Middlebrow is precisely what it aspires to be. It's not a scholarly (highbrow) publication. It's not USA Today (lowbrow). It executes specific conventions capably and asks only that inexpert readers concentrate and enjoy.
"I did not ask for her permission, but I think that her information is in very trusted hands with Paul and I am 100% sure that he would never ever abuse it."
And let's not forget that RMS' views create the space that moderates inhabit. In other words, if there were no RMS, the moderates would be the extremists and we'd all be poorer for it.
For 3 (or was it 4 or 5?) years, jira users have voted for an enhancement to drive jira groups out of LDAP. The reward for this loyalty? Crowd: a whole new product, with a separate, spendy license. Bizarrely, Confluence is capable of doing this LDAP integration without Crowd. But rather than port that over to Jira and make some users happy, Atlassian decided to take another bite out of their wallets instead.
I actually bought Crowd, out of desperation to solve the problem, but dropped it after a year. Trivially obvious features weren't implemented. It ended up being easier to just script what we needed ourselves.
And don't even get me started on how painful it is to upgrade Atlassian products. shudder
Grammar is about sentence structure; your point is about word choice, otherwise known as "diction."
And "flush" is perfectly correct. Used transitively, it means "to expose or chase from a place of concealment." Example: "the hunters used dogs to flush their game from the bushes."
In figurative language, "flush" is a good choice when you're talking about stripping away extraneous information. "Flesh" is used when you're proposing to add more information, as in putting flesh onto bones.
I should add that I'm only addressing your claim that "flush" is inherently scatalogical, not whether the original use was valid.
I don't find his argument particularly convincing. He's assuming that the market can see that something that was open is now closed. And while that might be true for an end user application, it's not at all true for libraries and frameworks that are folded into closed applications.
I'm the author of an LGPL-ed library. It sees a modest amount of use and my goal in choosing that license is that any changes made to that library be shared back with the rest of the community. It's not GPL-ed, so you don't have to share your application code, but if you change my library, you do have to share your changes/improvements. If you don't want to share, then don't use my library. Simple, right?
Well, every few months I get a note from someone who has noticed an application that doesn't meet this simple test. And I have to send them a dunning notice about the license violation. How many applications are there that I don't get notes about? And absent a license, does anyone seriously think that the mass market would give up "desirable application X" because its creators were bad actors vis-a-vis some embedded library?