> Uh what!? About every single Linux distro has .iso files available.
That doesn't really mean much. The point is that there's practically only disadvantages to ISOs and using image files instead would make more sense nowadays.
> The point is that there's practically only disadvantages to ISOs
Except burning to "legacy" optical media.
That can't be altered once burnt. If I could write it on a stone tablet I would (more durable).
Also the author comes off as arrogant/rude, calling people who don't like ISO as "older members". Maybe I'm "old" no longer being a twenty something, but I'm also not (yet) "old".
That doesn't really mean much. The point is that there's practically only disadvantages to ISOs and using image files instead would make more sense nowadays.