This always comes down to a no true scottsman argument, right? I clearly haven't used the Linux apps enough, otherwise I would accept that they're just as good (if not better) than the non-Linux apps. Maybe you're right, but I'm just saying that just because you've found a possible explanation, you shouldn't assume that it's correct. There are other possibilities, such as me being right.
It's not that every Linux app is as good as it's non-Linux equivalent, it's that using either Linux/not-Linux for long enough makes you good at doing what Linux/not-Linux is good at. It's more like if you grew up driving tractors, and op grew up on a fishing boat. Tractors aren't less work - they are different work.
Well to re-state my position, I believe, based on my experience, that for most common tasks, starting with zero knowledge of both a commercial program and it's "Linux equivalent", the Linux equivalent is more work to accomplish the task. Likewise, once someone has mastered the commercial program, and also mastered the equivalent, I believe that the equivalent will still be more work to accomplish common tasks. The key connecting detail here is the common tasks, which are something someone would want to do in a general class of programs (such as lighten an image, write a book report on Moby Dick, or make a budget in a spreadsheet) before even choosing one.
