Do you want to read that first comment again? The point was that radical movements are not necessarily reflective of the whole, and an example was given to illustrate that. At no point was it suggested that the crimes of radical Islam are equivalent to the crimes of radical Christianity - that's a whole other (and very tired) debate.

Yep.

Are you implying having anything in common with religion is a bad thing? Are you seriously suggesting religion and academia are somehow incompatible? Are you really sure that rms and religion really have that much in common, or are these the same tired attributes you'd pin on anyone or anything popular that you disagree with? Do you wear your underpants on the outside?

I've used GNOME2, GNOME3, KDE4 and XFCE each for at least a year (some 2 or 3), and I've enjoyed all of them. I felt GNOME2 was solid and featured, though perhaps a little stale in some areas. XFCE was fast and efficient, though at times felt a little cold/empty. GNOME3 feels solid and has plenty of interesting ideas that are worth developing, but I found it hard to feel grounded (perhaps due to it being so unusual). I'm currently using KDE4(.8) and have been impressed by the k* range of software. It certainly has the most in common with the Windows 7 experience (as a result I tend to encourage new users towards Kubuntu), and has an average bugfix turnaround I've been very pleased with. In my opinion KDE is also by far the prettiest (I judge by the default "theme" since I deliberately avoid heavy customisation (I don't enjoy it)).

I haven't used other DEs for long enough to comment fairly (LXDE, Enlightenment, Fluxbox, etc), but I've come away with a strong opinion that debating the best DE is as pointless as debating the best Linux distro. We all have different tastes and priorities, and different solutions must exist to cater for them.

In my experience there is a divide between scientists and followers of science. I'm well aware that not all scientists are the same person, and I've met very few scientists who subscribe to any 4 of my points. However, I think this article's comments contain many fine examples of my points.

While the guy you originally replied to doesn't seem to have had a point to make; with respect, it doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about either.

Who is "they"? There simply isn't a centralised institution that maintains and coordinates every Linux distribution. If there was, your criticisms would have a legitimate platform, and the Linux vs. Windows argument might actually progress.

Honestly, I think anyone that feels the need to point out "Linux"'s position regarding the desktop (ie. is it "better" than Windows yet), should read up on open source projects and their ecosystems, or just stick to what they're familiar with.

Modern science isn't that conceptually different to most religions (talking organised religions here). Its followers believe in empirical evidence (evidence collated by our senses alone). Most religions share this belief, but add further avenues of perception on top. More importantly, almost every religion (amongst other things):

1. Believes it deprecates all previous religions.
2. Insists it is incompatible with other religions (despite evidence to the contrary).
3. Claims to answer all the questions you have (and if not now it will in the future).
4. Hates being compared on the same platform as other religions.

Go ahead and mod me down if you think I don't "understand science" or am a troll sent from the Vatican, but you'll only be confirming point 4.

Bear in mind that a real-life implementation of that is Vladimir Putin.

If only it worked like that. Despite the numbers of Christian immigrants to the EU substantially outweighing the number of Muslim immigrants, Anders Behring Breivik is currently facing trial in Norway for the murders of 77 people (largely members and associates of a political party favouring multiculturalism) in an attempt to defend against a Muslim invasion of Europe. If militant xenophobes aren't actually being attacked by people who aren't like them, they will feign an offence to instigate it.

My point is an anti-NATO army of highly-trained brown people coming to steal your women and burn your churches doesn't have to exist for people to think it's attacking them.

Is that why they have the death penalty?

"They" is a variable, not a constant.

If you think a quarter of the world's population can be branded evil, you have a lot more in common with the Nazis than that quarter of the world's population.

Like how the number of people using [insert social media site] plummeted when it was discovered that users' data was being collected and sold?

In 5 nested comments we've gotten to progress == loss of human life. I think a better case for lack of progress is expressing binary opinions in an argument that obviously demands compromise.

Open-source software can be patched.