On Mon, 2022-08-01 at 11:39 +0100, Peter Duffy wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-07-31 at 09:09 -0500, golinux@??? 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