Linked by Kroc Camen on Sun 12th Sep 2010 19:19 UTC
General Development Technologists fear (and loathe) that which has no purpose. Why must some insist in deriding an operating system like Haiku that doesn't fit their particular needs or precepts of what has a purpose, when, it's advanced enough to have a decent web-browser and productivity software? Today I shall be further offending these people's tastes with a look into LoseThos--a pure 64-bit, preemptive-multitasking, multicored PC operating system that is intended to be used as a secondary operating system for user's recreational programming on their best PC while dual booting a primary system such as Linux or Windows where they do networking and other modern activities such as multimedia. Yes, LoseThos has no networking, no security of any kind, and VGA graphics; but it certainly has a purpose: to be fun! (for programmers, at least)
E-mail Print r 10   · Read More · 33 Comment(s) Locked
Permalink for comment 440878
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Brynet
by JonathanBThompson on Tue 14th Sep 2010 07:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Brynet"
Member since:

In your uneducated estimation with zero experience with him personally (and likely very little if any with others on the spectrum), yes, he shows many signs: no doubt, someone looking at your foolish self-righteous behavior could conclude many interesting things, too. What you did was an uneducated attack on the person that is your focus, rather than the work of that person, and you come to conclusions with zero backing other than your uneducated and ignorant guess: if you had any clue whatsoever, you would at least have taken some care to spell the word correctly, for a start, as someone who was qualified would have no problem doing that.

Ok, so the guy likes things simple, and he has a certain aesthetic in regards to what he thinks is best: so what? So he argues about that design aesthetic with gusto: so what? So he gets a bit extreme in his viewpoints: wait, are you saying you don't get at all extreme about your viewpoints, or is it you think you're above that and balanced? Let's face it: most people aren't perfectly objective about themselves, and I don't claim to be an exception to that: people tend to be blind to their own faults, and often to their own strengths, and we all need to give others the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their motivation and trying to understand their personality, or at least the minimal facets of their personalities that we see reflected by their works and what makes it to print, video, or whatever medium, as all media is a statistically insignificant representation of the nature of a person, or else we would rightly conclude many curious things about actors and actresses.

Judge the works of a person for the works of the person: don't judge the person by your limited field of vision without the light of true knowledge about them from afar. I see you posted no links to justify your judgment of him: you have no data of value. Maybe he's unpleasant in all facets of life, or perhaps he rubs people's fur the wrong way for a certain number of online public facets: the facts are not in evidence either way. What is in clear evidence is you making a sweeping judgment about him, showing a lack of real experience and knowledge in the field in which you judge him, and, for all you know, he may take the statements you make as libel, and haul you to court, in which case, I'd laugh. Either that, or he might decide to go on a personal vendetta and hunt you down online and spread crap about you and your nature.

Reply Parent Score: 2