It's impossible for me to live and work with only free software.  Either what I need to do doesn't exist (and I don't want to/can't write it my self) or it exists and the quality or functionality isn't good enough.  I would stab my eyes out if I had to use Linux at home or on the road every day.  I'm glad it exists and I have it installed on almost a thousand machines at work.. but it's just not useful for what I want to do in my spare time.

The GNU/Linux distros released in the past couple of years have been ridiculously user-friendly, much more so than Windows or Mac OS X.

* For video editing, I use Kdenlive.

* For 3D graphics and animation, I use Blender.

* For raster graphics editing, I use the GNU Image Manipulation Program.

* For vector graphics editing, I use Inkscape.

* For text editing, I use vim and emacs.

* For professional typesetting, I use LaTeX.

* For word processing/spreadsheets/presentations, I use LibreOffice.

useful list, this is better than openoffice now?

aside from vim none of the above would ever cut it for what I do and/or how I do it.

In short, yes.

OpenOffice used to be maintained by Sun Microsystems. After Oracle bought Sun Microsystems, the OpenOffice development team got worried that Oracle would kill their project, so they made a fork/copy of the OpenOffice source code, and they began maintaining both projects in parallel.

Then Oracle gave the team an ultimatum: focus on OpenOffice and stay employed at Oracle, or leave and work on LibreOffice on your own. Most of the team opted to leave and work on LibreOffice on their own. They secured funding and donations from companies like Google, IBM, and Novell, and they formed the Document Foundation.

After a period of stagnation, Oracle decided to throw OpenOffice away. The LibreOffice guys hoped that Oracle would at least let them have the OpenOffice trademark, but instead Oracle gave it to a competing free software development organization -- the Apache Foundation -- perhaps to spite its former employees.

So now the Apache Foundation maintains OpenOffice, and the Document Foundation maintains LibreOffice.

LibreOffice has lots of improvements and new features that are absent from OpenOffice. Apache has a lot of catching up to do to bring OpenOffice up to speed.

In what way is ubuntu as bad as mac or win I am curious.

  I think most people's adherence to non-free software just comes from familiarity with closed source stuff- a reason why autodesk gives away it's full suite to students. I use gimp a lot, so PS seems clunky to me now. But I have to say, Blender is amazing, and the pace of development is insane. Nowhere else can you do so much with a 60Mb download.

The main reason Mac OS X and Windows are bad is because they keep their users in the dark about what is happening on their computers. This means users can never be sure if their computer is helping someone spy on them. Microsoft doesn't even bother hiding the fact that they have backdoor access to all Windows systems.

Ubuntu is not quite this bad -- most of the nonfree bits included in Ubuntu are inherited from Linux (the kernel), and they come in the form of "binary blob" device drivers. But Ubuntu is about to become bad in another way: starting with the next release, it will include adware as a default part of the distribution. Advertising is generally OK, but the way they're doing it exposes users' local application and file searches to a 3rd party -- namely, Amazon.

Come again?

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ … _Windows_7

They've denied it for Windows 7, but it's been a thing in the past.

I think Libreoffice has surpassed OpenOffice myself. It's quite wonderful.

I agree, Adobe is clunky compared to gimp 2.8.

I much prefer gimp for higher-end retouching, dodging and burning, curves and layer work. Elements is more suited for basic touchups.

Yep.

So when youshe said "they don't even bother to hide the fact" youshe actually meant they actively deny it and there is, in fact, not even a tiny bit of proof to that fact...

Gotcha.

I think you're confusing me with another poster.

In my line of work we need 32-bit editing.


I love free software as much as the next guy... but to think it can work in all cases is just silly.

Whoops.. quite correct.

What makes you think we don't?  32 bit has been supported since 2.6.

everything I read says its not coming until 3.0

Some photos also fall under the opensource copyleft.

Like, for example, the wikicommons photo collection at http://www.openstockphotography.org/ .

As of October 2007, the Wikimedia Commons, a central media archive operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, contains about 1,986,590 files* uploaded by over 30,000 registered users. Each of these files is available under a free content license or in the public domain; there are no restrictions of use beyond those relating to use of official insignia. Licenses which limit commercial use are considered non-free.

So, one can alter, give, and do whatever to any photo.

There's an unmaintained fork of Gimp called CinePaint which does 32 bit.  Developed for frame editing in animated movies, apparently was used by some of the big studios in the early 2000's.

I'm looking forward to Gimp 3.0 though - will be a real competitor to PS.

I put all my deviant art stuff up there on a "creative commons - attribution left" license.

Thanks for this information. I've downloaded and installed LibreOffice.

In all fairness its easy to turn off the Amazon search:   http://lifehacker.com/5953180/how-to-re … buntu-1210   However I get your meaning but  Canonical is trying to survive.   They are now accepting donations and trying to monetize Ubuntu as much as possible.   Its got to be expensive to keep developers and to pay for hosting and downloads.   A few years back you could only download Slackware during certain hours as they were trying to save money.   I think Slackware is a one man band though.   Maybe some of the distros who use Ubuntu as a base could kick in like Zorin and Mint and Pinguy and the others.   They use the software manager.

Money woes have stopped several cool distros.   Its funny I'm a member on several Android forums and goofs there are always asking the developers to rush ROMS and bitc7ing about things that don't work but very few of those freeloaders ever send in a dime.

The difference being that the copyright owner is the one who chooses to place the photographs into the public domain.  The person using the photos doesn't make that choice for the copyright owner.

The motivation is $$$. They want something as good as commercial software but FREE to those who cannot afford it.

Seriously most people CANNOT afford a $1000 suite for their $400 computers.

There is commercial software that copies OS versions.  Some OS software is better then paid software as well.   I would debate that in most ways most full featured Linux desktops best Windows and in some cases OS X.   I had Windows 8 preview until the license expired so I went back to Windows 7.   I don't want to pay $40.00 for a upgrade nor would I want to pay $100.00 for a new install.   What is a funny thing is its that its largely the OS community that pushes innovation.   Go to the XDA forums are see what the Android guys are doing with custom ROMS.   All free to use and usually better then stock ROMS.   Many of the developers of paid software develop OS software also.   

However another member beat me to it.   The Linux world appeals to those on a budget who perhaps can't afford Photoshop or MS office.   Windows 7 is still the most used consumer computer OS so I don't see the OS community as a threat to to MSFT and MSFT has responded by making it difficult to load Linux on Windows 8 systems.   Another cool thing though is many of the OS versions work on systems with less RAM and modest processors.

There is commercial software that copies OS versions.

Go on then - what?

That is the case with the software released under the license the OP talks about.  The software creators choose to release their software under those licensing terms.  Nobody here (I don't think) is asserting that users can (or even should) assert these rights unilaterally.

One quick example is Reaver Pro which is being sold by a Hacker website.   Its Reaver which is Opensource with a GUI.   Reaver is in Backtrack.   Many of the features in commercial software comes from the OS community where hundreds or thousands of people work on the code.   The folks that worked on WebOS came from Apple.

A bit more.   OS is often the precursor of commercial software OS X was based in part from BSD.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_S … stribution

This is the Reaver which is a cut down OS version of the pro tool developed by Tactical Network Solutions ?

hmmmmm - that's your best example? something developed as full featured closed source and then offered as a crap ware OS version to get the punters interested?

Dude you asked for a example and I gave two.   OS X is based on BSD.   Windows comes from a OS source as well.   There are others though.   So is OS X crap ware?   Some developers have a OS version they test and then add features and make it a paid version.   The same guys who work on Linux software also develop for Windows and OS X.