... big open source products are often effective monopolies. Because a product is so big and has been developed for such a long time, typically no team will opt to create a replacement. It can even be considered a poor move that undermines the work of the community, wastes time and effort. Also, once a project takes off, it will create a snowball effect and attract many developers and users, thus stealing potential resources from other projects. The need to market the project to the community requires very serious dedication from the initial team, and it make take many years until the project takes off.
As a result, "free" operating systems usually have only one main program in a given area. For instance, there is but a single serious raster graphics package - GIMP. If GIMP does not satisfy the user - there are virtually no alternatives that are able to boast comparable stability and initial feature set. If one sees several programs being developed to achieve a similar use case, then it is a good bet that none of them are reliably good. Such is the situation with video editors on Linux as of the moment of writing.
At the same time developers of the main package might be under very little pressure to make their product competitive, by virtue of there being no competition. This allows them to work at their own pace, prioritize new features over stability and over polishing existing functionality, spend time on experiments that are incomplete for years, and often hold bizarre views about software development in general.
And I have seen a lot of this._______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
