[vox] Reasons you might not want to use OpenOffice

[Will Marshall]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Ruben Safir <ruben at mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:47:10PM -0700, Will Marshall wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Ruben Safir <ruben at mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 01:57:49PM -0700, Will Marshall
>> > That is truly sad, and IMO, shows a lack of expereince.
>> >
>> No lack of experience on my part.  Lack of 16 bit/channel colour depth
>> in GIMP is a deal-breaker.  No adjustment layers (okay, I know there
>> are some "workarounds" for that last one, but too much of a PITA)...
>> And so on.
>> Even when there is feature parity, it'll take a bit of a push to trade
>> using PS for 12 years to make me want to switch.
>>
>
> You really fail to understand.  Its OK.

Pot.  Kettle.  Black.
>
>
>> Sorry, but for me, arguing free/proprietary is like the editor wars,
>> pointless and stupid.
>
> That would not be an appropriate comparision.

Really?  I see the the same level of fanaticism between advocates of a
single philosophy and those who start flamewars over a single
application.
>
>> I like emacs, my last girlfriend liked vi.  I,
>> and I think most users will use what they like, or what is actually
>> better for *them.*  GIMP can't do what I need, full-stop.
>
> That is probably not true

s/probably//

Do you do digital photography/graphics at a semi-pro level?
Both I, and someone else elsethread pointed out where proprietary
tools are strongest.  I see that you failed to address my dealbreaker
issues with GIMP.  Okay, here's a primer in digital imaging.  Every
single change you make degrades the image.  Data is lost, quality
suffers.  16 bits/channel gives you more information to work with.
When one eventually converts to 8 bits/channel, there is far less of a
quality loss than if one was working in 8 bit colour the entire times.
 I'll give GIMP another try once they have adjustment layers and 16
bit colour.  Until then, it's a non-issue.  An essential feature
simply isn't there.  I hear they'll address the bit depth issue in the
next major release, and I'll give it another try then.  Glad to see
that they finally added support for ICC Profiles.

> and I know design studios that use ONLY free
> software and do superior magazine advert work in the fashion industry.

What's the publication?  Colour on the web is so dodgy that I don't
trust anything published online.  I'll have to pick up a dead tree
copy.  Sources please.
>

> But that is aside the point.  Your just not understanding >what your doing.

Another ad hominem.  Why am I not surprised?

>> Linux is
>> far superior for me than Windows,
>
> And if it wasn't?  SO what?

Then I'd use the appropriate tool for the job.
>
>> and slowly getting me off the
>> iCrack.  Right tool for the right job and all.
>
> You do relize that your used to thinking about computer usage as its
> defined by software venders who are intentionally mani[ulating your user
> experience in such a way to make their method of usage seem to be the
> only "correct" way....

So you're psychic now?  It's not like I trust vendors, I know how they
attempt to achieve lock-in.  I'm just not a masochist.
I'm willing to deal with a learning curve if it works better for me in
the long-run, or is less frustrating once I've learnt how to use it.
>
> Now THAT is a "Dead Stop".

No, it really isn't.
>
>> And I'd much rather
>> spend my time showing people that there *are* alternatives out there,
>> than pointless arguing.
>>
>
> There is more to Free Software than being an "Alternative".  Perhaps it
> is the only alternative.

Even when it doesn't do what I can do with proprietary software?  Yes,
that makes sense.  I'll do without in order to prove an ideological
point.  I'll fuck around for hours getting my wireless/gfx card to
work.  Oh, wait.  No, I'll just use *buntu and the closed-source
drivers.

  But that would be of no real consequence
> either.  It is the proprietary computer systems that catch up to Free
> Software, not the other way around.
>
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  *nix is the strongest in the server
space, and there are by and large no proprietary vendors that can even
match that.  Even Solaris got knocked off it's pedestal.  But even
most places that are running *nix on the backend have a VM running
Exchange, because as bad as it is, OSS is still a bit behind.

Regards,
Will

--
"The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse
resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter." -- Aleister Crowley