The luddite, rightwing conservative comment was taken the wrong way, clearly. But than again, what could I expect. I read most of the comments and have to say that I didn't intend them to be flamebait as the original post was flagged. Poor choice of words on my part obviously.
--Maybe I should have just said people that are resistant to change.
I will stand by that. Whether the change is good or not is not the point. The fact that someone is trying to change, trying to light out on something new is what I should have expressed. Maybe what Unity is trying to do will in the end fail. Stuff happens. Not everything succeeds.
But trying to break out of the mold is what is important. I just did a shitty job of expressing that in the first post. The fact the Canonical is backtracking shows at least that they see their 'mistake'.
And here I am again, saying that it is nice to have the choice.
I realize now that I used the wrong phrase to express that. I enjoyed reading the responses though. What I meant to say and what the crowd heard was interesting to me, not necessarily to you of course. We don't have the benefit of being in the same room having this conversation. There is no eye contact, no body language, no chance to change mid-stream. The words just sit there on the page. With all there faults on display and with no recourse.
I didn't mean to light any one up. I didn't mean to offend anyones sensibilities. Going down the rabbit hole with perceived intent and then running with it only showed your own bias. And I enjoyed seeing that. But that wasn't what I was going for.
"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre