I'm not saying this to be sarcastic, but one big difference could be if he gets paid.
If they're offering to pay you for a closed source license, then it's worth time to research it. If they want the code free, they got no business asking a coder to do even more work for them in the form of a new license for free.
Obviously said by someone who's never put a lot of work into a program, video, script, or anything else that requires creative work, then wondered why he wasn't making money on it.
If I build a house, I get paid by the people who use it. If I put the same effort into, say, a film script, that might take anywhere from 6 weeks to a year to write, why should people get it for free?
Interesting how the kiddies who've never had to work for a living thing they should get everything for free and don't have the backbone to produce anything worthwhile in exchange. They're the real users or AOLusers -- use and use and too impotent to produce on their own.
Since you're the one that complained, they will naturally suspect you when the BSA or someone else shows up. Wait until someone gets fired or there's a tiff with the boss and an employee or something like that -- in other words, don't file a complaint until someone else there would have a reason to want to nail the boss, then file it so the timing makes it look like that person is complaining, not you.
I wonder, though. When I first read this, and the "grass roots" (okay, astroturf) focus, my first thought was, "They must be REALLY desperate to make this one work." It just smacks of fear of it not selling unless they can convince people to buy it and get a buzz going.
You have no idea if he was a dumb ass or not. You are simply trying to justify a stand you've taken that is not justifiable. I met the man later and talked with him. I know what he's like. I also know others who have been in accidents or caused accidents. They are not all dumb-asses, as you so eloquently like to label them. (It is amazing how you are so qualified to judge people that you have never met!)
As for people who are capable of this and that, I worked in residential treatment for a number of years. That included exposure to many aspects of psychology. There are serious safety issues with cell phones and the issues with texting are even more severe. In short, in language even you can understand, texting requires a part of the brain that is different than what you use when driving and evaluating danger. Many of us think we can focus on just one letter at a time, but we can't. At some point we have to keep the spelling of the overall phrase in our heads. This means we're using a large part of our brain in a way that does not mesh easily with evaluating danger. It's not just the second you're looking down, but the associated diversion of attention that goes with that.
Also, I notice you don't touch the point of 80 ft in a second.
You don't touch the point that the odds basically add up when you multiply them by the millions, or thousands if you take one area, of people who are taking that risk. You didn't touch it when someone else brought it up, either.
So you go after the one point you think you can attack and ignore all the facts that disprove what you say. Interesting tactic. Pretty close to what we, in treatment, at a layman's level, called denial. Just ignore the facts and figures that disprove what you want to believe so you don't have to accept that your position or belief is indefensible and arrogant.
In other words, I and others have proven you wrong, yet you try to ignore that and go after an argument you think you can make without paying attention to all the facts given you.
That doesn't work. Neither does your habit of calling names (it's called an ad hominem logical fallacy -- attack the person and not the facts). That's just one of the number of serious gaps in your arguments. I guess when you can't support what you say with proof, you'd rather just call names. Aren't you better than someone who has to resort to such methods?
1 second at 55 MPH is about 80 feet. That's enough for your car to start veering into a lane, it's enough for that's a safe distance ahead to break before you can react in time, it's enough for another car to end up in your range without you knowing it. It's even enough, if there's a pothole that was hard to see to throw you off course so you hit a tree.
The odds sound really, really good until you're the person that gets hit by some idiot who thinks the chances of an accident are slim. I'm still recovering from an accident at the start of March where someone didn't see a light was red. With snow on the ground and piled up beside the road, I was literally unable to see enough of his lane to be sure it was clear until it was too late (and I had the green light). What are the chances of someone running a red light just when I'm coming through the intersection so the worst part of the impact is, literally, my driver's side door? It doesn't matter. It happened.
When you're working the odds, remember those millions of people and remember the odds grow when you count every one of them taking their eyes off the road for one second.
Yes, driving is dangerous. Is doing something that makes it more dangerous intelligent or stupid? Is taking a risk when none need be taken wise or foolish?
You can cite odds, but when the day comes when you suddenly can't breath and feel prickles getting worse and more painful over large parts of your body from shattered glass and you realize an EMT is holding your head so you can't move it because they're concerned over possible spinal injuries and you get pulled out of a vehicle on a backboard (which is anything but comfortable) and see a face or two of friends you know (and what are the odds of that -- but it happened to me) in the crowd wondering if you, a multiple-award-winning competitive ballroom dancer, will ever even walk again, then you realize just how stupid counting on the odds when human lives and futures are at stake is.
Huh, funny you chose to go after that example, since you've skipped over some important points. Ford was guilty of gross negligence. And your "proof" doesn't hold water, either.
Any chance you can supply facts to support your comments? Yes, you Googled and got 500. How many were out for how long before the recall? You can't lay odds on the chance of one Pinto exploding from those numbers. First, the issue was early in the product line. Second, we don't know (unless you want to Google) how many were fixed by the recall. Third, the recall and such actions may (we will never know for sure) have prevented the same flaw from occurring in models in future years. Fourth, you are overlooking the fact that Ford had done a study on whether it was cheaper to redesign the car or to just pay off the lawsuits when they happened and concluded the redesign was more expensive.
In other words, it was PROVEN Ford knew of the flaw, knew it could be fatal, and elected to pay the lawsuits for families of anyone killed than to redesign the car.
Also, likes like, "You can bed that...." really don't hold water in backing up a statement. First, the safety issues were in the early years of the Pinto, so we don't know how many rear-endings there were on those early year models that didn't blow up. Second, situations like this often occur under certain conditions. It may be that if the car that hit them from the rear had a bumper of the same height, the explosion occurred. That may not the actual circumstance that made a difference, but any car company that decides to pay off lawsuits instead of redesigning a vehicle (as I recall, although this was decades ago, it would have cost less than $20 per car to fix) is guilty of gross negligence.
Please just give us your real name so when you're on trial, we can let the judge and the family of the deceased know that you felt it was up to you to make a judgment on whether or not the risk was acceptable for you to text a message that required you to take your eyes off the road regularly for up to 88 ft at a time (or more) so you missed a sudden braking by a car you THOUGHT was far enough ahead.
I used to work in residential treatment and dealt with a lot of people who worked in associated places, such as those dealing with traumatic brain injuries or spinal injuries or many others that impacted people's ability to think clearly or walk or do anything but lie there and be fed several times daily and watch TV. Those wards are filled not only with people who said the very things you're saying now, but, even worse, are filled more with people that had their lives taken away by people who said the very things you're saying.
Is getting that text out RIGHT NOW worth that chance? Are you so sure that you are better than everyone else in reaction time and judgment that you're some kind of super human that can safely do what other humans cannot safely do? Are you that conceited that you're going to pretend you are NOT taking the lives of others into your own hands when you do something as foolish as this?
Please, tell me what state you live in so I can avoid it and you.
My experience is that many of the woman I've gone out with that exhibit an abundance of self confidence may do well professionally or in their hobbies, but often are a mess personally. Even more, I find that they may show a lot of self confidence in the first few dates, but once you get past that, they're quite insecure and just hiding it.
Harry Truman used to say he didn't want to talk to experts because an expert was just someone who didn't want to learn anything more on a subject because if he did, then he'd find out he didn't know it all and wasn't an expert any longer.
I've worked with programmers, actors, and people in many other groups where some think they can get away with being a prima donna. I have yet to meet anyone who was in top form in their field that I had to work with who really did have that attitude. I know some are out there, but overall, those that want to do something right are too concerned about what they're doing to pump up their own ego. Generally the best are the ones that know more than others, but because of that, they realize how much they DON'T know and that tends to keep them from getting those ego highs.
So Earth finally discovers the repulsive force from the ninth light ray that they've known about on the dying planet of Barsoom for millennia. Does that mean that soon we can have navies of huge floating ships like the Kingdom of Helium does? Or that soon we'll be able to see the two colors they know about on Barsoom that we've never seen on Earth?
I always laugh whenever I hear someone say, "I have two left feet." People think learning to dance (other than SYB or FIB style -- Shake Your Booty or Frog In Blender) is something they just can't do. That's not at all true. Salsa, as the previous poster points out is easy to learn. Many ballroom dances are so easy to learn the basic that it's laughable. Want to foxtrot? Start with both feet together. Step forward with the left, then forward (past the left) with the right. now bring your left foot up to brush your right one and move it over to the left. Move the right one over. Four steps: forward-forward-side-side. Do it to "slow-slow-quick-quick" and you'll see it's not hard. Tango, which people think of as so exotic, takes only one more step to do and is almost as easy.
I was such a klutz teachers called me names in front of the entire grade, but at my last ballroom competition I won 1st place in every entry I did. If a geek and klutz like me can do it, anyone without a serious physical disability can do it.
That's about what I said in the early "firehose" version of this article. To make my life easier, here's what I wrote in that discussion:
Try taking ballroom dancing. There are always more women than men (except for the odd class now and then). It's a LOT easier than people think and once you learn to give a firm lead, then you'll find you're a desirable dance partner.
I started ballroom dancing because I was scared to death of it. I was such a klutz in school even the teachers made fun of me (one called me "physical degenerate" in front of the entire grade, for example). I found many of the dances are easier to learn than I would have dreamed and after less than two years, I'm even competing. In my last competition, I had 19 entries and two showcase dances and won 1st place in all 21 events. I'm not known for my coordination, but if you take the lessons and practice even a little during the week, you'll be surprised how good a dancer you can be.
I found that once I started developing any sense of what the moves for different dances were, women start asking me if I'm going to the different parties and I'm often asked for more dances than I have time for in one evening.
Just remember to shower and brush your teeth before going to lessons or to a dance -- we geeks can be forgetful!
This is close to my thoughts. Basically make it visibly and notably hard for them to use. Either use a Linux desktop with things configured in a way that works for you but will confuse them, or use Firefox with No-Script installed so Javascript or other key and important features don't work on their email accounts or anything else that works for you but will make it hard for them. At some point they'll realize it's more of a pain to use your computer than to wait or do something else.
Also, when they complain about some change you've made, like disabling IE so they have to use Firefox, say, "Sorry about that, but I set it up for what works for me and what keeps my data safe. I'm sure if you had your own computer, you'd set it up for you and not other people."
Weird. I read the post several times through -- didn't see the "(not to include editing)" and now it's there. While I miss words and symbols due to a learning disability, I don't see how I missed that. I'm going to see if the cached original is different.
Still, after 10 years of a Linux desktop, then switching to an iMac for the past few months, my experience is that on FOSS there's too much time spent working with tools than using tools to do the work.
They're making a movie. Do you think they're going to shoot on celluloid and edit with splicers? Do you have any idea how much that costs compared to shooting in even HD and editing on a computer? Unless they're a mega-bucks company, they're going need to edit on computers.
I used to work as a videographer, then left and started an IT business based entirely on FOSS and my own work. The entire purpose of this business was to create a revenue stream so I could start a film business. In other words, I know FOSS well, used Linux almost exclusively on my servers and desktop for years, and know film and video well.
If you want to do ANYTHING with film or video editing, do NOT use Linux. While there are a number of great programs for editing audio on Linux and in the FOSS world, the video programs still lag behind. Many times there are issues with importing the video. (Trying to get video from my HD camcorder into any usable format on Ubuntu Intrepid was a nightmare!) There are some programs that show promise for video editing and DVD authoring, but even as late as Intrepid, many still had issues, wouldn't always burn to different DVD drives, had trouble importing more than one or two formats, or provided only a limited subset of editing abilities.
I started looking at Linux for AV work around 2001 or so and was disappointed by what was available. As time went on and I was doing my IT work for my business, I figured that by the time I was ready to do film work, FOSS programs would be as well. Sadly, 8 or 9 years later, they simply are not. Some people will say, "But xxxxx does a great job!" Yeah, it does -- if you don't need professional editing capabilities. As of now I haven't seen a FOSS video editing program that can even do what Adobe's Premiere did in 2000 for $600.
So a few months ago I bought an iMac and paid $250 for Final Cut Express. I'm stunned -- it's like I'm actually back in the world of film and video and have a program designed by film editors, not by programmers who want to tell film editors what they should need.
I love FOSS. I love it enough to say, "There are some serious problems in the FOSS world," instead of pretending everything is the best it could be. My experience is that in the Windows world the driving force behind new software is a company that wants to make something people can use so they make a profit. In the Linux/FOSS world the driving force behind new software is developers that love what they do but often are touchy when receiving criticism of their "baby" and are used to the console and do not focus heavily on the GUI design, expecting people to learn what they already know to use their programs. I'm not a fanboy, but in 2-3 months on an iMac, my experience is that the driving force of app development on Apple is users or companies that want to give the users the tools they need to do a job.
If you want to provide your people with tools that you, as a techie and Linuxer, like for philosophical reasons, go Linux -- but be aware that your creative people will spend more time adjusting and setting up and modifying their tools than they will doing their jobs. If you want to provide them with software that lets them do their jobs, instead of having to deal with settings and tech stuff, go with Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying this to be sarcastic, but one big difference could be if he gets paid.
If they're offering to pay you for a closed source license, then it's worth time to research it. If they want the code free, they got no business asking a coder to do even more work for them in the form of a new license for free.
But I have it on good authority he's not that kind of doctor.
Obviously said by someone who's never put a lot of work into a program, video, script, or anything else that requires creative work, then wondered why he wasn't making money on it.
If I build a house, I get paid by the people who use it. If I put the same effort into, say, a film script, that might take anywhere from 6 weeks to a year to write, why should people get it for free?
Interesting how the kiddies who've never had to work for a living thing they should get everything for free and don't have the backbone to produce anything worthwhile in exchange. They're the real users or AOLusers -- use and use and too impotent to produce on their own.
Since you're the one that complained, they will naturally suspect you when the BSA or someone else shows up. Wait until someone gets fired or there's a tiff with the boss and an employee or something like that -- in other words, don't file a complaint until someone else there would have a reason to want to nail the boss, then file it so the timing makes it look like that person is complaining, not you.
So how long have you been in Amway?
Who the hell is going to respect someone who is whorish enough to do such a thing?
Anyone in Amway.
He'll be the chairman, correct?
Nah, they're throwing parties, not chairs.
I wonder, though. When I first read this, and the "grass roots" (okay, astroturf) focus, my first thought was, "They must be REALLY desperate to make this one work." It just smacks of fear of it not selling unless they can convince people to buy it and get a buzz going.
You have no idea if he was a dumb ass or not. You are simply trying to justify a stand you've taken that is not justifiable. I met the man later and talked with him. I know what he's like. I also know others who have been in accidents or caused accidents. They are not all dumb-asses, as you so eloquently like to label them. (It is amazing how you are so qualified to judge people that you have never met!)
As for people who are capable of this and that, I worked in residential treatment for a number of years. That included exposure to many aspects of psychology. There are serious safety issues with cell phones and the issues with texting are even more severe. In short, in language even you can understand, texting requires a part of the brain that is different than what you use when driving and evaluating danger. Many of us think we can focus on just one letter at a time, but we can't. At some point we have to keep the spelling of the overall phrase in our heads. This means we're using a large part of our brain in a way that does not mesh easily with evaluating danger. It's not just the second you're looking down, but the associated diversion of attention that goes with that.
Also, I notice you don't touch the point of 80 ft in a second.
You don't touch the point that the odds basically add up when you multiply them by the millions, or thousands if you take one area, of people who are taking that risk. You didn't touch it when someone else brought it up, either.
So you go after the one point you think you can attack and ignore all the facts that disprove what you say. Interesting tactic. Pretty close to what we, in treatment, at a layman's level, called denial. Just ignore the facts and figures that disprove what you want to believe so you don't have to accept that your position or belief is indefensible and arrogant.
In other words, I and others have proven you wrong, yet you try to ignore that and go after an argument you think you can make without paying attention to all the facts given you.
That doesn't work. Neither does your habit of calling names (it's called an ad hominem logical fallacy -- attack the person and not the facts). That's just one of the number of serious gaps in your arguments. I guess when you can't support what you say with proof, you'd rather just call names. Aren't you better than someone who has to resort to such methods?
You're wrong, it's been shown, get over it.
Please move along.
1 second at 55 MPH is about 80 feet. That's enough for your car to start veering into a lane, it's enough for that's a safe distance ahead to break before you can react in time, it's enough for another car to end up in your range without you knowing it. It's even enough, if there's a pothole that was hard to see to throw you off course so you hit a tree.
The odds sound really, really good until you're the person that gets hit by some idiot who thinks the chances of an accident are slim. I'm still recovering from an accident at the start of March where someone didn't see a light was red. With snow on the ground and piled up beside the road, I was literally unable to see enough of his lane to be sure it was clear until it was too late (and I had the green light). What are the chances of someone running a red light just when I'm coming through the intersection so the worst part of the impact is, literally, my driver's side door? It doesn't matter. It happened.
When you're working the odds, remember those millions of people and remember the odds grow when you count every one of them taking their eyes off the road for one second.
Yes, driving is dangerous. Is doing something that makes it more dangerous intelligent or stupid? Is taking a risk when none need be taken wise or foolish?
You can cite odds, but when the day comes when you suddenly can't breath and feel prickles getting worse and more painful over large parts of your body from shattered glass and you realize an EMT is holding your head so you can't move it because they're concerned over possible spinal injuries and you get pulled out of a vehicle on a backboard (which is anything but comfortable) and see a face or two of friends you know (and what are the odds of that -- but it happened to me) in the crowd wondering if you, a multiple-award-winning competitive ballroom dancer, will ever even walk again, then you realize just how stupid counting on the odds when human lives and futures are at stake is.
Huh, funny you chose to go after that example, since you've skipped over some important points. Ford was guilty of gross negligence. And your "proof" doesn't hold water, either.
Any chance you can supply facts to support your comments? Yes, you Googled and got 500. How many were out for how long before the recall? You can't lay odds on the chance of one Pinto exploding from those numbers. First, the issue was early in the product line. Second, we don't know (unless you want to Google) how many were fixed by the recall. Third, the recall and such actions may (we will never know for sure) have prevented the same flaw from occurring in models in future years. Fourth, you are overlooking the fact that Ford had done a study on whether it was cheaper to redesign the car or to just pay off the lawsuits when they happened and concluded the redesign was more expensive.
In other words, it was PROVEN Ford knew of the flaw, knew it could be fatal, and elected to pay the lawsuits for families of anyone killed than to redesign the car.
Also, likes like, "You can bed that...." really don't hold water in backing up a statement. First, the safety issues were in the early years
of the Pinto, so we don't know how many rear-endings there were on those early year models that didn't blow up. Second, situations like this often occur under certain conditions. It may be that if the car that hit them from the rear had a bumper of the same height, the explosion occurred. That may not the actual circumstance that made a difference, but any car company that decides to pay off lawsuits instead of redesigning a vehicle (as I recall, although this was decades ago, it would have cost less than $20 per car to fix) is guilty of gross negligence.
Please just give us your real name so when you're on trial, we can let the judge and the family of the deceased know that you felt it was up to you to make a judgment on whether or not the risk was acceptable for you to text a message that required you to take your eyes off the road regularly for up to 88 ft at a time (or more) so you missed a sudden braking by a car you THOUGHT was far enough ahead.
I used to work in residential treatment and dealt with a lot of people who worked in associated places, such as those dealing with traumatic brain injuries or spinal injuries or many others that impacted people's ability to think clearly or walk or do anything but lie there and be fed several times daily and watch TV. Those wards are filled not only with people who said the very things you're saying now, but, even worse, are filled more with people that had their lives taken away by people who said the very things you're saying.
Is getting that text out RIGHT NOW worth that chance? Are you so sure that you are better than everyone else in reaction time and judgment that you're some kind of super human that can safely do what other humans cannot safely do? Are you that conceited that you're going to pretend you are NOT taking the lives of others into your own hands when you do something as foolish as this?
Please, tell me what state you live in so I can avoid it and you.
My experience is that many of the woman I've gone out with that exhibit an abundance of self confidence may do well professionally or in their hobbies, but often are a mess personally. Even more, I find that they may show a lot of self confidence in the first few dates, but once you get past that, they're quite insecure and just hiding it.
Harry Truman used to say he didn't want to talk to experts because an expert was just someone who didn't want to learn anything more on a subject because if he did, then he'd find out he didn't know it all and wasn't an expert any longer.
I've worked with programmers, actors, and people in many other groups where some think they can get away with being a prima donna. I have yet to meet anyone who was in top form in their field that I had to work with who really did have that attitude. I know some are out there, but overall, those that want to do something right are too concerned about what they're doing to pump up their own ego. Generally the best are the ones that know more than others, but because of that, they realize how much they DON'T know and that tends to keep them from getting those ego highs.
So Earth finally discovers the repulsive force from the ninth light ray that they've known about on the dying planet of Barsoom for millennia. Does that mean that soon we can have navies of huge floating ships like the Kingdom of Helium does? Or that soon we'll be able to see the two colors they know about on Barsoom that we've never seen on Earth?
I've seen some overweight guys do quite well on the ballroom floor:
Overweight James Bond foxtrot
Overweight Chimney Sweep moving REALLY fast in the Viennese waltz
In less than I year, I've lost 8 belt notches through ballroom dancing.
I always laugh whenever I hear someone say, "I have two left feet." People think learning to dance (other than SYB or FIB style -- Shake Your Booty or Frog In Blender) is something they just can't do. That's not at all true. Salsa, as the previous poster points out is easy to learn. Many ballroom dances are so easy to learn the basic that it's laughable. Want to foxtrot? Start with both feet together. Step forward with the left, then forward (past the left) with the right. now bring your left foot up to brush your right one and move it over to the left. Move the right one over. Four steps: forward-forward-side-side. Do it to "slow-slow-quick-quick" and you'll see it's not hard. Tango, which people think of as so exotic, takes only one more step to do and is almost as easy.
I was such a klutz teachers called me names in front of the entire grade, but at my last ballroom competition I won 1st place in every entry I did. If a geek and klutz like me can do it, anyone without a serious physical disability can do it.
That's about what I said in the early "firehose" version of this article. To make my life easier, here's what I wrote in that discussion:
Try taking ballroom dancing. There are always more women than men (except for the odd class now and then). It's a LOT easier than people think and once you learn to give a firm lead, then you'll find you're a desirable dance partner.
I started ballroom dancing because I was scared to death of it. I was such a klutz in school even the teachers made fun of me (one called me "physical degenerate" in front of the entire grade, for example). I found many of the dances are easier to learn than I would have dreamed and after less than two years, I'm even competing. In my last competition, I had 19 entries and two showcase dances and won 1st place in all 21 events. I'm not known for my coordination, but if you take the lessons and practice even a little during the week, you'll be surprised how good a dancer you can be.
I found that once I started developing any sense of what the moves for different dances were, women start asking me if I'm going to the different parties and I'm often asked for more dances than I have time for in one evening.
Just remember to shower and brush your teeth before going to lessons or to a dance -- we geeks can be forgetful!
Just hope it's no Dr. John Leslie Stevenson...
This is close to my thoughts. Basically make it visibly and notably hard for them to use. Either use a Linux desktop with things configured in a way that works for you but will confuse them, or use Firefox with No-Script installed so Javascript or other key and important features don't work on their email accounts or anything else that works for you but will make it hard for them. At some point they'll realize it's more of a pain to use your computer than to wait or do something else.
Also, when they complain about some change you've made, like disabling IE so they have to use Firefox, say, "Sorry about that, but I set it up for what works for me and what keeps my data safe. I'm sure if you had your own computer, you'd set it up for you and not other people."
Maybe it was posted by his boyfriend.
Weird. I read the post several times through -- didn't see the "(not to include editing)" and now it's there. While I miss words and symbols due to a learning disability, I don't see how I missed that. I'm going to see if the cached original is different.
Still, after 10 years of a Linux desktop, then switching to an iMac for the past few months, my experience is that on FOSS there's too much time spent working with tools than using tools to do the work.
They're making a movie. Do you think they're going to shoot on celluloid and edit with splicers? Do you have any idea how much that costs compared to shooting in even HD and editing on a computer? Unless they're a mega-bucks company, they're going need to edit on computers.
If you're dealing with video equipment, Linux support is often poor.
I used to work as a videographer, then left and started an IT business based entirely on FOSS and my own work. The entire purpose of this business was to create a revenue stream so I could start a film business. In other words, I know FOSS well, used Linux almost exclusively on my servers and desktop for years, and know film and video well.
If you want to do ANYTHING with film or video editing, do NOT use Linux. While there are a number of great programs for editing audio on Linux and in the FOSS world, the video programs still lag behind. Many times there are issues with importing the video. (Trying to get video from my HD camcorder into any usable format on Ubuntu Intrepid was a nightmare!) There are some programs that show promise for video editing and DVD authoring, but even as late as Intrepid, many still had issues, wouldn't always burn to different DVD drives, had trouble importing more than one or two formats, or provided only a limited subset of editing abilities.
I started looking at Linux for AV work around 2001 or so and was disappointed by what was available. As time went on and I was doing my IT work for my business, I figured that by the time I was ready to do film work, FOSS programs would be as well. Sadly, 8 or 9 years later, they simply are not. Some people will say, "But xxxxx does a great job!" Yeah, it does -- if you don't need professional editing capabilities. As of now I haven't seen a FOSS video editing program that can even do what Adobe's Premiere did in 2000 for $600.
So a few months ago I bought an iMac and paid $250 for Final Cut Express. I'm stunned -- it's like I'm actually back in the world of film and video and have a program designed by film editors, not by programmers who want to tell film editors what they should need.
I love FOSS. I love it enough to say, "There are some serious problems in the FOSS world," instead of pretending everything is the best it could be. My experience is that in the Windows world the driving force behind new software is a company that wants to make something people can use so they make a profit. In the Linux/FOSS world the driving force behind new software is developers that love what they do but often are touchy when receiving criticism of their "baby" and are used to the console and do not focus heavily on the GUI design, expecting people to learn what they already know to use their programs. I'm not a fanboy, but in 2-3 months on an iMac, my experience is that the driving force of app development on Apple is users or companies that want to give the users the tools they need to do a job.
If you want to provide your people with tools that you, as a techie and Linuxer, like for philosophical reasons, go Linux -- but be aware that your creative people will spend more time adjusting and setting up and modifying their tools than they will doing their jobs. If you want to provide them with software that lets them do their jobs, instead of having to deal with settings and tech stuff, go with Mac.