OSNews

I wasn't commenting on software. I was commenting on proper editorial form.

Stop taking software so seriously. It was just an innocent joke.

Up. Lighten. You figure it out.

Being an editor on a very popular news site and having done that for a long time you should know already that such a "joke" can be seen as pretty offensive. Open source community is place where feelings and opinions are usually strong (that's the motivation for doing anything, really) so such a stab against a major part of a major DE will draw attention even if it was intended as a joke. It could have atleast been made clearer that it was a joke and not a questional comment about Nautilus's current functionality.

Being an editor on a very popular news site and having done that for a long time you should know already that such a "joke" can be seen as pretty offensive. Open source community is place where feelings and opinions are usually strong (that's the motivation for doing anything, really) so such a stab against a major part of a major DE will draw attention even if it was intended as a joke.

Without trying to be a troll, I want to point out that if this is how you feel, then you are acting like a child. What you're describing -- a passionate dedication to a particular DE -- is the definition of zealotry. It's not healthy, even if it helps motivate developers to work harder. Zealotry blinds you from seeing the positives of alternatives, even when they're poking you in the forehead. Even those hard-working programmers who are dedicated to their project are being unhealthy, as they may be failing to take into account the user's needs, while they instead assume that their own ideals are the best. I'm not saying taking pride in your work is a bad idea, but it's important not to try and declare that your work in fallible and immune to jokes.

Secondly, who are you to declare that no one else is allowed to negatively comment on Nautilus, joke or not? He/she is an editor; hence, it's his/her JOB to be critical in his/her reviews. If every review we ever saw about every product was always hearts and rainbows, then there wouldn't be any suggestions for improvement. No software is perfect, there is always something negative (yet constructive) to say.

All that said, the underlying point still holds: it was a joke! Even without the newly-added "WARNING JOKE WARNING" tags, it was clearly a joke. Even if you claim that zealotry isn't clouding your judgment, surely you can admit that your sense of humor has been pulled pretty tight.

Edited 2008-09-25 00:54 UTC

NEED MOAR SMILEYS

I will be honest and admit I did not realise it was an attempt at humour.

How much more obvious does it need be?

We're not taking software seriously, we're taking the use and abuse of the written language and the editorial form seriously. I imagine you would have gotten the same comments had you been writing about a poetry anthology or a lawnmower.

It was also an old joke that you've used before. Last time to you used it people called you on it as well and questioned its use. Perhaps you should reconsider.

C'mon, if you have to work that hard to justify leaving such a statement in an article, you've got an agenda or an axe to grind. The thought process would resemble, "Okay, Konqueror really twists my happy knobs and I vastly prefer KDE over Gnome, but if I throw this in there even as an editorial aside, my bias will be evident and I'll lose the credibility issue... I know! I'll bracket it in an obvious bold JOKE warning! That way, I get to state my bias, and anyone who "doesn't get it" will be called out as a humorless idiot!"

It should have been left out, or owned up to as bias. As is, it's a passive-aggressive coward's move.

Edited 2008-09-25 13:05 UTC

This site is getting ridiculous, can people not read a comment without commenting on the appropriateness of the comment? I have to wade through a whole pile of crap to find something interesting. Now I'm adding to the crap, by commenting myself on the commenting on the appropriateness of the comments...

Lighten up indeed.