> Besides, give the Gimp another major version > number or two, and a slightly bigger Script-fu > development community, and it'll outdistance > Pshop, Photogenics, or any proprietary software,
I strongly doubt that. A good pain package is not just about scripts or features. Not by a long shot. Good user interfaces are pretty much essential.
And there GIMP falls down really really badly. Its UI is inconsistant and illogical (and has been for some time). No amount of scripts will fix that.
The latest version of Photogenics, incidentally, has a distinctive and by all accounts very effective UI.
This idea rather misses the point the original poster was making which is that the Gartner report is in fact not an outright attack on Linux and the criticisims it makes are justifiable.
There seems to be a sort of seige mentality going on here. Every criticisim is attacked regardless of merits.
Couldn't agree more. Psions really are very good computers. I used to use one of the early models, the upright ones with a keyboard in alphabetical order (series 2??).
I also used a series 3 machine for a while and personally think that the Psions are superior to the Palm machines.
I'm sorry, but why is this surprising anyone? Sun's basic strategy has been clear and consistant for months. Pretty much everything they do from Java, to buying Star Office and creating Star Portal all points back to the server.
And did anyone seriously think that Sun was helping Linux just for some good vibes? Its a business and it wants to make money. If it can see a way to improve its profitability/marketshare/mindshare with Linux, it will use Linux. If not, it won't.
I don't see this as an particular sort of threat to Linux either. So I'm not at all sure what the fuss is about.
1) The BBC is losing badly to ITV in the ratings, but not to Channel 5. They ONCE had a program on which got similar ratings.
2) The BBC isn't so much nervous about the digital market as eager to participate in it. Just like people with colour tvs pay more than those with Black and White, the BBC wants people with digital to pay more than those without. Assuming you accept the licence fee as a good idea (which of course not all people do) then this seems quite reasonable.
3) The quality of BBC programs. Well if its an opinion then its not a fact.;) Many of my favourite programs are on the BBC.
All that said I`m always suspicious when other media wants to do programs on the internet. But the BBC has a better record on this than most.
While I accept that having the code may mean that a significant number of people are able to fix problems themselves or hire someone to do it, that isn't the case for everyone.
Open source is not osme sort of magical cureall.
In some cases it might even be easier to get a company to fix their closed source than persuade someone to mofify open source code.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, the original article linked to by /. indicates that the reports of it being a missunderstanding are incorrect....
$99 really isn't very much at all for a top quality paint package. How much does Photoshop cost these days?
If Linux really wants to get into the mainstream, as its supporters often say then this is a small price to pay.
I'd point out that even if Paul had gone open source, in order to earn a living he'd have to charge some sort of support fee anyway.
Life isn't free.
> Besides, give the Gimp another major version
> number or two, and a slightly bigger Script-fu
> development community, and it'll outdistance
> Pshop, Photogenics, or any proprietary software,
I strongly doubt that. A good pain package is not just about scripts or features. Not by a long shot. Good user interfaces are pretty much essential.
And there GIMP falls down really really badly. Its UI is inconsistant and illogical (and has been for some time). No amount of scripts will fix that.
The latest version of Photogenics, incidentally, has a distinctive and by all accounts very effective UI.
The donation to FSF is an extra bonus from most people's point of view I imagine. They're also getting the software (and support).
Its probably also seen as a form of proof that Red Hat are serious about open source. Although I must say that seemed fairly obvious anyway.
This idea rather misses the point the original poster was making
which is that the Gartner report is in fact not an outright
attack on Linux and the criticisims it makes are justifiable.
There seems to be a sort of seige mentality going on here. Every
criticisim is attacked regardless of merits.
Couldn't agree more. Psions really are very good computers. I used to use one of the early models, the upright ones with a keyboard in alphabetical order (series 2??).
I also used a series 3 machine for a while and personally think that the Psions are superior to the Palm machines.
I'm sorry, but why is this surprising anyone? Sun's basic
strategy has been clear and consistant for months. Pretty much
everything they do from Java, to buying Star Office and creating
Star Portal all points back to the server.
And did anyone seriously think that Sun was helping Linux just
for some good vibes? Its a business and it wants to make money.
If it can see a way to improve its
profitability/marketshare/mindshare with Linux, it will use
Linux. If not, it won't.
I don't see this as an particular sort of threat to Linux either.
So I'm not at all sure what the fuss is about.
Just correcting a few inaccuracies.
;) Many of my favourite programs are on the BBC.
1) The BBC is losing badly to ITV in the ratings, but not to Channel 5. They ONCE had a program on which got similar ratings.
2) The BBC isn't so much nervous about the digital market as eager to participate in it. Just like people with colour tvs pay more than those with Black and White, the BBC wants people with digital to pay more than those without. Assuming you accept the licence fee as a good idea (which of course not all people do) then this seems quite reasonable.
3) The quality of BBC programs. Well if its an opinion then its not a fact.
All that said I`m always suspicious when other media wants to do programs on the internet. But the BBC has a better record on this than most.
While I accept that having the code may mean that a significant number of people are able to fix problems themselves or hire someone to do it, that isn't the case for everyone.
Open source is not osme sort of magical cureall.
In some cases it might even be easier to get a company to fix their closed source than persuade someone to mofify open source code.