This is a pretty thin "article". His arguments seem to boil down to: - Code quality: patio11 says the code is awful - Architecture: the author had a "vision"

This is a pretty thin "article". His arguments seem to boil down to: - Code quality: patio11 says the code is awful - Architecture: the author had a "vision" of what it would be, didn't match his expectations - Bikesheds: the author thinks they should have build upon XMPP and CouchDB instead of OStatus+their own sauce and Mongo. Also tosses in random snark about Rails for good measure. Better we just link to patio11's code quality critiques again, which was actually actionable, rather than this kind of nonsense. Unrelated to the article itself, at least half of the author's "Top 10" articles in the sidebar are "things that will (or have) failed", and most of the article titles read like linkbait.