Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yes, there is a lot of that message in this. We like to think of Mozilla/Firefox as "the alternative" but it's a bit of window dressing to Google, which allows them to show regulators aywhere they tried to foster independent code paths and browser diversity.

Maybe the answer is to donate Chrome to Mozilla along with seed money to invest in the markets, and fund continual development. Mozilla can continue to do the work we need, but independent of the advertising/adblock warfare. And a trickle of the money behind Chrome can be fed to Firefox as usual



>Maybe the answer is to donate Chrome to Mozilla

And end up with two shitty browsers instead of one? I don't follow


The judge says they have to divest.

Mozilla says hey we exist and need funding.

Google also point to Mozilla and say "look look we value diversity in browser"

So it's a mechanistic way to get out from under and meet social obligations.

Obviously if you don't like either browser it does nothing for you.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: