
“I've been working at Mozilla for many years, from peak to decline” - notlukejr
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8836539&cid=51642315
======
discardorama
Just because Mozilla started Firefox, does not mean we can't question it. I
have felt for a while that Mozilla isn't totally aligned with its user's
interests.

For example: finding and deleting tracking cookies is still laborious in
Firefox. You have to select domains one by one, hitting "Remove selected" each
time. Why can't you select multiple domains at once and nuke them? Why can't
it tell you which tab is using up CPU resources, so you can close it? And in
"private browsing" mode: why are cookies still carried over? That's not so
"private", is it??

The whole FirefoxOS thing sounded just like a solution looking for a problem.
I have been in situations (Govt grants) where the grantees have too much money
and will just throw it at random proposals which have no hope of working. This
sounded just like that.

Since they have so much money to burn, why don't they support worthwhile OSS
efforts (like SSL, for example)? There are tons of little tools and libraries
that we use in *nix land, that could benefit from some $$. Mozilla should
offer "Mozilla fellowships" or "Mozilla sabbaticals", where they support a
developer for a year or two fulltime to work on their projects.

Most of Mozilla's work is done by volunteers anyways. Why should the execs get
paid so much?

~~~
jvehent

       Since they have so much money to burn, why don't they support worthwhile OSS efforts (like SSL, for example)? 
    

The NSS library is supported by Mozilla and Red Hat, mostly.

    
    
       There are tons of little tools and libraries that we use in *nix land, that could benefit from some $$.
    

Mozilla is much more than just Firefox, Firefox OS and Thunderbird. Take a
look at the hundreds of projects on
[https://github.com/mozilla/](https://github.com/mozilla/), for example.

    
    
        Mozilla should offer "Mozilla fellowships" or "Mozilla sabbaticals", where they support a developer for a year or two fulltime to work on their projects.
    

There are many internships, community supports and developer support programs
at Mozilla. The foundation also donated one million dollars to various
prominent projects very recently:
[https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2015/10/mozilla-launches-
open...](https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2015/10/mozilla-launches-open-source-
support-program/)

    
    
        Most of Mozilla's work is done by volunteers anyways
    

I don't know if this statement is accurate. There are over 1,000 people
employed by Mozilla directly working full time on the various projects.

disclaimer: I work for Mozilla.

~~~
dig1
_Take a look at the hundreds of projects
on[https://github.com/mozilla/](https://github.com/mozilla/), for example_

AFAIK, 99% projects out there are Mozilla specific and I don't know anyone is
using them seriously.

------
cpeterso
When Mozilla announced Firefox OS, some management factions pushed to cut
Firefox to a skeleton crew and go "all in" on Firefox OS. Even though Firefox
still had 30% market share and Chrome only 20%, they were ready to give up the
desktop. Thankfully that didn't happen because others knew Firefox "kept the
lights on." Imagine a Mozilla without Firefox OS, where the hundreds of
engineer-years and hundreds of millions of dollars poured into Firefox OS had
instead been invested in Servo and e10s/multiprocess Firefox..

And Brave makes me sad. No disrespect to Brendan and his team! Kudos to them
for building an opinionated product that excites people. But many of Brave's
praised features are things Mozilla considered but dropped due to fear of
publisher retaliation or lack of focus. Things like:

    
    
      * Tracking protection in non-private browsing mode
      * Blocking third-party cookies from unvisited domains
      * HTTPS Everywhere integration
      * Partitioned user sessions
      * Promoting alternatives to toxic web advertising
      * Some sort of micropayment system
      * One-click Tor or secure VPN browsing
    

[Disclaimer: I am a Mozilla employee, but these are my own opinions.]

~~~
fpoling
It is easy to blame Fireofx OS now for the waste, but 4 years ago it was not
that easy to see that it would be a total disaster. It was just things that
Mozilla was betting on did not come through.

The real problem for me is why Firefox OS was not stopped 2 years ago when
trends became clear. That is inexcusable given the amount of efforts Mozilla
continued to spend on it.

~~~
rwaldron
Actually, 4 years ago and then again 3 years ago I said it was a total
disaster. I have mountains of email reports from an audit of the project.

~~~
fpoling
4 years ago boot-to-gecko was still at the rather early stage and it was not
possible to see how it would end. Given the need to diversify for Mozilla it
was reasonable to proceed to get at least one shipping device. Even 3 years
ago with the first phone release one could argue that continuing with the
project was not totally unreasonable. But 2 years ago the market message was
crystal clear.

------
cronjobber
> Mozilla has quickly been identified by a few as a way to make a quick buck

This is always, _always_ so fascinating to me, to see how many people will
never ever consider this, at least in public.

There's this most basic of basic incentives, money, a huge pile of money
sitting around, and everybody piously pretends it doesn't matter to everybody
who's in control of it.

So fascinating.

~~~
anon1007
Exactly! Why are Mitchell Baker and other execs at Mozilla being rewarded for
lack-luster performance with nearly $1 million a year in compensation,
meanwhile the actual programmers that toil on Mozilla's products go underpaid
or even unpaid?

~~~
ubernostrum
I won't comment on whether I felt I was underpaid in my years at Mozilla
(though I'll say I do make more now, at a for-profit company), but it is at
least worth pointing out that Mozilla's bonus system extended to everyone. And
until early 2015 it was based on company-wide performance, so even if you had
a project that was languishing you could still get a good bonus if the company
as a whole was doing well (in 2015 it switched to a significant chunk being
based on individual performance and metrics, and I wasn't there long enough
afterward to have a worthwhile opinion on how that change turned out).

~~~
anon1007
> though I'll say I do make more now, at a for-profit company

That's what I meant by underpaid. It's well known that Mozilla pays below-
market rate salaries. Instead it deceptively uses its supposed non-profit
status (actually a for-profit owned by a non-profit shell) to motivate people
to take a pay-cut by working there, meanwhile Baker and a handful of others at
the top are getting rich (even by Bay Area standards) off their under-
compensated, altruistically-minded labor.

Disgusting.

------
examancer
After reading this I wondered what accountability measures are in place for
board members of the Mozilla Foundation.

Many non-profits have elections for board positions where members of the
organization or its community can help determine board membership and vote out
bad directors. Mozilla Foundation's by-laws
([http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-
bylaws.pdf](http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-bylaws.pdf))
states "This Foundation shall have no members" (Article II).

Existing directors are the only ones who can vote in board elections. They are
only accountable to themselves.

Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Foundation, meaning
all voting shares are controlled by the Foundation's board.

I find this to generally be a dangerous structure for a non-profit to have.
Think twice about donating to any charity where the directors are well
compensated and accountable to no one.

If the board is stubborn there is nothing anyone can do to force them out.
Hopefully with pressure the community can achieve some reforms. One I would
push for immediately is adopting new by-laws that allow community involvement
in board elections.

~~~
yuhong
The funny thing is that for at least some for-profits it is not a horrible
idea, with no shareholders to worry about. I already mentioned the telecoms as
an example in another comment.

------
spenvo
An aside: Mozilla's approach to Firefox extensions is both 1) responsible
(they require extensions to be reviewed and signed by Mozilla), 2) untenable
for developers (mine took forever to be reviewed).

I published three Chrome extensions last year, and decided to port my more
ambitious one to Firefox. (all at
[http://www.metafruit.com](http://www.metafruit.com)) Now I feel somewhat bad
for complaining since I'm not an extension reviewer myself, and I feel they've
taken on a tall order for the betterment of their community. But my Firefox
port took four months to get to the front of the review process. Needless to
say, my next extension is targeted only for Chrome.

Chrome's approach is easy for developers but almost reckless for end users.

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
It's completely absurd that an open source project has taken it upon
themselves to mandate extension signing. It's as if Debian declared that you
couldn't install packages which weren't signed by them, but don't worry, you
can always recompile Debian yourself with that feature turned off.

~~~
kbrosnan
How does one protect the majority of users in the wide open case? For example
see
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1251911](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1251911)
where the extension downloaded another extension and disabled the signing
pref.

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
You don't. It's not the browsers job. Users need to educate themselves, and
they won't unless there are consequences for ignorance.

------
AdmiralAsshat
>Mr Eich is now making the Brave web browser (based on Webkit by the way)
which is arguably one of the most promising new browsers right now. Go figure.

Right about here my confidence in the veracity of this guy's claims plummeted.
Brave offers nothing existing browsers can't already provide, except of course
a diversion of ad revenue directly into Eich's pocket.

~~~
ex3ndr
Brave is also stolen stuff: [https://www.i2.si/](https://www.i2.si/)

Brave uses almost same sentences as i2 project used in it's press-releases and
was released in few weeks after i2 one.

~~~
BrendanEich
Never saw that site before today. Careful with "stolen", you will cut yourself
with Hanlon's razor.

I also do not see any sentences in common. Brave aims to pay publishers better
than the ads we replace would have paid them. No sign of that from what I read
just now at i2.si. Did I miss it?

------
21echoes
I'm much more on board with the comment this one is replying to:

""" ...

On top of that, do you guys honestly think that Firefox would not have slid
down the same slope, given that it suddenly had Google, Apple, and Microsoft
to compete with, some of whom effectively prevent Firefox from even running on
their mobile platforms? It's like I'm living in a bizarro world sometimes when
I consider that Slashdot fancies itself as informed tech geeks/nerds, and they
don't seem to have any idea what they're ranting about anymore. """

~~~
akkartik
The OP doesn't claim there aren't external problems. It claims there's no
incentive to _address_ external problems.

~~~
21echoes
which is addressed by the bit I clipped:

""" Sigh. Does anyone on Slashdot even know what Mozilla is doing anymore, or
do they just actively seek anything minor they can to twist into pathetic
negative rants? They've clearly already shifted their focus back onto Firefox
lately, but apparently you haven't noticed. Apparently all you've seen is
"hype", while selectively ignoring everything else. """

for there being "no incentive", Mozilla dev seems extremely focused on fixing
these problems

~~~
akkartik
I'm disinclined to just take someone's word on the internet that it's "clear"
that Mozilla is "extremely focused". OP has more inner structure, a coherent
theory of _why_ lack of focus may arise. So it feels more compelling. Then
again, I have personal complaints that I've aired elsewhere on this thread, so
I might be biased.

------
jug
I recommend forner Firefox users to take a look at Vivaldi. Its only downside
is that it further boosts Chrome's dominance by being based on Chromium. On
the other hand, Chromium is a damn fine, standards-compliant renderer.

Anyway, I have really enjoyed Vivaldi's user-first view, like Opera before it
also got too much of a Chrome envy. There are browser settings galore and a
generally customization-positive view by the developers and you can feel how
it oozes "classic Opera" mentality.

Also, they do none of those Firefox shenanigans as of late with bundld third
party software or ads. They are simply focusing on becoming the best choice
for a power user.

~~~
reitanqild
Problem is no other browsers has anything close to the ecosystem of Firefox.

Chrome extensions seems (with a few exceptions) to be just locally stored web
sites.

A better alternative to Firefox might be Palemoon which is just an older
version of Firefox with security patches. I am not in a position to judge if
it is safe enough for anyone to use but I like it.

~~~
yuhong
Does it have "Slaughterhouse" (see
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=929539](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=929539)
and [http://bholley.net/blog/2016/the-right-
fix.html](http://bholley.net/blog/2016/the-right-fix.html)) ? This is not the
only incident where Mozilla people have suggested hiding bugs until an old ESR
goes end of life BTW.

------
anon1007
Relevant discussion on the issue of Mozilla's outlandish executive
compensation:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10101637](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10101637)

tl;dr: Mozilla is clearly failing as an organization, its programmers are
underpaid, and its flagship product continues to shake down its users for
donations, meanwhile its executives still get paid upwards of $800k a year for
their mismanagement.

------
binaryapparatus
I am happy with firefox performance, using vimperator. When you remove all the
UI it is one good browser. Big problem with potential decline is that I don't
know of any substitute for ff+vimperator (or pentadactyl) that works half good
as they do. I tried just about any browser + vimsomething combo.

------
knowtheory
Non-profits are mission driven. Most people who work for non-profits are doing
it at least in part because of belief in the mission (especially since non-
profits typically pay less than market rate).

The problem with technology non-profits is that the world around them changes
pretty rapidly, and with substantial discontinuities.

So if you're an employee and you've signed on to an org with an understanding
of why your job and your project matters for The Mission, of course change can
appear scary and confusing.

On the other hand, especially when there is rapid turn over, or the ground
keeps shifting under the org, there's a strong incentive by execs to try and
find new territory one can set up upon.

The tensions seem pretty obvious. This is the same issue that's come up with
Wikipedia's search project too.

~~~
jldugger
> Non-profits are mission driven.

Nobody works for Mozilla Foundation. The employees work for Mozilla
Corporation, a taxable / for profit entity entirely owned by Mozilla
Foundation. They have precisely one revenue stream worth mentioning: search
bar contracts. Those contracts are bid on by for profit companies, who will be
bidding based on perceived value per search, searches per user, and total
users.

The introduction of Chrome should concern Mozilla Corp employees, and the
ceding of market share to it should be terrifying. Your capacity for The
Mission is diminished if user base declines, because bids will decline.

------
javajosh
How should a non-profit like Mozilla gauge it's success? Should it be going
after browser market share (Firefox)? Developer brain market share (Rust,
MDN)? Leadership positions (W3C)? Advocacy?

~~~
macspoofing
Good question, but I think market share is what buys you access to 'leadership
positions' and enables 'advocacy'. If Firefox has 1% market-share, nobody
cares what Mozilla says or does.

~~~
ironsides
Also, its hard to see that same Foundation that is used to 300M checks being
successful for very long after the revenue dries up.

------
uxcn
Firefox has lost a lot of market share to Chrome (something like 30% vs. 14%).
Internet Explorer has too. Considering Google only launched a browser in '08,
it's pretty impressive they're at something like 50%.

Mozilla is still doing a lot of awesome stuff (web assembly, rust, servo,
etc...), and I personally still choose Firefox over Chromium. As a user, I do
have complaints about the direction on a number of things though.

One of the simpler things I'm surprised I haven't seen yet is a decent native
text editor, considering how much relies on editing text in a browser.

~~~
Mithaldu
It's not impressive at all when they have one of the biggest marketing
surfaces and budget in the world.

~~~
uxcn
It's not easy to get people to use something new. It's even harder to get a
majority of people to use something new. If you consider that Microsoft has
nearly the same magnitude resources, and their own widely deployed platform
their browser is pre-installed on, it doesn't seem like a trivial
accomplishment.

Firefox also had a bigger market share than Microsoft.

------
vmorgulis
We need a reboot of the web from the start.

Something simple (like markdown) that can be implemented in a wide range of
languages (not only system languages).

The complex web we have today is a dead end. It monopolizes too much
ressources in few complex projects.

We need a lot of different projects trying to achieve different goals. Some
can be specialized (like only for a site or a task). Some can be whole-
purpose.

3 or 4 layout engine is not enough.

------
CelticSuperhero
Not sure if this is true, but if this post is not fake, i would say Mozilla
have lost the benefit of trust.

Seeing what they have done in the last few years, makes this post look less
like a fake.

------
mixmastamyk
Reminds me of that quote about "A players hiring A players, but B players
hiring C players" or Jobs' rants on the subject re Scully.

For the record, I hate the latest UI changes to Firefox, I have chromium
installed also and use it when needed. I don't need two of them. The big round
tabs, the Fischer-price menus, the prefs with hardcoded white backgrounds,
etc. If they hadn't fixed the memory leaks recently I'd go back to FF 20 or
so.

~~~
blue1
Try Seamonkey. I consider it FF for grownups. (or for ancient Netscape users,
if you prefer :-))

------
e15ctr0n
Mozilla has pissed away its market share, its community, its goodwill and its
influence in the world because of a series of bad decisions over the last 5
years:

* breaking add-ons due to rapid updates [Everybody Hates Firefox Updates (evilbrainjono.net) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4209384](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4209384)]

* switching to Australis [Australis is landing in Firefox Nightly (mozilla.org) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6755650](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6755650)]

* removing options to customize the browser ["Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23 (mozilla.org) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968237](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968237)]

* getting rid of the Status bar and breaking add-ons that depend on it [Removing Firefox’s Status Bar and Rehousing Add-on Icons [http://www.donotlick.com/2010/04/29/removing-firefoxs-status...](http://www.donotlick.com/2010/04/29/removing-firefoxs-status-bar-and-rehousing-add-on-icons-part-1-of-2/) [http://www.donotlick.com/2010/06/07/removing-firefoxs-status...](http://www.donotlick.com/2010/06/07/removing-firefoxs-status-bar-and-rehousing-add-on-icons-part-2-of-2/) [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-happened-status-ba...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-happened-status-bar#w_where-are-my-add-ons)]

* long review queues for add-on approval [Writing Extensions for Firefox Is Barely Worth the Trouble (omniref.com) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285744](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285744)]

* displaying ads in the browser [Firefox will show ads on the new tab page based on browsing history (geeksnack.com) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9587362](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9587362)]

* banning unsigned add-ons and annoucing a new add-on development API that breaks existing add-ons [Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions (mozilla.org) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10038999](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10038999)]

* forcing Pocket and Hello icons to appear on the toolbar with every update [Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration (mozilla.org) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809)]

* denying vehemently for months that there is no financial arrangement with Pocket [Mozilla to stop Sponsored Tiles in Firefox (mozilla.org) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10679519](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10679519)] and then casually admitting it in a Wired interview on other topics [[http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when-the-we...](http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when-the-web-needs-it-the-most/)]

* spinning off Thunderbird as a "community project" [Mozilla Wants To Split Off Its Thunderbird Email/Chat Client (techcrunch.com) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654861](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654861)]

* neglecting browser performance, multi-process architecture and browser security. This year, the Pwn2Own contest refused to consider Firefox security hacks because the organizers "wanted to focus on the browsers that have made serious security improvements in the last year." [http://it.slashdot.org/story/16/02/12/034206/pwn2own-2016-wo...](http://it.slashdot.org/story/16/02/12/034206/pwn2own-2016-wont-attack-firefox-because-its-too-easy)

All these changes were dropped on the community without any prior warning,
discussion or input. Firefox add-on developers responded to many of these
changes by developing workarounds like Pale Moon, Classic Theme Restorer, The
Addon Bar (Restored), etc. but by now many of them have burnt out. The burden
of fixing Mozilla's mistakes is just too heavy. [The likely end of DownThemAll
(downthemall.net)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10099240](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10099240)]

Many of these decisions came out of "Google envy":

* the drive to mimic Chrome instead of doubling down on what makes Firefox unique

* the transformation in compny culture from a scrappy open source project to a bloated corporate hierarchy that enforces a fear-based workplace

* empire building via a massive hiring spree (or, as Steve Jobs so memorably put it, a "bozo explosion")

* the adoption of whiteboard-style interviews to hire employees off the street instead of considering long-time community members

* the leasing of expensive offices in hipster locations like San Francisco instead of encouraging remote work which is ingrained in the company culture

* chasing the latest buzzwords like mobile operating systems and IoT projects and spinning off core products like Thunderbird and Firefox OS as "community projects". (What's next? Autonomous cars?)

Firefox markets share is already 8% and falling. Once Yahoo vaporizes, it will
take Mozilla down with it. I'm looking forward to once again seeing a lean
organization with a laser focus on making the best browser, period.

~~~
notlukejr
Source or link to browser market share? 8% seems too low for FireFox.

~~~
e15ctr0n
StatCounter Global Stats - Browser Market Share - Top 9 Desktop, Mobile,
Tablet & Console Browsers

[http://gs.statcounter.com/#all-browser-ww-
monthly-200807-201...](http://gs.statcounter.com/#all-browser-ww-
monthly-200807-201603)

------
oldsj
I don't want to get involved in the Firefox vs X flamewar but don't talk shit
about rust dude

------
yuhong
I wonder if this or something similar is happening inside Mozilla:
[https://www.quora.com/CEOs-1/Are-there-any-CEOs-who-have-
exp...](https://www.quora.com/CEOs-1/Are-there-any-CEOs-who-have-expressed-
open-self-doubt-about-their-own-company?share=1)

------
CelticSuperhero
[http://logs.glob.uno/?c=mozilla%23seamonkey&s=2+Mar+2016&e=2...](http://logs.glob.uno/?c=mozilla%23seamonkey&s=2+Mar+2016&e=2+Mar+2016)
\- Also very nice read, Mozilla guys bashing people from Pale Moon project.

What for idiots.

------
yuhong
I wonder if a for-profit corporation with zero shareholders similar to Mozilla
can be made possible. I wonder what would happen if AT&T and Verizon can be
run in a similar way (with better executives of course).

~~~
gherkin0
> I wonder if a for profit corporation with zero shareholders can be made
> possible. I wonder what would happen if AT&T and Verizon can be run in a
> similar way (with better executives of course).

A mutual company is probably the closest thing you'll find to that (basically
a company where you become a shareholder when you become a customer). I'm not
sure how well that structure would work for a company like Mozilla, which has
a weak relationship to its "customers," but I think it's work a short for
large utility-like organizations like telcom companies.

[http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mutualcompany.asp](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mutualcompany.asp)

~~~
yuhong
That is not what I mean. Obviously such a corporation would have a board of
directors but no shareholders at all (including no dividends and control
rights), just like Mozilla as described in the comment.

------
akerro
I've been with Firefox since 3.0, my first browser, I recommended it to a lot
of people for years... I'm sadly switching to Opera now.

~~~
praneshp
Even after [http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/25/opera-ceo-sale-to-
chinese-c...](http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/25/opera-ceo-sale-to-chinese-
consortium-wasnt-our-decision/)?

~~~
akerro
What are other choices for sensible people? Opensource chromium that downloads
binary blobs that control my microphone?

~~~
dublinben
GNU Icecat.
[https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/](https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/)

~~~
akerro
That's Firefox with GNU branding:

>GNUzilla is the GNU version of the Mozilla suite, and GNU IceCat is the GNU
version of the Firefox browser

~~~
dublinben
You should read the rest of the description.

------
ajonit
There was a time when Google use to pay site owners for firefox downloads. The
day they launched Chrome, the sam day promotion stopped. Since then the usage
for FF is going downhill.

------
azinman2
Was interesting to hear the entire perspective but the "marriage thing?" That
wasn't exactly small. Imagine if gave money instead to the KKK... would that
have been just "a racial heritage thing?"

Backing something that separates families is divisive and not appropriate for
an organization that is about openness and diversity, especially given the
current tech climate of monoculture.

Engineers can really be the worst offenders when it comes to hate-like views,
I think in part because they're likely smarter than the average person so
they've completely convinced themselves that they're the rational ones.

I remember back when I was at Google in 2008. A survey on lgbt issues went
around company wide. What came back was so completely shocking and insane,
especially out of Russia and India. Burn them, kill them, they don't desire to
live, etc. And this was a survey you gave back to your employer!!!

Edit: as many people have missed my point let me clarify. The comparison
against the KKK was simply to illustrate that who you donate to and support
affects your organization, especially when that cause negatively impacts the
personal lives of your employees (and goes against your org core values, and
reinforces an existing problem of monoculture). I'm not saying prop 8 == KKK,
I'm showing that personal beliefs matter when you're a leader.

~~~
mrbabbage
There's a world of difference between opposing gay marriage and supporting a
white supremacist terrorist organization. They're not even remotely
comparable.

Specifically, it's entirely possible to oppose gay marriage on a number of
grounds without being homophobic or bigoted; in my experience even as a young
gay man in San Francisco, most of the people in my life who don't support gay
marriage are perfectly reasonable, kind individuals who don't hate their gay
friends. It's rather shallow to consider one's stance on LGBT issues through a
single, limited lens, given that there are dozens of other issues (HIV, youth
homelessness, alcoholism, depression) that affect the LGBT community.

~~~
saganus
> it's entirely possible to oppose gay marriage on a number of grounds without
> being homophobic or bigoted

How so?

I mean, I really haven't heard any arguments against same sex marriage that
were not homophobic, so I'm actually curious since the definition of
homophobia in Merriam-Webster [1] is:

"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or
homosexuals"

I would thought that opposing to gay marriage would amount to discrimination
against homosexuals, no?

Edit: Can't reply to mrbabbage due to anti-flame filter or something, but I
guess, if I understand correctly, the contention point is about _how_ people
define marriage. So if marriage is, in some people's view, something entirely
religious-related, then for them it would not be considered opposing gay
marriage as something related to discrimination, but related to not "breaking"
said definition.

For others, marriage would be just a religious-independent term, that
signifies a certain set of life decisions (living with your partner, etc) as
well as certain legal responsibilities and rights.

Ok, I get your point now. And I was honestly not wanting to start a flame war,
and was genuinely asking since I wasn't clear on this. I guess the debate then
turns into whether as a community (for different values of community) we
should consider marriage as a legal term devoid of any religious implication,
or not.

Edit2: I'm not even sure if people would even be able to agree on this, at
least not for several generations.

Edit3: Wow, not sure why I would get downvoted for asking an honest question.
I am seeing the vote counter jump up and down. Very interesting.

[1] [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobic](http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/homophobic)

~~~
shasta
I'm in favor of gay marriage, but this position seems widely held and it's a
little baffling. Marriage is itself nothing more than a cultural tradition. If
you don't agree, go work out a logical derivation of why the practice of
pairing up is optimal and report back. From that perspective, is it really
surprising that some people want traditional traditions? On the balance, I
think gay marriage is a good idea, but I also think there's something to be
said for going slow when abandoning traditions.

~~~
saganus
> is it really surprising that some people want traditional traditions?

Well, no. I guess not. And in that context, there will definitely always be a
broad spectrum of those that want to keep traditions as such, and those that
want change.

But it seems that at least for this particular tradition, it gets trickier to
just consider it "a tradition" since it is so intertwined with the legal
definition, for some countries at least.

So even though it's "just" a cultural tradition, it makes a big effect on the
outcome of legal matters.

I mean, I've seen groups that oppose same-sex marriage suggest calling that
"legal relationship between two people" something other than marriage, giving
it the same rights and that would be enough.

The thing I try to imagine is, what would happen if some country would
completely decouple the marriage term from the legal definition, if that would
make things better or not.

As long as every legal matter related to the definition of this new term is
updated, and so referring to marriage would only be at the religious level (no
other consequences than that), what would happen? would that be a good
solution for most? or would it be maybe _just enough_ ?

I'm pretty sure there would be people disliking the idea of having a different
term, however legally equivalent it may be, and probably they could give good
reasons, but would it be the majority or a minority?

I have honestly no idea.

~~~
shasta
There's a legal aspect, but that's still just a law codifying cultural norms.
Why do people have to wear clothes in public? The libertarian abstraction of
people as living in isolation from one another until they choose to interact
is a good example of a leaky abstraction.

------
enraged_camel
I can't comment on the other points, but the author is right about Firefox.
The last time I tried it (several months ago), it really came across as a
browser that looks like Chrome but is worse in almost every way. It's lack of
performance is what struck out to me the most, despite the fact that I have
several extensions running.

This is just anecdotal of course, so take it with a grain of salt.

~~~
Sahonon
To counter your anecdote with some more anecdote, I just switched from Chrome
to Firefox and have felt that the latter has some serious performance
advantages over the former.

~~~
nkurz
It's probably just me, but I always struggle with the "latter" and "former"
construction, especially when they are reversed like that. I had to read it
several times before I understood. In case it helps someone else, it
translates as:

    
    
      To counter your anecdote with some more anecdote, I 
      switched from Chrome to Firefox, and have felt that that 
      Firefox has some serious performance advantages over Chrome.  
    

I wonder sometimes if my inability to parse sentences like this relates to my
preference for C over C++. The "former" and "latter" abstraction reminds me of
Eli's examples here [http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2016/returning-multiple-
values-...](http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2016/returning-multiple-values-from-
functions-in-c/) of first->first and first->second.

~~~
Sahonon
Sorry to have been unclear -- thank you for making the effort to read my
measly comment, however!

It does appear similar to the idea of abusing tuples, insofar as having to
keep the meanings of each element in mind without any help from the syntax.
_shrugs_ I guess my nervousness around Internet commenting surfaces as
excessively formal language. Apologies again for any future confusion :|

------
jorgecurio
A while ago a hiring manager allegedly from Mozilla Vancouver posted a long
rant that he went through 60 interviews yet couldn't find a junior dev which
was downvoted to oblivion with angry comments. He shortly deleted all of his
comments since then but reading this employees comments on slashdot makes me
fit together the puzzle pieces....Mozilla has become a trust fund for
incompetent people to earn a cheque every month.

Google Chrome has really done a number on the browser market and surpassed the
25% mark for quite some time while Firefox has been dwindling to irrelevance.
Failed to even eat into IE marketshare.

[https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-
share.aspx?qpr...](https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-
share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=0)

~~~
ygjb
Sigh. That thread was my thread.

* It was for a senior security engineer, not a junior dev

* I looked at 63 candidates (as in applicants / resumes)

* IIRC I screen interviewed around 10

* IIRC we advanced around 4 to the full interview process

I deleted my comments for 3 reasons:

* Someone else took the initiative to link my comments to the Mozilla Vancouver office, and implied that we tried to fill that position locally

* Despite identifying in my initial comment that it was an exceptional circumstance people were acting like it was the norm

* In my initial comment I said interviewing 63 candidates, not reviewing 63 candidates; after the thread blew up I revised it to reviewed, but it's the internet :/

Mea culpa, but hiring qualified security people is _really_ hard these days,
and has been for years.

One other very important note - when we were filling that role the guidance
was the the position should be filled in one of our offices, not remotely.
Once that restriction was removed, the position was filled almost immediately.

