A think tank's view of free software
A think tank's view of free software
Posted May 10, 2007 4:25 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190)In reply to: A think tank's view of free software by hans
Parent article: A think tank's view of free software
> I don't think Jon intended to mislead anyone, but the phrasing of the commentary was nevertheless misleading, *at least in my opinion*.
Given that it's fairly clear that the sentence as written was an expression of editorial opinion, is it asking too much that you settle at "I disagree with you" without feeling the need to call LWN's editorial integrity into question?
Posted May 10, 2007 15:21 UTC (Thu)
by hans (guest, #148)
[Link]
No, in this case "I disagree with you" would not suffice. I don't
disagree mainly with the opinions expressed, but with the presentation of
the facts. Others may disagree that the presentation of the facts was
misleading, which is why I added the phrase that you emphasized. But
that is not the same as saying that I simply disagree with the editorial
opinion.
Should I have used the phrase "borders on dishonesty", even though
that was used in the original commentary? Probably not. Although that
was my initial impression after reading the report and comparing to the
commentary, upon further reflection I believe that it was a reckless
accusation. But that does not negate the substance of my original
criticism.
However, since I did not intend to start a flame war, and have neither
the time nor the energy to maintain one, let me just leave it at this: I
believe that the commentary does not live up to the excellent quality and
high standards that we've come to expect from LWN content.
Okay?
A think tank's view of free software
Given that it's fairly clear that the sentence as
written was an expression of editorial opinion, is it asking too much
that you settle at "I disagree with you" without feeling the need to call
LWN's editorial integrity into question?