31–40 of 194 posts
Off-topic, but that's a weird statement from the WSJ: "Firefox is the world’s second-most-popular Web browser on personal computers, with 18% market share, according to Net Applications, a web-analytics consulting firm. That trails Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, with 58% share, and just ahead of Google’s Chrome, with 17% share." Here's what I found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers : Chrome…
He invented Javascript in 1995, co-founded Mozilla, and helped start Firefox. It seems to me he's very well qualified from a historical as well as technical perspective.
Questions about his mobile expertise seem misplaced, considering that his technical contributions helped pave the way for mobile web apps.
The article suggests that the unhappiness about Eich's appointment stems from his support in 2008 for California's Proposition 8, which was an anti-gay marriage law that passed but ultimately was overturned by the Supreme Court.
I don't wish to incite a flame war over this or start a debate over gay/same sex marriage; I merely question why his views on this particular issue make the man unfit for the job. Would it be better if he had contributed money to fight Prop 8? I find this kind of litmus test highly disturbing.
Locked out of iOS. Under heavly competition on Android. Put the metro port on the back burner. Increasingly fighting to stay on feature parity with Chrome on the desktop. FirefoxOS still to make an impact. I love Firefox. I'm just worried for it. With the world going mobile, I wonder if there's space for Firefox. It would be such a shame not to see it around 5 years from now. I wonder if it makes sense for a small or…
> Locked out of iOS. So is Chrome, at least in the sense the iOS Chrome is slow as hell because Safari gets special privilege. But that is the case with all iOS software - you are beholden to Apple. I wouldn't consider success or failure there something you can control at all. > Under heavly competition on Android. True, but mobile FF has the best UI out of all of them, I think. > Put the metro port on the back burne…
Thanks for the kind words :)
We expect Rust to be at 1.0 before Servo becomes a production browser engine.
Err, I don't think their leave is related to Eich being CEO. I'm not sure even knew about the "scandal" before they left.
This would also explain why Mozilla seemed so unprepared for the criticism on Prop8: they'd just fought a huge battle over whether the CEO should be from inside or outside Mozilla, and that was probably all they focused on if it was so big that half the board resigned.
Off-topic, but that's a weird statement from the WSJ: "Firefox is the world’s second-most-popular Web browser on personal computers, with 18% market share, according to Net Applications, a web-analytics consulting firm. That trails Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, with 58% share, and just ahead of Google’s Chrome, with 17% share." Here's what I found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers : Chrome…
Net Applications numbers are far more accurate than the 3 in the table above.
This strikes me as curious, as I don't know of any popular websites who would agree with that statement, since their own traffic more closely matches that of the wikipedia numbers.
Can you explain why you'd make that claim?
Have they already appointed replacements? The Mozilla page listing the board members doesn't list any of these three people as board members, and instead lists these 6 people as comprising the board: Mitchell Baker, Brian Behlendorf, Brendan Eich, Joi Ito, Bob Lisbonne, Cathy Davidson ( https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/about/ ).
This article links to an earlier WSJ piece that gives more information about Eich's background ( http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/24/mozilla-picks-insider... ). He invented Javascript in 1995, co-founded Mozilla, and helped start Firefox. It seems to me he's very well qualified from a historical as well as technical perspective. Questions about his mobile expertise seem misplaced, considering that his technical co…
> Questions about his mobile expertise seem misplaced,
> considering that his technical contributions helped
> pave the way for mobile web apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the people familiar with the situation said. They did not want to be identified because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. I'm going to be simultaneously cynical and optimistic here, but the story so far appears to be based on anonymous hearsay. Eich's appointment could perhaps be a smaller part of a big shakeup at Mozilla, board and all, that isn't predicated entirely on Eich. Alternatively,…
The bylaws say the board can remove officers, if they were having buyers regret, why not go that route?
This article links to an earlier WSJ piece that gives more information about Eich's background ( http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/24/mozilla-picks-insider... ). He invented Javascript in 1995, co-founded Mozilla, and helped start Firefox. It seems to me he's very well qualified from a historical as well as technical perspective. Questions about his mobile expertise seem misplaced, considering that his technical co…
Mozilla is an organization that prides itself on openness and equality, on being inclusive as an organization and a culture. This is reflected in its products, in many different ways—all of them good, generally speaking.
The CEO is the figurehead of a company or organization; they have to represent the company, establish its culture, define its vision, and so forth and so forth.
Having a CEO who has a history of donating to an anti-equality campaign, an act that very strongly suggests having an unequal view of certain groups of people (LGBTQ folks in this case), does not mesh with an organization that prides itself on equality (among other things). They are pretty mutually exclusive.
It was already a conflict with Eich as CTO, but at least in that position he had no say over the company culture or its policies when it comes to people, just technology. As CEO, all that changed.
Additionally, by making a donation to (what is essentially) a campaign of hatred (and FUD), he took it WAY beyond a personal belief or view. Expressing your views in public or making a donation that way is an act, not merely "holding an opinion", and actions matter. His action in the form of the donation harmed the lives of thousands of people, with no justifiable cause for it.
Now, there's tons of people who hold such bigoted views and even express them in the form of acts through public statements or donations, but most of the time we don't award those people with the CEO position of a major corporation.
(to clarify how this is not a litmus test: while it sure can be applied that way, plenty of organizations have bigots as CEOs — see e.g. Chick-fil-A — but what’s mainly happening here is that it is simply a matter of bad judgement and people objecting to the appointment because he's unfit to lead an org like Mozilla)