From the guys at Mozilla Foundation, who made a $25 million margin in 2023 (!), have $118 millions in assets, invested $35 millions in AI bullshit, but still fired 30% of the Foundation workers in 2024. And now they want more money to decentralize a private company, while Mastodon, a non-profit initiative only has $0.5 millions in funding a year. Is this a joke?
Mozilla could easily give $5 millions a year to various Fediverse projects, greatly improving things, on a project that is already decentralized today.
It's basically based on what other similarly-sized tech start-ups pay. Which is ridiculous to me as Mozilla is basically a Google-funded open source project.
Also, who was on the nominating committee when Laura Chambers was nominated to the Mozilla Corporation in the first place? Baker. With one other member of the compensation committee, and another person.
This seems also to be a conflict of interest to me.
This is a simple and lighweight WebDAV server, allowing to easily set up a file sharing server compatible with WebDAV and NextCloud clients. It has no depencies and good performance.
It also has a built-in WOPI server to edit documents with Collabora or OnlyOffice, and a nice web UI to manage files using a web browser.
Pssh, who wants forum content of all things to be accessible with search engines? Get with the times, man! If it's not rendered client-side and completely inaccessible in contexts outside of an entire browser stack, nobody will take it seriously in 2022! I mean, we might as well go back to cuneiform and clay tablets, and other things with permanence!
It's fully accessible by search engines and Google has rendered JS pages for almost a decade now. Pages are being indexed just fine by search engines as long as they act like a client and modern ones do.
This makes it much less like a traditional forum. That changes things, as I now would have to trust the JS, to run it in my browser on my machine. The parent comment merely states a fact and expresses their disappointment. That is not something to downvote. Maybe the JS crown is a bit too allergic here? It is a perfectly valid concern and would be a reason for me as well to not use it, unless I took a lot of time to check the JS source. Even then, the JS might change over time. I would have to read all of it again and again to really be sure nothing nefarious is going on.
That sandbox still leaves a lot of things accessible inside the browser though. APIs, which the site does not even need, but are provided by default by the browser. If I had a browser, which asked me for every new API (for example: "making requests to a server, first party, third party) access and the JS gave me a sound reasoning, of why this needs to happen, then perhaps I could trust it more. We have that partially, for things like location access, camera and microphone, but those are only very few things. I would also like to be able to specify, whether JS for one website (not only in general, but also that) is able to access my fonts list and stuff like that.
If we had this kind of control, then we could create generic profiles and go into the direction of Tor browser in terms of disappearing in the crowd when it comes to fingerprinting. Then we could share these profiles with other less tech-savy users to protect them as well.
Good luck getting any normal user not using JS, but also "for things like location access, camera and microphone" all listed stuff asks for permission before use by the OS/browser, or at least it does on any modern browser.
I even said, that we already have that sort of control for camera and microphone. You present those things in a way, as if you think, that I did not mention them as already existing. As if you have to lecture me about them existing in a modern browser. I did never claim that they did not for camera or microphone. Your comment feels agressive to me and seems to hint, that you did not parse my previous comment correctly.
What the "normal user" does, is not really my main concern. There could be a switch to "expert mode" or whatever. The "normal user" doesn't even know, that a website consists of HTML, maybe CSS, and maybe JS. They are so far behind in basic knowledge, that I think it would be hopeless to demand such decisions from them. They just don't know how the Internet works. They are merely users.
> There could be a switch to "expert mode" or whatever.
That would require building 2 completely different apps that work completely differently.
There is no CSS, no resources that are loaded in, all the structure and style and everything is generated as it's needed so that the server does not need to parse and create pages that end up using and spending a lot of resources when under load. This way the server only gives the JSON data out and the website parses and generates everything.
Can't do that without Javascript, just like an Android or iOS app can't work without using a front end language to generate the view that you interact with.
That is the one down side I built the entire thing as one JS block, so without JS there is absolutely nothing, but it also includes no external JS or anything, it's just inline and it's got no tracking or analytics at all on the client end.
Mozilla could easily give $5 millions a year to various Fediverse projects, greatly improving things, on a project that is already decentralized today.