facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 13:31 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
In reply to: *facepalm* by krake
Parent article: Firefox gets closed-source DRM

I think their explanation means that it's more correct to say that their principals are not a suicide pact, they are not going to ride their principals nihilistically into non-existance. Without market share they no longer have an advertising deal with Google and their principals are irrelevant to the marketplace, they have no influence without a substantial userbase.

facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 16:21 UTC (Thu) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (1 responses)

having ideals would not have to form a "suicide pact" if mozilla did not otherwise try to act like a silicon valley big co...the posh offices, the perks...swap the logos and you would think you were in the offices of linkedin or google

except those companies have a business model, not an idealogical model, so they can afford their perks without hypocrisy

in the end my guess is that the mozilla experiment will fail - the notion of dressing up a nominal nonprofit like a successful valley .com just isn't tenable. go look at the offices of the fsf, or debian (does debian even have an "office"?) this is what the reality of a nonprofit with ideals really is...it ain't glamorous...and it seems mozilla really is in it for the glamor

facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 17:05 UTC (Thu) by gerv (guest, #3376) [Link]

There is nothing wrong or hypocritical with offering competitive pay and conditions. Some people have to choose between getting a job which is paid competitively for their skills, and getting a job where they get to do what they love in line with their principles. We don't think Mozilla employees should have to pick only one of those two things.

And if we did make them pick one, we would have less world-class talent on our side. And that would be very bad.