[lug] a belly laugh from Windows magazine

[Atkinson, Chip]

An interesting notion: 

"Ulead's PhotoImpact 6.0 is, in my opinion, as good a product as Adobe
Photoshop 5 and several hundred dollars cheaper. Linux users would reply
that the GIMP program, a picture-editing package for Linux, is free -- but
it runs only on Linux. That's the crucial difference."

1) It's ok for him to tie himself to Windows via Photoshop or PhotoImpact,
but not to tie himself to "linux" via GIMP.
2) GIMP runs on more platforms than either of the two packages he mentions
as well as Windows (http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32//), and may even run
on Macintosh. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

A non-argument:

"If I'm leading a project and choose free software that is markedly inferior
to commercial software out of a moral obligation to support free software,
that sensibility will present a problem if my project goes over budget or
falls behind schedule because the free program just isn't that good. "

Is that not basically saying that "I'll get in trouble if I make a decision
for the wrong reason(s)"?  
The heart of the matter is the definition of "inferior".  Does one or two
missing features make something inferior?  It does if the features are
necessary to complete your task.  Oddly enough, the other side of the coin
is often not scrutinized.  In other words, if you go buy something that is
available for free, you will rarely get in trouble.  For example, going out
and purchasing Photoshop vs. downloading GIMP.  Strange.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott A. Herod [mailto:herod at interact-tv.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 11:25 AM
> To: lug at lug.boulder.co.us
> Subject: Re: [lug] a belly laugh from Windows magazine
> 
> 
> I liked the comment about how Linux is fragmented which appears 
> in the last paragraph.  I guess the author has never had to explain
> to a seven-year old that the PC games that his grandparents sent
> him won't run even though there is one machine in my house that
> will boot to a MS OS.  Unfortunately, NT and whatever the other
> flavors are, are not completely binary compatible.  ( I've got
> to send my in-laws a link to Loki. )
> 
> > >
> > > I got an unintentional chuckle upon reading Windows
> > > Magazine's "Best and Worst
> > > of 2000" list - specifically their take on Linux
> > > (http://www.winmag.com/specreps/feats/2000/lookback/05.htm).
> > > Would you care to
> > > guess their opinion of Linux?  They love it - NOT!
> > >
> > > But the belly laugh was provided by the following line on 
> that page:
> > >
> > > > If Microsoft fails to respond to specific bugs in a timely
> > > fashion, the best way to
> > > > solve that is not to desert it for another product, but to
> > > keep a firm and resolute
> > > > pressure on it until it does so.
> > >
> > >
> > > (Even my boss laughed - derisively - at that quote, and he
> > > makes a living
> > > selling software which works only with Microsoft Office)
> > >
> > > Calvin
> > > --
> > > Calvin Dodge
> > > Certified Linux Bigot (tm)
> > > http://www.caldodge.fpcc.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
>