| > No. Just because somebody is good at what he does doesn't shield him magically from critics. As lib users, we have opinions and they matters. You have an opinion, but it doesn't necessarily matter. You don't own Kenneth and have no right to instruct him. That's the point. Presuming to tell him what to do is almost as bad. > No, it's the symptom of not having a standard yet. Where do you imagine "standards" come from? Surely the BEST choice should win and become the standard, right? > DogPile or Askjeeves where neither "good" nor opensource. Not being "good" is the point. They were not in contravention of any "standard". They were not good, so they died. Not being "opensource", well that's just your irrelevant fetish. The source being open does not mean you can arrogantly denounce the work patterns of your betters. > This is a supposition, not backed up by anything. It is backed up by his history of actions and accomplishments. > Just because somebody does something great doesn't mean he can't do something that isn't. It means he has earned the right not to be scolded by the dogs eating his table scraps. > Open source is a collective efforts, you need the opinions of your peer to make decisions. Utter crap. Open source is a collection of individual efforts. There is no such thing as "collective effort". It really looks as if that is just something you tell yourself so you can feel as if you are "contributing". And that's pretty sad. |