I also think that GIMP/Photoshop is a classic example.
It is absolutely true that GIMP is not as powerful as PS.
But, at least I and my coworkers (~20 people), use certain commands,
such as adjust levels, which work perfectly with GIMP. We used
to have 2 copies of PhotoShop, and we had a dedicated PC for PS
which anyone could use (the other copy of PS one was in the PC
with the scanner). Some times the PC with PS was the bottleneck
for our work.
Now I have 20 copies of GIMP in 20 PCs, and no bottleneck at all.
But of course, if you must use the full power of PS, go ahead and
buy a license.
Necessity is the mother of invention. If you have to pay $12,000
for 20 copies of PS, there is an incentive to try to find
a way to do your job with GIMP. If you don't, you lost 50 hours.
If you do, your gain is multiplied by the number of your computers,
and you have an advantage over your competitors.
By the way, I have spent many more than 50 hours trying to figure
out how PS does this or the other task (many years ago). I could
have spent the same time learning GIMP. IMHO this is a general
rule (well, at least for technical programs); you have to spend,
on the average, the same time to master
a program, either free or commercial.
But I understand the original poster. I work with AutoCad to create
and edit technical drawings and I use the full power of it. There
is really no alternative to AutoCad. I have tried IntelliCad and
I found myself impatient if it didn't behave exactly like AutoCad.
I recently tried QCAD out of curiosity. I couldn't use it. I am
so much saturated by AutoCad that I couldn't figure out how it works.
I thought it was useless.
But I had an incentive to continue trying. My company has 6 licenses
of AutoCad for a total cost of about $30,000. We needed more.
Now, in my company, we have
many little programs which produce custom drawings. It turns out
that QCAD can be used as a previewer and troubleshooter for these
drawings, before we insert them to very large drawings in AutoCad.
QCAD may save us some licenses.
Finally, I have been pushing for free software and Linux since 1998.
I have been partialy succesful, as we now use OpenOffice, GIMP,
SAMBA, SQUID, firefox, epanet2, gcc, python, 7zip and other free
software. I don't think I will give up. Because it is not the
noble ideals that drive me; it is the prospect of profit.
Well, I also propose to create similar concepts to GPL and LGPL for patents. For example, let us say that I patent the use of logarithms. Then I give userA the right to use the logarithms, on the condition that userA also gives everyone the same rights for all patents userA may have. This would put pressure to M$ to reconsider their patents.
Slashdot Mirror
I also think that GIMP/Photoshop is a classic example. It is absolutely true that GIMP is not as powerful as PS. But, at least I and my coworkers (~20 people), use certain commands, such as adjust levels, which work perfectly with GIMP. We used to have 2 copies of PhotoShop, and we had a dedicated PC for PS which anyone could use (the other copy of PS one was in the PC with the scanner). Some times the PC with PS was the bottleneck for our work. Now I have 20 copies of GIMP in 20 PCs, and no bottleneck at all. But of course, if you must use the full power of PS, go ahead and buy a license.
Necessity is the mother of invention. If you have to pay $12,000 for 20 copies of PS, there is an incentive to try to find a way to do your job with GIMP. If you don't, you lost 50 hours. If you do, your gain is multiplied by the number of your computers, and you have an advantage over your competitors.
By the way, I have spent many more than 50 hours trying to figure out how PS does this or the other task (many years ago). I could have spent the same time learning GIMP. IMHO this is a general rule (well, at least for technical programs); you have to spend, on the average, the same time to master a program, either free or commercial.
But I understand the original poster. I work with AutoCad to create and edit technical drawings and I use the full power of it. There is really no alternative to AutoCad. I have tried IntelliCad and I found myself impatient if it didn't behave exactly like AutoCad. I recently tried QCAD out of curiosity. I couldn't use it. I am so much saturated by AutoCad that I couldn't figure out how it works. I thought it was useless.
But I had an incentive to continue trying. My company has 6 licenses of AutoCad for a total cost of about $30,000. We needed more. Now, in my company, we have many little programs which produce custom drawings. It turns out that QCAD can be used as a previewer and troubleshooter for these drawings, before we insert them to very large drawings in AutoCad. QCAD may save us some licenses.
Finally, I have been pushing for free software and Linux since 1998. I have been partialy succesful, as we now use OpenOffice, GIMP, SAMBA, SQUID, firefox, epanet2, gcc, python, 7zip and other free software. I don't think I will give up. Because it is not the noble ideals that drive me; it is the prospect of profit.
Well, I also propose to create similar concepts
to GPL and LGPL for patents.
For example, let us say that I patent the use of
logarithms. Then I give userA the right to use
the logarithms, on the condition that userA also
gives everyone the same rights for all patents
userA may have.
This would put pressure to M$ to reconsider their
patents.