Some of the author's reasoning amounts to arbitrary justifications. They have a section describing the difficulties of integrating contributors patches, suggest

Some of the author's reasoning amounts to arbitrary justifications. They have a section describing the difficulties of integrating contributors patches, suggesting they're unwelcome, which is quite the high-horse stance to take when people are going out of their way to contribute code to your project. The rant against Linux packaging betrays the author's position, in that they would prefer to spam the user with donation/payment links in the most obnoxious way possible. For example, they claim "[Distributions] do not show who is the real developer of the application in a clear way" and "They do not show buttons/links/a simple way to contribute to the real developer of the program", but in reality all properly documented programs handle this themselves in one or more of their --version/--help output, the manual, and the interface. This is especially true for GUI applications, which typically have an "About", etc menu giving details. If the author neglected to document their program properly, it's no fault of the packagers. I have never had problems finding the upstream source and authors from properly documented packages. The article also brings up improper association of a package with a given disto. This is partiality true (e.g. users reporting bugs upstream for outdated packages when they should be contacting the packagers), but largely such end-user ignorance has nothing to do with Linux distributions, and is applicable to all OSs.