I’ll confess to not having compared them in the last 10 years or so, and I’d be happily surprised to be wrong, but I’m betting that “long way” is mostly in terms of features used by casual/home users, not power users who use the software on a professional basis to do professional work. .

You could have just said you don’t understand the difference between defending a socialist revolution and capitalist wars of Imperialism. The demonstration wasn’t necessary.

I hate that it is the way it is, but OSS “alternatives” are not serious tools for professionals. That said, I’m 100% in favor of nationalizing Adobe and Microsoft, since they’ve created a world where only their tools are good enough to do the job, but that’s not the conversation we’re having here.

Here’s a simple test: take all formatting out of a copy of Ulysses or some other doorstopper of a classic novel so it’s just a giant wall of text. Give two publishing pros each a copy of that wall of text, have one turn it in to a publishable book using the industry standard tools and one do the same task with the OSS “alternatives” and see who’s done first, and which version is the better looking final product.

Wanna place any bets?

Then that’s even worse, because the design of the OSS “alternatives” to everything I use daily for work screams “hobbyist who just needed the basic functions of a word processor and spreadsheet editor for school”.

Neither was worth the time it took to uninstall them when they proved almost unusably inferior to the industry standards.

These things are the standard for a reason, OSS hobbyists who are not graphic designers or admin workers generally will never be able to make something that is in the same league for the exact same reason that I couldn’t build a compiler better than the industry standard one, even if I technically had the coding skills to make it, because I haven’t spent decades using one professionally, so I wouldn’t know what an industry pro would want from it.

So you stan revisionists and traitors?