Now if it supported org files too…

There is no difference other than a shiny logo and a “contract” that promises you that the random stranger will take care. I promise that I will take care too.

If you still think there is a relevant difference, please tell me. To me, it looks like you don’t fully understand what a password manager stored on other people’s computers does.

A cloud password manager is a database with your passwords hosted on a stranger’s computer. Why wouldn’t I be just as trustworthy as any other stranger on the internet?

My questions are to those of you who self-host, firstly: why?

Would you give me your password database? I promise to encrypt it!

Other engines exist.

The current incarnation of Mozilla would not be any meaningful loss to me.

There is exactly no single reason to make this personal. What I meant is that writing a free piece of software does not necessarily have to be paid work. A variety of popular software tools, including a few web browsers, by the way, is written and maintained in the developers’ free time.

“Doing stuff” is not the same thing as “doing paid work”.

Opt-out can never be the right answer.

(and deserve it)

Please enlighten me: how do they deserve to be paid for a non-profit product?

Being a developer myself (with no ads in his software), I don’t think you understand my point. The software I write in my free time does not pay my bills. That’s why I also have an actual job.

What makes you think that developing a free web browser needs to grant anyone any income?

Mozilla actually has (had?) ads in Firefox, right on its default start page.

So is NetSurf, and has been for most of this century already. I mean, it’s great to see people even caring about independent browsers, but NetSurf surely needs much more love (and more developers). :-)

I wish that most forks wouldn’t be even worse. Pale Moon, the most interesting one, is a gang of patent trolls.

If your goal is to ever talk to people about open source software, that’s going to create a lot of unnecessary confusion.

I guess that my definition of open source is not that uncommon, given that the terms “free software” and “libre software” exist and are rather well-established by this point.

People often use the OSI’s Open Source Definition when using the term “open source”.

Which is one of the possible definitions. Mine is “you can see the code”. Everything else falls into “free software”.

I think the new one remains closed. Sadly, not locked away.

What is “actually open source”, if “here’s the source code” is not?

A viable alternative is Guix, which uses Scheme for its scripts and could also use the Hurd kernel instead of Linux, but works the same.

The reactions are shocked enough.