E-Dribble

I found this article in my feed reader this morning, which piqued my interest because, as you all know, I think the mind numbing number of forks is one of the most asinine aspects of linux.

Sadly, it was hard to follow the article long enough find any merit in his opinions.  I couldn’t get past the written lashing he assigned to the poor bastard he quoted at the start of his post. Since quotation marks were used in his article, I was made aware that he was  quoting someone.  If there was any doubt however, he did name the author of the missive prior to the actual quote.  In spite of this, he used my favorite quoting tool, (sic).  Meaning thus or so, this allows the reader to understand that the written error belongs to the person quoted and not the person quoting.  Additionally, it lets the reader know that the author feels that the quotes alone weren’t enough to ensure that the reader blame someone other than the author.

But wait, there’s more.

Even using my favorite tag, this particular author didn’t feel that he assigned ownership sufficiently, however.

If he truly thinks there are no standards common “between” (I would have said “among”, but that’s just me.) 6 or 7 “versions” (I would say “distributions”.) of GNU/Linux then he did not examine them closely enough.

Please keep in mind that the author’s intention is to debate the merit of the number of linux forks. In spite of the intended direction of the discussion, it seems as if he simply couldn’t help himself and just had make damned sure that you not only understood that the errors were not his, but also that he knew how to correct them.  It was clear by the end of the paragraph that he utilized the quoted author’s grammatical and spelling errors to let you know that since he couldn’t draft his thoughts in proper English, his opinion obviously couldn’t carry the same weight as someone that could correct it.

Between Captain Grammatical and this guy, it’s a wonder that linux hasn’t taken over the world.