roid wrote:In recent years there has been a few Macs appear where heavy photo & video editing is required.
FedoraRefugee wrote:Because of this Linux tends to evolve faster, but it has no direction. It is not that Linux developers are not capable of challenging proprietary software, it is that they are not forced to work together and drive an app in one solid direction.
FedoraRefugee wrote:Look at the number of simple music players Linux has, or web browsers. Is this a BAD thing? Heck no, it is freedom!
linuxviolin wrote:This is one of reasons why many open source softwares/projects are crap. (sorry if the word is a bit harsh but...) No good direction, no real maintenance etc but rather guys are only motivated by "bleeding-edge stuff" and so always more and more bugs with no old bugs corrected (see e.g. GNOME and the hundreds of unfixed bugs since ages, even for simple software like Gedit!), NO ONE will volunteer for a MAINTENANCE task etc You can want to read my post at http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=38536#p234717 which partly talk also about this.
FedoraRefugee wrote:To say that all Linux apps are crap is badly wrong. FF, Gimp, Scribus, Blender, Compiz-Fusion, and K3b are just a few that spring to mind, a few that I always use.
FedoraRefugee wrote:OTOH, the fact still remains that because FOSS is scattered around the world instead of under the umbrella of a single company it will lack guidance.
FedoraRefugee wrote:By freedom I meant that the end user is free to pick and choose what works for him.
FedoraRefugee wrote:I do not like big, convoluted apps like Amarok and rhythmbox.
FedoraRefugee wrote:I have not found a comparable app in Windows
FedoraRefugee wrote:Linux allows a user to tailor the whole OS how they feel things should be. I do not have pulseaudio on my Arch install, nor do I have the other two and a half tons of crap most distros force on you. I like this. You cannot strip Windows to this extent Windows lives in a bundled world.
FedoraRefugee wrote:Truth be told, I liked Linux better a few years ago when most devs still had a modular mentality. It seems Gnome has led a charge that Fedora and Ubuntu have followed. A charge to become a bundled, Windows like OS. It is still Linux, it can still be modified and tweaked, though removing things like Gnome and mono become harder all the time. I would prefer if we could go back to what Linux once was.
Even for the #1 DE (#1 in North America), that is GNOME, and despite the involvement of several IT companies (including RHAT), the development and the maintenance are barely decent. Hundreds of unfixed bugs since ages, even for simple software like Gedit! And, after how many years was the Compact view added to Nautilus? Plus, it was an individual effort -- none of the big companies ever bothered (and this includes RHAT).
It also takes/took ages for NetworkManager to be usable.
Outside the DE, OO.o is such a lame alternative to MS Office that it makes me puke -- enough to say that I have to switch the paper format from Letter to A4 for each and every new Writer document (MS Word has a single-click button that makes this option as default for the Default template; I couldn't find a way to do the same in oowriter). This is AN ELEMENTARY NEED and Microsoft figured out the proper solution decades ago: and here it is Too complex for the Sun/Novell/etc. guys who screw Oo.o, eh?
Linux is a better choice because it's free and flexible. Otherwise, its desktop-related components (being it about X.Org, GNOME, KDE, XFCE, major apps) are so bug-ridden that the single argument in their favor is this one: they're open source.
Big, big, big names: Intel, Red Hat, Novell, IBM, etc. etc. etc. are making money from Linux and Linux apps, yet this software sucks, sucks, sucks
Companies can't fix this. Individuals can't fix this -- it looks like crazy individuals like you guys are only motivated by "bleeding-edge stuff", so NO ONE will volunteer for a MAINTENANCE task, just admit it, dammit!
the real pattern is "design by committee". Even if it's not "by committee", the mere fact that 1-100 developers of a major DE can impose their "vision" to millions of users makes me think that the only disadvantage of Windows is that it's not free. The "open" in "open source" is useless -- who can afford to maintain a fork/branch of a project, once its developers get high and take wrong decisions? NOBODY. (As in "nobody adopted KDE3 for further maintaining".)
I hate the open source developers who are always high and trying to "invent things" nobody asked for.
FedoraRefugee wrote:One last note, Linux developers are indeed being paid these days. The days of one or two private developers or even small groups is disappearing. Red Hat, Novell, Canonical, IBM...They have taken Linux over. The code may be free and the home distros may not cost anything, but the developers are now corporate. Projects like Pulseaudio and Packagekit are squeezing everyone else out. Gnome has become the enemy. Freedom never lasts...
75% of Linux code is now written by paid developers, according to kernel hacker Jonathan Corbet.
If you want the whole Linux experience though, i.e. modular design, building stuff from source (not saying you can't on windows, it's just not as supported), I use ArchLinux. I really like the Gentoo portage system, and the ArchLinux AUR and yaourt, which makes getting svn and git builds much easier, and you can get that on Mint, but you have to strip it down to build it up (I just recently uninstalled GNOME, and put Xfce in, but I usually just go to xterm anyway).I want to be able to press a big shiny button that says: Do x,y, and z, and have it do x,y, and z, and if not, I want to be able to take it to a computer repair shop or call the maintainer on the phone and make them fix it
Users browsing this forum: xenopeek and 3 guests