Re: "They'll be back."
See, 'average users probably only use a few percent of the capability' is probably true, but we're not talking about average users. By definition, if we're talking about application usage in a professional environment, we're talking about high-end professionals. Your mum may not be able to tell the difference between Inkscape and Illustrator, but an architect being paid £45 an hour can. That's why we pay him £45 an hour, because he knows how all those extra functions work and he's been using the commercial version for the last 15 years.
That might explain a few things. About a year ago we had a strong earthquake around these parts. Many modern "up to code" and in some cases less than 10 years old buildings did not survive the quake. Stuff built more than 30 years ago came through fine (at least as far as I know) including the house I'm in now.
Perhaps the reason why all these buildings fell down was the architects were using illustrator or inkscape, instead of using the appropriate tools for the job?
However, that's beside the point. People who advocate the use of OS stuff tend to advocate that if it you have functions in a certain program you need, then you use a program that provides those functions. The current Photoshop may have them while Gimp may never do.
I do know of a few "high end professionals" who get a fair bit more than your meagre £45 who do use products like Gimp - because they have a level of reliability that the Adobe stuff now lacks (ie they can go on the road for a few weeks and know that their stuff will still work without a net connection, for a start).
That aside, the argument you're arguing against is generally talking about those at the home or general office level of use. Most workers won't touch on half the stuff Wordpad provides, let alone Office etc. Most are doing basic stuff that requires few of the features of word processing software, and many would be better suited by more basic stuff. Even El Reg had a few articles on how Charlie Stross, Alastair Reynolds (brit Sci Fi writers IIRC) and someone else were ditching MS Word (and in one of the articles how the author only used a basic text editor) because it made their lives much easier and made the job of writing novels much simpler and faster.
So the argument still has merit, people who only need basic tools only need basic tools. The far fewer people who need high-end tools get high-end tools.
Does your secretary/PA need a full copy of Adobe's stuff? Unlikely, but even if your's does most don't.
Care to try your argument again without claiming bread-and-butter knives need to be manufactured from "surgical steel", with a blade honed down to a sharpness that can reliably cut through skin, flesh, muscle etc, and must be sterilised before use because that's what surgeon's need in their "knives"? (That is the same level of argument you just used). General users are, in many definitions, using the software in a professional environment after all. Try arguing from the position of the software of what one of the MS shills used to refer to as "Olaf Officedrohne"1 and the software they use, rather than resorting to "everyone must use this because a few high-end users do".
1 Oh I do sometimes miss Eadon! :) (only sometimes, when the other fella isn't on form...:) )
Biting the hand that feeds IT
