You’re either saying: Mozilla can’t afford to hire another set of developers to add IPFS, Firefox is too poorly written for this to be reasonably done, or Mozilla doesn’t actually care about the decentralized web to even try.

None of the reasons really sheds a good like on Mozilla.

> Or Mozilla doesn’t actually care about the decentralized web to even try.

I think this is closer to being true, as someone who forks ff and has had to remove/add stuff and compile it myself for almost 5 years now.

I'm tempted to start working on adding native ipfs support for myself in netwerk/protocol/ipfs…

It's the first one, they can't afford it, they actually laid off a bunch of people less than a year ago.

why would mozilla pay to add a fad technology or take on the tech debt?

Some of us believe that the client-server model has led us to the current situation, ruled by internet giants. A future where people are less reliant on giants is within our reach, the biggest hurdle is making it available to the masses.

Hopefully uptake by non-mainstream browsers like Brave will increase the exposure, attract developers, increase the network and get us closer to having IPFS, Hypercore or some other protocol available to the mainstream, whether that be in Firefox or by some other means.

Besides, you could argue that browsers have added plenty of fad technologies over the past few years, DRM comes to mind.

> IPFS, Hypercore or some other protocol available to the mainstream, whether that be in Firefox or by some other means

TIL about hypercore! Looks like an interesting concept based on append-only logs. It reminds me of this work being done at VMware: https://github.com/vmware/node-replication

The biggest hurdle is convincing the masses that your way is better than the current way.

I don't think that is ever going to happen.