Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 11th Jan 2010 08:10 UTC
Multimedia, AV I followed the hype: Reddit, Slashdot's front page, months of thumbs up on my blog and various video forums by Linux users for OpenShot. Given that I'm longing for a usable Linux video editor since 2003, and given that OpenShot version 1.0 had just been released, I naturally gave it a go, by also downloading its provided dependencies on my Ubuntu Linux 9.10.
Permalink for comment 403665
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

If you paid for a service or product it makes sense be upset if reasonable expectations aren't meant. Not so with free stuff. I feel like the writers for a site like this should get that.

And that's where I wholeheartedly disagree. It's one of the biggest fallacies Open Source has to offer. Why should you not have the right to be upset if free software doesn't meet your reasonable expectations?

You forget one thing: there's no myriad of commercial consumer-grade applications available on Linux, as an alternative to free software. A user can't say: "Okay, this free video editor doesn't cut it, I'm gonna buy Adobe Premiere." (Let's forget about Wine, it's a crutch, an ugly, ugly hack.) He has to make do with the free software that's available to him.

And every damned Switch-to-Linux-and-you-will-be-happy-ever-after website out there promises the same: "Linux has not only thousands of applications that are free, no, they also are equal to or better than their commercial counterparts. And did I mention that they're free?"

And you're telling me that someone who has switched to Linux, has no right to be upset about the sorry state of many free applications in particular genres, simply based on their free-ness? Linux doesn't need video editor No. 100. For the time being, it just needs one that works well, and can at least rival last year's iMovie or Premiere Elements.

Free-ness isn't a criterion for quality.

Reply Parent Score: 5