OSNews

First of all, to clear up any confusion/misconceptions, I am also WorknMan. I normally use the handle 'Darius' on this board .. WorknMan was just a case of using the wrong handle on the wrong board

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.

AFAIK, I've never listed any of the ones you mentioned, but you did bring up a couple of good ones that I neglect to mention because I don't personally use them And no, our argument is not that Linux has no apps, it's that Linux does not have THESE apps and THESE apps are what we use and love. Sometimes it's not a matter of learning how to send an email attachment in Linux. Sometimes its a matter of apps or features that are severely limited or missing altogether.

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!

Yes, I agree with you completely, but you totally missed my point. You go off and say that there is more software legally available under Linux. Well, tell this to the guy who uses Macromedia Studio for a living. If even there were 3 million free apps available for Linux, if none of those offer the functionality of Macromedia Studio, then what difference does it make? Well, if you don't use Macromedia Studio, it makes no difference. But if you use it profesionally, then it becomes the single most critical app that you use. You said in a previous post that I think it has more to do with your flexibility than anything else. So, what is the Macromedia Studio guy supposed to do? Churn out Flash content using vi?

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.

I never said you said any of that. I was asking you that if Linux doesn't have the apps I need/want to use, then what good is it, and what difference does it make how many apps are available and how cheap they are? The "Bill Gates is Satan" crap is just the typical response I normally get from the Linux zealots, as it ALWAYS boils down to the revolution as to why I should PERSONALLY switch. And if you think that I'm better off with Windows, then I've got no problem with you

Well, except for your notion that nobody can afford to buy Windows software and therefore must pirate it all. Out of the 20-30 apps my friend has, some of them are pirated, some of them are bought, and most came with her computer. Also, most people I know have no problem using pirated software at all. It's all a matter of conscience - I don't judge people one way or the other over it.

Please allow those who are undecided the opportunity to find their comfort level without having to wade through inaccuracies, anger, frustration, political nonsense, etc.

I think that there is are even bigger inaccuracies surrounding Linux than there are Windows zealots spouting crap about Linux, which is why I guess I'm so passionate about this.
For example, a Linux zealot would never tell somebody that by choosing to switch to Linux, they lose the freedom of being able to go out and buy most new pieces of hardware and have the drivers (or even the hardware itself) officially supported by the manufacturere running on their Linux OS. They lose the freedom to go out and buy new'off-the-shelf' PC games and have them work in their OS, except for whatever WineX happened to support at the time. They lose the freedom to be able to run different kinds of hardware that only work in Windows, or have the functionality of that hardware severly limited because the support for it under Linux is still in alpha. (Pocket PC anyone?) They will lie and say that Linux is infinitely more stable than Windows, which has been untrue for quite some time. (True in some cases, not in others).
I will readily admit that if the apps you use demand that security be of utmost importance, you're probably going to be better off in Linux. I also never claimed that Windows does it all better, and I am quite away that the opposite is also true in a lot of cases. I'm just tired of this notion that "Oh, you can do all the things in Linux that you can do in Windows, you just have to do a Google search to figure out how." And no, you didn't specifically say that, but your little 'flexability' comment most certainly implies it.

And yes, I know there is software in Linux that isn't available in Windows. My whole point is that a user should select his/her OS based on the applications that he/she wants to run, not on the technical merits of a particular OS. Because at the end of the day, it's all about the apps and nobody (except for the most hardcore geeks) use their computer soley to dick with the OS. And I personally believe that if most of these reviews would center around feature-for-feature comparisons of the best apps that each OS runs instead of "Oh, look .. Linux is easy to install, and it comes with Open Office!", though it might win quite a few races in the server department, but in the realm of desktop apps, Linux wouldn't stand a chance in most software categories.

Oh yeah ... one last thing. I wish people would lay off this "Linux has thousands of applications" shit. If you took out all the gcc/c++ libraries , the console CD players, mail & newsreaders, the 500 emacs clones, the 300 command shells, etc .. etc from the list ... and were left with apps that most people actually used (ie - apps with clickable menus, toolbars, etc), what are you left? Quite a number of apps, yes .. but thousands? Doubtful.