Re: Slowly closing the gap with Microsoft Office?

Quite likely yes.

However I've seen regional health authorities doing exactly that and using it as an accounting system.

Re: Slowly closing the gap with Microsoft Office?

Did he know that is is hard/impossible to add? He won't find out unless he asks.

Does he require CMYK support? Seems he does and as GIMP can't/won't provide it; then GIMP is the wrong tool for the job.

I'm not RMS, I don't have a probably with people buying proprietary software. What I have a problem with is people who get software (or anything) for no cost, bitch about it and demand it do something else for no cost.

Re: Slowly closing the gap with Microsoft Office?

"Of the options you mentioned, only writing it myself or hiring someone to write it will actually guarantee the specific functionality gets created. That's not going to be free to do."

So what? Whoever said F/OSS has to also be zero cost software?

"If i need 4 copies immediately, the only sensible approach is to go out and buy something that already does it."

I have no problem with that. You could also form a cadre of like minded individuals and get the thing done.

Re: Slowly closing the gap with Microsoft Office?

"Or pay a nominal sum of money to obtain commercial software that already has these features, along with support?"

£600 / license is a nominal sum?

I'll grant there are much, much, much more expensive software packages out there, but I'd not deem it "nominal".

That's 50-100% more than most people's computers cost in the first place! For a young design grad on £25k/yr (generous), that's 2.4% of their salary. As an SME employer, that's quite a bit to spend on them, especially after you've just spent at least that much on a workstation for them (or more likely, bought a senior designer a new toy to free up an old machine for the noob), and a desk, and lighting, and electricity, and floor space in the office. So the question would be "Do they really, really, really need that to do their job, or is an Open Source offering going to enable them to do their job just as well?

If they work in print and need CMYK all day every day, right now, the answer will obviously be no. If they work in web graphics, it could quite possibly be yes. Horses for courses.

Similarly, a young design grad like that probably doesn't need an office suite at all, but if they do, it'll be for very, very basic tasks, for which LO or similar will be more than adequate for, rather than spending another £150-200 on MS Office.

The thing with open source is it's usually developed by someone to fill a very specific niche. If that niche happens to be your job, then more general proprietary tools probably won't hold a candle up to it. The interesting bit is when broader stuff like productivity suites start butting up against the proprietary alternatives.

Re: Slowly closing the gap with Microsoft Office?

" "Or pay a nominal sum of money to obtain commercial software that already has these features, along with support?"

£600 / license is a nominal sum?"

Be fair, £600 is a nominal sum relatively speaking. Let's make up some numbers. CMYK for GIMP, we've been told that's a hard job. How hard? One man year (including testing etc). How much is that? £60,000?

Only one person wants it. Cost to them? £60,000. That buys them a lot of licenses.

But wait. 10 people want it. Now the cost is £6,000 each. See where this is going?

Now yes, there will be other opportunity costs etc involved and one may still reach the decision that £600 at the pay-for vendor is the better option (especially if it's available right now). That's all fine and dandy, good on you, get the tool you need.

Re: Slowly closing the gap with Microsoft Office? @The BigYin

"Did he know that is is hard/impossible to add? He won't find out unless he asks."

He says he uses it exensively - seems reasonable to assume he's looked into it.

"Does he require CMYK support? Seems he does and as GIMP can't/won't provide it; then GIMP is the wrong tool for the job."

Thar's his point, isn't it? Then you jumped in with the old fix it yourself defence. (Note i said fix, not write, to head off your "I didn's say he had to write it" defence.)

"I'm not RMS, I don't have a probably with people buying proprietary software. What I have a problem with is people who get software (or anything) for no cost, bitch about it and demand it do something else for no cost."

Pointing out an absent feature isn't bitching. He hasn't *demanded* anything. I could argue you're demanding he support FOSS with his time/money/whatever. Which is an investment of one kind or another. You often make good points in threads, but I think you've failed here, I'm afraid.

Re: I always assumed...

Depending on the business, the cost of Office or Photoshop will be tax deductible. This is probably why the cost of the latter is around the £600 mark- it doesn't cost the professional that much, as it is a business cost.

Re: I always assumed...

Woah! I'm not demanding that GIMP immediately adds CMYK support. When it arrives I will be overjoyed but I have been using GIMP for long enough to know that it's not as simple as me just developing a module like I have attempted for ProFTPd and Apache.

I was merely pointing out that GIMP has pretty much feature parity with Photoshop for me, as a medium to heavy user of both. If someone wants to setup a dev fund for CMYK support then I will happily contribute financially. Hell I thought about setting that very thing up a while ago or nominating for a GSoC project.

The GIMP developers continue to make steady progress in converting the underlying engine to GEGL, which I understand would make supporting additional colour spaces alot easier.

I'm not bitching that an open source project was missing a feature that I really want, I was trying to say that I'm so amazed by the fact that an open source project can get to 95% of feature parity of such an expensive commercial product.

Re: Slowly closing the gap with Microsoft Office?

I'd consider GIMP to be better for retouching of photos than Photoshop. Even scripting GIMP is better than Photoshop. But that's just my personal experience.

Did you know GIMP was used to retouch frames in the first Harry Potter and Stuart Little?

Re: Slowly closing the gap with Microsoft Office?

What I have a problem with is people who get software (or anything) for no cost, bitch about it and demand it do something else for no cost.

That gets you into OSX territory. Example: GIMP vs Pixelmator. It's not Photoshop, but it DOES have CMYK support and for less-than-top-experts (which IMHO most of us are) it beats the living crap out of anything else around. And as you've paid for it you can legitimately bitch about missing features (and, to be honest, they do actually listen). This is the secret MS doesn't want you to find out: yes, you pay serious $$ for a Mac platform because you're buying rather decent hardware, but 90% of the software is not only dramatically cheaper, but also licensed in a nicer way - except Microsoft or Adobe products..

Re: meh

"Still no Draft view (bug 39080)."

Then write the 39080 patch, or hire someone to write it, or sponsor the project, or write the specs, or help with the testing, or the docs, or....

It's your project too, y'know.

Re: meh

But this is the problem people find with open source is it not? If it does not have the features needed everyone says "write it yourself."

A small business cannot do this, a larger business thinks "someone else will do it" and yes eventually it may get done but the problem for open source is that there is usually commercial software that already has the ability to do it. Hence a small amount of cash and it is there instantly.

Open source needs to address this, the problem is because it is people and yes business too (that can afford the time and money) that do it of their free will. If it is not important to them it does not get done in a timely manner. Hence proprietary software keeps winning out.

Re: meh

Yes, we are all programmers proficient in writing extensions to LibreOffice and we can all take the time to write a patch and then submit it and then go through the entertaining process of trying to get developers with their own time and sweat invested in a project to listen to it and then watch them mock it and tell us to fuck off!

This attitude seriously harms open source. Yes, there are people who have the time, the abilities and the experience with a particular package to submit bug fixes that can actually make it into the main tree, but don't in the one breath tell us that a program is fit for purpose and can do everything we want and then in the second breath tell us that if it doesn't fit our purposes (but how could it not! Oh, yeah, CMYK support in GIMP - which is a baffling omission that has seriously irritated me in the past, too - and Draft view in LibreOffice, not to mention any of the other scores of bug reports and suggestions both projects have mothballed somewhere) we should program it up ourselves, and then pour scorn on us if we're loathe to do that or, indeed, don't have the competence to do it.

Re: meh

Well said. I agree that asking a small or medium sized businesses to write its own office code is daft. They are far too busy making tyre moulds, delivering coffee machines, chasing creditors etc. You might as well ask them to make their own shoes.

However it is not true to say "Hence proprietary software keeps winning out.". Look in a datacentre and you will likely see more open source than Microsoft. Most of the internet runs on open source (eg. Linux/Apache) including this forum.

Re: meh

Pretty much true in academia, too; in my experience it's a mixture chiefly of Linux and OSX these days - and when you're developing command-line tools in OSX you're basically using a mixture of the BSD and GNU userspaces for the most part. Personally I'm not averse to developing in Windows but given the codes and workflows I've built up I end up either on MinGW or Cygwin there, too...

Re: meh @Jim 59

Hi Jim 59, I agree it does not apply to all open source projects, but these projects are usually the big important ones. Like you say Apache/Linux are big head liners for open source.

But it is the actual software that people need to use that seems not to get the features quick enough. It is this that needs to change so that the people using the projects want to use them. Not to be told to write it or wait. They will not wait as they need the functionality, they will move on to something that does have it.

If the users see the functionality this will in turn foster faster adoption of open source.

Re: meh

What open source needs is a sort of Kickstarter for bugs.

Re: meh

"There could perhaps be some sort of donation model where you could donate towards getting a particular feature implemented or bug fixed?"

I'd be in favour of this. To be honest I'd be surprised if some projects haven't already implemented it.

Re: meh

"If it does not have the features needed everyone says "write it yourself." "

If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I offered many option. Here's a question:

1) How much did LibreOffice cost you?

2) How much did the support contract cost you?

3) How much is that feature worth to you?

"A small business cannot do this"

Yes it can. See the money it pays for licenses and support contracts....guess where some of that could go?

"Open source needs to address this"

If does. It's call "People who want features in free/open source help get those features put in."

Re: meh

"Yes, we are all programmers"

No we are not. Why does everyone get so obsessed with code? Where did I say that you and only you must write the code and the only thing you are allowed to do is write the code?

You want to know what a massive help to a F/OSS project is? Reading the docs and checking for spelling mistakes, confusing structure, translating etc. Basic stuff that requires no knowledge of code.

Wanting everything for free and providing no contribution back is what harms F/OSS.

Re: meh

"asking a small or medium sized businesses to write its own office code is daft."

OH FFS! Who ever said they have to write it?

Re: meh

@Paul 135 - This already exists, it's called "getting involved". There is nothing to stop you, right now, getting together with a few others and hiring a coder/graphic artist/whatever and having whatever it is that annoys you sorted.

The slight problem with a straight money donation to bug fixes/features, it kinda creates the incentive for devs to not fix things until there's enough donations.

Re: meh

"To be honest I'd be surprised if some projects haven't already implemented it."

Bug affects: 1,734 users

Bug priority: Medium (fix trigger level, $500)

Bug donation level: $0

That's why. It creates an incentive to chase the money rather than the functionality.

Re: meh

Wanting everything for free and providing no contribution back is what harms F/OSS.

F/OSS expecting everyone to contribute back is the problem. Not everyone can or has the means.

"If it does not have the features needed everyone says "write it yourself." "

If does. It's call "People who want features in free/open source help get those features put in."

1) Nothing, thank you very much, what does this have to do with anything. It is the model they use and why it's use is growing. Without people using it it would fail. Do you plan on only letting people that contribute use it?

2) A fair amount from an independent I would have thought. The community can be great but not always on nor always relevant.

3) The cost of a product that has already implemented the required feature and is not trying to harang me for money for something that should be in their product if they want me to use it. Which they do want me/ as many as possible to use or it would fail. See above.

"A small business cannot do this"

Yes it can. See the money it pays for licenses and support contracts....guess where some of that could go?

it pays money and licenses for what it needs now. Not for future needs. You may look at it differently but if a business needs a process now and it exists, why pay for someone to implement it maybe in the future. Somewhen.

"Open source needs to address this"

If does. It's call "People who want features in free/open source help get those features put in."

The door may be open but i have explained to you above why not many people pass through it. If they want to beat the propriety software they need to put the features in. Not harass people like you seem to be doing here. That does not encourage people. Also note not everyone can contribute nor would they want to limit use to only people that do contribute as they want as many people using it as possible.

Re: meh

@BigYin

And you missed my point that one of the biggest issues for the use of Open Source software - which most people just want to *use* - is the response to a feature request "if you want it then go and write it yourself" (which you made in this thread), or the equally unhelpful "if you donate to the project they might listen to you". Sure - or they might simply ignore you and follow their own agenda, which is pretty much what anyone programming open source software *will* do, it's why they started writing the program in the first place, to get a program they wanted to use. Not everyone in open source responds with "do it yourself" or "give us money and we might consider it", but enough do that it's a major turn-off - and perpetuating the attitude helps absolutely nothing.

Re: meh

"F/OSS expecting everyone to contribute back is the problem. Not everyone can or has the means."

Of course everyone has the means. It's not just code and massive test server y'know.

"The cost of a product that has already implemented the required feature and is not trying to harang me for money for something that should be in their product if they want me to use it. Which they do want me/ as many as possible to use or it would fail. "

Err...it does harang you. It's called "the price". If a piece of pay-for software does what you need, go buy it.

"it pays money and licenses for what it needs now. Not for future needs."

My comment was poorly written, I apologise. What I meant was the cash currently being spent on license fees and support contracts; some of that could be used to fund the development of their chose F/OSS tool. I fully expect them to still have a support contract, hopefully with an organisation feeding back into F/OSS (probably to make support easier...)

"but if a business needs a process now and it exists, why pay for someone to implement it maybe in the future. Somewhen."

I did not say they should. If another tool does what they need, go use that tool. What they should not do it select a tool that doesn't do what they want, moan about it and not lift one finger to fix the problem they have caused themselves.

Further more, many places do not have vanilla installs of (say) MS Office because they do not provide all the features. They go out and buy add-ons, or pay someone to write those add-ons. How is that any different to buying add-ons for F/OSS software, or paying someone to add to the F/OSS code base?

"If they want to beat the propriety software they need to put the features in."

Who said they wanted to "beat the proprietary software"? The most they want to do is scratch their own itch and fix their own problems. There will be some vendor somewhere who does want to beat proprietary software, I'll grant you that. But that isn't the project's problem and said vendor would almost certainly be involved in the project at some level, seeing to it that what they need gets done.

"Also note not everyone can contribute"

Everyone can contribute. Don't place limits. Even a decent bug report (or the steps to hit a problem) helps.

Re: meh

" "if you want it then go and write it yourself" (which you made in this thread) "

Poor summary, I said "It's your project too". If people want to abdicate all responsibility for things to someone else, there's already a model for that. They're free to lobby the vendor for new features too, then pay for the upgrade.

"give us money and we might consider it"

You don't have to give the project the money, do you? It may (or may not) take money. Depends what it is.

"but enough do that it's a major turn-off - and perpetuating the attitude helps absolutely nothing."

I'm not saying DIY, you're choosing to read that as my view and then argue against that. I am saying, get involved.

It's your project too.

Re: meh

Oh, come on man, be serious. We can all read what you wrote - we don't need 'summaries'. To remind you:

"Then write the CMYK support, or hire someone to write it, or sponsor the project, or write the specs, or help with the testing, or the docs, or...."

1) Write it yourself

2) Pay someone to write it

3) Sponsor the project (which won't guarantee in the slightest that anyone will write it)

4) Write the specs (which won't guarantee in the slightest that anyone will stick to them, given that they're being written by an unknown outside the project... and given that even professional programmers in a professional environment are so used to having the specs shifted out from underfoot that they tend to interpret them fairly liberally anyway)

5) Help with the testing (which won't do a single thing towards getting a new feature into the code, as well you know)

6) Help with the docs (ditto)

So that's either write it yourself or pay someone to write it - the others will either likely lead nowhere, or have absolutely nothing to do with adding to the code whatsoever. They may be good for the project as a whole, but we're talking about missing features, such as CMYK support in GIMP which they've consistently refused to add for many a year now.

While I'm at it, same thread,

"Then write the 39080 patch, or hire someone to write it, or sponsor the project, or write the specs, or help with the testing, or the docs, or...."

1) Write the patch

2) Pay someone to write it

3) Sponsor the project

oh, wait, I see where this is going.

The *first thing* you said when someone said there's a missing feature that precludes them using the software is "write it yourself" so don't turn around now and pretend you didn't say it. The second thing you said is "pay someone to write it". The other things are unhelpful at best and totally irrelevant at worst.

As for "You don't have to give the project the money, do you? It may (or may not) take money. Depends what it is", what happened to "hire someone to write it"? Of all your suggestions, the only two likely to lead anywhere towards a new feature - in something like GIMP or LibreOffice with enormous codebases predicating a significant amount of experience with that base if one wishes to contribute - one involves money. So yes, you say you do need to give money. That's not necessarily an issue to me, mind you, but let's not pretend you didn't say it.

"I'm not saying DIY, you're choosing to read that as my view and then argue against that. I am saying, get involved."

Yes, you're saying DIY, or you're saying pay up. Everything else you suggest is not going to add new features.

Re: meh

"Yes, you're saying DIY, or you're saying pay up."

"DIY", I took that to mean "you have to write the code yourself" which is manifestly not the case.

"Pay up" Seeing as the alternative is paid-for software, you have to pay up anyway! And I see nothing wrong with paying for F/OSS (be that money, time, other resources, whatever; i.e. get involved, it's your project too). Clearly one can't do everything, and that's where you make your cost/benefit choices.

I really don't get what your problem is. F/OSS software is there for you to take at zero-cost and when it's pointed out that it's down to you to get the things you want implemented, you go into a complete tizz.

If F/OSS does not do what you need, you don't want to get involved and some paid paid software does what you need at a price you can stomach....there's your decision.

Re: meh

My problem is that if there's a feature missing in a code and I say I'd like to see that feature, the first thing I'm typically told is "write it yourself" and the second is either "well, it's free!" or "pay for it and it might happen". I find this attitude extremely off-putting, and it's an attitude that you've demonstrated.

My problem *isn't* paying for software. Nor is my problem the idea of paying for a feature to be added into a program. My problem is the snide response from open source projects - or from tubthumpers for the same - which is always along these lines. What you did was produce exactly this response, and then claim that you never said "write it yourself", nor that you said "pay for it". You did say both of these, and they were your first responses. Your other responses would be fairly ineffective or - in the case of writing documentation, for instance, or testing current features - utterly useless so far as adding new features goes.

Re: meh

Ok, gentle question. Have you told the project what you want? Logged a change request, filed a bug, got on their IRC, mailing list, whatever?

"I find this attitude extremely off-putting, and it's an attitude that you've demonstrated."

What's off-putting about pointing out that you can effect the change you want? If you are happy to let others put the changes in/decide the features, like choosing not to vote/protest/stand, you have abdicated all responsibility and have no right to complain. Sorry it that upsets you, but it's the truth.

Even with paid-for software, if you don't feedback to the OEM you won't get the things you want. They are not mind readers either. And they may still not choose to do what you want, then you are screwed. At least with F/OSS you can say "Sod that" and fork, if you have the chops to do so (and I realise that some people may not).

"You did say both of these, and they were your first responses."

They were part of a longer list and the reason they appeared first was they are the most immediate way to get the desired result. What is your alternative to either of those options?

"in the case of writing documentation, for instance, or testing current features - utterly useless so far as adding new features goes."

Not necessarily, as it releases the people who are currently doing to do other things.

Whenever I see "F/OSS X does not do Y" it reminds of the reviews for the 50p/free apps in the apps stores "This doesn't do Z. It's total shit! FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT!" Which is utterly beyond the pale. It's a 50p/free app, get a sodding grip.

Re: meh

I think this has become a bigger thing than it should have. People said that they want CMYK in GIMP - as do I. This has been requested from GIMP on many occasions, and the reply has been that it will not be implemented. Your response was "write it yourself" or "pay for it to be written", followed by other suggestions. My response to that was that the other suggestions won't add the feature, and many people can't write it themselves (I can't, for instance), leaving us with the option of attempting to find someone to pay to add this feature in. The off-putting part of it is that if you request a feature directly you're likely to be ignored by the project (or brushed off, as with the CMYK issue - which I'm using, by the way, as an example I'm aware of; it is not the point of any of this), while if you mention it on a forum, the response is "write it yourself" or "it's free! what do you expect!". Neither is a good advert for OSS.

The rest of your longer list are all things that are good for a project as a whole - that isn't in debate. They aren't, however, going to lead to the feature one wishes being added to a project. Some, such as "design the specs" are very likely to be ignored by the core developers. Why would they take specs on something they're not currently planning to implement, from someone entirely unknown to them? They're very unlikely to. The other suggestions are great for projects - particularly documentation, which is often in a dodgy or outdated state - but are *not* going to be good for adding features, which was the actual point of this argument, which you're repeatedly trying to broaden.

I have no alternatives to either of those two first options, by the way. There are no alternatives. If you don't like the way a project is going, you either suck it up and live with it, or you fork the code and do your best, or you attempt to persuade the developers that they do want to do this - and since they're building the code for their own needs and already have their own roadmap, it's not necessarily likely that they'll listen to you. If you spend two years working on the project as a whole maybe they'll give you more time - totally true. Not everyone wants to do that, either.

I understand your arguments, and they're fine. Many OSS projects don't act like this - Cinnamon, for example, is a wonder for communication with the developers. Others do. And in general on forums I find this attitude extremely frequently. In all cases, it is off-putting. And, like it or not, you are perpetuating that attitude - intentionally or unintentionally, you're coming across as the type of person who puts people off OSS. You may very well not mean to, but unfortunately when the response to "I can't use this program" is "It's entirely fit for purpose", and then the first response to "No, it isn't fit for purpose, it's missing feature [XYZ]" is "write it yourself", you look bad. The second being any spin on "It's free, what do you expect?" or "Pay and it may be changed" isn't much more helpful.

To try and clarify, something is sold as fit for purpose. When someone says it's not actually fit for *their* purpose, the response is a hyper-defensive "Go and write it yourself!" or "Stop complaining, it's free!" [or, more relevantly right now, "Stop complaining, it cost 50p"...] or "Pay then, and something might be done!". I'm perfectly willing to believe you're not intending to come across like this, but it is the way it looks.

Absolutely and honestly no offense meant in any way.

Re: meh

"If you don't like the way a project is going, you either suck it up and live with it"

Indeed - and I have been very guilty of mouthing off...until someone raised my conciousness. Maybe I am now mouthing off the other way. Dunno. But I see far, far too many people who complain about F/OSS and have never once spoken to the project concerned. It's as if they expect the team to magically know what the problem is. It simply never occurs to them that there is an option beyond moaning.

And often when one does contact the project they may have some very good reasons why they won't/can't do it. Or (embarrassingly) they point at an option and ask one what, exactly, does one think that does?

There's quite a few bugs that drive me totally batshit (KDE menus has one, for example). I've added to the bug and I'm willing to test. It actually looks like it might be an easy fix, but I'm not familiar with the code base and as I am unwilling to put a bounty on the fixing; I have made my choice and now have no right to complain about it.

If someone said to me "I raised bug 123 and the response from the devs was 'Go and play with yourself. Denied'" then they have every right to complain. Loudly. For those devs are dicks.

"Cinnamon, for example, is a wonder for communication with the developers."

Cinnamon? They don't have wobbly windows! I DEMAND....Ok, ok, deep breath. :-) Yes, they are much more open than (say) Gnome or Canonical. I'm playing DE pong at the moment, trying to decide which one I like.

"When someone says it's not actually fit for *their* purpose, the response is a hyper-defensive "Go and write it yourself!""

Cost and moral obligation. If a thing is free, not forced upon you and you decide to take it anyway; the developer of that thing has zero moral obligation to do anything about your problems. If you've paid even 50p for it, there's a contract but that doesn't really excuse some of the hysterical demands one sees. If you've paid £5,000 for it....please, flap around. You have good reason to. (Obviously I'm ignoring critical/dangerous issues like safety, destroying data etc. as one has an societal obligation to not harm others)

Re: meh

"OH FFS! Who ever said they have to write it?"

From a pedantic point of view, noone said they *have* to write it. But when the first suggestion people such as yourself make is "You could write it yourself" a lot of people are going to think, "Yeah, that old line" and stop listening to you. If you vary the order of your suggestions, you might avoid this and not have to make increasingly defensive and irate posts - you're just alienating the people you're trying to win over.

Re: meh

>You want to know what a massive help to a F/OSS project is? Reading the docs and checking for spelling mistakes, confusing structure, translating etc. Basic stuff that requires no knowledge of code.

Good point, and one I surprised not to see more- there is a role for people who don't code in Open Source software. I assume that most people in OSS are coders, and they do need to encourage the input of others if they really want it to be more widely used.

Basic user testing would tell the developers that giving applications strange names doesn't help (I like silly names of the sort favoured by physicists and Linux devs... the man on the street prefers something to do what it says on the tin like "Notepad", "Paint", "Weed killer" or my favourite, a can of "Start Ya Bastard!*"). That said, I'm assuming MS did testing, and yet still decided to replace menus with ribbons, rather than allow the user to choose.

*http://www.nulon.com.au/products/Aerosols/Start_Ya_Bastard_Instant_Engine_Starter/#.URVeOaVg98E

Re: meh @The BigYin 15:25

"Cost and moral obligation. If a thing is free, not forced upon you and you decide to take it anyway; the developer of that thing has zero moral obligation to do anything about your problems."

You're ignoring the point - batfasted has stated that he's using two packages and one lacks a feature he needs so he *uses both*. If the FOSS alternative had CMYK he'd use it exclusively. No demands, no bitching. You've turned it into a big FOSS argument by using what a lot of people see as the most off-putting thing with the FOSS movement - to summarise, "*You* do something about it then." At the end of the day, he has - he's got GIMP and Photoshop. Why invest more to add to GIMP when he's already invested in Photoshop? This thread has now basically become you defending your original statements with increasing ire and not really about the software itself. With regard to the KDE bug you mentioned, can you provide the details of the bug report so I can see how they handle it, out of interest?

Re: meh

I'd like to change the behaviour of the File Picker in LibreOffice - when I'm using Writer, and I select File/Open, I want it to default to Text files - I don't want to see spreadsheets, PDFs, and other documents, unless I select "all formats", and when I'm in Calc, I want to see Spreadsheets by default, etc.

That should be a fairly trivial change, right? Even a very rusty programmer should be able find that little section of code and make that fairly trivial change - after all, that's supposed to be the real power of FOSS.

All you need is a week of time to figure out how to compile the thing in the first place, because the official documentation (https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Native_Build) is worse than useless!

I've used MinGW to modify and recompile Windows versions of other FOSS applications, which probably puts me far ahead of 95% of OpenOffice users, but I gave up in disgust when I looked at modifying LO.

The last time I checked, this stupid file-picker defaulting to *.* had been raised as a bug, and rejected by the developers.

Re: meh

Jeeze Eadon, you manage to come into a topic that has nothing to do with your usual rant and you still apply it to your usual rant.

Where did I say Microsoft would add the feature I want? No where, that's right, it is your own delusional crusade that applied that anywhere.

Read the discussion above again. When you understand it try again with an on topic debate.

You wrote:

With open source you CAN code your feature, Furthermore, if you have a budget you can pay someone else, perhaps a project dev himself, to write that feature for you. that's a freedom that closed, proprietary source denies you.

Please read the discussion above, it has nothing to do with what we CAN code. We all agree you can if you have the skills, time or money. But if I am paying someone to create something for me to enhance say for example Libre Office and that will be ready in a few months (arbitrary time), why would I not just go and pay for a solution that exists already? Wether this is for another open source project say Open Office or a closed source one like Microsoft Office. If the project wants users which most do, they need to implement the features that are needed not tell people to write them.

Re: LibreOffice still ahead of Microsoft in so many ways

Looking back it's funny to see how often Microsoft ... doesn't include functionality...

Oh, they probably have the functionality built on right in there now, its just that with the total crap ribbon interface you'll never be able to find it.

Re: LibreOffice still ahead of Microsoft in so many ways

Good luck with that. Munich council has been trying for 10+ years and still hasnt succeeded - and it has cost them a fortune.