Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.co.uk wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Sorry I can't help with the software at the start of the discussion, but can we agree that this is a LUG list and rampant Windows advocacy should go elsewhere?
I can't help thinking that "rampant Windows Advocacy" wasn't really the intention of anyone posting on this thread.
Well, it seemed to me that it was getting pretty close to it, what with Brett being challenged to explain why he doesn't run Windows!
It's easy to take an idealist standpoint and suggest that everything should be done with Free software.
No, it's a realist standpoint. Idealism is "impracticality by virtue of thinking of things in their ideal form rather than as they really are" (WordNet 2.0), like expecting everything to work immediately, even with unfriendly suppliers who won't let you change it or even let you see how it works.
Free and open source software is the practical long-term choice because it's more repairable and fixable. We accept the reality that programmers aren't gods who get it all right at every release time, that users have something to contribute to development, and that software can be improved. Everything should be done on free software because when the benefits of improvements are shared around, it's good for everyone.
But what about situations like this where there appears to be no alternative. Are you suggesting that Alistair just abandon whatever it was he wanted to do with Terragen ?
No, but I've little idea what that is (it wasn't explained in this thread) and it's not a topic I know much about.
I would observe that the original request for "anything compatible" with "an equivalent for Planetside Terragen landscape generator" is a pattern which we know to fail. As far as I read on http://www.planetside.co.uk/content/view/15/27/ it seems that that's a piece of special-purpose software which doesn't seem to follow any open standards, so a free and open source (or even Linux-compatible) alternative won't be exactly equivalent or compatible unless it comes from the same maker. That maker doesn't offer one.
There may be something similar out there, but I don't know it, for which I already apologised.
Moreso are we presenting the right attitude if at the first mention of something that can't be replicated and the only viable alternative appears to be dual boot/Virtual Machines/wine we tell them that further discussion is not encouraged because it is windows advocacy ?
No, we would not be, but that wasn't the first mention and it's not clear that it is "the only viable alternative" because it seems an incomplete description of a problem.
But when Windows users on the email lists are challenging LUGgers to justify why they're not running XP, then something has gone seriously wrong here, hasn't it? I feel that's pretty clearly miles off topic.
Even if you want to facilitate people running Windows under XP, there's no need to assert it's the only viable way for everyone. With smart hardware choices and in most mainstream topics, that's no longer true, as several LUGgers demonstrate.
Regards,