The point I'm making does not involve Canonical. When discussing a switch to Linux, most people answer with something like "oh but it should support X (MEGAcorp product) so I can't switch". It should support .docx, or whatever latest proprietary protocols. And when this is implemented, there will be a new shiny closed thing to have.
Also, in its current form your comment is just a Perfect Solution Fallacy.
>"oh but it should support X (MEGAcorp product) so I can't switch".
> It should support .docx, or whatever latest proprietary protocols. And when this is implemented, there will be a new shiny closed thing to have.
This is fascinating. The word you're looking for is "features".
Consumers want this annoying little thing called "cutting edge features".
I've literally in my entire life developing software never seen someone find a way to cast "feature seeking users" as the bad people addicted to MEGAcorp or whatever.
On the surface, your entire argument appears to be that if regular users didn't constantly want well polished and shiny new features, open source software would be successful.
>This is fascinating. The word you're looking for is "features".
This is fascinating. You are confusing "features" with "interacting with closed software".
Want to take an example? Go have a look at Krita. It has so many "cutting edge features" it's impressive, and many people honestly think that it's better than Photoshop. Yet what I would even say is its biggest problem is its inability to open PS brushes. Now if you spent some time on HN, you must have read about the sheer horror that is the PSD format. So it's not just comparing the two softwares on an objective basis.
I've used Linux on my primary machines for about 14 years. It's running on close to a dozen devices within a dozen feet of me right now.
If a user has need X, the user should use a solution that suits need X. Shoehorning a solution that doesn't meet the requirements still leaves need X unmet.
Desktop Linux meets (some, not all of) my needs. It does not meet my mom's, partner's, most friends' and colleagues' needs.
Behind the right interface, Linux does meet millions of users' mobile needs however.
Except only MEGAcorp product is competitive. Sorry, the GIMP doesn't replace photoshop and GnuCash doesn't replace my accounting suite.
Maybe FOSS needs to try harder to compete with MEGAcorp product instead of mocking people. The year of the linux desktop didn't happen for a reason. Stop pretending the problem isn't the product.
Nominally, OOXML is an open format. But in practice it is littered with legacy Microsoft Office stuff only Word can do right and weird hacks. LibreOffice/OpenOffice do a good job in implementing OOXML, but despite these efforts .docx documents often have lots of little issues when opened outside of Microsoft Office.
Compare the OOXML standard's 6000 pages to ODF's 600. I have worked with both for the purpose of generating documents from scratch, and OOXML is a monster.
Not to mention the ballot-stuffing that occurred to get OOXML accepted as an ISO-standard…
criley2|10 years ago
> It should support .docx, or whatever latest proprietary protocols. And when this is implemented, there will be a new shiny closed thing to have.
This is fascinating. The word you're looking for is "features".
Consumers want this annoying little thing called "cutting edge features".
I've literally in my entire life developing software never seen someone find a way to cast "feature seeking users" as the bad people addicted to MEGAcorp or whatever.
On the surface, your entire argument appears to be that if regular users didn't constantly want well polished and shiny new features, open source software would be successful.
logicrook|10 years ago
This is fascinating. You are confusing "features" with "interacting with closed software".
Want to take an example? Go have a look at Krita. It has so many "cutting edge features" it's impressive, and many people honestly think that it's better than Photoshop. Yet what I would even say is its biggest problem is its inability to open PS brushes. Now if you spent some time on HN, you must have read about the sheer horror that is the PSD format. So it's not just comparing the two softwares on an objective basis.
fucking_tragedy|10 years ago
If a user has need X, the user should use a solution that suits need X. Shoehorning a solution that doesn't meet the requirements still leaves need X unmet.
Desktop Linux meets (some, not all of) my needs. It does not meet my mom's, partner's, most friends' and colleagues' needs.
Behind the right interface, Linux does meet millions of users' mobile needs however.
drzaiusapelord|10 years ago
Except only MEGAcorp product is competitive. Sorry, the GIMP doesn't replace photoshop and GnuCash doesn't replace my accounting suite.
Maybe FOSS needs to try harder to compete with MEGAcorp product instead of mocking people. The year of the linux desktop didn't happen for a reason. Stop pretending the problem isn't the product.
logicrook|10 years ago
See my other comment and go have a look at Krita.
>Except only MEGAcorp product is competitive.
Are you denying the existence of VLC, Firefox, and other successful OSS?
>Maybe FOSS needs to try harder to compete with MEGAcorp product instead of mocking people.
Who in free software has been mocking you? Is it that trolly Linus? Darn, he just never stops.
chaosfox|10 years ago
Freak_NL|10 years ago
Compare the OOXML standard's 6000 pages to ODF's 600. I have worked with both for the purpose of generating documents from scratch, and OOXML is a monster.
Not to mention the ballot-stuffing that occurred to get OOXML accepted as an ISO-standard…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open...