No, the parent was trying to make a biased point and only focusing on the "average home user" which is just silly to me.
Yes, he is focusing on the average home user. Umm, isn't that what I just said? An average home user is much more likely to purchase MS Word or Photoshop than the software you listed. The parent made no effort to target your market, but that doesn't make him wrong. He is perfectly correct in saying that there is more commercial software on other platforms, when you take into account the market he is talking about, which is what I pointed out to you.
So obviously you are correct, too, for your market. That is merely what I pointed out to you. There is no point in arguing truth VS truth, especially with me who has no part in the discussion other than to point out to you what the parent is actually talking about.
And yes, I agree the term "normal person" is very silly. I didn't feel the need to explain that that term is often used (inaccurately) to describe home users. Don't be so naive as to think I was trying to offend you by inferring that you somehow aren't normal because you are a corporate user. Oh brother.
Linux can run Oracle 9i, Oracle 9iAS, Oracle Financials, DB2, Informix, PeopleSoft HR, PeopleSoft Portal, SAP, VERITAS Cluster Server, BEA WebLogic, BEA JRockit, Novell eDirectory, Lotus Domino, and literally tons of other commercial applications, many of which do not run under Mac OS X.
And not one of those commercial software packages are anything that a normal person would want to run. I believe the parent was talking about commercial software that people actually use like MS Word and Photoshop.
Not that those software titles are useful in their own place, but... VERITAS Cluster Server? Honestly...
Have you ever heard ogg comapred to mp3 at the same bitrate?
Why, yes as a matter of fact. But if you'll kindly reread my post you will realize that I wasn't bashing ogg vorbis from a technical stand-point. Everything I said was true apart from my obvious underestimation of the vorbis community size: ogg vorbis isn't the standard.
Microsoft has never written software that forces a customer to use specific hardware. However, for Apple, it's not an isolated incident, but their business strategy.
I know! I hate how iTunes locks me into using Apple's computers. Wait...
Funny. HP users have just gotten a taste of how being a Mac user a couple years ago was (not now, because who cares). Just wait until it gets to a personal level.
This shouldn't be a difficult concept, but you are mixing stuff into this argument that should not be here. Let's stick to logic.
Things have value. Using better software is more valuable to me than using sub-par software. I get all the rights I want with the software I buy or I would not buy it. What I want is the right to use the software. The right of discribution and other benefits of Free are not important when it comes to getting the job done.
For this reason, using such software for the sake of Free is a bad decision. If you have other reasons to use Free (price issues), then whatever. But by not telling me any benefits you receive, it sounds like you truly are using Free for its own sake.
Unfortunately, you haven't proven to me that you really do understand the price of Free, but this discussion is now boring me. Good luck to you.
And quite frankly, it's really your fault for encoding your music in a format with such small market-share and a hazy future. That, too, is the price of Free.
I will happily "rent" if I get better software which allows me to do better work (make more money).
That's the real price of Free which you don't understand. What good is "owning" (and that verb is too strong) something if it isn't as good?
I'm obviously making a big assumption here that you are under the opinion that Photoshop is indeed better than GIMP. If you don't think so, then it doesn't apply. But most people consider Photoshop a better package for numerous reasons (and I have the opinion that if you don't think it is, you're in denial), so I think my assumption is safe.
But if my assumption is correct, you are indeed, in a way, "suffering" through using a product when a better one is available to you just for the sake of it being Free. What benefits do you think Free gives you other than price (because you didn't want to talk about that issue)?
Actually, I understood your post perfectly the first time, but I failed to format my response in a very easy-to-understand way.
When I say "you get what you pay for," I'm not talking about money either. I understand very well what Free means. But now that you bring pricing into the picture, the same statement does apply.
The point is, if you care about Free, like handing out copies of GIMP is important to you or something, then go for it. But when it's time to get stuff done, the choice is obvious.
Personally, I'd say not using superior software because you're not allowed to give it to a million people is crazy. It's just an excuse. Truly, it really is about price. The same thing really applies to Linux whether anyone will believe it or not. It's like, I'm going to suffer through using this operating system without an complete desktop experience merely because it's not proprietary.
There's something wrong with that logic.
But like I said before, at least there's something for everyone.
But is it better than GIMP? Yes. Does Adobe have the right to prohibit you from "giving it to your friend" in order to make money? Yes. Why doesn't Adobe just make Photoshop opensource? Because how much money does Photoshop produced compared to the GIMP project?
Bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with either product. If you want Free, you get what you pay for. If you want a better product, at least it's available to you.
Yes it was. I'm trying to take this one step at a time for you. But I think you're ready. My other point was (as you should have read in my original reply) that what this person does with his time is not anyone else's business.
And again, you have the right to mock him. And I have the right to mock you for wasting your time mocking him. I can also mock myself for wasting my time to mock you for mocking him.
I personally can't repeat the same thing with Microsoft because "the fact that [Microsoft] makes good products" doesn't sit well with me.
Furthermore, you have strayed from the topic at hand. I don't know why you just told me your OS preference; I certainly don't care. The point of my post was not to put Apple upon the pedestal as the perfect example of how a company should be run, though you seem to think I said something like that. Apple does no wrong in my book? That's putting a lot of words in my mouth which have never been there.
So, since you seem to have become lost, let's reiterate the point: Apple has the right to make and sell their products to whoever is willing to pay for them. You also have the right to bash Apple because they don't do everything you want as a company. And then I have the right to explain to you why they do the things they do and proceed to read your nonsensical replies.
Apple is a US-based corporation. The US has a capitalist-based economy. Aside from the fact that Apple makes good products, what is so wrong with buying anything from a money-making entity as long as you are willing to pay the price for what they sell?
If you aren't willing to pay the price, then it's not your place to complain.
As for the guy writing software for Mac OS X, it's also not your place to decide what other people should do with their time.
"Printing? I'm using GNOME CUPS and it's as easy as could be. Click New Printer and choose my model of printer from the list...."
Being very picky, but that's not as easy as it could be. With Rendezvous, we don't have to know what the type and model of the printer is anymore. Actually, we didn't have to know that stuff with AppleTalk, either. Plug it in, it works.
I agree that eye candy can be useless. It often exists for users to say "oh wow." But not all eye candy is bad.
OS X uses a lot of effects to actually help users. For example, shadows on windows. It's a fast way to see which windows are on top of other windows (an already easy thing, usually; just easier/faster). Zooming windows across the screen when they could just disappear and appear at their destination: easily see where things are, or went. This relates to Expose, too.
Then there's eye candy that doesn't increase productivity, like the rotating cube animation for switching users. Transparency might also fit here, although it's sometimes useful, too, when dragging large things to make sure you drop dragged things where they need to be.
In the last category, there's eye candy that decrease productivity. I can't think of any good examples in OS X, but I'm sure there are some.
In the end, though, you should find that there are relatively few effects in OS X which don't have a purpose, and even fewer which decrease productivity.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the parent was trying to make a biased point and only focusing on the "average home user" which is just silly to me.
Yes, he is focusing on the average home user. Umm, isn't that what I just said? An average home user is much more likely to purchase MS Word or Photoshop than the software you listed. The parent made no effort to target your market, but that doesn't make him wrong. He is perfectly correct in saying that there is more commercial software on other platforms, when you take into account the market he is talking about, which is what I pointed out to you.
So obviously you are correct, too, for your market. That is merely what I pointed out to you. There is no point in arguing truth VS truth, especially with me who has no part in the discussion other than to point out to you what the parent is actually talking about.
And yes, I agree the term "normal person" is very silly. I didn't feel the need to explain that that term is often used (inaccurately) to describe home users. Don't be so naive as to think I was trying to offend you by inferring that you somehow aren't normal because you are a corporate user. Oh brother.
Linux can run Oracle 9i, Oracle 9iAS, Oracle Financials, DB2, Informix, PeopleSoft HR, PeopleSoft Portal, SAP, VERITAS Cluster Server, BEA WebLogic, BEA JRockit, Novell eDirectory, Lotus Domino, and literally tons of other commercial applications, many of which do not run under Mac OS X.
And not one of those commercial software packages are anything that a normal person would want to run. I believe the parent was talking about commercial software that people actually use like MS Word and Photoshop.
Not that those software titles are useful in their own place, but... VERITAS Cluster Server? Honestly...
I really wouldn't mind a 17 foot LCD display...
On a laptop, you might.
(I have never seen the worm, thanks to spamassassin)
I agree, spam assassin is loved by all.
Did I just see the three terms 'paying,' 'open source,' and 'volunteers' in the same sentence!?
This is the worst iPod knock-off I've seen yet, and I'm sure the scroll-wheel interface helps out a lot. Yikes.
Have you ever heard ogg comapred to mp3 at the same bitrate?
Why, yes as a matter of fact. But if you'll kindly reread my post you will realize that I wasn't bashing ogg vorbis from a technical stand-point. Everything I said was true apart from my obvious underestimation of the vorbis community size: ogg vorbis isn't the standard.
Why not use Ogg Vorbis?
Because nobody cares about vorbis outside of its community of 1056 members. The standard for DRM-free music is MP3. That simple.
How did this thread not turn into a flame war about OGG VORBIS? You /. guys are slipping.
I've been waiting for it, too. I thought this might be it, but no dice.
Microsoft has never written software that forces a customer to use specific hardware. However, for Apple, it's not an isolated incident, but their business strategy.
I know! I hate how iTunes locks me into using Apple's computers. Wait...
Funny. HP users have just gotten a taste of how being a Mac user a couple years ago was (not now, because who cares). Just wait until it gets to a personal level.
They'll certainly miss your business.
Right.....
This shouldn't be a difficult concept, but you are mixing stuff into this argument that should not be here. Let's stick to logic.
Things have value. Using better software is more valuable to me than using sub-par software. I get all the rights I want with the software I buy or I would not buy it. What I want is the right to use the software. The right of discribution and other benefits of Free are not important when it comes to getting the job done.
For this reason, using such software for the sake of Free is a bad decision. If you have other reasons to use Free (price issues), then whatever. But by not telling me any benefits you receive, it sounds like you truly are using Free for its own sake.
Unfortunately, you haven't proven to me that you really do understand the price of Free, but this discussion is now boring me. Good luck to you.
Look, dude. It's just a file format.
And quite frankly, it's really your fault for encoding your music in a format with such small market-share and a hazy future. That, too, is the price of Free.
I will happily "rent" if I get better software which allows me to do better work (make more money).
That's the real price of Free which you don't understand. What good is "owning" (and that verb is too strong) something if it isn't as good?
I'm obviously making a big assumption here that you are under the opinion that Photoshop is indeed better than GIMP. If you don't think so, then it doesn't apply. But most people consider Photoshop a better package for numerous reasons (and I have the opinion that if you don't think it is, you're in denial), so I think my assumption is safe.
But if my assumption is correct, you are indeed, in a way, "suffering" through using a product when a better one is available to you just for the sake of it being Free. What benefits do you think Free gives you other than price (because you didn't want to talk about that issue)?
Actually, I understood your post perfectly the first time, but I failed to format my response in a very easy-to-understand way.
When I say "you get what you pay for," I'm not talking about money either. I understand very well what Free means. But now that you bring pricing into the picture, the same statement does apply.
The point is, if you care about Free, like handing out copies of GIMP is important to you or something, then go for it. But when it's time to get stuff done, the choice is obvious.
Personally, I'd say not using superior software because you're not allowed to give it to a million people is crazy. It's just an excuse. Truly, it really is about price. The same thing really applies to Linux whether anyone will believe it or not. It's like, I'm going to suffer through using this operating system without an complete desktop experience merely because it's not proprietary.
There's something wrong with that logic.
But like I said before, at least there's something for everyone.
But is it better than GIMP? Yes. Does Adobe have the right to prohibit you from "giving it to your friend" in order to make money? Yes. Why doesn't Adobe just make Photoshop opensource? Because how much money does Photoshop produced compared to the GIMP project?
Bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with either product. If you want Free, you get what you pay for. If you want a better product, at least it's available to you.
Did you know there's a name for what you just described? It's called "bait and switch," and Apple invented it, literally. Look it up sometime.
Yes it was. I'm trying to take this one step at a time for you. But I think you're ready. My other point was (as you should have read in my original reply) that what this person does with his time is not anyone else's business.
And again, you have the right to mock him. And I have the right to mock you for wasting your time mocking him. I can also mock myself for wasting my time to mock you for mocking him.
And around and around we go.
I personally can't repeat the same thing with Microsoft because "the fact that [Microsoft] makes good products" doesn't sit well with me.
Furthermore, you have strayed from the topic at hand. I don't know why you just told me your OS preference; I certainly don't care. The point of my post was not to put Apple upon the pedestal as the perfect example of how a company should be run, though you seem to think I said something like that. Apple does no wrong in my book? That's putting a lot of words in my mouth which have never been there.
So, since you seem to have become lost, let's reiterate the point:
Apple has the right to make and sell their products to whoever is willing to pay for them. You also have the right to bash Apple because they don't do everything you want as a company. And then I have the right to explain to you why they do the things they do and proceed to read your nonsensical replies.
What else is a free country for?
Apple is a US-based corporation. The US has a capitalist-based economy. Aside from the fact that Apple makes good products, what is so wrong with buying anything from a money-making entity as long as you are willing to pay the price for what they sell?
If you aren't willing to pay the price, then it's not your place to complain.
As for the guy writing software for Mac OS X, it's also not your place to decide what other people should do with their time.
n/t
I hate when Slashdot posts rumors.
"Printing? I'm using GNOME CUPS and it's as easy as could be. Click New Printer and choose my model of printer from the list...."
Being very picky, but that's not as easy as it could be. With Rendezvous, we don't have to know what the type and model of the printer is anymore. Actually, we didn't have to know that stuff with AppleTalk, either. Plug it in, it works.
Really, very minor detail.
I agree that eye candy can be useless. It often exists for users to say "oh wow." But not all eye candy is bad.
OS X uses a lot of effects to actually help users. For example, shadows on windows. It's a fast way to see which windows are on top of other windows (an already easy thing, usually; just easier/faster). Zooming windows across the screen when they could just disappear and appear at their destination: easily see where things are, or went. This relates to Expose, too.
Then there's eye candy that doesn't increase productivity, like the rotating cube animation for switching users. Transparency might also fit here, although it's sometimes useful, too, when dragging large things to make sure you drop dragged things where they need to be.
In the last category, there's eye candy that decrease productivity. I can't think of any good examples in OS X, but I'm sure there are some.
In the end, though, you should find that there are relatively few effects in OS X which don't have a purpose, and even fewer which decrease productivity.
Just my opinion, though. To each his own.