This is the second layoff at Mozilla this year, the first affecting dozens of staff on the side of the organization that builds the popular Firefox browser.

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/46655413

The Mozilla Foundation, the non-profit arm of the Firefox browser maker Mozilla, has laid off 30% of its employees as the organization says it faces a “relentless onslaught of change.”

      • dubyakay@lemmy.caEnglish
        29·
        9 days ago

        Let’s just separate GOOG from Chrome / Chromium and Google Search completely. So that the direction of the most used browser, most used search engine and the biggest advertiser don’t circle jerk each other.

      • Gemini24601@lemmy.worldEnglish
        15·
        9 days ago

        Also, Ladybird is looking very promising, so in a few years we should have a true fourth browser engine.

    • T156@lemmy.worldEnglish
      531·
      9 days ago

      If Mozilla does become defunct, it does raise the question of whether Chrome would be considered a Google monopoly, and therefore subject to antitrust legislation.

      I can’t imagine any governments would look kindly upon internet access being guarded behind a single company’s product.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
        371·
        9 days ago

        I can’t imagine any governments would look kindly upon internet access being guarded behind a single company’s product.

        laughs in 2001

      • douglasg14b@lemmy.worldEnglish
        22·
        9 days ago

        Google should be subject to antitrust legislation regardless.

        Their position as a monopoly is what enables this.

      • ravhall@discuss.onlineEnglish
        114·
        9 days ago

        There is a new browser based on WebKit (safari), called Orion that looks promising. However, it’s only on macOS and iOS at this point. Hopefully Linux and Android will be a consideration at some point.

        • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          102·
          9 days ago

          Chrome’s engine was originally forked from WebKit. That makes them too similar (even years later) for WebKit to count as a real alternative.

          • ravhall@discuss.onlineEnglish
            93·
            9 days ago

            The point is to leave a google controlled ecosystem… which means it counts as a valid alternative. What would you suggest besides chromium and gecko?

              • ravhall@discuss.onlineEnglish
                31·
                9 days ago

                Haha. So I really do wish that all websites had a text version, or like markdown. Can you imagine how damn speedy things would be? Every website would have the same layout. As much as I appreciate good web design, there’s a lot of bad UI choices out there.

          • bamboo@lemm.eeEnglish
            21·
            9 days ago

            I strongly disagree with this. In practice, supporting chrome does not imply supporting safari and vice versa. In particular, Safari is much, much slower about adopting new web technologies. Google basically implements support for anything they can think up, Apple waits for it become a ratified standard and then implements it only if they want to. Their JavaScript implementations are also completely different.

        • dan@upvote.auEnglish
          8·
          9 days ago

          There’s also a new browser based on Firefox/Gecko called Zen. There’s way too many browsers based on Webkit or Blink.

            • L_Acacia@lemmy.oneEnglish
              2·
              9 days ago

              zen integrates every upstream change a few hours after release, it is built as a set of patch on top of firefox just to make that easy

      • WldFyre@lemm.eeEnglish
        3·
        9 days ago

        Splitting Chrome from Google wouldn’t make Chrome not a monopoly, though, right?

        • T156@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          9 days ago

          The split might leave a monopoly still, if it’s the only major browser.

          • ChapulinColorado@lemmy.worldEnglish
            9·
            9 days ago

            It would be a lot easier to compete with though, since Google couldn’t treat it as a loss leader that still bring them in search revenue by default.

      • drathvedro@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        9 days ago

        They could try to employ some kind of Apple defense, like, you wouldn’t hit Apple for having monopoly on iOS. As long as it’s not the only solution on the market. And for web, most of time, you could access the same resources and get similar experience by downloading… the apps… wait, they have a monopoly on that, too. Well, they are completely screwed in that case.

      • ravhall@discuss.onlineEnglish
        3·
        9 days ago

        That’s good. Are you happy with the built-in privacy, or do you find extensions are needed?

        I’d still argue it’s chromium.

        • grysbok@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          1·
          8 days ago

          I’m happy with the built-in privacy, muchly because I’m using it on a work computer so I have no expectation of real privacy anyway.

          And fair.