[ta_9390]

Most tech startups spend years and sometimes decades in net losses while CEO get raises because revenue isn't the one and only performance and potential indicator.

I cannot find any benefit of the articles bashing Mozilla with hot claims - that aren't necessarily false but used in misleading contexts - other than Google, Microsoft and Apple.

I have used firefox for years because I believe in FOSS and privacy despite the shrinking market share and the poor addons market.

I am not going to leave Firefox after the recent and significant improvments in the weakness points for some conspiracy theories based on completely normal facts

[mardifoufs]

Well that's the thing. Mozilla is not a private for profit corporation, the money isn't from investors, and the goal isn't to make a profit at the end of the day. Non profit CEOs always have a much smaller salary, and much smaller increases. That's just how it usually works because the money they have is supposed to go into fulfilling their objective, not make people rich. Why does Mozilla get a pass for this? It's so weird to see this defensiveness whenever the subject is brought up, because you can clearly like and support Mozilla and still disagree with a non profit paying 1% of what it earns to an underperforming ceo. That sum would be weird even if Mozilla was doing well.

[Brian_K_White]

Using and advocating the use of Firefox, and objecting to this Mozilla leadership situation are two different things.

Of course we still have to use and prefer and advocate FF because there is no other serious option.

And this leadership problem is a real problem.

[johnnyanmac]

I'm just using it because the alternative is even more hostile towards me. I don't care about the drama, I just want to use an adblocker on all my browsers' devices.

That said, FF mobile is still far from parity with its old version from 3 years ago when it did its big break, so it becomes hard to sympathize when a CEO salary doubles and I'm arguably getting a worse experience despite that.