[Evildave]

Quote

The GIMP is also clumsy and a PITA to use, with a far steeper learning curve than PhotoShop and of course, its NOT THE STANDARD. Just like OpenOffice cannot read and write Word documents with complex formatting, which breaks and forces you to waste time reformatting on open, and forces Word users (the rest of the world) to reformat when they edit. No thanks.
>

Actually, the GIMP is very easy to use and learn. PhotoShop is an incredible PITA to learn and use, not to mention almost $1000 more expensive. You're just so set in your ways with Photoshop and M$ Orifice, so you fight it for being 'different'.

The only thing 'complex' thing about Micro$ucks Orifice documents are the convoluted ways Micro$uck works to make their files difficult to import by any other software, especially previous versions of Micro$uck Orifice.

The most common 'complex' formatting problems I have seen are when someone uses a different font that's named the same, and the document formatting relies on that font's metrics throughout, wrapping and breaking lines at specific boundaries. In other words, the clod on the other end who made the document didn't have a clue what they were doing.

Quote

Linux forces the user to adapt to non-standard tools that are only partially compatible with the rest of the world. It also forces you to do a research project everything you want to make something work.

'Software standards' are apparently just idiosyncrasies that you're personally used to.

My experience is that things JUST WORK. Maybe I just use it right?

Quote

Again, no thanks.

Carry on burning your cash.

[Evildave]

Quote

Linux is a geek toy. It has its place with hobbyists and on servers, but is nowhere near ready for prime time as a business operating system.

I too have absolutely no reason to try Linux. The tools required for my profession (Acrobat Professional, Microsoft Word) do not exist in native Linux versions and the free tools that are available are just efficient as substitutes.

Ahh, I see. So you don't want to even try. Carry on. Burn your cash. I recommend some kind of metal container, and outside so you don't set off the smoke detectors.

[Evildave]

artzy65 said:

"Every print shop and office shop takes PDF files. Without exception. Print it at the intended resolution, burn it to a DVD if necessary, drag it in there, and ANY print shop will be able to print it"

Oops,I should have said magazine publishers. Although PDF workflow has become much more prevalent in the last decade, magazines that my clients advertise in always insist on quark, photoshop and illustrator files for pc or mac, although I always send a mid-res pdf file for hard-copy proof output. And for a brochure I just produced, the print shop required those pc/mac files. I do in fact send PDF files as final art to one of my clients... he then takes those to a local print shop, or uses his desktop printer.

Acrobat has really saved my business, given that my clients use only windows. I rank it right up there with photoshop as my most useful app.

I have no reason at all to try Linux—or windows for that matter—my time is best spent mastering the creative apps.

Of course you have no need for Linux. Your POSIX OS X can run ports of any of the apps I mentioned more or less flawlessly. You only have to grab the Mac version of almost anything available for Linux, and install it.

Every piece of software I mentioned has an OS/X version. Definitely something to think about when someone asks what to get to 'learn' how to do your kind of work, and you only have commercial packages more expensive than $1000 to recommend, which puts them off immediately, or sets them into that pitiful 'Gimme a copy of yours!' mode.

[asiafish]

Evildave said:

>
> The GIMP is also clumsy and a PITA to use, with a far steeper learning curve than PhotoShop and of course, its NOT THE STANDARD. Just like OpenOffice cannot read and write Word documents with complex formatting, which breaks and forces you to waste time reformatting on open, and forces Word users (the rest of the world) to reformat when they edit. No thanks.
> >

Actually, the GIMP is very easy to use and learn. PhotoShop is an incredible PITA to learn and use, not to mention almost $1000 more expensive. You're just so set in your ways with Photoshop and M$ Orifice, so you fight it for being 'different'.

The only thing 'complex' thing about Micro$ucks Orifice documents are the convoluted ways Micro$uck works to make their files difficult to import by any other software, especially previous versions of Micro$uck Orifice.

The most common 'complex' formatting problems I have seen are when someone uses a different font that's named the same, and the document formatting relies on that font's metrics throughout, wrapping and breaking lines at specific boundaries. In other words, the clod on the other end who made the document didn't have a clue what they were doing.

> Linux forces the user to adapt to non-standard tools that are only partially compatible with the rest of the world. It also forces you to do a research project everything you want to make something work.
>

'Software standards' are apparently just idiosyncrasies that you're personally used to.

My experience is that things JUST WORK. Maybe I just use it right?

> Again, no thanks.

Carry on burning your cash.

I have tried OpenOffice (3.0), on my Mac, and it is not compatible. In my profession we use documents with a vertical ruler and a face sheet with complex formatting (Legal Pleadings) and both the ruler and the face sheet break when opened in anything other than the application that created them. 95% of the documents I receive were written in Word, and if I open them in anything else, it will take on average 15 to 20 minutes to replace the missing formatting. Thats on each and every document. It costs far more than a few thousand dollars every three years or so (new version time) to spend the time fixing each and every document I receive.

That doesn't include the time (or refusal to spend it) of others. Many times I submit these same complex documents to opposing counsel and to courts, and if they aren't using the same application I use, they will usually reject it. Courts have instructions for submission, and if you want them to accept your work, you will use MS Word, or in a few rare locations, WordPerfect.

So no, Linux is simply not an option.

[asiafish]

Evildave said:

> Linux is a geek toy. It has its place with hobbyists and on servers, but is nowhere near ready for prime time as a business operating system.
>
> I too have absolutely no reason to try Linux. The tools required for my profession (Acrobat Professional, Microsoft Word) do not exist in native Linux versions and the free tools that are available are just efficient as substitutes.

Ahh, I see. So you don't want to even try. Carry on. Burn your cash. I recommend some kind of metal container, and outside so you don't set off the smoke detectors.

Linux is great for those who want to spend their time learning about code and doing research to make simple things work. I want to turn it on, get my work done, and go home. That means Windows, OS X or both. Linux just doesn't work in the legal field, or in any other setting where the exchange of complex documents with zero formatting loss is required. By formatting I'm not talking about fonts and spacing, but special formatting on templates provided by courts, and rules for the submission of electronic documents.

I would "burn a lot more cash" using Linux than I ever do on my Mac or PC.

[waldojim]

you know, for the sake of argument here are a few things.


1. It is possible to run MS office in Linux. I have done it in the past - for the sake of seeing it done.


2. however, I think you guys are exaggerating a point to do so. Meaning I have yet to come across a docuement that didn't translate correctly, except from Office, to older versions of Office (MS). ALSO. MS is making a point of breaking standards just so people cannot use other office packages.


3. OpenOffice is just as capable as MS office. That is a fact. It will do the same task. Now, I hate to say it this was, but your running around in cirles. I have to use Adobe/Office/Photoshop because HE/She/whatever is. And of course that person is doing the same thing. Sometimes, it takes someone with big enough balls to say NO! We are tired of paying Adobe, MS, Apple, etc for over priced software and hardware. Tell them NO, in a large enough environment, and you WILL see change happen. And happen quick. If the government would say tomorrow - they are dropping MS, adobe, etc in favor of FOSS across EVERY government computer, and things would change.


For the sake of argument BTW, have any of you noticed, how with free open source software, compatability is not an issue? formatting also a non-issue? If I use Abi-Word to edit a document, and then use OpenOffice on a friends machine, it WILL work. Everytime without fail.


Now then @asiafish:


"Linux is great for those who want to spend their time learning about code and doing research to make simple things work."



I have NEVER coded on ANY of my Linux boxes. I do not use them for research. Does this mean that I have useless boxes in my house because they run Linux? Hell no, File server, Myth Box (replacing Windows MCE), ICS/firewall, and one that I will use to play my Linux GAMES. I even use my Myth box to play WoW on!


"I want to turn it on, get my work done, and go home."


Try Linux, would actually be surprised at just how seemless it is these days. http://www.linuxmint.com/
Message was edited by: smax013

[asiafish]

waldojim said:

you know, for the sake of argument here are a few things.


1. It is possible to run MS office in Linux. I have done it in the past - for the sake of seeing it done. '

And that copy of Office costs just as much as it would for Windows.

Quote

2. however, I think you guys are exaggerating a point to do so. Meaning I have yet to come across a docuement that didn't translate correctly, except from Office, to older versions of Office (MS). ALSO. MS is making a point of breaking standards just so people cannot use other office packages.


3. OpenOffice is just as capable as MS office. That is a fact. It will do the same task. Now, I hate to say it this was, but your running around in cirles. I have to use Adobe/Office/Photoshop because HE/She/whatever is. And of course that person is doing the same thing. Sometimes, it takes someone with big enough balls to say NO! We are tired of paying Adobe, MS, Apple, etc for over priced software and hardware. Tell them NO, in a large enough environment, and you WILL see change happen. And happen quick. If the government would say tomorrow - they are dropping MS, adobe, etc in favor of FOSS across EVERY government computer, and things would change.

Good luck with that. I run a small law practice. I need to spend my time advocating for my clients, not advocating for free software.

Quote

For the sake of argument BTW, have any of you noticed, how with free open source software, compatability is not an issue? formatting also a non-issue? If I use Abi-Word to edit a document, and then use OpenOffice on a friends machine, it WILL work. Everytime without fail.


Now then @asiafish:


"Linux is great for those who want to spend their time learning about code and doing research to make simple things work."


That is an ignorant comment, and you really need to learn the subject before you make such wide sweeping, and generally incorrect statements.


I have NEVER coded on ANY of my Linux boxes. I do not use them for research. Does this mean that I have useless boxes in my house because they run Linux? Hell no, File server, Myth Box (replacing Windows MCE), ICS/firewall, and one that I will use to play my Linux GAMES. I even use my Myth box to play WoW on!


"I want to turn it on, get my work done, and go home."


Try Linux, would actually be surprised at just how seemless it is these days. http://www.linuxmint.com/

ANd all of those courts and other lawyers will suddenly start using OpenOffice instead of MS Word Tuesday morning so that my documents will be accepted? I think not.

[Evildave]

Once again, you don't need Linux to run any of the free software packages. Too many people lump ALL free open source software under one banner, like 'Linux' or 'OpenOffice'. Just because ONE can not be used, does that mean none of the thousands of others can be?

OK, so you're REQUIRED to use Micro$oft Word because you have other clients/companies/offices that REQUIRE it.

Are you REQUIRED to spend $1000 on Adobe Photoshop because your or an employee has an image to tweak? Or could you use the GIMP for that infrequent need?

Are you REQUIRED to buy Adobe SoundBooth to edit down a sound file you recorded, or could you use Audacity for it?

Are you REQUIRED to spend MONEY on any other software packages, besides the ones with iron-clad business reasons to? No.

You don't have to spend any money on any other software that you don't HAVE TO have a specific version of. Instead of jumping straight to Amazon or Google Products with that credit card ready to BUY something with a brand name and nothing else to recommend it, just take one minute to look into "Open Source" versions first. A search of "open source" and the type of software will usually yield up a few major projects.

I have the right metaphor for the Free Open Source Software haters.

It's like someone who sat down ONCE at ONE Thai restaurant, years ago, and ordered ONE spicy dish without asking what it was, and decided on the spot that they HATE ALL THAI FOOD for the rest of their life... and then they go on to decide that they hate all other Asian dishes, to boot. When I think of all the scrumptious things I enjoy... it's just a pity to see them in the same restaurant ordering a hamburger and fries.

[waldojim]

"And that copy of Office costs just as much as it would for Windows."
Never denied that

"ANd all of those courts and other lawyers will suddenly start using OpenOffice instead of MS Word Tuesday morning so that my documents will be accepted? I think not. "

If the US is anywhere near as intelligent as other countries, there will be a transition. They won't force everyone over in one day. BUT, it can be done, and they could get all you lawyers over to something else. Understand, I don't think our government would do it... because they would claim, like MS, that FOSS is evil and takes away jobs, and reduces the amount of money spent in the us etc. My claim here is that it IS possible to transition, and you guys are making this out to be much worse than it really is.

Just because YOU don't use it, does not mean it is crap. I do not use MS Office, can I call it crap? I happen to like Abiword, does that give me room to shit on everyone else? No. All I am saying is that the transition to Open Source Solutions is not as complicated as you want to THINK it is. I understand you have to learn something new, but wouldn't windows users have to learn all over again changing to OS-X? You can claim it is better all you want, I (personally) find it frustrating compared to my Linux machines. So guys, give it up, LEARN something and be happy with added knowledge.

[artzy65]

This is from an old pcworld article:
"...in terms of feature breadth and ease of use, GIMP just can't compete with products like Adobe Photoshop Elements 2 and Jasc's Paint Shop Pro 8 (both of which are available for less than $100)"
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1627549,00.asp
So it doesn't compete with even a watered-down version of photoshop...

Anyway, price is not an issue for me. I just want the best. End of story.

[asiafish]

Evildave said:

Once again, you don't need Linux to run any of the free software packages. Too many people lump ALL free open source software under one banner, like 'Linux' or 'OpenOffice'. Just because ONE can not be used, does that mean none of the thousands of others can be?

OK, so you're REQUIRED to use Micro$oft Word because you have other clients/companies/offices that REQUIRE it.

Are you REQUIRED to spend $1000 on Adobe Photoshop because your or an employee has an image to tweak? Or could you use the GIMP for that infrequent need?

I could use The GIMP, but why? I already own PhotoShop, have since I bought it years ago (version 7) and I still use that very same version. I will buy a new one if and when I need it, which is unlikely as I'm not in the graphic design business.

Quote

Are you REQUIRED to buy Adobe SoundBooth to edit down a sound file you recorded, or could you use Audacity for it?

Nope, but I don't use Audacity or any other sound editing applications either. If I needed one, I would get the one that was either easiest to use (if just for me) or that was required in my field.

Quote

Are you REQUIRED to spend MONEY on any other software packages, besides the ones with iron-clad business reasons to? No.

Absolutely right, but there is more to cost of ownership than purchase price. I use a non-Microsoft word processor for creative writing, its called Nisus Writer Pro. I use it because it is easy to use, feature rich and intuitive. I paid $80 for it, and that is a bargain compared to the cost of OpenOffice Writer which is free, but far less elegant and natural to use. I tried it, and found that I didn't enjoy using it.

Quote

You don't have to spend any money on any other software that you don't HAVE TO have a specific version of. Instead of jumping straight to Amazon or Google Products with that credit card ready to BUY something with a brand name and nothing else to recommend it, just take one minute to look into "Open Source" versions first. A search of "open source" and the type of software will usually yield up a few major projects.

But some things are worth spending money on. Just like I want my laptop to just work, to insert a DVD movie and have it just play, without trying to hunt down and configure CSS decoders, I also want applications that had as much importance placed on user interface as on feature bloat.

Quote

I have the right metaphor for the Free Open Source Software haters.

I don't have open source or free software, and use some of it myself. Web browser? I use Firefox. In that case, the open source product has advantages for the way I work over the proprietary applications, it is fast, and most important, it is easy and pleasant to use. I won't use a free software product just because its free, however.
It's like someone who sat down ONCE at ONE Thai restaurant, years ago, and ordered ONE spicy dish without asking what it was, and decided on the spot that they HATE ALL THAI FOOD for the rest of their life... and then they go on to decide that they hate all other Asian dishes, to boot. When I think of all the scrumptious things I enjoy... it's just a pity to see them in the same restaurant ordering a hamburger and fries.

Thai food is definitely not free. I love Thai food by the way, the spicier the better, though I tend to prefer Lao which is similar, but a level up on the thermometer.

[asiafish]

waldojim said:

"And that copy of Office costs just as much as it would for Windows."
Never denied that

"ANd all of those courts and other lawyers will suddenly start using OpenOffice instead of MS Word Tuesday morning so that my documents will be accepted? I think not. "

If the US is anywhere near as intelligent as other countries, there will be a transition. They won't force everyone over in one day. BUT, it can be done, and they could get all you lawyers over to something else. Understand, I don't think our government would do it... because they would claim, like MS, that FOSS is evil and takes away jobs, and reduces the amount of money spent in the us etc. My claim here is that it IS possible to transition, and you guys are making this out to be much worse than it really is.

Just because YOU don't use it, does not mean it is crap. I do not use MS Office, can I call it crap? I happen to like Abiword, does that give me room to shit on everyone else? No. All I am saying is that the transition to Open Source Solutions is not as complicated as you want to THINK it is. I understand you have to learn something new, but wouldn't windows users have to learn all over again changing to OS-X? You can claim it is better all you want, I (personally) find it frustrating compared to my Linux machines. So guys, give it up, LEARN something and be happy with added knowledge.

When did I say OpenOffice was crap? I said that I can't use it. I don't love MS Word, to the point that I use something called Nisus Writer Pro for my creative writing on my Mac, and an older version of WordPerfect (11) on my PC. I can't use those for legal writing however and would never suggest either as a replacement for Word in the business world.

[WinTard]

artzy65 said:

Anyway, price is not an issue for me. I just want the best. End of story.

I agree 100%. With the clarification that costliest may not always be the best...

[rasmasyean]

bq. Evildave wrote: Actually, it's sort of a GOOD THING that Apple isn't stupid enough to take their big crazy stick and stir the locations of things around like Micro$oft does with every new version. When I use a windoze machine, my desktop is a flat bluish color and looks like Win95/NT4. Under Shista, it totally sucked to have to go searching for interfaces that had all been in the same places since Win95/NT4. Why does Micro$uck think the 'ignorant new user' feeling is a 'good' experience? Every post of every die-hard Windoze user indicates that so much as changing to OpenOffice would be a 'horrible and traumatic nightmare', but when it comes to computer settings and network interfaces, they believe everyone wants to learn something 'new', even when it's the same, bent old engine underneath, but they've decided to arbitrarily change all of the ways you interact with it.
Mine is not "flat blue". It's ghosted translucent light blue...but can be changed to different colors anyway. You want to compare that to OS9? Get with the times.
If Open Office is so great? Why do firms pay so much to Office 2007? There's a "learning curve" there too. Maybe some of the feel is the same as 2003, but features are much more of a leap than Open Office (which is like using Office 95 or something like that). There's much more to using an "Office Suite" than how your grandma uses it.

[rgreen4]

Haven't you figured out yet that now matter what you want, desire, or use, Evildave is right and the world is wrong. He is so enamored with an OS that has a 1% market share that every thread about Mac or PC, he jumps in with Linux to stir the pot. When you respond to him you are letting him win in upsetting the thread.

[rasmasyean]

Evildave wrote:
(Nah, I'm more like someone who watches the ignorant masses pay a LOT of their hard-won money for things they could have for free, to corporations that absolutely have no respect for them and their needs.)

-----
You do know that neither freeware nor open source is unique to Linux right? As a matter of fact, there are a lot more of them for Windows. Not only more...they are even more "advanced" in many cases. But many people opt for buying premium software anyway. Why? I guess they must like to throw their hard-won money away to feed corporations because everyone else but you are dumb lemmings.

[Evildave]

rasmasyean said:

You do know that neither freeware nor open source is unique to Linux right? As a matter of fact, there are a lot more of them for Windows. Not only more...they are even more "advanced" in many cases. But many people opt for buying premium software anyway. Why? I guess they must like to throw their hard-won money away to feed corporations because everyone else but you are dumb lemmings.

Yeah, I must've mentioned that dozens of times by now.

It's always interesting to hear the same people who whine that a Mac notebook milled from a solid block of aluminum, with a gorgeous OLED display, solid keyboard and unique multi-touch trackpad is 'more expensive' than a craptastic PC, yet they complain that thousands of free software products are not expensive enough.

[rgreen4]

rasmasyean said:

If Open Office is so great? Why do firms pay so much to Office 2007? There's a "learning curve" there too. Maybe some of the feel is the same as 2003, but features are much more of a leap than Open Office (which is like using Office 95 or something like that). There's much more to using an "Office Suite" than how your grandma uses it.

Most of the problems are in compatibility. Try of open an Access file in Open Office and you have a mess. Try to do a mail merge in Open Office and it isn't there. Try to open a .xlsx file from corporate, update it and send it back and it can't be done. OO will open the .xlsx, but won't save it after a modification.

When you spread the $300 or so for Office2007 over the 5 to 7 years it will be in use, and then calculate the time lost trying to make OO do something in a different manner (if it will do it at all) and you find you are actually losing money trying to save with a "free" software package.

I remember an instance at one of the plants where I worked and an Accountant who worked for me was complaining that the storeroom was throwing away perfectly good starters for Ford engines. In reality, the starters fit an obsolete engine, we no longer had any in service and we could not return them for credit. We had tried to sell them but no one bid on them. They could have had the mounting holes re-drilled in the flanges, but even at our cost of labor, it was cheaper to throw them away and buy new ones that fit the newer vehicles.

People have a hard time accepting that everything you do in the business world costs money. If you change software packages and a task that used to take 30 minutes now take the office assistant several hours and winds up staying over, you are now paying overtime to use a "free" software package. Besides, you can get books, videos and trainers (many times in-house trainers in a corporation) to train the employees.

You are correct, if all you are going to do is type the occasional letter, OO is a good alternative. For real production work, not so good.

[Evildave]

rasmasyean said:

If Open Office is so great? Why do firms pay so much to Office 2007? There's a "learning curve" there too. Maybe some of the feel is the same as 2003, but features are much more of a leap than Open Office (which is like using Office 95 or something like that). There's much more to using an "Office Suite" than how your grandma uses it.

Pure momentum. Like lemmings charging over a cliff when a Disney film director drives them that way.

Who spends the big bucks making sure that nothing but M$ Orifice is in the face of anyone who is considering to buy?

You can make the most perfect, refreshing, delicious soft drink in the world, with zero calories, make it available everywhere, and sell it for $0.10 a can, and people will still order Pepsi and Coke at $1.00 a can. They only KNOW about Pepsi and Coke. They're only familiar with Pepsi and Coke. The majority will just keep drinking Pepsi and Coke.

[rasmasyean]

Evildave wrote:
Yeah, I must've mentioned that dozens of times by now.
It's always interesting to hear the same people who whine that a Mac notebook milled from a solid block of aluminum, with a gorgeous OLED display, solid keyboard and unique multi-touch trackpad is 'more expensive' than a craptastic PC, yet they complain that thousands of free software products are not expensive enough.
-----

It's more like those features are not worth the money "functionality" wise compared to opportunities you sacrifice to by getting a Mac.
You don't get the argument. There is pay more to get more, and there is pay more to get less, and there is pay less to get less.