ok, i guess you don't need an operating system then. just flash software to your ROM directly. since, an OS is literally a modification API for computers.
I'd say that an OS is more akin to a scripting API or a programming language, which i am completely fine with.
I know that the work itself never addresses that
and therefore, is not a valid counterpoint. if it's so trivial to derive, then provide a point-by-point breakdown of your trivial derivation.
Okay then: The claim is that forking will lead to people being overwhelmed because there will be too many forks. The essay explains that there will not be that many forks. Therefore, people will not be overwhelmed because there will not be too many forks.
I think that forks rarely become many because most attempts to fork a project will invariably get absorbed into the main project or one of the few forks that fills a unique niche different from the original project.
and also a plugin API. that's a very important reason that cannot be overlooked.
What evidence do you have that a plugin API prevents fracturing?
How else am I supposed to respond to "you're acting like a capitalist" we've explained to you numerous times why a plugin API is better than just forking it. And you've ignored us every time.
What points do you think i've ignored? I didn't mean to do that, and i'd be glad to respond to them now.
You're acting like a capitalist, trying to prove your own point by simply saying it again instead of refuting the refutations of others.
i never knew capitalism was about proving points via repeating oneself infinitely. i thought it was about the ruthless drive for profit above literally everything else. but i suppose it's about being a poor debater?
No, it's just that capitalists tend to defend capitalism by just repeating themselves over and over. Example:
"They deserve their money because they invested capital!" «And i don't think we should have a system where a person having money should be rewarded with giving them more money.» "…but they invested capital!"
Of course, the it to is isn't what what do it what it's not only.
hey, speaking of poor debate skills, i'm pretty sure calling someone a capitalist, or « acting like a capitalist » is some kind of fallacy. it's certainly name-calling. ad hominem perhaps?
It's not ad-hominem because the analogue has direct relevance to the debate.