*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****
In my experience the more an application costs the less robust it is. I have always assumed that this is because a high price means a smaller user base with fewer people banging on it.
Sent from my iPad Nano
On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Daniel James White <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 12:38 PM, Scott, Mark wrote:
>
>> Yes it was intended as a generalisation, most open source project software is slightly less robust, more buggy and lacks as nice a UI as it's more commercial counterparts.
>
> Do you have objective data to back that statement up, or is it just your feeling or experience?
> I think it does a diservice to the many well maintained, well designed, stable and user friendly open source softwares that are used in our discipline and many others.
>
> Sure, there is crap open source software too, but there are also very poor expensive softwares and also very good ones.
>
> My objection is the labeling of open source software with an automatic lower quality than commercial software.
> This isn't really fair, and each case should be made on its own merits.
>
>> That wasn't to say that there are exceptions to the rule
>
> What rule? Where is the data to prove any such rule?
>
>> and some do look nice. Firefox isn't a realistic example though since it was designed to compete with other web-browsers of the time which clearly wasn't going to work as a legitimate competitor if it was a clunky box with pop-up windows and an unorganised UI.
>>
>> I also was not condoning other applications over ImageJ, I was simply suggesting that it is worth not discounting other commercial applications just because ImageJ is free if those commercial software package encourage users to use them more, do more work and produce
|
