Inkscape and Gimp developers, although busy, have still implemenyed some of my feature requests. That’s less likely with Adobe. If there is something you need in the open source ones, it’s likely already on their list to do. If not, request it.
Well, as I stated in a sibling comment, Gimp did replace Photoshop for me. I’m a semi pro user for two decades. My only issue is with its UX, but PhotoGIMP helps a great deal here.
Please explain to non-artist techies like me why? I keep hearing that refrain but no one can ever explain to me what these FOSS alternatives are actually missing that keeps people from switching.
Based on my experience with Office -> LibreOffice I have to assume it’s some combination of laziness about learning something new, “the interface looks old” nonsense, and being unwilling to work through bugs/quirks (even though Office has plenty of its own bugs/quirks - they’re just different from LibreOffice’s and again, people don’t want to learn something new).
Am I wrong? Am I missing something? Specifically, what makes Photoshop not just better than GIMP, but SOOO MUCH BETTER that people are willing to give their money to bourgeois a-holes for the privilege of running software that they will never truly own, that spies on them, that injects unwanted AI into everything, etc.
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.
The great thing about open source is that it’s generally developed by people who use it. Proprietary software is just developed by people who get paid by someone who’s just doing it to make a profit…
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”.
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.
I think your argument is a little outdated because libre software has come a long way in the past few decades. I couldn’t imagine not being able to turn a manuscript into a publishable product with FOSS software in the state they are today.
If your argument is that it would take longer because someone has to relearn the interface, that’s just because they’re used to one and not the other. If it’s because they prefer features that the other doesn’t have, that’s just preference but easily circumvented.
The only other way I could see there being a difference is because of patented features, but that’s a discussion that’s already been had in this thread. And it’s not about open-source developers being in any way worse than closed-source developers.
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. .
They are better than they were. But they are still at least 10 years from being able to match Adobe software - partially because we need to wait for Adobe patents to run out, so that other software can replicate an intuitive software experience.
Ugh, nothing “intuitive” should ever be patentable. Can you imagine if “horizontally-ruled paper” was patented? Or “handles on cooking pans,” “shirts with two sleeves,” or anything of that sort?
Like, why should anyone have to avoid an obvious feature just because someone else did it first? It’s insane.
Also, FOSS projects and non-profits should be exempted from patent restrictions.
Well, I do understand the difference between the UI and UX, but I have no idea what they are implying. I asked that question precisely because I have no idea what to search for.
The difference between UI and UX is simple. The UI is just the interface: it’s how the app, service, anything, interacts with its user. The experience is … well, the experience of it. E.g. Gimp is awful at UI, but the UX is not that bad, because if you’d get some basic ideas, it’s quite useful, even despite its ugly UI. Sometimes it’s not that easy to distinguish one from another, that’s why the two are usually combined. Interface can be pretty, and most people would call it good, but the experience of using it could be just terrible. Also, experience is what transfers from your experience, so, for a graphics editor, it’s expected that it would follow some de-facto conventions, even if they’re pretty stupid. Once you’d delve into it, it gets difficult to separate, but if we’d simplify, I’d call a UI is just how it looks, and the UX is how it works. At least that’s how I see it. If there’s someone who can explain these better, I’d appreciate to be corrected.
What do you mean? I have no idea what to search for. I’d appreciate some links, or some unfolded explanation. Can you patent features? Sounds a bit absurd.
Can I patent booting the OS from a USB drive? That’s a feature, isn’t it?
Have you tried Gimp and Inkscape?
Gimp and Inkscape are excellent programs, I LOVE them. But, they are not Adobe replacements.
Inkscape and Gimp developers, although busy, have still implemenyed some of my feature requests. That’s less likely with Adobe. If there is something you need in the open source ones, it’s likely already on their list to do. If not, request it.
Why is that? Is it just the user interface? Performance? Or are they missing features that you need?
Well, as I stated in a sibling comment, Gimp did replace Photoshop for me. I’m a semi pro user for two decades. My only issue is with its UX, but PhotoGIMP helps a great deal here.
Please explain to non-artist techies like me why? I keep hearing that refrain but no one can ever explain to me what these FOSS alternatives are actually missing that keeps people from switching.
Based on my experience with Office -> LibreOffice I have to assume it’s some combination of laziness about learning something new, “the interface looks old” nonsense, and being unwilling to work through bugs/quirks (even though Office has plenty of its own bugs/quirks - they’re just different from LibreOffice’s and again, people don’t want to learn something new).
Am I wrong? Am I missing something? Specifically, what makes Photoshop not just better than GIMP, but SOOO MUCH BETTER that people are willing to give their money to bourgeois a-holes for the privilege of running software that they will never truly own, that spies on them, that injects unwanted AI into everything, etc.
Or Krita
Is krita closer to gimp or inkscape? How does it compare/contrast to that one?
I find it to be a useful blend of Gimp and Photoshop.
Does it do bitmaps or vector images? Or both?
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.
The great thing about open source is that it’s generally developed by people who use it. Proprietary software is just developed by people who get paid by someone who’s just doing it to make a profit…
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”.
Wow, imagine an .ml trying so hard to go to bat for corporations and proprietary software. Hilarious…
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?
I think your argument is a little outdated because libre software has come a long way in the past few decades. I couldn’t imagine not being able to turn a manuscript into a publishable product with FOSS software in the state they are today.
If your argument is that it would take longer because someone has to relearn the interface, that’s just because they’re used to one and not the other. If it’s because they prefer features that the other doesn’t have, that’s just preference but easily circumvented.
The only other way I could see there being a difference is because of patented features, but that’s a discussion that’s already been had in this thread. And it’s not about open-source developers being in any way worse than closed-source developers.
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. .
Yes.
How do they compare, in your experience?
They are better than they were. But they are still at least 10 years from being able to match Adobe software - partially because we need to wait for Adobe patents to run out, so that other software can replicate an intuitive software experience.
Ugh, nothing “intuitive” should ever be patentable. Can you imagine if “horizontally-ruled paper” was patented? Or “handles on cooking pans,” “shirts with two sleeves,” or anything of that sort?
Like, why should anyone have to avoid an obvious feature just because someone else did it first? It’s insane.
Also, FOSS projects and non-profits should be exempted from patent restrictions.
I think my CS6 - the last non subscription Adobe Suite from 2012 - is still more intuitive and better to use than the newest GIMP version
Can you elaborate on this? The first time I hear there are patents regarding some intuitive interface. What is that?
Even if so, why not replicate the best of all similar apps, Affinity and Pixelmator too.
Not interface. Experience.
Do a quick web search and you’ll learn all about Adobe patents on features.
All I could find is some statistical overviews without much detail, and a more list of recent patents which are all related to AI.
Is there a specific feature that you wish was in the others? I don’t really understand the difference between UX and UI
Well, I do understand the difference between the UI and UX, but I have no idea what they are implying. I asked that question precisely because I have no idea what to search for.
The difference between UI and UX is simple. The UI is just the interface: it’s how the app, service, anything, interacts with its user. The experience is … well, the experience of it. E.g. Gimp is awful at UI, but the UX is not that bad, because if you’d get some basic ideas, it’s quite useful, even despite its ugly UI. Sometimes it’s not that easy to distinguish one from another, that’s why the two are usually combined. Interface can be pretty, and most people would call it good, but the experience of using it could be just terrible. Also, experience is what transfers from your experience, so, for a graphics editor, it’s expected that it would follow some de-facto conventions, even if they’re pretty stupid. Once you’d delve into it, it gets difficult to separate, but if we’d simplify, I’d call a UI is just how it looks, and the UX is how it works. At least that’s how I see it. If there’s someone who can explain these better, I’d appreciate to be corrected.
What do you mean? I have no idea what to search for. I’d appreciate some links, or some unfolded explanation. Can you patent features? Sounds a bit absurd.
Can I patent booting the OS from a USB drive? That’s a feature, isn’t it?