Where they are doing that? The author is just implying things (or just asking questions), but is perfectly normal the investment be reduced from one year to another.
Is paying ungodly amounts to the CEO whilst firing employees and losing market share normal to you?
I don’t like it at all, but it is literally what the entire market is doing, it is just another day in the field. Also, the 5 million from CEO is literally nothing compared to 200m from their software development, if we pay zero to CEO, what will change? Almost nothing.
Is claiming Mozilla relies on donations whilst in fact this is a lie normal to you?
They probably rely on donations because ppl like you, and the author of the article you linked, cannot admit that Mozilla can invest in projects like thunderbird or common voice which are actually very interesting projects but do not give them money, and it is interesting that you do that while complaining that they aren´t a non-profit organization enough, so what, you want them to focus on profit or not? You and the author seem that just want to complain.
You seem like you just want to lick someone’s boot. Two wrongs doesn’t make one right, people come to Mozilla because it provides an alternative corp-free browser. If someone in the industry does bad things people want not to see that in Mozilla. This basically covers most of the points you made
They probably rely on donations because ppl like you, and the author of the article you linked, cannot admit that Mozilla can invest in projects like…
Thanks for making a nice strawman up, friend.
1.They don’t rely on donations. Period. Donations are their additional source, they only rely on Google’s funding
I didn’t link to shit except the financial report made by Mozilla. I wouldn’t have posted the article because of the last paragraphs where the author whines about “mah political organisations” and “agenda!!1!” like a typical right winger
Don’t equate me with the author of the article, I only defend some of his points because they were already made by others years ago, it’s no new discovery to everyone, except you, apparently, that Mozilla is using their funds poorly
You don’t have to reply to any of that, it’s evident that my arguments can’t help you if you find record pays for CEO whilst firing regular employees in a supposedly not-for-profit/non-profit organisation normal
Are you joking on me? Is paying ungodly amounts to the CEO whilst firing employees and losing market share normal to you? https://itdm.com/mozilla-firefox-usage-down-85-but-why-are-execs-salary-up-400/2050/
Is claiming Mozilla relies on donations whilst in fact this is a lie normal to you?
Is messing around with financing browser development whilst the browser is their biggest, by FAR, source of income normal to you?
Non-profit owning a for-profit is a joke, it is not OK
Where they are doing that? The author is just implying things (or just asking questions), but is perfectly normal the investment be reduced from one year to another.
I don’t like it at all, but it is literally what the entire market is doing, it is just another day in the field. Also, the 5 million from CEO is literally nothing compared to 200m from their software development, if we pay zero to CEO, what will change? Almost nothing.
They probably rely on donations because ppl like you, and the author of the article you linked, cannot admit that Mozilla can invest in projects like thunderbird or common voice which are actually very interesting projects but do not give them money, and it is interesting that you do that while complaining that they aren´t a non-profit organization enough, so what, you want them to focus on profit or not? You and the author seem that just want to complain.
You seem like you just want to lick someone’s boot. Two wrongs doesn’t make one right, people come to Mozilla because it provides an alternative corp-free browser. If someone in the industry does bad things people want not to see that in Mozilla. This basically covers most of the points you made
1.They don’t rely on donations. Period. Donations are their additional source, they only rely on Google’s funding
You don’t have to reply to any of that, it’s evident that my arguments can’t help you if you find record pays for CEO whilst firing regular employees in a supposedly not-for-profit/non-profit organisation normal