Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

JavaScript Inventor Brendan Eich Named New CEO of Mozilla

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the man-with-the-plan dept.

Mozilla 112

darthcamaro (735685) writes "Mozilla today announcedthat Brendan Eich would be its new CEO . Eich had been serving as Mozilla's CTO and has been with Mozilla since day one — literally day one. Eich was a Netscape engineer when AOL decided to create the open-source Mozilla project in 1998. The choice of Eich as CEO seems obvious to some, after a string of recent short-tenured CEOs at Mozilla's helm."

cancel ×

112 comments

Welcome back, Brendan (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about 4 months ago | (#46568679)

Sorry about the mess...

Re:Welcome back, Brendan (3, Interesting)

davester666 (731373) | about 4 months ago | (#46571245)

um, shouldn't he be apologizing to us for Javascript...

Re:Welcome back, Brendan (0)

narcc (412956) | about 4 months ago | (#46571683)

Why?

Re:Welcome back, Brendan (2, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 months ago | (#46572075)

Why?

The name, for starters. How much untold confusion has that caused?

Then there's the language....

Still, JavaScript isn't any worse than all those other languages that the BASIC programmers of the world seem to prefer. Even if JavaScript hadn't 'won' it would have been something similar. Better the devil you know.

Re:Welcome back, Brendan (1)

narcc (412956) | about 3 months ago | (#46572239)

That doesn't really answer the question, does it? What do you think is wrong with the language?

Even if JavaScript hadn't 'won' it would have been something similar.

Really? It's pretty unique as far as programming languages go. Are you sure we're talking about the same thing?

Re:Welcome back, Brendan (1)

Megol (3135005) | about 3 months ago | (#46572515)

Just like you want arguments of what's wrong with Javascript I'd like some arguments why "It's pretty unique as far as programming languages go".

Personally I read the book "JavaScript: The Good Parts" wondering when it would be finished with describing patching the language to be marginally usable and come to the good parts. Sadly I arrived to the last page before finding that section.

Re:Welcome back, Brendan (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 4 months ago | (#46580993)

Those were the good parts. The parts you can monkey-patch into being useful.

Re:Welcome back, Brendan (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 3 months ago | (#46574863)

How about it was designed in an innocent time when there really wasn't any bad actors but instead of replacing it when they saw that there were baddies they just kept bolting shit on top, like bandaids on bullet wounds?

At the end of the day the entire concept is stupid.."Why yes I would like a dozen servers from around the planet to give me strange code which I'll run without the slightest care as to where its from or even what it is"...yeah and that is why we have JavaScript malware o' the day. What we need is something new which assumes that every page is filled with malware and take proper precautions, something designed from the ground up to work with least permissions and with best practices in mind.

And please don't give me the "its lasted this long" or "everybody uses it" excuses because that is what gave us a half a decade of IE 6 optimized pages, just because something is old or used a lot doesn't make it good, just makes it old and popular.

The name (1)

dgun (1056422) | about 3 months ago | (#46572921)

I don't know that the name was his fault. Originally it was called LiveScript and was changed to JavaScript for marketing purposes. Myself, I have never cared for the name "ECMAScript".

Javascript vs ECMAScript (1)

cyberhooligan77 (2612877) | about 3 months ago | (#46574953)

I frecuently have to explain to "HeadHunters" that Javascript & Java aren't the same thing. Sometimes, to I.T. students or undergraduates.

In many forums the name change is debated, but, many people is too used to the "Javascript" brand. There are also developers who argue that there are so many versions or implementations of Javascript, that does not conform to the ECMA standard, that believe its areason not to support the "ECMAScript" name.

Re:Welcome back, Brendan (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | about 3 months ago | (#46575295)

The only people that have experienced confusion from the Javascript name do not matter...but yeah, the language is insane, and I would apologize if I was the inventor.

Re:Welcome back, Brendan (1)

narcc (412956) | about 3 months ago | (#46575351)

Insane? How so?

Re:Welcome back, Brendan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46572203)

You wouldn't understand because you're not smart enough and have built your career around such bad technology.

Re:Welcome back, Brendan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46573035)

um, shouldn't he be apologizing to us for Javascript...

Eich--yeck! This language designer is beardless. That explains a lot about his nasty language.

Re:Welcome back, Brendan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46574413)

he should be apologizing for being a faggot

Javascript: the worst Internet development. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46568689)

Eich? Man!

Re:Javascript: the worst Internet development. (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#46568839)

He's now the Head Eich of Mozilla. (I can't believe I wrote that...)

Re:Javascript: the worst Internet development. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46569141)

Finally! The Rise of the Third Eich is upon us!

Hail him, Hail him!

Re:Javascript: the worst Internet development. (1)

relisher (2955441) | about 4 months ago | (#46570365)

(I can't believe I wrote that...)

Richard Stallman would call puns on other people's names onomastication, since it incites the response of "Oh No!"

Re:Javascript: the worst Internet development. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46569471)

It's a pity that you made the joke about "Eich? Man!", as it sidelined your subject title about Javascript which is a concern to many people, and a very serious one.

With this new CEO at the helm, Mozilla may be less inclined to provide controls over the insecurities and resource abuses created by Javascript, since a baby typically can do no wrong in the parent's eyes.

I hope that this won't be the case here, but with this new CEO such a possibility is raised.

Re:Javascript: the worst Internet development. (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#46569711)

I hope that this won't be the case here, but with this new CEO such a possibility is raised.

Well, presumably he has great decision making abilities and is a fantastic manager, since he's going from T to E.

That's gold shirt to red shirt (or the converse if you're old school) so ... while I don't know it for a fact, I think we can trust (hope?) that Mozilla isn't putting a dorkus nerd in charge of the company.

If he's a great manager and a great engineer, then he'll make a really great CEO.

Re:Javascript: the worst Internet development. (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 4 months ago | (#46570473)

sounds like he's full of hate; so I agree with you, he'll probably be a 'fine' CEO...

Re:Javascript: the worst Internet development. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46572233)

"Well, presumably he has great decision making abilities"

He decided to make Javascript in the way he made it, so no.

"If he's a great manager and a great engineer"

He decided to make Javascript in the way he made it, so no.

Long story short, he's the guy behind the most poorly designed mainstream language on earth and still believes it can be fixed, rather than that it should simply be replaced by a well designed ground up alternative.

Firefox was already going down the pan, hence why it's lost many millions of users in recent years. This guy wont change that - he's also a paid up gay hater so isn't exactly a rational clear thinking type either. The illogic that makes him think it's okay for some people to have less rights than others is probably the same illogic that makes Javascript crap (variables global by default, what?), so to imagine that he'll somehow start thinking rationally and logically now is probably a bit far fetched.

He's probably got the highest ratio of incompetence and success of anyone in the technology world, few quite as incompetent as this guy make it as far as this guy thankfully, but he's the stand out poster boy to show that even idiots can make it far if luck falls their way.

Re:Javascript: the worst Internet development. (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about 3 months ago | (#46572991)

He had nine days to invent the language. I doubt there are more than a handful of computer scientists in the world that could invent a good language that fast.

And the reason C++ became so popular is the migration path from pure C code and the migration path for pure C developers. The reason Java became so popular is marketing and the syntactical similarities with C and C++. Javascript piggybacked on that, and now it's everywhere. We will never be rid of it, your dream of a superior replacement will never take off because there's no practical migration path from Javascript to wherever it is you want the world to go.

Re:Javascript: the worst Internet development. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46569907)

Nah, PHP is even worse.

PHP isn't downloaded for execution in the client (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46570569)

Nah, PHP is even worse.

PHP doesn't bypass the firewall and get downloaded from arbitrary 3rd parties to execute on your machine, deep inside your privacy domain.

Those who believe in the security of their browser's software sandbox are prime candidates for being sold the Brooklyn Bridge. They clearly haven't been paying attention to the thousands of bugs, weaknesses, exploits, privilege escalations and privacy leaks in the Javascript engines, the DOM, and their respective browsers, which are legion and undoubtedly a delight to organized crime.

PHP, for all its woes and comedy, does at least stay put and executes at the server end of a web communication.

If Google Dart had a stock... (0)

Kongming (448396) | about 4 months ago | (#46568713)

...today would not be its best day. (As much as I wouldn't mind seeing a js alternative gain traction.)

Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (5, Informative)

CritterNYC (190163) | about 4 months ago | (#46568749)

There may be some backlash, such as RareBits pulling their app from the Firefox Marketplace [teamrarebit.com] , due to Brendan Eich's support of the anti-gay marriage Prop 8 initiative in CA [latimes.com] . Eich publicly responded back in 2012 [brendaneich.com] . The issue is being discussed on Hacker News [ycombinator.com] as well.

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46568935)

Eich's not going to be the only Head Eich with a head ache after this gets out, I tell you what.

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (5, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#46569025)

Dear Brendan,

gay people have the rights to be miserable too.

Signed,
someone who hopes more gay men means more single women.

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46574989)

I've got some bad news for you: All the single women are gay too (...or at least so they tell me).

fuck off tool (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46569075)

you're a failure at life with no actual skills. fuck off. take your political witch-hunting with you.

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46569149)

There may be some backlash due to Brendan Eich's support of the anti-gay marriage Prop 8 initiative in CA

So this Brandon Eich is a nasty little fascist, it would appear.

I'm not gay but any person who supports fascist measures like trying to control which set of consenting
adults is simply not a decent human being. Attempting to control such things is ugly and ignorant, and is
a fool's errrand as well, because people are going to do what makes them happy regardless of some damned
rule made by some fuckwit like Brandon Eich.

Maybe Eich will get cancer. I'd sort of enjoy hearing that was happening, to be honest, because I am pretty
goddamned tired of fascist pieces of shit who try to impose their rules on others.

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (3, Funny)

konohitowa (220547) | about 4 months ago | (#46571561)

Dude, if that ain't an understatement. Not only are you not gay, I'd wager you're not even mildly jovial.

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (2)

tylikcat (1578365) | about 4 months ago | (#46569555)

I do not think I'd feel especially comfortable to be a gay Mozilla employee right now. (Though I haven't heard that Mozilla internal culture is problematic.)

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46572321)

Between Brendan Eich and Gervase Markham, it was pretty uncomfortable.

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (1)

chefmonkey (140671) | about 4 months ago | (#46581061)

You might be interested in the perspective of one gay Mozilla employee, then: http://subfictional.com/2014/0... [subfictional.com]

He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46569637)

I'm amazed at how much negative feedback this is generating. He had to list his employer to make his donation, it wasn't Mozilla supporting Prop. 8. He seems like a genuinely nice guy, and (at least a few years ago) he was active in the newsgroups and willing to help / support developers. As to his support of Prop 8., I'm sure he had his reasons. He's entitled to his opinion and he's entitled to spend the money he has earned as he sees fit.

Just because an individual may not support gay marriage does not mean they also hate gay people. Personally I would prefer it if the state would just wash it's hand of the 'marriage' issue altogether. Introduce civil unions between people and award benefits and/or tax breaks accordingly. If (as some suggest) the motivation behind a tax break is primarily to help support children / raise a family, strip the benefit and award when they actually have children (their own, or adopted children). Leave marriage between individuals to the churches.

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (3, Insightful)

Fancia (710007) | about 4 months ago | (#46569829)

He's entitled to his opinion and he's entitled to spend the money he has earned as he sees fit.

The issue gets a lot more thorny when you remember that he's the CEO of the foundation and is now the ultimate authority on employee benefits. I've already seen people express concern that their top-level boss, or potential boss, thinks they should not be able to get married and has put forward money to try to make it that way.

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (1)

flagboy (670403) | about 3 months ago | (#46572315)

The CEO cannot unilaterally change company policy on employee benefits or anything else. And if the extent of his activism is to donate to a campaign 6 years ago (he has not spoken publicly on the issue very much) then it probably isn't a major issue for him.
And even he were a major campaign leader against gay marriage, it doesn't necessarily mean he is going to bring his politics into the Boardroom. The founder/owner of the Stagecoach bus company in the UK (Brian Souter) campaigned very strongly and publicly against the repeal of Section 28 (an statute that banned the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools), especially in Scotland, using his personal fortune to run an unofficial 'referendum' on the law there. However, Stagecoach has an excellent record as an equal-opportunities employer, with no-one expressing concern that Mr Souter was using his company as a platform for his own view on homosexuality or that its employment practices reflected it in any way.
Ultimately, limited companies are not Leninist organizations, in the sense of being the personal tool of the CEO. The CEO has to answer to the Board and if he did want to change Mozilla employment practice to discriminate against gays, or use corporate money to finance an anti-gay-marriage campaign, other Board members would have to agree to it.

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46573171)

He's entitled to his opinion and he's entitled to spend the money he has earned as he sees fit.

The issue gets a lot more thorny when you remember that he's the CEO of the foundation and is now the ultimate authority on employee benefits. I've already seen people express concern that their top-level boss, or potential boss, thinks they should not be able to get married and has put forward money to try to make it that way.

Well they shouldn't be able to get married. The states constitution says so whether you or your friends like it or not. If you want that changed then change the constitution instead of running around like whiny bitches.

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46569857)

Leave marriage between individuals to the churches.

I would be okay with this if it meant that there was no longer such a thing as legally defined marriage. If people could only get legal civil unions, calling it marriage could be a personal choice.

I know some people who would never get married due to the sexist origins of the term; I wonder whether the same would be said for civil unions.

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46569889)

That won't work. The whole country is run by religious fundamentalists. Religion should be classified as any other hobby.

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46570629)

As to his support of Prop 8., I'm sure he had his reasons.

Yes. That reason is he's a piss-drinking fuckwit who should be voted off the island.

Hurr durr opinionz lololol.

No. Fuck off. Nobody is entitled to shit down the throat of Liberty. If you think it's cool to attempt to enact legislation to deny equality to people - over a matter which has absofuckinglutely no bearing on yourself - you're fucking wrong.

Disclaimer: Strong words because you asslicking fuckheads are reprehensible nut drizzlings. Embarassments to humanity itself, the lot of you.

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46571595)

Jerk off, the world would be better off without clowns like you dictating how people should think.

There are valid reasons for supporting prop 9 that aren't anti-gay.

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (1)

madbrain (11432) | about 3 months ago | (#46572401)

It was prop 8, not prop 9, and it is now defunct.

As for those "valid reasons" that aren't anti-gay", if there are some, please enlighten us, as nobody on the "Yes on Prop 8" team during the trial could make a rational argument that wasn't anti-gay.

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46572867)

As for those "valid reasons" that aren't anti-gay", if there are some, please enlighten us..

How about a basic Epicurean argument? Like most people, I'm happy to tolerate gay partnerships. I'm not so happy about being forced to endorse gay marriage ("marriage" is, in essence, societal endorsement of a partnership). I'm very unhappy about subsidizing gay marriage - blindly offering gay couples the same immigration, benefit and adoption privileges as heterosexual couples.

I'm not so much "anti-gay" as "anti-being-forced-to-be-pro-gay".

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46574515)

Well, I'm very unhappy about subsidizing the marriages of those opposed to equal rights for everyone, but I still have to do it because that's how society works. If it were up to me, not a penny of my money would go to people who oppose equal rights.

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46570785)

He seems like a genuinely nice guy,

... who apparently doesn't like gay people('s rights). That's called "being a dick" or "interfering in other people's lives". In conclusion: Fuck him.

Hmmm Not aiming this at you, I am not atacking yo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46571695)

First off marriage is just stupid.

Second people treat marriage as if it has no real meaning. They do it because they have no choice in this country with its stupid laws/rules.
If your religious, what part of the bible did your retarded ass not understand about not judging people?

Part of judging people, means your not suppose to pass laws or rules to oppress them, this it is vanity, your trying to play GOD.
You let people make their choice, and allowing God to determine if they're worthy of forgiveness based on there soul/heart.
I don't believe any of this crap, and yet I seem to know more about Christian religion then most. And even Priests say the same... It isn't your job to play God.

Third, why in the hell do you have to be married in order to qualify for certain benefits in this country? I really wish people would attack the laws and file suits in order to get rid of these stupid laws.

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (0)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | about 4 months ago | (#46571779)

Contravening the fundamental right to pursue happiness as a free man is unforgivable. Skewer the homophobe and every last one of his ilk.

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (1)

dabadab (126782) | about 3 months ago | (#46572329)

I'm amazed at how much negative feedback this is generating.

He is spending money to fuck with other people. And not in the literal sense. Frankly, if he would donate to a campaign to ban disabled parking spaces I would be a lot more understanding because there he could gain something. But supporting prop 8 is just pure jerkage.

Just because an individual may not support gay marriage does not mean they also hate gay people.

In my experience, yes, it does.
There may be some pseudo-rational mumbo-jumbo but it almost boils down to outright homophobia.

Personally I would prefer it if the state would just wash it's hand of the 'marriage' issue altogether. Introduce civil unions between people and award benefits and/or tax breaks accordingly.

So you propose that in the future marriage be called civil union, because...?

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46574551)

Marriage has a religious component. People can claim that marriage is only valid as it's described in their holy scripture, whereas a civil union is a purely political construct that has no additional historical / religious baggage. Honestly, I don't agree with the idea to just do civil unions for everyone, and having different names for gay and straight versions of the same basic principle is a terrible idea, but the religious aspect is usually why people suggest "make civil unions equal to marriage in the eyes of government and call it a day".

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46572331)

He seems like a genuinely nice guy

Except the treating gays as less than human, and putting forward his own money to do so. That's the behavior of a genuinely not so nice guy.

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (0)

StormReaver (59959) | about 3 months ago | (#46572541)

He's entitled to his opinion and he's entitled to spend the money he has earned as he sees fit.

And everyone else is entitled to their opinion that he's a hateful asshole. What you're saying is, "he's entitled to his opinion, but no one else is entitled to a contrary opinion."

Re:He's entitled to spend his money as he wishes.. (1)

devent (1627873) | about 3 months ago | (#46574587)

> Just because an individual may not support gay marriage does not mean they also hate gay people.

"I not hate black people, but black people should drink from a special sink, or should use a different entrance to bars". That is state and federal law what we are talking about, not some personal opinions. If marriage would be just a religious ceremony, then there would be no debate about gay marriage. But we are talking about the legal status of marriage, that have legal aspects, like tax breaks, property rights, etc. And laws against gay marriage are not about the religious ceremony, it's about the state and federal acknowledgement of a civil status. You are bear some people of some state and federal privileges because they are born like they are born.

> Leave marriage between individuals to the churches.

Yes, I wish. Tell that to the government. There are in the USA about 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. Please let your government know that you would like to abolish all of them.

[1] http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d... [gao.gov]

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 3 months ago | (#46572905)

I am sure that losing a clone of pixelated will be devastating to the Firefox OS marketplace.

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (0)

geek (5680) | about 3 months ago | (#46573187)

There may be some backlash, such as RareBits pulling their app from the Firefox Marketplace [teamrarebit.com] , due to Brendan Eich's support of the anti-gay marriage Prop 8 initiative in CA [latimes.com] . Eich publicly responded back in 2012 [brendaneich.com] . The issue is being discussed on Hacker News [ycombinator.com] as well.

I'm against gay marriage. I think it's ridiculous that people who aren't religious want to engage in a religious institution. That said, the type of attitude you have is much much worse than anything you could possibly ascribe to me. You wish not to discriminate against gays, fine, but then turn around and want to discriminate against people like Eich and myself.

You're a hypocrite of the worst kind. Eich is free to disagree with gay marriage all he likes. If he breaks a law then you can kick and scream and stamp your feet like a fucking child, until then piss off.

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46573551)

I'm against gay marriage. I think it's ridiculous that people who aren't religious want to engage in a religious institution.

I agree with the latter (I'm a gay anti-marriage atheist), but you seem to think that there are no religious gay people. That's a strange belief.

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (1)

CritterNYC (190163) | about 3 months ago | (#46574351)

You do realize you're calling me a hypocrite when I never expressed an opinion. That's a bit telling.

Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one (2)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | about 3 months ago | (#46574429)

Let's not equate you being "discriminated against" by so-far-mostly-polite comments on a message board, to people being discriminated against by denying them spousal rights. It's also incorrect to suggest that marriage is somehow a religious institution -- it most certainly preceded all current religions. In point of fact it is primarily a legal construct, which is why we discuss it in terms of civil rights and not e.g. theology.

No one really cares about Eich, it's just an excuse for opination. Your opinion appears to be incorrect and impolite. Personally, I don't see what difference it might make to you whether I should choose to be married to a man or a woman, but you needn't attend the ceremony. I will console myself with the knowedge that the tide of opinion is flowing against you. This discussion is obsolete: each day brings the death of old reactionaries and the birth of scores who will not be taught to hate.

P. S. Reason being preferable to ad hominem invective, you might disengage your spleen from your keyboard.

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46574611)

Fifty years from now, I doubt people will see this argument any differently than we see the fight for equality that African Americans fought in the fifties and sixties (and onwards). Sure, there will still be "racist" assholes who believe we should limit people's rights based on who they fall in love with, but the vast majority will just see everyone who opposed gay marriage as antiquated bigots with nothing better to do than worry about what goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Tell me you can look at these people and not see the parallels:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46578591)

I'm against gay marriage. I think it's ridiculous that people who aren't religious want to engage in a religious institution.

[At least one post has already disabused you of the notion that marriage is a strictly religious institution.]

So, are you also against atheist (and agnostic, and so on) heterosexual couples marrying in a civil ceremony? If so, please describe why those are OK, but gay marriage isn't, not even those which are performed by certain subsets of Christianity which accept them and will perform the ceremony (thus negating your foolishly presumptive "aren't religious" litmus test). Or if not, please elaborate on why you think an atheist male like me has no business marrying some atheist female. What about a heterosexual marriage between a Buddhist and a Muslim - does that meet with your approval? A hetero Scientologist and Moonie marrying? If you're OK with that last one, can I just declare myself to be of some made-up religion and marry any female I want, or do I have to go the whole L. Ron Hubbard route and get it officially recognized just to win a bar bet with another SciFi author? Would any of your answers change if we changed the context from heterosexual religious marriage to homosexual yet still religious marriage?

You're a hypocrite of the worst kind. Eich is free to disagree with gay marriage all he likes.

Well, with a moniker of "geek", I would expect you to be able to comprehend the difference between disagreeing with something and actively working to prevent it. By analogy, I disagree with the inane froth spouted by the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and at least two hosts of shows on MSNBC, yet I have no intention of actively trying to suppress any of their free speech rights. Does that make the difference clear to you?

I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that you don't have well-constructed, broadly coherent answers to my questions. Thus, I suspect that if you were to be brutally honest with us (or perhaps even yourself), the basis of your stance is almost certainly something like "Gays are icky and I don't want to see gay parents holding hands while attending high school football games".

And just to be clear, disagreeing with you is not congruent with discriminating against you. Sometimes the low UID stereotype fails to hold...

- T

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46573547)

Anti gay-marriage? And to think that I thought that Eich had no redeeming qualities.

Re:Possible backlash over Prop 8 support (2)

devent (1627873) | about 3 months ago | (#46574501)

Eich's respond in 2012 is not very convincing. Just replace "gay people should not allow to marry" with "black people should not allow to marry", or "Asian people should not allow to marry". The issue of gay marriage have nothing to do with religion or personal opinions. It is an issue because married couples have certain advantages under the law, like tax breaks, property rights, etc. And to support a bill that will disallow certain state granted advantages to some people only on the reason that those people are born like they are born is bigotry. Eich should apologize to support such a bill.

Congratulations! (1)

movdqa (1122661) | about 4 months ago | (#46568753)

Met him in Whistler back in 2008 when he was doing JIT.

That's why they say... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46568791)

to Eich his own!

AOL created Mozilla? (1)

Gregg M (2076) | about 4 months ago | (#46569161)

"AOL decided to create the open-source Mozilla project in 1998"

I don't think AOL would have created an open source browser. AOL never did anything with Netscape.

Re:AOL created Mozilla? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 4 months ago | (#46569653)

That's why they released the source code starting the mozilla project (not the same as mozilla).

Re:AOL created Mozilla? (0)

linuxci (3530) | about 4 months ago | (#46570463)

No. AOL bought Netscape after they decided to open source their browser

Re:AOL created Mozilla? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46571305)

No. AOL bought Netscape after they decided to open source their browser

You have the order of operations backwards. AOL bought Netscape in 1998, primarily to get the netscape.com portal, and Netscape Enterprise Server was handed over to Sun.

The Netscape browser languished under this structure, and The Mozilla Foundation was created in 2003, to spin off the browser as open source.

-Someone else who was acquired by AOL in 1998 and who still has the "Netscape 6" fleece vest we all got when it was released

Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46570641)

i was one of the guys that netscape gave the source code too , ot release to everyone it was the communicator 5 source...AOL later with that code created mozilla.

it was one reason a lot of us took source and created our own browsers and moved away for a while

btw i our server admin went to work at pentagon,,,,,i became president of f hacker club....
lots a knowledge when you bring everyone of all kinds from pirates to hackers and sys admins to one spot and let them play...

i got to learn what hacks worked and how to fix a lot....so did that sys admin....ya know whom you are hercules....

Re:AOL created Mozilla? (-1, Flamebait)

madbrain (11432) | about 3 months ago | (#46572357)

The acquisition of Netscape by AOL closed in March 1997. I was there, as the last pre-AOL Netscape hire.

It was indeed under AOL that the Netscape Navigator was open-sourced under Mozilla.

Re:AOL created Mozilla? (1)

madbrain (11432) | about 3 months ago | (#46572385)

I guess I am too old, acquisition closed in 1999, not 1997. Someone should delete my post above. Apparently slashdot doesn't let one delete their own comments..

The "Proprietary Codec" guy? (2)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | about 4 months ago | (#46569313)

Wasn't he the one who's been pushing so hard to get proprietary codecs being used in Firefox? (Not just h.264, but also the proprietary OTOY "orbx.js" codec for remote video)

Re:The "Proprietary Codec" guy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46569655)

No, he's the one who gave in after Google refused to remove h.264 support in favor of their own VP8 codec.

Re:The "Proprietary Codec" guy? (2)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | about 4 months ago | (#46569775)

Po-TAY-to, Po-TAH-to... :-)
(If h.264/mp3/aac was the only issue I wouldn't be all that worried, but the "ORBX.js" followup makes it seem like Eich doesn't really care beyond "as long as 'consumers' don't have to pay money to 'consume', who cares if 'producing' is by proprietary permission only?")

Seems the CEO numbering scheme... (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 4 months ago | (#46569827)

The choice of Eich as CEO seems obvious to some, after a string of recent short-tenured CEOs at Mozilla's helm.

... mirrors the one used for the Mozilla products. I predict there will be a new Firefox and CEO next month.

Re:Seems the CEO numbering scheme... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46571797)

The most recent version of Firefox is the least stable in years, in my experience.

exaggeration (1)

spage (73271) | about 3 months ago | (#46572069)

after a string of recent short-tenured CEOs at Mozilla's helm.
Kovacs became CEO in 2010, and announced his departure in 2013, I think 7-year veteran Jay Sullivan has been acting CEO since then. Before that John Lilly was CEO for 2 years, taking over from Mitchell Baker who remains as Chairman. Two short-term CEOs in a row makes a pair, not a string.

People who don't like Firefox's six-week release cadence can quit bitching and run the Firefox Extended Support Release [mozilla.org] .

Here's what a real "string of short-tenured CEOs" (1)

spage (73271) | about 3 months ago | (#46572089)

  * Marissa Mayer (2012–)
  * Ross Levinsohn _Interim_ (2012)
  * Scott Thompson (2012)
  * Tim Morse _Interim_ (2011–2012)
  * Carol Bartz (2009–2011)
  * Jerry Yang (2007–2009)

Re:Seems the CEO numbering scheme... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46572369)

"use strict"

throw new Eich(); // eh, welcome, brendan!

HEY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46570591)

i was one of the 60 or so helped netscape get out that code....not a bad choice.

I thought (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 4 months ago | (#46570789)

that the Eich were a bunch of evil aliens, enemy of the Lensman series (E E Doc Smith)

Invented (1)

konohitowa (220547) | about 4 months ago | (#46571551)

Does it make sense that we would elevate the creation of an interpreted C variant to the level of invention? It reminds me of a self-promotor type who was bending my ear with the tale of how his team "invented an XML" - meaning, they came up with an XML spec for their data.

Re:Invented (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46572473)

What have you made that I've heard of?

Oh right, nothing.

Re:Invented (1)

konohitowa (220547) | about 3 months ago | (#46576929)

As it turns out, you're wrong. You use my products almost any time you fly commercially. My picture is etched in gold and orbiting the earth. Now, you I've heard of - AC must be the most common commenter on /. who throws around trash talk with no ability to back it up.

Re:Invented (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46581923)

No need to get upset, Brendan. I can only hope that you at least used vi when you messed up my Java implementation. I'd like to have had some positive influence on you. -BJ

Re:Invented (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46573039)

> an interpreted C variant
The only thing JS borrows from C is (most of) the syntax. Semantically, the languages are about as dissimilar as you can get.

Re:Invented (1)

konohitowa (220547) | about 3 months ago | (#46576939)

awk

Goodbye Dart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46571671)

Now that the inventor of Javascript is running Mozilla, they'll never implement Google's Dart language natively.
Captcha: outvoted

Communication skills (1)

Pascal Sartoretti (454385) | about 4 months ago | (#46571793)

I once saw Brenda Eich at a conference in Amsterdam maybe 10 years ago, where he did the final keynote.

As usual for such conferences in Europe, 90% of the audience was not of English mother tongue, but spoke and understood it quite well (thanks, Slashdot). But Eich's keynote was barely understandable to many people : he managed to speak at the same time too fast and too low, with inside jokes that only a few Americans seemed to understand.

Most of us thought "What a jerk".

Re:Communication skills (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46573677)

"Brenda"? Are you saying this heterosexist is actually trans?

Re:Communication skills (1)

Pascal Sartoretti (454385) | about 3 months ago | (#46573749)

"Brenda"? Are you saying this heterosexist is actually trans?

Freudian slip...

Tech companies live from technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46572153)

Hopefully the Mozilla will get the "experience" designers in order and hire more developers instead of them. Many of us use Firefox due its customizability and technical advances, not since it has a new icon and it looks like Chrome. Please fix the existing issues instead of concentrating on cloning UI mistakes from the others. Why does one need to periodically clear the profile to keep FF responsive? Why is the damn browser single threaded, so a one misbehaving tab/flash-ad will freeze the whole browser?

Misuse of the word inventor (1)

Megol (3135005) | about 3 months ago | (#46572441)

A programming language can surely be _inventive_ by creating new methods of programming, the creation of functional programming as a usable method of programming is surely inventive (though it is based on mathematics which that didn't invent). But Javascript is in no way inventive. It was created using well known, already used methods. Polishing of known things aren't the same as inventing.

TL;DR Javascript was created, not invented. IMHO of course.

An obvious and practical example ... (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | about 3 months ago | (#46574543)

... of prototypical, and not class, inheritance. Which is not to say Brendan doesn't have class, in fact he is a prototypical classy guy.

UI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46574619)

Maybe he can help to bring Firefox back to where it should be, instead of making it a Chrome-with-another-rendering-engine clone.

eich (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46575541)

The world had s-expressions and common lisp sitting right there in front of it, but no, no no. Instead geniuses like Eich dragged us all down into the ditch while they reinvented a SUPREMELY INFERIOR wheel with rotten wooden spokes called "javascript" and "XML" and "JSON". At least 20 years WASTED on crap tools such as these

In the immortal words of Steely Dan, "the things that pass for knowledge, I can't understand.."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...