The criticism common to Linux "alternatives" to proprietary software will always be that the free version doesn't have this feature or that feature, or isn't compatible with the latest from the proprietary vendor.
OF COURSE! Proprietary software vendors make little money on initial sales, which are often heavily discounted. Most of their revenue comes from paid upgrades to newer versions. And how does the vendor entice existing customers to upgrade:
So it is no surprise that the free "alternatives" will always be playing catch-up. It's the nature of the beast, not some shortcoming of free software per se.
I mention this point because a lot of people complain that free software generally lags the proprietary offerings, because they fail to understand the nature of providing "alternative" software in a competitive marketplace.
I, personally, have no need for the latest "feature" or version of any particular piece of software just to have the latest. If the feature seems useful, then I'll upgrade. This usually occurs during an OS upgrade--a new filesystem (usually), or faster boot system.
But with individual applications? Almost never. I accept upgrades for applications that run on my chosen platform, but I do not choose my platform based on certain features of applications that are available on multiple platforms.