Then my bad on claiming that those were “your” claims, what I said should apply to the original author.
My point still stands though. Those questions are still better addressed individually; for example, gathering some data on software quality and contrasting open and closed source, including the reference that you linked in #2. Then I bet that you’ll get better arguments, as the matter is more approachable for discussion.
It does add meaningful info to the discussion: it shows why people would be less-than-eager to reply to a post to contradict it. It also shows that good faith discussion, trying to achieve a consensus (or at the very least better understanding) should start with simple and basal claims, otherwise the other side will not answer.
Now analyse your own post, and notice how many claims you did to chain your argumentation:
You’re also making a definition mess, for example at the end you’re contrasting “open source” with “commercial”, even if both attributes are orthogonal to each other. (i.e. you can have non-commercial closed source, and commercial open source). There’s also the issue with “free-as-free-speech software” and “open source” being conflated together.
I won’t bother defending free and open source here because, frankly, I’m more of a lurker than a debater, but this is not the way to introduce a discussion.
I do. Mostly /a/, /ck/, /g/ and /vg/.
Yes, the place has been infested by Stormfront refugees, /pol/ is cancer central undergoing metastasis and spreading cancer everywhere, and /b/ managed to go from “this shithole was never good, but it’s funny” to “this unfunny shit needs to improve to become a shithole”. And the whole site has been redditised, so users there spend more time assuming words on the others’ mouths than actually discussing the topic.
However, it’s still a decent place to discuss random stuff. Your typical Anon is dumb as a brick, but at least not dumb as a snoo. Entitled whining leads you nowhere there so most entitled users either leave or stop whining. And there’s still some sense of humour left, not touched by the alt right.
Yes it absolutely is, because “woke culture” is nothing but a strawman to justify LGBTQIA±phobia and racism. Let’s not forget that “traditional values” are forged in a lot of those things.
It’s 90% strawman, 10% hypocrite finger-pointing at things that the alt right also does - such as the thing that they call “virtue signalling”. The later is yet another of those “even a broken clock is right twice a day, but if you’re assuming that a broken clock is reliable then you’re braindead” cases.
It is said that this document work will fundamentally change the way everyone works at Canonical and require documents to a higher standard.
That’s great, but I hope they don’t get rid of chunks of documentation just because “it’s of lower quality”. Low quality doc is still better than no doc at all.
This link is relevant for context. It’s a small blog post from Steve McIntyre identifying the problems he sees with firmware in Debian and proposing solutions. Eventually McIntyre’s views led to this general resolution.
Quoting from that link:
With his proposed solution being to
So basically the same that was voted now, “Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, one installer”.
In my humble opinion, as a literal nobody on the internet: sometimes you need to take a step back to take two forward. This inclusion looks undesirable but necessary, and I feel like giving differential treatment to non-free firmware vs. non-free software was the right move here, to minimise the ideological damage caused by promotion of non-free code.