4 ms·
Sigh <strikethrough> You're statement is the kind of thing I was stabbing at with my critique: a hidden (shallow) argument, that going with LiMux is worse than
by bipson 9y ago
Sigh
<strikethrough>
You're statement is the kind of thing I was stabbing at with my critique: a hidden (shallow) argument, that going with LiMux is worse than going with MS, and it would have been wiser and cheaper to stick with MS in the first place?
Why can't such a thing (arguably a complex matter) be discussed in a mature way, without unfounded arguments that are just re-iterated anecdotal wisdom, and mostly stabs at the other guys? This is not a we vs. them thing! And you should stop believing everything you're being told by the guys in your group.
</strikethrough>
I was taking this the wrong way. Nevertheless, we should stop arguing with the idealists and their idealistic, unfounded arguments, basically taking the discussion down to a unsolvable level. Let's discuss objective (measurable or at least verifyable) arguments instead.
- hutzlibu 9y ago"Let's discuss objective (measurable or at least verifyable) arguments instead." Agreed. And I think, if this would have done from the beginning, especially from the linux crowd, then maybe they would still have Limux or are on their way of having a stable variant, yet. I mean with all that money, it definitely should have been possible to adjust LibreOffice in the needed way by now. But so there were wrong expectations and then disappointment.