Way to miss the point.
Most major criticism of the Gimp lies in its strange interface, not its lack of features. Professionals who rely on Photoshop for work apparently have a hard time adjusting to the Gimp. There have always been credible alternatives for light uses. Pity they don't require Linux and are handily available on both Windows and Mac OS X. On the other hand, when you do need to get down and dirty with the heavy lifting, at least Photoshop is an option. No, Wine is never a serious option.
If package X contains the same features as package Y, but is much easier to use since it adheres to the UI paradigms that users are familiar with, who in their right mind will say Y is superior? iLife is good, because it makes things so easy to do. Nothing on Linux comes close without having to fiddle about.
The average user is a poor judge of propriety, but technical users are? How easy is it to install software on Linux that isn't already present in the Apt/Yum repository? I love Linux as much as the next geek. But after 7 years of usage, I'm still not convinced that it is ready for the average user.
Sure, Photoshop has wild features, but most people don't need that power. In the past, you would get Photoshop anyway, because you needed some of the features. But, it's fantastically expensive, and its anti-piracy techniques are increasingly intrusive. Now, there's a credible alternative for light uses, and only people whose work needs Photoshop should get it.
Most major criticism of the Gimp lies in its strange interface, not its lack of features. Professionals who rely on Photoshop for work apparently have a hard time adjusting to the Gimp. There have always been credible alternatives for light uses. Pity they don't require Linux and are handily available on both Windows and Mac OS X. On the other hand, when you do need to get down and dirty with the heavy lifting, at least Photoshop is an option. No, Wine is never a serious option.
Too many analysts mistake familiarity for superiority. You may find iLife to be essential, others may find it too limiting, but probably the vast majority of users will find what comes with Ubuntu to be good enough. The vast majority of users are astonishingly poor judges of propriety. iLife is really nice to use, but you wouldn't know you could record movies or make electronic music so easily if Steve Jobs hadn't revealed it to you.
If package X contains the same features as package Y, but is much easier to use since it adheres to the UI paradigms that users are familiar with, who in their right mind will say Y is superior? iLife is good, because it makes things so easy to do. Nothing on Linux comes close without having to fiddle about.
Linux isn't really that easy to use, but I think it's good enough for the vast majority of users. People keep saying it's not ready for the desktop, but I say it's more ready for the desktop than the Windows versions that dominated the desktop for most of the past 20 years. That's good enough for mass deployment.
The average user is a poor judge of propriety, but technical users are? How easy is it to install software on Linux that isn't already present in the Apt/Yum repository? I love Linux as much as the next geek. But after 7 years of usage, I'm still not convinced that it is ready for the average user.