Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

(wiki.mozilla.org)

288 points fernandotakai | 1 comments | 11 Aug 15 03:51 UTC | HN request time: 0.23s | source

Show context

alfapla ◴[11 Aug 15 07:59 UTC] No.10039620[source]▶

It's little more than a year ago that Brendan Eich was ousted from Mozilla by an ugly orchestrated cabal. When I read Mitchell Baker's vapid blog post [1] on the decision, filled with polite backstabbing and politically correct buzzwordery I understood that Mozilla has been taken over by politicians and that its decline is just a matter of time.

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-...

replies(3): >>10039661 #>>10040396 #>>10041049 #

mahouse ◴[11 Aug 15 08:15 UTC] No.10039661[source]▶

>>10039620 #

I can't think of many OSS projects that aren't being manipulated by a strong community of liberals.

replies(1): >>10039685 #

andybak ◴[11 Aug 15 08:22 UTC] No.10039685[source]▶

>>10039661 #

Is that the US definition of 'liberal'? i.e. the one that would apply to most center-right parties in the rest of the world?

replies(4): >>10039738 #>>10039785 #>>10040014 #>>10040214 #

1. toyg ◴[11 Aug 15 11:20 UTC] No.10040214[source]▶

>>10039685 #

A U.S. "liberal" is very socially-progressive (pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-environment, anti-racist, mostly pro-regulation and anti-corporate). I think that's the sort of people the parent poster intended to describe. In Europe "liberals" are usually pro-business and socially-conservative.

(Btw, I wouldn't say a U.S. liberal will automatically sit on the right of the European discourse, today. Traditional socialism has virtually disappeared as a political choice in Europe as well, so really there is very little disagreement today between a U.S. liberal and a European with mainstream social-democratic sensibilities -- except maybe on foreign policy.)

↑