Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Future of Mozilla After the Shutdown of Mozilla Labs

posted by martyb on Saturday September 20 2014, @01:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the innovate-or-die dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Ian Bicking has confirmed that Mozilla has quietly shut down Mozilla Labs.

This development raises some interesting questions about the future of Mozilla and their products:

With Firefox's usage declining, with Firefox on Android seeing limited uptake, with Firefox not being available on iOS, with Thunderbird stagnating, with SeaMonkey remaining as irrelevant as ever, with Firefox OS suffering from poor reviews and little adoption, and now with a reduction in innovation due to the closure of Mozilla Labs, does Mozilla have any hope of remaining relevant as time goes on?

Will Mozilla be able to reignite the spark that originally allowed them to create products like Firefox and Thunderbird that were, at one time, wildly popular and innovative?

Is Mozilla still capable of innovating without Mozilla Labs, or will they slowly fade into irrelevance as the last remaining users of their products move on to other offerings from competitors?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Future of Mozilla After the Shutdown of Mozilla Labs | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 163 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday September 22 2014, @01:26PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Monday September 22 2014, @01:26PM (#96740) Journal

    Your list means that you will support expansion of rights of some pedophile to have sex with your baby. This example proves that you need to think again what is and is not allowed, and why. Hint: human rights are not the goal; survival of the humankind is.

    That would violate the rights of the child, and therefore fails his second rule.

    A stranger in the street will have a right to stick a knife into you, and you will have a right to shoot him before he comes close enough. I believe we have a name for such a society...

    Only if you live in some weird parallel universe which has no concept of a right to life or safety...otherwise you're again violating his second rule.

    Of course, there is one flaw in his rules, which is that you need a consistent set of rights as a starting point for further expansion. I'm not sure there's any current definition that's fully consistent, although the original founding documents of the US might work -- just not their current interpretations.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @11:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @11:39PM (#96964)

    That would violate the rights of the child, and therefore fails his second rule.

    I guess a baby is clearly incapable of giving consent, but what if it was an older, but still pre-pubescent child that for some reason consented to having sex with a paedophile? Would that still be a violation of the child's rights? If so, why?

    Of course there are reasons why it shouldn't be allowed, but I don't see how they fit into rules that chris.alex.thomas proposed.