They forced Eich out because maintaining him in a leadership role and "face of the company" was at odds with their values as a company and foundation.
And usage of "virtue signalling" in the manner you used it is strongly associated with bigotry.
And usage of "virtue signalling" in the manner you used it is strongly associated with bigotry.
So it did stick to their values, but their values seem superficial rather than functional.
As a user, I would rather have a better browser than a company full of people who think that being against gay marriage 10 years ago means they are dangerous to coworkers or whatnot.
I think it’s great for companies to choose their own values and make their own way. And I can prefer companies that focus on other things.
I don’t necessarily think firing Eich causes Mozilla to suck, but I think Brave is a much better browser and they have far fewer employees with less funding.
I don’t donate to Mozilla and one of the reasons is because their mission is so vague.
As for being a better browser, built in adblocking is great (especially on mobile). But the whole Brave rewards thing is kind of weird and never made sense to me.
Mozilla could have made Brave, they didn’t. Brave is simpler, but better, I think, and even more so shows off how Mozilla’s values aren’t in making awesome software, but in something else.
I largely ignore the weird Brave blockchain thing and just use it as a nice, simple browser.
If they had to literally skin chrome to do then I guess they could. But they should be capable of so much more.
Specially Brave is faster to launch and uses less resources than Firefox and had privacy and ad blocking features turned on by default. I particularly like the little bug that shows you how much bloat it’s blocked.
Ultimately this money is what has enabled Mozilla to exist at all. Brave is living on borrowed money from presumed future revenue from its cryptocurrency scheme which may or may not come to fruition.
They could still just get search placement and make tons and tons of money, enough to develop their browser.
This was also good for multiple accounts; most social media doesn't support clients anymore, or doesn't have good clients, and in order to keep separate topics separate, you need multiple accounts. So now I keep three different browsers open, because there's just no good way to do this otherwise.
I still mostly use Brave, but IMO it's much less differentiated from other browsers than pre-rewrite.
What part of this announcement is valuing "harmony over function"? How does laying off 250 people compute with that?
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
Q: Was Brendan Eich fired?
A: No, Brendan Eich resigned. Brendan himself said:
“I have decided to resign as CEO effective April 3rd, and leave Mozilla. Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader. I will be taking time before I decide what to do next.”
Brendan Eich also blogged on this topic.
Q: Was Brendan Eich asked to resign by the Board?
A: No. It was Brendan’s idea to resign, and in fact, once he submitted his resignation, Board members tried to get Brendan to stay at Mozilla in another C-level role.
This just sounds like willful ignorance to be honest. It was obvious that Eich did not have the backing to remain as CEO.
The whole situation was an embarrassment and a disgrace for everyone involved to be honest. No one came out of it looking good.
Applies to the current CEO then too. Baker shouldn't be CEO.
There is something very wrong about that sentence of yours.
The obvious reality is that Eich realized he fucked up and could no longer effectively lead Mozilla, given that they are as much about their self reinforced myth of being the internet good guys as they are about tech.
And so he stepped down.
The kind of scene that you are envisioning occurs in Maffia movies but not IRL. Eich was under a lot of pressure, but most of that as a direct consequence of the inherent conflict between Mozilla's stated external position and Eich's personal actions. When you are CEO of such a large company you know that you can't combine the two unless you mean it.
Props to Eich for doing what was right instead of further harming Mozilla.
Anyway you seem to be quite stuck on your interpretation, all of the people involved have a single consistent story and instead you want to believe your own. You are of course welcome to your opinion.
Free speech and anti-corporate attitudes are traditionally liberal values. Nowadays, you see arguments from bigots that oppose corporate power over free speech. We shouldn't be forced to withdraw our positions on free speech or corporate power just because they're associated with bigotry now. The idea of expecting others to do so is apalling to me, even if I'm not on board with the virtue signalling stuff specifically.