Hacker News Reader

It's sad how true this is.

I still fondly remeber the days of Firefox 2.5. IMO the best browser ever. It feels like Mozilla is trying to shove more shit down my throat with every update.

I'm by no means trying to defend Microsoft here. I installed Win10 yesterday, and they replaced my FF default with Microsoft Edge (which is arguably better than IE, but still not something I'd use voluntarily).

Why can't Mozilla ship their bloat as default-addons so I can at least easily remove all code associated with them. Revisiting about:config after every update gets really annoying. At this point the only thing mozilla has going for them is that all alternatives are worse.

Mozilla did agree, following the criticism on Pocket, that shipping new things like Pocket should be done as addons, and would do the work to fix that.

Reacting to backlash isn't an argument.

Why would you (or anyone) downvote me for criticising things like integrating a social API[0] into the browser?

If you feel like downvoting opinions you don't like, by all means go ahead, I'm just not sure if that's the way to have a meaningful discussion. Pocket never bothered me because, honestly, I never saw it. But yes I dislike it's integration. Still no reason to reduce this to the "Pocket indicent" I never realized was a thing until I've read about it.

I still use Firefox.

[0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Projects/So...

I didn't downvote you.

I agree that downvotes are not conducive to a discussion.

Sorry, I guess I was just frustrated, didn't mean to jump to conclusions. Leaving my original comment for reference.

Wait, they make a pretty bad move, people complain (rightly so), they go back on said move in response to that feedback and "Reacting to backlash isn't an argument"? Or am I reading your point incorrectly?

The point is that Mozilla ignored their published principles ( 'The Manifesto' ), and also their stated testing and release processes, in order to shove Pocket out the door and into peoples' faces.

Basically they trampled on everything for which Mozilla stood.

In those circumstances merely reacting to backlash is insufficient. Heads should have rolled and assurances been given that they would alway uphold their principles regardless of 'brand benefit' or 'user acquisition'.

Was anyone demoted, reassigned or dismissed? No, just some PR lacquer slapped over the issue.

IIRC they were testing a new API, and didn't want add-on developers to start writing against said API until they'd finalised it, so they didn't expose it. Pocket was the test-case, and once they were done testing they'd expose the API and pocket would be easily removable.

Not that that changes the fact that pocket is stuck there right now, and we have no easy way to remove it.

> The point is that Mozilla ignored their published principles ( 'The Manifesto' ), and also their stated testing and release processes, in order to shove Pocket out the door and into peoples' faces.

> Basically they trampled on everything for which Mozilla stood.

What on Earth are you talking about? It's a few kB of code that provided a feature that users were asking for. If you don't want to use it, don't.

"Reacting to backlash," a.k.a. admitting they made a mistake and agreeing to roll it back, is normally exactly what you want people to do when you criticize them.

Otherwise, what's the point of the criticism? Just to make yourself feel good?

The problem is judging between an honest misstep and someone constantly pushing the boundaries to see where they can go without people yelling. A lot of it has to do with the difference between crossing the boundary in that particular case and crossing the boundary in general. To further complicate matters, much innovation results from crossing certain boundaries, meaning that pushing on the wrong boundaries may be the result of an incorrect direction for innovation, and thus resulting criticism may be directed not just at the misstep but as at the direction of innovation.

Citation needed.

Apologies to Randall Munroe: http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/C...

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Go_Faster

Ah, an actual response. Much appreciated. That does seem to address the concerns and at first glance seems to me like a better solution than any of the ones I had seen proposed.

Pocket is not only piece shoved down user's throats - just one of the most obvious ones. There are also at least Hello and Sync, and then lots of less noticeable stuff.

Hmm, I posted a "Citation needed" and got downvoted, but I really would be interested to read if this is true. I kept up with the threads on the mailing list for a long time and never saw any such promise (there was talk about "future integrations" but nothing about changing their stance on Pocket, or anything concrete about genericizing the interface Pocket uses other than it would be nice at some point).

Most of those things also came with the caveat that the person posting was not involved, so if you have a link to someone authoritatively saying this, I'd like to read it.

edit: courtesy of zz1: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Go_Faster

Can you give some concrete examples?

> Why can't Mozilla ship their bloat

If you mean pocket/hello/etc, none of that actually loads unless you click the button. The only "bloat" is taking up a few extra kB of disk space and a few seconds of your time clearing out the toolbar. Yes, it was a mistake. Yes, they should be add-ons. But many users like and want the features, and it's a balancing act between the minimalists and the feature-users.

I fall on the minimalist side, and I removed those toolbar items immediately. But I'm not angry at Mozilla for trying to provide what many of their users said they wanted.

Your sarcasm is entertaining, but the big difference is that while neither company/product is perfect, Microsoft still essentially owns the desktop with Windows. While Mozilla's Firefox is just one among several choices of web browser, currently #3 in the rankings.

It is extremely easy to switch web browser. It is not easy to switch OS. On a Windows machine, if you are savvy enough, you can install Linux, but otherwise, you need to buy a Mac in order to avoid Windows. And you need to learn a lot in order to drop Windows (easy for us here on HN, hard for 99% of people).

It's fine if you dislike some of Mozilla's decisions with Firefox. People have complained and in fact Mozilla has changed some decisions following that criticism. But the situation is just not comparable to Microsoft with Windows.

For that reason, I don't see a point to diverting the conversation. The topic here is Windows 10.

>Microsoft still essentially owns the desktop with Windows

So what? That doesn't mean they are obliged to comply with whatever you think is "the right thing"®.

I'm gonna highlight another another big difference that you seemed to overlook.

Microsoft is a company, their mission is to generate profits for their shareholders and they are the owners of Windows 10, because they developed it. Mozilla is a non-profit corporation whose main product, Firefox, is software that has been developed and tested (to a big extent) by people who do not get paid a single cent, because they have faith in the project and the overall mission that Mozilla attempts to portrait.

Now, I really want to understand your side, please explain, how come what Microsoft did with Windows was wrong but what Mozilla did with Firefox was ok?

Edit: Downvotes, but no arguments, as expected.

How about this: It was wrong for Microsoft, and it was wrong for Mozilla. But it's worse when it's Microsoft, because it's easier to move to a different browser than to move to a different OS, and so it's harder to escape Microsoft's attempts to force you to do what they want you to.

Also, Microsoft has much more of a history of deliberately doing this to people, and so the suspicion is higher with Microsoft. Mozilla might get the benefit of the doubt; Microsoft does not.

Is it harder to move to a different browser in Windows 10? I feel like you keep emphasizing how easy it is to change your browser and yet are still registering a complaint. I'm not sure what you are complaining about.

First, you may be confusing me with another poster; I don't feel like your comment reflects my other posts on this article. I don't "keep emphasizing" how easy it is to change your browser.

I don't know if it's harder or easier to move to a different browser in Windows 10. I presume it's about the same, but it may be harder. I don't think that alters my point whatsoever.

My complaint is that Microsoft is making it difficult for users to do what the users want, if that's different from what Microsoft wants them to do. My position is that it's significantly worse when the OS does that to you than when an application - any application - does that, because it's much harder to switch OS than to switch an application. (If you're a large business, your ERP or, worse, database, may be the exception to this, but those aren't really the topic of this thread.)

I think it is much more difficult to switch to a different default browser in Windows 10.

With Chrome at least, you used be be able to set it to your default browser when is asked on first launch, with only a click or two.

Now that API is deprecated and removed, and users have to click 11 times through the settings to set the default browser. Much worse. And this is after it sneakily sets Edge as the default browser when upgrading, with only a small blue on blue "customize" link to a unlabeled setting to opt out.

It's quite a bit more difficult. Last week I set a Windows 8 PC to use Chrome as the default; this was simple, two clicks and you're done. Now, it dumps you to a settings page which is a significant increase in steps required to set Chrome as the default. Those are the facts of this, however one can certainly make arguments as to why this is a better way of doing things for Windows.

According to Mozilla's video, it seems to take three clicks now, instead of two...

How to Change Your Default Browser in Windows 10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEUekKqLJ-E

However, the benefit for the user is that there's a consistent process and all the defaults are in one place.

I read a summary of the results of a user research team checking whether end-users managed to actually set a different default browser on Windows 10.

Outside of the "power users" group, I seem to remember that not a single user succeeded.

I actually didn't say that what Microsoft did was wrong. It's a complex issue, and you can see multiple points of view in the HN discussion here.

I am not convinced that what Microsoft did was wrong, or that it wasn't wrong.

I am just sad to see people try to divert the conversation from the topic of Microsoft and Windows 10.

Finally someone who talks sense.

Microsoft could as well ban Firefox on their OS if they want to. Reality is that with Google Chrome, Mozilla has become completely irrelevant and will eventually die out.

They can innovate but they chose to fire their CEO over some petty reasons and they are building some phone which has not seen light of the day for years.

So what? That doesn't mean they are obliged to comply with whatever you think is "the right thing"®.

Yes they are. Those who own one or another monopoly-type chokepoints are required to do the right thing in the sense of not abusing their monopolies. ISP are required to connect you to the real internet rather than a walled-garden simulation, Airline are required to not to hold their passengers ransom for more at intermediate point in travel, Healthcare companies are required to provide real health care etc.

Yes, and is Apple required to open their platform to porn apps ?

This is USA where private property rights are supposedly important despite government's attempts in other direction.

The "they can do what ever they want with their private property" argument doesn't matter. This isn't about what they can do, it's about what should be done.

No nothing should be required of these organisations. But their products serve humanity. They SHOULD have a sense of moral obligation to do the right thing. As should we the people have the responsibility to hold private monopolies to high standards so as that they help most people (not just shareholders).

Apple controls a negligible portion of the desktop market. Microsoft absolutely dominates. Anti-trust is about protecting the free market from natural monopolies, and Apple is by no means a monopoly. A walled garden? Absolutely. But not a monopoly.

> is Apple required to open their platform to porn apps ?

If they reached the same percentage numbers on mobile that Microsoft has on desktop, yes they would be.

Ah .. well there's that related Antitrust Lawsuit Microsoft lost in 2001.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

Mozilla is becoming irrelevant in modern market and their response seems to be to blame others. I had guessed it when they fired their CEO over some ridiculous issue.

Windows is bigger does not mean they have any obligation to give space to others. Does Apple let you install YouPorn App on your iphone ? Does Google let you replace default search with Bing if you want ?

Both Android and iOS are immensely successful and both are on tight leash of Apple and Google. The reality is that, that tight leash has made user experience much much better. My father likes to surf net on his Android phone because his laptop is full of Ask and Conduit toolbars and he has no idea how they go there.

The world of Internet is now enough complex that it pays to let one company keep everything on tight leash and Microsoft's move in that direction makes a lot of sense.

> Does Google let you replace default search with Bing if you want ?

Why yes, they do. If you want, you can even replace Google Now with Firefox search (using Yahoo by default, unless you change it).

Apple is very far from a market leader, they have something like 20% of the smartphone market, it's maybe the most profitable 20% chunk but it's still 20%. When you have a near-monopoly on a market, you have some obligations regarding the competition that you would not have normally.

I'm a Firefox dev (but speaking only for myself). I believe that most people inside Mozilla agree that a number of choices made recently by Mozilla were pretty bad. And these "most people" includes the team who is now in charge of product development at Mozilla, and wasn't in that position at the time of, say, Hello or Pocket.

We are making changes. I hope that the community will see the changes soon. Now, as usual, not everybody will be happy. Part of it is that we're a relatively small team trying to fight giants. Part of it is that yes, we will keep experimenting, and that means making mistakes. And part of it is because Firefox lives in the world of https://xkcd.com/1172/, which exacerbates the previous two points.

But still, I hope that most people will appreciate the stuff we're working on – and I'm not just talking of code.

Caveat: Again, I'm speaking only for myself.

Your reply inspired me to make another donation to Mozilla.

EDIT: The donation page fooled me. After putting in a credit card, there is a step called 'personal.' It is not. It is the billing address for the card. I put in personal info and was rejected. I put in billing address and it went through. (Company card)

The rule for us little guys applies to big guys too: Re-inventing UI makes it harder for your customer, at least initially. Please don't do it unless there is a very good reason.

I can file a bug. Is it that page? https://sendto.mozilla.org/page/contribute/givenow-seq?sourc...

yes, thank you.

Filed: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1189773

confessed ^^

How about adding features back to customize the browing experience? Mozilla was always about built inside customizations.

Stop copying Chrome! Because of your actions i am using now Vivaldi! But... If you ever decide to support power users again with something which does NOT require add-on installation and includes more advanced UI customization, i MAY be perhaps reconsidering my decision.

But not one single minute earlier!

Btw. I even know some professionals who are running PC shops who have abandoned Firefox and are refusing to install it on client's computers! Because of Australis, because of Pocket, Chat, Social Media, DRM, handling of the Brendan Eich case!

Please.... bring at least back the option to combine address bar and tabs! or an optional add-on bar.

But most important, stop copying Chrome and stop only serving the simple users. Because in the end it has been the advertising and support of Power users which did push you to the heights during Firefox versions 20-24! This group earns to get back a certain respect from you, and right now you are constantly asskicking that user group for no real sense making reason!

Time to abandon your recent minimalist and design centered way of thinking and time to go back to your roots... to a more customizable and unique experience which you served the user base in the past.

Mozilla right now is on a very terrible road. If you do not want it to become even more terrible, you really have to go back a big part of the way!

Cute, but Firefox doesn't revert you to defaults and having a button that does nothing but offer a signup is not 'forced integration'. You may not be able to delete it but it doesn't do anything whatsoever by default.

I think Firefox sets itself as the default when you upgrade it and choose default settings.

I meant the search engine thing.

It's pretty normal for a program installer to set itself to handle files.

So then what's wrong when an OS does it?

The OS does set itself to do OS things.

OS shouldn't set your browser.

The OS update installs a new browser, which then sets itself as default.

When it's installed automatically it doesn't have the same intent behind it that justifies changing the setting.

Windows isn't installed automatically.

Let me lay out the analogy more explicitly. I install Firefox, and specifically choose for it not to be my default. I later download an updated version and choose default settings in the installation. Firefox then sets itself as the default browser; it overwrites my previous choice in favor of the default.

I install Windows. I specifically don't set explorer as the default. I install an updated version of Windows and choose default settings. Windows overrides my previous choice.

Right, neither should be doing that in the case of an update. Firefox when updated in the normal manner doesn't make itself the primary browser. Windows 10 is behaving badly.

Firefox will only change things if you specifically get a Firefox installer, where it thinking that's your intent is understandable.

It's one of the option during the first experience configuration of Windows 10. If you had another browser installed, one of the toggle is : do you want to use Edge as default browser. Hopefully, people that feel that strongly about their browser choice don't just use "Express settings" when installing a whole operating system.

> Firefox doesn't revert you to defaults

You mean besides that time Firefox reverted everyone's search engine to Yahoo?

It only switched your search engine if you'd never changed from the original default (Google). If you had ever switched the search box to use a different engine, FF continued to respect that.

Not changing from the default is as much a choice as changing to something else. They shouldn't have changed it for updates, but for new installs.

Unless you do the "refresh firefox" thing that shows up every time you have 5 addons installed.

The above experience is on the developer edition of firefox, as I haven't tried it on the normal stable release.

But why would I change it if I wanted Google, which incidentally is, I'm sure, what most people want? Leaving the default can be as much a choice as changing it.

(I'm on Mozilla's side in this discussion, but that particular move was terrible, even if not too consequential, in my opinion.)

I had to deal with friends that were suddenly on yahoo and they didn't know why. So for a lot of people it was swapped out even if it was an accident.

I don't care about Mozilla or Firefox. I used to, but not anymore. Two reasons why.

First, copying Chrome's UI.

Second, forcing Brendan Eich out.

These days Mozilla comes across as a bunch of whiners and activists rather than a technology company. Maybe Rust will be successful but I don't want to be part of an ecosystem where straight talking and free thought is banned. Do you want to submit a pull request and be told not to use gendered pronouns or avoid using certain words because it makes people feel unsafe? That's the kind of world Mozilla occupies.

> Do you want to submit a pull request and be told not to use gendered pronouns or avoid using certain words because it makes people feel unsafe?

Is that really true? Can you give an example of that?

    > avoid using certain words because it makes people feel
    > unsafe

Which words do you think should be appropriate for a non-profit software organization which Mozilla don't think are?

Of course he can't, because he's talking out his ass.

Referring to Node.js pronoun drama which led to one key developer being virtually "fired" by Joyent and forced out of a project.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6845286

This is actually the common thing in tech now, you need to step carefully on eggshells everywhere to avoid someone being butthurt.

I miss the Internet around year 2000.

Yes, I remember when we could sling racist, misogynistic, and homophobic slurs around without a thought for the feelings of non-whites, minorities, or an entire half of the world's population. Thanks to those slurs, the world was a better place because, uh... because... er, uh, hm...

So, free speech is great as long as you don't strongly disagree with it.

"Free speech" does not mean "free from all consequence," and never has.

What do yo really mean by that?

Personally I worry that mere attaching some empty labels to an argument is reason enough justify censoring it.

I mean that if you choose to use slurs or donate money to hate groups, and are ostracized from a community as a result, then invoking "free speech" is not sufficient defense to be allowed back into that community.

Or, in popular comic form: https://xkcd.com/1357/

So "you are free to say whatever you want, but if I don't like it I will destroy your life".

I'm not sure whose life was destroyed or how we jumped to that point, but yes, if you choose that slurs and hate groups are more important to you than your community's acceptance, then you get to deal with those consequences. At no point is this an infringement on your right to free speech.

Well, that's horrifying. I'll shut up now.

Let's see how you feel about your boss when he donates $10,000 to declare that you are inhuman scum, then refuses to apologize when called on it.

How do you get from a personal donation to a state-wide proposition, to "inhuman scum"?

Did you pay attention to the Prop 8 campaigners? They were and remain jaw-droppingly disgusting people.

> Early on, Prop 8’s supporters decided to focus their campaign primarily on children, stoking parents’ fears about gay people brainwashing their kids with pro-gay messages or, implicitly, turning their children gay.

> Another notorious commercial shows an earnest school administrator fretting that a “new health curriculum” that mentions gay marriage will “mess up” children with reference to “gay attraction.”

> In perhaps the most insulting ad, two gay fathers are quizzed about marriage and reproduction by their daughter; the takeaway, of course, is that this faux-family is twisting the mind and morals of their child with perverse ideas about marriage and love.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s...

(Also it appears I got the donation amount wrong, it was $1,000, not $10,000.)

You got a lot wrong.

Go on.

You seem to like comics that summarize one side of the story. Here's the other side:

http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot

Don't try to pretend the Prop 8 campaign was some reasonable, thoughtful discussion of the impacts of gay marriage on society. Prop 8 was a campaign of hate directed against a historically maligned minority, designed to prevent that group from gaining acceptance. The ads implied crazy off-the-wall shit like recruitment of children (read between the lines: homosexuals are pedophiles) and that somehow children being told that homosexuality is OK is a horrible thing.

No one implied any such thing, but you will read that into any ad defending parental rights to educate small children. There's no point in arguing if your premise is anyone who does not agree with you is a hateful bigot. Hence the comic, hope you enjoyed it!

So, I was right to begin with: Eich unapologetically contributed material support to a campaign of hate against many of his own employees, and it's entirely justified for such a person to be ousted from a leadership position in a company that doesn't wish to lose many of its gay and gay-friendly employees.

Your circular argument did not move my LGBT supporters at Mozilla, or negate my record of good conduct and relations over the years with all non-Jacobins.

And of course Mozilla did not fire me because of anything like your bigoted imputation of "hate". Such noise amounted to a non-issue.

Being in an echo chamber is not good for one's hearing. Step outside and listen.

(If you are Eich, I apologize for the awkward third-person conversation. I don't have any proof of your identity and I don't want to attribute anything said here to him without it.)

A non-issue? Literally every article I can find about the resignation is backed by a discussion about Eich's anti-gay stance. The position at CEO lasted roughly a week before the resignation. OKCupid put up a big anti-Mozilla notice as a result of the appointment; I have a hard time describing that as "good relations." Unless you're willing to put forward some new insider information, it's really hard to believe that such noise was not a factor, if not THE factor, in the resignation.

Why did Eich resign after a week if not for the outrage at his anti-gay stance?

> your bigoted imputation of "hate"

Lol

Read my HN comments to authenticate my id.

You're doing it again: equating pro-traditional-marriage with anti-gay with hate. The last bogus inference is the one that I called a non-issue.

You're right, I am equating those, because they are all equal. Whatever label you put on it, opposition to same-sex marriage makes the statement that you believe that love between same-sex couples is inferior to that between opposite-sex couples; that you need to ensure your children grow up to have that same belief; that homosexuals are something to disapprove of, something to fear; that you have a deep fear of your child turning out to be homosexual. Whether or not you come out and say those statements (and many of your "traditionalist" colleagues are not afraid to say them outright), all of those statements are clearly implied and wildly hurtful to homosexual individuals, and their friends and family.

This is why you saw such a violent reaction to your being placed as CEO. The fact that you didn't last a week means that you and the Mozilla board are so blind to the harm that your positions inflict on your own employees and their friends and family that the appointment itself was taken as an insult, and this is ignoring your continued refusal to see the harm that you are doing. And I say this as a huge Mozilla fan (see my comments elsewhere in this thread).

You made it clear that you will use a position of power, in this case money, to put down and insult those who work under you. Why should anyone have to put up with that? Mozilla employees are lucky to live in a time and industry when they could express their disapproval and have it acted upon in a positive way. I feel for others who are in less fortunate positions.

I find the arguments made on this page to be skeevy and dehumanizing to those that fall outside gender norms, but I'm posting it so to save you from wasting anymore electrons back and forth:

http://discussingmarriage.org/

Those are the "best" and least bigoted arguments that the "con-" side can muster.

Mozilla Corporation employees did not express disapproval while I was still CEO, and nothing from employees resulted in me leaving. When I had to tell key LGBT supporters I was resigning, they were aghast and asked me not to step down (from CEO; this was before it was clear that I was resigning from Mozilla).

You're still in that echo chamber. I can get some sounds in, but they're distorted and attenuated. Here's one loud clue: marriage as a legally regulated institution has nothing to do with "love", or (contra Kennedy for the majority) "self expression". If that were all that's involved in marriage, it should not be subject to state coercion at all.

I'll leave it at that, and thank rmxt for dropping a link.

All right. Keep hurting people for no reason, I guess. I hope it at least makes you happy, so someone is benefitting from the needless harm.

Who was hurt by law?

Remember, CA had its equivalent version of statutory marriage, called civil unions in other jurisdictions and called Domestic Partner law in CA.

Mark Leno among others said D.P. law was good enough, both when it passed and as amended. I agreed eventually, and stood firm. Fat lot of good that did me.

LGBT youth are twice as likely as hetero students to attempt suicide. http://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/youth.htm

Members of the LGBT community are about 150% as likely as heteros to smoke. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/groups/lgbt.html

Without access to marriage and the rights it brings, children of same-sex couples had to go through legal ordeals, facing orphanage, if their biological parent dies despite another (now single) parent being available.

Other marriage benefits, especially hospital visitation and rights after a partner's death, weren't conferred to partners as they weren't legally recognized.

Civil unions were obviously at best a stepping stone. "Separate but equal" does not have a good history in this country.

You've heard these arguments before,

> Fat lot of good that did me.

so tell us. How have you been harmed by gay marriage's legalization?

In what way does your objection to your employees' having rights not disqualify you from the CEO position?

Way to mix up unrelated issues there!

I agree on empirical suicide risks for people outside various norms. Prop 8 and marriage as regulated by law had ~zero to do with that. Canada and The Netherlands provide a decade+ data showing how little correlation. Look into it before spouting off to me.

Other marriage benefits, indeed all the ones also granted by the state of California to Domestic Partners, are not material. There are non-sexual relationships among long-term (grand-) mother/daughter and friendship-based dyads who deserved those positive rights. Shame on the majority in past decades for yoking these to marriage, but they also do not argue in the least for redefining marriage from its heteronormative (cis- or trans-, note well) basis.

You like to argue post-hoc about "a stepping stone", but that's not forthright. At the time, from Mark Leno et al., there was no such talk. It was a bait and switch as @JVLast wrote (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/you-will-be-assimilat...).

How am I harmed? The pretext for my leaving Mozilla was the outrage/status-display campaign, even if that can't possibly explain all the facts. In your view, I was harmed, and justly so -- but people disagree on justice, so in general, by your own rubriks, I was harmed.

(In case you are unaware, google CA 1101-1102 statutes. These were based on case law starting from "Gay Law Students v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph".)

Beyond me, you already have telegraphed that it's un-PC, and possibly punishable by the full (lethal) force of the state, for someone like a creative/discretionary small business owner (baker, florist, printer, etc.) to demur from your point of view. And you've said it's hateful for parents to want to protect their children from propaganda.

Go on, prove me wrong: do you think there should be no legal sanction against bakers, florists, printers, restaurants, private schools, small businesses, and parents? Note the case law on side of printers, e.g., who need not be compelled to print materials to which they object. Note well this protects LGBT-owned print-shops.

> How am I harmed? The pretext for my leaving Mozilla was the outrage/status-display campaign, even if that can't possibly explain all the facts. In your view, I was harmed, and justly so -- but people disagree on justice, so in general, by your own rubriks, I was harmed.

Wait, what? You lost your job because of your homophobia. I demonstrated how homosexual individuals were harmed by lacking the right to marry. I asked how you were harmed by SSM becoming legal.

You asked how I was harmed in general. My "homophobia" (the Greek roots make no sense) justifies nothing in what you think was the just-desserts outcome at Mozilla, even if your school-child Marxoid morality tale version of that event were accurate (and it's not).

Beyond that, your cropped reply chopped everything I wrote about bakers, florists, printers, schools, parents. Respond to that, if you can.

Nah. The point I was making when this thread started was that your ousting was justified. I don't think you've said anything to convince me otherwise.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, only about 10 or so people in entire Mozilla organisation opposed Eich. He was near-universally supported. Nobody on the Mozilla board cited Eich's politics as an issue. (This didn't stop false news stories about how board members had stepped down in protest of Eich's politics.)

Stop trying to rewrite history. Brendan Eich decided to leave on his own, in spite of the fact that they tried to get him to stay.

Nonsense. He was forced out. Forced to resign. How hard is that to understand?

That's not what Brendan or Mozilla said. Why don't you ask him? Has Brendan Eich or anyone else ever contradicted this:

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...

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.

But thanks for the opportunity to correct the misinformation you were spreading. Now please stop repeating things you now know are not true.

I doubt Brendan intended for you to stop using Mozilla Firefox to avenge his resignation, which he did voluntarily against the wishes of the board.

In fact, I suspect Brendan voluntarily resigned in order to LIMIT the damage he was causing to Mozilla's reputation and user base, which he cares about.

So I'd guess he's probably not happy about social injustice warriors boycotting Mozilla on his behalf.

Again, I encourage you to seek clarity instead of spreading misinformation: Why don't you ask him?

Please learn about "constructive dismissal".

> In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is in effect a termination.

So you're calling Brendan Eich and the Mozilla board liars.

What's your evidence? Have you asked them yourself? What did they say? Have any of them made any statements that support your accusations that they lied, or are you just making up those accusations yourself, or parroting someone else's accusations that Brendan Eich and the Mozilla board are liars? Who said that?

Hey Brendan Eich: this guy "notsony" just called you and the Mozilla board liars, and claimed that Mozilla forced you out by "creating a hostile work environment" -- care to chime in to support or deny his accusation?

This isn't the first time you've made that claim, or failed to back up your claim with any evidence.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9535977

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9536210

If you can't provide any proof of your accusation that Brendan Eich and the Mozilla board are liars when they said "It was Brendan’s idea to resign", then I think it's safe to dismiss you as just another angry Social Injustice Warrior.

So tell us your evidence supporting your accusation that this is a lie:

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...

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.

pot meet kettle

I never ever enable automatic updates however Firefox updated itself through my Earthlink dialup. So that's why The Tubes have been slow to drain lately.

I did not realize until quite a long time after the invisible install, and only then because a very subtly UI element appeared. I was overcome with rage:

I download all updates by hand then neatly archive them on a server:

   Installers/Windows/
   Installers/Windows/Security_Updates
   Installers/Windows/Security_Updates/Win2k
   Installers/Windows/Security_Updates/WinXP
   Installers/Windows/Service_Packs
   ...
   Installers/Mac_OS_X/
   Installers/Mac_OS_X/TenFourFox

TenFourFox is a build for Tiger and PowerPC. I use it on my Mom's G4 iMac,mwhich is mint condition. Mom doesn't see the point of buying a new Mac, and frankly I agree with her.

I downloaded all her patches at Starbucks until Apple stopped issuing them. Now I have multiple offsite backups of thousands of installers and patches for many different platforms - even BeOS DR8!

My most-serious gripe with Firefox's unwanted, uh, "upgrade" is that I required for solid hours of struggle to figure out where the UI for a business-critical Add-On was.

It turns out that Mozilla "deprecated" what I regard as the "status bar". Silly Wabbit! Usability Testing is for kids!

It's actually called the Add-On Bar. Once I manger to turn that fact up under some cobblestone, I quickly found a thread in which many, many Add-Onmusers also desperately struggled but a Mozilla employee set them straight. Much like AT&T with the cell signal they eliminated from my neighborhood one fine July night in 2010:

    We Don't Care.

    We Don't Have To.

    We're The Phone Company.