Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Appoints Former Marketing Head Interim CEO

Unknown Lamer posted about 4 months ago | from the but-chris-beard-hates-kittens dept.

Mozilla 204

itwbennett (1594911) writes "Following the contentious and ultimately failed appointment of Brendan Eich as CEO last month, the Mozilla Corporation has appointed Chris Beard to the board of directors and made him interim CEO. Beard starting working as chief marketing officer for Mozilla in 2004, and oversaw the launch of its current browser, Firefox, in 2005. Beard also managed the launches of Firefox on Android and the Firefox OS for mobile phones." See the official announcement. Quoting: "We began exploring the idea of Chris joining the Board of Directors some months ago. Chris has been a Mozillian longer than most. He’s been actively involved with Mozilla since before we shipped Firefox 1.0, he’s guided and directed many of our innovative projects, and his vision and sense of Mozilla is equal to anyone’s. I have relied on his judgement and advice for nearly a decade. This is an excellent time for Chris to bring his understanding of Mozilla to the Board."

cancel ×

204 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How do you know the company is dying? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46751979)

Marketing begins to run things.

Re:How do you know the company is dying? (4, Informative)

cbhacking (979169) | about 4 months ago | (#46752061)

Normally I might agree, but Firefox doesn't need to market in the same way that other companies do. Their income comes from very non-traditional sources, and their products are free. That's not to say I *like* the idea of marketing running the place, but I think it's better than it sounds. Mozilla's marketing has been about awareness, much more than about trying to sell something.

Re:How do you know the company is dying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752199)

They have to please their very non-traditional income sources. That's Marketing's job.

Re:How do you know the company is dying? (1, Flamebait)

supremebob (574732) | about 4 months ago | (#46752083)

Yeah, but he'll probably be able to keep his job as long as he wasn't dumb enough to publically say anything bad about gays.

Re:How do you know the company is dying? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752123)

I wonder what his stance is on abortion, surely if he has an opinion on it he won't last long in that job. While I don't agree with his position on prop 8 that is his opinion and those employees had no right to bully him out of his job for it. They wouldn't go as far as quitting or to not use Javascript (him being the inventor and all) but they wanted to get rid of him while having no consequences themselves which shows they have a least possible effort approach to supporting their cause.

Re:How do you know the company is dying? (0)

amiga3D (567632) | about 4 months ago | (#46752411)

If he wasn't such a pussy he wouldn't have quit. I lost all respect for him, letting a bunch of whiners run him off. Fuck him. I hope this new guys has some guts and doesn't quit the first time someone decides they don't like something he says or does.

Re:How do you know the company is dying? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 4 months ago | (#46752659)

It's funny how the same groups aren't throwing a hissy fit over the head of OKCupid or Obama. Oh that's right, the head of OKCupid supposedly supported someone over a "tech" issue...something totally different...yep. And Obama supported exactly the same issue...

Re:How do you know the company is dying? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46753217)

By vilifying him for not being a diamond shitter, you're doing no better than the people who vilified him over his donations.

You either take the bullet for your team, or you lose "customers". In this case, Eich decided to take one for the team. It's hardly his fault that the pitchfork crowd decided to crucify him because they felt they could run the company better than he could. He proved that he cares more about Mozilla than they do, first by helping to create Mozilla from Netscape's ashes, and then leaving when the writing was on the wall.

Mozilla isn't the kind of big-league company that can stand up to bullying. If you think they can, then you've clearly got an inflated opinion of them. They're Mozilla, not Google.

Re:How do you know the company is dying? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46753283)

The gays should demand he tell them his views on gays. After all, it is an integral aspect of the position.

huh... where was Stormy Peters? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46751981)

I am surprised Mozilla didn't promote Robyn 'Stormy' Peters to really stink up the place with some virulence strength, pig brained cunt funk. Robyn destroyed the Gnome foundation, but Mozilla has been more resistant to her destructive machinations apparently. When you really want to kill an Enterprise, bring in a female...

But the important question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46751993)

But the important question: Is he pro or anti-fanny bandit. We can't have the fags up in arms again can we?

Nice name (1)

SoupGuru (723634) | about 4 months ago | (#46752069)

Not to be "that guy" but I do kind of chuckle that there are connotations to the man's last name.

Re:Nice name (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 4 months ago | (#46752257)

"Head" isn't his last name, neither is Former his first name, nor Marketing his middle.
Or are you talking about Bearding the Dragon (Mozilla)?

Re:Nice name (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 4 months ago | (#46752461)

self-woosh

Re:Nice name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752537)

It's like ZZ Top where the guy without the beard is named Frank Beard.

Re:Nice name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752619)

I thought I was the only one who got the joke when I read his name too.

It's not enough (5, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | about 4 months ago | (#46752099)

Congress needs to establish a commission of inquiry to help us identify people who don't agree with gay marriage, so they can be outed and ostracized. You know the routine: "Are you, or have you ever been, a conservative/orthodox/fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, or Jew?"

As we find these scumbags, we can work to deny them the right to start businesses in our cities like Rahm Emmanuel did in Chicago [foxnews.com] . Some of them are artisans: we can attempt to commission artistic works in conflict with their beliefs, and sue them into oblivion when they refuse [foxnews.com] . We can pressure them to resign from their jobs. [huffingtonpost.com]

As recent Obama voters, it's not like we're huge hypocrites [liveleak.com] or anything. Please understand that the Democratic party is about democracy -- that's why we rejoice that California's popularly-voted Proposition 8 was overturned by a few activist judges. And we're about tolerance -- that's why we're trying to drive Christians, Muslims, and Jews out of public life by destroying their ability to hold jobs or participate in commerce.

Re:It's not enough (1, Troll)

sideslash (1865434) | about 4 months ago | (#46752159)

OK, I can understand the "Flamebait" mod, I get it. My post reads like provocative satire, but it's also unfortunately true. What part of it is not true, O Gentle Reader?

Re:It's not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752269)

Don't you know that this site is only for articles about Teslas and global warming? This isn't the place to go exposing progressive hypocrisy.

Re: "Flamebait" mod .. (3, Funny)

DTentilhao (3484023) | about 4 months ago | (#46752289)

"Congress needs to establish a commission of inquiry to help us identify people who don't agree with gay marriage"

And we also need to identify people with no sense of humour ..

Re:It's not enough (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752381)

My post reads like provocative satire, but it's also unfortunately true.

Your post doesn't read like provocative satire, it reads like douchebaggery. Like much of the crap in your posing history.

What part of it is not true, O Gentle Reader?

For one, Rahm Emanuel didn't work to deny Chick-fil-A' anything in Chicago. He simply responded to a question by a reporter regarding an Alderman’s announcement that he would block construction of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in his district. Saying "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values" doesn't really stop Chick-fil-A from doing anything, now does it?

Also, there's a high likelihood that anything from a link to Fox News doesn't contain much factual information.

One thing that is most definitely true about your post is it's a troll. You can probably count on a few of those mods as well.

Re:It's not enough (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about 4 months ago | (#46752551)

For one, Rahm Emanuel didn't work to deny Chick-fil-A' anything in Chicago. He simply responded to a question by a reporter regarding an Alderman’s announcement that he would block construction of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in his district. Saying "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values" doesn't really stop Chick-fil-A from doing anything, now does it?

I disagree, since Emanuel was speaking as mayor and giving tacit approval to the alderman's actions. That puts Emanuel on the "Irish need not apply" side. We can argue about whether such speech constitutes "working" or not. If speech isn't working, then I'm afraid mayors don't do very much work. :p

Also, there's a high likelihood that anything from a link to Fox News doesn't contain much factual information.

That may be true. But whenever I post a link, it is not with an expectation that people will either blindly believe, or blindly disbelieve it. I expect people to use these links to just become aware of stuff and discuss further. If you never look at stories covered by conservative media, then you will probably remain unaware of many stories that might otherwise enrich and inform your worldview. (Wow, look at me lecturing the AC.)

One thing that is most definitely true about your post is it's a troll. You can probably count on a few of those mods as well.

Whatever.

Re:It's not enough (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752667)

I disagree, since Emanuel was speaking as mayor and giving tacit approval to the alderman's actions. That puts Emanuel on the "Irish need not apply" side. We can argue about whether such speech constitutes "working" or not. If speech isn't working, then I'm afraid mayors don't do very much work. :p

Rahm Emmanuel has taken precisely ZERO action against Chick-fil-A, as you falsely claimed. The fact is, there was one Chick-fil-A in Chicago when Emmanuel made that comment, now there are two (with more planned).

You asked what wasn't true in your post, and you got it. Now you're using a bullshit semantic argument to try deny your error. How sad.

(Wow, look at me lecturing the AC.)

You would do well not to lecture people who point out your errors - especially when you ask them to point out your errors.

Re:It's not enough (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about 4 months ago | (#46752717)

Sorry, my dear AC. It doesn't really matter whether you want to quibble about whether Emanuel's public statement amounted to efforts/actions/etc. The alderman's actions that Emanuel was tacitly supporting were so utterly and obviously illegal under our constitution that this whole debate we're having is an exercise in silliness. I grant your point that the alderman took the action, and Emanual made a public statement in support of it. So what? I lump them both in the "Irish need not apply" camp.

Re:It's not enough (1, Insightful)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 4 months ago | (#46752895)

Sorry, my dear AC. It doesn't really matter whether you want to quibble about whether Emanuel's public statement amounted to efforts/actions/etc.

I'm not quibbling with you, I'm trolling you. The fact that you can't resist replying shows you're desperately trying to salvage an untenable position.

I grant your point that the alderman took the action, and Emanual made a public statement in support of it. So what?

First of all, that isn't my point. Second, the "so what" is this: If you said "Alderman Joe Moreno" instead of "Rahm Emmanuel" in your post, you would have been correct. But you didn't say that, and therefore you were wrong. You then smugly asked /. to tell you which part of you post wasn't true. Well, you obviously can't handle the truth - or more accurately - you're one of those unfortunate people who can't admit when they're wrong. Too bad for you, my dear.

Re:It's not enough (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about 4 months ago | (#46752927)

Wait. Who are you, and what did you do with my Anonymous Coward? Please give him/her back at once.

Re:It's not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752957)

I can re-post as AC if you think it will help. : )

Re:It's not enough (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about 4 months ago | (#46752973)

Sweet, sweet happiness is restored. Thanks dude.

Re:It's not enough (1)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 4 months ago | (#46753071)

LOL. Now I kinda feel like a dick. Well played, sir.

Re:It's not enough (1)

ScentCone (795499) | about 4 months ago | (#46752797)

Also, there's a high likelihood that anything from a link to Fox News doesn't contain much factual information.

So rather than address the issue linked to, you're just going to slip into typical lefty ad hominem in order to avoid the substance of the matter? Yup, that's what you did.

Re:It's not enough (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about 4 months ago | (#46752429)

If we wanted the truth we would have elected Ron Paul as President years ago. We prefer lies, tell us what we want to hear.

Many, many ways (1, Insightful)

cbhacking (979169) | about 4 months ago | (#46752789)

You distort facts to imply that they mean something other than what they mean, then act like you expect us to believe your "interpretation". For example, I don't really care what the Democratic party claims - I don't vote any party's line (nor do I support Obama generally speaking, except by comparison to some), and I look at voting records instead of claimed positions - but I doubt you'll find many on either side of the aisle who disagree with the claim that they support the constitution. The constitution explicitly gives the Judicial branch the ability to do what it did to Proposition 8 (overturn it on the basis of higher law). This is to prevent the tyranny of the majority over a disliked minority group, which is one of the obvious failures of a pure democracy. As for "activist judges", you do realize that 5 of the 9 current justices were Republican presidential nominations, right?

Oh, and lots of people who call themselves "orthodox" or "fundamentalist" members of the religions you listed are fine with gay marriage. *Your* view might be that this is inherently contradictory, but their view is that however unrighteous those people are is a matter between them and God but secular law should be fair to all, or that a God of love would not turn His back on somebody on account of who they love, or any of many other arguments. You will probably find many more such people like that than you will find people who believe that the wrathful or gluttonous are nearly so bad, and that (heterosexual) adulterers deserve death. As such, it is quite obvious that religious folk can go about their daily lives without trying to enforce their religious beliefs on others. If you personally cannot, that is a failure of you personally, not of society or even of religion.

Oh, and the bit about tolerance? You really didn't think that part through, did you... it's about creating a tolerant society, not about personally tolerating everything. You present a false dichotomy: tolerate everything including intolerance, or don't be "about tolerance". Try this thought on for size: "we advocate tolerance towards every individual's nature, but oppose those who choose to be intolerant of the nature of others." It may help some people to think of it as advocating tolerance towards the ways in which God created us, and opposing those who are intolerant of some of God's creations. After all, sin is supposed to be about (making the wrong) choice, right? Are we not innocent and pure, until we choose to be otherwise? Well, religious belief is a choice. Sexual orientation is not.

Finally, there's the fact that you cite Fox News, which is just stupid around here. Even assuming that the story was both accurate and unbiased (having read both sides, Fox's account is generally the first but far from the second), that's just asking for trouble. The stories were widely reported; you can find better sources than that.

For the first story, Emmanuel is, to the best of my knowledge (though IANAL), not allowed to deny or revoke business licenses on the grounds of an implied intention to discriminate; an actual act of discrimination or at least a policy requiring it would be required first.

For the second story, that's straightforward: if you run a business open to the public, you are not permitted to discriminate against certain classes of people and refuse them service. This has probably been law since before you were born, in the case of racial discrimination (incidentally, at least one religion in the US held that black skin was the "mark of Cain" and thus they were justified in refusing to interact with them) and for that matter in the case of religion (which, unlike skin color or sexual orientation, is a matter of choice) or several other classifications. Oregon had simply expanded the list of classes against which a public business may not discriminate to include sexual orientation. If "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" had in fact been a Christian bakery - that is, a religious entity only open to Christians - they would probably have won their case. They were not.

For the third story, I'm amused that you chose an article that, aside from using a deliberately inflammatory leading question as a title, really doesn't support your views at all. The conclusion of that article is essentially thus: "he stepped down because of internal opposition to having somebody whose expressed views were contrary to company policy running the company". Or, in a simple answer to the title headline (and usually the right answer, when a headline asks a leading question): "No".

I'd congratulate you on reading something other than Fox News, but it looks like you didn't actually read that article before linking it. Oops.

Offtopic warning
Speaking of Fox News' credibility (off-topic but it was fun doing some research), I'll grant that the popular version of the story of Fox News winning a court case on the right to intentionally spread lies appears to be misleading, but some digging suggests that Fox does not, in fact, believe themselves under any requirement to tell the truth. The Fox News station WVTV was sued after it fired two reporters for threatening to tell the FCC that they were being required to insert untrue material into their news stories. WVTV won the lawsuit (on appeal) on the grounds that the reporters where not whistleblowers (which would have protected them) because “We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.”
http://www.campaignfreedom.org... [campaignfreedom.org] (see comments as well)
http://www.relfe.com/media_can... [relfe.com]
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/sj04... [foxbghsuit.com]
http://www.spj.org/a-ethics.as... [spj.org] (1998)

Re:Many, many ways (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about 4 months ago | (#46752865)

Thanks for the long and cogent response. We will agree on some things and disagree on others, but I genuinely appreciate your engagement here. Cheers!

Re:It's not enough (1)

jesseck (942036) | about 4 months ago | (#46752255)

Mod up... while this doesn't fit well with the utopian ideal of the DNC, it is reality.

Re:It's not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752445)

How did you get to a point in your life where you just blindly believe everything Fox News tells you?

Re:It's not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752479)

Believe NBC instead, if they have any journalists left. Yea.. they're leaving because they don't believe they're allowed to operate as journalists, the network is agenda driven. That's not Fox spin, that's from NBC's own staff on their way out.

Re:It's not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752565)

Believe NBC instead, if they have any journalists left. Yea.. they're leaving because they don't believe they're allowed to operate as journalists, the network is agenda driven. That's not Fox spin, that's from NBC's own staff on their way out.

  • I don't generally watch Fox or NBC because I don't live in the US.
  • I didn't mention NBC, unlike the GP who repeatedly quoted Fox.
  • You do understand why, even if you're right, pointing out that some other news organisation is terrible isn't really an excuse for Fox being terrible, don't you?

Re:It's not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752615)

Bringing it back to you, how did you get to a point in life where you blindly disagree with anything Fox News tries to tell you?

Re:It's not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752733)

It's based on the very low statistical probability of anything Fox News tells me actually being true.

Re:It's not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752757)

Fox has testified in court that they dont offer news - they provide entertainment.

Re:It's not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752769)

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

Re:It's not enough (2, Informative)

Toth (36602) | about 4 months ago | (#46752371)

I would rescue the above from Flamebait if I had points. It's on-topic for this thread (sort-of). Whether you agree with it or not, it fits here.

Re:It's not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752469)

Just because it's (sort-of) on-topic doesn't mean it's not also flamebait. The two are not mutually exclusive. You'd think that someone with a low UID would know that.

But don't fret, I'm sure you'll have more opportunities to rescue sideslash from negative moderation in the future.

Re:It's not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752707)

I would rescue the above from Flamebait if I had points. It's on-topic for this thread (sort-of). Whether you agree with it or not, it fits here.

How the hell is this modded Informative? The information in this post is roughly equivalent to "me too!"

Re:It's not enough (1, Insightful)

cbhacking (979169) | about 4 months ago | (#46752837)

Flamebait doesn't have to be off-topic. Off-topic stuff is supposed to get modded off-topic, not flamebait. Flamebait is saying things to get people pissed off, like talking about Congress outing and ostracizing religious people, and linking to a news story about the "gay mafia" (about as idiotic a term as I've ever heard).

The other of the post emself admitted it was flamebait.

Re:It's not enough (2, Informative)

s.petry (762400) | about 4 months ago | (#46753083)

Wrong! Wholly fuck! Absolutely wrong!

Flamebait is not about "saying things to get people pissed off"! Flamebait is about intentionally trolling to insight a response.

Reading a damn dictionary is not that hard, so stop making up your own definitions for words. Further: I realize that people inventing their own definitions tend to be slow so I'll attempt to clarify. An opinion presented may piss you off by nature, because you have a different opinion. I.E. "There is a God" vs. "There is no God". If a person provides their opinion with intentionally inflammatory material, like "You are all burning in hell for not believing." or "Darwin dumbass!" (as is often done) that is trolling and possibly flamebait. A person simply expressing their opinion is not a troll or flame bait. These differences happen often with emotionally topics, such as politics and morality.

See the definition for Flamebait here [urbandictionary.com] , and Troll here [wikipedia.org] , and Flame here [google.com] (2.).

When an opinion is well articulated and not written to be intentionally offensive, such as GP is, it's a different opinion not a Troll. If you don't like their opinion, present your counter points instead of whining and trying to censor by moderation. If you can't write well articulated retort to back your opinion, don't try do moderate people out of discussions. Improve your writing skills and opinion until you can retort.

Even if the opinion is not the "Popular" opinion the goal of moderation is to encourage dialogue, not censor opinions you don't like. If the post is on topic and generates responses (while not being a flame or troll) then the post should be moderated higher.

Re:It's not enough (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752485)

It really is terrible how society oppresses rich, white, heterosexual men.

Re:It's not enough (2)

sideslash (1865434) | about 4 months ago | (#46752603)

I agree with you that rich, white, heterosexual men are not typically persecuted in our society, which is great for rich, white, heterosexual men. However, when it does happen, it is not okay. That is all, thank you for playing, my dear AC.

Re:It's not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752529)

Yeah, this is a major free speech issue whether or not you agree with Prop 8 or not. It is a dangerous precedent, and Mozilla should have some negative consequences from them. I have already uninstalled Firefox from my tablet and Android phone and will be removing it from my PC's soon.

If you agree, please do the same.

Re:It's not enough (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about 4 months ago | (#46752625)

You can boycott Mozilla if you want. Personally I don't think it's really fair nor what Brendan Eich would want people to do. I'm solidly in the Rodney King camp: "Can't we all just get along?"

Re:It's not enough (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 4 months ago | (#46753123)

You are confusing Rodney with Martin Luther.

Re:It's not enough (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about 4 months ago | (#46753161)

Nah, google it.

Re:It's not enough (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 4 months ago | (#46753183)

Rodney said "Can we all get along?", not "Can't we all just get along?". Google it

Re:It's not enough (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about 4 months ago | (#46753285)

OK, granted. :)

I'll just close with a really poignant statement Gandhi once made: "Can't we all just be the change we wish to see in the world?"

Re:It's not enough (0)

jafac (1449) | about 4 months ago | (#46752681)

As far as the fundamentalists go. . . no quarter asked, none given.

Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752113)

I and 5 others deleted Mozilla and moved to Chrome. It felt weird after all these years to not have Firefox but we voted with our feet. It's not even a gay thing, it's a "we are sick of bullies and hypocrites" thing.

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (2, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | about 4 months ago | (#46752145)

I and 5 others deleted Mozilla and moved to Chrome. It felt weird after all these years to not have Firefox but we voted with our feet. It's not even a gay thing, it's a "we are sick of bullies and hypocrites" thing.

But what about the LGBT employees there? The CEO was just one of the employees (and now he's gone) so the only people you're hurting are the other Mozilla employees, why are you so against them?

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (4, Interesting)

jesseck (942036) | about 4 months ago | (#46752227)

But what about the LGBT employees there? The CEO was just one of the employees (and now he's gone) so the only people you're hurting are the other Mozilla employees, why are you so against them?

Because it is fun to bully a company into releasing their CEO. Damn three-letter executives make too much anyways - let's bully their income away with higher taxes for the rich. When we're "sick of bully's and hypocrites", we need to look into the mirror - the shit goes both ways.

This intolerant "tolerance" policy pisses me off... have an opinion and don't be a coward to state it. I have respect for a person who states and stands by their beliefs (regardless of what they are), and doesn't change them because someone else doesn't agree. Just recognize bullying for what it is- I hate hypocrites who are tired of bullying and decide they need to start doing the same.

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752535)

"Baaaaw, they won't let us be bigoted assholes!"

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752787)

"Baaaaaw, someone said something that I believe to be mean to me!"

Who are the bullies -- those who financially suppo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46753155)

"... I hate hypocrites who are tired of bullying and decide they need to start doing the same. ... I have respect for a person who states and stands by their beliefs (regardless of what they are), and doesn't change them because someone else doesn't agree..."

It's so enjoyable to witness other's unrecognized hypocrisy, being issued in the words of criticism of others, for being hypocrites. People who want to see bigots removed as CEOs of important public corporations, stand by their beliefs -- they're just not the same as yours, or those you support.

Brendan should stand by his views, and be prepared to accept the disapproval of his bigotry.

I support you're right to be a bigot, as long as you don't have any political power other than your vote, or corporate power, other than that of an employee.

Don't worry, God loves you, whatever your lifestyle. ;-)

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (4, Interesting)

OhPlz (168413) | about 4 months ago | (#46752301)

They stood by and watched their CEO get ousted because of a donation to a cause that the majority supported. They could have championed free speech instead.

Knowing that Mozilla is now a "social justice" organization, who would trust their software? They could be cataloging everyone's surfing habits in order to use it against them later. They deserve a backlash.

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 4 months ago | (#46752323)

Fair enough.

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752441)

Why did CEO step down and run, is he a moron...is he...

REPUBLICAN(Tea Party)

or /img

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fstevedeace.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2Fundocumented-democrats-draft-2-600x345.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fstevedeace.com%2Fnews%2Fnational-politics%2Fundocumented-democrats%2F&h=345&w=600&tbnid=bF-xRam8hfrwXM%3A&zoom=1&docid=nch_46nde1IxpM&ei=U4BMU8bCFYGMygGv6YGoDQ&tbm=isch&ved=0CFcQMygDMAM&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=814&page=1&start=0&ndsp=27

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (0)

Microlith (54737) | about 4 months ago | (#46752567)

They stood by and watched their CEO get ousted because of a donation to a cause that the majority supported.

That the majority supported it is meaningless. Eich put money behind an initiative that sought to deny equal rights to a subset of the citizens of this country, and for no legitimate reason.

They could have championed free speech instead.

No, the man fell on his own sword. It was not Mozilla's to fall on and he recognized that.

Knowing that Mozilla is now a "social justice" organization, who would trust their software?

I see comments like this one cropping up constantly, and it is at best deliberate misrepresentation.

They could be cataloging everyone's surfing habits in order to use it against them later.

Or given that Mozilla is open source, you could go check for such behavior. Or even sniff packets coming out of Firefox and check.

Or you could just be stupidly paranoid because people got up in arms that Mozilla was now being led by someone who backed a regressive, short-sighted politician and a lie filled campaign that ran on misinformation.

They deserve a backlash.

No they don't. We, as a nation, need to look at what equality means and realize that while Eich is forced to leave office, you still have politicians in states like Arizona and Mississippi still trying to protect discriminatory behavior towards gays.

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (3, Insightful)

reboot246 (623534) | about 4 months ago | (#46752657)

So, when can we expect Obama and Hillary to fall on their swords? Their position on the issue was exactly the same as Eich's at the time he gave his donation.

Oh, that's right. They couldn't possibly be hypocrites - they're Democrats. Yeah, sure.

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (-1, Troll)

cbhacking (979169) | about 4 months ago | (#46752919)

You are an idiot, several times over.

For one other, not everybody is fanatically partisan. I don't like Eich because he wanted to enshrine religiously motivated discrimination into law. I support gay marriage, and will continue to do so until the law gets out of marriage entirely and makes all the benefits which legally married couples receive instead available to everybody. I use Firefox just as much as I used to (it's not my primary browser, but I keep it installed and use it semi-regularly). The Democratic party receives more of my votes than the Republican party but I do not like Obama, Hillary, or the DNC; I voted for a third-party candidate. I will call anybody acting hypocritically a hyprocrite. For example, you took a non-partisan discussion (equality and corporate politics) and tried to imply that it was partisan (specifically, that Microlith is a blind supporter of the Democratic party) when in fact you just revealed your own partisan bias without refuting a single one of Microlith's points.

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752641)

They stood by and watched their CEO get ousted because of a donation to a cause that the majority supported. They could have championed free speech instead.

A majority of people supporting something does not make it right or iust. There's a reason that the Founders were wary of a tyranny of the majority. Slavery was supported by the majority of the South and so were Jim Crow laws at one point.

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752687)

They stood by and watched their CEO get ousted because of a donation to a cause that the majority supported. They could have championed free speech instead.

Free speech doesn't mean what you think it does. His rights of free speech were maintained. As were the rights of others who disagreed with him. Free speech doesn't mean there are no consequences to what you say, or that other people can't take umbrage to what you say, or that they can't decide you shouldn't be in charge of something like Mozilla because of it. (and that's assuming he was fired or even "encouraged to leave", which he has not claimed he was - but I'll grant he was for the sake of argument)

And let's not pretend a CEO is just another employee of a company, or that Mozilla is just a normal company either. When you depend on the contributions of volunteers, and your CEO is known to have contributed money for the expressed purpose of making some of those volunteers unequal to others based on their sexual orientation, you've got a problem. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous. He's not the janitor, and this isn't General Electric.

The fact is the BOD screwed up by hiring him as CEO in the first place, because his contributions to Prop 8 were already known. And it's a very bad thing that his contributions to Prop 8 were known, because those types of things are supposed to be kept private and we should all want them to be kept private. But since they were revealed, there's no way in hell he should have been offered the role of CEO of Mozilla. Once you learn someone is an A-hole, you have the right to decide if he/she/it should be the leader of a volunteer-based organization.

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (1, Insightful)

OhPlz (168413) | about 4 months ago | (#46752781)

Step back and see the bigger picture, will you? Mozilla has a lot of power in that their browser is used by a whole lot of people. Is that a group that should take sides on political issues? Protecting free speech should be their absolute number one priority. No one wants a web browser or mail reader that has ideologues controlling it. Would you use a web browser pushed by the NSA?

It's true what you say about free speech, and it does have consequences. Chrome got a lot of new users out of this, ironically. Ousting a CEO for one donation many years ago when even the President of the USofA believed the same at the time is a bit absurd. You raise an interesting point too. He was fired over information that should never have been released. That just makes it that much worse.

Think about the shoe on the other foot. What if companies started firing people for donating to some issue you care deeply for? Prop 8 is a side show here. This could have been about any issue, left or right. I'm not in favor of going after people in the workplace for what they believe in their personal life. If he was supporting NAMBLA, that's one thing. But this is a contentious issue, one of many. We need conversation, not condemnation. Forcing silence for fear of losing one's profession is horrible. That's not American.

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46753157)

Step back and see the bigger picture, will you?

I am trying to see the bigger picture. It's not a choice of what color socks to wear, it's a decision to keep a certain set of people from enjoying the same benefits the rest of us do. I'm fairly confident that in one or two more generations, this "controversial" issue will be seen in the same vein as keeping black people in the back of the bus, or keeping women in the kitchen. Even if I'm wrong, that's the way many people feel about this issue. That's the bigger picture. Right now we're just in the smaller picture of dealing with generational attitude adjustment. :)

Mozilla has a lot of power in that their browser is used by a whole lot of people. Is that a group that should take sides on political issues?

It's not a political issue - it's a moral issue. Eich didn't support any particular political party, nor would I care if he did. If he had just donated to a political party, we wouldn't be having this debate, and Eich would likely still be CEO.

Making him CEO in the first place was the mistake - no one cared when he was just CTO, even though his contribution was already known by that time. Being the CEO is a whole different ballgame. The CEO is the public face and top executive of a company; making someone with this known issue the CEO was foolish, because many people would view it as in fact taking sides (and the wrong side, for many folks).

Protecting free speech should be their absolute number one priority.

Actually, I'd rather that making the best browser be their number one priority. :)

But again, they did not prevent free speech. If he had contributed money to a platform for making minorities use separate bathrooms and ride in the back of the bus, would you say Mozilla couldn't fire him as CEO because it was free speech? That's silly. He absolutely got to say whatever he wanted to say. No one denied him that right, and that's the right of Free Speech.

Chrome got a lot of new users out of this, ironically.

That's cool. And they would have lost me and likely others to Chrome, if Eich hadn't stepped down. It's a no-win situation, because there's no way of pleasing everyone in this situation. As I said previously, the Board royally screwed up. They should never have hired him for the role.

Ousting a CEO for one donation many years ago when even the President of the USofA believed the same at the time is a bit absurd.

Not at all. For one thing, POTUS can be wrong (like for example the NSA crap), but more importantly people can learn, change, and grow. Eich has not offered any retractions, apologies, etc., for his contribution to Prop 8. He has the right to keep with that stance, and I give him kudos for not lying about it. But it doesn't mean he's not completely inappropriate for the role of CEO of Mozilla for believing in it.

You raise an interesting point too. He was fired over information that should never have been released. That just makes it that much worse.

It makes the topic difficult, and it annoys the crap out of me that the info was revealed, and it annoys me that no one seems to care that this type of information should never be revealed. Democracy depends on it not being revealed. But... since it has been revealed, it's not like it can just be ignored.

Think about the shoe on the other foot. What if companies started firing people for donating to some issue you care deeply for?

They have been. People have been getting fired for hot-button issues since long before you or I were born. In theory we have laws to prevent that now. But Eich wasn't fired... and more importantly, a CEO is not a regular employee. You know it, I know it, we all know it. The CEO role is simply not the same as a regular employee, or even another executive of the company.

As I said earlier, the Board screwed up. I blame them the most. I blame Eich a little for it too, because he should have known this would be a problem and shouldn't have accepted the role. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to foresee this would have created a problem. (then again he created JavaScript, so maybe foresight isn't his strong suit? ;)

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752883)

By the way, why are you posting as coward?

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (4, Insightful)

roca (43122) | about 4 months ago | (#46752741)

We did not "stand by and watch". Many Mozilla staff made public statements supporting Brendan as CEO, including (courageously) many LGBT Mozilla staff. Many more publicly supported Brendan than publicly opposed him. The media of course focused on his opponents because "Mozilla employees call for CEO to step down" gets more clicks than "Mozilla employees support CEO".

Maybe we could have done more. At the time the firestorm was hot enough that it was unclear whether speaking out (and what sort of speaking out) would help. Brendan's resignation came as a great surprise to almost everyone at Mozilla, including me, and up to then I honestly thought simply saying nothing and letting the controversy blow itself out was going to work and was the best course of action.

To all the people who are shouting about "free speech" now: did you speak up to support Mozilla while we were defending Brendan as CEO? If not, why are you more enthusiastic about bashing us now than you were about supporting us back then?

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (2)

OhPlz (168413) | about 4 months ago | (#46752913)

I'm sure a lot of us didn't even know about this until he was ousted. I would have supported you (at least here in posts) then had I known about this at the time.

If what you say is true, it's interesting. I haven't heard that anywhere else.

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752805)

Bullshit. He sided with the Nazis with his belief. They do not believe in gay marriage, so he is one of them. I bet you also use the word fag. You are disgusting.

PS: Why is no one talking about Mozilla getting rid of one intolerant person and replacing him with someone worse? We need to get this new guy fired as soon as possible.

Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752317)

so you voted with your feet against all those employees that rallied to bully the CEO out of his job, well done.

Sadly, sounds like I was right (4, Interesting)

_xeno_ (155264) | about 4 months ago | (#46752209)

In one of the earlier Eich threads, I speculated that he was kicked out less because of his former gay marriage-related politics (he did, after all, indicate he wouldn't change Mozilla's LGBT-related policies) and more because the board wanted someone who could better monetize Mozilla. Don't forget, the board members that quit over Eich's appointment didn't quit due to the LGBT nonsense, they quit because they wanted someone "outside the organization who could provide a new business strategy."

With this new appointment, it sounds like I was right: Eich was kicked out not over the Twitter whine-storm, but due to internal politics that want to see Mozilla turned into a money-making "product."

Losing Eich is going to be the worst thing to ever happen to Mozilla, mark my words.

Re:Sadly, sounds like I was right (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 4 months ago | (#46752443)

It's open source, I can feel the fork coming.

Re:Sadly, sounds like I was right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752481)

The fork already happened. I've been using it since v24 of Firefox. It's called Pale Moon. Try it, it rocks!

Re:Sadly, sounds like I was right (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 4 months ago | (#46752693)

Sadly that's windows only. Looks like a nice project though.

Re:Sadly, sounds like I was right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752455)

We hurd that already...here we go again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd

Re:Sadly, sounds like I was right (1)

roca (43122) | about 4 months ago | (#46752697)

That is totally absurd. If the board didn't want Brendan to be CEO, they wouldn't have appointed him in the first place!

The evidence is clear that the board, and almost everyone else at Mozilla, wanted Brendan as CEO. Then came the protests, the social media firestorm, and the boycotts, and he stepped down (and was not "kicked out").

If you believe differently from what's indicated by the observable facts and official statements, produce some evidence. No-one has so far.

Re:Sadly, sounds like I was right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46753067)

In March Brendan Eich seemed excited to lead Mozilla, and stated his hope that everyone can move past personal politics and opinion for the greater good-.

In early April and after the firestorm & boycotts, Brendan Eich was no longer CEO.

Saying he was not coerced is like having someone suggest you sign your life possessions away while pointing a gun to your head, all the while insisting they were only being persuasive.

Fuck that. The LBGT community and the PC police are not getting a free pass on this one.

Re:Sadly, sounds like I was right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752703)

In one of the earlier Eich threads, I speculated that he was kicked out less because of his former gay marriage-related politics (he did, after all, indicate he wouldn't change Mozilla's LGBT-related policies) and more because the board wanted someone who could better monetize Mozilla.

Ummm... you do realize the Board hired Eich, by a majority, right?

If the Board members who quit did so because he wasn't the "money man" you claim they wanted, then who's left on the Board that suddenly has a majority power to demand it?

Re:Sadly, sounds like I was right (2)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 4 months ago | (#46753041)

Ah baloney.

Eich was tossed because he handled the controversy like he had aspergers. Those interviews he gave were cringe worthy. CEO's absolutely have to be politicians, they have to be able to handle bad situations in a manner that improves the problem not makes it worse. They can't get asked a question then provide an answer that makes it seem even worse than the initial impression. Even when handed a shit question in an ambush situation they need to be able to dance the discussion, not make it any worse while appearing to look like they answered the question. Eich clearly couldn't do that.

As far as the board members that quit I believe they did so because they didn't like Eich, not because of any stupid money issues. The board of directors are basically quasi bosses for a CEO, they hire the CEO, have ability to fire him with a majority, they can influence policy but the CEO has final say. If the board the CEO don't get along, it's like being in a bad marriage.

qualifications (4, Insightful)

fche (36607) | about 4 months ago | (#46752215)

One wonders whether Mr. Beard had to do a lie detector run to prove his loyalty the cause(s) du jour.

Re:qualifications (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 4 months ago | (#46752955)

"Who wants a mustache ride!?"

Lets organize a boycott .. (1)

DTentilhao (3484023) | about 4 months ago | (#46752217)

Now that it's become the norm for getting people fired for holding opposing views to yerself, how about organising a boycott of the following individuals: Chloe Valerlidi, Chris McAvoy, Christie Koehler, Jessica Klein, Jess Klein, John Bevan, Sydney Moyer (ref [arstechnica.com] ) or failing that having them locked in a room and made listen to Alex Jones for ever.

Re:Lets organize a boycott .. (3, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 4 months ago | (#46752677)

I haven't weighed in on the Eich thing yet because I couldn't quite put my finger on what exactly was giving me an uncomfortableness about it. I support gay marriage, I'd question why anyone would be insane enough to actually want to get married, but if they want it why not.

What burns about the whole affair is that the relevant parties had their say, the people voted, and that should be that. Instead we've got vengeance seeking from those in favour of gay marriage, making lists, hunting people down and persecuting them by whatever means are available. In other words, McCarthyism.

Fuck that.

Re:Lets organize a boycott .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752833)

For Mozilla situation to become "McCarthyism" one would have to condem Eich for something without proof or evidence.

Re:Lets organize a boycott .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46753097)

...the relevant parties had their say, the people voted...

And, whether you agree with them or not, that vote was overturned by activist judges.

As the banjo players would say, end times. I think we're at a big cultural inflection point.

Hurrah for the Diamond Age [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Lets organize a boycott .. (1)

roca (43122) | about 4 months ago | (#46752849)

Jessica Klein and Jess Klein are the same person.

Christie Koehler doesn't belong on your list. She early and publicly supported Brendan as CEO --- a stand that made her quite unpopular with a segment of her LGBT community. She deserves great praise.

Re:Lets organize a boycott .. (1)

BZ (40346) | about 4 months ago | (#46753289)

Uh.... Christie Koehler explicitly said she thought Brendan would do a good job as CEO. So I'm a bit confused about why you're lumping her into your list.

We need multi-threaded FF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752263)

I just hope someone at Mozilla will really push the multi-threaded FF project this time and not close it down again like in the past, I am on the verge of switching browsers because the lack of multi-threading. More sites are doing more in the background and the lack of multi-threading is really slowing down the browser and really hurting the FF experience.

Any Microsoft connections? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752279)

very little info on the web about this guy imo.

how many former microsofties are working for Mozilla now?

However, I need to know. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46752365)

What his opinion of Orange pants may be.
I myself am ardently against anything orange being worn as clothing, and if this man should believe in the hypocrisy that is orange pants, then he must be pushed out.

Where's the broad that ran GNOME into the ground? (1)

glrotate (300695) | about 4 months ago | (#46752617)

Hire her and appease the outraged constituencies.

Mozilla? Browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46753017)

Mozilla makes a browser? Really? Oh you mean that one that used to be fast and had great plugins but now updates itself with more bloat every few days and kills the plugins? Yeah, abandoned that mess. Now that I know they are fascist pigs and do not support the free speech rights of employees I will stay away.

No more. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46753021)

Not going to use any Mozilla any more. No more FireFox(went to maxthon) and no more Thunderbird. His beliefs are not relevant to job performance unless said beliefs impact on the bottom line.
Now, I shall wait for all the haters to rip on me.

Board Governance Model Antiquated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46753049)

Mozilla has given fresh fuel to the movement that so called "Board of Directors" Governance is Irrelevant and evokes Illegalities.

What do the "Board of Governors" at Corporations and Universities do ?

Answer: Try to figure out the prettiest girl in the Mail Room to butt fuck and get the "company" to pay for it at a very expensive 5-Star Hotel !

This idiocy has got to end and soon !

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>