2 ms·
> I think hiding the identity is not the real problem here. To me, it looks more problematic, that the critique is not very constructive, one-sided and loaded w
by jwildeboer 8y ago
> I think hiding the identity is not the real problem here. To me, it looks more problematic, that the critique is not very constructive, one-sided and loaded with imputations.
And I think there is a strong correlation between those two things.
It definitely makes it impossible to enter in a productive discussion about how flatpak could work better. The way it stands now, this rant is useless, aimed to be destructive and simply unacceptable. IMHO.
- folknor 8y ago> And I think there is a strong correlation between those two things. There might be a correlation between those in this case. But just because it - perhaps (I haven't actually read the "article") - applies in this case, that's a far cry from being a general rule. Think of it in terms of - for example - a muslim speaking up against oppression in their home country, or a Tibetan speaking up against China. Should they not be allowed to do so anonymously? It is possible in most cases to judge merit on content/argument alone. It's very difficult to imply or deduce someones motive, whether you know who they are or not. In most cases, you would be mistaken. I find it helpful to remind myself that most people do what they do out of love, even if their actions are/seem utterly insane, or are/seem destructive.