Linux steps into the limelight

BBC News ^ | February 1, 2004 | Clark Boyd

[Nick Danger]

The whole idea is that people ought to be free to judge some effort on its own merits, whatever their particular idea of "merit" happens to be.

I don't understand why you added the second part of this statement: "Volunteering doesn't get them a pass when it comes judging the end product, especially not if the quality of the end product is one of the touted benefits of the work."

The first clause is indisputable, since you are the sole arbiter of your own tastes. For all I care you may criticize blood donors for not having your own blood type. But to expect all blood touted as being of "high quality" to be your blood type is, I think, a bit much.

[general_re]

But to expect all blood touted as being of "high quality" to be your blood type is, I think, a bit much.

I don't. In fact, I readily accept that some won't be my type, but how am I supposed to separate the suitable from the unsuitable when potential shortcomings - in my eyes - are essentially dismissed with a hand-wave pointing to the price tag and some other unrelated shiny thing? "It's free and reliable" is undoubtedly true, but it's also completely non-responsive when the question is "Does it run Galactic HyperMegaBlaster 3000?", as are variations on the theme of "Who would want to do that?"

Nor are responses along the lines of "the people who make X aren't doing this to please you" particularly relevant when the issue at hand is someone stating "I couldn't get X to do Y". Worse, such non-responses are positively misleading, insofar as the impression that it engenders is that X, in fact, can't do Y, but we'd rather not discuss it. Particularly when, as in this case, that's actually false, and X can do Y, as per post 11.