Fantastic breakdown and rebuttal. I concede on all points save one. But before I nit pick a bit a couple things.
One is thank you so much for tsking the time to rebuke me with such detail and finesse. I enjoy prodding people on these things because I find back and forths like this more engaging and informative when a stance is taken rather than just Q & A. I know it must bave taken you a bit of time to write up thede answers, so thank you.
Secondly, I just wanted to commend you on totally eviscerating me on the Only Office bit. i had forgotten on that point and hadn’t taken the simple step of searching beforehand. It was a poorly made point and I sincerely apologize for posing that weak argument. Yeah yeah, you’re probably thinking “the entire argument was weak”. And I’ll not try to convince you otherwise (I’d be unlikely to succeed anyways, right?).
Now, my only point of contention:
No we dont need an alternative always. We dont need 6 audio recorders, we need 1 good one that does everything right, is fast, secure and usable.
Now, my only contention here is that competition, true competition, is good. I’d say you always need at least 2 major nearly equal players in any of these fields. I don’t want there to be 1 Linux distro, I don’t want there to be 1 Office Suite, I don’t want there to be 1 package manager, and hell, I don’t want there to be 1 display protocol (and for that I am very happy wayland exists for that reason alone).
Competition over best implementations is good, and more selfishly for me in particular, more choice is good. You can argue that those choices can stifle innovation as it divides the talent base over possibly trivial minutiae of implementation (or just create a poor implementation outright), but ultimately what drove me to Linux was not my admiration for it being secure or light weight, but rather it is the availability of the many choices available.
I’d rather not see that wrangling up of the diversity that exists within the Linux ecosystem go away in the interest of conformity to a singular best practice. With all the consequences that entails.
Fantastic breakdown and rebuttal. I concede on all points save one. But before I nit pick a bit a couple things.
One is thank you so much for tsking the time to rebuke me with such detail and finesse. I enjoy prodding people on these things because I find back and forths like this more engaging and informative when a stance is taken rather than just Q & A. I know it must bave taken you a bit of time to write up thede answers, so thank you.
Secondly, I just wanted to commend you on totally eviscerating me on the Only Office bit. i had forgotten on that point and hadn’t taken the simple step of searching beforehand. It was a poorly made point and I sincerely apologize for posing that weak argument. Yeah yeah, you’re probably thinking “the entire argument was weak”. And I’ll not try to convince you otherwise (I’d be unlikely to succeed anyways, right?).
Now, my only point of contention:
Now, my only contention here is that competition, true competition, is good. I’d say you always need at least 2 major nearly equal players in any of these fields. I don’t want there to be 1 Linux distro, I don’t want there to be 1 Office Suite, I don’t want there to be 1 package manager, and hell, I don’t want there to be 1 display protocol (and for that I am very happy wayland exists for that reason alone).
Competition over best implementations is good, and more selfishly for me in particular, more choice is good. You can argue that those choices can stifle innovation as it divides the talent base over possibly trivial minutiae of implementation (or just create a poor implementation outright), but ultimately what drove me to Linux was not my admiration for it being secure or light weight, but rather it is the availability of the many choices available.
I’d rather not see that wrangling up of the diversity that exists within the Linux ecosystem go away in the interest of conformity to a singular best practice. With all the consequences that entails.