Stefan Erik Wilkens wrote:
A general rule in life is that nothing is ever free. Perhaps a bold
remark to use in an open-source mailing list, but cost doesn't have to
be defined by money.
We simply pay for using Linux by coping with slightly lower
performance in some (certainly not all) areas of the desktop
experience, furthermore by dealing with a lack of certain features and
compatabillity with the rest of the world (office and other indistry
standard applications not being available to us, the open source
counterparts not being up to par with the standard due to
closed-source or licencing).
I haven't thought about the money aspect and yes this world does revolve around "you get what you pay for". Though I see this in a different light, just because we chose to be Free, we have to settle for less?
Though we try to stay on par, I think determining that we have lost
implies that we must outperform other operating systems in every way
to be considered a real alternative.
This point has come up in the forums as well. Don't we want linux/Free software to succeed in all facets of computing? Certainly because the desktop is a big chunk.
KDE 4.x is in active developement, GNOME is renewing the desktop
experience (albeit slowly). Things are moving along in the open source
desktop world. Thankfully, linux != just desktop
Yes and KDE 4 has made huge improvements over the releases. But my peers do feel similar and the most common response is, how can the community be so unresponsible for doing flawed releases?
However, for me, the negatives unfortunatly outweigh the positives. For the most part, because they don't really enhance my productivity
Behind != different?
I don't consider being "behind" as being "different"
Glenn
