I agree with your response to the article. Almost all of the comments on that thing were expressing the same. It has been the year of Linux on the Desktop for so many years, I've lost count. And, there was nothing in the article that made the case for why this particular distro whether than the others. It's all click bait. :|

100% whole heartedly agree. What I would like to know is, why the hell such a smart guy like Linus Torvalds decided to write a system based on a system that's almost 40 years old? Why didn't he pick on a modern operating system, like OS/400 (i5/OS, if your so inclined) or hell even one that has sensible command names with some semblance of object orientation. It's like to be current these days, you have to go back to the stone age. I mean, any operating system with commands like grep, awk, sed, or ed needs to be wrapped in tin foil and shot into the heart of the sun. (It would probably not burn anyway. Some things are just to dense to burn.) Track down a copy of the Unix Haters Handbook and enjoy some of the true terrors of Unix and they're clones. Jeff