I don't know anything about Thom, but I've kind of grown to prefer the pissy opinionated tones of blog posts. I think impartiality is difficult or impossible for a lot of tasks, and I'd rather people lay out their opinions plainly than trying to pretend that what they're saying is "objective".

Also, I think writing only when you have things to criticize is a valid enough thing to do; what's the point of writing a glorified "I agree!" article?

I only ever blog when I have something that I think is unique to say, and as such a lot of the time my posts end up being kind of negative. I don't think I'm that negative of a person, I just don't see the point of flooding the internet with more echo-chambers.

> No, it's not a stupid reason. Reason is OK, the execution is controversial.

This is a muddled statement. It is a stupid reason to "execute" the act of silently modifying your host file.

If I murder somebody to keep them from stepping on my foot, and the judge says that it's a stupid reason to murder somebody, it's silly to say that the reason is "OK" because it hurts to have one's foot stepped on.

It's literally a 2 sentence article. Might as well have just tweeted "Adobe makes me mad"

> Reason is OK, the execution is controversial.

And even then, only controversial to nerds with opinions. Nothing else about it is controversial.

If anything, knowing whether the app is installed or not is kinda important? If you open a file shared with you in the browser, the option to "Open in Desktop" versus "Install Desktop App" actually works correctly?