Mozilla Wants Your Feedback On Its New Logos

Do they have no one with any artistic ability? These are very very horrible. Mozilla needs to hire better people if this is the best that the company can do. Why not just shoot BB's into styrofoam and spell out Mozilla as well.
 
I have a good one:

firefox-256.e2c1fc556816.jpg
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Ok? Actions have consequences. You don't get to donate to hate groups and keep a high profile position at a tech company. Boo fucking hoo.
Click to expand...
Depends on who's judging. Did the Marvel guy deserve his consequences?
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Ok? Actions have consequences. You don't get to donate to hate groups and keep a high profile position at a tech company. Boo fucking hoo.
Click to expand...

Simply disagreeing with a premise, like gay marriage, isn't hate.
Nor is donating to a campaign that disagrees with gay marriage.

And there's not a single, solitary piece of evidence that he EVER discriminated against ANYONE during his time at Mozilla.

This is typical SJW fascist policy. If you don't agree with them, they attempt to ruin you.
 
Chas said:
Simply disagreeing with a premise, like gay marriage, isn't hate.
Nor is donating to a campaign that disagrees with gay marriage.

And there's not a single, solitary piece of evidence that he EVER discriminated against ANYONE during his time at Mozilla.

This is typical SJW fascist policy. If you don't agree with them, they attempt to ruin you.
Click to expand...

The same wrong thinking arguments where made 50 years ago by men fighting against the dismantling of miscegenation statues in the US. It seems a stretch to argue no ill will while fighting to remove or withhold rights from people. Its really to bad society hasn't always had the same power to pressure our leaders to act in accordance with the legal principles that have made the US the shining example of freedom in the world. The US needs to spend more money teaching history in its schools. I mean if intelligent people like Brendan Eich don't understand the first amendment, and its legal interpretation by way off Reynolds Vs The United States (1878) and later Everson v. Board of Education (1947) what hope is their for the rest of you. :)
 
I've worked with my share of graphic artists I've not been super happy with. Sometimes I think a 2 year old drawing pictures on a wall using their own feces would be a lot nicer looking.
These suck really bad. I'd hire the 2 year old if I were them.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Ok? Actions have consequences. You don't get to donate to hate groups and keep a high profile position at a tech company. Boo fucking hoo.
Click to expand...

"Hate groups". LOL. He donated a few bucks to a ballot proposal THAT WON, and it was known he did that BEFORE he was promoted to CEO. Get over yourself.
 
dgz said:
I do because I like Firefox. SJW or not, I'll take them everyday over Google's spy ware.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of alternatives to Chrome's spyware and I've listed them before. Chromium or Vivaldi if you want Blink, Midori if you want Webkit, Pale Moon or Waterfox for Gecko.
 
Terpfen said:
There are plenty of alternatives to Chrome's spyware and I've listed them before. Chromium or Vivaldi if you want Blink, Midori if you want Webkit, Pale Moon or Waterfox for Gecko.
Click to expand...

What's the difference? I know what Vivaldi and I don't like it much. Is chromium really 100% functional? What makes Pale Moon and Waterfox better than Firefox? UI?
 
dgz said:
What's the difference? I know what Vivaldi and I don't like it much. Is chromium really 100% functional? What makes Pale Moon and Waterfox better than Firefox? UI?
Click to expand...

Chromium is the browser that Google slaps their proprietary and tracking stuff into to call it Chrome, equivalent to Webkit nightly builds (Apple forks Webkit to develop Safari releases.) It is fully functional, you just need to either build it yourself or download a build. I like this guy's builds. The Nik builds have additional codecs for things like HTML5 audio/video support.

Pale Moon has now forked Gecko, so it's basically an independent browser based on Gecko that looks like and is compatible with Firefox. Waterfox is a 64-bit build of Firefox with stuff like SIMD Extensions enabled, which Firefox does not ship with. Waterfox is more speed-oriented, Pale Moon is if you want the Firefox ecosystem but want to avoid supporting the SJW company itself.
 
ChadD said:
The same wrong thinking arguments where made 50 years ago by men fighting against the dismantling of miscegenation statues in the US. It seems a stretch to argue no ill will while fighting to remove or withhold rights from people. Its really to bad society hasn't always had the same power to pressure our leaders to act in accordance with the legal principles that have made the US the shining example of freedom in the world. The US needs to spend more money teaching history in its schools. I mean if intelligent people like Brendan Eich don't understand the first amendment, and its legal interpretation by way off Reynolds Vs The United States (1878) and later Everson v. Board of Education (1947) what hope is their for the rest of you. :)
Click to expand...

Ah. Can't have "wrong think", now can we?

Again, is it illegal to have an opinion on gay marriage? No.
Is it illegal to contribute to a political campaign that holds an opinion similar to yours? No.

If, ultimately, the people are convinced that recognizing gay marriage is a Good Thing, it'll win. Period.

But damning people simply for holding an opinion contrary to yours, or fucking with their livelihood?

Dirty fucking pool man.

That sort of "pressure" is nothing more than angry mob action. But hey, you're the one wielding the pitchfork, so it's okay right? Until you aren't.

It's okay to disagree with and maybe not even like Eich. But this crybully bullshit needs to just stop.

You want to harp on the First Amendment? Explain where Eich's position had anything to do with his religion.
Regarding Reynolds, please point out what criminal action he took, ostensibly under the aegis of religion.
Regarding Everson, where did he violate the Establishment clause?

Honestly, the proper response to "I refuse to work with Eich" should have been. "Well, here's your pink slip."
 
Chas said:
Ah. Can't have "wrong think", now can we?

Again, is it illegal to have an opinion on gay marriage? No.
Is it illegal to contribute to a political campaign that holds an opinion similar to yours? No.

If, ultimately, the people are convinced that recognizing gay marriage is a Good Thing, it'll win. Period.

But damning people simply for holding an opinion contrary to yours, or fucking with their livelihood?

Dirty fucking pool man.

That sort of "pressure" is nothing more than angry mob action. But hey, you're the one wielding the pitchfork, so it's okay right? Until you aren't.

It's okay to disagree with and maybe not even like Eich. But this crybully bullshit needs to just stop.

You want to harp on the First Amendment? Explain where Eich's position had anything to do with his religion.
Regarding Reynolds, please point out what criminal action he took, ostensibly under the aegis of religion.
Regarding Everson, where did he violate the Establishment clause?

Honestly, the proper response to "I refuse to work with Eich" should have been. "Well, here's your pink slip."
Click to expand...

1) It did win.

2) It's a free country. People are free to choose not to do business with people whose opinions they find disgusting or people who are actively advocating and promoting things they find abhorrent or hateful.
 
Chas said:
Ah. Can't have "wrong think", now can we?

Again, is it illegal to have an opinion on gay marriage? No.
Is it illegal to contribute to a political campaign that holds an opinion similar to yours? No.

If, ultimately, the people are convinced that recognizing gay marriage is a Good Thing, it'll win. Period.

But damning people simply for holding an opinion contrary to yours, or fucking with their livelihood?

Dirty fucking pool man.

That sort of "pressure" is nothing more than angry mob action. But hey, you're the one wielding the pitchfork, so it's okay right? Until you aren't.

It's okay to disagree with and maybe not even like Eich. But this crybully bullshit needs to just stop.

You want to harp on the First Amendment? Explain where Eich's position had anything to do with his religion.
Regarding Reynolds, please point out what criminal action he took, ostensibly under the aegis of religion.
Regarding Everson, where did he violate the Establishment clause?

Honestly, the proper response to "I refuse to work with Eich" should have been. "Well, here's your pink slip."
Click to expand...
Its pretty clear its a "moral religious belief" Of course he is free to believe what ever he wants, those beliefs butt up against the law when they are used to deny rights guaranteed to others.

The bill in question like all like it was/are poorly written they never stand a challenge. Far to many people that should know better in the US like to try and fight loosing battles... wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of tax payer money. Which should infuriate citizens. If a political type claims they can wave a wand and draft a bill repealing rights already granted to anyone... it should be a red flag that they are either stupid or plain lying to you.

In 1947 Justice Hugo Black wrote of the 14th amendment "...No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State." Which means any state selling marriage certificates can not pass any law based on any religious bias. In the Loving case in 1967 the US supreme court ruled anti-miscegenation statutes unconstitutional Chief Justice Earl Warren invoked the earlier interpretation of the 14th amendment essentially removing ridiculous religious wording used to defend those laws. The loving case divorces religion from marriage as far as the Gov is concerned. The many rulings based on that case with out a doubt state that marriage is an individuals right and only the individual(s) have the right to determine if they wed or not wed. Really reading those rulings as a Canadian ;) Its mind boggling to me that American political types still try and convince their voters there is anything they can do legally to back track gay marriage. The only way it would be possible would be to rip up the 14th amendment, and go back to a time where the state could pass laws that disallowed marriage on any grounds a state saw fit... including skin colour.

People can have a personal belief in regards to the matter... a state can not. I am not saying this guy deserved to loose his job over a $1000 donation... I do question his education in US history though if he honestly believed the law he was supporting with that donation was constitutional. It happens here in Canada as well where seemingly educated people believe their personal religious beliefs can be made law. I am thankful we live in a time where people are able to demand people in leadership roles respect the separation of church and state.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
kumquat said:
1) It did win.

2) It's a free country. People are free to choose not to do business with people whose opinions they find disgusting or people who are actively advocating and promoting things they find abhorrent or hateful.
Click to expand...

1) and was repealed, because it wasn't a legal law.
2) I don't think any board of directors would stand behind a CEO who supported hate groups. You can argue that perhaps supporting a legal bill (to me as lawyer its almost worse) isn't close to that level.... having said that it was the boards decision to ask the guy to leave. I am not saying I agree, I don't believe his donation was on par with a donation to the KKK. However if you support legal action to remove a groups legal rights, you can't act shocked when that group takes exception. Mozilla turfed him because people where boycotting their product based on his actions. That's the life of the CEO, your the face of the company.
 
ChadD said:
1) and was repealed, because it wasn't a legal law.
2) I don't think any board of directors would stand behind a CEO who supported hate groups. You can argue that perhaps supporting a legal bill (to me as lawyer its almost worse) isn't close to that level.... having said that it was the boards decision to ask the guy to leave. I am not saying I agree, I don't believe his donation was on par with a donation to the KKK. However if you support legal action to remove a groups legal rights, you can't act shocked when that group takes exception. Mozilla turfed him because people where boycotting their product based on his actions. That's the life of the CEO, your the face of the company.
Click to expand...

"It did win" was a response to "if people are convinced recognizing gay marriage is a good thing, it'll win."

It did win. It has won. It's the law of the land now.
 
kumquat said:
"It did win" was a response to "if people are convinced recognizing gay marriage is a good thing, it'll win."

It did win. It has won. It's the law of the land now.
Click to expand...

My apologies was reading to many things at once I think. It should be pretty unassailable at this point... still I bet there are US politicians selling voters of their power to legislate it away. I mean that was the main issue with Prop 8. Prop 22 had already been struck down for including the exact same wording. The gov simply ignored that ruling and tried to reintro the exact same illegal law. I still can't comprehend how so many intelligent people thought that was going to work... what a waste of money.
 
ChadD said:
2) I don't think any board of directors would stand behind a CEO who supported hate groups.
Click to expand...

Okay. Not going to get a productive conversation out of you.

"Hate group"

Pfft. You don't have a goddamn clue what a hate group actually is...
 
Chas said:
Okay. Not going to get a productive conversation out of you.

"Hate group"

Pfft. You don't have a goddamn clue what a hate group actually is...
Click to expand...

My point wasn't that supporting illegal laws is akin to a hate group. You clearly didn't grok my meaning. All I was saying was the CEO position isn't the same as the janitor position at any company. Its their job to be the face... and a board of directors will turf a CEO for just about anything, if it causes any group of customers to start boycotts. Yes fair or not CEOs are held to a very different standard then the rest of us. It shouldn't be a shocker that a group of people that had already fought and won in that state agaist Prop 22 where more then a little annoyed when political and business leaders like Eich where seen to be supporting the rebirth of the exact same law they just successfully fought and proved illegal.
 
Last edited:
Not a single one of them looks like a mosaic Godzilla. They all fail
 
Terpfen said:
Chromium is the browser that Google slaps their proprietary and tracking stuff into to call it Chrome, equivalent to Webkit nightly builds (Apple forks Webkit to develop Safari releases.) It is fully functional, you just need to either build it yourself or download a build. I like this guy's builds. The Nik builds have additional codecs for things like HTML5 audio/video support.

Pale Moon has now forked Gecko, so it's basically an independent browser based on Gecko that looks like and is compatible with Firefox. Waterfox is a 64-bit build of Firefox with stuff like SIMD Extensions enabled, which Firefox does not ship with. Waterfox is more speed-oriented, Pale Moon is if you want the Firefox ecosystem but want to avoid supporting the SJW company itself.
Click to expand...

So, chromium is 100% functional but it's doesn't support HTML audio/video, huh? You have a funny definition of "fully functional". It supports webgl, though.

Why isn't mozilla not including these SIMD extensions?
 
dgz said:
So, chromium is 100% functional but it's doesn't support HTML audio/video, huh? You have a funny definition of "fully functional". It supports webgl, though.
Click to expand...

"Functions exactly like its more famous cousin minus all the bad things" is a pretty good definition of fully functional. Again: there are builds on that page that do support HTML5 audio and video. Use the Nik builds, like I expressly said to do, or go find other Chromium builds that include audio/video. What exactly are you complaining about here?

Why isn't mozilla not including these SIMD extensions?
Click to expand...

Nice double negative. :p

Mozilla doesn't compile with x64 exclusive flags because then they eliminate compatibility with older systems, which are a big portion of their tepid market share.
 
dgz said:
So, chromium is 100% functional but it's doesn't support HTML audio/video, huh? You have a funny definition of "fully functional". It supports webgl, though.

Why isn't mozilla not including these SIMD extensions?
Click to expand...

You seem to confuse functionality with installed codecs.
 
Terrible logos and a terrible web site as well. Aren't these guys an internet company? /s
 
B00nie said:
You seem to confuse functionality with installed codecs.
Click to expand...

Try new Audio(url).play() and report what happens. I don't get audio in chromium. I just downloaded it from that blogspot page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top