Marriage is not a right. For anyone.

Actually it is. That we apply legal benefits to it makes it even more apparent that if it is to be denied to anyone, there needs to be a damn good reason to deny it. Eich's side of the issue has never delivered such a reason.

I see both sides of the issue have valid arguments

The Prop 8 side never had a valid argument. They relied entirely on emotion, fear, and bigotry.

booting somebody out of an organization for having a different political opinion does not speak of a "culture of openness."

Eich's beliefs lie in opposition to a "culture of openness," and while he was free to work within the organization he was a poor, poor choice for the most public face of Mozilla. He also wasn't "booted," he stepped down because he realized that the furor would only damage Mozilla.

It's open and inclusive until you vote in a way we don't like. Wow.

If there's one thing I've learned over the past few days, it's that critical thinking is a weak point among a great many Slashdot posters.

Please. He could have thumbed his nose at everyone and stayed in the CEO position. It would have damaged Mozilla, but he could have done it.

Like denying someone the right to remain in a job based on their religious beliefs?

He transitioned from mere "religious beliefs" to "actively acting against others" when he made those donations. He explicitly acted in support of forcing his religious beliefs on others.

They would never make those claims so explicitly as, iirc, firing for politics is actionable. Rather, they would fire you without cause.

Of course, any place that would systematically support firing you for $political_reason or would allow one person to force their opinion on others by canning those who they opposed is probably a place you don't want to work for.

He wasn't fired over his opinion, however. He resigned because he realized that the shit storm that Mozilla allowed to happen, by letting him be CEO of an organization whose philosophy flies in the face of his, was bad for Mozilla. Of the issues at hand, that's pretty much the only respectable thing he's done.

I'd argue that there is a difference between spouting a view in a public forum and supporting a cause through what should be an anonymous donation.

And if it had remained anonymous, that would be one thing. But the donations (both in favor of Prop 8 and the crazy politician) were public for whatever reason. That alone should have kept him out of the CEO seat at Mozilla.

Should I be persecuted for voting Democrat?

I don't know, are the Democrats supporting reprehensible legislation that places a segment of society beneath others for arbitrary and ill defined reasons?

What about voting for or giving money to gay marriage?

At really, really biased places (i.e. companies that slather themselves in religion) you shouldn't expect to get a job. I wouldn't, but then I wouldn't seek to work at such places.

DaHat is running the irrational "omg it's a conspiracy against conservatives" line of argument, it seems.

I see you're pushing this nonsensical argument over and over again.

the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry

It's not bigotry. It's a boycott against what is tantamount to hypocrisy.

the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done

Was it? He doesn't get to be CEO of Mozilla. Whereas he publicly supported a push for an amendment that maligned a section of society and donated to a politician who was all about maligning people he disliked.

and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.

No, it says that organizations like Mozilla, that pride themselves in being very socially liberal and freedom/privacy focused should look more closely at the people they're thinking of giving the very public title of CEO, and not pick people with very public stances that are antithetical to that of the organization.

bigotry of differing opinions.

This sentence is utter nonsense, sorry. One is free to criticize differing opinions. Bigotry has a very specific meaning.

Even filling in the oval on the ballot could come back and haunt you depending on how your ballot is treated and if it can be linked to you (here in Washington State, it's a trivial matter)).

That's why your ballot is anonymous, and if it isn't then you should push to fix that.

I don't know about you, I don't know which groups I might be heading in 6 years, or 60 for that matter... best to just stop voting, donating money or having opinions that someone somewhere might find offensive... unless that too is considered offensive.

It's not like he had no idea what the goals of Prop 8 were. If you show support for an organization and politician who are dedicated to denying people rights on a wholly irrational and arbitrary basis, that just might come back to bite you. So I recommend looking closely at the goals of a group, and the progression of said group. And if you find that it targets a group of people and demans them and attempts to influence government in a way that specifically disadvantages them, yeah you might want to not be associated with it. People don't like that, at all.

It has a header with a documented pin-out. If you're among the target audience for these boards, then you'll probably be able to have a board fabricated for your uses.

I miss standard expansion capabilities.

Then stick with standard hardware.

That's an idiotic "rule of thumb."

The nice thing about Firefox is that even Nightly, after Australis has arrived, can be configured to look none-too-different than it did in Firefox 3.5.

Chrome? Unity? Office? Windows 8? No real choice in the matter?

Firefox? As you like it.

it does not allow applications to be displayed on a remote desktop and for example VNC has to be used instead.

This isn't necessarily true. It simply does not provide a method for remoting of applications. However, given Wayland's nature it's likely that any remote Wayland solution will be more efficient than VNC and even X forwarding, rather than less.

No, it seems that half of the people reading this article crawled out from under a rock in the last couple weeks.

if they're right then we need Mir for Linux on smart phones.

That was one of the claims that Canonical made with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Ironically, Canonical made that claim, but Jolla shipped Wayland on their handset first - and the library that makes it possible to use Android drivers was developed by one of their engineers for use with Wayland.

Mir may be useful, but Canonical marred its release badly.

I think we need both to compete.

Why? Given they both solve the same problem, but one has wide support and has shipped on devices, what use is the other?

Some of the early limitations proposed in Wayland were frankly, utter shit, and it was only pressure to lift their game that led to them being dropped.

Mir did not appear until way, way late in Wayland's game, and it appeared with a lot of terribly uninformed commentary from Canonical regarding how Wayland worked.

This is no different than the leftists who screamed bloody murder about the PATRIOT Act because they said Bush could use it as a tool for GOP villainy who've themselves are now tight lipped in the face of ObamaNation corruption and worse.

Always amusing to see ACs spouting off with broad brushes and other batshit insanity. CAUSE EVERYTHING IS ABOUT POLITICS RIGHT!