Unix flavour debates are barren

No offense meant to his author, but this article at OSNews is just the kind of article I hate: after a short trial at OpenSolaris, the writer concludes OpenSolaris is a 'bad' Linux distribution. Now is that supposed to be a compliment ?
Mostly, it's the arguments I hate. It says OpenSolaris is slow, but provides absolutely no benchmark. It is slow because 'booting takes forever' and Compiz performs badly. To me, this sounds like an unprofessional impression ... in a professional article. But I'm sure people will remember the title, because the title is catchy. That's how things work nowadays: write whatever content you want, but be sure to put an attractive title and one or two key sentences, and the work is done.
Although I confess I am fond of Solaris, Unix flavour debates are always barren, because nobody's convincing anybody, and perhaps an advantage of Unix is its diversity. For example, yes, I find OpenSolaris slow to boot... but the fact is you don't need to reboot it. It comes from a world of servers, where the idea of stopping your hosts just make you itch. It's slow with Compiz ? Yeah. I don't know: I'm not trying to put heavy-clashy engines on top of luxury OSes. I'm running FVWM on my OpenSolaris, and check out my desktop below, I'm not sure you'd guess this is from the aging FVWM Window Manager.

So, please, if you don't like OpenSolaris, ok. But either proceed to a professional comparison, or say this is just a feeling. Or just quit OS debates.