Peter Principle (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-19 17:30 (#26C) Failing upwards. Great, the irresponsible maintainers of a second rate web browser get millions for something they have ZERO experience or expertise in, and reinventing a wheel that's available EVERYWHERE already via everything from phpBB to BuddyCloud and identi.ca etc.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_software_and_protocols_for_distributed_social_networkingNice grift if you can get it. Do-nothing Mozilla and "don't you dare read our web site" NY Times deserve each other. A conjoined failure spiral. Re: Peter Principle (Score: 2, Insightful) by genx@pipedot.org on 2014-06-19 21:33 (#26J) For 4 millions and 2 years, it will have to be muuuuch better than the dozens of existing systems. I lack imagination so I fail to see what great improvements can be brought to a system that fondamentally relies on the quality of what is posted. I fail to see how it may change the fact that most people commenting on newspapers websites cannot read and understand the articles, cannot spell and write coherent ideas, and/or continuously spam with their political obsessions, not caring how unrelated to the topic they are. Re: Peter Principle (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-20 08:55 (#26Y) Yeah, I agree. There are so many existing products out there - what could they be looking for that doesn't already exist? Disqus is perfectly reasonable for most purposes, for example. Secondly, was this some sort of open tender that the Mozilla guys competed for and won on the strength of their proposal?
Re: Peter Principle (Score: 2, Insightful) by genx@pipedot.org on 2014-06-19 21:33 (#26J) For 4 millions and 2 years, it will have to be muuuuch better than the dozens of existing systems. I lack imagination so I fail to see what great improvements can be brought to a system that fondamentally relies on the quality of what is posted. I fail to see how it may change the fact that most people commenting on newspapers websites cannot read and understand the articles, cannot spell and write coherent ideas, and/or continuously spam with their political obsessions, not caring how unrelated to the topic they are. Re: Peter Principle (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-20 08:55 (#26Y) Yeah, I agree. There are so many existing products out there - what could they be looking for that doesn't already exist? Disqus is perfectly reasonable for most purposes, for example. Secondly, was this some sort of open tender that the Mozilla guys competed for and won on the strength of their proposal?
Re: Peter Principle (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-20 08:55 (#26Y) Yeah, I agree. There are so many existing products out there - what could they be looking for that doesn't already exist? Disqus is perfectly reasonable for most purposes, for example. Secondly, was this some sort of open tender that the Mozilla guys competed for and won on the strength of their proposal?