I almost started off saying “I wish a mono apologist would make an intellectually honest point for mono.” Then, I realized if they all started doing that, I would have to stop blogging! As it is now, I can surf to any given mono-related blog and am guaranteed to find some fallacious and dishonest point to post about! Thanks guys!In the comments of the master opus Here we go again – why Mono doesn’t suck we have this exchange:
Visitor commenting: “Also, how can you talk about the absence of any suitable replacement for Tomboy without even mentioning Gnote?”
A very good point indeed! And one I made in my rebuttal to this claptrap, Here we go again – why Mono apologetics suck.
directhex response: “I’ve already talked about Gnote in a prior post – and feel pretty vindicated about my “it’s still too young for primetime” sentiment given http://bugs.debian.org/534969”
So I guess we are going to the bug reports? Then. Oh, what’s that? That bug was already fixed and closed … 4 days earlier?
Well, it is true that gnote does have 3 bugs on that tracker. 1 is a wishlist. All 3 are resolved, by the way.
I guess we could take a look at tomboy, as it has the directhex stamp of approval, and bugs are good reason to keep software out of a distribution.
Objectivity: a mono watchword.
Tomboy has 295 bugs. 7 critical, 4 major.
Now I know how unfair it is to point to a single bug or bug tracker and pretend like it makes the project unsuitable for public consumption. I know this is unfair. My question is, shouldn’t Mr. Shields know that too?
