| |||||||||||||
Free is too expensive (Economist)Free is too expensive (Economist)Posted Mar 31, 2012 1:21 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Free is too expensive (Economist) by Trelane Parent article: Free is too expensive (Economist)
I've been running linux as my desktop since '96, and I while I disagree with some of what he says, there is also a lot of truth to what he is saying, and there is a self appointed "open-source priesthood" that does object to the sorts of things that he likes Mint doing, and I do expect that there will be a lot af ad hominem attacks on him because he is saying things that people don't want to hear.
(Log in to post comments)
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Mar 31, 2012 1:28 UTC (Sat) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
There are niches in everything: linux, Windows, Mac, BSD, Solaris. The "priesthood" is an attack on precisely those sectors (denying that they're rational but rather religious, which is itself a whole 'nother kettle o' fish).
>will be a lot af ad hominem attacks on him because he is saying things that people don't want to hear.
And exactly the same thing happens when you attack some other segment's holy cow. Why the hostile flavoring for Linux folks if he is one?
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Mar 31, 2012 1:35 UTC (Sat) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Eh, anyway, I've said my piece. The article is quite useless, it just says, "I had problems! It's the fault of package instability and focussing on features!" without any underlying support. Just blank assertions. And it's pretty clearly hostile, at least it seems so to me.
When we have something concrete, which I have an iota more hope for here on LWN than anywhere else, we can solve problems. Until then, it's just a bunch of fanboys arguing, which is also useless.
Time to get back to work.
|
|||||||||||||