Yes, the tone

Yes, the tone

Kind of sets the tone, don’t you think?

Well, if you had a shred of respect for other people, you wouldn't address them as "fanboys".

Most of these charming critters are lobbing their comments from behind a wall of personal and corporate anonymity, I have no way of knowing who they are or who they work for (though that’s not the case for you, Martin, to your credit).

If what people write is coherent and insightful then it doesn't matter whether the author puts their name to it or not.

I agree with bojan’s account of how and why the various distros do things differently. His account is much richer than mine (no doubt because it is informed by true insider knowledge that I never laid claim to).

I didn't see much that wasn't already common knowledge. I guess the analyst profession still doesn't believe in actually having the decency to learn the awkward details of the stuff upon which they deem to make their grand proclamations.

No. Cheetah might be more vulnerable than Tarzan if a hunter is shooting at them (though maybe not if they are trying to escape an enraged elephant), but both belong to the same metaphysical category of mortal creatures.

No-one is claiming that Red Hat isn't a business, which would be a more appropriate correspondence to the "immortality" assertion.

What rankles is really just that one word “proprietary”, which drives some of you batty.

Some words mean certain things in particular contexts. You would do well to understand how the use of such words can lead to confusion about any particular point you wish to make. And there are plenty of words in other contexts out there where protests that "I'm using my meaning!" won't assuage the anger and offence you will have caused other people.

You think it is evil, even diabolical, something that robs you of your soul or your sense of self, so you back away and make the sign of the cross (or whip out your dictionary – haha, as if that would prove anything) while muttering strange incantations. I say simply that you have fallen into a form of superstition, or magical thinking.

Is it possible for you to drop the religious imagery as well, or are you still under the impression that offending people confers some kind of credibility?

But if you set yourselves up on a pedestal of holier-than-thou hauteur, expect to take a few brickbats.

It doesn't surprise me at all that an analyst might have problems with other people adopting a particular moral position, or indeed any moral position, but if the "brickbats" were of a reasonable quality then I'm sure there'd be something worth discussing.

As it is, all we've seen is a lack of research on your part ("moral posturing of some open source illuminati" - do you not know that "open source" and the whole "moral" angle are largely separate concerns for many people?), a lack of adequate vocabulary (where "proprietary" doesn't communicate your point, other words are there to help the communicator) and, through a general juvenile predisposition to needlessly offend others, a lack of respect for an entire community of people.