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.
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.