Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 17:45 UTC
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.
Thread beginning with comment 195911
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-11-15
Eugenia's "argument" is a classic example of a Straw Man, plain and simple:
"Because this $DESKTOP lacks these non-third-party $FEATURES, its progress had slowed down!"
Instead of establishing a carefully selected set of criteria for determining a slow-down in development, she sets the avobe straw man up, tears it to shreds, and arrives at concusion she has reached before all this mess even started: GNOME's progress it slow.
As anyone can see, using this kind of "argumentation", one can accuse any desktop of slow development, its actual pace of development notwithstanding. For example: "Mac OS X development is slow because even today they lack a CAD development tool!" Or, "Windows Vista has been developed at a glacier pace 'cause they still don't have ProTools built-in!"
Such arguments look ridiculous, don't they? They do. Which brings me to my next point: Eugenia exacerbates the basic dishonesty of her Straw Man by naming $FEATURES the necessity of which on a modern desktop is rather disputable. Again, citing no presmisses and providing no valid evaluation criteria, she simply postulates these features as being "important pieces of a modern desktop that need to COME by DEFAULT *integrated* with the desktop". Bluetooth? Questionable. Mobile devices? Not all of us have them. Video editing? Too niched. And so on. Eugenia insists that a modern desktop needs all of these. Using her method -- that is, arguing without facts or logic -- I can insist as vehemently that it doesn't.
* * * *
"I won't reply to any of the replies that will be fueled by this comment of mine."
Ah, but that makes it so much easier to debunk that verbal tosh she's trying to pass for arguments. At least, she won't be posting lengthy Thom-style backpedaling articles.