Okay, let's be not too harsh.
You wrote a blog article. On a site, which forces a (dysfunctional) popup first onto the user. You try to push it via slashdot.
I never pushed this via Slashdot. Given the current audience at Slashdot, I with it never got here.
Okay, here is much mediocre content, and your point is worth to blog about, it's not really worth a newssite article. Anyway now it's here.
I am not sure what you are defining "mediocre". I am not sure if it's worth a newssite. I didn't place the article here, so it's not something I can do anything about.
Then you got the critique, just as above, often a bit more harsh.
Oh, I wish I got some critique. Have you _actually_ read the comments, all of them? It was a huge flood of personal attacks, attempts to discredit me, and just plain nastiness. Very little about the article itself, or even the _summary_.
What are you doing? You're presenting, what you are, what you are doing, why you are deserving that people value your article.
Really you're more defining your person, not your article. And this is the first place, where you actually bring your person into the discussion. But when you try to tell us "hey, i am cool, because i have github projects, do this, do that", you challenge us to judge you by your presentation, you challenge us to decide if we think it's worthy or not.
I only brought my GitHub account, and what I do, when somebody pointed out that I didn't do "that much" -- obviously without even checking. Again, the discussion was shifted, focussed on me, who am I do say this? Oh you are a free software author, but c'mon, how many users do you have... And so on.
This is the wrong point, but you brought yourself into the situation. We are here for the slashdot article, especially the discussion of it, and your article. You got some negative feedback to the article, which might be correct or not.
I wish. I got tons of personal attacks, and amazingly little about the article.
But you take it personal and bring the discussion to the personal level.
And you attack others ("where are your open source contributions?").
I did eventually get sick of anonymous cowards trying to discredit me in every possible way, yes.
Stop it. You're okay as everyone else here, even when nothing is contributed to open source. You should not define yourself by the contributions. Not by your code, not by your articles.
You are writing this without having read the comments. Once again: I only mentioned my repo when Anonymous Troll kept on trying, in every possible way, to discredit me, and saying "Who am I to even tell us what to do?" I wasn't telling ANYBODY not to use proprietary software. I was, as a free software developer, pointing out that Canonical was mixing free and non free software Al I pointed out, is that I would have liked them to give a filtering option. I care because I do develop free software.
Otherwise you take critique to your stuff as insult to your person. And if you publicly define yourself by your content, others will do so as well.
And when you have seperated the two, start accepting the (negative) feedback about your stuff
. Not everything must be as good as it was meant, not everything has to be good right at the start. You may improve, you may do better next, you may see that some people find it not as bad as the most people here.
I guess much stuff from your open source repos and so on is valued by many people, which is good. And if its only useful for yourself, the try to make it open for the case somebody's interested is good anyway. But do not bring this as defense for other stuff, which is not valued. You're mixing things and thus the critque and attacks mix up things as well. You do not really want this to happen.
So this was a bit more elaborate feedback.
Read above. This is completely skewed. This is not me trying to fend off critiques against me by showing off my repos. This is me trying to tell Anonymous Trolls here why I care; telling them that I am not telling them not to use proprietary software, but -- as a free software author -- to please allow users to _know_ what's proprietary, non free, and what is free.
How this became "Tony Mobily is using his Gitub repo to fight criticism" is beyond me. And it's saddening.