As for this article I am kind of impartial to it. I can understand how it could seem like Linux is a topic killer because generally speaking it is. Of course any arguement can be made between people of different opinions whether it be linux/mac/windows or bluray/hddvd or similar. Every Instance is interchangeable. This is where im impartial to the Average Joes arguement. Everyone makes valid points, but inthe end you do injustice to linux owners by labeling linux itself as hitler. Just because you dont experience the Apple Hitler or the Microsoft Hitler doesnt mean they dont exist.

The great irony is that it’s all in a thread on an article where you’re complaining that the readers are the ones who comment on a column without understanding or even reading it.

Just as an example of the “wow” factor are your comments like:

“Can you show me where I said that continuing the past conversation was inappropriate? ”

when you’d just said:

“Too bad you had to keep an old argument going. Kind of sad.”

While the word “inappropriate” was not specifically used, your intent to communicate that continuing an old argument is something that shouldn’t be done, is obvious.

Then there’s the following:

“You jumped to conclusions about what that person meant…It was not obvious to me, because there was nothing else in that post to indicate this person might be interested in self-repair.”

How can you say something like I jumped to conclusions? How can you possibly do that???? The commenter actually came back and complained about how you had misunderstood him! Surely you can see that I’m not the one who jumped to conclusions, but that you are? How can this not be obvious?

As for me being inflammatory, here’s some of your quotes:

“after you had helped to inflame the issue. You are generalizing here, and again you are not only incorrect, you’re still obnoxious and provocative.”

“Your snide tone was clearly meant to provoke me, and I didn’t bite, so you willfully misinterpreted what I’ve said and turned it around to your own ends”

I think the tone of our comments speaks for itself, as to which of us is inflammatory, and which of us is making personal attacks, and which of us is being derogatory of the other.

Please note that while I’ve disagreed with you, and even criticized, I’m trying quite hard to refrain from personal attacks on you, and to keep the discussion on the topic instead of ad-hominem. There’s a very important distinction there, and as I’ve indicated before, I think it’s a distinction which you should seriously consider carefully.

I’m getting that you “liked the article” because you said
“decent article… interesting point” If you don’t mean that, don’t write it. Don’t do me any favors.

Can you show me where I said that continuing the past conversation was inappropriate? I found it off-putting, sure, and a bit desperate. I was trying to advance the conversation by turning to a slightly different angle and spark a new discussion. Clearly, you had to make sure that anyone who read this article realize what an ass I’ve been in the past, so you rehashed an argument here that had ended days ago. Nice work, now everyone knows. Next time, I’ll just start my column with that disclosure, or maybe I’ll change my author bio.

The original commenter said Macs were un-repairable. That was the exact phrasing. I did not misunderstand anything. You jumped to conclusions about what that person meant, and now you’re glorifying your own interpretation as “so obvious.” It was not obvious to me, because there was nothing else in that post to indicate this person might be interested in self-repair. I’ve had wonderful experiences getting Apple products repaired. My argument is valid. To claim I’m purposefully misreading the statement is not only incorrect, it’s obnoxious and provocative.

I do not feel that attack is the only way to conduct an argument. How many arguments have you had with me? How many conversations have we had? You don’t know me, you only know how I reacted in one specific circumstance, after you had helped to inflame the issue. You are generalizing here, and again you are not only incorrect, you’re still obnoxious and provocative.

Can you tell me where I said nobody else is allowed to continue an argument? Did I have any comments deleted? I thought your argument was off-topic, and probably better suited to the comments section of another column. Your snide tone was clearly meant to provoke me, and I didn’t bite, so you willfully misinterpreted what I’ve said and turned it around to your own ends. You’re detailing an accusation against me that I’ve already admitted to. I don’t think you should be forbidden from continuing the old argument, I just think it’s uninteresting at this point.

I am a bit confused by your claim that I’m inappropriately continung a past history conversation… because that’s what I’m criticizing YOU for doing… it’s a bit bizarre to write in noting that you’ve done X, and then have you respond, thats what I’ve done. You’ve clearly written this with the prior comments in mind. I never claimed they were the sole inspiration, but the relation between the other posters comments and this article is obvious.

By “misunderstood him” I was referring to the fact that you weren’t able to comprehend that when the previous poster was talking about repairing an apple machine and complaining about how apple is restrictive of that, you misunderstood the poster, going on about how there’s no restriction in taking an apple machine to the store for repairs. (which was just strange… the intent of the post as referring to user repairability was so obvious) When the issue was clarified for you, you were derisive of him (despite the fact that you were clearly in the wrong).

It’s unfortunate that you feel that attack is apparently the only way to conduct an argument. I’m making no unfounded or unsupported or “vague” claims. I’m clearly delineating exactly what the issue is.
Coming back at me and saying that I’m being vague, and unfounded, and continuing past arguments in an inappropriate fashion is just one more way of attacking, only you’re the one doing so in a vague, unfounded, derogatory way. I’m being quite specific.

Do you truly feel that you are allowed to “continue” a conversation and no one else is? Do you truly feel that that the mere fact that you didn’t specifically identify the prior post, means that the continuation is not obvious to anyone who read both posts? I can avoid saying someones name, but still refer to them in ways which make the reference obvious. Making the excuse that I never called them out is invalid in that circumstance. This whole thing is, as you say, “kinda sad”, but obviously not in the ways you think.

It individuates an arbitrary group of people, “linux users”, by choosing a common attribute among them, “using linux”. It then attaches a negative attribute to them, “they think they’re superior because they can fiddle with their computer” (this what I summed up as “silly”, because I like short comments, and I find such an attitude silly, obviously). Well, this is wrong, because of course there’s no link between belonging to that group and having that negative attribute – this is the common pattern behind prejudice. You might think that I’m being over-sensitive, but if I said for instance, “users of Apple products are snobs”, even if I prefixed it with “I don’t want to generalize all Apple users, and I don’t think their preference for Apple is wrong” to make it sound politically correct, wouldn’t you as a Apple user feel that a bit of injustice is being applied to you?

To further explain the second part of my comment, I make another example: try changing the “Linux as a conversation killer” argument this way. In the original article, we have Alice the Android/Blu-Ray user and Bob the iPhone/HD-DVD user who are discussing about the merits of their preferences. Then comes Trudy the Matroska user and kills the discussion by providing the inappropriate argument that Matroksa files are better because they’re free.
Change it this way: Alice is a KDE user, and Bob is a GNOME user, both technically-oriented Linux users. Then comes Trudy the Apple switcher, who says that both of them are wrong anyway, because Linux sucks since she switched to Mac OS and now everything works for her out of the box, while Alice and Bob have to struggle to get their video card supported under Linux. Of course that’s a moot argument, because Linux and Mac OS have different philosophies and, while of course having a video card working out of the box is an advantage, the key reasons for using Linux don’t include ease of use. Then follows the explanation that Linux users shouldn’t be ashamed of employing a bit of their life to fix Linux, and that there is space in this world for both tinkerers and Apple users. See? Changing the actors, the meaning doesn’t change.

To sum up, the message of the article, “there’s no need to feel inferior if you’re not technically-oriented”, which is perfectly valid and I approve, could have been conveyed as well without casting a shadow of prejudice over those who happen to be technically-oriented and wouldn’t ever think that this thing makes them better than others.

I liked this article. Its true, a lot of us *nix users do often throw out Tux’s name in vain during geeky pissing contests. Some people just need to out do people, I suppose.

What can I say? You got me. I don’t think I was keeping any secrets here. Actually, the impetus for this piece was really the iFixit manifesto more than the argument in the comments. If I hadn’t seen that, I would not have written this piece.

You make a lot of vague, unfounded claims here, too, most of which are obviously meant to be offensive. I didn’t dismiss anything, I didn’t willfully misunderstand anyone. I definitely mocked, I’ll admit to that. I’m guessing that you brought all of these up because you didn’t feel you had attacked me to your satisfaction in the last piece. Well, at the very least you could have included a link. Hits are hits.

I do have a soapbox at Slashgear, no doubt. I have used it as a bully pulpit to directly criticize people with whom I disagree. It’s something I will continue to do. I will not use the column as a way to beat up on commenters, though. I make a general argument hear, calling out nobody specifically. Too bad you had to keep an old argument going. Kind of sad.

It’s obviously in response to the pithy comments made by another poster under your “myth of apple bias” article.

In that article, you dissed another commenter who was bringing up very good points. You discussed the linux topic in a dismissive manner (which is ironic given how you’ve just written an article about how its a topic that makes everyone want to give up on the conversation) The writer then noted a number of very important applications of which linux plays a role, and your response was to dismiss that because you felt the end users don’t realize the linux roots. What that had to do with the conversation I have no idea. The user also brought up how apple is non-user repairable… not to criticize you, but to make note that it was an issue with Apple, that minor changes like battery changes cannot be done by the user. You at first willfully misunderstood him, and then criticized him because he felt like that was a factor which should play a role in discussing apple.

All in all, his comments still stand. They were extremely pertinent, and you’ve not only misunderstood him, failed to address them accurately, mocked hiim, you’re now using your role as the writer, to continue the converstaion in a non-equal fashion. Not very impressive at all.

You are not an idiot for not being able to repair your own devices, however you ARE setting up a soapbox… I noted in your last post that I had to withdraw my previously supportive comments because of the dissmissive way you handled your readers… I planned on disregarding your articles but thought I’d give you one more chance, and here I find you’ve actually kept on going… what gives? Why the heck can’t you read his posts? He wasn’t mocking you… you were the one being derogatory at him!

You’re right, nobody should “mock” somone for their lack of ability to repair a computer. It works both ways though… You need to look at your own “mocking” before you start going all gung ho about other users mocking YOU!

Overall… decent article… interesting point… it’s just a shame about the context and about your attitude to that reader.

I use a Mac because it works, not because I believe Jobs is god. I also mess with Linux at work , mainly because I can, I am a perpetual beta tester for the IT guys with Linux. That way they tell admin they are still looking into Linux as a cost saver over windows ( IMO it isn’t)
I use XP and 7 in other projects. What ever us doing the job with the least fuss for me.

I pay someone else to service the motorcycles cars and truck, and I just paid a guy to pour and smooth 6yards on cement. I have better uses of my time. Society pays me to teach math and physics.

Great article , I will be referring to it with my Nazi friends