Mozilla has named a new CEO and has decreed Firefox to become a modern AI browser.
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Mozilla-New-CEO-AI
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Mozilla-New-CEO-AI
:gondola_head: 🌿 
@thatbrickster Yet another 
moment in mozilla. Fortunately everything is optional, I just hope that one day some free/libre LLM will be available locally or as a SaaSS instead of the current proprietary shortcuts.
moment in mozilla. Fortunately everything is optional, I just hope that one day some free/libre LLM will be available locally or as a SaaSS instead of the current proprietary shortcuts.
@mangeurdenuage @thatbrickster so Orion is the only true way out currently?
@coolboymew @thatbrickster The only true way out of this is by having around 1000000 eur a month to have enough manpower to maintain and/or develop a "modern" compatible web browser.
Mozilla could do this if their CEO wouldn't put their revenue as his salary, and also find a way out of google's financial whip.
Mozilla could do this if their CEO wouldn't put their revenue as his salary, and also find a way out of google's financial whip.
@mangeurdenuage Mozilla have received hundreds of millions of dollars per annum for over a decade. The CEO's pay, while indefensible, pales in comparison to the social justice guff Mozilla spent that money on.
@coolboymew
@coolboymew
@thatbrickster @coolboymew Same issue with the Linux foundation, and they get a quarter billion annually. It's insane how much is fucking wasted when you see the FSF struggling for funds while they're a pillar of all this.
@mangeurdenuage @coolboymew @thatbrickster
>FSF struggling for funds while they're a pillar of all this.
They don't deserve any for making all of their projects worse. Everything important is already maintained by Red hat insiders anyway which don't need more money either for how they act online and break other projects they maintain.
Ideally competition should get money instead, so GNU finally has competition and fixes their stuff like they did gcc when Clang become a viable alternative.
>FSF struggling for funds while they're a pillar of all this.
They don't deserve any for making all of their projects worse. Everything important is already maintained by Red hat insiders anyway which don't need more money either for how they act online and break other projects they maintain.
Ideally competition should get money instead, so GNU finally has competition and fixes their stuff like they did gcc when Clang become a viable alternative.
@mangeurdenuage @coolboymew @thatbrickster But honestly FSF did it all to themselves. They shot the hand that was feeding them with GPLv3. They had serious corporate funding, corporates contributing and threw all of that away for a license too legally complicated that no company ever wants to touch it.
@phnt @coolboymew @thatbrickster
> for a license to legally complicated
Complicated ?
The only thing v3 states is that it's forbidden to forbid.
There's no point to the GPL if you can't execute free/libre software code because of some fucking legal loophole that allows anyone to forbid you to execute a modified version of the software.
>no company ever wants to touch it.
You mean the companies which the economical model only revolves around stock value/taking money from people and not solving their problems ?
The model which states that to be cost efficient the best way is to put everyone in a walled garden ? Forbidding them to see someone else to solve their unsolved issues ?
The companies that want everything to go back to the minitel model of the internet ?
The companies that agrees to up prices of hardware by 500% when it chants them ?
The companies that used MIT/BSD loicensed software to create intel ME/PSP/Trustzones ?
> for a license to legally complicated
Complicated ?
The only thing v3 states is that it's forbidden to forbid.
There's no point to the GPL if you can't execute free/libre software code because of some fucking legal loophole that allows anyone to forbid you to execute a modified version of the software.
>no company ever wants to touch it.
You mean the companies which the economical model only revolves around stock value/taking money from people and not solving their problems ?
The model which states that to be cost efficient the best way is to put everyone in a walled garden ? Forbidding them to see someone else to solve their unsolved issues ?
The companies that want everything to go back to the minitel model of the internet ?
The companies that agrees to up prices of hardware by 500% when it chants them ?
The companies that used MIT/BSD loicensed software to create intel ME/PSP/Trustzones ?
@mangeurdenuage @coolboymew @thatbrickster
The companies that made gcc function and generate usable code. You know, Apple that poured money into the project and funded actual development of it until v3.
That's what I mean they shot the hand/companies feeding them. Their downfall is completely self-inflicted. They made a request-for-comments for the v3 licenses, got feedback that it's way too complicated legally and then promptly threw all of that feedback away, because tivoization was really important to them. The result? $current_year
Truth is, you don't make any free software without funding at their size. And I wonder where that funding must come from at their size. Certainly not their end users.
open-source-communism.jpg
The companies that made gcc function and generate usable code. You know, Apple that poured money into the project and funded actual development of it until v3.
That's what I mean they shot the hand/companies feeding them. Their downfall is completely self-inflicted. They made a request-for-comments for the v3 licenses, got feedback that it's way too complicated legally and then promptly threw all of that feedback away, because tivoization was really important to them. The result? $current_year
Truth is, you don't make any free software without funding at their size. And I wonder where that funding must come from at their size. Certainly not their end users.
open-source-communism.jpg
@phnt @coolboymew @thatbrickster
>Their downfall is completely self-inflicted
That's apple in your example.
> it's way too complicated legally
That's a load of bullshit.
>because tivoization was really important to them. The result? $current_year
The result of the current dystopia is because of the FSF ?
Are you for real ?
The FSF told people to do the exact opposite and corpos did not do that, they went full retard to the point you can't replace a lid sensor without it needing to be signed by software.
>you don't make any free software without funding
I agree. Any responsible Sysadmin of course takes into account the cost of his infrastructure and donates/pays for it. Except of course if education forgot to teach them about that... Wait isn't tech education now majorly sponsored by Microsoft&co ?
>Certainly not their end users.
For the FSF that's actually the case. For the Linux foundation I let you guess.
>Their downfall is completely self-inflicted
That's apple in your example.
> it's way too complicated legally
That's a load of bullshit.
>because tivoization was really important to them. The result? $current_year
The result of the current dystopia is because of the FSF ?
Are you for real ?
The FSF told people to do the exact opposite and corpos did not do that, they went full retard to the point you can't replace a lid sensor without it needing to be signed by software.
>you don't make any free software without funding
I agree. Any responsible Sysadmin of course takes into account the cost of his infrastructure and donates/pays for it. Except of course if education forgot to teach them about that... Wait isn't tech education now majorly sponsored by Microsoft&co ?
>Certainly not their end users.
For the FSF that's actually the case. For the Linux foundation I let you guess.
@mangeurdenuage @coolboymew @thatbrickster
>The result of the current dystopia is because of the FSF ?
The result of their current state is because of their own doing. I'm not talking about anything else other than FSF and GNU here. They almost killed themselves with a series of bad decisions with good intentions and not enough leverage to convince companies that they were good even for them. Do you know also why FSF and GNU were well funded during mid/late 90's and early 00's before v3? SCO was making lolsuits over unix code left, right and center and companies were tired of it, so they switched to something that couldn't be attacked and supported it. They also killed that with v3.
>For the FSF that's actually the case.
It is like that currently and you can see in real time how well that is going.
>The result of the current dystopia is because of the FSF ?
The result of their current state is because of their own doing. I'm not talking about anything else other than FSF and GNU here. They almost killed themselves with a series of bad decisions with good intentions and not enough leverage to convince companies that they were good even for them. Do you know also why FSF and GNU were well funded during mid/late 90's and early 00's before v3? SCO was making lolsuits over unix code left, right and center and companies were tired of it, so they switched to something that couldn't be attacked and supported it. They also killed that with v3.
>For the FSF that's actually the case.
It is like that currently and you can see in real time how well that is going.
@phnt @coolboymew @mangeurdenuage @thatbrickster I'd go a step further: the entire FSF/GNU GPLv3 ecosystem is chiefly dependent on the goodwill of IBM to survive. Once IBM pulls the plug, if we're talking about rot and stagnation in things like gcc and coreutils now, you haven't seen anything yet. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the only part of the Cygnus Solutions/Red Hat extended universe which is still independent and profitable is AdaCore.
Follow
@allison @phnt @coolboymew @mangeurdenuage @thatbrickster Now I can see why OpenMandriva decided to go with clang instead of GCC.
@allison@hidamari.apartments
@xianc78 @phnt @coolboymew @mangeurdenuage @thatbrickster In fairness, gcc actually is competitive with clang still, but they really stagnated for a while (and it wouldn't be the first time either, recall that egcs was a thing for much of the 90s because the FSF was much too conservative with what they would allow into "their" gcc)
