ndhlms

This such a patent example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, that I'm embarrassed for you that you even bothered.

"Ask for a fix" is euphemism what often happens. It's commonplace to receive reports to the tune of:

  * "Can we get an ETA on this? Some of us need to get real work done"
  * "How you can justify leaving out such a basic feature?"
  * "This project is unusable without this feature"
  * "Why waste people's time by releasing software with bugs like this"
  * "This kind of mistake is totally unprofessional"
  * "The developers must not have the skill to fix this"

These sorts of interactions can be more exhausting than outright abuse, because they're designed to bait/provoke the developer rather than just insult them. And to be clear, this isn't particular to this developer. There was a whole study done on this that made the rounds awhile back[1].

[1]: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/Web/People/ckaestne/pd...

Or using the same the account name on multiple sites, u/LtWorf ;)

Basically the assumption that by sharing your work, you become inherently beholden to the wishes of those that use your work.

Some time over the last ten years or so, much of the open source community acquired the belief that they deserve to be treated as a customers despite the fact they don't pay for squat.

All that does is associate an arbitrary SSH key with a GitHub account. There is still no reliable way to verify the identity of the GitHub account owner, or the SSH key that account holder generated.

How does that expose any more information than you do by pushing a commit with a GitHub account?

I don't see that any of those reasons are relevant, in all honesty.

1. This is not even a moderate ask; using ssh for git transactions is no more or less burdensome than https

2. As has been pointed out, there is no reason or reliable way to verify the identity of a creator's SSH key

3. Real-world example of such a project, or why this matters in the context of (2)?

The problem is you're still failing to demonstrate a causal link between threats of legal action and GNOME3 or Unity.

I was around during this time and early adopter of GNOME Shell (i.e. 2.31.x); there was and is zero evidence indicating that legal issues were even a consideration.

There is, on the other hand, mountain ranges of evidence indicating this was driven by everything but legal issues[1][2][3].

[1]: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeShell/FAQ#What_problems...

[2]: http://wingolog.org/archives/2008/06/07/gnome-in-the-age-of-...

[3]: https://wiki.gnome.org/Events/Summit/2008/GUIHackfest

It's a shame that none of these "critical" reviews actually contain any well-researched criticism.

Confusing the wider shadow radius on windows with the bounds of the screenshot utility? Referring to Mobian as a for-profit company or implying PINE64 is driving libadwaita? Suggesting a library written in cross-platform C "carries code for other platforms"? Claiming GNOME is replacing Terminal with Console, when it has been explicitly communicated that is not the case? Stating a feature has been removed from Tweaks, when it has actually been moved into GNOME Settings?

It's difficult to find anything accurate in this article, other than the screenshots. The author's time would have been better spent researching the subject matter, especially if they are sincere about wanting to provide constructive criticism.