A fucking respect please (updated)

I'm tired of letting this news go by.

brendan-eich-mozilla-firefox-square

Brendan Eich, creator of Javascript 20 years ago when he worked for Netscape and CTO of the Mozilla Corporation since 2005, a week ago he was appointed CEO of said corporation. He says that his main priority is going to be Firefox OS, above all $ 25 smartphones low-end. But now all of this is being clouded by an old controversy ...

Year 2008. In California plebiscite Proposition 8Which only considered valid marriages between a man and a woman. The proposal was approved …… ..and two years later declared unconstitutional, to the happiness of LGBT couples.

Year 2012. It comes to light that Brendan, personally (and not on behalf of Mozilla) collaborated with 1000 dollars in favor of said proposition (that is, against homosexual marriage). The storm broke y Brendan faces. I keep this excerpt:

Ignoring the abusive comments, they accuse me that I hate and am a bigot, solely based on donation. "Hate" and "intolerant" are well-defined words. I say that these accusations are false and unfair.

First, I've been online for almost 30 years. I ran an open source project for 14 years. I speak regularly at conferences around the world, and socialize with members of Mozilla, JavaScript, and other web developer communities. I defy anyone who cites an incident where they exhibited hatred, or treated someone with less respect for their group affinity or individual identity.

Second, the donation does not in itself constitute evidence of animosity. Those who claim that it does constitute do not provide a reasoned argument, instead labeling dissenters in order to expel them from friendly society. To these statements, I can only answer: "No."

If we are acquaintances, we have good faith assumptions, and circumstances allow, we can discuss it 1: 1 in person. Online communication doesn't seem to work well for potentially divisive issues. Knowing each other works best in my experience.

Año 2014: The controversy returns. A couple of gay developers decide to boycott Mozilla until Brendan gets off at once. Brendan hasn't signed off yet, but a few users and contributors did sign off and three members of the Mozilla board: Gary Kovacs, John Lilly and Ellen Siminoff. Brendan didn't shut up either: «I promise that no LGBT person is excluded or discriminated against. Here at Mozilla we support LGBT equality. I know that you will continue to be skeptical of that and so I ask that you give me time to prove it. Meanwhile I apologize for the pain I caused you. » One such developer congratulates the statement.

Now my opinion:

I personally I am in favor of LGTB couples getting married, get divorced, have children, have a privileged education (or any education other than that of Pedro and Fabio) and what they consider to be correct, just like heterosexual couples. But I am not in favor of boycotting Mozilla. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. here are some examples:

http://uncrunched.com/2014/03/28/this-is-intolerance/
http://commonspace.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/mozilla-is-messy/
https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/26/building-a-global-diverse-inclusive-mozilla-project-addressing-controversy/
http://www.techspot.com/news/56176-mozilla-employees-ask-new-ceo-brendan-eich-to-step-down.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/michelle-quinn/ci_25453466/quinn-deciding-between-equality-and-free-speech-at
http://mykzilla.blogspot.com/2014/03/qualifications-for-leadership.html
https://ozten.com/psto/2014/03/28/pick-your-battles/
http://jdotp.org/mozilla/lgbt-and-our-new-ceo-at-mozilla
http://openmatt.org/2014/03/28/open-when-it-matters/
http://www.nukeador.com/30/03/2014/la-diversidad-en-mozilla/

And if you want opinions from people who are gay, who have collaborated with Mozilla and who do not agree with the boycott, I recommend these three posts (especially the third).

http://subfictional.com/2014/03/24/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of-mozilla/
http://words.tofumatt.com/2014/03/26/on-including-the-uninclusive/
http://valianttry.us/caught-between-two-movements/

I add my two cents with this: There are a few Linuxeros that do not support the aggressive attitude of Linus Torvalds towards those who collaborate with Linux, however I don't see them boycotting Linux and Android for that. And as I tell you the dirty mouth of Linus Torvalds and Linux, I tell you the opinions of Richard Stallman and GNU. And why are there no boycotts? Why we know how to distinguish the CEO from the person. Or not?

Notice: I am moderating the comments you make. I don't care if you're pro-gay or anti-gay, my leather boot doesn't discriminate. To the one who grabs commenting hard I send him to the orphanage for Pedro and Fabio to adopt.
Update: Already downloaded. They can now go home. The pressure has beaten. Comments are closed.

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/


The content of the article adheres to our principles of editorial ethics. To report an error click here!.

186 comments

  1.   ArthurShelby said

    Eich is a great innovator regardless of his beliefs (with which I disagree) for sure he will run Mozilla in a good way, I think he is professional enough to leave his ideologies outside the company (because a man is not a company). Sometimes the gay community (especially the limiting ones) over-react to events that they shouldn't, for example this one, I have several homosexual friends (who are looking to get married) that this is not the proper form of "military" on the contrary, it gives bad image to the homosexual community. That's my opinion. regards


    1.    miguerl said

      Bad deal, we are talking about the creator of javascrip, the co-founder of Firefox who worked on it since the time of Nescape.

      That weakens the development of Firefox. And all for a trifle that was already cleared up. If the guy apologized, doesn't he have the right to be wrong?

      How much hypocrisy and double standards of those who boycotted the director of Firefox,

      Did someone ask the CEO of Google to resign for collaborating in the global survey with the NSA?


  2.   khourt said

    ... well at the risk of being censored and then let's put together the "re-tweeted" and more (XD)

    I warned you that I was going to moderate with a leather boot

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrKHkRtMg3g


  3.   Ivan said

    Being against two people marrying because they are gay is a homophobic position, just as being against a white person marrying a black person is a racist position. And in the same way that I would not like a racist to be in charge of Mozilla (which we remember is a foundation that defends certain ideals) I also do not like at all that they appoint a homophobe as CEO.

    As for Brendan Eich, it should be remembered that he has not limited himself to expressing his opposition to homosexual marriage, but has donated money to an organization that actively pursues its prohibition (that is, that actively seeks to discriminate against a part of the population based on their sexual orientation).

    This ban, by the way, promoted in California by the organization to which Brendan donated money, has directly affected the lives of that pair of homosexual developers you name in the article.

    As for Torvalds, beyond his attitude, I have never seen him pretend to discriminate against anyone based on their sex, sexual orientation, race, nationality or anything like that, so I do not see the point of comparison.


    1.    diazepan said

      It may make sense, at least for Sarah Sharp. Linus is not seen discriminating but his whoring is not synonymous with an atmosphere of respect.


      1.    Daniel said

        The key is discrimination, if you are badly educated, like Linus, it seems that people tolerate it and it even becomes funny (case of NVidia), instead it stops being funny when that education, or lack of it, it is conditional on race, religion, or sexual preferences.

        At least that is my opinion as to why one case is not comparable to another.

        Greetings (and good vibes 🙂)


      2.    Windóusico said

        It looks like you don't like Linus Torvalds. That is not reason enough for you to cite his personality as soon as the occasion arises. As Iván says, I don't see the point of comparison either. As far as I know, he didn't donate $ 1000 to carry out such a backward proposition. The boycott thing seems a bit excessive but ...

        To give an example beast: If it is discovered that Linus is a pedophile, he does not resign from his position and nobody fires him, then I get out of the car and go to an «anti-pedophile» fork or to BSD.


        1.    diazepan said

          On the contrary, I like Linus. I simply wanted to put the incident with Sarah Sharp to give an example of people who do not like the way Linus expresses themselves.

          Although that yes, the opinion of Stallman makes me sick about pedophilia (as if it could be voluntary).


          1.    Windóusico said

            I did not know those comments from Stallman. I hope she's not flirting with children for "voluntary" sex.


          2.    Staff said

            We must try to leave myopia for little serious matters.
            Starting with understanding that pedophilia, as a simple paraphilia, is not illegal, what is illegal is the abuse of minors.
            The laws and customs that deal with this are very peculiar, you should not treat issues like this lightly.
            There are countries where getting married at 12-14 is legal.
            Where there are families with more than 10 children, products of marriages from those ages.
            Where a pedophile can be considered a 14 -17-year-old boy (I think they are 5 years apart, the basis for those considerations.) And still not be a crime, but there is abuse involved.


          3.    Windóusico said

            @Staff, it is a complex issue but I have it clear. As long as pedophiles engage in fantasizing about children without touching a hair, I don't see the problem either. Now, when they abuse children and / or download child pornography, understanding is over (and I do not care if it is illegal or legal). Two boys discover their sexuality together or two teenagers let off steam Is the oldest a pedophile? I don't think Stallman is referring to those cases.

            For a 35 year old man to consummate his marriage with a 12-14 year old calf is wrong (in my humble opinion), own and other customs / laws can be put into question. That in certain places women mature earlier I consider it a fact, but it is unethical to shorten childhood artificially because of the sexual desires of an adult.


          4.    Staff said

            @ Windóusico
            I agree on almost everything with you.
            Specially in:
            »When they abuse children and / or download child pornography, understanding is over (and I don't care if it is illegal or legal)»
            To begin with, abuse is the key word and not pedophilia, and above all because it shows that the action is the border crossing that should no longer be tolerated, the same in the case of Eich.
            You can think what you want, but having someone with a history of child abuse as the director of a kindergarten does not work, the same for a CEO with a history of homophobic.

            About Stallman, I do not guess what he thinks and I can only read literally, if he says he is skeptical (not in favor or against) and that if he sees problems in cases of abuse, then go ahead, that is what the law indicates.
            Another very different thing is, out of prejudice, to suppose that for Stallman nothing is an abuse and that all this is very nice.


      3.    Yukiteru said

        Torvalds is someone you can talk to, those who work directly with him recognize that he has a strong character, even in the kernel list when he does an intervention you can see that, but despite his character and everything, he is someone with whom you can discuss a certain topic.

        That many times is seen on the Internet, that bad character is another sensationalist thing, a good example is the request for the removal of RdRand from Intel of the cryptographic functions of the kernel, to which he responded with the recognized phrase "You are ignorant », Which in the end is true, and whoever does not like it can go reading and learning about cryptography, which in the end he also hinted.


    2.    dwarf said

      @Ivan and you fall into not distinguishing the CEO from the person, as mentioned above. He is free to support and not support what he wants, as long as those personal positions do not affect absolutely anyone in the company or the project, he has not withdrawn any retroactive or benefit to any LGBT person, so what? What is the boycott joke? Damaging a foundation due to hyper sensitivity? "I stop supporting this free project that always needs help because I don't like its CEO and I love everyone except the CEO" (?) Oh, wait, how moral.


      1.    Ivan said

        Of course, he is free to support or not support whatever he wants, in the same way that others are free not to use Mozilla products, not to make donations or not to develop for said foundation as long as it is run by a homophobe. They are also within their rights.

        And for the record, I don't boycott, but I fully understand those who do.


        1.    dwarf said

          But now take this into account:

          Those who boycott do so for reasons that are "morally correct for them", of course, as a gay Mozilla employee I don't want my company to be run by someone who is not pro-gay (homophomo is a qualifier that we use without reason, not He has said that he hates them, that he does not support them is not the same). Now, is it morally correct that I, as a developer, withdraw my open projects from a community that thrives on this type of collaboration? Ah, I do not support the CEO, therefore, screw all the other people who fight for an open web, screw all the end users, screw everyone just because I don't like the CEO ... Completely moral and correct, right?

          I do not support Eich, I do not care what the man creates or does as long as his actions within Mozilla do not affect any gay, because outside of there it is caprice, tantrum, whining and they can calmly speak it without affecting third parties who have nothing to do with it.


      2.    DanielC said

        In companies, as in life, there are people of different ideological currents ... so, in the case of this CEO, he cannot support any political party or activist group, because he will end up affecting someone in the company (if homosexual marriages or not, if drug legalization or not, prosecution of tax debtors or not, death penalty for criminals or not, legalization of carrying weapons or not, bullfighting or not… .etc )


    3.    Hugo Iturrieta said

      If you have to respect those who think in favor of homosexual marriage, I think you should respect people who think against it, right? Don't you believe in diversity of thought? Should we force people to be in favor?


      1.    anonymous said

        That "respect those who respect you, blah blah blah" argument is fallacious in that you consider absolutely nothing of the context.
        This is about homophobia. And it is one thing to "respect that a person is homophobic" in terms of their ideas, and another in terms of actions. Because I do not care if a person has pedophile or psychotic ideas as long as it remains in his head and does not do anything to anyone.

        Now if you do it, you pay for it. And paying to fuck gays is action.


    4.    Thubten said

      The best thing is to educate and your comment educates. Thank you. A hug


    5.    no no no said

      Just as if a father marries his daughter or son, that is an incestophobic position. Now the cool thing is that everyone can do what they want when they want and how they want and you CANNOT SAY NO because then they boycott you, like this man, or they try to offend you by calling you ultranosequé. Well, in order not to be ultras, let's let homosexual parents marry their homosexual children, that there be weddings of four people together, the same right they have, and allow everything that may seem scandalous at some time. why not? The germ of social chaos and it is inevitable, the stupidity in which the West sinks.


    6.    svadia said

      Gay marriage is a political position. This gentleman has never discriminated against anyone at Mozilla.


  4.   Manolop3 said

    I don't understand what happens to Almodóvar and Fabio. For cross-dressing? Why do you want to be a mom or feel like a woman in that song? I don't understand grace. LGTBi + people include transgender, transsexual, transvestite, drag queen and other identities. The article was going well until you said about these two.

    Regarding the homophobic CEO, if this Brendan has backed down. I don't see any problems with Mozilla as of today. In fact, although I had not considered leaving this browser, it would have screwed me to know that a homophobe who has collaborated negatively for diversity was with this company. Why? Because, like promoting machismo, it justifies the murder of women at the hands of their partners or prostitutes. The same thing happens with homophobic and transphobic crimes.

    Regards!


    1.    diazepan said

      I'll call him Lucifer.
      I will teach you to criticize.
      I will teach him to live from prostitution.
      I will teach him to kill.
      Yes, I'm going to be a mom.

      That is what I criticize.


      1.    mcnamara said

        You have to have a zero sense of humor and be short-sighted enough to take the lyrics of that song at face value. When the only thing I was looking for was trasngedir and provoke the most carpetovetonic of a stale society of the 80s. It saddens me that already in the second decade of the XNUMXst century, these texts continue to fulfill their function.
        "Squids here, anchovies there"


    2.    Rayonant said

      A comment that people always forget, Mozilla is NOT a company, it is a Foundation, which is very different.


  5.   eliotime3000 said

    This type of boycott is one of the most cowardly, and I don't think it was by people who are really from the LGBT community.

    Still, throughout history there have been leaders like Churchill, who, despite having their problems, have been worthy of respect.

    At the end of the day, this caudillo has been respected as it should.


    1.    Staff said

      3 things catch my attention.

      1. What Brendan Eich says is anything but an apology.
      Which gives me to think that it continues with that homophobic line of thought.

      2. Beyond having the idea, he was an active participant in it.
      This is perhaps the most important thing, it would be worth doing a mental exercise and using the imagination to think about what we would say if we entered that I financially support Hitler, Pinochet, -insert here the favorite dictator of his country-, or who had slaves, Or that you are a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
      Would we still think that Mozilla should have him as CEO?
      Violations of rights due to sexual preference are a current problem, perhaps that is why it is so common and trivial to us.
      But you have to put yourself in the shoes of those two programmers who started this.
      They are married only because the law Eich supported was repealed.
      What would we think if someone who trampled on (or treated) our rights one day is the CEO of our workplace?

      3. Many already want to light torches (For and against) but we have to wait for the official Mozilla statement about it.


    2.    Staff said

      The previous one was not an answer to your comment, an apology.


  6.   eliotime3000 said

    [The following comment has been censored from the author's brain to prevent arbitrary editing by the moderator]


  7.   Wada said

    Ok… So gays are against Mr. Eich because 6 years ago he donated 1000 dollars to an anti-gay marriage campaign. How spiteful are gay people 🙁 and if maybe, at that time some good friend of his was in the campaign and gave him monetary support, or simply did what his beliefs (religious or moral) believe to be correct. Come on this is not to make a fuss.


  8.   We do not said

    Well, it is a sensitive subject. Although that happened a distant 6 years ago when he did not even hold the position of CEO at Mozilla, for his latest (current) statements we could grant him a vote of confidence. I mean, you want me to do your job right, right?

    And if the outrage is so great, why doesn't the boycott extend to Javascript…? Oh, sure .-.


    1.    Xurxo said

      Effectively!! I think you've hit the nail on the head (and that nail went through someone's knee). If what it is about is to show the contempt that Eich's personal convictions and financial support produce for a platform against homosexual marriage. They should have directly boycotted Eich's products. Or to the Mozilla Foundation but since this event (the $ 1000 donation) occurred, because Eich has been with Mozilla since before Mozilla was called.

      That is, those who boycott or encourage the Mozilla Foundation boycott (for having named one of its most loyal collaborators CEO), should be boycotting Javascript !! if they really are against Eich… If they are against Eich being CEO of the Mozilla Foundation, but not actively collaborating with the Mozilla Foundation, they should explain their hypocrisy.


  9.   masapan said

    Who can benefit from a Mozila boycott for whatever reasons? A real scandal is the fact that the NSA, through companies like Facebook or Google, steal personal data. I do not think that the gay community will be carried away by a story that it paints to manipulate them, stinging their pride, to turn them against Mozila.

    Well I just wanted to say that I don't think this news is serious for Mozila's projects or for any LGBT person or couple.


  10.   eightbitsunbyte said

    Hello,
    I would like to put my grain of sand to the debate. I think it's important to comment that just like your boss can be a bastard dictator at work, he can be a charming colleague and buy you beers outside. By this I mean that a person can have conservative ideas with which perhaps you do not agree, and at the same time collaborate both in an interesting opensource project. No one is going to agree 100% with you or not even 50%, ambitioning for this can make you quite a dangerous sociopath.


    1.    Xlash said

      In part you are right but it is not the same to have a bastard as your boss than a homophobe, racist or exploiter, because it is clear that if you are gay or black among others you will receive a totally different treatment and that is intolerable.
      Respect? Why respect a person who does not respect and even rejects others?
      And I already take the opportunity to give, from here, all my support to those people with different sexual orientation and / or with different ethnic origin.
      Health.


      1.    mario said

        It is exactly the same, in fact if you have any affinity with socialism, you will directly think about the issue of surplus value and the fact that it is your exploiter, associated with a chain. Respect will now depend on you, and I doubt that an employee who does not respect the boss will last long. It is one of the sacrifices to have a salary. In any case, a foundation is not the same as a company. At the mozilla foundation it seems that they have chosen him in a more or less democratic way, not "by finger", "son" or "friend" as it usually happens in a company.


        1.    Xlash said

          I don't take your reason ... but fortunately the law protects this kind of thing "I doubt that an employee who does not respect the boss will last long." It would only be necessary that for being gay and my boss did not respect me as such and therefore I neither him and they fired me.


      2.    Morpheus said

        In my country (Argentina), for a few years, marriage is possible and legal for any couple regardless of gender. Personally, I consider that it is an enormous advance against discrimination and the rights of human beings, of which all Argentines can be proud.
        However, when the law was debated, many "recognized" religious individuals and institutions came out to protest fiercely against that right.
        Even many friends (very close friends) of mine with whom I have argued, spoke fervently against it, either for religious reasons or because they believed it (and I think that if they had had the possibility to donate "something" so that it would not be approved much they would have done).
        However, I think we must recognize that changes for many people are very difficult, because they were brought up with an "archaic" way of thinking, or for whatever reason, but we should not be "worse" than them and understand that (most ) are not "homophobic racist and xenophobic monsters" but are part of a "aftertaste" of society. And, for example, because they think differently, they will not stop being my friends.


        1.    Xlash said

          It is that in the 21st century that there are still minds like that seems retrograde to me.

          “However, I think we must recognize that changes for many people are very difficult, because they were brought up with an“ archaic ”way of thinking, or for whatever reason, but we must not be“ worse ”than them and understand that (the most) are not "homophobic racist and xenophobic monsters" but are part of a "aftertaste" of society. And, for example, because they think differently, they will not stop being my friends. "

          Of course, changes for many people is difficult, which leads to comments like "I don't really understand gays because blah blah blah" said by several people I know. I can understand this, not to people who talk about gays as if they were shit, there are, and unfortunately many. Because you have to differentiate between not understanding and hating or rejecting for "being different."
          A greeting Morpheus 🙂


  11.   Alejandro said

    as someone said "he who is freed from sin, cast the first stone." No one is saved from making mistakes, which is why one of the great advances of human beings at the level of civilization was forgiveness.


  12.   Alejandro said

    By the way Diazepam, I just fell for the title of the post xD


  13.   Juan said

    And you go again with your phrase that your leather boot does not discriminate !!! Now change phrase and just say q moderate responses.

    I do not want to


  14.   Charlie-Brown said

    And is vetoing Mr. Brendan as Mozilla CEO because of his personal opinion on gay marriage not as discriminatory as excluding people because of their sexual preference, skin color, or any other reason? Should we veto as CEO to members of the Republican party in the US for their political views traditionally considered "right" or "reactionary" by some? And if it were a member of a party of the so-called "left", wouldn't they have reasons those on the "right" to veto it? ... Come on, this situation reminds me of a phrase from the actor and director Clint Eastwood: "... if you go far enough to the right, you will see the same idiots coming from the left."


    1.    dwarf said

      Damn, I have to get up from my chair and clap my hands until my hands explode.

      +100000000000000


    2.    O_Pixote_O said

    3.    Staff said

      Yes and no, YES it discriminates but NO in the legal sense of the word, which is how Eich discriminates and is active.
      There is a lot of difference, since it is not because of your ideas, but because of your actions.
      Someone can have all the racist, xenophobic, homophobic ideas ... that he wants, but when he goes from an idea and harms someone, he is even discriminated against from society (Jail) in order to make it more inclusive.
      So let's not mix pears with apples.


      1.    dwarf said

        Okay, he donated money to a cause that sought to prevent homosexual marriage, correct? For him it is not correct that homosexuals marry and that cause as far as I know was not illegal, nor violent, it was a position that sought a legal ruling ... it was constitutional. Did that stop any gay from being gay? Did you prevent a lesbian from living with your partner? Did it take away the possibility of transvesting someone? Did you take a gay Mozilla member away from work? the answer is no.

        Now let's get back to practicality… Has Eich announced any anti-gay measures for Mozilla? No, has he attacked a gay man? No, is he an incapable CEO? As far as you can see, no. So why the hell do people feel moralistic and progressive about something that really has nothing to do with it? Yes, that they boycott Mozilla and affect everyone except Eich, that's the right thing to do.

        What Eich did 6 years ago outside of Mozilla does not have to affect her today, or anyone while he, active do nothing against gays at Mozilla.


        1.    Staff said

          If that law had passed, which by not passing proved to be ILLEGAL.
          Perhaps it would not have prevented anyone from being gay, living with their partner or transvesting, but it would have prevented them from having the rights and obligations that the institution of marriage implies.
          It is not just living together, without marriage they would not be entitled to a pension, to mention an example.
          When in heterosexual couples the right to a pension is given even without being married.


          1.    dwarf said

            Well, that's there because here in Venezuela you have the right to be retired and retired regardless of whether or not you are married.

            Ah, and that it does not happen does not make it illegal, it only shows that it did not have the necessary support, therefore, since it is not a law, it does not make it legal or illegal.


        2.    Staff said

          LOL
          Pension does not only refer to the work aspect.
          Look up the matrimonial property regime, so you can see what I mean by pension.
          In fact, if it is not law, it is illegal, so easy, let's not speak from ignorance.
          Also look for the term unconstitutional.


          1.    dwarf said

            I said retired AND retired, as two different things that you can access regardless of your marital status, I apply to you then "let's not speak from ignorance."


          2.    Staff said

            Lead by example, because a pension after a divorce is impossible if you are not married before, the same for the dissolution of a free union.
            It seems that you are seeking to refute the illegality if it is not law, with the marriage.


    4.    eliotime3000 said

      MY RESPECTS!!


    5.    Rayonant said

      Strongly agree with this comment, couldn't have said it better!


  15.   Outdated said

    Respect first for homosexuals for having to endure so much hatred without hurting anyone, and second for this man because he is against homosexual marriage does not mean that he is a good computer scientist. Of course, I hope this man never puts his ideals in front of Mozilla (which I don't think will happen) and censor some social group in any way, because then Mozilla would die.


    1.    Outdated said

      Of course, I respect this man looking at him as a computer scientist, if I look at him as a person he does not deserve my respect because he is discriminating against people for loving each other, people who do not harm anyone.


      1.    Charlie-Brown said

        Why do you equate having a different opinion with discriminating? Do homosexuals then "discriminate" against straight people for having a different sexual inclination? We spend our lives preaching about equality and the right of each to think and live as they see fit, but when the opinions of others are different from ours, then we begin to accuse them of discriminating. As far as it has been reported, this man has NOT carried out discriminatory acts against the LGBT community, he has simply financially supported an initiative that coincided with his moral or political opinions, which constitutes a legitimate right of any person.

        And if now, to give just one example, the vegan (or vegetarian) collective promoted an initiative to prohibit the slaughter of animals for human consumption, would meat consumers be entitled to demand the resignation of all CEOs who support financially this initiative for considering it "discriminatory" of their rights? Well, it is the same hypocrisy of a good part of the people who pose as progressive: "... everyone is free to think as they want (provided they agree with me) ».


        1.    Windóusico said

          You don't have to beat around the bush touching irrelevant topics. Everyone is free to think as they want always. The problem comes when you try to impose your way of thinking on others by promoting laws that limit the rights of others. You do not want to marry a person of the same sex, perfect. But don't try to stop others from doing it because you don't like it. Does gay marriage hurt you in any way?

          The boycott is an overreaction for me (not a stakeholder) but I understand that some feel bad about having a boss who tried to cut their rights back in the day.


          1.    pandev92 said

            That argument you just said is totally invalid, because it can be used for anything, even to defend the mistreatment of women. Do you want women to be mistreated? Well, don't hit them, ”but don't limit my right to do so. I know this is an absurd example, but I have done it to show that it does not work like that. Politicians are there to legislate and decide on the rules of a country, and therefore they must reflect what people think and people have the right to decide and give their opinion, without anyone calling you back. Are those who fight to eradicate bullfighting, are they fascists and people from another century who do not respect the right of others to art and entertainment? For example.


          2.    Staff said

            @ pandev92
            Your argument is false because:

            You do NOT have the right to mistreat women.
            Bulls also have rights, therefore bullfighting has no reason to exist.


          3.    Windóusico said

            @ pande92. You're wrong. My argument is valid. Gay marriage hurts no one. The abuse yes (and it does not matter if it is consented like the pedophilia that Stallman comments). Freedom of thought doesn't hurt. You can think the savagery you want, as long as you don't put them into practice, we will all be happy. Now if you do something that hurts others, then things change. So I repeat, does homosexual marriage harm something to try to ban it?

            Bullfighting, machismo and pedophilia do hurt (but that's another issue).


          4.    O_Pixote_O said

            pandev92, you cannot say that this argument is invalid simply because it is not valid in other cases. It is as if you prohibited the distribution of pamphlets of a talk on "job orientation" on the grounds that it was also prohibited when they distributed a talk because of "the necessary discrimination of women." As is logical, the human being is fully rationally capable of differentiating the two cases and knowing when the argument is valid and when it is not.


          5.    Xlash said

            Pandev, you said it, it's absurd. Giving away a woman is not a right. And of course bullfighting is not art, nor is it fun, nor is it culture.


          6.    pandev92 said

            It will not be art for you, for others it is. What right do you have to impose your vision of the world on others? None, unless you achieve a majority large enough to compel the others, that's how the world works, gentlemen.


          7.    Xlash said

            Point number one. It's not that it's not art for me, that too. Real art shows something very different from the murder and torture of animals. Learn to differentiate between different concepts.
            Point number two. At no time have I imposed, nor have I even tried, to impose my vision of the world I have simply given an opinion. Nor am I trying to force anyone to think the same as I simply differentiate the true art of torture.
            Point number three. If you are going to address me, I would appreciate a little more respect young man and if you would stop misrepresenting my comments please.
            A greeting.


          8.    Windóusico said

            Well, the majority has won @pandev, with proposition 8 and with the «Mozilla case».

            Mozilla President Mitchell Baker says:
            “We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are absolutely right: we have not been loyal to ourselves. We did not act as we were expected to act. We were not quick enough to show our commitment to the people when the controversy broke out. We are sorry. We have to do better ”.


        2.    Ivan said

          If homosexuals were to create associations whose sole purpose was to deny rights that they had, such as marriage (with all the legal rights that are associated) to heterosexuals for the mere fact of being, yes, obviously that would be discrimination .

          And I won't even tell you if they did like certain members of the US Republican Party that you mentioned, who go to countries like Uganda or Nigeria to support initiatives to imprison or even condemn homosexuals to death for the mere fact of being homosexuals. And American evangelical churches that fund Proposition 8 in California have also invested money in passing a law in Uganda that will sentence gays to the death penalty. What a coincidence.

          If it were the other way around and gays were associated and dedicated to promoting laws to deny rights, and even imprisoned or sentenced to death just for being heterosexuals, what would you say? What is not discrimination?

          And what would you say if Eich was gay and had donated money to one of those organizations?


          1.    dwarf said

            they have also invested money in passing a law in Uganda that will sentence gays to the death penalty. What a coincidence.

            Please @Ivan, conspiracy theories no, I do not see proof of what you say, do not want to elevate your point with false facts, or at least facts not legitimately proven. Be serious bro.


          2.    Ivan said

            @nano: Conspiracy theories none. People like Scott Lively, who runs the Christian fundamentalist group Abiding Truth Ministries, have been working in Uganda for more than a decade, sowing hatred towards gays in a largely illiterate population, financing politicians like David Bahati (who is the Ugandan MP who introduced the proposal to sentence homosexuals to death), and so on.

            In fact, Lively has been taken to court in the United States for these events. And Abiding Truth Ministries has promoted and funded Proposition 8 in the United States.

            And Lively is just one example, there are several American Christian organizations doing work in countries like Uganda or Nigeria, and coincidentally several of them are also behind Proposition 8. It is not a theory, it is a fact.


        3.    O_Pixote_O said

          You say "this man has NOT carried out discriminatory acts against the LGBT community" and then "he has simply financially supported an initiative that coincided with his moral or political opinions", if he has supported the discriminatory act because the initiative does.

          It's like saying, I have not supported the death of that guy, I just financed those who wanted to carry him.

          I do not support the boycott but I do not like that this guy is as CEO, I wonder if he would like not to be allowed on the Internet because he is from California because his whole life has been like that for example (I am making an assumption). You can disagree with gays, they may seem strange, different or whatever, but simply opposing equality measures is already going over the limit.

          It makes me laugh that they say that it is not correct to exclude him, while he participated in a campaign to exclude many others.


          1.    Charlie-Brown said

            @Ivan & @O_Pixote_O: In my opinion, the chicken of the chicken rice in this matter is the inability of a part of the LGBT community and of many readers to distinguish between Mr. Eich's personal opinions and his ability to serve as CEO of Mozilla, as well as between the personality of the CEO and the goals of the Foundation. I think that this commotion, far from helping the SWL cause, only serves to gain prominence in the media and create divisions.

            The fundamental problem that I see in your approaches is


          2.    Charlie-Brown said

            @Ivan & @O_Pixote_O: In my opinion, the chicken of the chicken rice in this matter is the inability of a part of the LGBT community and of many readers to distinguish between Mr. Eich's personal opinions and his ability to serve as CEO of Mozilla, as well as between the personality of the CEO and the goals of the Foundation. I think that this commotion, far from helping the SWL cause, only serves to gain prominence in the media and create divisions.

            The fundamental problem that I see in their proposals is that they propose as a solution what they criticize: the exclusion of the different, that is, if Mr. Eich supported an initiative that deprived a certain group of people of a right, the correct thing now is deprive Mozilla of appointing that person as CEO; no matter who is the most qualified, the important thing is to charge the "affront." Doesn't that "... eye for an eye and we'll all end up blind" remind you?


          3.    O_Pixote_O said

            @ Charlie-Brown, if at no time I have said that it seems good to me that he is discriminated against, I have said "... but I dislike that this guy is here as CEO", that is, I personally don't like want to get rid of it. My comment was to tell you that the fact that he has not done acts is not true.

            But just like when my father tries to justify the ERE of Andalusia (a case of corruption for those who are not in Spain) that seems wrong to me, I tell you, do not try to justify them by removing the blame, things are as they are, if you you also defend the person or group of people as it is worth but try to deify them then no.

            This guy carried out discriminatory actions against gays. YES
            He has to resign or they have to remove him. NO (or at least it's my opinion)

            In the event that at some point he did something against gays with his influence on the foundation he should leave and even if he did something apart from the foundation but during the time that he is CEO I also think that he should be removed.


        4.    Staff said

          So I think you don't know that "performing acts" includes financing.
          On the rest of the text, it is necessary to read the declaration of human rights and that of animals.
          There is not much more to say after that.


        5.    Xlash said

          It is discriminatory when you donate money in support of an anti-gay law.


        6.    y said

          Disagreeing with homosexuals does not make people homophones.
          That boycott is an intolerant tantrum that promotes discrimination.
          RMS is a skeptic or atheist and he has agreed with skeptics and atheists, and THERE IS NO REASON FOR NOT USING FREE SOFTWARE AND NO REASON FOR DEMANDING THE WITHDRAWAL OR WAIVER OF HIM TO THE SOFT. FREE, SINCE MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO USE SL ARE BELIEVERS.


          1.    Hello said

            very good comment I would just add that they make a new section called cries and tantrums to separate things without importances and the gnu / linux things that the whole community cares about


  16.   dwarf said

    You have to be very blunt with this, and I'm going to do it. I don't have to clarify my position on this to anyone, but I do it anyway:

    I am not against anything, for me whoever wants to can be LGBT and make their life as they please, it is their problem, I do not vote either for or against because it doesn't affect me and they will not see me tearing my clothes for defending (or not) the rights of this group of people.

    Apart from that, this boycott is counterproductive, it is for me the reflection of an almost ridiculous hyper sensitivity, without meaning. It's a tantrum.

    Why rage against someone and take action against an organization? Are you going to boycott Mozilla when your problem is with the personal opinions of its CEO? Are you going to boycott an organization because for you its CEO is a discriminating tyrant and you are against discrimination but are ridiculously doing the same?

    This doesn't make sense to me. That Eich has not supported the Gay marriage does not make him a retrograde monster, he has his beliefs and if for them it is necessary to boycott a foundation, perfect, I hope the telegram reaches them: They are shitting it


    1.    pandev92 said

      I share 100%.


    2.    Staff said

      «... this group of people»
      If it shows, right?
      I suppose you will have the same apathy against people of color, women, and those kinds of "people groups."
      Here it is about humans, who have the same rights and if you do not care why it does not affect you, then we can only hope that you do not have a child "from that group", who suffers because their most fundamental rights are violated, Why then if it would affect you (Maybe).


      1.    dwarf said

        They are a group of people, are you going to tell me that my phrase has a connotation of what? Sorry but they are a group of people like you and I are a group of people who are Linux users, to hell with what you came to tell me, excuse me, we are going to refer to the subject and not hitting the ribs for a simple semantic statement.

        Now, I'm going to tell you a nice story so that you keep in mind:

        My best friend, my sister is practically a lesbian. I have known her for as long as I can remember, we have been together since the cradle because our families are close, we even graduated together and have lived a season together trying to "become independent", I know more than many "That group of people", I have many gay friends known to her and I can bet you that if she reads this she is only going to piss with laughter.

        That I get a gay or lesbian child? So be it! That is not why he will stop being my son and that is not why I am going to vote in favor of gay marriage or against it, when he grows up he will know how to defend himself.

        That my best friend has the right to have children? Yes, and he can calmly be artificially inseminated and do it, I am happy to be the uncle of the son / daughter of a lesbian, who is my sister.

        Please, you do not know me, you do not know anything about me, do not try to bring personal things to the subject or want to hold on to something as loose as "that group of people", because I repeat, they are a group of people like you and me, like those on the left or those on the right, that group that likes rock and that other reggaeton.


        1.    Staff said

          But group distinctions must be made when it comes to universal rights. It's what you don't understand. They are not the rights of the LGBT, they are the rights of all, that a few are taken away.

          Your story matters little to me, because in the end it only reaffirms what I said:
          "Why then if it would affect you (Maybe)." Note the maybe.

          Now it has been seen that yours is apathy even for your relatives and from that apathetic, self-centered posture, you intend to tell others that "they are screwing it up."

          Fortunately, the modifications to the laws of many countries in favor of the rights of EVERYONE show that they are not screwing it up.

          I am awaiting the official statement from mozilla in this regard.


          1.    dwarf said

            So, if you care so little, refrain from talking about what I may or may not care about, it's as simple as that.

            Am I apathetic? Totally, I have more important things to worry about, there are much more complex problems where I live than the rights to marriage, here much more fundamental rights are violated.

            Your problem is that you are locked in a ridiculous moral dilemma, one that should not be affecting the movement of a foundation that works to offer an open web and support ideas and technologies, Mozilla does not care if its CEO is gay, female, or whatever, they want someone to lead the developments and of course, they will ensure that he is not an abuser ...

            What the hell has Eich done against Gays inside Mozilla? What have you done directly? That is my point, and that the boycott is syrup of the same suit, "you did not support us, now we do not support you" Is that the message of tolerance? «Oh yes the rights of all» Of all what? Was it okay to do it? Not at all, is it okay that now for being against an individual you come to screw a different group?

            It seems that you cannot understand that, you get involved in the song of the rights of all, that although they are important they are not the case here, the case here is that due to a personal position, a group of third parties is being harmed that nothing has to do. The problem here is people who do not know how to group things into the same topic and go on a damn tangent because only for that they are used. Do you have a problem with Eich? You go and solve it with Eich, you do not charge Mozilla because the organization does not have an owner, choices are made based on the individual capabilities of each person and not on their beliefs.

            That, gentlemen, is what many obtuse people do not quite understand, and that is why this boycott exists, which is the point of this article, not the rights of all. Cone.


        2.    Staff said

          ** But NO group distinctions should be made when it comes to universal rights. **


        3.    Staff said

          Well, if you come and accuse that others "screw it up" do not expect that you will not be answered. Because if you are so apathetic, the first to not give an opinion should be you.

          It is not about what he has done within Mozilla, Eich has a background and the concern, based on them, is that his future actions may have something of that behind,
          I'm not letting a murderer into my house just because he has never killed anyone in it. Apart from the Mozilla public image.

          That is why I wait for the official statement, because if he is dismissed, surely many will disappear from this note.


          1.    dwarf said

            If they dismiss him then we will fall into the debate that he was dismissed because a group of people did not think that he should be the CEO against a majority that elected him, so the debate would go directly to something closer to "democracy", because a minority that takes radical actions drives someone elected by majority vote out of the way.

            What you say, although it may have a certain level of reason, is not a certainty, it is an assumption and relying on a "could be bad" to screw someone is unfair. So, if you look at my comment, you will realize that I am not directly defending Eich and that my problem is not with respect for the rights of anyone, my problem is that this stupid skirmish can affect a product and a community that has nothing to do with the problems that Eich and pro-gay activists may have.

            Diazepan said it in the article (although it is not just a direct relationship) regarding Torvalds. Torvalds' attitude is heavy, uncomfortable and can cause a lot of problems in a community, he is basically a dictator in that aspect, Boycott Linux then? Just because Linus seems to be a bad guy, he might one day do something bad right? And look at how long it has been there, the kernel progresses without problems.

            I am not going to continue arguing with you because either you try to refer it to a personal condition of mine or you try to take it to a context of "everyone's rights" that has nothing to do with it, I have said it in several other comments, here it is about not knowing how to separate the person in charge, if Eich shits them as CEO, I am the first to be in favor of being blown up, because that is where you should not screw up, to which he shows not to be capable or to act against the groups LGBT, then, screw it.


        4.    Staff said

          It's not about fucking anyone, and I repeat, Eich has a background, so the assumptions are well founded, I also mentioned Mozilla's image as having a homophobic CEO, but you still pass it through the arc.
          In your country I don't know, but in mine, wherever I go to ask for a job, they ask me for a letter of no criminal record, and nobody calls that discrimination, hell, because whoever already has a record for theft or fraud simply doesn't it enters, and if the antecedents are for something that has nothing to do with the company's line of business, the same does not enter if it affects the public image of the same.
          I don't see why that can't be extrapolated to an organization like Mozilla.

          I also repeat that before judging the issue of the impact on mozilla, I will wait to read your official statement on the matter.

          What about Mr. Linus is not a valid analogy, being pedantic is not a problem, especially because he does not leave the work area and there is no background that reaches more.
          There is a lot of difference between being harsh and / or rude to someone whose poor performance directly affects your work. To pretend to restrict the rights of someone that what they do with their life does not concern you.

          Do not tell me that I am the one who wants to take the debate to something personal, when you are the one who comes with their life stories, accuse that today everyone thinks they are progressive, and blah blah, aah but if someone calls you apathetic you you offend.

          Now, if you want to take into account only the present and how it would affect mozilla, OK, but take the entire organization, its policies and public image, not only see that you may be left with one less add on for Firefox.

          From a very personal point of view I see 3 options:

          1. Let Eich, accept the mistake (As the court has already shown) and Mozilla give him a vote of confidence.
          I think with that, everyone is happy.
          2. Do not apologize and Mozilla remove you.
          The lesser of evils.
          3. Don't apologize and mozilla keep it up.
          The worst case scenario, mainly for Mozilla.

          But I still wait for the official.


          1.    dwarf said

            My last words to you on this topic, which already tires me:

            Mozilla's mission is to defend and nurture the free Web. If we're not going to do it, who is? The fervor of indignation regarding our new CEO is a distraction that we do not need. Our energy should be going to support or mission not spin the person beliefs of the CEO. These are difficult times for the Web with threats from large corporations pushing us into silos and government overreach. The energy that we expend defending our selection of CEO is energy taken from our real mission.

            AND …

            I do not agree with Brendan's support of Prop8. However, that particular battle is one that Brendan lost. It's over. I don't know if his opinions have changed nor do I feel that I need to know. Technically, Brendan is a good choice for CEO: we need to be a technically driven company.

            Said by a gay worker at Mozilla

            It's that simple, the boy explains my point pretty well, knowing how to work and leaving the damn moral dilemmas outside of work, they screw up the main mission of the foundation and if you read the article, I'll rescue you this:

            Mozilla has a vocal LBGT community. Brendan could not derail us if he wanted to. I don't think that he does want to because he's focused on the real mission: the free Web. He's working with us, I, for one, am willing to set aside my trepidation and work with him, too.

            I'm done here, if my point is still unclear, leave it at that.


        5.    pandev92 said

          leave it nano, staff has always had a fascist attitude and plenty, don't waste your time.


          1.    dwarf said

            Fascist is a misused word here, I do not consider it that way, he has his opinion although for me he is not getting my point, it is his opinion and it does not make it less worthy ... I just got tired of arguing with him.


          2.    Staff said

            LOL, Fascist.
            Even tenderness produces your vain attempts to troll.


        6.    Staff said

          The funny thing is that it doesn't sound much like what you said at the beginning, just of course, that you always skip the essence of this: «The CEO of a corporation is the public face of the company. It is easy for the public to conflate the personal beliefs of the person with the mission of the company. For this reason, I see that that the selection of Brendan is a public relations disaster. »

          You say you agree with that developer's comment, and that moral dilemmas should be put aside, but this: «Mozilla has a vocal LBGT community. Brendan could not derail us if he wanted to. I don't think that he does want to because he's focused on the real mission: the free Web. » is full of it.

          So if you have a speech with so many inconsistencies, and you still come to call people "hyper sensitive almost ridiculous" or who throw "tantrums" and "screw them up." Don't expect your point to be understood right off the bat.

          That is why I wait for the version of the third party to give my position on the boycott.


    3.    Charlie-Brown said

      Simply great! ... You made me remember a saying of my grandmother: "they threw the child along with the dirty water after bathing him" ... Nothing, that human stupidity continues without limits.


    4.    pepper said

      Strongly agree with Nano.


  17.   Mr. Boat said

    And I say ... does the opinion that this man has about homosexual marriages really matter?

    He is not a politician we can vote for, he is a reputable developer who has dedicated his life to improving software. Boycotting Firefox for this is just as ridiculous as boycotting any writer, director, singer, creator, because of what he thinks behind his work. Personally, I am not going to exclude myself from seeing the latest by James Cameron, as much as it is well known that outside the cameras he is an arrogant moron raised to the tenth.


  18.   pandev92 said

    Not agreeing with homosexual marriages does not mean being against homosexuals, it must be understood that one thing is to be against marriage outside of what it is classically, and another thing is to be against the SEXUAL freedom of each person. It seems to me that these attitudes of not respecting what they think differently or do not share your way of seeing things, boycotting them, is a FASCIST and INTOLERANT attitude, precisely what they claim not to be done to them. If someone wants to get off the boat, let them get out.


    1.    Outdated said

      What if the greatest illusion of a person is to marry another of the same sex and you come telling him that because of your holy balls he cannot do it? Isn't that being against someone?

      It is that we are not talking about this man thinking that he does not like gay marriages, it is that he puts capital to take away freedoms from people of the same sex. If you want to prevent everyone from living their life as they want when no harm is done to anyone, you are a true fascist.

      "My freedom ends where yours begins." That is what this man has not understood, he wants to impose himself on the freedom of others when they do not do him any harm.

      Everyone who lives as they want as long as they do not harm anyone, that should be the law.


      1.    pandev92 said

        And if my dream is to marry two women and they both want me, why can't I? Who are you to tell me and my girls what we should or shouldn't do? Well, that your argument is invalid from the moment you use it only for a particular topic.


  19.   Gambi said

    Seriously? I mean, have you really written what I'm reading?
    I mean, a guy encourages hatred and intolerance against gay / lesbians / trans by giving money to homophobic groups and the note says «hey, I'm not hater or intolerant, I've only given money to haters and intolerant people so that they can maintain their campaign of hatred and intolerance, I am only the one who finances, the hater and intolerant are others, financing does not make me hater or intolerant ». O_O
    Do you really see this as normal and that there is no relationship between the violent person and the person who finances the violence?
    Nothing small that logic you comment on to the United States, send 1.000 dollars to Al-quaeda and then you explain to the CIA that you are not a terrorist, that giving them money for attacks is unrelated. Let's see if you have the balls to do it.
    From the rest of the text as you continue with the same illogical justification for homophobia, it is better not to continue.


    1.    dwarf said

      Let's see, today everyone thinks they are progressives for supporting the gay cause.

      Here we are summarizing the problem to the following points:

      1.- It is a personal position.
      2.- An entire organization is being boycotted by eliminating important projects because it is not in agreement with a CEO.
      3.- This is being taken to a pointless level, since there are no anti-gay measures within Mozilla.

      That Eich is a Nazi or whatever is his damn problem as long as he does not screw Mozilla or his collaborators, because the day he says "I do not accept your collaboration because you are gay" well then yes, they give him everything they have and hang him in some main square, as long as he keeps his opinions and convictions to himself and is a good CEO everything else does not matter, it is that simple, Eich is not a politician or anyone we vote for, he is not someone who comes to influence our life or anything, is a programmer who is now CEO of an organization, simple as that.


      1.    Outdated said

        It is not that someone thinks they are progressive for supporting the gay cause, it is that they are progressive. Progress is focused on the freedom of people, and freedom is focused on the harmony of all.

        For the rest, I agree with what you say Nano, that this man is a fascist does not mean that he is a good computer scientist or that he can be a good CEO, that time will tell.


        1.    Charlie-Brown said

          "It is not that someone thinks they are progressive for supporting the gay cause, it is that they are progressive" Are you completely sure? Just to cite one case, in my country there is an organization that defends the rights of the LGBT community, but supports the government that prohibits the existence of political parties; Does that sound "progressive" to you?


          1.    pepper said

            There are also countries that say they are very democratic and defend civil liberties, but they bombard citizens of other countries without caring about anything.


          2.    Outdated said

            One thing does not remove the other.


  20.   pepper said

    I also do not agree with the Mozilla boycott, for me all this controversy has already been clarified, and it is artificially inflated I do not know for what reasons.

    I have nothing against the gay community, but I think they exaggerate the issue and are making controversy out of nowhere.


    1.    Zironid said

      I concur


  21.   I have said

    The best thing is to check who is the CEO of everything we use daily to see if we agree with their ideals, and act accordingly ...
    The sneakers, the clothing brands, the mobile phones, the mixer, the microwave, the brand of macaroni that we use, who is behind the eggs that I buy in the market? Let's see if he's a retrograde redneck farmer ...
    What's more, we check every time we go to the movies the directors, actors, distribution companies and even the owners of movie theaters. ..What about books, music or comics? Well, now I come back that I'm going to burn my Frank Miller comics, because the truth is that he's a reactionary ... I don't forget Ender's Game, that one also at the stake ... my Ramones records ... Lars Von's movies Trier, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski… goodbye everyone!
    In summary ... I do not have time to review my entire world and its intrinsic coherence, I will have to continue living in the anxiety of using or enjoying products and goods of people with whom I do not agree with their actions, with their opinions, that they have around of them problems even with justice and their decisions, what are we going to do ... yes ... everything except Microsoft !! 😀
    Every time we are getting worse with the issue of the good roll and being politically correct and we catch it with cigarette paper.


    1.    dwarf said

      How I laugh with your comment! xD damn it.

      But yes, this would be good to read to many who comment here, but be careful not to be called apathetic.


    2.    Outdated said

      [OFFTOPIC] Don't think you're saying anything stupid, that's called being aware. It is clear that to be aware of everything takes a lot of time, but there is no doubt that if you were, you would be much more free when making decisions.

      We usually don't have time to find out which egg farm has its hens as slaves who do not see the sunlight in their lives, eating feed full of hormones and antibiotics; but instead we do have time to discuss whether the match referee whistled a penalty with reason or not. In short, that comfort and ignorance deprive us of freedom. If you want to be ignorant go ahead, but don't brag about it because it makes you "just another sheep" of the system without conscience. [/ OFFTOPIC]


      1.    Charlie-Brown said

        Well, around where I live that is not called being conscious; It's called being an asshole ...

        Imagine this scenario: you have a child, they get sick and you arrive at the hospital, the doctor on duty is a guy known for his homophobic positions, what do you do, ask another doctor to treat you or leave your child unattended? ... what if the doctor is also black *, would you dare to reject him on pain of appearing racist?

        Any defense taken to the extreme is as reprehensible as the offense that originated the response.

        * For me, that "person of color" is one more nonsense to appear politically correct; Ah! And for the record, before an offended one jumps out, my best friend (brother actually) is very black and that is what we all affectionately call him, and here very few can boast of racial purity.


      2.    Sea_chello said

        I very much agree with your comment. That we are not able to find all the inconsistencies between our ideals and our actions because we simply have too many interactions is not an excuse for not trying to the best of our ability or accepting that this is a limitation. Obviously that costs a significant effort, but the world would be better off if we all tried (and the argument "you don't do it" is not valid).
        As for Mozilla in particular, I am not going to boycott Mozilla for that. However, I understand that some workers are not comfortable working with a boss who actively restricts their freedoms. And as for encouraging the boycott, you may or may not agree to do so, but you are not forced to do so. In a way they are transferring to the user the power to decide on Mozilla. Because users can only decide through use.
        In the many debates that are generated in this page and in others of the style, usually in other contexts, the following argument is reached, defended by many: "if it works well, don't put your ideas in the middle." I think this is a mistake (and it is my way of seeing the world, my opinion). Our ideas should govern our actions. What is more important to me, that a program goes faster or that the code is available and accessible to people who do not have enough resources? For me it is the second. And I am going to judge whoever chooses the first option (I am free to judge him and to value very judgment, of course).


    3.    Hello said

      Well, your comment this news is not relevant, only some want it to be relevant crying and complaining, I personally am not interested in who is behind the things that I use, only that he offers me something good and of quality and I applaud him no matter what he does with the money you have for me to donate more money to who cares


      1.    dwarf said

        Nor is it reaching the level of being an idiot. If you know that this company is really harmful (not that its CEO ever did something outside the company years ago), that is, if Apple and the controversies about employing children (which they deny, others say they have evidence), if the product or company is clearly harmful to its environment, or is based on damaging to give Things are changing now, but that is not the case with Eich and Mozilla.


  22.   Zironid said

    The boycott seems absurd to me. In the case of homosexuality I am neutral. I think that all human beings are the same, therefore, if they want to get married, let them do it.

    Having said that, I will comment on my opinion. My intention is not to offend anyone, so do not all fall on me. Personally I think that homosexuality is fashionable. If Eich had donated that money to anything else, no one would have lifted a finger.

    Also, what does that affect the development of Firefox?


    1.    diazepan said

      Save with what you say ……… ..


  23.   nocturnal said

    I have also been against civil marriage and they almost accused me of the same, of homophobia? I don't know the PERSONAL motives that Brendan had. But to me, transferring sacraments from religion (this or that does not matter to me) to civil matters seems like a book error, starting with civil marriages and ending with civil baptisms, which are also there. Are we crazy? There have been children out of wedlock, children of Popes and Bishops, in-vitro children, de facto couples (without making their union official). For the State they are and should be people with the same rights as those who make a state sacrament?

    Greetings.


    1.    Staff said

      You do not have to mix things up, marriage in the legal sphere is an institution, it has nothing to do with the sacraments.
      When two people decide to acquire rights and obligations together, such as creating a common heritage, obtaining custody and child support, it must be legislated accordingly, something similar to two parties signing a contract to form a partnership, so if those agreements are oral, or, in the case of marriage, free union, the law must protect them equally.


      1.    nocturnal said

        It may be an institution within a religious belief, but since it does not have 100% believers and 100% faithful practitioners, where are those who are outside that area? If the case you mention were to be given, it would be an institution, but since there are children out of wedlock, women with children whose parents do not recognize their paternity, etc. This "institution" falls to the general level, therefore I believe that the State must count as citizens all those who are born in its territory or are children of those born in that country with the same rights and obligations. If we mix what belongs to God with what belongs to Cesar, we mix it up.

        Greetings.


        1.    Staff said

          I am not talking about religions at all.
          It is a social institution, established in the constitution of the majority (if not in all) democratic countries.
          In my country it is as you say, if someone is born within the national territory they are a citizen, of course, they must be registered to obtain documents that certify it.
          In the same way, the children of citizens are citizens, even if they are born abroad, obviously at least one of the parents must be registered as citizens, but how do they prove it?
          I agree with you, I only clarify that civil marriage is something legal, not religious, and it is important, as much as a contract between individuals. Not because without it you have no rights, but because without it it is more difficult to claim them.
          Using your same example: if a child is not properly registered, if one of the parents does not recognize it, it is necessary to resort to DNA tests and many more obstacles. Already registered, you don't need any of that.
          The same for marriage, it is only a document in which 2 people agree to follow defined rules.


    2.    diazepan said

      As an atheist, I agree with the civil unions. The problem is that marriage offers rights that a civil union does not. The most important, the right to adopt, which is the one that would most concern gay couples.


      1.    nocturnal said

        Diazepan. I don't know what country you're from, but it doesn't matter either. In Spain gays adopt children individually like any single heterosexual, widower, divorcee. Let each individual if the conditions are met to be able to guarantee the maintenance, affection and protection, a child can be given up for adoption without asking if they are gay, lesbian or heterosexual. Then whether or not the State lives with another person, how it buys

        Civil unions are just that, de facto unions. The fact that the word "marriage" is written on paper does not guarantee that there will be love, or fidelity that may or may not occur, so much so that there have been dramatic cases in which in a gay couple, one of them did not receive the inheritance of another in favor of his older brothers, when they repudiated him since they knew his condition. That is why I say that cases must be taken individually and respecting that individual decision, as long as it does not violate Human Rights.

        You can no longer enter the black stories of unrecognized children, socially disowned single mothers and all that social nightmare that we still live. The State must accommodate all its citizens without entering into religious aspects such as marriage, baptism and knowing what things are out of scope, a matter that should only belong to each religious community subject to the State and its laws. I believe that at no time have I attacked the religious question (I am not saying this for anyone in particular), I simply say that the State should not supplant that aspect of personal choice.

        Greetings.


        1.    pandev92 said

          Nope, for 6 months, single people who are not married under the regime of being a father and mother, can no longer adopt children in Spain. If they could do it with boys from other countries.


  24.   Hello said

    leather boot my leggings the only ones who can be outraged or angered by the news are gays who do not interest me therefore this news is not relevant everyone can do what they want with their money and contribute, support what they are no one can criticize that


  25.   Bruno cascio said

    Che and beyond all this fuss of comments ...
    If he ceases to be CEO of mozilla, therefore the boycott was successful, speaking of materialism, the 1000 dollars will remain in the same place and speaking of non-material, homosexual people until the law is approved, they will not be able to marry.


    1.    diazepan said

      That law was declared unconstitutional in 2010, so they can get married in California.


    2.    Hello said

      Another one will come and the one who comes to donate thousands more xDD who cares what a ridiculous tantrum they post about things that matter to all of us as a community this type of post is for another forum and blog, I think that things are posted here for the whole gnu / linux community I think that's why the blog and forum in no section says cries and tantrums xDD


  26.   Hello said

    up gnu / linux down unimportant post xD


    1.    diazepan said

      Up the controversy, down this comment.


      1.    dwarf said

        It's the type "I'm rude, and I say what I want", leave it xD


  27.   elav said

    Well, a Mozilla employee who is GAY has given their opinion on this. http://www.twobraids.com/2014/03/the-mozilla-ceo.html


    1.    dwarf said

      And he already said everything I think. Was it so complicated to understand something so simple?


  28.   Charlie-Brown said

    We go in parts, as Jack the Ripper would say;

    For the LGBT community to express their legitimate concern about the selection of this Mr. as CEO of Mozilla given his background on the issue of gay marriage, it seems reasonable to me, but not only that, I think it would also be timely, as it would put on alert about Any possible discrimination that could happen in the future, as well as pressure the Mozilla management to make constructive commitments in this regard, but from there to request their resignation and boycott Mozilla, is to go over three towns. It is taking a more extreme and fundamentalist position than the one that originated the problem.

    These actions are the same as those of those who, in the name of equality and the will of the oppressed, seek to silence all those who do not share their opinion, first they begin by not allowing them to express themselves because "their speech is offensive", but in the end they end up repressing the now "different" in the name of equality.


  29.   Darko said

    This is a very simple subject that many people have used as an excuse to claim rights over others, which is very dangerous. I explain. The same thing happened some time ago in Puerto Rico (my island). For that of 2012 and 2013 there was a dispute between the LGBT community and its leader, a boy from New York named Pedro Julio Serrano, they fought against "discrimination" and "lack of respect" that had a program quite known in PR called La Comay. This character (La Comay) was a character who had been on Puerto Rican television for many years bringing "news" (the truth is that it was a gossip program) but between news, jokes, gossip, etc., they sometimes commented on some people calling them "ducks" (homosexuals), as homosexual men are disparagingly called in PR. The truth is that after a few complaints the character of La Comay became aware and stopped using certain village words to avoid problems, since according to the producer of the program, he had nothing against the LGBT community and only made certain jokes for the purpose of entertaining the public. After all, it is said (it is not known whether it is true or not) that the person who played the character of La Comay was homosexual. What does this have to do with the issue? Well, by 2013 the show was censored and then they removed it from television. What I see as a problem here (my opinion) is not that they have censored / eliminated the program, it is that freedom of expression has been violated and they have closed a program that was not only a program but a workplace for many people who were going to have to face the terrible reality of not being able to get a new job. All at the whim of one person (the leader of the LGBT community) who when we get to the background of his person we realize that he was associated with powerful people and leaders in politics who were tired of La Comay exposing his « dirty laundry ». After that, both the leader of the LGBT community and the community itself (which by the way, there were very few who supported him within the community) disappeared. Sure, some scandals arose against the church, to hide it, but everything came to nothing because everyone can choose their religion, thought, etc.

    Excuse me throughout the comment but I wanted to say all that so you can see that the "discriminated against" many times have other hidden agendas. The reality is that in Puerto Rico and in many parts of the world there is no longer as much discrimination as before. Government agencies cannot discriminate, neither can private ones, even the church itself cannot discriminate. Whether they approve of homosexual marriage or not, that is another issue in which I think that it will never come to anything because at least on my island it is established that we have freedom of worship and obviously, each cult or religion has a belief and if they force the churches to which homosexual persons must marry, then that freedom of worship that is within the constitution is affected, therefore, the constitution itself is violated. For my part, each one is the owner of his actions. I understand both the political part, the LGBT community and religion, but this issue is a matter of human rights, not politics or religion, and I believe that we all should have the same rights but always ensuring that the rights of a few do not go above the rights of others.


    1.    pandev92 said

      In Spain, for example, you cannot say anything about homosexuals, but shooting at the Catholic Church and all its members is a national sport, and I don't see any Catholic complaining about discrimination. And no, I am not a Catholic.


  30.   frameworks said

    To me the note sounds like saying that (((((((HYPOTHETICALLY))))))

    That a person who works in WIKIPEDIA contributes «DONATIONS» so that black children have no education in Africa (DONATION TO REDUCE SOME RIGHTS TO A "MARGINALIZED" SECTOR BY THEIR SKIN COLOR (BY BELIEFS, BY ECONOMIC SITUATION, SEXUAL PREFERENCES, ETC ... )[THAT'S DISCRIMINATION])

    The idea of ​​a boycott "TO MAKE THE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE" that a member of a company goes against the most "sacred" thing that the company has, which is its philosophy. [THE BOYCOTT SEEMS CORRECT TO ME ONLY FOR THE COMPANY TO "SHOW" ITS TRUE POSTURES ON THEIR PHILOSOPHY]


  31.   Larathus said

    It seems that having opinions and convictions outside the current social norm is automatically discrimination. Even when such convictions were manifested, as far as I know, within courtesy, legality and the democratic system through a simple donation. And the solution endorsed by the majority to such a despicable democratic act seems to be to omit dialogue, discussion and agreement and thus censor those who think differently. In other words, discriminating.

    To protest against certain rights and try to modify them through the law, legality and democratic discussion is not discriminatory, because then the mere fact of thinking differently would be so automatically. If his manners were correct, he has done nothing wrong regardless of whether we like his ideas or not.


    1.    Felipe said

      I understand your idea, but it does not have very strong foundations. If we say that such a person supported monetarily to generate war in a certain part of the world, he will probably have absolute rejection from all the people who are aware of how bad war is and will be supported by those who believe that this way is good for them.

      Free software is so called because it rejects the traditional software model. Many of us who follow free software (maybe you, me, and more readers) love freedom, but not only in software, so the general thinking is to have tolerance for people who deserve it. We cannot have tolerance against Bush for having ordered thousands of people killed in Iraq for oil, but we will ask for extreme tolerance with those who are discriminated against because of their sexual condition.

      It is not conceivable that this type of behavior exists in free software spaces, nor racist, xenophobic, sexist, etarian, etc. We must all take care of it, because not all of us think the same, but the majority is for the freedom of the people, but not that false freedom where your freedom is the slavery of many people. In this sense, it is necessary for people to understand that the freedom to act is in society and not only of an individual. If you are collaborating with work or monetarily to something that oppresses other people, you must take charge.

      PS: That something is legal does not say that it is good. For example, I can financially support the Greek neo-Nazi party legally from my comfortable chair, but it would certainly be stupid and a bad thing.


      1.    Mauricio M said

        I don't see how supporting a war is related to supporting an initiative to support or be against gay marriage. It sounds a bit like that "who is not with me is against me" speech. Are you a good developer? Magnificent. You are gay? I'm good at it, I work with you because you're a developer, not because you're gay. You are Musulman? Are you a narcissist? Are you what do I know? Well, maybe one day we can talk about this, but just as being a Muslim doesn't make you a terrorist, disagreeing with gay marriage doesn't make you anything other than a person with a point of view. «[…] But it doesn't have very strong foundations”… I didn't understand that.


        1.    I love Almodóvar said

          It would be like passing a law to prevent freaks or geeks, programmers or computer scientists from getting married, or having a child, to avoid the possibility that they have a child and have an inappropriate education that turns them into another outcast, anti- social, etc ... are prejudices exactly the same as prejudices against homosexuals, marrying, etc.

          And logically in any modern society, any discrimination or prejudice is unacceptable


    2.    Mauricio M said

      In accordance


  32.   Felipe said

    Free software has its immense value for the community, not for the characters that stand out more for being more diffusers or that have greater connotation for presiding over this or that organization.

    It is in our hands not to make people who are not so important. Here everyone who contributes should be valued and see their effort to make contributions.

    Honestly, the attempts to follow the paths of great precursors of the information technology business by some members of the free software world, only generate illusions that they are the important ones so that they treat their ego and their wallet well. Mozilla is a clear example of how not to do things in free software and in any organization that seeks to generate value for all people. It seems that they simply want to be an alternative within the entire commercial world, without taking into account that the development of alternatives to the commercial world must be done away from them and rejecting their work methodology at all times. This is what many of the great characters fall into today or in a past time.

    No more ego-hungry people. Long live those who work in the shadows of free software and in any part where they do not seek to enlarge their curriculum, nor their ego, nor their wallet. Long live those who enjoy and suffer the beauty and ugliness of free software and any distant alternative to the commercial system.


  33.   husband said

    The creators and their creation are in very different areas. By using something does not mean agreeing with the internal ideas of those who created it, it would be absurd to boycott mozilla software for this. It reminds me of a certain great Spanish artist who declared himself a Falangist in life. Does this discredit his creations? It should also be emphasized that this decision was the organization's own, the product of the decisions of several people, it was not self-imposed as is often the case in a company. If the foundation agreed to appoint him CEO, they will have their reasons.


    1.    pandev92 said

      Are you talking about Salvador Dalí? ehheee
      I support your conclusion, open mind.


      1.    diazepan said

        I thought he was talking about Raphael


  34.   Karel said

    "Being against two people marrying because they are homosexual is a homophobic position" ...
    ERROR. Rejection is simply an opinion as is approval. Brendan Eich has his convictions and is firm in it, that simple. What is reprehensible is the attitude of going around verbally or physically attacking homosexuals and that is something that this man does not practice. Boycott? Those who promote it only seek to abuse their position as "victims."


    1.    Mauricio M said

      In accordance


  35.   lithos523 said

    I don't think Mozilla should be demonized or attacked because its CEO, as a private individual, is homophobic.

    But when a person supports that someone has fewer rights, just because of their sexual tendencies, that person shows little humanity and for me, they are disqualified as a person who can take charge of a team of people, no matter how many technical merits they have.

    From what has been said, the conclusion is that Mozilla is wrong, and let's not forget, that a foundation that depends largely on donations to live, must take care of its image and this man damages it.


  36.   Antonio said

    It seems to me that the boycott is misplaced, and I don't understand why Brendan has to apologize. It is as if the president of a company was a subscriber to Real Madrid and the workers who were from other teams complained of discrimination and proposed to boycott. Obviously, the president of a company is from a soccer team will not make him treat his employees better or worse for being from one team or another. One thing is personal preferences and another is work activity.

    I think it is the same situation here. You can have your personal preferences, but as long as you treat all your employees fairly and equally I don't know where the problem lies. Thinking that everyone has to be pro-something seems to me a very non-tolerant attitude.


  37.   spookyj said

    The other time I went to okcupid and he put me a sign. I honestly do not care, I use Firefox for a question of what it works for me and I like. I don't give a damn if someone got offended because someone else doesn't think like them. It is irrelevant to my decision which browser to use.


  38.   mitcoes said

    On the one hand, it seems wrong to me to censor people for their beliefs.

    But being tolerant of the intolerant should be, paradoxically, what monotheists should and should not do.

    We will find in corporations people banned for being progressive in any matter - for the record that the marriage of Exodus 21 - polygamist and with children owned by the man and divorce with only what contributed to the marriage for the woman, parental authority - that the majority of the Motheists, even demand it, say gays as an argument - or the marriage of current civil laws, neither of them are very progressive to say.

    Well, I'm glad that for once a conservative has problems for being one in the business world. It didn't always have to be the other way around. Although the best thing is that it never happens, but Jauja is still a myth


  39.   Pedro Luis said

    Personally, I think that we, as end users of Mozilla or Linux technologies or software, among others, should not care if, for example, Linus Tolvards is pedophile, homophobic, Rasista. Personally, and as we say in Mexico, a situation like this would work for me, it's a real bullshit that in the middle of 2014 we continue to be affected by rasistas or homophobic comments, we must be stronger, we must not let situations like these affect us. Example, the US has an African American president. You have to open your eyes is 2014 and it should not affect us in the least situations like that. Long live Linux and Mozilla.


  40.   alunado said

    Force Brendan, don't die !! the united males depend on you !!

    I had to moderate it


  41.   pandev92 said

    Stallman is in favor of pedophilia and nobody boycotts him xddd


  42.   offler said

    Let's put a cookie factory in which 1000 people work. The owner says he is anti-gay, and a boycott is mounted against the factory, production drops, workers are fired, etc.

    I understand that you want to f *** the owner ... but what fault are those 1000 people? Anyone who proposes a boycott without thinking about the consequences for me is worse than someone who expresses a personal opinion. It is these types of people who end up facing communities by raising hatred based on topics that are accumulating.

    I have grown up in a population with many gays (Sitges), and neither am I, nor am I in favor, nor am I against it. It is something that exists, just as there are the short ones, the handsome, the ugly, the rich and the cross-eyed. I do not consider that they can marry or not.

    If this guy supported a campaign with money, surely there was a deduction, just as surely he was in favor of that amendment. I have independent friends and friends who are not, and I exclude none of them for that.

    If I was gay I would say "this guy is a c **** n" and I would not invite him to my birthday party. But I don't know what your position has to do with boycotting Firefox


  43.   Manual said

    Great, I think like you. He has every right to be against gay marriage, it does not imply being homophobic. I am also in favor of gay marriage, but I respect the opposite opinion, as long as it is with respect, as is the case. I have had a conversation with several friends about this and they do not understand it.


  44.   D3XXX said

    Well now my opinion:
    The Mozilla boycott seems correct to me until Brendan Eich fully rectifies it. The reason is that Brendan collaborated in the interference of the freedoms of other human beings so the way to protect your freedom is by fighting and the boycott is one of them. Here you can learn an important lesson: If you don't want your life to be ruined, don't start by ruining the lives of others.
    On the other hand, the comparison with Linus Torvalds is not correct since Linus will tell you that you do not know how to work but that is not an attack on your rights.


    1.    diazepan said

      Ask Sarah Sharp. A Linux boycott makes sense, even if it is not a case of homophobia.


  45.   Joseph said

    Being the visible head of something so popular, it is normal that he is attached to that company. His way of seeing life, of thinking, of running the company, of relating to his colleagues, his employees, will have a homophobic hue because it is part of a personality. No one is one way at home and quite another at work.


  46.   Alvaro said

    As a person that man can make a donation to whoever he wishes, as long as we are talking about legal things, obviously. That donation does not take away or put on your behavior as a person.

    As far as the work it does in Firefox is concerned, I think it is being very good.


    1.    anonymous said

      You're wrong. A person's behavior is his actions.
      The actions of this man puts a homophobic behavior on his behavior. It is so.


  47.   Pinedux said

    I agree with the author, regardless of the personal opinion of the CEO of the company, this man has never said that he speaks on behalf of the company and therefore all he does is express his personal opinion and therefore should not be a boycott a mozilla that has nothing to do with the personal opinions (and see that I keep emphasizing that they are personal opinions) of its CEO.


    1.    I love Almodóvar said

      From your comment it can be deduced that you have no idea of ​​the enormous importance of a good image that a company should have, in today's world.

      Any major software company today will lose a lot of customers if it's run by a homophobe, ultra-right, or ultra-religious, who are all those who supported Proposition 8 against gay marriage (let's take off our masks, no liberal or progressive will ever vote to eliminate rights to other people, because it is intolerant, unacceptable, discriminatory behavior)


  48.   Mauricio M said

    I read the post about the boycott (although removing an app from a marketplace I don't think it can be called that). It draws my attention that, compared to item 3 of the FAQ ("People are allowed to have private beliefs. You can't go after someone for having a private belief") Mr. Catlin states that he does not judge Eich but that his actions have affected your marriage. This is very strange. How many actions of how many individuals affect me daily? And what if the bus driver is homophobic? What if the store clerk is homophobic? What if my subordinate is homophobic? What if my student is homophobic? Well, my life turns into hell. The best way to prove that you are a good developer is to give your app even more boost. You don't like Eich because he's homophobic (apparently)? Don't invite him to your house.


    1.    anonymous said

      It is one thing to be homophobic, Nazi, pedophile, macho, in terms of "having those ideas," and another is to carry out actions and consequences.

      You can be a chauvinist, but we have intelligence to realize that that is not why we can ACT in a chauvinistic way.

      Well, that.


  49.   anonymous said

    "The donation is not in itself an evidence of animosity"

    Oh no? So what is a donation? Did he do it then to deduct taxes? (Irony)
    Because it would not occur to me to donate to associations that kill kittens, to Nazi associations (I will miss a few), or associations against blacks (or many others, eh?).

    "I defy anyone who cites an incident where they exhibited hatred, or treated someone with less respect for their group affinity or individual identity."

    Well look, it makes it easy. Treating LGBT people with less respect for their sexual preferences, who have to suffer for them that people consider them less deserving of rights.


  50.   anonymous said

    To all this ... right now I'm stopping using Firefox and I'm switching to Chrome. I'd rather Google handle my data, which only affects me, than a homophobe pay against LGBT.


    1.    Staff said

      To install it again, just quit the post 🙂


  51.   Mauricio said

    I do not agree that his words can so easily clean up what he did.

    The premise of the LGBT struggle for marriage is simple: How can one expect that society does not discriminate, if from a position of power (nothing less than the State itself) it is discriminating.

    Here you see a similar situation, a position of power is exercising discrimination. Because one thing is to have an opinion and another is activism. And what Eich did was activism against the rights of other people, against Human Rights ...

    He does not deserve to be in charge of Mozilla.


    1.    Miguel said

      Is it a triumph of freedom or intolerance?

      The thing is, Firefox loses its best programmer


      1.    I love Almodóvar said

        It's another victory for homosexuals 🙂… and we already have some accounts haha

        If it bothers someone, it must be homophobic, I do not see another explanation


  52.   Staff said

    It's official, the homophobic CEO resigned, he preferred not to support Mozilla's project rather than offer an apology, for sponsoring movements that violate the fundamental rights of people.
    Able CEOs there are many, so few noble projects, it hurts for him.


  53.   Miguel said

    They made the CEO resign, the best programmer left Mozilla because of the homosexual lobby that does not support a different opinion from them.


    1.    Staff said

      This is a clear example of uninformed comment.
      He did not leave Mozilla, he only resigned.
      The best programmer is a very peculiar opinion, it would be good to know what it bases you on to say that it is the best, and what it would matter if it were, for a position such as CEO, in which it is not programmed.
      There are positions that are not admissible and even worse, is that he not only expressed his opinion, but acted accordingly against the rights of a minority.
      It would be good to read Mozilla's official statement before pouring out this kind of intolerance disguised as diversity.


      1.    x11tete11x said

        http://lamiradadelreplicante.com/2014/04/04/brendan-eich-renuncia-a-su-puesto-como-ceo-y-abandona-mozilla/

        He says that "he is leaving Mozilla" and is going to take a vacation with his family ... I don't know if this means that he left at all


        1.    Staff said

          Indeed, although that note is from a few hours ago, I was relying on the information in the Mozilla release.
          https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/
          There he only mentions that he resigns as CEO.


    2.    miguerl said

      We are talking about a developer who had been working from Nescape, he deserved a better deal.

      Each person has the right to their personal opinion on valuable issues and no one can impose it on the rest.


      1.    Mauricio said

        It is one thing to have an opinion and another is to act actively against the rights of other people.


  54.   Cristian said

    As long as he does not harm anyone, I do not see why he has to leave, it is his thought, many of us defend freedom of thought and as I said as long as the acts are done in his name and if he does not prove it in his position, there is no problem . His actions have been personal, he does what he thinks is right and his position is good, even if we don't like him, he makes his hit and what he does personally is his problem, otherwise we would fall like many to impose our freedom, In addition, the boycott of Firefox not only affects him, it should not be an issue, the problem is that it affects us all, so I could also call for a boycott against those who boycott me in some way, because I also they discriminate for using Firefox and for not thinking like them.


    1.    I love Almodóvar said

      Today, in a company, the PERSONAL behavior of its leaders and employees matters.
      And it is the most appropriate: you must be an honorable person in all areas of the company.

      I would see unacceptable that a company, to earn money, hires a Nazi or a rapist, even if it is a programmer who develops a search engine superior to google ... for me human dignity is priceless


  55.   Clash said

    Well, you have all my respect. I appreciate your resignation and the decision of Firefox to invite you to leave, correcting your mistake, seems right to me. That profile does not fit into a project where an image and goals of freedom and equality are intended, and it has also saved me from uninstalling the browser.

    Salu2


  56.   pandev92 said

    Well, I didn't use it, but now I delete it from the system, ie and chrome are much better.


  57.   Katekyo said

    I am not in favor of Mr. Eicht's statements, but to boycott what one person says, is it not too much? But they will say but he was the CEO of Mozilla and this and that but everyone has their point of view and we must all respect it even if we don't like it


  58.   ruyman said

    I would like to know why the administrator CENSORED my opinion in favor of homosexuals and the LGTB community. There was no insult, no disqualification. I just showed all the cards on the table, which logically can only bother homophobes.

    If the administrator is honest and does not hide in an anonymous and cowardly censorship, the minimum decency is to report the reasons for the censorship.
    It's what I was saying, in the end, it's always the same, like these people think they have to spare our lives. Nothing further. Well, if I am not answered, I will link this link in the LGBT portals so that they can check if indeed here they allow homosexuals to comment FREELY, or they are censored


    1.    diazepan said

      I removed it because what I felt when I saw your comment was more than disagreement, it was visual horror. It was like watching a gore movie.

      1) You criticized me for using the word "fucking" in the title. I'm not saying fucking as a pejorative term, but as a synonym for "damn" but with more emphasis. I take that criticism as an insult because that YES is an attack on my freedom of expression.

      2) I never censored a comment to Staff, even though I have my differences with him. Only that Staff focuses on the coherence between Mozilla's ideals and the image of a CEO. That is why he was in favor of the boycott. But if their comments went out of line when making analogies, yours were worse.

      3) If you want to avoid my "hard boot" (my moderation), comment on this post by Charlie Brown
      https://blog.desdelinux.net/resultado-final-del-partido-correccion-politica-1-sentido-comun-0/
      I now close the comments here.

      And yes, I listen to Rush Limbaugh.


  59.   I love Almodóvar said

    Now it turns out that the bad guys, the radicals and the intolerant are homosexuals, for defending their rights, legitimately, following all the legal causes that mark the rule of law in a modern society, such as pressures or boycotts, lobbies or the activism.

    Of course, homophobes think, although they continue to murder, assault, insult and marginalize homosexuals and LGBT members throughout the world, we do not have the right to DEMAND our rights, which is simply an EQUAL treatment as other people, when it is a principle inalienable social.

    It seems that we are the radicals, the extremists and they already equate us with the homophobes, being the same offensive comparison. But without these SAME active policies, without peaceful but active struggle, racism, or machismo or now homophobia would never have been eliminated. And I repeat again, they are totally legal, legitimate, and peaceful actions, and therefore, OPPOSITE to those practiced by homophobes.

    It is time that homosexuals and LGBT people can come out of the closet, and it is the homophobes and the bigots who should get into it. There is no need to feel compassion for the homophobic, or the Nazi, or the racist, or the sexist, or the rapist, the murderer, the thief ... they are people who have voluntarily taken actions against peace and social coexistence.

    From now on, at least in the West, LGBT must be legally and socially respected, because the opposite may even lead to criminal and / or administrative sanctions.

    Let any homophobe know that if his hatred does not remain in intimacy or privacy (in the closet) and he performs some homophobic public action, it can bring him very adverse consequences.

    It is a beautiful example that even a mythical programmer, such as a Firefox director, suffers the consequences of his homophobia, because it means that here no one is spared, neither the greatest genius nor the richest. Here everyone must submit to the law, to the right. In addition to zero tolerance against racism, gender violence, there is also zero tolerance against violence against LGBT people, with any discrimination against LGBT people being a form of VIOLENCE, and therefore, unacceptable in any civilized society.

    It has cost a lot of effort, and it continues to cost, but we have achieved at least in some western countries: zero tolerance against homophobia. And whoever does not accept it, it is possible that he must recognize that he has a serious problem of tolerance, acceptance and respect for people different from him, and he must correct it.

    There is nothing to debate here. Rights are not discussed. They must be accepted and period, or otherwise, the weight of the law will fall on whoever violates it. It is what living in society brings, you have to sign a social pact: I respect you if you respect me. I tolerate you if you tolerate me. The freedom of one ends where the freedom of the other begins. That some of us have to suffer the lack of respect, discrimination or intolerance of others, for any personal condition, in any modern society is unacceptable.