On Mon, 2022-08-01 at 11:39 +0100, Peter Duffy wrote: > On Sun, 2022-07-31 at 09:09 -0500, [email protected] wrote: > > On 2022-07-31 07:29, Peter Duffy wrote: > > > > > > Is it worth while considering putting a link to the article on > > > devuan.org, together with a response answering the criticisms in > > > detail? > > > > > > > devuan.org is not a social news service for trivia. If any Devuan > > articles were to be posted, it should be these: > > > > http://dev1galaxy.org/files/Linux_Magazine_171_Reprint_Devuan.pdf > > http://dev1galaxy.org/files/Linux_Magazine_Reprint_Devuan.pdf > > > > But beating our own drum publicly invites a response and we really > > don't > > need to stir that pot again . . . IMO, of course. > > > > We are #2 in Distrowatch rankings (from user reviews not ratings ie > > the > > bean counter). That speaks for itself. Run silent, run deep . . . > > > > golinux > > For what it's worth, here's my own view. The article makes claims > about, and accusations against, devuan which either deliberately or > from misconceptions are clearly erroneous. The question is whether or > not these claims could damage the reputation of devuan and put people > off trying it. If not - we don't need to do anything. But if so - there > should be a rebuttal of the claims and accusations.
One true thing is that the author chose to put us in the top 5 sans-systemd OSes. Therefore, we probably shouldn't go in antagonistally. I'd take the route of saying "thanks for recognizing the quality of Devuan. The association for the furtherance of Devuan has a few more things to add..." It's basically an "and" rather than a "but", and keeps away defensiveness. As far as "the association for the furtherance of Devuan", change that to anything indicating this comes from a lot of people and not just one. SteveT _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
