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
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