Re: The future of Linux
From: Mouse (urimobile_at_optonline.net)
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:51:20 -0500
What I'm missing on Linux is a good user-friendly powerful video editing
software, something comparable to Adobe Premiere Pro. Actually, ADobe
Video Collection Pro - as it includes DVD authoring (Encore DVD), good
audio editing (Audition) and very-very good After Effects. Not to
mention that there are several 3rd-party plug-ins for these applications
(e.g. 2d3 plug-in that reduces video shakiness in a clip shot with a
So for now my video gets edited on Win XP Sp2, and my work is done on
Linux (and things compile sooo fast!).
Jan Wielemaker wrote:
>On 2005-04-01, Mxsmanic <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>Trent Buck writes:
>>>OK, I'll list some substitutes.
>>I don't want substitutes. I want to run the applications on the list,
>>period. That's why I use Windows.
>>>I have a bunch of work and can't finish this now. Hopefully what I *have*
>>>written will be of some help.
>>I don't need help. I already have a Windows machine, and all these
>>applications run on it without any problems.
>There are certainly some people in this thread who are too much biased
>towards Linux and make unreasonable claims on Linux virtues and Windows
>flaws. After you published your list I had a good laugh. Some programs
>started their live on Unix (where they generally run better), some have
>native Linux versions provided by the vendor and the (still large) group
>left has replacements with varying quality, but quite a few pretty good
>Your defence: "I want _this_ application and I do not care whether there
>is an equaly good (or even better) one on Linux".
>Two years ago you had a point regarding software compatibility and as
>one of the few Linux users at my work I always had to defend myself that
>I couldn't (easily) to XYZ. I could do the things I needed most perfectly
>on Linux, so I didn't care too much. Nowadays problems of this kind are
>rare. Ok, I can't see a website using ActiveX, but even if I had explorer
>I'd disable ActiveX for security reasons.
>And yes, you're right that Windows since later NT4 versions running on
>well supported hardware (good idea for Linux too) runs reasonably stable.
>The requirement to run viruscheckers slows it down signfificantly though.
>I never do, but at least upto Windows 2k it performance degrades both the
>longer you keep it up and the more it is used in general.
>To me, Linux is a good OS. It provides 99% of what I need and is way
>quicker to install (windows itself is fine, but than you need to get
>and install everything else you want). Most important: it is free.
>It is highly dubious to have one compagny in control of the complete
>IT infrastructure. It is simply too important for that!
> Cheers --- Jan