Virtual Machine Addiction: We've gone too far.

Ken, you're not a good writer. Let's (really let me) analyze a little of the poor writing in opening of your article. (Sample text pasted below for your convenience.)

1. Two many perspectives. I, You, It, We...all in the space of four sentences. 2. Who is this "we" you're talking about? You don't know me, and I'm certainly not addicted, and it's certainly NOT hurting my business. 3. Your first rhetorical question is fair, and I was waiting for the answer. The first answer is self serving and cheap and employs a psychological fallacy. The third answer is plausible. The fourth answer is self-referentially incoherent, and by now I've lost interest in finding out the answer. 4. The whole tone is overwrought.

"I’m also a big proponent of being smart about computing. You can take virtualization too far. You can virtualize workloads that don’t need virtualization. We’re addicted to virtualization. It’s just too easy to perform a physical to virtual (P2V) conversion, to create a new VM from a template or to spin up a new VM from a standard request. It’s just too easy, and now, we’re addicted and it’s hurting our business."

"Does it sound like I’m backing away from an earlier post stating that you should virtualize any and all workloads? Or does it sound like I’ve allowed myself to be influenced by a small faction of Ken Hess “haters” who’d rather argue than listen?"

"It could be that I’ve caved in and relented. It could be that I’ve simply revised history."

MBT: Well, I thought my comment above was pretty rude and arrogant, but I thought it was OK given the arrogance of Mr. Hess himself. The attitude: "I'm a senior professional certificated long time respected high-popularity ranking skilled ex-Fortune-500-company Linux user / writer, so if my articles don't make too much sense (like patrokov explains above), I can always pretend like I know a lot - even if my articles don't show (like dino says). Blegh, that attitude makes me sick.

And then asking for comments on the content. But if people have reasonable comments, like I think TracyAnne and Tuxchick have answered in the past about the cloud being not safe for your personal data, and I think I even mentioned a cloud is less water proof than a sieve, we don't receive a reply on content, and now Mr. Hess is talking about 'haters'. There comes a point in time I become upset, and my reaction above probably shows.

jd: Second that, IIRC I have read at least 10 decent articles from Mr. Hess.

jhansonxi: I've proposed changes to the commenting system before, like making it threaded so you can see who is replying to who and threads wouldn't derail so quick. Like now you are discussing the way LXer works while at the same time other people discuss the writings of Mr. Hess. I was met with some opposing opinions though, other people liked the one-dimensional commenting system. Like Txt suggests: Almost all of LXer is voluntary work, so implementing a complex system might be a bit too much to ask. I like your ideas though, and I know our 'topic' system is seriously outdated.

MBT: Should stress, I think you're better in humor than I am. Especially when you're contemplating underpants, I have spent three days under my desk ROFL'ing. Think you (and Paul, Dino, TC and some others) were one of the reasons for me becoming a regular at LXer! Yeah, it's all your fault, if you weren't so funny I wouldn't have become a regular in these forums, and I wouldn't be replying to senseless articles of capable-but-lazy writers! Shame on you! Now go stand in the corner, and no cookie.