alt Hacker News'I'm saying that their reputation should be reviewed negatively if they "create a distribution to solve a problem that has no reason to be solve by creating a distribution".'
Why? People can do as they wish and you can use it or not.
'I'm saying that their reputation should be reviewed negatively if they "create a distribution to solve a problem that has no reason to be solve by creating a distribution".'
Why? People can do as they wish and you can use it or not.
What? Why are you saying "why"?
I'm just saying that I trust people who know what they are doing, and if there is someone who does a "superficial" job* but present it as if it is the "whole deal", then they don't really understand what it takes to the whole deal and therefore they don't know what they are doing.
*: I don't mean "superficial" pejoratively, just that a "traditional" distribution does wayyyyyy more than what is done in Omarchy.
And, sure, they can do as they wish, and the consequence is that they get the reputation they deserve. You cannot say "sure, I poop in a bucket and pretend it is a good solution because my toilet is blocked, but people can do as they wish and you can visit my house or not", and I fully agree with that AND I will still say "the reputation of this guy should be reviewed negatively, as it is clear they have a low understanding of how to deal with basic plumbing". You cannot just answer me "What! How dare you to say this guy reputation should be reviewed negatively".