14 Apr
2011
14 Apr
'11
7:31 a.m.
I don't believe that is necessarily always true, but I think it is generally
true that commercial software tends to have better quality, at least among the
applications that a typical end user would use. Now, back office stuff, or
utilities sure... that stuff tends to be pretty good quality. In general though
I think one thing that is particularly lacking in OSS is good user interfaces,
probably because a lot of it is targeted towards techies, and there's a general
sense that, if you don't like it, change it yourself, RTFM, etc.
In this specific example though with image manipulation software, OSS is
glaringly inferior
________________________________
From: Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com>
To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thu, April 14, 2011 8:10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Modern source projects (was Re: difference between Quick
On 4/13/11 4:07 PM, geoffrey oltmans wrote:
Really? Is Gimp better quality than Photoshop or
Aperture? If you were doing
photo work for a living would you bet your paycheck on it? I wouldn't. You may
not always get what you pay for with commercial software, but there are plenty
of instances where it is true. There are plenty of instances of half-baked OSS
solutions like Gimp to compete with commercial apps.
And "commercial" automatically means "good", "complete"
and "debugged", huh?
Wow. You've not used much commercial software, have you. This is becoming
quite the entertaining thread.
-Dave
-- Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL