-bizarre-finances-of-mozilla

I'm not surprised to hear that at all, really. I was watching a YouTube video recently that mentioned that apparently none of Mozilla's donations are actually spent on the browser. The Mozilla Foundation does all the political activism and non-profit work, while the Mozilla Corporation which is funded by search and advertising deals is the one that pays for the development of the browser. Supposedly this is because software development isn't generally seen as a non-profit activity or public service, it's seen as either a hobby or a job, so they can't write that off. But they operate as a non-profit to take donations to spend on activism, and then get the funds for the browser development from other sources.

If you look closely at their website, it kind of makes sense. They say that they "work to keep the web open and private," and don't specifically say that the money will fund the development of Firefox. Which is essentially a non-statement, because open and private can be seen as opposites, meaning that regardless of which stance they take on any given issue, they can be seen as living up to their mission statement. To make a long story short, Mozilla is even shadier than the likes of Google, because at least Google, Amazon, and other big corporations admit that they are for-profit corporations and don't pretend to be "for the user" to the degree Mozilla does. I mean, wanting to make money is one thing, claiming to be a non-profit and then mentioning that you also engage in software development expecting people to infer a connection between the non-profit and the browser is another...

It would be like if McDonald's claimed to be all about the Ronald McDonald Foundation and helping kids, and tried to suggest selling cheap burgers was just a side business to keep the non-profit going and encourage people to come in the doors and think about making a donation, and not the main emphasis or what they are all about.

[daemonspudguy]

A part of me feels weirded out that the article made a point to mention that Mozilla donates to a group who is led by someone who, as he put it "regularly discusses her anger at 'White Colonialism' and hatred of 'CIS' men and women" especially with the scare quotes around those two things. Why does what McKensie Mack do on Twitter matter to what Mozilla does. And then there's the bizarre turn where Lunduke discusses the Action Response Collaborative's founder Neil Lewis Jr. who focuses on what Lunduke has decided to call vaccine acceptance.

TL;DR it's a Brian Lunduke article with the expected bizarre political takes while at the same time claiming to be apolitical.

[andyprough]

Seems kind of strange timing, given that just a year or so ago Mozilla had a press statement saying that browsers and social media should be tools to "rid the world of misinformation" or "do more than deplatforming" or some such nonsense.

It's as if Mozilla is saying, "we want to censor you, just not in the way that the French government will tell us to".

[daemonspudguy]

"Deplatforming" of course being code for "removing someone who violated site guidelines regardless of their once existent size" because just saying the Controversial Political Figure X violated Twitter guidelines is apparently impossible. Yes, I'm talking about Trump. It's hard not to talk about him when this topic comes up.

[Night Wing]

Bottom line. Short and sweet.

Mozilla does not need donation money for their "so called" mission at all. Mozilla gets PLENTY of money, as in "Millions" (that is Millions with an "M"), from Google/Alphabet.

[daemonspudguy]

Bottom line. Short and sweet.

Mozilla does not need donation money for their "so called" mission at all. Mozilla gets PLENTY of money, as in "Millions" (that is Millions with an "M"), from Google/Alphabet.

I agree. I think Mozilla does some good work from time to time but they do not currently need money.

[andyprough]

Bottom line. Short and sweet.

Mozilla does not need donation money for their "so called" mission at all. Mozilla gets PLENTY of money, as in "Millions" (that is Millions with an "M"), from Google/Alphabet.

Billions with a " B" if you look over a five or ten year period. Promoting your number one competitor is big money if you do it right. Apple knows - taking hundreds of millions from Microsoft back when they were broke, ensuring MS Office and other MS products work across all their platforms for decades. Apple's probably been one of Microsoft's biggest cash cows.

[daemonspudguy]

Microsoft did not invest hundreds of millions into Apple (it was millions but still considerably less), nor was it to prove they have competition. That would literally prove the exact opposite of that, that Microsoft was a monopoly and was manipulating the market to make it seem as if they weren't.
Edit: apparently Microsoft invested 150 million in both cash and stock options, which I concede technically is hundreds of millions.

[daemonspudguy]

Microsoft also promised to continue developing Office for Macintosh, not to "help" Apple, but to settle a lawsuit about Microsoft (allegedly) stealing QuickTime to make Video for Windows.

[Moonchild]

It's as if Mozilla is saying, "we want to censor you, just not in the way that the French government will tell us to".

That is always the way of authoritarians. They want to censor by pushing their agenda, never anyone else's. Apply hypocrisy as you see fit.

[ron_1]

Edit: apparently Microsoft invested 150 million in both cash and stock options, which I concede technically is hundreds of millions.

No, technically you were right the first time. The lowest amount possible for "hundreds of millions" is 200 million.

[Mæstro]

I have just come from commenting on grammar and feel in the mood to chime in.
I have one and a half apples is well and good. The plural may be used for 1½, so 150 million is hundreds of millions. (I wish English gave this number its own name, as German has anderthalb.) The long system is also better than the short: 10⁹ is a milliard and a billion is 10¹². I will fight the changing usage; mid-twentieth century British English is the best English.

[andyprough]

Microsoft did not invest hundreds of millions into Apple (it was millions but still considerably less), nor was it to prove they have competition. That would literally prove the exact opposite of that, that Microsoft was a monopoly and was manipulating the market to make it seem as if they weren't.
Edit: apparently Microsoft invested 150 million in both cash and stock options, which I concede technically is hundreds of millions.

You're not counting the billions that Bill Gates and other MS execs have personally invested in Apple, but that's OK, who's counting?

Microsoft also promised to continue developing Office for Macintosh, not to "help" Apple, but to settle a lawsuit about Microsoft (allegedly) stealing QuickTime to make Video for Windows.

Yes, how unfortunate for MS to have been "forced" to provide paid copies of its office suite to the second largest desktop OS, I'm sure this has been a source of anguish over the years as the Apple users' unwanted money has pushed its way into the MS coffers.

[BlakeyRat]

Bottom line. Short and sweet.

Mozilla does not need donation money for their "so called" mission at all. Mozilla gets PLENTY of money, as in "Millions" (that is Millions with an "M"), from Google/Alphabet.

Actually, Mozilla gets Hundreds of Millions from Alphabet/Google.

In 2020 Mozilla signed a deal with them that runs till the end of this year (2023) and pays $400 Million per year.

the obvious question would be -- WTF are they doing with all that money?

[daemonspudguy]

Yes, how unfortunate for MS to have been "forced" to provide paid copies of its office suite to the second largest desktop OS, I'm sure this has been a source of anguish over the years as the Apple users' unwanted money has pushed its way into the MS coffers.

Apple doesn't force Microsoft to do anything anymore. Microsoft is free to take their ball and leave. They won't because Microsoft financially benefits from Microsoft Office being available on macOS. I can't believe this is a statement that needed to be said. Also, what Bill Gates invests in has fuckall to do with what Microsoft as a company invests in. That's like saying Tesla owns Twitter because both are owned by Elon Musk. It doesn't work like that.

[athenian200]

Microsoft also promised to continue developing Office for Macintosh, not to "help" Apple, but to settle a lawsuit about Microsoft (allegedly) stealing QuickTime to make Video for Windows.

Off-topic:
I'm actually not sure if Microsoft really even needed that incentive to continue developing Office for Mac. A fun little trivia fact I learned recently... Excel actually started on Macintosh before Windows was even a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft ... ly_history

The truth is probably that Microsoft doesn't really view Mac as a threat and never has, because they operate in a different market segment that offers premium computing experiences to artists and creative types, while Microsoft has always been more about cheaper machines for business users, and later on PC gamers. Neither of which are markets Apple has really tapped into in the same way. Mac is not a gaming platform, and not many people who just need Office are going to shell out for a MacBook.

[Tharthan]

Off-topic:
I am of the opinion that the last good Mac OS X version was Snow Leopard, and the last good Windows version was Windows 7.

We are in a situation now where arguably things are shaping up to only have a small number of more niche operating systems like GNU/Linux, Solaris, and perhaps FreeBSD, available for a person who doesn't want A. preinstalled spyware and keyloggers on their computer, B. a "walled garden" software environment (or something approaching that more and more by the day), C. forced updates, D. (related to C) the developing company shoving trash down your throat whether you like it or not, and E. ugly interfaces riddled with whitespace, hamburger menus, poor programming, as well as unprofessionalism and unseriousness.

This leaves non-power-users who nevertheless wish to avoid that sort of stuff in a difficult spot. I am thankful that I have just enough tech know-how to make the switch over to GNU/Linux that I will be making soon. Many others simply just do not have the level of tech-savviness to make tech-related decisions that would be in their best interests and that they themselves would be happily open to.