Good post

from a discussion point of view I submit this which is already on the site in question.

Equivalent means "equal in value". I think we can all agree on that. But it really is mind-boggling to me how someone can call The Gimp and Photoshop equivalents.

I've used both a lot, and The Gimp is a good application for light graphical work and when it comes to digital media you can attain the same results in both applications. But when it comes to printed media, The Gimp does not have what it takes. No CMYK, no Pantone, no PDF creation. Neither does it have many of Photoshops essential workflow tools;
Non-destructive edits? No. Selection refinement tools? No. Easy exchange of data between Gimp and Inkscape? Proper support for vector graphics? A functional stroke tool? Layer groups? No. No. No. No.

I am a big Open Source fan. I use Ubuntu on all my servers, my laptop and my main workstation. I've used both Gimp and Inkscape a lot, but Inkscape still has a ways to go before reaching 1.0 and Gimps featureset is simply to small for graphics professionals nowadays.

And don't get me started on KompoZer... Sigh.

What really bothers me is that you post this article, acting as if our open source apps are as good as the products that Adobe has invested millions of dollars and years and years of development time into.
They are not, and pushing them as if they were is bound to cause a lot of people to be disappointed and disgruntled with Open Source.

Don't oversell our applications. Gimp is a good tool for non-professional work, but it should not be likened to Photoshop. Likewise with the other apps you mentioned. It's not that it can't be used for professional work, but it just does not have the quality that professionals expect. Yet.

Also, Jashaka is an exciting development, but I found it impractical for my professional effects work. I am waiting to see how it evolves and will be using after effects until a better tool comes around.

I think an important factor that has to be taken into account is that theres a lot of people out there that don't necessarily 'need' the complete toolset an expensive commercial suite offers. Thats why we have products like Photoshop Elements, PaintShopPro, Ulead VideoStudio, Xara, etc. to cover the lower price-points...

My feeling from the article isn't to start a big upheaval in the DTP sector, it's simply to show the weekend-warriors they don't necessarily have to shell out the big-bucks (if any at all) to get a taste of what it's like to get their hands into some of this stuff...