> Mozilla's value and goal is pushing for open web. Not
> creating the best browser.
Then they have very stupid goal. Whatever that "open web is" (seriously, how do you close the web? by hanging lock on http and html?) but the main point is that the web is what browser vendors make of it. Some features of HTML 4 only lived in the spec, because no browser cared enough to implement them. HTML versions are if fact meaningless, because only features supported by browsers matter. Hence if you make a philosophically pure browser which nobody uses you will have zero influence on the web.
Nobody is saying that those influences don't exist. We're merely saying that it's pointless to try to combat them without market share. Products that nobody uses will have essentially no impact, even if they're more "open" than the more popular products.
Mozilla had some influence a few years ago, but they've been making decisions and taking actions that appear to be eroding that influence. If the current trends continue, their influence will continue to diminish. If they're striving for an "open" web, they're going to need influence to have any real impact.
>We're merely saying that it's pointless to try to combat them without market share. Products that nobody uses will have essentially no impact, even if they're more "open" than the more popular products.
The history of BSD and Linux should call that assertion into question.
They started relatively unpopular, but their openess earned them a core niche of technically capable innovators and early adopters, who over time improved their quality enough for them to nearly dominate in servers and mobile.
