apps choice for Ubuntu and installation choices [Was: cross-platform virus]

[Alexander Jacob Tsykin]

On Saturday 15 April 2006 13:15, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:08:10 +1000
>
> Alexander Jacob Tsykin <stsykin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > my point is that for most people, the Gimp is overkill (I think, I
> > have no figures to back this up with as yet, just anecdotal
> > evidence). It is very good for artists. Not much good for touch ups.
> > Its all very well and good to talk about enhanced functionality, but
> > unless its used, it might as well not be there. I don't think the
> > majority of Gimp users would use it to anywhere near its full
> > functionality.
> >
> > Sasha
>
> It's not that much different than most newer software then, is it?  I
> doubt most users use OO to it's fullest possibilities either, but I
> don't take that as meaning Ubu. should only include test editors and
> LaTeX.  Often, if a capability is there, a user will eventually
> want/need it and be more than delighted that such a nice distro as
> Ubuntu was thoughtful enough to include that functionality.
> Give 'em what they want and they'll come back.  Give 'em /more/ than
> they want and they'll rush back and pass along the good word.
>
If OO.o were not a) by far the best in terms of compatibility with the 
Microsoft office document formats and b) layed out in a very similar way to 
MS Office, then I would say that it should not be included. However, because 
it is so similar to what people are used to, it is the exception and not the 
rule. The Gimp is not similar to what people are used to, and is very 
difficult to learn, so why include a tool I suspect most people will not use. 

The other thing is that in OO.o, it is very easy to access every single 
feature. This is not the case in the Gimp. OO.o is easy to use and feature 
rich at the same time. I can do everything in it as simply as I would in MS 
Office.

Sasha