From JWZ's blog:

Earlier this year, Mozilla laid out their vision for the future of their
organization -- and it did not include Firefox. The focus for the future
of Mozilla -- according to Mozilla -- is primarily based around
Artificial Intelligence services.

In fact, Mozilla leadership stated, quite plainly, that they intend to
take Mozilla "in a different direction."

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mark-surman-mozilla-25-years/

When you consider the goals of Mozilla... the decreasing Firefox
marketshare is no longer much of a concern. In fact, moving revenue away
from Firefox, while investing in A.I. systems (and other subscription
services) becomes the primary goal. [...]

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> writes:
>From JWZ's blog:
>Earlier this year, Mozilla laid out their vision for the future of their

Does someone have a vision, or is someone being driven by
circumstances, stumbling and trying to find a foothold somewhere?

Ben Collver:

> In fact, moving revenue away from Firefox, while investing
> in A.I. systems (and other subscription services) becomes
> the primary goal.

As one clueless about modern economy, I wonder what kind of
revenue can Mozilla be drawing from a web browser that is
free as in beer.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Ben Collver:
>
>> moving revenue away from Firefox, while investing
>> in A.I. systems (and other subscription services) becomes
>> the primary goal.

Oh dear ...

> As one clueless about modern economy, I wonder what kind of
> revenue can Mozilla be drawing from a web browser that is
> free as in beer.

Until now, they've been quite successful in tapping Google for hundreds
of $millions per year, but who knows for how much longer? I presume the
side-lines such as Pocket or VPNs are pocket change in comparison ...

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> writes:

> From JWZ's blog:
>
> Earlier this year, Mozilla laid out their vision for the future of their
> organization -- and it did not include Firefox. The focus for the future
> of Mozilla -- according to Mozilla -- is primarily based around
> Artificial Intelligence services.
>
> In fact, Mozilla leadership stated, quite plainly, that they intend to
> take Mozilla "in a different direction."
>
> https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mark-surman-mozilla-25-years/
>
> When you consider the goals of Mozilla... the decreasing Firefox
> marketshare is no longer much of a concern. In fact, moving revenue away
> from Firefox, while investing in A.I. systems (and other subscription
> services) becomes the primary goal. [...]

Without a Free Software browser, the web will be completely dominated by
corporate actors. Intelligent people will leave and look for
alternatives. We could go back to gopher-like services. In fact, see
the gemini protocol.

The web is not control-resistant because it's difficult to build a
browser. So difficult that you can only compete if you're a big group.
So there is no diversity in the offer. Without diversity, its survival
is greatly threatened.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Anton Shepelev wrote:
>> As one clueless about modern economy, I wonder what kind of
>> revenue can Mozilla be drawing from a web browser that is
>> free as in beer.
>
> Until now, they've been quite successful in tapping Google for hundreds
> of $millions per year, but who knows for how much longer?

Yes, unfortunately it sounds like they're getting prepared to drop
Firefox like a stone as soon as Google stops sending them cheques.

> I presume the side-lines such as Pocket or VPNs are pocket change
> in comparison ...

This more recent Blog post appears to be an example of one of the
new Mozilla projects, an AI website builder:
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/introducing-solo-ai-website-builder/

They're going from offering a product with only one real
competitor, to products where the market is as crowded as could
possibly be. It seems a bit desperate.

For Firefox, this blog post looks ominous too:
"Why we're renaming 'Firefox accounts' to 'Mozilla accounts'"
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/firefox-accounts-transition-mozilla-accounts/

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
> Without a Free Software browser, the web will be completely dominated by
> corporate actors. Intelligent people will leave and look for
> alternatives. We could go back to gopher-like services. In fact, see
> the gemini protocol.

I read the blog post in Dillo, and although the developer of that
browser has disappeared, there are forks, and similar projects like
Links and (less active) Netsurf.

Gopher and Gemini don't need to replace the web so that people can
keep using "free software", websites just need to use the features
of HTML that allow them to be compatible with that software. For
the web pages that aren't usable in those alternative browsers,
it's a more reasonable proposition for those website developers to
implement Javascript-free fall-back solutions than have them switch
to Gopher or Gemini. In fact many used to do that once, only they
stopped.

> The web is not control-resistant because it's difficult to build a
> browser. So difficult that you can only compete if you're a big group.
> So there is no diversity in the offer. Without diversity, its survival
> is greatly threatened.

As standard go, the Web still fully supports building websites
compatible with all browsers. There's a ton of extremely
complicated stuff that's been added over the years, but it's
optional. The trouble is that it's not treated as optional from
the client-side by website developers, only as options to pick
from on their side, with the assumption that if an option is
supported in Chrome then it's supported by the one client that
everyone actually uses and therefore alternative methods don't
matter.

Gopher and Gemini could go exactly the same way if people with the
same attitude did adopt them to build a complete Web alternative.
It's not a standards problem, it's a culture problem.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

On 2023-12-30, Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> wrote:
> Ben Collver:
>> In fact, moving revenue away from Firefox, while investing
>> in A.I. systems (and other subscription services) becomes
>> the primary goal.
>
> As one clueless about modern economy, I wonder what kind of
> revenue can Mozilla be drawing from a web browser that is
> free as in beer.

There's the busking model: annoy users into giving you money, like
public radio and Wikipedia habitually do.

On 2023-12-30, Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> wrote:
>
> As one clueless about modern economy, I wonder what kind of
> revenue can Mozilla be drawing from a web browser that is
> free as in beer.

Sure, they lose money on the product but they make it up in volume!
It worked for Crazy Eddie!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:

> Without a Free Software browser, the web will be completely dominated by
> corporate actors. Intelligent people will leave and look for
> alternatives. We could go back to gopher-like services. In fact, see
> the gemini protocol.

Why?

If you can self-host gemini or gopher, you can do that with http too.
Noone forces you to use QIC, CSS or JS. A reasonable subset of today's
overfeatured http/html still can and will play a role.

The problem is not what to use when writing for friends and reading that
with lynx, w3m, netsurf, dillo, emacs/eww, elinks, ...

The problem is that some things in daily life force us to use browsers
we would like not to touch at all for some services we cannot avoid.
That's the part that needs a massive revolt and there neither gopher nor
gemini will be the solution.

--
"Wir Europäer sind dafür bekannt, dass wir gerne Dinge verbieten. Das
Prinzip der Datensparsamkeit, wie wir es vor vielen Jahren hatten, kann
heute nicht die generelle Leitschnur sein für die Entwicklung neuer
Produkte." - Angela Merkel beim nationalen IT-Gipfel 2016 in Saarbrücken

Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:

> Without a Free Software browser, the web will be completely dominated by
> corporate actors. Intelligent people will leave and look for
> alternatives. We could go back to gopher-like services. In fact, see
> the gemini protocol.

Why?

If you can self-host gemini or gopher, you can do that with http too.
Noone forces you to use QUIC, CSS or JS. A reasonable subset of today's
overfeatured http/html still can and will play a role.

The problem is not what to use when writing for friends and reading that
with lynx, w3m, netsurf, dillo, emacs/eww, elinks, ...

The problem is that some things in daily life force us to use browsers
we would like not to touch at all for some services we cannot avoid.
That's the part that needs a massive revolt and there neither gopher nor
gemini will be the solution.

--
"Wir Europäer sind dafür bekannt, dass wir gerne Dinge verbieten. Das
Prinzip der Datensparsamkeit, wie wir es vor vielen Jahren hatten, kann
heute nicht die generelle Leitschnur sein für die Entwicklung neuer
Produkte." - Angela Merkel beim nationalen IT-Gipfel 2016 in Saarbrücken

yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> writes:

> Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:
>
>> Without a Free Software browser, the web will be completely dominated by
>> corporate actors. Intelligent people will leave and look for
>> alternatives. We could go back to gopher-like services. In fact, see
>> the gemini protocol.
>
> Why?

I don't know, but it's what happens right now. All browser vendors are
major players, unlike NNTP servers, which are so simple that a single
person can implement in a weekend, so you find lots of alternatives.
Not so with browsers.

> If you can self-host gemini or gopher, you can do that with http too.

Of course.

> Noone forces you to use QUIC, CSS or JS. A reasonable subset of
> today's overfeatured http/html still can and will play a role.

When we talk about browsers, we are not necessarily talking about the
protocols they speak.

> The problem is that some things in daily life force us to use browsers
> we would like not to touch at all for some services we cannot avoid.

Precisely.

You can always walk in other people's land, but as soon as you upset the
owners they kick you out. It's like having freedom until your boss says
you don't.

> That's the part that needs a massive revolt and there neither gopher
> nor gemini will be the solution.

The solution is a web that's simple. The protocol seems to be doing
well enough, but the browser is a total disaster. If only a handful of
people can build it, it's a total disaster. Without diversity, there's
no resilience.

Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

> For the web pages that aren't usable in those alternative browsers,
> it's a more reasonable proposition for those website developers to
> implement Javascript-free fall-back solutions than have them switch
> to Gopher or Gemini. In fact many used to do that once, only they
> stopped.
They stopped because they didn't like effectively having to develop the
site twice, and maintain both modes

Seems a *lot* of effort has gone into competing client-side frameworks
to make websites interact like fat-client programs used to, maybe the
effort should have been server-side that generates client-side that
works reliably with/without javascript?

I must admit, because there are *so* many of these frameworks being
produced, I don't have time to look at them, to see if any are doing
that, but based on how gracelessly websites fail without javascript now,
I'm guessing not ...

Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

> For Firefox, this blog post looks ominous too:
> "Why we're renaming 'Firefox accounts' to 'Mozilla accounts'"
> https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/firefox-accounts-transition-mozilla-accounts/

I don't see a thunderbird icon in that list (yes, I know MZLA is at
least arms-length from moz://a)

Am 30.12.2023 um 17:48:43 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:

> Without a Free Software browser, the web will be completely dominated
> by corporate actors. Intelligent people will leave and look for
> alternatives.

Pale Moon exists.

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
> Am 30.12.2023 um 17:48:43 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:
>
> > Without a Free Software browser, the web will be completely dominated
> > by corporate actors. Intelligent people will leave and look for
> > alternatives.
>
> Pale Moon exists.

And so does Firefox in 2023. But suppose Mozilla decides to give up
maintaining it. What happens when Firefox or Pale Moon are 5+ years behind
the state of the web?

Old browsers can hang on for a long time if you don't care about security
updates, but it gets increasingly difficult when sites refuse to work with
them.

It is possible to use Dillo or NetSurf as your daily driver, but good luck
doing your banking with it.

Theo

Julieta Shem wrote:

> Without a Free Software browser, the web will be completely dominated by
> corporate actors. Intelligent people will leave and look for
> alternatives. We could go back to gopher-like services. In fact, see
> the gemini protocol.

Frankly, i don't see why we should bother with specialised hypertext
protocols when FTP already exists.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/blu.mɛin.dʰak/
│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
I am only behind if you measure by who is currently winning!

Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:

> Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│blu.mɛin.dʰak
> │he/him/his/himself/Mr.

Is that what you intended?

Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Julieta Shem wrote:
>
>> Without a Free Software browser, the web will be completely dominated by
>> corporate actors. Intelligent people will leave and look for
>> alternatives. We could go back to gopher-like services. In fact, see
>> the gemini protocol.
>
>Frankly, i don't see why we should bother with specialised hypertext
>protocols when FTP already exists.

Those specialized hypertext protocols sit ON TOP OF ftp. Or http, or https,
or carrier pigeon or what have you.

They do not replace ftp, but supplant it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Andy Burns wrote:

> Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>
>> Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│blu.mɛin.dʰak
>> │he/him/his/himself/Mr.
>
> Is that what you intended?

No, my newsreader by a bug mojibakes nonascii. Since it's not my fault
that it happened, it's not my responsibility to fix it.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/blu.mɛin.dʰak/
│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> For the web pages that aren't usable in those alternative browsers,
>> it's a more reasonable proposition for those website developers to
>> implement Javascript-free fall-back solutions than have them switch
>> to Gopher or Gemini. In fact many used to do that once, only they
>> stopped.
> They stopped because they didn't like effectively having to develop the
> site twice, and maintain both modes
>
> Seems a *lot* of effort has gone into competing client-side frameworks
> to make websites interact like fat-client programs used to, maybe the
> effort should have been server-side that generates client-side that
> works reliably with/without javascript?

There might be some technical advantage for the website operator
that can come from doing more data processing at the client side
to reduce server load, although it would often come at the expense
of sending more data to the client and more exposure to security
vulnerabilities. But I suspect it's mainly about making things look
like someone's idea of pretty, in which case a Javascript-optional
framework might be used. I don't know what would cause such a thing
to be written and adopted now though, wonderful as it would be.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

Am 31.12.2023 um 10:55:59 Uhr schrieb Theo:

> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
> > Am 30.12.2023 um 17:48:43 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:
> >
> > > Without a Free Software browser, the web will be completely
> > > dominated by corporate actors. Intelligent people will leave and
> > > look for alternatives.
> >
> > Pale Moon exists.
>
> And so does Firefox in 2023. But suppose Mozilla decides to give up
> maintaining it. What happens when Firefox or Pale Moon are 5+ years
> behind the state of the web?

I think for Firefox enough volunteers exist to create a fork, like Pale
Moon did, to continue development.

Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:

> Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> writes:
>
> The web is not control-resistant because it's difficult to build a
> browser. So difficult that you can only compete if you're a big group.
> So there is no diversity in the offer. Without diversity, its survival
> is greatly threatened.
To be honest, I don't think web browsers will still be a thing a
decade from now. It will all be 'apps' consuming some kind of
standardised API.

Just my two cents.

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> writes:

> I think for Firefox enough volunteers exist to create a fork, like Pale
> Moon did, to continue development.

How does that relate to the future of Seamonkey? (My preferred browser.)

Seamonkey, despite best efforts of developers/maintainers seems to
have some trouble keeping up with the latest complexities of
javascript -- the only aspect that ever causes me trouble. Can
Seamonkey become a viable fork of FF?

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

On 12/30/23 21:48, Julieta Shem wrote:
> Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> writes:
>
> Without a Free Software browser, the web will be completely dominated by
> corporate actors. Intelligent people will leave and look for
> alternatives. We could go back to gopher-like services. In fact, see
> the gemini protocol.

The death of Mozilla wouldn't mean the death of Firefox, any more than
Blender, MariaDB and Libreoffice are dead.