I have no problem with this as long as they use the funding to continue producing open source software. I don't think it would be possible for them to compete with Chrome as a pure open source project with no major funding. Mozilla's role since its founding of providing a viable alternative FOSS browser is just as valuable and appreciated now as it was in the IE days, imho.

>The restrictions (based on security reasons) to install an extension from a site different than mozilla addons. For me this was a prequel of app stores.

For a product aimed primarily at easily-duped non-tech lay people, I have no problem with this either. As long as the addons remain FOSS.

>Lack of respect for extension developers breaking compatibility between versions and not clearly isolating extensions.

As a FF user I can live with this, as long as the breaking changes move the browser forward technically, or get rid of some legacy cruft, or similar. It's definitely not in FF's interest either, as it incentivizes users to try other browsers, so I expect it's on their todo list, just maybe not as high a priority as other issues.

The issue is from the developer perspective but also (although invisible) from the user side. Extension developers make titanic work and users can loose some extensions in the way of compatibility. Obviously important brands will never be incompatible but less known extensions will.

Thunderbird was a silly waste of resources and should have been shelved well before they did.

In balance I'm quite happy Mozilla exist and have been generally positive.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668655

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=579372

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478468

Sorry I was not earlier on the scene to help -- people are supposed to mail me when my early warning systems don't see a problem in the community.

Honest question: did you try to intervene or get involved in any of these cases?

/be

You can be both things. Generally it's nice to be paid for your work.

"The restrictions (based on security reasons) to install an extension from a site different than mozilla addons"

If someone convinces you to install a malicious browser extension (easily done in a world where people will click OK on basically anything) they can spy on and control everything you do online.

Do you think then that for example desktop software must be installed from a central company like Microsoft because someone can convince you to install it from every website?

And also: do you think that Mozilla was really doing security inspections in the early days? No, it wasn't, the extensions had all kind of security bugs. I think it was more about control.

You can think it was about control, but this could not be farther from truth.

<disclaimer>I work for mozilla</disclaimer>

There are alternative methods that Mozilla could do, like bringing a Mozilla certificate to host the extension in your own site without an extra prompt.

You are talking around the larger problem, which is a huge one for many extension and app ecosystems (e.g. Google Play, where weak-AI scanners fail to stop malware and spamware).

Mozilla uses community review, which works much better but is of course imperfect, a human thing.

No one that I know of has solved this larger problem. I would be interested in research pointers and tips (not complaints).

/be