Latex or bust!

Ah, gotcha. Glad to hear that’s the philosophy.

Anecdotally speaking, Bootstrap has been a godsend my school’s computer science department. When the primary focus is on the technical side of a product, Bootstrap is great.

There's a large market for Bootstrap, and decrying it as “mediocre” misses the point that for a large group of people, the alternative to Bootstrap is something completely terrible or nothing at all.

Sure, but what do you tell somebody who doesn't know much about web design but also wants to make one that is accessible, responsive, and looks pretty good? I see four options:

1. Hire a designer, which may be prohibitively expensive.
2. Learn how to design websites, which takes a lot of time.
3. Try to wing it with their own styles/grids, which may not end being very good.
4. Use Bootstrap, which gets them 80-90% of the way there.

For them, the website isn't the end-all, be-all. It's whatever they're making that’s important, and the website gets them over that first hump. Like Mark Otto said below:

“What matters to me is that someone out there built something that maybe they could've have before, or would've taken more time to do, etc.”

Your suggestion is the equivalent of telling the aforementioned person to go fuck themselves. Personally, I think that the more people use/make stuff on the web, the better, and Bootstrap is a great tool to help people do exactly that.

I fail to see how making the web more responsive and accessible is bad thing. I think the alternative to “mediocre websites” are even worse websites or no website in the first place.

Did I plagiarize you with my comment? If so, sorry!

People familiar with Bootstrap: “Fuck, another Bootstrap page.”

Everybody else: “Oh, cool! A well designed, functional website.”