Is there any chance to move away from the Discourse? It's a bit too slow (on any page opening), but the biggest issue is its hostile habit of catching the browser "find in page" hotkey (replacing the local find with the remote site search).
I know you can press it again or something but for the love of $deity don't fuck with the defaults.
That said I'm equally angry my browser so happily allows this.
Sure if it's a proper web application like OnShape then sure, override default key bindings, but ask me first and remember my choice. If I say no then just don't feed those keystrokes to the webpage.
Still wish pages would stop hijacked hot-keys in the first place, but hope this helps.
How big can the bill be, for something you could run on a 20 year-old PC?
Given the strange coincidence with the social media outrage over TOU fiasco, I don't know who to be scratching my puzzled head at here.
I also run a B2B SaaS and I have found that over time the customers who I think are going to be terrible for paying, typically tend to be very good at paying and the customers who I think are going to be very good for paying (in that they have good standing in the community in things like that) tend to be pretty bad at paying on time (and with NET30 and all)
Ultimately I don't really understand why I shouldn't be paid on time (I've got to live too, and I have suppliers likewise) so I think this is pretty fair game, I sold you a product under the promise that you would pay in 30 days, if you're incapable of doing that (ignoring exceptional reasons) I don't necessarily want to go and lend you extra credit just because you're Mozilla
Having a terrible accounts receivable department isn't a exceptional reason.
You'll be able to find them a few years down the road complaining that the mean old IRS is being so unfair because of the little bit of tax evasion that's totally not as bad as those real scammers on welfare.
But you'd do a courtesy call before cutting off a B2B customer? Even just to make sure they got the bill, and that a payment they made hadn't mistakenly not been credited. Which would be an opportunity for an immediate funds transfer or CC charge, if necessary to keep the site up. (Also an opportunity for them to say, "Actually, if you could just make it read-only until the news cycle is over..." :)
Also consider how many bridges you would burn if it’s in error. Or it’s a disputed payment.
It's easy for it to happen if a colleague is away for a month, or has left, and the bill isn't being seen by anyone. Do you read (do you even receive?) out-of-office replies to your invoices?
Of course it shouldn't be on an individual's email, but with annual billing it's easy to overlook.
My employer can be really bad at paying NET30, especially on fluctuating "pay for what you use" bills due to all the bureaucracy. Since it's not a fixed amount it can't be rubber stamped by anyone... And dear lord help you if you issue an invoice followed by credits separately...
We always pay the bill, but the purchasing employee has to review it (they're the only ones that can evaluate the claimed usage), then the department head has to approve it, then department finance processes it.. the division finance has to then rubber stamp it... Then the controller had to release the funds.
I see notices all the time where we're ~3-5 days late (often times the money has already been sent, but hasn't hit the sellers account yet)
I feel a good desire to fork the browser (ff or one of its forks) to be able build it for myself with a set of debloat patches. Just to avoid worrying about tracking and the "sell your data" stuff.
The drama comes from Mozilla's nonpayment, not Discourse's policy. Weird to try to pin the blame on Discourse.
Easily 7 figures, possibly 8 figures. Enterprise sales are a weird realm.
Better version would be „One of Mozilla sites is in read-only mode…“
I would wonder if this is really something much simpler: an excuse to make things read-only, while implying that people really should give them money if they want things to work.
Really, I can't lose any more respect for Mozilla at this point. It's all gone.
Not saying this is Mozilla’s policy, just pointing out it may be an accident or it may be a lack of funds, or something entirely different.
However, that was always sorted out during negotiations.
I'll add telcos to this list. Absolutely the worst customers to have. Net90 paid on time was a good thing.
I'm beyond certain that someone will reply "use a cloud provider", which is ironic, as cloud providers just concentrate these kinds of ops people and charge you through the nose (often an order of magnitude more in my experience) than having people responsible.
Unpopular opinion, probably, because people seem to like dehumanising operations issues on this site- sure, things can be automated, but at some point there's got to be some responsibility.
Also, I don't know if you're aware of this, but technology has advanced sufficiently that nobody needs to manually pay a monthly bill anymore. I know it sounds crazy, but there's these things called "bill pay", and "recurring credit card changes", that have existed for 20ish years now. Might want to read up on the latest trends!
Coinciding with techie social media outrage over the TOU fiasco, and repeatedly mishandled by corporate, so now the read-only mode means the outrage can't spread to Mozilla forums, where it might reach a wider audience?
"Mozilla's Discourse forum is in read-only mode due to overdue hosting payments"
The current title gives the false impression that mozilla.org is down.
Would you be up for a service which allowed you to automatically share intelligence on which companies are late payers? Benefits would potentially be:
- Find out in advance how late your will be paid
- Early warning of creditors doing aggressive cash management (aka going bust)
The idea would be that it would be funded by selling information about payers (not payees) eg, to insurance companies.
NB the obvious way to implement this is to get access to bank transactions, which I know requires a lot of trust. But maybe with eg the Open Banking API, there's some way to do it such that you can trust that only the right information is shared.
Also consider that those types of things happen after several rounds of ignored warnings.
I guess we should expect more incidents like this the time to come.
Mozilla has hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and over a billion in investments according to their last financial statement -- so, no, they are not.
90% of Mozilla’s direct income (cash) comes from Google. And it looks like that funding may go away soon [1].
If Firefox had a big marketshare they might be able to capitalise on that, but right now it’s the lowest it’s ever been, and they keep on burning bridges.
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/networking/why-googles...
Could you provide a reason why that is a feature?
All the extensions I’ve implemented runs fine as V3 manifests, and they allow much more fine-grained security permissions. That’s something I’m happy with, even as a developer. It limits the security impact of whatever flaws my extension may have.
This website fucking sucks.
It is way more likely to be an oversight.
