I said nothing of the sort about the validity of his statements. I did not engage in an ad hominem (i.e. Vaxry is an asshole, therefore he’s wrong). I did not imply that it was easy to make a compositor. You were the one that read all those things into my statement and took umbrage on his behalf.
I implied it sounded like complaining, specifically about other people simply existing and having hobbies that intersect with his own. If his opening salvo is “almost all the other compositors suck beyond opening terminal windows,” on a blog post titled, “We don’t need more Wayland compositors,” I’m not required to be interested in what sounds like hyperbolic criticism.
And since that choice is based on my entirely subjective assessment, I’m not required to justify shit.
I understand your perspective but at the end of the day all you’re doing is justifying why you should be able to disregard this guy’s blog post under the premise that he comes off as someone who’s full of himself.
At the end of the day vaxray’s ability to state that “almost all the other compositors suck beyond opening terminal windows” should be tied to whether or not the statement is true/justifiable; it shouldn’t be tied to whether or not people can’t stand the optics of it.
You seem to be under the impression that I’m obligated to take every claim and see if it’s backed up by evidence.
I’m not, and I don’t feel any compulsion to find out if Vaxry has made rational claims or not. That’s the beauty of using subjective reasoning; it’s not reasonable for anyone but the subject (me).
Be my guest and see if he’s justified. Tell other people. I stopped caring what he has to say here the minute I read that paragraph, and I choose not to hear him out any further either way.
I knew that’s where you were going. I knew it.
I said nothing of the sort about the validity of his statements. I did not engage in an ad hominem (i.e. Vaxry is an asshole, therefore he’s wrong). I did not imply that it was easy to make a compositor. You were the one that read all those things into my statement and took umbrage on his behalf.
I implied it sounded like complaining, specifically about other people simply existing and having hobbies that intersect with his own. If his opening salvo is “almost all the other compositors suck beyond opening terminal windows,” on a blog post titled, “We don’t need more Wayland compositors,” I’m not required to be interested in what sounds like hyperbolic criticism.
And since that choice is based on my entirely subjective assessment, I’m not required to justify shit.
I understand your perspective but at the end of the day all you’re doing is justifying why you should be able to disregard this guy’s blog post under the premise that he comes off as someone who’s full of himself.
At the end of the day vaxray’s ability to state that “almost all the other compositors suck beyond opening terminal windows” should be tied to whether or not the statement is true/justifiable; it shouldn’t be tied to whether or not people can’t stand the optics of it.
You seem to be under the impression that I’m obligated to take every claim and see if it’s backed up by evidence.
I’m not, and I don’t feel any compulsion to find out if Vaxry has made rational claims or not. That’s the beauty of using subjective reasoning; it’s not reasonable for anyone but the subject (me).
Be my guest and see if he’s justified. Tell other people. I stopped caring what he has to say here the minute I read that paragraph, and I choose not to hear him out any further either way.
I’m not sure if that’s how posting things to the public works. Optics will always be a part of that.