Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 17:45 UTC
X11, Window Managers Apparently, my article a few days ago caused a bigger stir than I had anticipated, not at all unrelated to the fact that my wordings may not have been optimal. So, let me clarify things a bit.
Permalink for comment 195886
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Thom's cool
by tux68 on Sun 24th Dec 2006 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Thom's cool"
tux68
Member since:
2006-10-24

Browse through the comments to see my point proven.
Not to mention all the talk that has been going on outside of OSnews, concerning Thom and his article.


Well I would ask you to browse through those same comments and notice how many emotion filled and name calling (hypocrites etc) post there were from the other side. Some from Thom himself.

Since human nature is involved, there will be people on each side of an issue that fail to keep it civil. But that is _no reason_ to denounce an entire community. There were vastly more people from the community who didn't post at all, than who did. Are your comments about the community fair to them? Such comments just adds to the ill will and gets in the way of productive discourse.

It just amazes me every time again, that whenever there is 'negative' news about Linux, the reactions are far more fiery, flaming even, than when there is 'negative' news about for example MicroSoft or Apple. This is not a view, or a opinion, but a simple fact, which I felt like pointing out.

There's no doubt that many people do feel strongly about these issues. But if Thom had posted a rational article that discussed features that were lacking in Linux, and maybe had done some research (like interviewing a developer etc), it would have gone a long way to a more civil debate.

He even used the phrase "anti-MS fanboys" in his article. Do you think that is appropriate? Do you want to tell Thom that anti-MS fanboys only exist in the minds of his group? I didn't think so. Why do you think Thom felt compelled to make such provocative remarks rather than stick to the merits of his argument? Don't you think that maybe he _deserves_ some of the reaction he got? He still hasn't apologized for this part of his article. He went on in this thread to rant about people being hypocrites, instead of staying on topic about the merit of his case.

I guess the point i'm trying to make is that there is room on _both_ sides to reduce emotionalism and irrationality. I don't think there was a disproportionate donation of either from the people who spoke out against Thom's article, although regrettably there was some.

Reply Parent Score: 2