> you probably want to remove any paragraphs that have no sources, or ones that have low quality sources. Random Slashdot and Reddit posts are not a reliable source, and it makes your article look sloppy.

Since there are no official/factual sources but the sentiment is shared by lots of people, what would you do about that? To think about that, _nothing_ in the article has rock-solid proofs or sources. If we continue along those lines, it should simply not exist as it's so effing "bad" yet it's common knowledge that 1) APIs in Linux are abandoned all the time 2) There's nothing similar to Win32 3) There are tons of regressions all the time 4) HW support is spotty at best despite to the proclamations of the opposite 5) Lots of bugs in core applications e.g. DEs 5) Older applications are abandoned with no official way to run them - and people debate even these things based on anecdata, "Linux works for me which means it's perfect".

> It would be best to have a tracking issue or official statement from the developers for each of those problems.

No one cares. Most developers will oppose to this idea HARD. The list has existed since 2009. If anything has been solved on it it was due to developers being _personally_ annoyed by the said issues. Not because the Open Source community demanded it, or someone paid attention to bug reports, no, it was either developers addressing bugs which affected them or companies like Valve sponsoring the things they need (wine/Proton/DXVK).

> I think this article is good for maybe a first draft but it needs a lot more editing to really be a powerful piece.

Nah, just "misinformation". I will never forgive you for using this word, as I have a very strong attitude about people who use it willy-nilly to talk about anything they merely _disagree_ with.

While I'm totally OK with people having different opinions about something which has not been established or proven scientifically, there can be no opinions about something which has been conclusively proven, e.g. evolution, climate change, gravity, etc. etc. etc. You do not debate something which has long become the scientific fact. The author has a scientific background, opposes religions and loves science, so to think that he's willingly spreading misinformation is an insult of insane proportions.

> You may even want to take it down completely until everything is fixed.

Nah, your posts will be reviewed later, if there's truly valuable, meaning it's really good in terms of refuting the article head-on, it will be addressed just like it's been done before. If you find the article so repulsive, don't visit this abomination made of falsehoods. Sorry for kinda overreacting but you started off horribly.

Likely everything that goes under "I disagree because", "This happens because" followed by mostly inane "arguments" why Linux is "different" from well-established OS'es with good stable APIs and excellent documentation, will not be addressed because your opinion, while it's very deer to you, does _not_ solve or address the issues presented therein. Open Source fans have a long list of opinions about Open Source, almost none of which have helped address anything since 1991. Most open source fans love to think of themselves as selected few who are so great for choosing open source, yet absolute most of them haven't contributed in any way shape or form. The guy who wrote this ugly largly false article (according to you) has helped resolve hundreds of bugs including in the Linux kernel, GCC, Xorg and other core Linux projects. Applying the word "misinformation" to his work and efforts is terribly insincere, damning and extremely insulting.

> I had some other issues but I can't remember what they were, and in any case I think you have enough to work with here. So I'm looking forward to getting these corrected and seeing future revisions of this article. Just let me know if you need more help, thanks.

Slow and steady.