* This is from the separate independent team that works on Thunderbird, not Firefox, so there isn't any resource contention happening there
* Thunderbird is revenue positive, and this potentially gives that team another revenue stream to be even more self-sustaining through charging companies
* Businesses definitely want to control the AI they're using (especially with RAGs of their own data) instead of just throwing it at their LLM vendor and hoping for the best
People on HN are fond of asserting that their own POV is the only one. Imagine that there is such a thing as a person in charge of choosing technologies for organizations, and that you're such a person. That's who this is for.
2. Separate entity spun up to focus on Thunderbird only. Now you can support Thunderbird development directly.
3. New separate entity is now in the business of extensible AI clients?
EDIT: I went back and read the launch announcement [1]. I'll concede it does say "will also allow us to explore offering our users products and services that were not possible under the Mozilla Foundation" which could mean anything, really. And this development was funded by a Mozilla grant, importantly not by Thunderbird donors. I'm still struggling to not see this as a distraction from the core mission. I wish they'd spun up a new entity instead.
[1] https://blog.thunderbird.net/2020/01/thunderbirds-new-home/
If you lived in New York City you might think there are Duane Reades coast-to-coast but there are not. If you are based in the Bay Area you see billboards that are very different from anywhere else. I'd say the viewpoint is a lot like this famous artwork
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Ave...
but maybe instead of the rest of the US being 1/5 of the vertical space it is 1/25 of the vertical space. Problem is most customers do not live in the bay area and most web browser users do not live in the bay area and most web developers do not live in the bay area. Based in the Bay Area they can hop in their cars and drive the longest 40 miles in America to get to Google and Facebook's headquarters so Mozilla is talking to those people all the time and not talking to the rest of us.
We don't get costly signalling to show they care about the rest of us, we don't even get cheap talk.
They probably think René Girard is deep because they are surrounded by people who think René Girard is deep. If Mozilla wants to be relevant and not just an also-ran it needs to "think different" like the other 99.9% -- it's not that hard if you change your location.
Really the EU needs to apologize for those damned cookie popups and invest in a privacy-first browser. Whether that is "fully fund Firefox" or "fully a fund a Firefox fork" or pick up another browser engine or start a new one.
I see the warning lights flashing: a few years back web sites that didn't work with Firefox were few and far between, this weekend I bought tickets for a comic book convention and they took my money but didn't give me a ticket because the site didn't work with Firefox. I use Firefox as my daily driver so all the projects that I work on work with Firefox; the rest of my team doesn't give a damn and if you lose me another site will become Chrome-only.
I love them. They are not mandatory, only shady websites that rather sell users information than providing a barely functional homepage. Yes the popups suck, but I'm very happy that this exposes the behavior and priorities of the industry.
The EU didn’t make these mandatory. They’re a form of malicious compliance, executed so that the common perception is that these laws are there to get in the way of regular folks.
Most websites shouldn’t require cookie pop-up. They do because they’re spying on you in some way and need to notify you of that.
You clearly misunderstand when they are required and how they are legally required to work, the key points (as I take them) that are often misunderstood are:
* They are not about cookies, but any persistent identifier
* If a identifier is needed for your core functionality (ads/tracking is not a core functionality) and not misused for other purposes you do not need consent
* It is required to be as easy to decline as it is to consent
* Not consenting is not allowed to degrade or gate the content
* Even if you consent to tracking/cookies you should be allowed to withdraw that consent
Do you not agree with these points?
I want “respect DNT or go to jail”
GDPR normalized enshittification, turned it from something that was unambiguously evil to something that was required, virtuous even.
I could care less personally if you track me or not but if you pop up a meaningless distraction in my face there is no limit on how much I want to hurt you and blowing our your kpis and wrecking your analytics by disabling your tracking it is the least I can do. We need to resist the Google Economy that wants to divert 99% of your attention to worthless trash.
>"99.9%"
I despise "centrist-moderation" just like any other guy but maybe "entrepreneurial dignity" is not 100% of something but 65\pm1% homeownership
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-europes-homeownershi...
Yes, agreed on that. I'm not sure I'm clear how this really helps that; I suppose it's a frontend that they don't have, but there are a bunch of those already.
It doesn't seem to help them control the _actual_ AI, i.e. the model, which still has to come from somewhere.
> Imagine that there is such a thing as a person in charge of choosing technologies for organizations, and that you're such a person. That's who this is for.
> Thunderbolt is funded through a dedicated investment from Mozilla and is being developed by a separate team focused on enterprise AI products, distinct from Thunderbird’s donation-supported consumer product work.
Surely you can agree that when you open Thunderbird and are met with requests for donations, if you chose to donate, you'd expect that money to be invested in Thunderbird development, and not 10M Claude tokens to vibe code Mozilla's latest groundbreaking AI B2B SaaS idea?
(edit - to allow users to fund Firefox, allowing us to better sleep at night, and to align our incentives)
Right now if you want to look at the best case scenario, it's probably wikipedia. Wikipedia is the biggest online donation drive that exists and they get 18% of the revenue that Mozilla gets from search licensing on approximately 4,400% more global traffic. And it's a mature campaign that's been an annual tradition for decades.
I'd rather have the donation option than not have it but it has to be understood primarily as something that's just there to make users feel good. The reason they're structured the way they are is to access the search licensing revenue that gets them income they would never be able to get from just donation drives.
But there may be hybrid options available.
Purely conjecture. Does the Google money come with some kind of funding non-compete? If not, why not open up other funding streams. If it does, that's worrying.
The argument has always been "the org structure doesn't support donations" but the org structure is just a proxy for the intentions of the org.
Hmm, I thought the for-profit Thunderbird pro hadn't launched yet?
I know Thunderbird is for profit, but what are they profitting from without the paid service, and how much of that profit is going into this unrelated Thunderbolt AI platform, exactly?
I think a piece of software running on donations is not running off "charity". It's just a business model to not charge every user. Similar to how Twitch streamers operate, or my local theater group.
You can read how they spent money in 2024 [1].
[1] https://blog.thunderbird.net/2025/10/state-of-the-bird-2024-...
It would be interesting to have a breakdown of what part of the Thunderbird team is working on Thunderbird, Thunderbolt, or other forms of thunder.
I would rather have them work on Thunderbird.
Is that why I'm met with a splash screen asking me to donate every time I start Thunderbird? Is this another Wikipedia situation?
> spun off from Mozilla Corporation into a new for-profit company called MZLA Technologies. Both corps are still subsidiaries of the Mozilla Foundation
It doesn’t mean profitable, it doesn’t mean cash flow positive.
Are you just trying to say their revenue is greater than zero?
As for Thunderbird, it’s not the same name? Idk what to say
So yeah, especially in light of the lightning bolt logo and "thunderbolt.io" domain name, I think it's confusing enough that I'm honestly surprised there's no "Thunderbolt is a registered trademark of Intel Corporation used under license" notice on the site.
Then again, it's frustrating trying to name a product in today's era; too many names are taken.
I suppose there is no Thunderbird for Macs then? Or someone in the team would have noticed.
Basically every high end laptop comes with TB4 or 5 ports.
Though from Thunderbolt 3 onward Intel has been the sole developer.
Anyway, awesome to see this from the team inside Mozilla — hope this can become a new revenue stream over the long term.
Really excited to see some tight integration with Firefox and Thunderbird in the future.
People are going to hate this, but if someday Mozilla expands to being a productivity suite I’d be pretty happy to give them my money. ProtonMail is doing it and I trust them as well.
It seems like all the model inference is external APIs? So why is the marketing claiming "Self-host on your infrastructure or let us help you deploy. Your data never leaves your control."
Also Thunderbolt is too similar to Thunderbird, really got me puzzled for a sec.
I implore ANYONE at Mozilla org to please, please stop working on projects distracting from the complex and necessary work of browser and web standards stewardship. That alone should be the very reason for your continued existence if you have any. Focus on anything outside that purview will lead to the furthering of the, already painful and readily apparent, stagnation of your browser and our standards bodies as entities distinct from corporations.
Ditching any direct financial ties to Google or any other browser vendor is both important and necessary at this point, as this clearly represents a conflict of interest in your overall mission.
The web as a platform should belong to us all, not just the few corporate leaders of the day. I've watched in real time, saddened by the persistent errosion of our commons that is the web. I see it becoming nothing more than a corporate playground should trends continue, if it's not already too late. There may have been a time when your mission took precident over product launches of seemingly unrelated domains, but that is not what Ii observing today.
I think I speak for many in the community in these regards (please correct me if not the case.)
> ... please stop working on projects distracting from the complex and necessary work of browser and web standards stewardship.
> Ditching any direct financial ties to Google or any other browser vendor is both important and necessary...
are inherently contradictory. If you do not want Mozilla to have revenue from search vendors that also have browsers, it has to come from somewhere else. Or are you suggesting they switch the default search engine back to Yahoo [0]?
I am not trying to defend the projects they have chosen to work on, but you have to understand that reducing dependence on Google is exactly why they are working on them [1].
[0] Even when they did that, it was for the US only, and Google was still the default for most of the world.
[1] Although in this case, this appears to come from the Thunderbird organization, so unrelated to the browser. Money is fungible, though.
Build your own browser engine and see how you can pay the devs to make them work on it.
Blocks ads Multi account containers Dev tools very good
I never notice that it is in any way slow, except for those sites that need infinity cpu on any browser, like jira.
What specifically is the issue? To my mind it quietly just gets on with things.
The Mozilla org continues to produce a very capable browser, but it's now 3rd or fourth fiddle on a stage their misteps helped orchestrate in their demotion.
Edit: clarification
While it is meant to be an alternative to Chrome's profile switching, it is more a workaround than a complete replacement. I need entirely different sets of extensions for personal, work, and school environments, something containers can't do.
Firefox's actual profile support is beyond terrible. To launch a separate instance, Firefox requires many more clicks than Chrome, all within a Windows-2000-style UI. Not to mention that there are weird glitches in their implementation.
Firefox is not usable for me until they actually spend time improving their multiple profile support.
None of those have required me to install a particular extension..
Of course thats not to deny your experience!
The only time profiles ever come into it, for me, is using web driver, playwright, or whatever.
I guess maybe the usage stats dont support making the profile selector better.
But also, maybe its a thing they would accept a change for?
As you yourself mention, Firefox has actual profile support, which may not be as good as Chrome's, but at least compare like for like.
For those few applications where I really would need profiles I will just open a different browser, so I still keep Edge/Chrome/Opera around for that rare situation. I don't need something that complicates my life every single click but it is the whole ideology of the Google Economy that they want you to spend 1% of attention on things that matter to you and 99% on things that don't.
And Firefox now needs 2 click to switch profiles.
1. The inability to set a specific page for new tabs to open on. That is ridiculous.
2. The mobile version sucks, specifically because bookmarks are buried under an absurd number of menu levels. And they're also broken up (without user approval or any way to stop it) into "mobile" and "desktop" bookmarks. WHY? The entire point of syncing is to have them all the same.
I want to like Firefox. I went back to Firefox for the first time in decades last year and gave it up after a couple months because #2 was that annoying. So brain-dead.
Oh yeah, and another one was that "never remember history" does, in fact, remember history. What Firefox really does is "stop adding to history." And the bug report on it resulted in several YEARS of debate over how to "fix" it. The latest I saw is that they're actually NOT going to fix it, but rather add more text (somewhere) to say basically, "This doesn't do what you think it's going to do."
If fixing a defect like that requires years of committee back-and-forth, the product is finished.
I've been using the "New Tab Override" extension for almost a decade at this point. Sure, it would probably make sense to have as a baseline feature, but I installed it so long ago and it's continued working the whole time that it's not really something I think about anymore.
What's wrong with Firefox? There are several things Firefox does that it's annoying to live without in other browsers (video pop-outs, competent ad blocking, etc). Is there some core feature that's missing? I'm subjected to Edge at work and I couldn't tell you a single thing it does that I'd want FF to do.
> and our standards bodies as entities distinct from corporations
Ok, I buy that.
Half the thread impunes Mozilla for taking so much money from Google and imply that they are controlled opposition, and the other half gets upset when Mozilla doesn't implement every standard that Google tries to steamroll through the standards bodies because of objections to how they can be used for fingerprinting, or complains that the attempts at anti-fingerprinting break websites, etc.
Sometimes it's not even different people, it's the same people punching them for contradictory reasons.
Mozilla is not perfect but they get all the downsides of being methodical and privacy focused alongside none of the benefits. Everybody hates the "side projects" unless it's Rust, Servo, LetsEncrypt, Thunderbird, contributions to Opus/AVI, etc. and you can be sure they'll be criticized if they "focus" by touching investment in any of those by the same people.
Yeah, it really undermines their ability to compromise user security and privacy.
- PWA support on Linux
- better performance
- devtools should be able to handle sites with large amounts of js with sourcemaps
- fix a number of bugs that have been open for a long time
- don't lag behind standards as much (I'm not talking about things where they intentionally don't implement problematic "standards" pushed by google)
- make it feasible to embed gecko in other projects similar to how chromium is used by electron and webkit is used in "webviews"
See e.g.
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1ljns9o/freshly_re...
Debugging the extension on Chrome, it works great. On Firefox, it is nearly impossible. There are a litany of compatibility issues that make it "different" than Chrome, despite the extension being very much standards based. It is really frustrating and makes me dread getting bug reports.
To be fair, Safari is even worse and I haven't even touched Edge yet.
As much as I'd love to have options in the marketplace, standards based compatibility between offerings should be a top line requirement.
It seems like every thread talking about Firefox always has someone asking that question, so if you search back you should find plenty of reasons. Unfortunately, it’s been my observation that valid and polite criticisms always get downvoted. I don’t understand why. It’s not like downvotes are going to make the problems disappear.
Most of us would like Firefox to succeed, and it’s none of our faults that Mozilla is constantly neglecting it and going off on wild goose projects which get promptly abandoned.
The question keeps getting asked because people say they have problems. Answers (if any come) tells everyone what the problem is for this one user that raised it.
In aggregate we can all see that the problems are not very real for the vast majority of users.
The biggest problem users actually face with using Firefox is that web devs don’t want to support more than one browser and they have picked Chrome now. Or IT departments have blessed one and only one browser on corporate machines and it is the one most corpoware developers build extensions for.
Chasing web standards is a second order problem and will not make the user experience better in a relevant manner for end users. If web developers want an open web, they have to work to support open browsers.
Yeah the criticism is not invalid, but it is also often half-relevant soapboxing and I would wager that is why it tends to get downvoted.
That number can be down to any number of different factors on reddit itself. Having an autoplay video running, etc.
Not saying there isn't a difference, but you'd need to measure (e.g.) a fresh install viewing only one tab with no extensions, etc.
Some quick hits just from reading recent release announcements from December '25 through April 26:
- Hardware acceleration for faster performance with PDFs - Expanded WebGPU support - Faster page loading with compression dictionaries - Deeper hardware integration for faster video playback on AMD hardware - Better GPU stability and performance on MacOS - Faster local translation
And I'm only picking out bits and pieces. "Web platform" improvements are so abundant that reproducing them from any single release would be a massive wall of text, but for a few examples just from one recent release:
>Service worker support for WebGPU has been added, making it available in all worker contexts. Service workers allow WebGPU to run in the background, which is particularly useful for extensions and other pages that can meaningfully share resources across multiple tabs and time periods.
>Firefox now supports the Iterator.zip() and Iterator.zipKeyed() methods from the joint iteration proposal. This allows zipping together underlying iterators into an iterator over values grouped by position, similar to zip in many other languages.
>Firefox now supports the Trusted Types API, which is primarily aimed at preventing cross-site scripting attacks.
>Firefox now supports the Sanitizer API, which provides new methods for HTML manipulation. The element.setHTML() method enables developers to insert HTML content similarly to element.innerHTML, but without the security vulnerabilities such as cross-site scripting (XSS). A complementary method, document.parseHTML(), is also available for parsing HTML safely.
And on and on it goes with APIs, CSS and so on, and that's every release, and that's still not covering feature requests and cosmetic updates, or the constant security updates.
Guys, this is millions of lines of code and thousands of patches every quarter. While you were reading about AI features or poorly worded terms of service, they studied the blade..er.. they worked on real performance improvements. It should be a scandal that anyone in the comment section gets away with claiming they're not working on anything.
Mozilla's continued existence in recent history has relied on money from their primary competitor to stay in operation. Some have argued that doing seemingly unrelated projects like the one announced today is an effort to buy their freedom as it were. I'm arguing that's a distraction and that something closer to Linux or wiki foundation model would allow them to concentrate their efforts where it makes the most sense, as their current governance model is inherently based on a conflict of interest.
Opera was also a technically excellent browser, and we've seen that that alone is not enough to justify its existence in the long term.
These AI products, along with all previous failed attempts, are just them trying to gain enough revenue to remove that dependency on Google.
I implore ANYONE about to write a similar post to avail themselves of the search bar to not Groundhog Day us. Someone should do a "History of HNers railing ignorantly about Mozilla and Firefox" coffee table book; would link the buy page in my group chats.
Do you want people to pay to use Firefox?
https://github.com/thunderbird/thunderbolt/blob/main/docs/fa...
> Thunderbolt is funded through a grant from Mozilla.
Is there any way that that's not taking dollars out of the same organization that's funding Firefox or thunderbird?
I see Firefox now as the new Opera, a technically good browser making dubious extensions that no one asked for until it dies a slow, spiraling death. My plea is simply to not go down that road any further...
I want them to go cap-in-hand to other countries and say "if you don't fund us then you are letting the US and surveillance capitalism get between your citizens and their government" and "do you really know what Chrome is doing with your data?"
I don't want to pretend they are simply part of a browser marketplace, but rather have them realize they are part of a civil rights effort, with powerful non-market forces they can ally with.
And I want those governments to commit to progressive enhancement guidelines like https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/technology/using-progressi... so new alternatives like Ladybird can start, and further require their agencies to test on a Firefox branch with no AI, no location tracking, full ad-blocking, etc. because while the market is free to ignore certain non-profitable users, a government should not be allowed to ignore some of its citizens.
I don't see a contradiction there.
Microsoft stopped building their own browser engine because it didn't suit their business needs and they could still get a controlling share with significantly less effort by recycling webkit/blink for the umpteenth time. That makes total sense for them. Mozilla has, in the past, guided and pushed back on corporate interests.
Today, a large portion of the web now stands, built from the bones of the original khtml project, which was unceremoniously made by a handful of volunteers on the KDE project. Let's not pretend a rendering engine it's an entirely _impossible_ task. It is a LOT of work, and I laud the effortor of the few tireless individuals that make it their work, but in the end it's another piece of software, not unlike an OS. The history goes:
KHTML -> WebKit -> Blink
Meanwhile:
Mosaic -> Netscape -> Gecko
Maybe we find maintaining the second lineage is too great a burden and the web just becomes a defacto standard, guided entirely by 3 corporations. It's not what we want, but I guess at this point it's probably what we deserve.
Investing on AI is not going to make them less financially reliant on Google.
It looks like they might want to get into hosting/selling services to users on this.
From the FAQ:
> Is there going to be a hosted version if I don't want to deploy it myself? > Yes, we are planning to launch Thunderbolt for regular users but we do not have a release date yet.
The world may need Firefox but it's funny how people complain about Mozilla's dependence on Google while also complaining about every attempt to become more financially independent from Google.
The current state of Mozilla is pretty odd since they rebranded to make it more apparent they're a non-profit, while also attempting to become more profitable pushing out new products and services.
For now, they mainly rely on Google for that money. Google pays them to avoid antitrust cases, to show the courts that they are not a monopoly and that "alternatives" exist. For example, the DOJ once proposed that Google be forced to sell off Chrome.
However, if another entity has control over your budget, they also have control over your product. If Firefox becomes "too good" to be a true competitor in the consumer space, the funding might be reduced or even cut off.
Creating a new source of revenue allows Mozilla to improve Firefox even beyond the point Google feels "comfortable" with.
I've already used up "cum" btw, so you're not allowed to name your product that.
The FAQs in Github also imply that a hosted deployment for single users is on their roadmap, but not prioritized. - https://github.com/thunderbird/thunderbolt/blob/main/docs/fa...
At a glance it looks identical to Mozilla Thunderbird, but has nothing in common.
And then of course it's also the same as a well-known hardware interface.
I know it's hard to come up with names and pretty much everything is used by something else, but this seems particularly bad.
The cherry on top is that the domain is thunderbolt.IO. No other TLDs to pick from?
Fire-fox
Thunder-bird
River-wolf
Stone-raven
....
Also, my impression is: yay another AI front-end. What does this one differently that the other thirteen in a dozen don't?
Mozilla's a lot more trustworthy with privacy and data, and they're unlikely to sell the project to someone who only wants to stuff it full of malware/adware/crypto stuff - or do it themselves.
If you were not working with Mozilla Asian area, you know far too less. They had a browser in China that redirect to different website for profit before every connection and some affiliation. By doing so, is it privacy or not? Oh, look at Mozilla Japan volunteers, they shut everything up because things went wrong.
They're certainly doing better than others in this space, but their track record does not inspire confidence for anyone concerned about their privacy and data.
Coming soon the browser rebrand to Thunderfox! :)
"I'm using Mozilla Thunderbolt."
"Huh, do you mean Thunderbird?"
"No, Thunderbolt!"
Okay, it took me some time that the mail client is called "ThunderBIRD", not the BOLT. Not that I've used it much. But why the logo in github still shows TunderBIRD?
It looks like Mozilla is trying to catch the band wagon for no particular reason. They don't need it AT ALL. But they just jumped in along for a ride.
Why not "Phyrefox"?
They are so incompetent, they could not even come up with a name sufficiently different from their own product.
click
"Ah, of course it is."
Like, seriously, this is like calling your AI model NVME or Northbridge or something. Insanity.
Nevertheless, AI use is not what really stood out to me. It’s that it’s SO MUCH CODE. I have no idea how you guys maintain or reason about the quality or security of something like this. Good luck, I guess.
"Please don't fulminate."
"Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative."
"I will make loads of assumptions without checking so that I can invent reasons to get mad"
Note that about 30,000 of those lines are JSON files for localization and testing, as one example.
Especially curious because I see a whole lot of hardcoded english text in there…
Language Files Lines Blanks Comments Code
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
TypeScript 760 109110 14500 7397 87213
JSON 41 22056 6 0 22050
Markdown 56 7150 2086 0 5064
YAML 33 3965 406 208 3351
... and many more with fewer than 1k lines
Would recommend exercise
https://ghloc.vercel.app/thunderbird/thunderbolt?branch=main claims 141k and most of it is Typescript.
I just checked one old take home task in Angular I did last year and the total number of lines is over five million over 35k+ files.
Just keep making a decent browser and stop getting distracted on shit.
Could Mozilla hand over firefox to a new team please? It is clear they are wasting time and energy on things nobody wanted - who wants Mozilla-AI please? I mean, seriously?
For people who don't think Mozilla wants to make firefox competitive again; and for those who also don't think ladybird will become a viable alternative one day (that's for the future, I have no crystal ball, I am just pointing at one possibility here). Perhaps we could get more momentum when someone else other than Mozilla handles firefox.
starting from the very first words of the announcement:
> Open-source and self-hostable
meanwhile, the readme [0] has a caveat, added today, about how it's only kinda-sorta self-hostable:
> While we eventually plan to make Thunderbolt fully offline-first, it currently depends on authentication and search functionality (though you can disable search on the integrations screen in the app). You can deploy your own backend with Docker and sign up in order to test it locally.
and if you follow the link to the self-hosting instructions [1] there's another caveat that was added today:
> Under active development — not production ready. Thunderbolt is currently undergoing a security audit and preparing for enterprise production readiness. These deployment paths are provided for evaluation and early testing. Do not use in production environments.
don't tell me it's self-hostable if what you really mean is "you can run it locally for testing".
meanwhile, scroll a bit farther down in the announcement:
> Work seamlessly across devices with native applications for Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, and Android
which is repeated on the GitHub readme:
> Available on all major desktop and mobile platforms: web, iOS, Android, Mac, Linux, and Windows.
but as pointed out in [2] this is just flat-out incorrect - there are no release artifacts published, for any platform.
come on Mozilla, you need to be better than this. you have to know your target market is engineers and tech-savvy people who see through this sort of marketing fluff.
if you want to publish an announcement saying "we're working on a thing that will eventually do X, Y, and Z" then that's great.
if you want to release something that does X, Y, and Z, that's great too.
but don't over-promise and under-deliver. don't make an announcement that this thing can do X, Y, and Z and then "clarify" that the plan is to eventually do X, Y, and Z.
0: https://github.com/thunderbird/thunderbolt?tab=readme-ov-fil...
1: https://github.com/thunderbird/thunderbolt/blob/main/deploy/...
So all this is doing is adding context for the LLM and some persistence.
I have yet to see a compelling use case for Gemini Enterprise at my company but we're still experimenting with it.
Doesn’t this have to be done under another name to prevent massive company-killing pushback?