←back to thread

Let me pay for Firefox

(discourse.mozilla.org)
802 points csmantle | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
gr4vityWall ◴[] No.44549048[source]
I used to want to donate to Mozilla Foundation, but I've long lost any hope that the corporation would spend that money in a way that makes sense to me. The pessimist on me would expect donated money to be spent on more built-in "campaigns", "studies" or ads. Or maybe a bonus for their executives.

I just want Firefox to be faster. I'm donating to Floorp (a Firefox fork), at least they seem focused on making the browser better.

replies(21): >>44549113 #>>44549167 #>>44549236 #>>44549241 #>>44549326 #>>44549407 #>>44549438 #>>44549518 #>>44549541 #>>44549713 #>>44549720 #>>44549848 #>>44550129 #>>44550186 #>>44550236 #>>44550963 #>>44551035 #>>44552251 #>>44552725 #>>44553787 #>>44554444 #
Uehreka ◴[] No.44549541[source]
I get why people are pissed at Mozilla, but I do feel like people on HN also underestimate how much hating Mozilla is becoming a hacker tribal signifier. It almost feel like each commenter is competing to out-hate the others or to add a layer of “in fact its so bad that we should (consequences)”.

Like, in general, I find that any HN thread where most of the comments are just agreeing, one-upping and yes-anding while invoking the same talking points and terminology (CEO ghouls, etc.) is probably a topic we might need to chill out on.

replies(22): >>44549569 #>>44549570 #>>44549593 #>>44549647 #>>44549652 #>>44549739 #>>44550040 #>>44550191 #>>44550364 #>>44550420 #>>44550422 #>>44550443 #>>44550471 #>>44550686 #>>44550727 #>>44550871 #>>44551243 #>>44552259 #>>44555879 #>>44556225 #>>44563570 #>>44566848 #
ericpauley ◴[] No.44549647[source]
Completely agree. For all the hate Mozilla gets on HN, I’ve been using Firefox every day for a decade and it pretty much just works, supports a rich collection of (vetted!) extensions, and performs exceptionally well with sometimes hundreds of tabs.

Mozilla makes mistakes just like any organization but they’ve done and continue to do more for an open Internet than most.

replies(8): >>44549741 #>>44549858 #>>44549891 #>>44550665 #>>44551031 #>>44553229 #>>44555863 #>>44556993 #
WhyNotHugo ◴[] No.44549741[source]
Firefox works, but it’s got thousands of annoying issues (many of them just paper cuts, but still).

The CEO’s salary is enough to fund >30 extra devs. Imagine how many of those issues could have been ironed out over the years.

replies(4): >>44549794 #>>44549957 #>>44552022 #>>44555826 #
rs186 ◴[] No.44549957[source]
> The CEO’s salary is enough to fund >30 extra devs

I keep seeing this line as if people think CEOs shouldn't exist or aren't worth their compensation. That is incredibly incorrect thinking. Good CEOs and bad CEOs are two different creatures and lead companies to very different places. Just like you want to pay more for highly skilled developers, you want executive pay to be competitive to hire someone capable of the job.

Put it this way, you could pay me $1m in annual compensation to be Mozilla's CEO (sounds like a good deal?), but I am sure I will be the most terrible CEO in the history of the company and cannot even run the company properly at a daily basis.

replies(11): >>44549977 #>>44550081 #>>44550118 #>>44550171 #>>44550372 #>>44550400 #>>44550460 #>>44550542 #>>44551089 #>>44552512 #>>44554738 #
eloisant ◴[] No.44550171[source]
CEO should exist, and it's normal that their compensation is the highest of the company.

However it shouldn't be a 268 to 1 ratio with the median worker like the SP500 average. There is no way the CEO is worth that much money to the company.

replies(2): >>44550214 #>>44550254 #
1. josephg ◴[] No.44550254[source]
At a very large company, I think some individual decisions the CEO makes will have much more impact on the company than the work output of 268 employees. I think some CEOs really are probably worth that kind of money. People like Steve Jobs.

However, most ceos aren’t genius superstars. And I don’t think CEO pay really makes sense given supply and demand. I think there’s plenty of people who could do at least as good a job as many CEOs do, and would happily do so for a lot less money.

I suspect a lot of CEO pay is an arse-covering exercise by the board. If the board hires a super expensive CEO, and that person turns out to be terrible, the board can say they did everything they could do to get the best ceo. But if the board hires someone for much less money who turns out to be a turkey, they might be blamed for cheaping out on the ceo - and thus the company’s downfall is their fault.

Is the Mozilla CEO really so amazing at their job that they deserve such insane compensation? I doubt it. I bet there’s dozens of people at Mozilla today who are probably smart enough to do a great job as CEO. They just won’t be considered for the role for stupid reasons.