'Firefox is Fine. The People Running It are Not' (theregister.com) 95
"Firefox is dead to me," wrote Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols last month for The Register, complaining about everything from layoffs at Mozilla to Firefox's discontinuation of Pocket and Fakespot, its small market share, and some user complaints that the browser might be becoming slower. But a new rebuttal (also published by The Register) argues instead that Mozilla just has "a management layer that doesn't appear to understand what works for its product nor which parts of it matter most to users..."
"Steven's core point is correct. Firefox is in a bit of a mess — but, seriously, not such a bad mess. You're still better off with it — or one of its forks, because this is FOSS — than pretty much any of the alternatives." Like many things, unfortunately, much of computing is run on feelings, tradition, and group loyalties, when it should use facts, evidence, and hard numbers. Don't bother saying Firefox is getting slower. It's not. It's faster than it has been in years. Phoronix, the go-to site for benchmarks on FOSS stuff, just benchmarked 21 versions, and from late 2023 to now, Firefox has steadily got faster and faster...
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... 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. Like we said, don't blame the app. You're still better off with Firefox or a fork such as Waterfox. Chrome even snoops on you when in incognito mode...
One observer has been spectating and commentating on Mozilla since before it was a foundation — one of its original co-developers, Jamie Zawinksi... Zawinski has repeatedly said: "Now hear me out, but What If...? browser development was in the hands of some kind of nonprofit organization?"
"In my humble but correct opinion, Mozilla should be doing two things and two things only:
— Building THE reference implementation web browser, and
— Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees.
— There is no 3."
Perhaps this is the only viable resolution. Mozilla, for all its many failings, has invented a lot of amazing tech, from Rust to Servo to the leading budget phone OS. It shouldn't be trying to capitalize on this stuff. Maybe encourage it to have semi-independent spinoffs, such as Thunderbird, and as KaiOS ought to be, and as Rust could have been. But Zawinski has the only clear vision and solution we've seen yet. Perhaps he's right, and Mozilla should be a nonprofit, working to fund the one independent, non-vendor-driven, standards-compliant browser engine.
"Steven's core point is correct. Firefox is in a bit of a mess — but, seriously, not such a bad mess. You're still better off with it — or one of its forks, because this is FOSS — than pretty much any of the alternatives." Like many things, unfortunately, much of computing is run on feelings, tradition, and group loyalties, when it should use facts, evidence, and hard numbers. Don't bother saying Firefox is getting slower. It's not. It's faster than it has been in years. Phoronix, the go-to site for benchmarks on FOSS stuff, just benchmarked 21 versions, and from late 2023 to now, Firefox has steadily got faster and faster...
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... 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. Like we said, don't blame the app. You're still better off with Firefox or a fork such as Waterfox. Chrome even snoops on you when in incognito mode...
One observer has been spectating and commentating on Mozilla since before it was a foundation — one of its original co-developers, Jamie Zawinksi... Zawinski has repeatedly said: "Now hear me out, but What If...? browser development was in the hands of some kind of nonprofit organization?"
"In my humble but correct opinion, Mozilla should be doing two things and two things only:
— Building THE reference implementation web browser, and
— Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees.
— There is no 3."
Perhaps this is the only viable resolution. Mozilla, for all its many failings, has invented a lot of amazing tech, from Rust to Servo to the leading budget phone OS. It shouldn't be trying to capitalize on this stuff. Maybe encourage it to have semi-independent spinoffs, such as Thunderbird, and as KaiOS ought to be, and as Rust could have been. But Zawinski has the only clear vision and solution we've seen yet. Perhaps he's right, and Mozilla should be a nonprofit, working to fund the one independent, non-vendor-driven, standards-compliant browser engine.
A management layer that does not understand (Score:3, Insightful)
Inertia and Too Big to Change (Score:2)
The elephant in the room no one wants to talk about is that we're stuck with a 26 year old web html / javascript / css / connectionless protocol technology stack and none of the largest companies and stakeholders with a voice are willing to propose a significant replacement and carry that replacement to universal adoption and getting a W3C/ECMA standard for it.
Widely used web frameworks and languages still are underlaid with the legacy JavaScript technology, legacy layout and legacy use of connectionless pr
Re: (Score:3)
> BBC.co.uk should not require 99+ http requests top get 7 MB of data for example.
So you would want something like this:
1. Browser sends hello request to server
2. Server returns a javascript or similar
3. Browser executes javascript, which decides what files need to be downloaded and which not and creates a new request
4. Browser sends new request to server
5. Server returns compressed package to browser contain all the files the browser requires
6. Browser executes and displays the website. Two requests in
Re: (Score:2)
Why Javascript? HTTP Keep-Alive and HTTP/2 do that without need for adapting things.
But the 99+ problem is another one: You don't need 99 resources for a sane website. You need the HTML, the CSS, if really necessary some Javascript, and then like 20 images. That's it. The rest is ads, tracking, etc.
Re:Inertia and Too Big to Change (Score:5, Informative)
we're stuck with a 26 year old web html / javascript / css / connectionless protocol technology stack
HTTP is not connectionless, it is based on TCP, which emulates telephone connections.
HTTP 1.1 has support for re-using an open TCP connection.
(HTTP/3 uses QUIC instead of TCP, which does connection multiplexing instead.)
HTTP is stateless, or at least it's supposed to be. It's a request-response protocol for documents. For that purpose, it has largely replaced Gopher and FTP.
It has the advantage of reporting the MIME type of the document.
HTTP and HTML date from 1989, which is a little more than 26 years old. Closer to 36. (I guess the naughties never happened?)
HTTPS dates from 1994, JavaScript dates from 1995, and CSS dates from 1996.
HTTP/1.1 dates from 1997.
none of the largest companies and stakeholders with a voice are willing to propose a significant replacement
There is the Gemini Protocol [geminiprotocol.net] which has all the advantages of HTTP(S), but is much cleaner and simpler and faster.
Google does not seem to like it.
Anyway, neither HTTP nor Gopher nor Gemini are very good at being hypertext protocols. They don't do versioning, they don't do back-references, and what support there is for distributed caches in HTTP ("proxies") doesn't work very well - it is designed for reducing traffic, not for providing redundancy. (BitTorrent does that better.)
The optimization of compressing web content and combining HTTP requests is a band-aid
Support for gzip in connections is very useful. It means that compressed documents can keep their multipurpose internet mail exchange type, rather than the server reporting an application/gzip with no clue what to do with it. And text comresses very well.
And re-using existing connections reduces latency, because you don't need a three-way handshake for every document.
Those are solutions, not band-aids, but you are correct in that they don't solve problems other than the ones that they solve.
Connection multiplexing, what HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 do, only increases overhead. It belongs to the problem space, not to the solution space.
still are underlaid with the legacy JavaScript technology
The script tag in HTML allows specifying which scripting language to use, but in practice, only JavaScript is relevant, and that is not guaranteed to work. The venerable Lynx Browser/a> simply ignores it, as explicitly allowed by the W3 specification. In theory, you could implement a VM for any scripting language in your browser, like Dart, [slashdot.org] Coffescript [coffeescript.org], or Lua [lua.org], but nobody bothers.
Probably for good reason. Injecting random executable code (like JavaScript) into documents (like HTML) is generally considered a severe security risk. Remember the grief that Microsoft got for executable macros in Word and WMF documents. Zero-click remote code execution.
legacy layout
HTML has a few severe short-comings when compared to more mature mark-up languages like ROFF or LaTEX.
For one, it does not distinguish between spaces between words and spaces between sentences, which makes text unnecessarily harder to read. How can you tell if a period at the end of a word makes the end of a sentence or an abbreviation?
Then there is the ambiguity of paragraphs. XHTML allows paragraphs to be nested, HTML4 and HTML5 do not. Now, you might think that nesting paragraphs doesn't make any sense, but HTML documents are full of div-Tags for structure. There is no standard way of grouping a picture with a caption, for example. Sections are separated by headers, but HTML layout engines generally don't treat the text between sections as one unit. But why should you need a tag specifically for for separa
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with javascript is that it allows developers to offload processes that would be better off executed server-side onto the users. Ideally, we would have a markup language that combines html + css, with the added benefit of dynamically interacting with the server to replace AJAX. Cookies could be replaced with a protocol that has a very limited number of states the user can choose from when connecting to a site (anonymous, logged in anonymous, logged in identified). It could create a unique token f
Re:I use Brave (Score:4, Informative)
Brave is a different sort of exploitware though. Read the history of it. Very shady behavior. There is no way in hell I would trust those people.
Since Google disabled uBlock even in Chromium, Firefox is really the only option.
Re:I use Brave (Score:4, Informative)
Since Google disabled uBlock even in Chromium, Firefox is really the only option.
What about a host file? I use a the Ultimate Hosts Blacklist (from github), and ads are (mostly) gone. I don't need anything else.
Re:I use Brave (Score:5, Funny)
APK would be proud!
Re: (Score:2)
Ads isn't the issue there just annoying it's the fact that Chrome is stealing and monetizing every bit of data on your computer it can access that's the second problem. The first being your fine with that.
Re: (Score:3)
Adblocking is about so much more than nuking specific servers. A lot of content on the internet serves ads inline. Good luck getting rid of e.g. Youtube ads with a hosts file.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah right thanks for the example. I didn't know, I don't watch videos.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately a hosts file isn't nearly enough to properly block malware and adware on the web. It doesn't do much about cookie banners I don't care about either.
Re: (Score:2)
Read about domain cloaking. Because people block images.adcompany, websites set up acimages.websitedomain and redirect the traffic to the ad company. And if that stops working (because it could go into a hosts file) they can use a reverse proxy from the main domain.
Re: (Score:2)
That does a lot, and you should do it. But it doesn't do it all.
You can do an ad filtering web proxy with SQUID that can do the rest of it. In the past when I had a separate Linux-based firewall/server running nonstop, I set up such a proxy and used packet mangling to send the connections to the proxy without proxy configuration. If you wanted unfiltered internet, you connected to a proxy on another port. That way it got all the devices.
AFAIK to do this today meaningfully, since everything is encrypted, you
Re: I use Brave (Score:5, Informative)
Re: I use Brave (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a common problem nowadays with AI automatic spell checking just about everywhere. It's easy for a person to type a long paragraph and to find that one of the words typed has been surreptitiously replaced by the system. AI slop at its finest, making human authors say things they didn't actually say (probably) since 2022!
Figuring out exactly where some hidden setting resides that can disable this behaviour is futile: It's a full treasure hunt jus
Re: (Score:2)
There's one version left. ublock Origin can still be installed from github on Chrome 138. 139 will remove support for Manifest V2 completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Vivaldi and Brave retain support for manifest v2 if I remember correctly, so you can continue to use proper ublock origin, and not the shitty v3 version.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Vivaldi and Brave retain support for manifest v2 if I remember correctly, so you can continue to use proper ublock origin, and not the shitty v3 version."
Until changes in the base Chromium code they try to maintain become un-maintainable. They don't have the resources to actually perform a true fork.
Vivaldi, Brave, Edge, Opera, whatever, they are all Chromium underneath. They all lend support to Google's control over web "standards" and they all contribute to a dangerous monoculture. One that will h
Re: I use Brave (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>"It is like Chrome WITHOUT the Google Spyware and ads."
Except it is, at it's core, Chrome, since it is based on Chromium. And, thus, you still giving power and control to Google. And still promoting a dangerous monoculture, and not protecting from the security and standards nightmare that will be a resulting from that.
If I were *forced* to use a Google-based browser, it might be Brave. It is an obvious better choice, and also somewhat erodes a bit of Google's grip. But I have zero reasons to use Bra
firefox has become an alternative (Score:2)
I've become a long time user of Pale Moon because of the wayward direction of Firefox. I loved it when it slowly dethroned IE because it was good at what it did, but then it slowly lost its way. It became a wanna-be instead of keeping a steadfast course towards its original goal.
Pale Moon has been my main browser for many years and Firefox has been relegated to sites coded towards framework and spyware du jour where I have no other choice.
Re: (Score:2)
How awful is it nowadays? I stopped using it a few years after its compatibility with sites started to break as a matter of routine, and dev would consistently keep telling people to "tell the site owner to make page compatible with Pale Moon" on his forums.
Did his attitude change?
Firefox is Indeed Fine (Score:5, Interesting)
I switched to firefox recently. I got myself a framework laptop and run Linux on it and I decided to switch to firefox, principally because Google has been blocking add ons I use like ublock origin and others.
It behaves well. I have no problem with it and it's not blocking the add-ons I use.
Re: (Score:2)
I take that back; I did run into a site (can't remember now what it was) that told me I needed to update my browser, when what they actually wanted me to do was switch to Chrome/Chromium.
Re: (Score:2)
I did run into a site (can't remember now what it was) that told me I needed to update my browser, when what they actually wanted me to do was switch to Chrome/Chromium.
The only time I have seen that was with Google sites.
Re: (Score:2)
>"I take that back; I did run into a site (can't remember now what it was) that told me I needed to update my browser, when what they actually wanted me to do was switch to Chrome/Chromium."
And it is up to us to make noise about that. I know *I* do. It is rare I run across such a site, but you can bet I will immediately Email them at a minimum. If it is a site for a place I would do business, I will do a lot more, up to and including making sure their marketing department knows they are going to lose
Re: (Score:2)
I switched to Firefox a while back too. It has some compatibility issues that force me to open Chrome or Edge now and then, but they are getting rarer.
Firefox for Android has been improving steadily too. Performance (both speed and battery consumption) are decent now, and most websites are usable in it. Gone are the days of 50% of sites being unreadable due to broken font inflation and the like. I still need a bunch of uBlock rules for Slashdot though.
They also fixed the way it used to open loads of unwante
Re: Firefox is Indeed Fine (Score:2)
It is literally what you thought you were getting with FireFox: no spying, ublock preinstalled, no upsell.
My only gripe is the LibreWolf team will not accept money they do it gratis
Firefox is better but these arguments are weak (Score:2, Interesting)
The wrongly say Firefox/Waterfox are good because FOSS, while Chrome is bad because google snoops on you. The argument lacks logic. They should never compare to Chrome. They should compare to Chromite, Ungoogled-chromium, or other FOSS based on the blink codebase, that are specifically designed to not include google spyware.
Of course Firefox still wins, because 1) chromium limits adblocking technologies, 2) chromium makes it nearly compulsory to have a Google account to install an extension (you can install
Re: (Score:3)
Group loyalty (Score:3)
The rebuttal first says:
You're still better off with it – or one of its forks, because this is FOSS...
then:
unfortunately, much of computing is run on feelings, tradition, and group loyalties
Spoken like a true group loyalist.
Re: Opera Browser (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone who cares about open standards and browser diversity.
Opera is just another browser based on Chromium.
Re: Opera Browser (Score:4, Informative)
Absolutely, you can pry Firefox from my cold dead hands. I have no interest in a Chromium monoculture.
The one to watch is Ladybird, if and when it reaches a 1.0 milestone.
Though I'm still hopeful a reborn Servo will be the browser of choice on Redox OS (Rust all the way down).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. Vivaldi shares the spirit and the original developers of Opera.
Re: Opera Browser (Score:1)
Yeah, I love Vivaldi, but I'm going to have to jump ship to Waterfox when manifest v3 hits the Chrome skins. I sure wish Vivaldi would switch to a Firefox base instead, but that's a lot of work...
Re:Opera Browser (Score:4, Insightful)
You can keep your Chinese controlled browser as we don't need it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you want a browser by same people that made Opera before it became Chinesium spyware, you want Vivaldi, not Opera.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want a browser by same people that made Opera before it became Chinesium spyware, you want Vivaldi, not Opera.
Interesting. What would really be nice, however, as TFA points out, would be if browsers actually behaved the same so no matter which browser a users has the pages display the same.
Re: (Score:2)
That would require same engine to power all browsers, and all browsers having same rendering, same plugins, etc.
This is actually Google's wet dream. It means everyone gets full arrays of ads. And it's very much the exact thing that power users do NOT want.
Re: (Score:2)
That would require same engine to power all browsers, and all browsers having same rendering, same plugins, etc.
While that would be the easiest solution, well defined agreed upon standards that are properly documented should allow developers to determine how they implement them. If they want to add extensions, plugins, etc. that's fine but at least implement the standards properly so the base level of functionality is consistent. Then again, that's the problem with any standard; they typically are a least common denominator that a committee can agree on and then everyone goes off and does their own thing to try to
I haven't noticed (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen stories like this but I'm a lot happier with Firefox than the other browsers out there, both on desktop and on mobile. It does what I want, I worry less about telemetry when using it, there are useful extensions both on desktop and mobile, I get fewer nags. I don't have any issues.
Re: (Score:2)
This article got me wondering what browser I am using these days. Had to check. It is firefox. It is fine!
Disclaimer: you figured out I am past the better half of my life. So maybe I am
The snap package is pretty bad (Score:2)
But it is getting incrementally better. The moment you install the native package though, you wonder why you ever put up with the performance hit in the first place
Re: (Score:2)
>"The snap package is pretty bad. The moment you install the native package though, you wonder why you ever put up with the performance hit in the first place "
And the solution is:
* Don't use Ubuntu
* Don't use Snap
* Don't use containers for important software that should be native
https://linuxmint.com/ [linuxmint.com]
I have the opposite idea (Score:2)
Mozilla should be focusing on Rust consulting services. Mozilla has expertise in Rust. Mozilla has some control on Rustand in best cases can influence Rust to solve the problems of their customers. That power that can bring a lot of cash if they deal with big corporates. Cash, in turn, can fund the browser.
Firefox is fine (Score:2)
It just needs an email client.
- Jamie Zawinksi
Re: (Score:2)
>"It just needs an email client."
https://www.thunderbird.net/ [thunderbird.net]
Firefox is fine (Score:2)
I use Firefox pretty much exclusively, on both mobile and desktop, and it is fine.
I don't get involved with the drama surrounding the people at Mozilla.
I am not sure about that (Score:3)
I run three browsers (Vivaldi, Brave and Firefox) and I have started to note site-rot on Firefox, i.e. stuff does not work that works on both the others. Yes, I am aware both Vivaldi and Brave are Chromium based. But I have not found effects like that before. Before it was more random one of the three not doing stuff. Now, this may be a problem on the Web-dev side or a browser problem. But it is not a good sign.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the fault of Firefox or the plugins you've installed? I've noticed problems over time as well - problems that completely disappear when I run a private browsing session with plugins disabled.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no plugins in my Firefox installations besides whatever it has out of the box. Do you mean those?
Re: (Score:2)
...problems that completely disappear when I run a private browsing session....
I have noticed a few website saying the Firefox won't work on the site. I change the user agent to Chrome, and the site then works.
Firefox is a public good (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we need firefox for the same reason we need operating systems, and roads.
They should be a foundation focused on keeping the web safe, they fit in the same niche as the FSF, or EFF. A public good.
That said, why they don't do things like say... reach out to goverments and buisnesses for grants aside from google, and make a browser that works well for enterprise use and privacy at scale.
Failing since 2009 (Score:5, Interesting)
Mozilla has been incapable of making a good business decision since 2009. They've gotten in and out of numerous side-hustles, seeking to make quick cash or create low-effort revenue streams.... usually 18 to 24 months too late to actually succeed.
They have ceded leadership of the browser space to Chrome. Part of how Firefox got worse is that it just started copying whatever Chrome did to cheapen the browsing experience. Another big part is their addiction to messing with Firefox's UI for no reason whatsoever. Firefox used to be the browser for power-users, now the user's agency is perfunctory at best.
Then there was the whole ordeal of disavowing Thunderbird.
Mozilla has new leadership now, packed with even more marketing and PR people rather than a new generation of technical innovators. Their race to 0% market share continues.
Re: (Score:3)
Mozilla has been incapable of making a good business decision since 2009.
The problem with talking in absolutes is that it is easy to make it demonstrably false. While overall the net of their decisions haven't been good for the company they have definitely made some good decisions along the way. E.g.
- Overhauling of the plugin architecture to stop things from breaking every release.
- Tab isolation.
- Quantum (huge speed improvement there which brought me back for a while).
There are definitely some good decisions among the bad ones, the question is how to promote them so more of t
Major usability issues (Score:2)
Firefox still doesn't allow editing (e.g. deleting) items from bookmarks or browsing search results. So the URL auto completion suggests websites that you might have visited once a year ago, and you can't remove them through the search feature.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Major usability issues (Score:2)
This don't work on mobile
Hope they hang in there... (Score:2)
But, honestly, web standards are more and more rapidly becoming whatever gets put in the Chromium code base.
Which would be fine, if Chromium was meant to a be reference implementation. But it's not. It's used to keep people going to the web and Google for as much as possible. After all, need that ad revenue.
At this point, we are stuck with web applications on the desktop. I'd love a desktop version of things like Amazon, Facebook, Insta and so on. But, the story on Windows isn't compelling enough and enough
Ladybird (Score:2)
I'm curious how well Ladybird [ladybird.org] will turn out to be. It might be a good alternative to all those other browsers, which can safely be called bloatware at this point.
One version of Chrome left - this will be fun. (Score:2)
Currently 138 has disabled all adblockers. You can still manually enable Manifest V2 support and install ublock origin from Github, but Chrome 139 will remove support for Manifest V2 altogether.
This is a potential huge moment for recovery for Mozilla. Let's see if they can capture some of the adblocking refugees or if they completely fuck this up too. If I were them I'd be doing one hell of a marketing blitz right now.
Re: (Score:1)
Reference implementation ? Remember Amaya (W3C) ? (Score:1)
Disclaimer: I am still an old Firefox user, liking it a lot.
Looking web browser history, if I am not wrong, a reference implementation of w3c already existed for 15 years.
https://www.w3.org/Amaya/ [w3.org]
But its development stopped in 2012.
Reference Implementation path for Firefox looks very much like a dead end to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Amaya: The last of the web authoring browsers. I remember it fondly.
It isn't fast, but it can do everything, as long as "everything" doesn't include XHTML2 and HTML5.
In practice, Chrome is the reference implementation. Whenever Chrome breaks compatibility, it is every other browser that is broken.
The W3C was created to prevent exactly that from happening.
Which is why the WHAT-WG is now the officially inofficial web standards body. It documents Chrome in a way that makes it look as if it wasn't all about C
Firefox missed the boat... multiple times (Score:1)
Firefox missed the boat... multiple times.
Re: Firefox missed the boat... multiple times (Score:1)
To follow up on this, there are many more FF users in the EU.
Since the launch of the first DMA browser choice screens on iOS in March 2024, people are making themselves heard: Firefox daily active users in Germany alone have increased by 99%. And in France, Firefoxâ(TM)s daily active users on iOS grew by 111%.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/fi... [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome is not a boggieman. It's open source, and runs on almost everything.
That's boogey man, or sometimes boogy. Chrome isn't open source though, Chromium is. There are parts missing from "Chrome" if you build it yourself which are relevant to some mainstream uses.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Firefox is just a ui on iOS."
That is 100% not by Mozilla's choice.
>"Chrome is not a boggieman. It's open source, and runs on almost everything."
Chrome is most certainly NOT open source. It is 100% closed. Chromium is open-source, but it is not an open project. Google controls 100% of what goes it in, and brutally so. And it is too big/complex to actually fork. So multiplatform browsers that are not Firefox-ish are, indeed Chromium, for most purposes that matter (Google's control over standards,
I have no issues with Firefox...... (Score:2)
Management have been bad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The founders not selling out, also no outside hiring for senior positions, barring some exceptional circumstance. That's how you get managers who actually understand the work, because they've done the work.
It's amazing how good this is for a company's culture, and how few companies stick to it.
Doing stuff like this, maybe organizing as B-corps or co-ops for some companies, would solve a lot of the problems in the business world.
EULA (Score:3)
My Only Beef(s) (Score:2)
My only beef with Firefox is a regression bug that causes the attempted rendering of some weather radar sites to fail and the CPU to got o100% utilization.
My secondary beef is that some sites block Firefox. It's 2025, U shouldn't need user agent changers to visit your shitty website. But, this is not Firefox' fault.
Firefox' continued ability to run uBlock Origin absolves it of any sins.
Firefox Loses Users with Increased Scum (Score:2)