On 2006-05-16, Realto Margarino <rm@youasked.org> wrote:

> And that link was a colossal waste of time...

....along with the actual article, which reveals little or nothing
about anything.

First off, Two Ravens should have posted the final link:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?U5AA15E1D

....instead of the near useless tuxmachines.org link, which is
undoubtedly run on a x86DX33 over dial-up. The article then presents
debatable opinions, offering no substantive cause and effect or
drawing no conclusions. This not surprising, the basic accuracy being
questionable.

The author states:

"The time range that I shall consider here is the year 2005 - may
2006, but some background on 2004 will also be taken into account."

.....then goes on to claim:

"While Slackware itself remains a pretty unchanged value between the
11th and the 15th position..."

What parallel universe is this? I haven't seen Slack move lower than
11th, ever. It's been 9-11 forever, or as long as I been watching,
which is the last couple years. And SLAX got up to 10? What? ...for
eight seconds? In short, another fluff piece.

nb