|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
news:4ada536f@news.povray.org...
> I did not touch the subject of *quality* in my post, nor do I in any way
> claim that OSS would be in part with the best commercial software in many
> fields.
I was addressing the claim that "OSS is user-oriented, doing what benefits
the users the most.". This only true when target users are developers. When
target users are not developers, funky stuff happens a la GIMP, unless
there's a corporate backer to push things in the right direction. And in
many situations, there's no OSS version at all if there's no interest in
that (from an OSS developer's perspective).
> There is, however, another advantage I can think of: With OSS you not
> only
> can "try before you buy", but you can skip the latter part of that
> altogether.
> So it's not like you are losing something by trying OSS (except perhaps a
> bit
> of time).
To be frank, I have lost my time trying OSS. I push OSS when it's good, but
just too much of the stuff is alpha quality and in some cases I wished that
OSS folks had been more honest in stating that they were doing it for fun
without the pretense of creating a useful and working product. I'm wiser
now. At least marketing folks are paid to lie ;)
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |