3 ms·
You wrote, very first comment at top: "To dis NaCl on this basis and not even mention PNaCl is dishonest." That was in response to my slides. You were calling
by BrendanEich 14y ago
You wrote, very first comment at top:
"To dis NaCl on this basis and not even mention PNaCl is dishonest."
That was in response to my slides. You were calling me dishonest. Come on yourself!
You then went on about "propaganda" and scary salt crystals. Something is off right there. Mozilla doesn't make propaganda and we have a tiny fraction of Google's budget (which I can assure you has been deployed commercially to push NaCl).
I don't think your tone or content are balanced on any of this, and you at least climbed down on the salt crystals. Can you do likewise on the "dishonest"?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- qwinter 14y agoPlease stop signing your posts.
- BrendanEich 14y agoWhy?
- robin_reala 14y agoHouse style: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please don't sign comments, especially with your url. They're already signed with your username. If other users want to learn more about you, they can click on it to see your profile.
- BrendanEich 14y agoOk, sorry about violating house style. Old habits die hard.
- haberman 14y agoYou seem a lot more interested in getting me to take back things than you are in taking back your misleading slide. Substitute whatever adjectives you want if the ones I used offend you, but the point still remains that the most vocal criticism of (P)NaCl comes from Mozilla and it is anything but "balanced." I would feel more inclined to issue an actual retraction if there was any indication that I was mistaken about this or that it would change. That said I'm not really interested in arguing further, since we've clearly reached an impasse. I admire the work you have done with JavaScript, and I admire the work Mozilla has done over the years on many great products.
- BrendanEich 14y agoThe slide I showed is not misleading. NaCl is not portable, PNaCl is still not ready for prime time based on Google's own actions, and you protest too much and do not practice what you preach. "Mozilla" meaning me, bzbarsky, blizzard (previously), roc on the plugin-futures list, others have been forthright compared to the mostly-silent other browser vendors, who haven't even spoken via corporate or individual channels on this non-issue apart from my pal Maciej at Apple coining "Active G" to refer to Pepper. If this circumstance makes you shoot us, the messengers, you need to read more Greek tragedy! We're telling you why NaCl/Pepper are a no-sale among all the non-chromium browsers. You don't like the reasons we give, but that's no justification for your ascribing to us bad motives or a dishonest agenda or techniques ("propaganda"). We have been perfectly clear about the unacceptably high cost of Pepper, and the single-company control problem of all of NaCl/PNaCl/Pepper. Your own misstatements are yours, and you should retract or not based on their righteous or wrongful nature, not on what anyone else does. That you excuse your conduct based on your grievance with us is thoroughly broken, as a piece of moral reasoning. At this point you are perfectly clear: you want a free lunch (from all browsers, but especially from Firefox), we won't give it to you, so you call us names and imply that we act out of bad motives. That makes you persona non grata in my book. Good luck!
- othermaciej 14y agoI've expressed my personal opinions about NaCl here on HN before too: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2057611 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2057611