For goodness sake, when are people going to understand that freedom of expression doesn't (and shouldn't) mean freedom from criticism. This is not a difficult concept people.
I haven't been paying overly close attention, but all of the reaction I have seen has generally been blog/twitter based expressions of sadness/disappointment/betrayal. Has it really escalated far beyond that? (Genuine question).
I've seen a few people say they won't be using Mozilla products any longer, which is up to them of course. I doubt it is any significant number of people.
The only thing I've seen that 'crossed the line' so to speak was the okcpuid thing urging users to stop using Firefox. I didn't see exactly what the message was. It sounded more like a marketing stunt to get some media attention. I think if it had been other people/companies targeted then people on HN would have been applauding their disruptive and entrepreneurial marketing department.
I don't see that that crosses any line, as such. It used to be very common for websites to tell people not to use Internet Explorer, sometimes on a purely technical basis, but often on a "Microsoft is evil" basis. This seems similar to the latter.
That's more of an accident of history, really. In his own words, Netscape told him to come up with something, anything, quick, and lo JavaScript was born. Had Netscape known that he was a closet homophobe, would they have hired him in the first place?
It's also much easier being an homophobe engineer rather than a homophobe CEO, because of the nature of the role. His technical achievements can be as impressive as you want and have no relation to his homophobia; being CEO is a role built on public relationships inside and outside the company, relationships that would be severely influenced by his (perceived) homophobia.
There were supposedly death threats, but I haven't seen any. In general though, and from an anecdotal perspective, various internet communities do seem to be more and more involved in 'causes' of various sorts.
Whether or not those causes lead to escalation seems to depend on the subject matter and participants, just like anything else really.
So that's what a "witch hunt" is these days, eh...people blog, comment on the blog, post the blog to social networks, comment on the social network posts, make claims about how they'll change their consuming habits in response to the post...
There once was a day when "witch hunt" actually referred to strapping live human beings to kindling and setting them ablaze.
The people who felt criticised by Eich's expression of criticism and then felt compelled to drive him out of his job would do well to remember that too, don't you think?
I don't see your point. I don't see anybody in here (yet) saying that the article we are discussing (or any other article defending Eich) shouldn't have been written or published - merely some people disagreeing with it. I have seen plenty of people over the last week or however long it has been saying criticism of Eich should not have been written or published because to criticise somebody for their views is being 'intolerant'.
What if people decided they're not cool with people who engage in witch hunts having jobs anymore? Doesn't matter because it won't happen? That's not morality though.
Nobody that I have seen said Eich shouldn't have any job anymore. Just that he wasn't a good choice for this particular leadership role.
I'm not privy to what happened within Mozilla, but it does sound like it was internal disagreements (i.e. Mozilla employees begin unhappy with the appointment) that lead to him leaving the post, more than bloggers or HN commenters. That is just the nature of taking a leadership role. If you can't take the staff with you then your position isn't tenable.
A CEO post have everything to do with the public perception you create of the company, though. And deservedly or not, his position coupled with his opinions on prop 8 have come to have an impact on the perception of Mozilla. In that respect, the personal views of a CEO often does have something to do with their personal views in a way that is rarely the case for less public-facing positions.
