Ceo makes how much?
this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
220 points (98.2% liked)
Open Source
38299 readers
560 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, but their job is like reeeally hard!! They deserve it. /s
CEO is paid for from the for profit. The majority of costs are engineering salaries for Firefox.
Slightly more than 1% of their annual revenue.
What difference would it make if CEO got a minimum wage if there is no stable income stream for the company regardless?
Because having a CEO earning 100x of an average employee disincentivizes looking for stable, consumer-friendly income streams.
Why would the leadership want that, the only way they can continue paying themselves that much money is by sucking big tech's tit.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Oh look we're back to the "open source software can't survive on its own without gobs of money and million-dollar CEOs wah wah wah" again.
Wtf you on about?
The grand majority of all costs for Firefox are in engineering salaries. And there is no million dollar CEO relating to the nonprofit's expenses, that CEO is paid for from funds from the for profit organization.
Browsers are CRAZY expensive to build and maintain. And teams of engineers are crazy expensive.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Fiy, the Mozilla Foundation is one of the highest rates charities on Charity Navigator.
They don't always make the best choices as far as product direction, but as a charity, they are quite respectable.
You say that as if we're lying. Mozilla's entire revenue is from the search deal. If it goes away, you can kiss the entire company goodbye. Not saying that OSS is inherently unable to survive or anything like that.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well goodbye mozilla it wasn't great knowing you. Hopefully you are able to fuck over the devs and golden parachute your c-suite bastards one last time.
Maybe, but what are the odds of a fork taking off? It was started under the codename "Phoenix" and went by "Firebird" for some time before becoming "Firefox".
Maybe it's time for a fork to rise from the ashes and take off...
Any fork will die a slow and painful death of it can't get the necessary funding for project management and maintainer salaries.
It will also dwindle, hard, towards irrelevancy.
In world where the only viable browser is one owned and operated by Google.
I'm not that pessimistic, development for Ladybird seems to be going well and those crazy people are building it from scratch rather than basing it on Chromium or Firefox. There's also Servo. When Mozilla dies the forks will hang on for a while then we'll have alternatives.
I'm familiar with them.
These are projects sitting years, maybe even a decade, away from maturity. IF web standards and capabilities don't change at all over the next 5-10 years.
Hopefully that puts this into perspective. These are really cool projects, but without a massive influx of engineering effort and organization, they will likely be perpetually, hopelessly, behind the standard rate of change required of browsers. Nevermind meeting the current standards of performance, security, observability, ecosystem, user and developer experience.
It's always good to check in on these projects yearly, see how it's going, see if they are accelerating or slowing down. Eventually one of them will take off, and potentially leech resources from other similar projects.
Though, the nature of FOSS is that 1000 people will work on 200 different projects all trying to do the same thing, instead of combining and organizing efforts to go after the same unified goal.
This isn't really a statement of fault but rather a statement of reality. Without dedicated full-time organization, this is usually how scattered resources solve problems. Which is a core problem here in that dedicated organization to rapidly grow the engineering effort for a particular project usually requires funding and full-time employees. To both market it to engineers as an interesting project, mature documentation and DevX, mature the onboarding experience for devs, and to handle the organizational aspects of distributing said work.
load more comments
(3 replies)
and before that it was Netscape
I thought Netscape turned into Mozilla, which was different from Firebird
Correct. Firefox was a rewrite separate from the old Netscape/Mozilla SeaMonkey codebase.
The fork that takes off will be the one where the Firefox devs move to. Which isn't predictable. We could make our own foundation, without the blackjack and hookers (cause based on how mozilla was doing things it sure seems like all they did), and make it more as a means for the devs to get paid for their work.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Imagine how much open source software could be developed for $500 million/year. What the fuck has firefox done?
They've paid their CEO.
Try to get MORE money so that they can pay their CEO.
Maybe, just as a crazy thought here, jwz was right. Mozilla and Firefox exist for 2 purposes - to build the standard reference browser, free of corporate crud (like, say, Google WebExtensions); and to be an absolute attack dog against ridiculous corporate desires.
load more comments
(3 replies)
How much active development does a browser engine need? If Mozilla died would I quickly be finding a larger chunk of websites that aren't supported? Because as it sits, Firefox feels like one of the most corporate pieces of open source software I use daily, and I need to know just how tragic it would be if Mozilla died.
If Mozilla died would I quickly be finding a larger chunk of websites that aren’t supported?
Likely yes, as Google will keep enshittifying the web unless stopped by antitrust or whatever. Which isn't looking so likely.
In the old days, a few motivated nerds could write a browser. Now all you can realistically do is take a browser engine and build some user interface around it. That what most "alternative browsers" do - tweaking or repackaging.
These days, a browser is like it's own operating system with sandboxing, various Interfaces to periphery devices, hardware acceleration for GPU and all the bells and whistles taken for granted now.
I'd say that imagining it to be on a scale similar to working on the Linux Kernel is more right than wrong.
So we definitely very much want Firefox to survive, or it will be much worse than the Linux/Mac/Windows trilemma. Microsoft Edge is chromium under the hood too. Any many desktop "apps".
A ton. Mozilla is already behind on all kinds of miscellaneous less used standards implementations compared to Chrome AFAIK. On top of that there are security fixes needed monthly and realistically you need to be able to push emergency patches within 48 hours or less (really 1/4 or 1/2 that) or people are going to flee because they got cryptolockered because of you.
How quickly would sites be unsupported? Hard to say. Most likely large chunks of the internet would start blocking Mozilla user agents as an out of date security threat for their userbase before it actually ran into actual implementation problems. The problem would be that, websites and services no longer even bothering to try to support Mozilla and making changes that break things, and of course security holes and exploits which would likely eventually lead to no-click complete computer compromises and other very bad things. Once it falls far enough behind on standards a lot of sites will block it for that reason because they don't want bug reports or to spend money chasing down an issue potentially caused by an out of date piece of software.
Google or whoever owns Chrome would keep pushing new web standards at a fast pace to kill and bury any attempts to keep Firefox running. At that point there's nothing really stopping them closed sourcing large parts of Chrome to kill privacy forks and lock down control of the web which most big websites would be fine with as Google's interest is in getting through ads and preventing the end user from control over their own computer in favor of the interests of the website owner.
It would be apocalyptic potentially for what remains of the open web and user freedom.
It requires a lot, you can try running an older version of a browser to see
Or look at all the memes people made about up to date chrome being better than out of date explorer
load more comments
(3 replies)
Except it isn't. And we know it isn't because the amount you spend on Firefox vs the rest of Mozilla is peanuts
Not even remotely true, this is a myth. Most of what they spend is on development, operations, and legal. They publish their 990 online which gives the breakdown. IIRC the foundation gets like 2%.
How is this false then? I don’t get it
- Finish off Firefox
- Break up Chrome
- Profit
view more: next ›