[vox] Reasons you might not want to use OpenOffice
evesautomotive at wavecable.com
Tue Oct 26 11:49:27 PDT 2010
<smirk>Personally...I like Word</smirk>
Jimbo <----stirring the pot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Will Marshall" <marshaw3 at imail.losrios.edu>
To: "LUGOD's general discussion mailing list" <vox at lists.lugod.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [vox] Reasons you might not want to use OpenOffice
> 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
>>> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> "The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse
> resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter." -- Aleister Crowley
> vox mailing list
> vox at lists.lugod.org
More information about the vox