This is the most counter-intuitive, user-unfriendly, confusing piece of software that I’ve used in my life.
Insane hyperbole in my opinion. Most of his complaints are that of a power user, and because it’s missing something he liked from Gnome.
Fair enough I guess, the stuff he talks about does sound nice.
I’m immediately reminded of John Siracusa’s rant about Wikipedia on his old Hypercritical podcast. This is a lengthy rebuttal from (presumably) a Wikipedia lover that includes a link and timestamp to the original podcast segment [0]
I agree, verifiability makes sense, and truth can’t really be claimed without verification, and so it’s a confusing argument to say: truth should be above verifiability; but I must admit: I find it very strange that some people have information about them on their Wikipedia pages that they’re not able to correct despite _being the person_ because one can only cite a source.
The problem of circular citations exists as well, where an article is cited which itself only cites another article, and it might loop back on itself.
People not being allowed to edit their own page (and by extension, anyone that comes without verifiable info because they could be agents of said person) is an unfortunate need. I refer you to the oft-sockpuppeted page of former airline exec Frank Lorenzo [0]
This might be genuinely the first time I can remember hearing someone say they don’t want to commit piracy. No offence, but who cares?
Especially for something from 1939.
True, I guess if I'd spent 9 million buckaroonies on the original, I'd feel compelled to download the digital version .. from wherever .. and put the physical edition in an air-tight preservation vault, deep in some bank somewhere.
But .. I just didn't want to encourage piracy among our community, is all.
I mean, I care (though not for something whose creators are long since dead and whom you can't support any more). But in general, I certainly try to avoid piracy. I think it's immoral and while I don't think it makes one a bad person (I myself used to pirate a ton of stuff when I had no money to buy it), I do think it's a thing that a good person should strive to avoid.
At the time that it was published, it would've been public domain by 1995 (so its creators might reasonably be alive at expiration). Anyone would be able to legally reprint it. Was that immoral? Or was it immoral to monopolize culture for another 1-2 generations?
It was a bad policy (immoral? your words) to "grandfather" everything in when the new law was passed. But I understand that wad the entire point (Disney) of that law.
>"I care (though not for something whose creators are long since dead and whom you can't support any more)."
>"I think it's immoral"
King Herod makes the Kill Babies Act and now you consider it immoral not to kill babies?
You justified copyright by suggesting it was about supporting creators. So you at least consider the moral justification to end at the creators death?
It just really interests me how copyright terms which were grown purely to support corporations so they wouldn't have to be creative (read that as would but need to employ people, or pay people for creativity) can have people figuratively clutching pearls.
