The deceit and misdirection present in your response is astonishing.

> Well, Debian is [...] That's not me being emotional or manipulative. It is a fact.

You know very well that "emotional manipulation" was in response to your statement "I'm surprised you can't see that this counter-article is just plain old FUD." because I wrote me response directly after your quoted statement.

This is one of the most deceitful things I've seen on HN in a while. Other HN readers: look at the beginning of my comment[1] and you'll see what a blatant mischaracterization this is.

And, no, claiming that Debian is "more or less fully documented" and that those packages are "meticulously tested" is not "a fact"; those are highly subjective terms that I happen to strongly disagree with.

> I don't actually need to prove that software is (also) about ideology, as you just acknowledged it.

Yet another claim without any evidence.

> What is emotional is your statement that you think Windows is far better, that you think Linus Torvalds work somehow makes Debian undemocratic, that you think the documentation is terrible to read and that the vast majority of OSS you've seen is buggy etc.

False, false, and false. My belief that Windows is far better is not "emotional" - it's just that, a belief (believing that the earth is round is not emotional), based on my personal experiences, which are factual. Similarly, the fact that the vast majority of OSS that I've seen is buggy is also factual - it might not be representative, but calling it "emotional" is a false statement. Finally, it's a fact that having a benevolent dictator at the head of a project makes it undemocratic, unless you actually care to make an actual argument about it.

> Being a software guy, I'm sure you can recognize a pattern, here :). Also, I understand that your time with GNU/Linux is supposed to impress.

More manipulation, and snide comments. Pretty clear you're not acting in good faith.

> which may explain why you can't see how the counter-article maps near perfectly to the old arguments

I read the Halloween papers? However, I'm also capable of rational thought, and making arguments, and seeing logical fallacies - and you haven't presented a single actual argument that any of the points in the article are invalid, nor have you justified your assertion that the article is FUD - you've just claimed it and stopped.

> Lastly, I'm not trying to start a flamewar.

Your statement "well then obviously you have picked sides." suggests that that's false. If you're not actually trying to start a flamewar - your behavior suggests otherwise.

> I'm just pointing out that the counter-article, which some other posters found well written, is classic FUD.

False. You haven't "pointed out" anything - you made a claim that the article was FUD without actually addressing any of the points or providing any evidence whatsoever.

Future HN readers: notice how cleverly this poster avoided making any logical arguments, or answering any of my points, or justifying their claims that the article was FUD. Beware - there are a lot of people who like to use labels to slander a person or organization without actually being able to show that those labels are accurate (because they're not). When reading a response to a comment, watch out to see if the response actually addresses the points made, or whether it tries to libel the previous comment, or strawman arguments, or just straight-up say things that are false.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28960936