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