An analog? Forget this word

    It’s better not to look for analogues, it’s better to look for programs that perform the necessary tasks - it will be easier.
    Comrade with laura

    How annoying it is when they say “something analogue of something” in relation to software: OpenOffice.org - analogue of MS Office, Ubuntu - “free analogue of Windows”, Gimp - analogue of Photoshop. As a substitute for the word, an analogue is often used the words "replacement" and "alternative." And it’s not really important what they say - most importantly - what they mean and that as a result, the person who read, heard, understood .

    And usually they mean the following:
    1. Full compatibility with what is compared.
    2. All innovations from what they compare should appear in this product.
    3. He knows how to do everything that can do the product with which they are compared.

    As a developer, I declare:
    • no sane programmer will ever write an analogue of something . To write an analogue is not to respect yourself.
    • no program can be analogous to another
    • each program is individual and you need to use it without looking at others
    • compatibility with "other people's software" - just a bun


    State of affairs


    That really zadolbalo:
    • OpenOffice is such a shit that it cannot open my Word file normally
    • Gimp is such crap that it doesn’t support Photoshop photoshop% something%
    • % Not_Windows_OS% is not usable because% some_soft_from_windows% does not work on it

    The question immediately arises: why the hell should they do what you want them to do?

    For some reason, reverse statements are rarely (but really happens) heard, but with the same degree of certainty we can say that
    1. MS Office sucks because it does not know how to work normally with ODF. (By the way, this is an international standard, unlike DOC)
    2. Photoshop is dumb bullshit because it does not know how to work with XCF (Note that gimp works quite well with PSD)
    3. Windows sucks, because I can’t update all the software with a couple of clicks, like in Ubuntu (And the progress in this field at Windows is just beginning)

    For example, I believe that all of the above items (with the exception, perhaps, of the first) can also have a quite adequate answer: "Why should they be able to do this?"

    And why should they be able to?


    But they should not.

    They can do it. If you want the developers. OpenOffice developers wanted and are constantly improving support for ms office formats, I'm really not sure that they really want it so much, but they decided to make it more convenient for the user. They shouldn't have, but decided it was worth it. They made a gift to the user and honestly write when saving that they can not guarantee anything when working with this format. They gave a free bun. Helped the user. They do not want to receive thousands of shouts in response, "the bun is not sweet!"

    Well, why should developers of Program A make their program work with the data that Program B does , and developers of Program B should not?

    Developers should work on the accepted standard in the program format, improve their program, and not run after another. Everyone forgets this and constantly compares, putting one of the programs minus for the fact that she does something differently than the other.

    They are so different, but they still have something in common.


    And just the time to remember that the only thing that should unite OpenOffice and MS Office is that they belong to the " Office Suite " class .

    GIMP and Photoshop - to the class of " Raster editors ", and * nix and Windows - to the class of " Operating systems ".

    And all of them cope with their own obligations perfectly.

    % soft% does not know how I'm used to


    And here it’s already worth spinning a ball. You are somehow used to doing it, you are used to doing it somehow where? In some software. So the sentence sounds right: “I can’t do something in% soft%, like in% another_soft%”.

    There are already two bifurcations: either the software in which you are trying to do this simply does not know how to do this (well, it doesn’t know how to do it), or there is a certain approach to it. So you need to figure out what approach it is.

    There are:
    • Reference. The most popular products have such help that it is simply impossible to find something in it.
    • Website, Wiki program .
    • Program forum, mailing lists
    • Forums on the Internet, search engine
    • Paid Support

    Very often on the websites of software manufacturers posted detailed FaQ'i.

    Not sure how to number pages in writer?
    • Read the help (in the "index" or "search" enter: "numbering").
    • Google , by the way: the first link is to the completely official FaQ.

    A little more about the approaches


    Each software is individually. The developers are trying to make it convenient to use and for this they come up with different approaches to doing anything. Instead of “wanting it,” it’s worth figuring out how to do it here .

    If you already started talking (fuu, again about openoffice) about OO.org, then we recall everyone’s favorite styles. Everything is tied to them.
    • Do you want to number all pages except the first? Page styles come to the rescue.
    • Make chapter numbering - paragraph styles come to the rescue
    • Make all the headlines bigger? Well, you understand ...

    Yes, the software imposes certain approaches, at times very different from other software, but the developers had some motives to do just that. Try to understand it and life will become easier.

    A few words about "standards"


    Just as Photoshop is not a standard among raster editors, so Word is a standard among text editors.

    They are simply the most popular. It doesn’t matter due to the fact that they are so good, good, or that they have excellent marketing.

    They are not recognized as a standard, and indeed it is impossible to recognize any software as a “standard”. This is the official announcement of a monopoly among the product class. And we are fighting the monopoly. Well, at least in the USA they are fighting.

    A format can be recognized as a standard. Standardization is not done by the software manufacturer, but by committees independent of it. Of course, software manufacturers are included in them, but do not fill them with their bodies to 100% of the volume ...

    How to search for the necessary software


    Yes, sometimes developers write that their program is a replacement for something. Basically in the form of “being developed as a free replacement for something”. But do not hope that any program is designated by the developer as a replacement for something.

    You are not looking for a car, like some kind of “audi” model, but cheaper from another manufacturer. Which concern with oak will crash and write that his car is a replacement for a car of some other manufacturer?

    So here it is. Do not look for “Photoshop for linux”, but “raster editor for linux”, not “free Visual Studio”, but “free IDE for C ++”. It's all so simple.

    Ying canclude


    Why did I say all this? Oh yes, then, to express your opinion and summarize. But the result is simple.

    There are no analogues in the "software industry" and should not be.

    There are no standards among software.

    Well, don’t tell students “Do it in BPWin” and give the distribution package with Crack. You don’t need to “do it in% soft%”, you need to say “do it in% soft_class%”, well, or “do it in% soft_class%, preferably in% soft%. "

    The last statement is somewhat controversial and I would not want to raise a flame now on the topic of using software in education, on coercion to use pirated software - I will probably write a separate post about this.
    Thanks to all.

    Also popular now: