Unrelated because it’s a different problem, but if a website actually disables your right-click, try holding Shift while right-clicking.

Ah I was just wondering, been a while since LWD tried to stir up some Mozilla-related controversy.

I think I’m getting it, I’m just trying to say that I think you’re underestimating how hard it is to fund web browser development.

What incentives does the for-profit (that’s owned by the non-profit) have that a non-profit without a for-profit subsidiary wouldn’t have? Both aren’t able to maximise revenue for shareholders, and both will always have the option to pay their leaders extravagantly.

And as a well-paid programmer, I haven’t been known to donate $100 a year to software projects. As a conservative estimate, let’s say Mozilla could run Firefox at one-fifth the current budget, that would still mean we’d need a million people like you that would continue to do so even if, say, the most-often-voted-for feature request is misinterpreted, or changing a “view all tabs” icon suddenly pisses off a significant portion of them enough to stop their donations.

And even if that happened, it’s not clear that that would necessarily lead to gaining market share on default browsers or ones that get heavily promoted through search engine homepages or shadily bundled with installers. Which would still mean more and more websites would start to ignore it, which would mean web compatibility would continue to get worse and worse.

Ah, that’s the secret? Why didn’t anyone tell me this before?! All this slaving away at my day job, when I could just have built a self-sustaining good product - it’s that easy!

2. ???
3. Profit break-even, somehow?

This is very well-informed, nice job on the research.

Google hasn’t been forbidden from paying Mozilla - yet, at least. They’ve only been ruled a monopolist, but what consequences they will face is yet to be determined, and then the appeals process will follow, so it’ll be a couple of years before there’s any potential impact.

Mozilla has also explicitly tried to have other baskets to put eggs in (Relay. VPN, Monitor Plus, Hubs, etc.), it’s just that none of those have been as successful.

I believe MDN and standards partcipation is part of the Corporation. The latter definitely, because implementation experience matters for that. The former also has its own monetisation, and has a lot of content contributed by the Open Web Docs foundation.

We’ll see, and I’d be happy if it wins!

And yet all the big apps are still using Electron.

Usually the answer is limited resources with unclear payoff, i.e. even with Electron’s success, it’s not clear that there’s room for an alternative in the market, and it’d be a lot of effort to do.

Ah, so it should just be better! I wonder why nobody thought of that yet :P

(Sorry, I’m in a sarcastic mood, but you get my point.)

Anyone who thinks they know what needs to happen for Firefox to regain market share, needs to consider what would happen if someone forks Firefox and makes that happen.

There’s no way that CSS theming is it. And in general, “not doing something” isn’t going to be it, either.

I don’t know much about WebGL and WebRTC specifically, but sometimes it’s just inherent to the feature, and it’s literally impossible to implement it without allowing fingerprinting the user.

For example, your screen resolution/viewport size can also be used to fingerprint you. It is impossible to allow adjusting a website to different viewport sizes without leaking those viewport sizes - the only way to restrict fingerprinting is to not offer the feature of using arbitrary viewport sizes (which is what Tor browser does, for example).

Exhibit #17837 why Firefox isn’t “just more hardened by default”.

It’s also not necessarily just because Google wants more of your data (which they do); they may also just use a feature that can also be used to fingerprint you. But since it’s also just useful in general, it’s not disabled by default by regular Firefox.

Well, check out Solid and let me know if you have questions, I have worked with it (and Turtle).

It plays a big role in https://solidproject.org.

That said, there is no way it is feasible to represent the meaning of arbitrary English text in Turtle (or any other RDF serialisation format). There’s a reason the “Semantic Web” concept never really caught on.

Likewise Topics API.

I imagine part of the reason is that uBOL’s target audience might have less of a problem with not getting it via AMO? After all, it probably wouldn’t even exist if Chrome didn’t pull its MV3 shenanigans.