[flagged]
The actual discussion in France is about the legitimacy of replacing intact windows even if pretty much everyone agree that the Viollet-le-Duc ones are completely uninteresting. No one is actually against the new glasses per se if it would have been a non story if they were put in place in place of destroyed glasses.
The replaced glass is not from antiquity but from 19th-century modernization.
EDIT: 19th century, actually; 1800's.
These stained glasses are replacing relatively modern, abstract geometric patterns from the 19th century with figurative religious imagery on the theme of the Pentecost.
I can understand why people don't like it, but... evil?
The Nazis by the way, intended to destroy Notre Dame together with the rest of Paris.
> The Nazis by the way, intended to destroy Notre Dame together with the rest of Paris.
Hitler did; the Nazis on the ground refused.
It turns out that most open source projects don’t have any more eyeballs than those paid or volunteering to work on the code, in which case, the gap between open and proprietary isn’t very large at all. Because most open source maintainers aren’t paid, you could even argue there are less good eyeballs than proprietary software.
I’m with Nikolai Bezroukov; who called it a fundamentally broken document decades ago; with many of its assertions based on a pseudo-religious faith.
https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/708/61...