Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th Apr 2014 22:42 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones

Fortunately though, Mozilla keeps on trucking, and Firefox OS appears to be constantly improving. The latest version available is 1.3.0, with the latest preview being 1.4. Now, sources from China have gotten their hands on a ton of screenshots and new information regarding Firefox OS 2.0, and we must say, the UI looks quite pretty.

This looks quite good indeed.

Thread beginning with comment 586796
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: ...
by ddc_ on Wed 9th Apr 2014 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

"I don't trust Mozilla, actually I uninstalled Firefox (as thousands more)


As did I. I won't support any company that capitulates the way they did simply because the CEO exercised his personal free speech.
"
I never actually liked Firefox, but this kind of comments make me want it installed. It is amazing that after all those years of social development people still call "free speech" one's attempts at controling others' bedrooms.

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[3]: ...
by themwagency on Wed 9th Apr 2014 23:49 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
themwagency Member since:
2013-03-06

>"It is amazing that after all those years of social development people still call "free speech" one's attempts at controling others' bedrooms."

...or redefining the definition of marriage.

For the record, nobody was saying gays couldn't do what gays do in the bedroom.... or even have the same legal rights as married people. Marriage is a religious institution. It's redefinition is especially concerning to those of religious background. It was not about "hate" as was often implied or outright stated. It was simply an issue of definitions. Words mean things. When a group tries to change them there are ramifications for that change.

if the problem is about government's recognition of marriage then let the government stop doing so. The whole reason why the government played any involvement in the first place was to reinforce the family unit as this helps society. That is a moot point if the redefinition of marriage includes those you can't create a family naturally.

I don't want to get off track so I'm hoping you will let this side-thread about gay rights relative to christian rights end with this comment.

Edited 2014-04-09 23:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: ...
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 9th Apr 2014 23:54 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And I am exercising my right to free speech and end this particular thread right here.

Heed the warning.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: ...
by WereCatf on Thu 10th Apr 2014 02:53 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Marriage is a religious institution. It's redefinition is especially concerning to those of religious background. It was not about "hate" as was often implied or outright stated. It was simply an issue of definitions. Words mean things. When a group tries to change them there are ramifications for that change.


No. There are two things a marriage means: one is the religious one, and the other is the legal, government - driven one. LGBT - community is seeking equality with the latter, not the former. It's certainly not our fault that both the government and the church use the same word for different things and thus you cannot lay the blame on us.

Also, the LGBT - community isn't trying to "redefine" words, they are only seeking equality in the eyes of the law. It's you who is so horribly defensive about the term "marriage" when LGBT - community at large doesn't care what the term is as long as the rights are equal. Change the legal term to something other than "marriage" and no one cares!

All this is to say, stop being so defensive about the definition of a single god damn word.

Reply Parent Score: 5