this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2025
845 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

72799 readers
3107 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] underline960@sh.itjust.works 242 points 1 week ago (25 children)

It's no longer the fault of long-term CEO Mitchell Baker, she of the six-million-bucks salary. She took the cash and left in February 2024. After the February 2024 layoffs that went with the "open source AI" announcement, in November, new boss Laura Chambers laid off another third of the staff, but somehow found the money to hire new executives.

Money is the problem. Not too little, but too much. Where there's wealth, there's a natural human desire to make more wealth. Ever since Firefox 1.0 in 2004, Firefox has never had to compete. It's been attached like a mosquito to an artery to the Google cash firehose. The Reg noted it in 2007, and it made more the next year. We were dubious when Firefox turned five.

...

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 42 points 6 days ago (22 children)

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 16 points 6 days ago (21 children)

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.

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago

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.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)