Is this because of your opinion on the fairness of her salary, or some other issue?

What childish nonsense has you all up in arms for a product you don't pay for?

1. Under her leadership Mozilla has lost virtually all of its users. It has been reduced to less than 10% of what it had before, maybe worse - I haven't kept up.

2. At the beginning of Covid, a time when remote work was on the rise and tech valuations were through the roof, a time when the browser was more important than ever, she took her largest payout and fired hundreds of employees. She was compensated at over $5M dollars, enough money to pay a team of engineers for years.

3. Firefox has utterly failed to capture Enterprise market, where Chrome has managed to dominate. I doubt most people are even aware that a corp managed Firefox is an option, they have done such a poor job marketing it.

4. Every initiative Mozilla has come out with has completely failed to gain traction. Something like a VPN could have been a great fit for Mozilla but they did nothing with it. Mozilla has been incapable, organizationally, of capitalizing on technology - the thing they're kinda supposed to do exclusively.

She has failed in every conceivable way as a CEO. She has failed in terms of the mission, she has failed her employees, she has failed her users, she has failed to be an example as a leader.

I am not betting on Mozilla's future, I'm not going to assume that they're capable of competing at all let alone competing while maintaining a vision of the open web. They're dysfunctional and it starts right at the top.

The question here isn't "is Google's CEO bad?" it's "Should I be using Firefox on the assumption that it will help create a 'free' web?". I don't care about anyone else's salary.

And no I don't care about their other failed products, it's totally irrelevant.

...

> And no I don't care about their other failed products, it's totally irrelevant.

It's quite hard to take your ideological stance seriously.

1. I use Chrome because Chrome works best for me

2. People are proposing I use Firefox because Firefox has a mission that people want to align with

3. Firefox has terrible leadership and can not execute on their mission, I am not switching browsers to one that's run by an utter failure unless they either build a much better browser or they fire the fool who has put them in this position

And nobody is asking you to "bet on" Firefox. If you start using it and the company somehow collapses, you could switch to another browser in less than 10 minutes. You don't need to buy stock in Mozilla or something.

Mozilla has a terrible CEO, Google has nothing to do with that.

Google only has to do with that because this thread is about GP using Chrome instead of Firefox because of Mozilla‘a CEO.

What do Firefox’s enterprise market share and Mozilla’s initiatives that are unrelated to Firefox have to do with whether Firefox would work for you as a browser?

> What childish nonsense has you all up in arms for a product you don't pay for?

If this is your argument for not using Firefox, then it does read like the reason you're not using it is that it isn't popular with others.

lol another way of framing that is that her compensation makes up something like 30-40% of all user donations made to Mozilla. I think that's far more relevant than whatever Google's CEO makes.

> If this is your argument for not using Firefox, then it does read like the reason you're not using it is that it isn't popular with others.

All of my points are supporting my overall issue - that Mozilla can not execute on its mission effectively while their current CEO is in place.

The absolute failure to maintain market share is obviously quite relevant. If market share didn't matter in order to advance an ideology then we wouldn't be in this situation right now and there would be no reason for me to switch anyway.

So no, I'm not going to make a decision to support a browser that has one benefit to me - its ideology - when their leader is obviously incapable of executing effectively on that ideology. If they remove her as CEO then maybe someone who is effective can take place, at which point my support puts ideology back on the table and I'll consider switching.

Oh come on now, that's a ridiculous statement. That's AT BEST one year for a small team of 5 people working anywhere near Mozilla's headquarters.

So use LibreWolf like me:

Up to date, based on Firefox, but without Mozilla getting a cent.

If I'm going to switch for ideological purposes I'm going to need to see a browser that can actually follow through on its ideology.

1. I use Chrome because Chrome works best for me

2. People are proposing I use Firefox because Firefox has a mission that people want to align with

3. Firefox has terrible leadership and can not execute on their mission, I am not switching browsers to one that's run by an utter failure unless they either build a much better browser or they fire the fool who has put them in this position

This is not complicated. If you're asking me to use a worse product (from my perspective) for ideological reasons, which I actually align with, then using that product had better actually advance that ideology - something I do not believe Mozilla is capable of doing while their current CEO is sitting. I have then expressed why I believe the CEO is incapable and a failure. Saying "But Google's CEO is bad" doesn't change that - I'm not using Chrome because of ideological reasons.

This seems insane to have to spell out repeatedly.

Browsing the issue about it (https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338), it seems that manifest v3 blocks quite a lot of stuff out of the box. The fundamental issue seems to be that by mv3 prevents you from running arbitrary code to do filtering. This is concerning because it means that if sites / ad networks start coming up with ways to serve ads which can't be blocked by DeclarativeNetRequest (the issue lists a few), then ublock origin won't be able to block those ads. The way it's framed in the issue is "DNR is an obstacle to innovation."

There is currently a workaround in "ublock origin lite" (the mv3-compliant version) which lets you opt into regular ublock-origin-style filtering on a per-site basis. Even if this workaround isn't removed, it still means ... opting in to full filtering on a per-site basis, and acknowledging a browser warning each time.

MV3 clearly puts control of how ad-blocking works back into the hands of the company who supplies the browser and makes its money by serving ads.

So the goal is to remove that power, so that it can not be abused. Then the question is "and how do we solve the legitimate use cases?" - hence the years of working with people like Gorhill to help build a better API to serve the ad blocking use case.

MV3 was delayed because, despite the numerous changes made to MV3 to satisfy these use cases, it's clear that there needs to be more work to do so.