🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 18:11:12 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

>"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> <https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/08/firefox_isnt_dead/>
>> 
>> *Firefox is fine. The people running it are not*
>> 
>> Mozilla's management is a bug, not a feature
>> 
>> Liam Proven
>> Tue 8 Jul 2025 // 09:35 UTC
>> 
>> Opinion Dominance does not equal importance, nor is dominance the same 
>> as relevance. The snag at Mozilla is a management layer that doesn't 
>> appear to understand what works for its product nor which parts of it 
>> matter most to users.
>> 
>> It is very rare for an article on The Register to cause friends of mine 
>> to contact me and anxiously ask if they should change their choice of 
>> tech, but SJVN's recent column, "Firefox is dead to me," 
>> (<https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/17/opinion_column_firefox/>) did it.
>> 
>> I am not here to shoot the messenger. Steven's core point is correct. 
>> Firefox is in a bit of a mess – but, seriously, not such a bad mess. 
>> You're still better off with it – or one of its forks, because this is 
>> FOSS – than pretty much any of the alternatives.
>> 
>> ... continue reading at the link if desired.
>
>I eventually gave up on Firefox...

That indicates your need to re-write 'War and Peace' involving Ffox
quibbles from others has ended?

We should be so lucky.

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> <https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/08/firefox_isnt_dead/>
>
> *Firefox is fine. The people running it are not*
>
> Mozilla's management is a bug, not a feature
>
> Liam Proven
> Tue 8 Jul 2025 // 09:35 UTC
>
> Opinion Dominance does not equal importance, nor is dominance the same
> as relevance. The snag at Mozilla is a management layer that doesn't
> appear to understand what works for its product nor which parts of it
> matter most to users.
>
> It is very rare for an article on The Register to cause friends of mine
> to contact me and anxiously ask if they should change their choice of
> tech, but SJVN's recent column, "Firefox is dead to me,"
> (<https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/17/opinion_column_firefox/>) did it.
>
> I am not here to shoot the messenger. Steven's core point is correct.
> Firefox is in a bit of a mess – but, seriously, not such a bad mess.
> You're still better off with it – or one of its forks, because this is
> FOSS – than pretty much any of the alternatives.
>
> ... continue reading at the link if desired.

I eventually gave up on Firefox, but the decision to leave spanned a
couple years.  There were decisions by Mozilla that I didn't like, but
Firefox was still the best web browser, especially for folks that want
to choose how secure and private is the web browser.  Firefox is very
configurable.

Alas, Firefox became a lot slower at many sites that are heavily
Javascripted.  At my ISP's web site, I'd login, but navigating my
account there was very slow.  Sometimes it felt like the web browser had
hung, or the site was dead.  Not the case since Edge worked the
Firefox-problematic sites much faster.  Then I kept hitting more and
more sites that would not render properly in Firefox, but would in Edge
and Brave.  About a year ago, I'd hit about 2 sites per month that were
screwed up in Firefox.  Then it got worse at about 2 sites per week, and
those are sites that are not in my favorites; i.e., it was from a random
sample of web sites that I hit when researching a topic.  Then my bank,
pharmacy, and other sites that I do frequent, and are in my bookmarks,
started having artifacts with Firefox, but not with Edge or Brave.  I
moved to Edge (after trialing Brave), but kept Firefox as a backup or
secondary web browser, but eventually decided to dump it.  It was a
teary departure.

If Firefox kept up with rendering compatibility and script speed, I'd
still be using it.  The only reason why I kept using Firefox for the
last year was Mozilla supporting both v2 and v3 of Manifest, so I didn't
lose important add-ons, like uBlock Origin (rather than get stuck with
the MV3 version of uBlock Origin Lite).  However, although crippled,
together the MV3 versions of uBO Lite, Adguard Adblocker (bundled in
Edge), and Privacy Badger, or the adblocker integral to Brave, were
equally sufficient in Chromium variants.  Eventually I ran out of
excuses to stay with Firefox.

FOSS is nice, but it is not a heavy factor in me deciding what to use.
I don't need to know how a hammer was manufactured to know one is better
than another.

Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>
>> I eventually gave up on Firefox...
>
> That indicates your need to re-write 'War and Peace' involving Ffox
> quibbles from others has ended?
>
> We should be so lucky.

You'd miss me.

VanguardLH wrote:
> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>
>>> I eventually gave up on Firefox...
>>
>> That indicates your need to re-write 'War and Peace' involving Ffox
>> quibbles from others has ended?
>>
>> We should be so lucky.
>
> You'd miss me.

Nope. I'm sorry.

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> Wrote in message:

> <https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/08/firefox_isnt_dead/>
>
> *Firefox is fine. The people running it are not*
>
> Mozilla's management is a bug, not a feature
>
>
> Liam Proven
> Tue 8 Jul 2025 // 09:35 UTC
>
> Opinion Dominance does not equal importance, nor is dominance the same
> as relevance. The snag at Mozilla is a management layer that doesn't
> appear to understand what works for its product nor which parts of it
> matter most to users.
>
> It is very rare for an article on The Register to cause friends of mine
> to contact me and anxiously ask if they should change their choice of
> tech, but SJVN's recent column, "Firefox is dead to me,"
> (<https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/17/opinion_column_firefox/>) did it.
>
> I am not here to shoot the messenger. Steven's core point is correct.
> Firefox is in a bit of a mess – but, seriously, not such a bad mess.
> You're still better off with it – or one of its forks, because this is
> FOSS – than pretty much any of the alternatives.
>
> ... continue reading at the link if desired.
>

Better than 'Firefox is dead to me' piece. But some questionable
 assertions.

"Rust was developed at Mozilla. Mozilla axed it." So, Rust would
 have been a great language if only Mozilla had continued
 development. Oh, hang on...

"...invested $50 million into KaiOStech, saying it would help
 bring the next billion people online...KaiOS is Boot2Gecko,
 Mozilla's FirefoxOS rebranded. Mozilla killed its own version in
 2015."  So if Mozilla had persevered with B2G they would have
 succeeded and Android wouldn't be ubiquitous in poorer countries?
 That's a big if.

But yes, some questionable initiatives over the past few years. Or
 maybe they were just things that I don't have a use for. I'd like
 to hear Mozilla's response. They're constrained mainly by money
 and Google. Or maybe that's only one thing.

What do we measure Mozilla's success by? Market share? Spin-off
 technology?  Influence? Merely continuing to exist
 perhaps.
--
Remove numerics from my email address.

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Wed, 9 Jul 2025 20:21:58 +0200, "Carlos
E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

><https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/08/firefox_isnt_dead/>
>
>*Firefox is fine. The people running it are not*
>
>Mozilla's management is a bug, not a feature
>
>
>Liam Proven
>Tue 8 Jul 2025 // 09:35 UTC
>
>Opinion Dominance does not equal importance, nor is dominance the same
>as relevance. The snag at Mozilla is a management layer that doesn't
>appear to understand what works for its product nor which parts of it
>matter most to users.
>
>It is very rare for an article on The Register to cause friends of mine
>to contact me and anxiously ask if they should change their choice of
>tech, but SJVN's recent column, "Firefox is dead to me,"
>(<https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/17/opinion_column_firefox/>) did it.
>
>I am not here to shoot the messenger. Steven's core point is correct.
>Firefox is in a bit of a mess – but, seriously, not such a bad mess.
>You're still better off with it – or one of its forks, because this is

What are its forks?   By name, I mean.

I like FF largely for the alternate search window on the right.

I dislike Edge largely for its creating hyperlinks instead of links
whenone copies a link in order to paste it somewhere.

No special feelings about Chrome, except maybe when I had more than one
window of Chrome, it would only open one and ask me if I wanted the
others. Of course I do. Why not a setting so I always get all of them. I
couldn't find one. I think it was Chrome that did that.

>FOSS – than pretty much any of the alternatives.
>
>... continue reading at the link if desired.

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Thu, 10 Jul 2025 13:22:08 +0100, Andy
Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>micky wrote:
>
>> What are its forks?   By name, I mean.
>
>Zen
>Waterfox
>Librewolf

Wow.  Never heard of these.  Since they must be smaller than FF, do they
have the staff to keep current with bugs and windows changes etc.?

It seems that no matter how good the basic design is, problems arise.
For example, in FF, I'm using Custom Colors for visited links (because
it's so hard to distinguish the blue from the purple that is the default
for unvisited vs. visited links, a bug in itself from one point of view)
but that messes up at least 3 different sorts of things: the color of
found text in PDF files (which is no longer different from the rest of
the text), Google Maps review stars (which instead of being gold or grey
are all black), and some checkboxes in medical admission surveys etc
(which no longer look different when checked or unchecked). And who
knows what else it messes up that I haven't come across.  Bugzilla was
working on this, 3 people at least, but one guy seems to have decided
most of it is inevitable. And can't be fixed. He seemed to have the last
word and he blames the website, but there are hundreds or thousands of
them, and one of them is Bugzilla's own registration page!

Will fork develoopers be able to keep up with such problems?  Will they
even do as well as FF?

On 2025-07-10 08:20, Dave Royal wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> Wrote in message:
>
>> <https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/08/firefox_isnt_dead/>
>>
>> *Firefox is fine. The people running it are not*

...

>
> Better than 'Firefox is dead to me' piece. But some questionable
>   assertions.
>
> "Rust was developed at Mozilla. Mozilla axed it." So, Rust would
>   have been a great language if only Mozilla had continued
>   development. Oh, hang on...

But the article doesn't say that. Rather that they axed a successful
product and team. A bad decision.


>
> "...invested $50 million into KaiOStech, saying it would help
>   bring the next billion people online...KaiOS is Boot2Gecko,
>   Mozilla's FirefoxOS rebranded. Mozilla killed its own version in
>   2015."  So if Mozilla had persevered with B2G they would have
>   succeeded and Android wouldn't be ubiquitous in poorer countries?
>   That's a big if.
>
> But yes, some questionable initiatives over the past few years. Or
>   maybe they were just things that I don't have a use for. I'd like
>   to hear Mozilla's response. They're constrained mainly by money
>   and Google. Or maybe that's only one thing.
>
> What do we measure Mozilla's success by? Market share? Spin-off
>   technology?  Influence? Merely continuing to exist
>   perhaps.

To me, market share.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2025-07-10 12:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-07-10 08:20, Dave Royal wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>
>>> <https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/08/firefox_isnt_dead/>
>>>
>>> *Firefox is fine. The people running it are not*
>
> ...


>> What do we measure Mozilla's success by? Market share? Spin-off
>>   technology?  Influence? Merely continuing to exist
>>   perhaps.
>
> To me, market share.

This paragraph of the article sums it up for me:

+++················
Zawinski has repeatedly said:

Now hear me out, but What If…? browser development was in the hands of
some kind of nonprofit organization?

In my humble but correct opinion, Mozilla should be doing two things and
two things only:

     Building THE reference implementation web browser, and
     Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees.
     There is no 3.

Perhaps this is the only viable resolution.
················++-

--
Cheers, Carlos.

micky wrote:

> What are its forks?   By name, I mean.

Zen
Waterfox
Librewolf

Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> wrote:

> "Rust was developed at Mozilla. Mozilla axed it." So, Rust would
>  have been a great language if only Mozilla had continued
>  development.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language)

Looks like there was sufficient interest in Rust, especially since
several projects used Rust, that it was kept alive by moving to the
Rust Foundation.

"In December 2022, Rust became the first language other than C and
assembly to be supported in the development of the Linux kernel."

"the Rust Core Team acknowledged the severe impact of the layoffs and
announced that plans for a Rust foundation were underway. The first goal
of the foundation would be to take ownership of all trademarks and
domain names, and take financial responsibility for their costs."

"On February 8, 2021, the formation of the Rust Foundation was announced
by five founding companies: Amazon Web Services, Google, Huawei,
Microsoft, and Mozilla."

While Rust started as a Mozilla project, looks like it became an
independent foundation.  Mozilla is still a participant, but larger
companies (Google, Microsoft, Amazon) wanted it to survive.

https://www.rust-lang.org/ doesn't look like a Mozilla site.
https://rustfoundation.org/members/ lists some big companies sponsoring
the Rust Foundation.  Doesn't look like Rust will disappear should
Mozilla flounder with the loss of Google revenue.

On 2025-07-10 15:12, micky wrote:
> Will fork develoopers be able to keep up with such problems?  Will they
> even do as well as FF?

Often forks keep tracking the original.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 10.07.2025 01:11, VanguardLH wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> <https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/08/firefox_isnt_dead/>
>>
>> *Firefox is fine. The people running it are not*
>>
>> Mozilla's management is a bug, not a feature

They are infected to the core with the silicon valley
tech bros AI bullshit virus.

Mozilla should be run like Linux, ffmpeg, curl.

ciao...

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> Wrote in message:

> Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> wrote:
>
>> "Rust was developed at Mozilla. Mozilla axed it." So, Rust would
>>  have been a great language if only Mozilla had continued
>>  development.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language)
>
> Looks like there was sufficient interest in Rust, especially since
> several projects used Rust, that it was kept alive by moving to the
> Rust Foundation.
>
> "In December 2022, Rust became the first language other than C and
> assembly to be supported in the development of the Linux kernel."
>
> "the Rust Core Team acknowledged the severe impact of the layoffs and
> announced that plans for a Rust foundation were underway. The first goal
> of the foundation would be to take ownership of all trademarks and
> domain names, and take financial responsibility for their costs."
>
> "On February 8, 2021, the formation of the Rust Foundation was announced
> by five founding companies: Amazon Web Services, Google, Huawei,
> Microsoft, and Mozilla."
>
> While Rust started as a Mozilla project, looks like it became an
> independent foundation.  Mozilla is still a participant, but larger
> companies (Google, Microsoft, Amazon) wanted it to survive.
>
> https://www.rust-lang.org/ doesn't look like a Mozilla site.
> https://rustfoundation.org/members/ lists some big companies sponsoring
> the Rust Foundation.  Doesn't look like Rust will disappear should
> Mozilla flounder with the loss of Google revenue.
>

Which, in retrospect, looks like a good outcome. Mozilla reduced
 cost by ceasing a non-core initiative - developing a new language
 - while ensuring the language survived and prospered with
 commercial companies bearing most of the cost.

Whether that was planned, or a fortuitious outcome, I don't know.
 Tough on the team though.
--
Remove numerics from my email address.

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> Wrote in message:

> On 2025-07-10 08:20, Dave Royal wrote:
>>
>> What do we measure Mozilla's success by? Market share? Spin-off
>>   technology?  Influence? Merely continuing to exist
>>   perhaps.
>
> To me, market share.
>
No chance of that, with Google making Chrome the default in
 Android and ChromeOS, Microsoft doing the same with Edge, and
 Apple with Safari.
--
Remove numerics from my email address.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 00:40:31 +0200, Schugo <schugo@[NOSPAM] schugo.de>
wrote:

>On 11.07.2025 21:06, s|b wrote:
>
>> ... Fx receiving ... 
>
>are u some kind of dyslexic or retarded?
>
>use FF instead of Fx

Ackshually, when Chris Ilias was riding roughshod over all of us as
moderator of Mozilla's official predecessor to this group, his
instruction for abbreviation wuz "Ffox"...

On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 07:20:32 +0100 (GMT+01:00), Dave Royal wrote:

> Better than 'Firefox is dead to me' piece. But some questionable
>  assertions.

I just read that:
<https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/17/opinion_column_firefox/>

Guy complains about Pocket and Fakespot; never used those. Fx receiving
money from Google has been going on for /years/. Why is he screaming
about it now? Ai, yes, that's going to be a problem. I hope there's
going to be a choice, but we know such choices have been opt-out in the
past.

My main point: it's just his personal opinion and he doesn't even
mention alternatives.

--
s|b

On 11.07.2025 21:06, s|b wrote:

> ... Fx receiving ...

are u some kind of dyslexic or retarded?

use FF instead of Fx

ciao..

Nobody <jock@soccer.com> Wrote in message:

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 00:40:31 +0200, Schugo <schugo@[NOSPAM] schugo.de>
> wrote:
>
>>On 11.07.2025 21:06, s|b wrote:
>>
>>> ... Fx receiving ...
>>
>>are u some kind of dyslexic or retarded?
>>
>>use FF instead of Fx
>
> Ackshually, when Chris Ilias was riding roughshod over all of us as
> moderator of Mozilla's official predecessor to this group, his
> instruction for abbreviation wuz "Ffox"...

He shoukd have known better:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox#:~:text=For%20the%20abbreviation,or%20Ff]>
--
Remove numerics from my email address.

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> writes:

> Alas, Firefox became a lot slower at many sites that are heavily
> Javascripted.  At my ISP's web site, I'd login, but navigating my
> account there was very slow.  Sometimes it felt like the web browser had
> hung, or the site was dead.  Not the case since Edge worked the
> Firefox-problematic sites much faster.  Then I kept hitting more and
> more sites that would not render properly in Firefox, but would in Edge
> and Brave.  About a year ago, I'd hit about 2 sites per month that were
> screwed up in Firefox.  Then it got worse at about 2 sites per week, and
> those are sites that are not in my favorites; i.e., it was from a random
> sample of web sites that I hit when researching a topic.  Then my bank,
> pharmacy, and other sites that I do frequent, and are in my bookmarks,
> started having artifacts with Firefox, but not with Edge or Brave.  I
> moved to Edge (after trialing Brave), but kept Firefox as a backup or
> secondary web browser, but eventually decided to dump it.  It was a
> teary departure.
>

Strangely, I have recently switched to firefox from chromium. This is
because chromium becomes slower and slower on x.com until it becomes
unusable. Also chromium was doing a lot of disk accessing at odd times
for no obvious reason. When trying to find out why I realised how little
support there is for chromium. There is no forum like this for
chromium. (All this applies to google-chrome too). I still use
google-chrome for streaming TV as I think the performance is better, but
I don't always get consistent results).

(If, wisely, you don't use x.com then you won't care)
(I solved the problem with disk access by deleting the cache every time
I log into X).

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> Wrote in message:

> <https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/08/firefox_isnt_dead/>
>
> *Firefox is fine. The people running it are not*
>
Another piece, with the similar title, this time in Slashdot:
https://m.slashdot.org/story/444312

"Mozilla, for all its many failings, has invented a lot of amazing
 tech, from Rust to Servo to the leading budget phone OS. It
 shouldn't be trying to capitalize on this stuff. Maybe encourage
 it to have semi-independent spinoffs, such as Thunderbird, and as
 KaiOS ought to be, and as Rust could have been."

Yes.

Though I don't understand "Rust could have been". Why would Rust
 be better if Mozilla had developed it longer themselves? Linus is
 happy enough with it to use it in the kernel, though some
 developers are not.
--
Remove numerics from my email address.

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 13 Jul 2025 07:54:42 +0100
(GMT+01:00), Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> wrote:

>"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> Wrote in message:
>
>> <https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/08/firefox_isnt_dead/>
>>
>> *Firefox is fine. The people running it are not*
>>
>Another piece, with the similar title, this time in Slashdot:
>https://m.slashdot.org/story/444312
>
>"Mozilla, for all its many failings, has invented a lot of amazing
> tech, from Rust to Servo to the leading budget phone OS. It

The wikipedia article on Chrome Browser says that it was built in part
of open-source code from Firefox.


> shouldn't be trying to capitalize on this stuff. Maybe encourage
> it to have semi-independent spinoffs, such as Thunderbird, and as
> KaiOS ought to be, and as Rust could have been."
>
>Yes.
>
>Though I don't understand "Rust could have been". Why would Rust
> be better if Mozilla had developed it longer themselves? Linus is
> happy enough with it to use it in the kernel, though some
> developers are not.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 00:40:31 +0200, Schugo <schugo@[NOSPAM] schugo.de>
wrote:

> > ... Fx receiving ...

> are u some kind of dyslexic or retarded?
>
> use FF instead of Fx

Jokes on you, moron.

<https://website-archive.mozilla.org/www.mozilla.org/firefox_releasenotes/en-us/firefox/releases/1.5#FAQ>

| 8. How do I capitalize Firefox? How do I abbreviate it?
|
| Only the first letter is capitalized (so it's Firefox, not FireFox.) The preferred abbreviation is "Fx" or "fx".

I see you still haven't changed your faulty From header, are you stupid
or just trolling?

--
s|b

In article <mdhi9oFbsekU1@mid.individual.net>
"s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 00:40:31 +0200, Schugo <schugo@[NOSPAM] schugo.de>
> wrote:
>
> > > ... Fx receiving ...
>
> > are u some kind of dyslexic or retarded?
> >
> > use FF instead of Fx
>
> Jokes on you, moron.
>
> <https://website-archive.mozilla.org/www.mozilla.org/firefox_releasenotes/en-us/firefox/releases/1.5#FAQ>
>
> | 8. How do I capitalize Firefox? How do I abbreviate it?
> |
> | Only the first letter is capitalized (so it's Firefox, not FireFox.) The preferred abbreviation is "Fx" or "fx".
>
> I see you still haven't changed your faulty From header, are you stupid
> or just trolling?
>
> --
> s|b

This group has all the  signs of going bye-bye like most other Usenet
groups.  We have a jerk who feels he has to angrily chastise someone
for not using the correct abbreviation for Firefox, and then there are
the assholes who are deliberately instigating more hateful argument
with their politically orientated posts.

On 12.07.2025 08:06, Dave Royal wrote:
> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> Wrote in message:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 00:40:31 +0200, Schugo <schugo@[NOSPAM] schugo.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 11.07.2025 21:06, s|b wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... Fx receiving ...
>>>
>>>are u some kind of dyslexic or retarded?
>>>
>>>use FF instead of Fx
>>
>> Ackshually, when Chris Ilias was riding roughshod over all of us as
>> moderator of Mozilla's official predecessor to this group, his
>> instruction for abbreviation wuz "Ffox"...
>
> He shoukd have known better:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox#:~:text=For%20the%20abbreviation,or%20Ff]>

oh.. I see.. sorry

but I've never seen anyone in the last 20 years using Fx..
(Maybe Mozilla retarded too???)

ciao..

Don’t like it, fork it.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 09:12:09 -0400, micky wrote:

> Wow.  Never heard of these.  Since they must be smaller than FF, do they
> have the staff to keep current with bugs and windows changes etc.?

If they don’t work for you, you can demand your money back.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 07:39:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 09:12:09 -0400, micky wrote:
>
>> Wow.  Never heard of these.  Since they must be smaller than FF, do they
>> have the staff to keep current with bugs and windows changes etc.?
>
>If they don’t work for you, you can demand your money back.

 "Life Is A Lemon", by the lovely, quietly melodic Meatloaf.

                                                             J.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:59:46 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2025-07-10 08:20, Dave Royal wrote:
>>
>> "Rust was developed at Mozilla. Mozilla axed it." So, Rust would
>>   have been a great language if only Mozilla had continued development.
>>   Oh, hang on...
>
> But the article doesn't say that. Rather that they axed a successful
> product and team. A bad decision.

Or maybe not. It doesn’t seem to have hurt Rust any, that its development
is now proceeding independently of Mozilla. Perhaps the opposite.

Remember, Mozilla is a nonprofit.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 13:06:30 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees.

That seems like a good way to get booted off standards committees.

Here on Usenet, we call such people “trolls”.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 22:29:18 +0100 (GMT+01:00), Dave Royal wrote:

> Whether that was planned, or a fortuitious outcome, I don't know.

Mozilla is a nonprofit. Their goals would be to create projects that
succeed, not necessarily to own that success. If something is capable of
surviving on its own, then it’s time to let it go, and move on to the next
project.

On 2025-07-17 05:15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 13:06:30 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees.
>
> That seems like a good way to get booted off standards committees.
>
> Here on Usenet, we call such people “trolls”.

Please use correct attributions. I did not say that. It was someone
named Zawinski in the original link.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2025-07-17 05:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:59:46 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> On 2025-07-10 08:20, Dave Royal wrote:
>>>
>>> "Rust was developed at Mozilla. Mozilla axed it." So, Rust would
>>>    have been a great language if only Mozilla had continued development.
>>>    Oh, hang on...
>>
>> But the article doesn't say that. Rather that they axed a successful
>> product and team. A bad decision.
>
> Or maybe not. It doesn’t seem to have hurt Rust any, that its development
> is now proceeding independently of Mozilla. Perhaps the opposite.
>
> Remember, Mozilla is a nonprofit.

Well, the point is that the decision was bad for Mozilla.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>2025-07-17 05:15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 13:06:30 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

>>>Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees.

>>That seems like a good way to get booted off standards committees.

>>Here on Usenet, we call such people "trolls".

>Please use correct attributions. I did not say that. It was someone
>named Zawinski in the original link.

Please understand that the Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
sockpuppet has been trolling this newsgroup nonstop since the sockpuppet
was created. This is likely a seamusing.

Its go-to trolling is quote editing. You had quoted an article. With
proper editing, both context for the quote and its citation could have
been retained.

The idea that calling someone participating on a standards-writing
committee would insist on adhering to standards a "troll" is willful
misinformation about the purpose of a standards committee.