OSNews

Why must I always re-explain things to people? Sheesh!

And of course, you go and list the most expensive apps you can find.

I only listed these apps because some of them are the ones that Darius (and others) usually brings up when he/she goes on a "Linux has no apps" tirade.

Let's say I create (for a living) Flash intros for websites using a pirated version of Macromedia Studio. So, what am I supposed to do?

You are supposed to go out a buy a license for Macromedia Studio! If you are selling work you did on an illegal copy of Macromedia to innocent consumers, you suck! Pry open your slimy wallet and fork over some of the cash your paying customers gave you and buy a license!

...Drop Windows and switch to Linux? Then what? Simply use the Linux version of Macromedia Studio? Oh wait, I forgot .. there IS no Linux version!! By making the switch, what exactly have I accomplished? Freedom from the Great Satan? *pffffft*

I don't know what orifice you pulled this out of. You're the one talking about Satan, Freedom and some wingnut political stance against Microsoft, not me. My point was simply that there are more apps legally available to Linux users than most Windows users. I explained the reason why as well; user's finances. If you disagree, please do not resort to name calling, straw man projection tactics and cheap shots, simply express your opinions and back them up with facts; like a regular person.

Ok, why do you assume that a) Every single commercial Win32 app is $400+ and b) All Windows software must be used illegally?

I didn't assume any such thing. I only used expensive applications to save on typing. I figured most people would be able to extrapolate from that data and arrive at the same conclusion regardless of the cost of the software. For example, assume that all Windows software only cost $10.00 per license. If a Linux user has 5,000 different, free software applications available to them to use, then the Windows user would have to spend $50,000 to obtain an equall number of software applications. Most people don't have that kind of money; and therefore Windows users don't have that kind of choice.

To answer your b) comment, if you don't have the money to buy software, but are still using it, then you are using it...? What? Illegally, right? I knew you'd get it.

Not legally available? My friend, simply go to your nearest CompUSA, walk down the software isles, and you will see just how much software is 'legally available' to the user. Most of it is just crap to you and me, but Joe User really loves this stuff!

Um, I think the whole of OSNews, with the exception of you, understood my point. I'll say it again slowly. It is not that Windows software isn't available at your local giant software mega-mart. It is that people's finances limit the Windows software they can buy; and therefore legally use. So my statement that Linux users have more software available to them than Windows users do because Windows software isn't free is true (I hope you can finally see that). I only made this statement in response to Darius' often repeated misconceived notion that there isn't any software for Linux.

I have a friend for whom I recently replaced a hard drive for, and she had like 20-30 of these programs, and NONE of them were more than $50...

Those programs would have cost her how much? $1,000 to $1,500 right? How many people have a free $1,500 sitting around? For those that do, does 20-30 apps compare remotely to the thousands of apps available to Linux users for much less money (usually $0)?

...and I'd guess there were Linux equivalents for maybe 5-6 of them. (If you can find a Linux version of "Pooh's Print Studio", then you are most certainly a better man than I )

There are many programs on Linux that Windows doesn't have an alternative for. What's your point? Please, if you're going to start a big debate with me and try to put me in my place, at least do me the coutesy of staying on topic. I hate it when people whip up a straw man anti-Microsoft persona, project it on me, and then try to pelt me with vebal tomatoes for things I never said. I never said that people have to dump Windows and use Linux. I don't care what you use. That's as dumb as saying you should wear only blue tones, leather belts and Hushpuppies. Why on Earth would I want to concern myself with what you wear (either on your body or your computer)?

My only care is that somebody who has never tried Linux would be turned off by some posters false statement regarding Linux. When I see a statement that is false, I will provide a correction, an alternative point of view and a positive experience with Linux. Don't let it bother you. I'm not bothered that you like Windows. I simply don't care.

Sure, Linux has tons of stuff available, but how easily obtainable is it to the average (most illiterate) Windows user? Click and run is great and all, but outside of that and it's RPM -i whatever, hehe .. uh uh.

It is very easily obtainable and easily installable. It is different than Windows in many cases, but exactly the same in others. What's your point and how does it relate to what I was talking about?