×

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!

The Economist on Mitchell Baker

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the lizard-wrangler-and-fox-driver dept.

Mozilla 122

Sara Chan writes "The Economist has a story about a trapeze artist who, in her spare time, is the Chief Lizard Wrangler at a non-profit. You perhaps know her as Mitchell Baker, leader of Firefox." From the article: "Ms Baker gradually found herself the leader of this project. Perhaps this is because she is a somewhat unusual member of the Netscape diaspora. For a start, she is a woman in a community populated, as one (male) colleague puts it, by geeky males with 'spare time and no social life'. Ms Baker herself has never even written code. She studied Chinese at Berkeley, and then became a lawyer--her role at the old Netscape was in software licensing. On all technical matters, she defers to Brendan Eich, her chief geek."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

122 comments

Off topic, but... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14271443)

...the trapeze is strangely arousing.

Re:Off topic, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14271449)

As are the lizards...

Re:Off topic, but... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14271646)

You perhaps know her as Mitchell Baker, leader of Firefox.

I know her as the fucking whore that completely fucked up the promising Firebird-product and turned into the bug-ridden, bloated monstrosity that Firefox is today.

Thank you very much, Mitchell!

More about her... (5, Informative)

skochak (723803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271452)

Trained as a lawyer, Baker coordinates business and policy issues and sits on the both Mozilla Foundation Board of Directors and the Mozilla Corporation Board of Directors. In 2005, Time magazine included her in the 2005 Time 100, the magazine's annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker [wikipedia.org]

Re:More about her... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14271568)

More about her...Conflicting Interests. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14271595)

"Trained as a lawyer"

But, but, I thought we didn't like lawyers. but we like women...*HEAD EXPLODES*

Re:More about her...Conflicting Interests. (0)

leonmergen (807379) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271755)

But, but, I thought we didn't like lawyers. but we like women...*HEAD EXPLODES*

Aaahhh, she's not really that hot anyway... so let's just dislike her for being a lawyer... :-P

Re:More about her...Conflicting Interests. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14273267)

Plus, she has a guy's name.

Amazingly socially unsophisticated. (4, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271463)

This is not a troll. And, I agree it is unfortunate. However, I saw Mitchell Baker being interviewed by Charlie Rose. She was amazingly socially unsophisticated. She said she had no technical knowledge, but is a lawyer. She gave the impression that she needs to be replaced by someone more capable.

She gave such a poor account of herself that Charlie Rose was visibly embarrassed. That's the only time I've seen Charlie Rose embarrassed in the many years I've watched his interviews.

Don't think you are being loyal to Mozilla by supporting someone who is so obviously not suited to be a leader.

Re:Amazingly socially unsophisticated. (2, Funny)

keester (646050) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271484)

Socially inept? Maybe that explains why she gets along with so many geeks? Are you a geek? Are you at the wrong website?

Re:Amazingly socially unsophisticated. (2, Insightful)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271810)

In fairness, one data point does not a useful judgement make.
What was the mental/physical context of the interview? How much lead time did the interviewee have? How many on-camera hours had the interviewee logged prior to the debacle in question?
I'm reminded of teh 1992 vice-presidential debates, when now-deceased VADM James Stockdale looked horrible on camera. Yet, all nonsense aside, he was an impeccable of leadership and courage. Say what you will of Perot. ;)
The fact that she's performed as a trapeze artist indicates no small personal courage, if nothing else.

Re:Amazingly socially unsophisticated. (2, Interesting)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272139)

In fairness, one data point does not a useful judgement make.

I think three data points suggest that FuturePower(R) has more of an interest in this than just having seen an unimpressive interview. It sounds more like a personal grudge.

Socially unsophisticated [slashdot.org]

OMG she used the word "geek". [slashdot.org]

Getting the developers to refuse to fix bugs [slashdot.org]

I don't know what he's got against her but it looks far from neutral.

Re:Amazingly socially unsophisticated. (4, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271508)

I think she's proven as a decision maker and project manager although.

Show on which Mitchell Baker appeared (2, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271521)

Unfortunately, the Charlie Rose show charges $30 for a copy of the show on which Mitchell Baker appeared [charlierose.com].

Transcripts are cheaper, but the Charlie Rose show does not guarantee the accuracy of its transcripts.

Mozilla "... crashes or locks up on me daily..." (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272171)

Quote from a comment posted below: Mozilla browser "... crashes or locks up on me daily...". (From the comment Never written any code [slashdot.org].)

As the comment poster says, that is evidence of poor leadership.

Can you elaborate on that? (0, Troll)

wombatmobile (623057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271575)

She was amazingly socially unsophisticated.

I'm not sure what that means. Could you elaborate?

She said she had no technical knowledge, but is a lawyer. She gave the impression that she needs to be replaced by someone more capable.

You are hiding behind a linguistic construct called the passive voice to express an opinion. But what is the basis for your opinion? You simply do not say.

Re:Can you elaborate on that? (1)

ghjm (8918) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271706)

Not sure if you're trolling or serious, but nothing the GP wrote was in the passive voice. The GP provided a clear subject, object and predicate in each sentence.

If he had been using the passive voice, he would have written: "It was said she had no technical knowledge, but is a lawyer. The impression was given that she needs to be replaced by someone more capable." Your criticism would then be valid.

As it stands, the GP clearly stated an opinion, and stated the basis for that opinion: He watched the show and formed an impression based on the remarks of Ms. Baker.

All that aside, I would also like to know what the GP meant by "socially unsophisticated."

-Graham

Re:Can you elaborate on that? (1, Flamebait)

wombatmobile (623057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271947)

Not sure if you're trolling or serious,

I was not trolling, no.

but nothing the GP wrote was in the passive voice. The GP provided a clear subject, object and predicate in each sentence.

This:

She gave the impression that she needs to be replaced

You say:

If he had been using the passive voice, he would have written: "It was said she had no technical knowledge, but is a lawyer. The impression was given that she needs to be replaced by someone more capable." Your criticism would then be valid.

But no. The phrase "She gave the impression" is passive voice, disguised with a sneaky reversal. You see, an impression is not something that is given, it is something that is received. The author was expressing an opinion, not reporting a fact.

Like you, I wonder why.

Re:Can you elaborate on that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272212)

> The phrase "She gave the impression" is passive voice, disguised with a sneaky reversal.

It's active voice. The "reversal" you describe has nothing to do with the voice of the predicate, and everything to do with the verb's subject. Writing "She gave the impression" in place of "I concluded" or "I inferred" has everything to do with shifting the subject (and perhaps the blame!) to her, but it does not rely on the passive voice. If anything, the only passive construct in that sentence was the infinitive:

"to be replaced"

Re:Can you elaborate on that? (1)

wombatmobile (623057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272282)

Thanks, you are right about the language. It is active voice and what I was trying to highlight was "shifting the subject".

Let's not even talk about how someone can "give the impression she needs to be replaced".

Re:Can you elaborate on that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272424)

The post clearly substantiated the reason she gave the impression that she needed to be replaced. You both conveniently forgot the preceding sentence, apparently in a fit of anality (no, that's not a word).

"She said she had no technical knowledge, but is a lawyer."

Hence, ergo, etc... she gave the impression, by saying "she had no technical knowledge, but is a lawyer", that she is not qualified.

So, language lawyery (no, that's not a word) aside, I don't know what the fuck you two are carrying on about.

Re:Amazingly socially unsophisticated. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14271602)

Don't think you are being loyal to Mozilla by supporting someone who is so obviously not suited to be a leader.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Geroge Dubya is just as unsophisticated, has given many more highly embarrassing interviews, has practically no knowledge whatsoever, and also gives the impression that he needs to be replaced by someone more capable. And yet he's the leader of.... ...damn, you're right after all!

Re:Amazingly socially unsophisticated. (2, Insightful)

Ckwop (707653) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271714)

She gave such a poor account of herself that Charlie Rose was visibly embarrassed.

There's this view in the tech world that in order to be head of a great software development house you have to be a geek. This is rubbish.

Developing what it takes to be a great software company is just the same as being great in any other industry. It take three things from a leader to mak this happen:

  • Instill good displine.
  • Be aware of knowing what's going on an all aspects of the enterprise.
  • And above all else, have people you can trust to handle decisions you're not qualified to make

From the sounds of it, she has all three. Hats off to her, I say

Simon

Re:Amazingly socially unsophisticated. (1)

C10H14N2 (640033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271818)

...add to that, you don't have to be a "geek" to be a good anything. That label is already an anachronism from a time when the unwashed masses couldn't find the power switch on a TRS-80. The last few jobs I've had, I landed with those who hired me stating point blank that one of the important qualifications was _not_ being a "geek" i.e. social skills are required, perhaps also the ability to show up for a meeting and not be dressed like the janitor and possibly when chatting with the CEO, have something to talk about other than your latest schwag haul from the Star Wars convention. Unless you actually work for "Geek Squad" at Worst Buy, please stop the self-deprecation.

Re:Amazingly socially unsophisticated. (5, Insightful)

ajnsue (773317) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271736)

That is the best thing I have heard in a long time. A person who is not slick or commercial - becoming an effective leader of a succesful project. Makes you think that competency had something to do with her accomplishments rather that self-marketing.
This and the sentencing of Ebbers and other CEO's makes me think that maybe the Earth is slowly being returned to its correct ethical axis

Re:Amazingly socially unsophisticated. (1)

Reducer2001 (197985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14273028)

This and the sentencing of Ebbers and other CEO's makes me think that maybe the Earth is slowly being returned to its correct ethical axis

Think again! [bbc.co.uk]

Leadership problem? (2, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271754)

This seems to be a leadership problem: There is a huge well-known bug in Firefox 1.5, the CPU and memory hogging bug. Developers refuse to fix it, even though anyone can demonstrate the bug easily. Apparently there is some kind of social problem. Maybe no one has the authority to deal with a major bug. It seems to be the kind of problem that can exist when a programming team is led by someone with no technical knowledge.

This bug has been reported to Bugzilla, and is very easy to reproduce (see below), but Firefox developers have marked it invalid because there is not enough specific information! The bug has existed in Firefox for more than 2 years, and several people report that it is worse in Firefox 1.5. Firefox's Bugzilla does not allow direct links from Slashdot, so copy and paste Bugzilla URLs into a new tab. Remove the space:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131 456
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=222 660


See comments #48 and #49 of bug 222660 for an example of the symptoms under Windows XP. A typical Windows Task Manager screen shot attached to comment #49 shows the "I/O Other Bytes" increasing by 20K/second with no program activity. At that point, the bug was not yet showing the worst symptoms.

The huge memory use, and 94% CPU use or more with no activity, normally occur after opening and closing many Firefox windows and tabs, as happens when researching something on the internet over a period of hours or days. The bug symptoms are worse after putting the computer on standby or after hibernating. My experience has been that the memory and CPU hogging always occur together, so they appear to be the same bug. However, the CPU hogging symptom takes longer to appear. If the computer has perhaps 256 Megabytes of memory, the most obvious symptom at the beginning is hard disk thrashing.

You can demonstrate the memory use problem quickly by loading and closing the following large web page into multiple Firefox tabs a few times:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_mono/ libc.html [gnu.org]. To see the memory and CPU percentage used in Windows, right-click on the Taskbar and choose Task Manager. Choose the Processes tab.This demonstrates one aspect of the bug, but is not representative of big occuring in normal use, since that web page is huge.

Maybe the only solution is for a developer who knows the code to reproduce the problem and see what causes it. It is not clear to me why they are unwilling to do so. This bug seems especially interesting to me. It is likely that fixing this bug will fix other issues. It is likely that fixing this bug will make it easier to work on the Firefox code.

The bug has often been reported on Slashdot. Here are a few examples:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169676&cid=141 43632 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168683&cid=140 62501 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168683&cid=140 62671 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168683&cid=140 66613 [slashdot.org]

I posted the bug numbered 222660 in Bugzilla. It is interesting to note that apparently no developer has bothered to read the entire bug report and take the time to understand it. For 2 1/2 years, developers have been saying things like this: 1) Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly version. 2) Yes, this bug exists, but it isn't important. 3) No one has posted a TalkBack report. (If they read the bug report, they would know that there is never a TalkBack report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too.) 4) If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug. 5) This bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is invalid. (The other bugs aren't specified.) 6) You are using Firefox in a way that would crash any software. 7) I don't like the way you worded your report. 8) You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself.

Often someone uses the subject to act out anger; that person only pretends to be interested in the subject, when the real purpose is to find someone to be a target for anger.

I doubt this subject will just go away, not after more than 2 1/2 years of discussion. There has been a Slashdot story about it: Reducing Firefox's Memory Use [slashdot.org]. There's a lot of discussion in the comments to that story that suggest that the problem is a bug, rather than just something that needs improving.

Other people have raised the issue, all somewhat inaccurately, since the "memory leak" is associated with CPU hogging:

Parent post is evidence of a leadership problem. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272055)

Bored moderators: A discussion of a serious bug that has not been adequately investigated is not off topic. It is evidence of a leadership problem. That's what is being discussed, Mitchell Baker's leadership, or lack thereof.

Re:Leadership problem? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272896)

This may be related...

Anyone know if the compressed images leak has been fixed?

i.e.

Firefox (on Windows) can and will suck up an infinite amount of memory. This is because under some circumstances (Well, always, at least for me and many other users) it does NOT remove the uncompressed images from memory when a tab is closed.

Compressed Images Leak [slashdot.org]

Re:Leadership problem? (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 8 years ago | (#14273849)

I remember that memory problem. It was fixed earlier this year, and the fix is definately in Firefox 1.5. I was able to get Mozilla (with great difficultly, mind you) to use up a few dozen extra megabytes of RAM more than it should have. It never resulted in sucking up all the memory on your system as the comment above states. And it wasn't a leak -- when a leak occurs the only thing that can free the memory is exiting the application. With this bug, memory was released at some point later.

Re:Leadership problem? (1)

cecom (698048) | more than 8 years ago | (#14273784)

Perhaps this is some indication of general impedance mismatch in open source.

I have had somewhat similar problems with Evolution. It is a great email client, however currently it doesn't work with two out of total of three POP3 e-mail accounts I actively use, which is a shame. I have reported the bug ( http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311656 [gnome.org] for details if anyone cares), but for whatever reason it hasn't been accepted. (Blaming the problems on the e-mail provider is absurd)

Now, I don't want to make a big deal out of it, and after all I am not paying for anything, so I don't really have the right to expect anything, but I can't pretend to like it either. To be honest, it annoys the cr*p out of me. There is a great product that I'd love to use (and I've been trying really hard to use), but it has an awful bug and they refuse to acknowledge it and there is nothing I can do about it. That is what makes users vengeful and bitter :-)

The memory leak/CPU hog bug in Firefox is not as serious, but seems fundamental and has been around for ages, so it is really amazing that nobody's doing anything about it.

Re:Amazingly socially unsophisticated. (1)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271782)

Don't think you are being loyal to Mozilla by supporting someone who is so obviously not suited to be a leader.

And don't make the mistake that a good leader must necessarily be a social maven. The only requirement is that they can make decisions that lead the organzation to success. Good social skills are a plus, but not necessary. That's what a PR department is for. :)

Re:Amazingly socially unsophisticated. (2, Insightful)

qray (805206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271836)

On one hand a good leader doesn't have to be an expert in the field. A good leader just has to know where to go to get the right answers and be able to tell crapola from shinola. Then make the right decisions based on that.

On the other hand good leaders generally don't parade their short comings for all to see. It's unfortunately she doesn't have more confidence in herself.
--
Q

Re:Amazingly socially unsophisticated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272011)

She was amazingly socially unsophisticated.

Can you give any examples? Any particular problem? Just curious, as most of the feedback to her interview seemed to be positive.

She is not able to understand technical discussion (0, Troll)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272014)

Here's a quote from the Economist article about Mitchell Baker: 'For a start, she is a woman in a community populated, as one (male) colleague puts it, by geeky males with "spare time and no social life". Ms Baker herself has never even written code. She studied Chinese at Berkeley, and then became a lawyer -- her role at the old Netscape was in software licensing. On all technical matters, she defers to Brendan Eich, her chief geek.'

Although, as the Economist article says, Mitchell Baker "gradually found herself the leader of this project" (the Mozilla Foundation), she is not able to understand or detect when there is a technical problem. How can someone lead a group when she cannot begin to understand the conversations?

The word "geek" is extremely offensive, although the word is often used in a way that implies that it is acceptable. Calling someone a geek is the social equivalent of calling a black person a nigger.

Having "no social life" is not a benefit for a programmer. It is a huge shortcoming in everything in life, including programming.

Although I myself am a programmer, I'm married to the woman of my choice. I have no trouble getting and holding the attention of attractive women, and not because of looks. The unthinking assumption that technically knowledgeable people are socially unskilled is unacceptable, and for many, not true.

Re:She is not able to understand technical discuss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14273443)

You're a real geek. :)

Re:Amazingly socially unsophisticated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272065)

someone who is so obviously not suited to be a leader.
I think what you meant is someone who is so obviouslt not suited to be a PR person. She's one of the very best leaders.

Re:Amazingly socially unsophisticated. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272450)

This is not a troll.

Then allow me to congratulate you on a remarkable imitation

well... (5, Funny)

know1 (854868) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271511)

even though she doesn't write any code, they figured having a woman telling the developers what to do would be the best way to get them to obey as they were used to taking orders off their mothers/wives

i kid, i kid, posting this from firefox, keep up the good work guys

Re:well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14271865)

It's obvious you're kidding.

Developers with wives? When would they have met them?

Re:well... (1)

birge (866103) | more than 8 years ago | (#14274198)

sometimes i wonder what sins could be forgiven on /. were one to close with "but hey, i love FF. linux rules. fuck bill gates!" i'm guessing you could post a neonazi tirade and get modded up +4 insightful by ending with the correct salutory.

Lizards? They'll say you did it sir. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14271524)

Customer: How did they get there?
Support guy: It's the cable company, they send them down the wire.
Customer: I want you to do something about it! NOW!
Support guy: Not my department sir.
Customer: I'm going to report this.
Support guy: They'll say you did it.

If you don't know 'Jam' you're really missing something
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0240273/ [imdb.com]

GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14271586)

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (-1, Troll)

Erebus (13033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271606)

No shit! Looks like her face caught on fire, and somebody put it out with a rake.

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14271770)

Hahaha yeah, and what's up with that excuse for a haircut?

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (0)

linuxphile (939330) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271685)

Jesus. How many male geeks are there that look like shit. Why you would even bother posting something as insidiously stupid as "God damn she's ugly" is beyond me. You give fire to people who say our industry is sexist. Give the feminazis amunition and they will use it. Moron.

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (3, Insightful)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271707)

Jesus. How many male geeks are there that look like shit. Why you would even bother posting something as insidiously stupid as "God damn she's ugly" is beyond me. You give fire to people who say our industry is sexist. Give the feminazis amunition and they will use it. Moron.


I'm not sure which is sadder: the troll saying that she's ugly, or the rebuke of the troll in which the word "feminazi" is used unironically.

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272392)

Perhaps you have a more intellectual term for feminists who think all sex is rape?

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272476)

Perhaps you have a more intellectual term for feminists who think all sex is rape?

I do, actually. It's "a tiny minority of people who should not be taken seriously, and who are vastly outnumbered by Rush Limbaugh listeners and Fox News watchers who believe that they have taken over the world."

"Feminazi" is shorter, though. I'll give you that.

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (1)

Omkar (618823) | more than 8 years ago | (#14273783)

What about "tiny minority of people who should not be taken seriously, but whose influence in academia and general culture is so disproportionate to their stature as to color their whole movement"? And that's after granting they are a tiny minority of feminists - I don't.

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (1)

Concertina (183807) | more than 8 years ago | (#14274228)

Um ... okay.

First, can you please define feminazi? In a non-trollish way? Cause I'm just curious where the line is drawn between "woman asserting equal rights" and "feminazi".

Second, can you please cite evidence that these feminazis actually exist in academia, and tell us what your background is that you give credence to this? Because I work at a liberal west-coast public university, and I have never once in all of my years working here met one of these people that most would classify as a feminazi.

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (1)

birge (866103) | more than 8 years ago | (#14274305)

look, this is ridiculous. for all the valid criticism of extreme, 70s style feminism, everybody knows it's indefensible to use an epithet like feminazi in a serious argument. i can't believe we're even debating this because (a) it's ridiculous to even consider the possibility that it's a word with serious and well-definid meaning and (b) nonetheless we all know exactly what he meant despite the course language. so lets just table it.

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (1)

poofyhairguy82 (635386) | more than 8 years ago | (#14274393)

First, can you please define feminazi?

As a moderate Texan, I can try to give you the definition of my more conservative peers (male and female) with quotes close enough to what I have heard on the subject. A feminazi is someone "foolish enough to believe that certain masculine things like competition and aggression will ever not exist on the planet." A feminazi is someone "that scorns women who chose to be simple housewives." A feminazi is someone "rejects the idea that men are better at some things." A feminazi is someone "puts the right to do what she wants with her body over the right of a child to be born."

I don't agree with any but maybe part of the last one. I have a problem with certain people going on and on about how "women have a right to do whatever they want to their bodies" in teh case of abortion when we have certain laws against prositution and drug use that prove that in our society that is not the case.

WTF does that mean? (1)

Mille Mots (865955) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272468)

...unironically...

Let's see, unilaterally means of or relating to one side only. Hrmm. So, unironically would mean of or relating to one Ron only?

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272506)

Feminazi is a perfectly valid term with a well established epistimology.

Unfortanetly it does not mean simply militant feminist, although it is slipping towards that usage. Mostly by feminists who are either unaware of its original usage or perhaps want to draw attention away from it.

A Feminazi is basically a feminist who believes that the advancement of women's rights in the us can be *directly* correlated to the number of abortions performed in a year.

It is not meant to imply a correlation between the holocaust and abortion, just mainly to point out that the view I expressed about is pretty sick. There are very few feminists who are true feminazis, and they are mostly professors at places such as Berkley.

Even if you believe in abortion on demand it should be possible to recognize that it is not really a something to party about when a woman has to have one. It can have significant short and long term health effets and is generally inconvinient to all involved.

That being said the GP used to term incorrectly.

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 8 years ago | (#14273905)

Feminazi is a perfectly valid term with a well established epistimology.

The word "feminazi" has its own theory of the nature of knowledge [google.com]? (I think you mean "etymology [google.com].")

A Feminazi is basically a feminist who believes that the advancement of women's rights in the us can be *directly* correlated to the number of abortions performed in a year.

I challenge your assertion of the term as having that specific a meaning in its original construction, unless you have a paper or something by Tom Hazlett [wikipedia.org] claiming otherwise. More generally it has come to mean any feminist who exhibits misandry. In my experience, it's usually applied to any woman who considers herself a feminist, period.

Let's just say that if the term ever had a meaning that wasn't derogatory, it has since been corrupted.

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (3, Insightful)

tobiasly (524456) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271691)

@ AC and Erebus: please post pictures of your handsome selves for comparison.

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (1)

OneSmartFellow (716217) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271738)

Ah, of course, her value as a person is greatly diminished because she doesn't have Barbie Doll looks.

I can't wait till I'm as mature as you, then I can go around shitting my trousers, and waiting for my mother to clean up after me.

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (0)

trewornan (608722) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271968)

Maybe from your mom's basement it seems reasonable that appearances should be unimportant, unfortunately, those of us with lives know it just ain't so. Welcome to the real world.

PS. What's with that hairstyle?

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272526)

Maybe from your mom's basement it seems reasonable that appearances should be unimportant, unfortunately, those of us with lives know it just ain't so. Welcome to the real world.

And those of us who've been in the real world for a while understand that the importance of physical beauty is very unfortunate, and should be minimized as much as humanly possible. The correlation between beauty and ability is weak at best (arguably, it's negative, but still weak).

Furthermore, Mitchell isn't an ugly woman. Her skin isn't perfect (a fact quite thoroughly highlighted by the photographer's choice of lighting) and her face is ordinary, but at worst that puts her in the "average" category, particularly since she's quite fit. She's also energetic, witty, smart and capable, all of which more than offset any lack of decorativeness.

PS. What's with that hairstyle?

You do have a point there.

Thanks for the wank material. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14271762)

I just cranked out a batch to her picture. Is that weird, or does that mean I'm into bestiality?

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (1)

skeptictank (841287) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271877)

I am sorry to have to ruin you guys fantasies, but they all look pretty bad in the morning when they wake up.

Nothing some airbrushing and photoshopping can't fix.

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (1)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 8 years ago | (#14273577)

I happen to like the way they look in the morning when they first wake up. Or after a workout, or just after a shower. There's something genuinely human about it. When they're dressed up and covered in makeup, I feel myself becoming an objectifying asshole -- and that's something I'd rather not be.

But hey, this is Slashdot. What am I doing being serious?

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (1)

jejones (115979) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271889)

I should know better than to feed the trolls, but... whoever lit that photo should be strung up; it's perfect--if your goal is to vastly magnify every wrinkle and skin blemish.

Moreover, I vehemently disagree with your assertion.

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (1)

StonedRat (837378) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271890)

I'd do her, and i quite like her hair, but then i have odd taste in women.

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14273668)

you misspelled "i'm a desperate loser who would have sex with anything that would let me"

Good thing that she has a brain (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272066)

as well as values. Anybody who is working to improve the world around her is more than just interesting.

Honestly, I find her a lot more attractive for that than any generic barbi doll out there, as well as yourself.

Re:GOD DAMN SHE'S UGLY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272514)

Actually, if you hold your hand over either side of her face, it looks normal. Interesting hair-do.

AJAX (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14271607)

Ahh, finally here is an expansion of that buzzword, AJAX - Async Javascript And XML! Thank you, Economist! Now I know the secret of all those karma-whores, who simply got modded insightful/interesting by simply pointing out that AJAX is based on Javascript, everytime there is any story with the AJAX word in it ;-)

who cares? (2, Interesting)

versiondub (694793) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271697)

OSS's draw is in its lack of a social strata. If geeks had to socialize in order to make great products like firefox, then microsoft would be a much happier company.

I like Eich. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14271857)

I don't know anything about Baker, but I can't say enough about Brendan Eich. Excellent technical skills, very good people skills. Good leader, good teacher. Brendan is a person who has earned a great deal of trust and respect.

Never written any code (1)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271953)

Ms Baker herself has never even written code.

I'm sorry if this comes across as a troll or flamebait post (it's not intended as either; it's honest criticism), but I've unfortunately got to say it shows in Mozilla. Many of the higher-ups don't seem to know or care much about the code at all. Mitchell Baker is just one example of an incompetent person with a high-up position in the Mozilla organisation; Asa Dotzler is another, as is David Baron. Now, the latter two may actually have contributed code (I think David has, at least; not sure about Asa), but both have shown that they ultimately care more about marketing than about code quality; and the founding of a for-profit (!) company that takes over from the non-profit we had until now shows what it's all about really: making money for a few while those who actually do the grunt work and wrote the code don't get a dime.

And that's not just theory, either: I use Mozilla (1.7.12) daily, and have for years, so I know what I'm talking about. The 1.7 series is supposed to be in deep maintenance mode - supposed to have been for a long time, in fact -, but still, it crashes or locks up on me daily — literally. There is not a single day where I don't have to kill Mozilla from the task manager or where it does not crash.

Quality is something different.

And it's not like I haven't tried to get these things fixed. I once tracked down a lock-up to specific conditions that triggered it and reported them on Bugzilla; the only thing that happened was that a few months later, I got an email telling me that there had not been any activity on the bug and that it would be closed automatically if there wouldn't be any in the future, either. Think about that: nobody confirmed the bug, nobody looked into it, nobody asked questions - nothing at all. And that's a lock-up — just as bad as a crash, and with the exception of a security hole, the worst kind of bug there is. But nobody cared enough to even look at it.

I'm still using Mozilla, but quite honestly, there is exactly one reason left why I still do: AdBlock. As soon as something similar for Opera pops up (sorry for the pun), I'll switch, and I will *never* go back.

Hear that, Mozilla people? You have lost me. And you not only have lost me for your current products; the incompetence, ignorance and arrogance you have shown means that you've lost me for good. As soon as I can, I will abandon your products, and I will never touch them again. And I will tell my story to everyone who's interested in it so they'll be able to see through the marketing and the hype, too, which seems to be all that you are focussing on these days.

Re:Never written any code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272085)

Hear that, Mozilla people? You have lost me. And you not only have lost me for your current products; the incompetence, ignorance and arrogance you have shown means that you've lost me for good. As soon as I can, I will abandon your products, and I will never touch them again.

OK! Bye!

Re:Never written any code (2, Interesting)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272279)

"but both have shown that they ultimately care more about marketing than about code quality"
Well duh! Other people are taking care of the coding. And face it, it's the marketing which has given Firefox ten per cent of the browser market.
"And I will tell my story to everyone who's interested in it so they'll be able to see through the marketing and the hype, too, which seems to be all that you are focussing on these days."
Gee. It's because of the marketing that Mozilla can make lots of money from Google searches through the search field, and thereby hire even more competent coders to improve the product.

And this comes from an Opera user.

Re:Never written any code (3, Insightful)

theodicey (662941) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272578)

Thanks for filing Mozilla bugs, but no need to rant. You've made a lot of wrong assumptions and assertions.

David Baron is, in fact, writing enormous amounts of code. He is close to being finished with rewriting the entire reflow system of Gecko (= progressive page loading).

Mozilla Foundation is no longer developing future versions of the (1.7) suite. A different team of developers has taken it over, and renamed it SeaMonkey. So complaining about their inability to fix a Suite-only problem is fairly pointless. If it's a problem with the Core (shared between Firefox and Suite) then reproduce it in firefox and let Mozilla know. Otherwise, get in touch with the Seamonkey developers by email or IRC or whatever, it's not hard.

And if you have a problem with your bug being auto-resolved [mozilla.org], just go ahead and reopen it again. The auto-resolver was supposed to clear up rotten bugs that weren't real or were fixed by other code changes, not actual replicable bugs.

Re:Never written any code (1)

starwed (735423) | more than 8 years ago | (#14273528)

I've seen dbaron's name enough in highly technical bugzilla discussions that the comment that he "might" have contributed code actually made me laugh. ^_^

Re:Never written any code (1)

dr.octogonocologist (858447) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272597)

I agree with you on some of your points. Especially regarding the quality issues you've mentioned. But, I'm really not sure it's necessary that the head firefox has ever written code in her life. It really depends on the long term goals of the product. Would coding experience be helpful if the long term goals were to stay true to the geek crowd, to have the ability to effectively communicate with them, while possibly keeping it a fairly exlusive product? Sure it would. But if the goal is to "spread firefox" I think other things may be more necessary. Marketing is necessary, legal knowledge is necessary, and being in the right circle of friends & investors may be necessary if you want funding. Keep in mind bittorrent is open source but it didn't stop a VC firm from investing $8 million for further development. Some of that development may be commercial, and I expect will be given the funding requirements. But it doesn't mean those who contributed to the initial source haven't benefited. I agree with you it's not 100% fair to leave some of the contributers out in the cold, but again, there are still benefits other than money as a result of that contribution. In regards to Firefox, it appears through their campaign they are looking for the latter. Which means to convince users they have a better product than the competition, i.e. marketing their product. As you've mentioned, due to some lapses in code, they'll probably lose some of the more advanced users who prefer different functionality and tighter code. However, when looking to serve the masses, I think Microsoft has proven that a company can do pretty well despite imperfections in code, and rather focusing their resources in marketing and other such means of obtaining customers.

Re:Never written any code (1)

evilneko (799129) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272977)

There is not a single day where I don't have to kill Mozilla from the task manager or where it does not crash.

There is not a single day where I have to kill Mozilla from the task manager or where it crashes.

Fixed. Mozilla? Crash? Ridiculous. Mozilla doesn't crash. Firefox does. Seamonkey does. Mozilla? Never. I've been using Mozilla for years. Of the extremely rare crashes I've experienced, most can be chalked up to OS instability (Windows in need of a rebuild) or a specific hardware incompatibility with 1.3+ and a specific Creative Labs video card which shall remain nameless, or in a recent case, testing a proof of concept for a DoS exploit crashed it. I abuse Mozilla, and it just keeps on running. Windows 98SE, Windows 2000 Server, Emoticon OS, Linux, no matter -- Mozilla crashes on me less than once in the proverbial blue moon.

And I do have and use Opera. I like the 8.x series, which is more than I can say for the 7.x versions, but not enough to switch. It isn't for want of adblock, either. I've gotten used to running Privoxy and have got it working pretty well with little collateral damage.

Re:Never written any code (1)

crotherm (160925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14273557)


Maybe it is just you. Why is it that I do not see the same errors you are reporting? On average I have 3-4 windows with over 20 tabs total and it is rock solid. And this is on a Win2K box.

Sounds like... (1, Troll)

DaFallus (805248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272109)

a story about a trapeze artist who, in her spare time, is the Chief Lizard Wrangler

Sounds like the synopsis of a porno movie.

So many posts, so little thought (3, Interesting)

CodeShark (17400) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272291)

About what the article actually points out. The fact is that the Firefox browser has been well guided, is a superb open source tool that forced M$ to begin investing in web-related innovation again.

Other main fact is that I have not had one browser based attack succeed on my main computers (work or home), compared to the M$ fiascos that cause a significant amount of our company's IT budget to be consumed in "silly patchwork" fixes, and it doesn't matter to me what Ms. Baker looks like or how much code she has/hasn't written.

What matters is that Firefox and Thunderbird have been well guided, to the extent that there needs to be enough profitibility in a related enterprise to defend both against corporate, copycat, or cracker type attacks.

Sure, Mozilla is our pet lizard, but wouldn't you rather have a good chief lizard wrangler than nobody?

Friday is troll day! (4, Insightful)

mspohr (589790) | more than 8 years ago | (#14273338)

Let's see... The Economist posts a complimentary article on a woman who is heading the Mozilla org saying nice things about what she has done to help revive competition in the browser world.

So far we have...

- she's ugly

- she's socially inept

- she's a lawyer

- she has a bad hair cut

- she's obviously "not a leader"

- she's not a geek (this was posted as a bad thing)

- she doesn't care about the code

- she only cares about marketing

- Mozilla never fixed my pet bug (several times).

- the software crashes on me every day

Back to your basements, little boys, or your mother will spank you.

Re:Friday is troll day! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14273830)

Yeah, how dare they criticize a woman! And at the helm of our favorite browser too! The nerve! Let's get back to our usual ad-hominen criticism of Bill Gates, he's a male geek just like the rest of us, so he can take it, and his software can be criticized, because it sucks. Obviously, the leader has nothing to do with what the organization produces, right?

Leader? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 8 years ago | (#14273341)

I thought that Ben Goodger was the leader of Firefox.

Oh well, he's Lead Engineer, at any rate... the position that counts.

as usual (1)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 8 years ago | (#14274153)

Most "tech innovations" and "tech-hype" are coming from non-tech people, especially from business folk or ex-lawyers. She should have mention her dedicated tech staff for being her brain trust--unfortunately she didn't.

And thus reminds me of what friend of mine said (he's a gen. consel):

In the end, laywers always win (cha-ching).

We are obviously studied the wrong subject if we wanted to spur innovation.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...