OSNews

The article specifically mentions applications compatability and hardware compatability.

With regards to the latter, I'd be surprised to hear of a Linux _distro release_ breaking hardware that previously worked, as it seems anathema the whole "enormous kernel does everything" ethos. That said, I expect there are examples and they just haven't affected me, which is why I don't remember them. But remeber, just because the kernel devs break it, it doesn't count if it got patched back together by the distros.

I'd be very interested to hear of a third-party Linux app which has had it's compatability broken. Mainly because there are so few (relatively) third-party Linux apps.

i dunno why the compatibility/ back-compatibility thing keeps popping up... applications in linux and windows are handled differently, most applications people use in linux are not binary only and are "free", the sources are available and they get the latest build with a distro upgrade anyway. The commercial apps usually work for a few distro release cycles anyway ( Nero, Realplay,flash ...etc )i dont see what the issue is... if you talk about binary only drivers then thats a different thing... can't we find anything else to whine about ? :->

I have a Dell laptop with P2 233 and 64 MB of RAM that won't run the 2.6 kernel. Granted it's probably a decade old now, but still.

Compatibility is only important to cheap ass companies that are too cheap to upgrade their 20 year old software (often some accounting crap they've been using forever and their accountant is too stupid to adapt to a newer and more modern software).
Yeah, people will complain because their 10 year old copy of Grolier Encyclopedia they picked up for $5.99 at their local corner store doesn't run on Vista.

The problem is not as much compatibility as how buggy and unpredictable Vista is. It's like driving a car with its wheel's nuts only finger-tight.
The stupid thing (Vista) will often just start doing something on its own with no indication to the user about what it's doing. System is not responding and the user just sits there and stares on the screen like a zombie.
After updates it will sometime restart not once but twice in a row.
And don't get me started on UAC and it's constant idiotic popups.
Vista is a pinacle of bad software design.

With Linux, one gets incredible functionality, reliability, and overall value, for basically no cost.
Plus a true freedom.

Shapeshifter, you talk out of your a$$.

Vegas PRO costs $700, and not $6. I expect it to work because I paid for it and because I am not rich to upgrade all my software and hardware every month.

I NEED compatibility, and I am a consumer, not a "cheap ass company". Same goes for my husband's $1500 printer -- which doesn't work anymore on the new OSX version!!!

As for Linux, it does not bring me compatibility, so it's not what I want. So, stop trying.

Edited 2007-09-11 00:14

Shapeshifter was correct about the last half of the comment. Vista is unstable and just decides out of the blue to reboot the computer to install updates.

The problem with $700 pieces of software that I always hated severely is that when indeed a new operating system or even some new features come out in a newer version, far too many companies don't offer just a free upgrade. Instead if you're lucky, they'll release an upgrade that costs $100 or more. This is plainly ridiculous!

Besides, people who also say that there aren't that many problems with compatibility, what about all those programs that when you load them up, Vista automatically says that Aero is not compatible with this software, switching to classic mode. It does that to most programs that I tried on it.

Granted Compiz-fusion isn't always compatible with everything, but they are improving it quickly. I even play Doom3 with it turned on and didn't notice any performance loss.

"(...)Vista automatically says that Aero is not compatible with this software, switching to classic mode. It does that to most programs that I tried on it."

Which ones would those be?

From my experience, it only switches off Aero when a program wants to display something using the overlay surface, which is not supported by the hardware accelerated desktop. Personally, I only get that when using DScaler to play my PS2 games. All other software, be it OpenGL based (like Softimage XSI) or video players that support video mixing rendered run absolutely fine.

The joys of being OSN staff? Can't get your comments moderated down, even when:


At least Linux users are all polite to a fault :p

Short answer: Sony.
Long answer: Pro software is for people who have a financial infrastructure that includes upgrading hardware and OSes when compatibility requires it. Prosumers should not enter this arena with a prosumer's checkbook, regardless of platform.


The only compatibility I lost in Tiger was the PCMCIA slot in my Epson which was a driver unrelated to printing. CUPS should take care of the rest, and Apple now owns CUPS.

Edited 2007-09-11 16:29 UTC

I NEED compatibility, and I am a consumer, not a "cheap ass company". Same goes for my husband's $1500 printer -- which doesn't work anymore on the new OSX version!!!

As for Linux, it does not bring me compatibility, so it's not what I want. So, stop trying.

The biggest problem with Vista (and OS X) has been driver compatibility, which has been made even worse with the move to 64-bit machines. How are consumers supposed to know what they're running and that drivers are not written, and the ones that they have are useless?

Shockingly, Linux has no such problems simply because the multitude of drivers in the kernel, and in CUPS and Xorg, just get recompiled. Problem solved.

Just as well we can't vote down administrator comments when you personally abuse someone like that.

Lucky break eh.

Yes, I understand what you mean.
Like the next reply says, I'm generalizing.
When it comes to speciall purpouse system, like video editing system, you don't usually upgrade the OS untill you upgrade to a new version of the application that is than designed to run on a newer OS.
It's usually a good idea to dedicate a system to a speciall task like video editing.
And in your case it should be a no brainer since you most likely have more than one computer as any pro should have.
So why do you even argue this issue when it does not affect you.
OT, why did you pick Vegas anyway? What's so great about it?
Ever since Sony took over Vega and Soundforge they've been running them into the ground.
Some day you'll be able to do your video editing on a nice Linux box. At least you have something to look forward to

Compatibility is only important to cheap ass companies that are too cheap to upgrade their 20 year old software (often some accounting crap they've been using forever and their accountant is too stupid to adapt to a newer and more modern software).

What about the consumers, such as myself and Eugenia, that have spent hundreds of dollars on applications? Are we cheap asses too? And this software is not 20 years old. Sorry, but your over generalizations just don't hold water.

The problem is not as much compatibility as how buggy and unpredictable Vista is. It's like driving a car with its wheel's nuts only finger-tight.
The stupid thing (Vista) will often just start doing something on its own with no indication to the user about what it's doing. System is not responding and the user just sits there and stares on the screen like a zombie.
After updates it will sometime restart not once but twice in a row.
And don't get me started on UAC and it's constant idiotic popups.
Vista is a pinacle of bad software design.

Look, I'm no MS fanboy, but this sort of crap is getting ridiculous. I have actively used Vista on a number of hardware platforms (Intel, AMD/Via, AMD/nVidia, AMD/ATI) and not had any of the stability troubles you speak of. Ever.

I'm starting to think that a good percentage of Vista woes are posted by Linux zealots just trying to make Vista look bad.

With Linux, one gets incredible functionality, reliability, and overall value, for basically no cost.
Plus a true freedom.

Awesome, sounds good! Let me know where I can get Vegas, Tracktion, Reason, Office 2003 or 2007 and Creative Suite 3 for Linux.

I love Linux, especially SuSe and Ubuntu. But it's just not the best tool for all jobs.

I also get tired of it always being a case of the "you can like Windows, or you can like Linux, but not both" vibe I often get here.

They aren't generalizations, they're brackets. Pro apps are for people who consider PCs replaceable hardware, not investments. Mac owners are oftentimes the slowest to figure this out, and as someone who upgraded a Mac to keep it current for NINE YEARS, I speak with some authority here. TCO is an important issue for personal owners. For businessmen, commodity hardware is the paradigm.

Look, I'm no MS fanboy, but this sort of crap is getting ridiculous. I have actively used Vista on a number of hardware platforms (Intel, AMD/Via, AMD/nVidia, AMD/ATI) and not had any of the stability troubles you speak of. Ever.



The differences between OpenOffice and Office are in many cases hairsplitting. The rest of these apps I'm in complete agreement with -- except that WINE is achieving its goal of closing the API gaps. QuickTime 7 runs more efficiently under WINE on my laptop than it does under XP.

"Look, I'm no MS fanboy, but this sort of crap is getting ridiculous. I have actively used Vista on a number of hardware platforms (Intel, AMD/Via, AMD/nVidia, AMD/ATI) and not had any of the stability troubles you speak of. Ever. "

"I", that's the key of your sentence. The fact that you never encountered any of these problems doesn't mean other people did.
I've seen only 2 installations of Vista, and both had issues: i.e. my boss bought a HP laptop with Vista Home preinstalled, and every time he runs or copy something from the local lan, he gets a blue screen of death.
Not really nice

Dude, all companies are cheap ass companies.

Compatibility is more important then you think. There is a concept called "clear upgrade path." Sometimes there is, and sometimes there isn't. Sometimes companies go out of business, product lines get dropped, or maintainers quit maintaining leaving users in the lurch. People could migrate to a different program, but why when it would mean losing all that data. Why migrate when a new system isn't going to do what the users need it to?

The best example I have is the old VAX systems where I work. The client isn't going to upgrade because 1) they run fine, and 2) there isn't a system that can replace them. Believe it or not VMS will run circles around Unix in this instance. They could replace them with modern Ithium based servers, but they don't want to spend the money to replace something that is working.

Compatibility, compatibility, compatibility...

... comes at a cost (e. g. a crufty OS). Compatibility (or rather the promises of it) is good for marketing but rarely for the user. I prefer new OSes to be better (and not just bug fix release of the old one).

Either you bought your PRO software for your needs and hence don't need to update or you bought the wrong software.

>... comes at a cost (e. g. a crufty OS).

That's an engineering headache, not a user one. As time goes, more engineering time will need to be used to make sure everything is still compatible. In that case, increase the price of the OS. But the user's usability should be completely transparent.

That's an engineering headache
*LOL*

But the user's usability should be completely transparent.
And why the hell should the user upgrade if everything stays the same? If the user's usability is unchanged, where's the progress? Just to run the "latest and greatest"? The "hip" factor?

I agree that compatibility is important when it comes to data format / interchange and standards. However when it comes to an OS, compatibility is only important for marketing so they can make their (normally false) promises : "Buy our shiny new OS and keep running your entire old software and hardware. The transition comes at no cost. ... blablabla ...".

And engineers are engineers, not magicians. They operate under time and money constraints, you know..

That's an engineering headache, not a user one. As time goes, more engineering time will need to be used to make sure everything is still compatible. In that case, increase the price of the OS. But the user's usability should be completely transparent.

Increase the price of the OS. That's a splendid idea! Let's keep making the operating system more expensive, so that it can support every program that's ever been made. Let's spend so much time ensuring perfect backwards compatibility, that we have to drop features that could prove very useful to others.

Backwards compatability does not need to be maintained for everything, or even for most things.

I think the best thing for MS to do would be to offer downgrade options to people who buy computers pre-loaded with any OEM version of Vista. It would prevent problems for many users, and to kill off more backwards compatability.

At what point does "compatibility importance" yield to true WinOS advancement? Let's face it, Vista is a disappointment and I'd argue that a big part of the reason why it's little more than a slower XP reskin is due to MS's almost crazed adherence to compatibility.

As much as I have come to hate the overused term paradigm, MS's approach to OS development is caught in a paradigm black hole. Layer on the code to maintain compatibility while building an innovative deck of cards.

Let's face it, newer systems have the processing power and memory to containerize compatibility in the stunningly powerful VM's while freeing the OS developers of the shackles. Legacy applications can be run in so-called compatibility mode on XP with great results. Why bother, give us Singularity or Windows 7 with entire VM's back to freaking DOS (if need be damn it) to keep the older stuff going while we get real advancement.

Let me take a breath and say - Yes, I agree compatibiity is important. Critical. Absolutely necessary. But the way MS is attempting to deliver it while providing truly innovative features in a novel OS upgrade just isn't working.

"when I whine about how Linux and Linux distros break compatibilities at various levels every other day,I get the runaround from zealots"

Probably because they don't actually do it every other day.

"Windows 9x became so popular because it kept compatibility with 1981 DOS programs, not for other reasons."

It did? Not in my universe it didnt. You had to be really lucky to get a DOS program run well in Windows.
Oh sure, you had the lovely "Boot into DOS" feature but that unfortunately didnt really work that great and wasn't all that compatible, especially not with games.

This topic came up the other day about Python and also KDE4. KDE4 is hopefully developing a framework that make compatibility easier to maintain.

Compatibility may be important, more important than I give credit to. But, I think Linux and OSS are evolving too fast to make compatibility the most important thing. At some point, this may change. But, not yet. My comment is directed primarily to the desktop.

I agree with you on this one. As many other pointed out, binary compatibility is not strictly necessary for free software and it doesn't need to be taken into the absurd, but when it is there, it does give you a great deal of extra flexibility. Being able to copy a binary made for another distro and run it can be very convenient at times (for example when doing system repair with only an old Linux CD and no Internet connection). On the other extreme, imagine if you had to recompile or redownload all your applications with every kernel upgrade.

I think that for free software, improvement can be done in this area without that much extra effort. It's largely a question of attitude. For example, app developers should think twice before they add a new dependency, runtime detection of features should be preferred for compile-time detection and so on.

"Compatibility, compatibility, compatibility..."

Maybe if Microsoft respected ...open standards, open standards, open standards... compatibility would not be so hard to achieve.

While I respect the worry that shifting to an open, standards-compliant system might break compatibility with existing applications and documents, it will only do so once.

If you stick with Microsoft, you'll be doing the compatibility shuffle every time the whimsical Ballmer boys call the tune for you.

But you're well trained. You'll roll over on command.

Have a biscuit.

Eugenia. That's not true, and you know it. Windows 9x only became a success because it came bundled with all PC's. Backwards compatibility was reasonable, but only because Windows 9x was MSDOS 7.x+Windows 4.x. It was somewhat compatible with older DOS-versions because Windows 9x was DOS. And that came at a high price in terms of lacking stability. And backwards compatibility was nowhere as good as what OS/2 gave at that time.

You mention problems with compatibility on (GNU/)Linux. Care to mention which kind of problems and sources for such problems?

What Eugenia says is actually echoed by market experts who studied the sales of Windows.

DOS compatibility in Windows 9x was actually a very important thing.

As someone that worked at Gateway during latter part of the Windows95 rollout, I can tell you right now that DOS application compatibility was very important to a lot of customers.

If you want to disprove her, then do so, but simply saying she isn't right isn't enough to prove her wrong.

Ian Murdock of Debian fame points out just how important backwards compatibility is here:
http://ianmurdock.com/2007/01/14/on-the-importance-of-backward-comp...

Sony Vegas Pro 8 is fully compatible with Windows Vista:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/products/product.asp?PID=457

will say it for the last time: compatibility is important -- more important than developers and geeks think it is. And that's not only true for Vista, but for all OSes. Windows 9x became so popular because it kept compatibility with 1981 DOS programs, not for other reasons.

It is true that compatibility is what got us where we are today but I'm not so sure that is a good thing. Compatiblity also means bloated, buggy, software.

And to the point: No, switching to alternatives won't do any good, because the alternatives break compatibility MORE OFTEN than Microsoft does, and besides, apps will eventually be made Vista-compatible. More to the point: Stay with XP. That's why I stay with XP too: compatibility with my video editing PRO apps.

I wouldn't agree with that assumption at all. It doesn't really apply to open source software and open formats. Program updates are free, you don't have to buy a new version of Norton, Quickbooks, Office, and other programs like you had to when Vista was released. That's what really pisses people off. I've angered many people when I had to tell them that they needed to buy all new versions of their software after they bought a new computer, or how they had to download drivers off the manufacturer's website for their older hardware and in some cases even new hardware.

Oh, come on!
Of course, the Consumers' Union are a bunch of free software evangelists and that's why they recommend Linux and OSX (which, as you should know, isn't free software), right?

Wrong!

What's happening here is actually quite simple:
Some people recommended (mainly to businesses) that _IF_ they wanted to leave Windows for a more flexible and cheaper alternative (like Linux) they should do it _NOW_ because Vista will break some compatibility anyway.

What the Consumers' Union obviously did was parrot those recommendations in the wrong context.
I can only hope that the oversimplified advice they gave won't come back and haunt Linux or free software in general.

It is good though, that people finally realize there are alternatives to Windows.
I just wish Linux was not presented as the silver bullet.
All operating systems have their specific strengths and weaknesses which should be subject to calm and fact based discussion - no more and no less.

THe only programs that I have had trouble with is podcasting clients (Dopler 3 Beta works FYI), AUtoGK, and WinDV. OTher than that it has worked out great... thoguh I have not been able to get windows DVD to write a darn disk yet. I think there is a bug that needs a fixin.

"(yet, aggravatingly, they now advertise it as Vista-compatible)"

You may want to specify what the program it is that gives you issue on Vista.

"Open-source evangelists are preaching the use of open-source software where it is a completely inappropriate and wholly insufficient solution? Quelle suprise."

Overlooking the fact that the comment simply smacks of your own bitterness or prejudgement against FOSS, where is open source an insufficent solution?

Do you mean in business servers where it's still numbering higher than Windows, Unix and mainframe servers?

Do you mean in business workstations where it can be cusomized to a specific job role more than other OS? (unless the data input clerk *needs* an internet browser of course)

Do you mean in home desktops where it is more robust and provides the user with a far greater selection of software available through easy management GUI and console programs after being vetted by the respective distrobution maintainer?

I'm not sure I follow your logic there. I'd be curious to know what "inappropriate and wholly insufficient" issues you imagine with open source. I'm not a blind Zealot and am always interested to other's experiences provided they can be given with technical or specific examples and without a purely emotional motivation.

The only "inappropriate and wholly insufficient" uses I can think of are pushing DirectX only games and using specific Windows Only hardware. The first being caused by MS backroom deals and business choices by game developers and the second being caused by hardware manufacturers that sell too a specific OS rather than sell hardware seporate of a specific OS brand name.

I'm trying to figure out why people keep ignoring business critical Windows-only software, as if it doesn't exist, or the multitude of media applications that do not run on Linux.

In those instances, of which there are many, Linux is "inappropriate and insufficient".

"I'm trying to figure out why people keep ignoring business critical Windows-only software, as if it doesn't exist, or the multitude of media applications that do not run on Linux. "

For Media playing GNU is simply a better platform with better players; with better players. These are optional and not a potential security problem built into the OS or with crippling DRM.

I actually liked this "critical Windows-only software". Sack them immediately. In todays world of internet applications; open formats; future-proofed open source. This is simply an unacceptable decision regardless of OS platform. There are *lots* of problems with with changing platform this should not be one of them. In reality removing software like this should be top priority.

I actually liked this "critical Windows-only software". Sack them immediately. In todays world of internet applications; open formats; future-proofed open source. This is simply an unacceptable decision regardless of OS platform. There are *lots* of problems with with changing platform this should not be one of them. In reality removing software like this should be top priority.

I really don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you obviously don't work in the IT field at all if you believe you can just "sack" Windows-only apps.

Having worked in IT for several years in banking, legal, and now engineering/energy fields, there are just too many examples why you can't just "sack" Windows-only software.

And when I was referring to media apps, I wasn't referring to something as elementary as an mp3 player.

You sudgest examples which makes your comment valid.

No one outside of the Zealot minority says to not use Windows or a closed source program when that is the only solution to your problem. I was simply asking for the examples the initial post felt made Linux inappropriate. Heck, Mr. Stallman recommends using closed source when no other solution is available though only until one becomes available.

Too you, I'd ask; are you looking for specific functions or specific brand names of software? Some functions are only offered by specialized software such as Adobe and for the minority of users who can truly use Photoshop's advanced features the decision is either Windows or osX. My education used VB and VC++ and ColdFusion as programming training aids so until recently picking up PHP my decision was limited to Studio.NET if I wanted to code anything.

(oh damn is PHP slick, it's like discovering ColdFusion all over again but with more power)

In reality, there are far fewer instances where a function on one OS platform is not at all available on another software platform. Heck, I could do what I do with my prefered Linux distro on Windows or osX but in both the later cases, it wouldn't be nearly as easy to setup or constomize to my needs.

Business software is no different from any other software applications. Of course, if you choose Exchange Server then MS broken standards make a series of decisions for you resulting from that one groupware product (requires winServer, requires AD, requires Outlook which forces winWorkstation.. and such is the lock-in business strategy built.)

Mind you, something like eGroupware does 95% of what Exchange Server does plus a bunch of stuff it doesn't do and you can pick from five or more client programs that work seamlessly with it or just use a browser like most big busines apps are doing these days. Oh, and it runs on a *nix back end so you get the added efficiency and security. It's PHP based though so you could possibly install it over a winServer/IIS combo but that's like putting an Tuxedo on a steaming turd.

Cheers for the response though, I asked in my original post too get examples so you've added to the conversation.

"No one outside of the Zealot minority says to not use Windows or a closed source program when that is the only solution to your problem. I was simply asking for the examples the initial post felt made Linux inappropriate. Heck, Mr. Stallman recommends using closed source when no other solution is available though only until one becomes available."

@jabbotts Zealot is both offensive and inappropriate.

Unfortunately for you. It is you that is in the minority, nobody here will agree with you that access to source is not the best way to ensure that your products stay compatible. I don't even have to talk open-source. Even before open-source hit mainstream it was common to discuss the advantages of bespoke applications vs those from proprietary vendors. Linux the kernel is just an extreme example. Source code is like gold to companies wanting to prevent lock-in; tailored to use software etc etc.

"My education used VB and VC++ and ColdFusion" I'm glad that you point out VB as that many developers regret choosing for their applications after VB6 was dropped. I'm actually surprised that ColdFusion is about at all.

Specific tasks that are not possible in an open source counterpart, or not anywhere near as usable. There are a lot of examples of this in the legal, accounting, and engineering, and graphic arts fields.

WINE is not a solution for most professionals who need an 100% stable/fast solution. I can't use Sony Vegas on WINE for example, and I would not do so either, even if it was deemed "somewhat compatible". I need every little bit of CPU power and RAM I can squeeze out of it because HD video editing is very intensive. And I need it to be MIGHTY stable.

Edited 2007-09-10 21:40

"because HD video editing is very intensive. "

Most people don't do HD video editing though.

"Most people don't do HD video editing though."

If you total up the number of people who "don't do <insert activity here>" it eventually equals 100%. i.e. there are enough edge cases that they all need to be accounted for when it comes to making new software releases maintain backwards compatibility. You can't just say "Sorry HD guys, we're screwing you" or "hey, musicians...we gotta break compatibility with this release."

"If you total up the number of people who "don't do <insert activity here>" it eventually equals 100%."

That would be true...apart from the fact that the majority of users want to write the odd document; use the internet; read their email and nothing else.

Now if your talking about about large companies; or rare users specialist applications thats a different matter.

Look at me with my pro-vista comment, and I didn't even have to lie.

If you want a 100% stable/fast solution, then what are you doing with Windows in the first place?

Then don't switch platform.

Don't switch to Linux, don't switch to OS X, and most of all - don't switch to Vista.

If your system works don't fix it. If it doesn't work there is nothing lost in trying alternatives.

The Consumers' Union is not recommending switching platforms. It is only recommending to look at them. Thom is misquoting the article. The Consumers' Union only recommend to take a look at OS X or Ubuntu Linux.

If you really need every little bit of CPU power, you better check your program with Wine. In some cases, it works faster then on genuine windows. And in many cases it runs without any noticeable performance degradation.

This is a very moot argument going forward...

Already you can "squeeze" more CPU and RAM for your Windows applications (Then Windows itself gives you) using wine, as long as you use a minimal window manager like black box. Wine already has faster performance for some things, and this trend is sure to grow as it matures. When were talking about the following 3 options:

1) Keep on switching to the latest Windows O.S.; and watch the compatibility for your older apps, slowly plummet.
2) Use older windows O.S., and be unable to use newer apps. (in 10 some years, your not going to be in a good position if your still using XP)
3) Use wine on Linux or Mac. And be delighted to see your older apps, slowly getting better performance and stability. While still being able to use newer applications.

I don't think it's insane to think someone might pick 3, because they care more about the direction something is going, then were its stuck at right now.

besides that, the OGL fix has been taken care of with new drivers from ATI and Nvidia

"I remember a comment here a few months ago, where a guy was complaining about bad 3d performance on games on vista. A linux advocate helpfully jumped in, recommending the person try out ubuntu.

If the problem is that you cant play the latest and greatest games properly, the solution is NOT to jump to a platform that has zero industry support."

I'm a little confused, did you mean to say that commercial gaming on Linux is supported by only a few companies like ID and epic. Because the kernel is pretty much supported *only* by companies. The common quote you see is IBM investing 2 Billion in Linux.

Of course *casual* gaming is heavily supported and you can by a PS3 cheaper than investing in the Microsoft platform.

I was talking about the gaming industry, I'm sorry if i wasn't clear.

Gee, the anti-Linux crowd has walked in already .

When Linux breaks compatibility then it is a good thing. When Vista does it it is a bad thing. That is the world in the eys of OSS fanatics:)

The difference being that virtually all GNU/Linux applications are opensource or free software (what you prefer), and can and will be recompiled. Larger distro's like Debian have a comprehensive package set, and important packages are never dropped between releases. While Sarge's GIMP may not run on Lenny, the point is kinda moot, because Lenny includes The GIMP as well.

Yeah, sure, this doesn't apply to closed-source applications, but for the rest.