Tim Smith wrote:
In article <H1tfl.73704$1k1.65406@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Matt <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> quoted Ars Technica:
"It's intuitively obvious open source is more cost effective and productive
than proprietary software," McNealy told the BBC on Wednesday. "Open source
I'd like to see what open source software McNealy thinks is more cost
effective and productive than, for example:
Final Cut Pro
MainActor - free, with distribution
Premier Pro
Kino - free, with distribution
Mathematica
Sage - free, with distribution
Maple
Maxima - free, with distribution
Logic Studio
This is a toughie. Rosegarden, Audacity, Ardour, and while not OSS but
still deserves a mention because it is absolutely killer (I think so
anyway), eJay (find it in your local techno thrift store, most like on
the 5-bucks-or-less shelf, then run it through WinE). The rest are free,
with distribution.
Pro Tools
HDM, JAMin, Jack, Studio64...
AutoCAD
LinuxCAD, QCad. Come on, you pick 'em. There isn't even a
feature-equivalent package in /Windows/ for Autocad.
The above beat the open source alternatives on productivity.
With the exception of the last one, I'd argue there. I capture, frame
edit, overdub, cut, paste, CRF and master video and audio content very
easily and with great confidence on my cluster. My kids have fun with
the MIDI gear and their guitars and make some... shall we say, eclectic
music...
For the
case of professional users, the above will usually win on cost
effectiveness, too.
See above. I've proved with the fatness of my wallet (and it is very
fat), how OSS can beat proprietery SW on return vs cost. I'm /retired/
at 33!
The higher productivity of the professional
software will overcome the initial up front cost of the program and the
cost of upgrades.
As my son is so fond of saying:
"Are ye dizzy bled?!"
|
|
