▲ 516 ▼ Firefox looks so much better than Chrome (tux.social) submitted 2 years ago by Pantherina@feddit.de to c/linux@lemmy.ml 214 comments fedilink hide all child comments A little admiration of how easy UI customization is on Firefox, and how shitty Chromium looks.
[–] TCB13@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) It’s a blog post from someone who never read a 990 before (standard nonprofit disclosure form) who thinks every other line of is proof of a scandal. Only in the USA a "non profits" turns profit. 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abbenm@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Pretty sure all non-profits strive to be cash flow positive, in the United States and otherwise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) There is a distinct type called a not-for-profit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abbenm@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Should Mozilla be a not-for-profit instead? Trying to figure out the upshot of that distinction as it relates to this thread. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago No of course not. It’s for very limited businesses like clubs. Obviously you can’t grow or really make products under that structure. It was just a fun fact they do exist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] abbenm@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Pretty sure all non-profits strive to be cash flow positive, in the United States and otherwise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) There is a distinct type called a not-for-profit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abbenm@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Should Mozilla be a not-for-profit instead? Trying to figure out the upshot of that distinction as it relates to this thread. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago No of course not. It’s for very limited businesses like clubs. Obviously you can’t grow or really make products under that structure. It was just a fun fact they do exist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) There is a distinct type called a not-for-profit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abbenm@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Should Mozilla be a not-for-profit instead? Trying to figure out the upshot of that distinction as it relates to this thread. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago No of course not. It’s for very limited businesses like clubs. Obviously you can’t grow or really make products under that structure. It was just a fun fact they do exist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] abbenm@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Should Mozilla be a not-for-profit instead? Trying to figure out the upshot of that distinction as it relates to this thread. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago No of course not. It’s for very limited businesses like clubs. Obviously you can’t grow or really make products under that structure. It was just a fun fact they do exist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago No of course not. It’s for very limited businesses like clubs. Obviously you can’t grow or really make products under that structure. It was just a fun fact they do exist. permalink fedilink source parent