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.
Thread beginning with comment 403631
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
aeischeid
Member since:
2009-05-25

I am not saying you have to like the program, just respect the fact that somebody is donating their work and at least giving you the chance to benefit from it. It isn't about a religious devotion to FOSS, or giving bad software a free pass. It's just common courtesy. You don't spit on someone who is being generous. If it is no good, or of no use to you, fine, say so, hopefully with good reasons, but don't be angry and belittle them. Constructive criticism is an essential part of open source development, but the attitude in this review was just mean. So much so that I feel it largely negated any of the legitimate issues the author touched upon.

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

DerGenosse Member since:
2010-01-11

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

strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


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?


Sure. I think the big issue here is that for over a decade thousand and one lemur2s have been telling us that Linux and open source is the greatest thing ever. But you can not have it both ways.

You can not have it in the 1990s way where most of the users were developers and the 2010s ways where people are trying to push Linux and open source for the common consumers. The latter group has all right to bitch and moan.


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?"


Exactly.


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.


I agree. Though I see a difference here too; I wouldn't go and flame say the Haiku community for the flaws in their system simply because that is predominantly a project done by volunteers or at least certainly something that is not pushed by the fanboys as a ultimate solution.

Free-ness isn't a criterion for quality.


Yes. Not a necessary nor a sufficient condition.

Reply Parent Score: 2