Donations only get you so far. Take a mid-sized project, that needs $500k per year (a few devs, very modestly paid, zero expenses). It's a lot of money. It requires a huge user base. Say you have 500k users, and 5% donate $25 per year (I'm optimistic). And that's just $500k US, a few devs, zero expenses. A project that size probably has audit requirements, hosting costs, accounting, legal, trademarks, etc.
I see finances for a few free software projects, and many of them really struggle to get donations year after year, in a way that helps make the project predictable and sustainable.
For the US, people want you to be a 501c3, and then you need a EU equivalent. Canadians are unlikely to give to a US org (especially these days), but the market is too small to setup a local charity. So you need partners. All that has many compliance requirements and paperwork, so you need non-tech employees for the fundraising and accounting.
Eventually your big donors start blackmailing the project if you don't do what they want, and often their interests are not aligned with most users. You need various income sources.
With 1.3b in reserves, it's enough for funding development for many years to come if they fire most of management and close irrelevant to the browser things.
It would be organizational suicide to spend down their endowment just because they can. Right now it exists as a firewall to buy them some time in the event that search licensing goes away, which I think is exactly what they should have done with it.
And it's been talked to death before but the idea that the browser side bets are at some prohibitive cost is an unsubstantiated myth, conjured into existence by vibes in comment sections. It's the HN equivalent of American voters who think foreign aid is 50% of the federal budget.
Do you realize what 1.300.000.000$ is? Say you invest most of it in a safe way to get you inflation + 2%. That gives you 26.000.000$ every year. You can pay 100 engineers with this. Firefox is a browser. Sure a browser is complicated but 100 motivated and talented engineers is more than enough to make a good product if you focus on what matters.
How do you think they got that money in the first place? They've been growing this fund from $100MM in the 2010s to where it is now, by carefully managing and investing it.
Hilariously, you're here presenting something Mozilla has already been doing for nearly two decades like it's a new idea that only you have thought of. Yes, I realize how much that is: enough to cover their operating costs for like 2.5 years.
And sure, it's amazing how much an endowment can do if you give up and wipe out most of their staff and embrace magical thinking.
The point is that the organization is bloated because of the search money.
The sustainable way forward for Mozilla is to fire most of their staff, keep a reasonable number of engineers, and focus on building a solid privacy focused browser instead of trend chasing like they’re doing now. Reduce operational costs and live off of the profits on their investments.
Props for citing real numbers! I hope other people reading this thread are looking at your comment and understanding that this is how you make reality based comments. One tidbit I will add: that's more than they have ever spent on development historically, including after adjusting for inflation. IIRC it's about quadruple what they spent back when browsers were desktop only when they had their highest market share.
I think you're probably about as dead wrong as it's possible to be on this front. First they ship millions of new LoC to Firefox on a monthly basis so the engineering efforts are open for all the world to see.
Secondly, if more than half(!?!) was spent on, say, Pocket, or Fakespot, then you would see a rise and fall in spending coinciding with the onramp and closure of those programs over their lifetimes. But in reality we have seen a steady upward march in spending, and so the interpretation that passes the sanity check is that they fold these into their existing budget with the existing development capacity they have which is variously assigned to different projects, including(!!) Firefox, where again, their annual code output is monumental and rivals Google.
Again I have to note the blizzard of contradictory accusations throughout this thread. According to one commenter the problem is they are biting off more than they can chew and need to scale back all of the excessive Firefox development they are doing (and I recall previous commenters speculating that 30+ million LoC was not evidence of their hard work but "bloat" that was excessive and that they probably could cut a lot of it out without losing functionality). But for you, the obvious problem is they're wasting all that capacity on side projects and not putting enough effort in the browser.
I for one, am grateful to Mozilla for still being around, pushing for an open web.
Their documentation is excellent, the improvements and roadmap for Thunderbird made me finally adopt it, and I appreciate their privacy-friendlier translation services. uBO works great in Firefox, and I can't stand using a browser without its full features.
About MBA types: the free software project I work for has an MBA type, which I initially resented as being an outsider. However, they manage the finances, think about team and project growth long-term (with heavy financial consequences), and ignore the daily technical debates (which are left to the lead devs), and listen to users, big and small. Some loud users like to complain that we don't listen to them, and sometimes we kick them out, because we do listen to users.
I don't know much about Mozilla internals, if I am to judge from the results: Mozilla is still here, despite everyone saying for 10+ years that they are going to die. They are still competitive. They are still holding big tech accountable, despite having a fraction of their power. I can imagine that they make a lot of people here very uncomfortable.
> despite everyone saying for 10+ years that they are going to die.
What many people have been saying in my experience is pretty much the opposite: that Mozilla isn't going anywhere because Google wants them (needs them) to be around. That it's their antitrust Trojan horse.
I have been using Syncthing fork since before the official app was discontinued, and can vouch for its quality. My favorite feature is that it allows conditional pausing of folders based on phone state, such as if the phone is charging or connected to WiFi. Just be warned that the version on Google Play was no longer updated last time I checked (Googles fault), so you're better downloading releases from the Github repo.
The sync would stall and I'd have to go retry, or it would fail with no error clear message. In the end, I had no idea what had really synched correctly. The app was unhappy if I deleted a photo too quickly.
With Syncthing, I sync to a directory that my Nextcloud user can access (a read-only mount), so I can still easily share photos using Nextcloud, for example.
(although it's unfortunate that the Android syncthing app is being retired. h/t for the heads up and the recommended alternatives)
I'm all for competition, but smaller players would have been completely blocked by Privacy Shield, whereas they cannot block CloudFlare completely without breaking a lot of other sites.
And CloudFlare went to court. Most companies would not be able to afford it.
ICQ was a way of texting friends so that you could go party. At least for me, and I'm a nerd. I remember even "normal" friends were using IRC as a way to hookup. Cell phones were not very common.
Looking at my non-nerd 17 year old, they meet maybe once a month, and it's to cook food together during the day. Nobody drinks. They just see it as a waste of money. Maybe not the most normal sample. They love biking and also go to circus school together (Montreal).
I like icinga's model, which can run a small agent on the server, but it doesn't run as root. I grant specific sudo rules for checks that need elevated permissions.
I find it easier to write custom checks for things where I don't control the application. My custom checks often do API calls for the applications they monitor (using curl locally against their own API).
There are also lots of existing scripts I can re-use, either from the Icinga or from Nagios community, so that I don't write my own.
For example, recently I added systemd monitoring. There is a package for the check (monitoring-plugins-systemd). So I used Ansible to install everywhere, and then "apply" a conf to all my Debian servers. Helped me find a bunch of failing services or timers, which previously went un-noticed, including things like backups, where my backup monitoring said everything was OK, but the systemd service for borgmatic was running a "check" a found some corruption.
For logs I use promtail/loki. Also very much worth the investment. Useful to detect elevated error rates, and also for finding slow http queries (again, I don't fully control the code of applications I manage).
I mean, sure, you could blame the climate crisis on the petrol companies that have doubled production in Alberta in the past 10 years, or you suspect "eco-terrorists" which, as far as I know, is a Maxime Bernier conspiracy theory that has never been proven, despite the fact that environmental groups are constantly under CSIS watch? (https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230609-canada-wildfi...)
The Crunchlabs agent seems to be based off the Arduino Agent, so I'm surprised they don't support Linux.
My teenager never had any issues with using Linux since the age of 10 (old laptop with Firefox and Minecraft), and never used Windows (school uses Chromebooks). Hopefully this works with just a standard editor too, although the Crunchlabs IDE looks nicer for learning.
That's an odd reference to DEI. I'd say the negative consequences of authoritarian regimes is that they suppress freedom, and therefore art and technological innovation.
China is authoritarian, but also has a huge political system, somewhat strong institutions. That can't be said of many authoritarian regimes, which tend to be more fragile. It takes a really long time to build civil institutions. For example, Russia has the money and an authoritarian regime, but repeatedly fails to innovate, and we can't predict what will happen when Putin leaves.
I see finances for a few free software projects, and many of them really struggle to get donations year after year, in a way that helps make the project predictable and sustainable.
For the US, people want you to be a 501c3, and then you need a EU equivalent. Canadians are unlikely to give to a US org (especially these days), but the market is too small to setup a local charity. So you need partners. All that has many compliance requirements and paperwork, so you need non-tech employees for the fundraising and accounting.
Eventually your big donors start blackmailing the project if you don't do what they want, and often their interests are not aligned with most users. You need various income sources.