Whatever the reasons for it may be, the entire "developer" vs "user" distinction has become absurd. Perhaps Mozilla's partners can be sold the idea that Mozilla is only allowing "developers" to potentially have more control over surreptitious data collection, e.g., by using "add-ons", and the assumption by those partnering with Mozilla is that "developers" are all on the side of online advertising. I am a user who does not care for sending free data to "tech" companies. The "For Developers" schtick has really become pathetic. By default, Firefox Nightly automatically sends data to Mozilla - and sometimes our partners - to help us handle problems and try ideas. "Warning: Nightly is an unstable testing and development platform. Streamlining regulations isn't going to magically make it economically feasible for some start-up to somehow make money making a web browser. So, just let Google own the browser market? I don't see how this is useful or productive. Instead they should focus on streamlining bureaucracies and regulation etc so that private entities (companies, or foundations or otherwise) that provide what people want (software or otherwise) can flourish in the EU. >In any case, I still think it would be a waste of taxpayer money for the EU to pick winners (ie award the project to someone). Quite simply, every time you clone a git repo, it's a fork.Īnyway, sure, they should try to get their contributions upstreamed, but what if Mozilla is recalcitrant? The EU would be correct to release their own version for EU use. So either you just keep the internal fork and upstream as much as you can, and hope that the parent org takes these submissions, or you release your fork publicly if the parent org isn't cooperative enough. Any time you have a different entity working on a software project, it becomes forked. The point I wanted to make is that the EU should not fork Firefox, but rather try to get their favourite contributions upstreamed, if possible. >In any case, I already mentioned in my comment that the EU can pay someone other than Mozilla. Why would the EU want to pay for EU devs to be flown to the US and paid inflated US salaries, instead of just keeping that talent at home? Sure, they can hire someone from EU and fly them to the US to work, but I'm not aware of them having offices in the EU. >Mozilla can already hire from anywhere, too, can't they? In any case, I still think it would be a waste of taxpayer money for the EU to pick winners (ie award the project to someone). In any case, I already mentioned in my comment that the EU can pay someone other than Mozilla. Mozilla can already hire from anywhere, too, can't they? > Plus, they can get a lot more software talent for their Euro in the EU (esp. But not from a macroeconomic economic point of view, or just getting bang-for-your-buck. That's, alas, true from a political point of view. > Also, Mozilla is an American company the EU would naturally want to give money to an EU company that hires EU citizens to do such high-value, high-paid work, not send that money to the US. Or perhaps they just have different priorities, and the EU can specifically pay them to do some work on EU priorities? > The reason for forking rather than throwing money at Mozilla is that Mozilla doesn't seem to be doing a great job of managing themselves. (Some people even go so far as claiming that outsourced government projects are worse than in-house ones.) I skimmed over the issue here: my more precise point is that government entities generally aren't good at building things when they outsource the actual building, either. I wouldn't expect EU government employees to work directly on FF, but rather for it to be contracted out to some EU company or companies. Government entities aren't any good at building almost anything, but that's why they contract work out to private companies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |