Observations like "I know this upsets some HN people (for some reason)" and "lol, I got down voted" are not productive meta commentary. Writing like this just annoys readers and highlights the lack of substance in the rest of the comment.
I'm pointing out that Hacker news has a lot of members that get very upset if you suggest using Linux when they complain about Windows. I think meta commentary about the platform is valid, especially since the platform is just posts and comments.
That meta commentary was part of the substance of my comment. And it relates to the article.
To be more specific, I feel strongly against people who defend Microsoft, and their massively immoral actions like their military ties, and invasion of privacy.
I think these people defend Microsoft largely because they are used to it, therefore have a bias towards it, and because they feel attacked when linux users point out that they are supporting an evil megacorporation.
It's sort of like how members of one religion often feel attacked by the mere existence of people who follow other religions, or no religion at all.
I think that people with sufficient technical capability shouldn't support microsoft, and should use open source software.
Yes, I understand all of that (although I don't have all the same ethical or moral compunctions that you do). I still think that if/when you seek to engage with that audience, you should still follow community norms.
I'm pointing out that Hacker news has a lot of members that get very upset if you suggest using Linux when they complain about Windows. I think meta commentary about the platform is valid, especially since the platform is just posts and comments.
That meta commentary was part of the substance of my comment. And it relates to the article.
To be more specific, I feel strongly against people who defend Microsoft, and their massively immoral actions like their military ties, and invasion of privacy.
I think these people defend Microsoft largely because they are used to it, therefore have a bias towards it, and because they feel attacked when linux users point out that they are supporting an evil megacorporation.
It's sort of like how members of one religion often feel attacked by the mere existence of people who follow other religions, or no religion at all.
I think that people with sufficient technical capability shouldn't support microsoft, and should use open source software.
Yes, I understand all of that (although I don't have all the same ethical or moral compunctions that you do). I still think that if/when you seek to engage with that audience, you should still follow community norms.