[GekkePrutser]

Fair enough. The whole gay marriage thing just really annoyed me. I have some close friends who are struggling with such prejudice every day. And that's in a country where marriage isn't a problem for them.

It's one thing for an employee to have private views but another for a CEO to actively try and influence the law. Especially for something that's in my opinion totally a private matter between people. I don't want to support the brand because of that.

But I'm not doubting his skills as an engineer. It's more about the brand and its values. For a public figure like a CEO these things are hard to separate, I understand that. But we live in a world where a brand is more than just a name on a sticker. If I'm using it I'm also supporting the associated values.

But I agree the way I said it was hyperbolic.

[soundnote]

For me it's exactly that Firefox is actively activist in more than a web standards and privacy type sense that made me drop them. I don't need a browser maker to be interested in telling me what I should see.

[slightwinder]

> It's one thing for an employee to have private views but another for a CEO to actively try and influence the law.

Which he did not. He wasn't CEO at that time. He made "small" donations from his own money under his own name years before his appointment. And at no point did he abused Mozilla for any personal political goal of him AFAIK. He just was an employee supporting his own private views. Just that he is a bit more famous than your average employee.