This is an odd critique. If it's an issue that someone cares about, they should be allowed to comment about it as long as it's within the guidelines.
There doesn't seem to be a guideline that defines the number of times someone can comment about a specific topic relative to the total number of comments within a specific amount of time.
Two of the three comments are also replies to someone who replied to the first, so it's not like the person is spamming the same message over and over again. People are allowed to have discussions.
> they should be allowed to comment (…) People are allowed to have discussions.
My comment doesn’t contradict that. On the contrary, I do think their particular experience adds value to the thread.
> it's not like the person is spamming the same message over and over again.
After reading the three comments multiple times, I disagree. The comments were (they’ve since been deleted) superficially different but none added to the conversation over the others. I would even say the repetition detracted from the point, since it made it seem like a personal gripe instead of a legitimate technical complaint.
You’re criticizing the fact that the person commented three times. While you’re not directly telling them “don’t do that”, you’re still admonishing someone for doing something well within the guidelines and even intentions of this site, to talk about things that are interesting to the user.
I have asked them to consider if the way they were going about the matter was appropriate. I have even explained to you what prompted it: I found their point valid and worthwhile, but in my view the repetition weakened their stance. Considering they deleted the extra comments a while back, perhaps they agree.
Respectfully, you seem unreasonably angry about this matter and I do not wish to continue a conversation where the other party keeps assuming the worst of my replies. There is no malice or ill intent in my post. If you see any, that is on you.
If you didn't want people to assume the worst, then maybe you should reconsider that how your write and what you say could be interpreted in many ways, and not sound so negative and admonishing when you criticize others?
Notice that I didn't tell you what to do, I simply asked you to consider if the way you were going about the matter was appropriate.
It's not just inconvenient, I've been personally burned by this issue and am livid that Elementary OS markets itself in this way without a warning. Imagine installing Elementary OS on a bunch of PCs for charity only to discover that those users are going to be completely insecure in 2 years because you weren't informed. You might never meet those people again, and who knows what will happen to them. It's reasonable to assume a user knows how to update their computer once in a while; it is not reasonable to assume an "elementary" user knows how to reinstall their OS.
@pacifika: The Ubuntu LTS core will not help the built-in apps that won't receive updates (i.e. Mail, Web, Music, the Parthenon desktop environment), and the LTS core for version 6 (which was current until yesterday) is 20.04 LTS, so it will be obsolete in about 2 years. If you installed Elementary OS for a friend a week ago, that's not what you expected. So, you got 3 1/2 years on the long end of support and 2 years on the short end between releases.
I'd bet that money and humanpower would have fixed the problem, but they didn't have enough of either. The problem was that Elementary OS was a very ambitious project, but they didn't have the same people and money resources that an Ubuntu or Red Hat has. Has that's changed? (I don't know.) And maybe this is a communication issue on their part. They innovated with adding a payment button on their downloads page years ago, which ruffled a lot of feathers. Maybe they should have gone bolder and added larger payment tiers. "Want free upgrades? Click here to pay $600,000 to fund a team of 3 for two years!"