Courtesy to Twitter user XdanielArt (date of publication: 8 June 2024)
You must log in or register to comment.
The wave of GenP refugees today appreciate this post.
GIMP is unfortunately not a good competitor, the UX/UI is atrocious, and that’s after spending 25 years using it now… I switched to Krita for most things at this point. GIMP needs some sort of revamp.
Seriously, gimp is barely usable for anything, they need to put the damn thing our of our misery.
And it spawned gtk, which is yet another monument to software masochism.
Will give krita a shot, this shouldn’t be that hard.
Like maybe a GIMP 3.0?
I see two new features that look fantastic, but the rest of the UI seems likely unchanged. I’ll definitely give it a shot though.
Adobe… Fucks people hard.
See, my problem with these types of resources is if you have to list more than one thing per thing the landscape may not be there for a full replacement.
That’s not a hard rule, I do think some of these are a better first choice, or a better-for-some applications first choice. I’m just often frustrated by the way these things are communicated.
if you have to list more than one thing per thing the landscape may not be there for a full replacement
And it would be even less if there had to be only one thing per thing.
One of the strengths of the FOSS metacommunity is the variety in designs and results. Big Corpo abuses economies of scale and locks you in with a “one shoe fits all solution” because they under the table also chisel and file your feet; FOSS has (largely) no such restrictions so they can afford to try things and see what results and, more importantly, what evolves. Not everything has to be a copy of corporate, and we shouldn’t act as if it had to be.
Woof, I don’t know if I can pick up what you’re putting down.
Particularly for professional use nobody is trying to have fun and exciting new solutions for UI or functionality every week. Industry standards get to be industry standards for a reason. It’s useful to be able to just go hire someone that knows how to work on the software platform you’re working and your clients are working and your providers are working.
For casual home use, go nuts, I don’t mind. And there is certainly room for multiple things to remain relevant at once, especially if the concepts are close enough that crossing over is trivial or easy.
But I don’t need to edit video in seven different pieces of software, I need to get the video edited. And if I need three people editing video I need them all to be editing video in the same thing, or at least in things that are perfectly interoperable. Standards aren’t a corporate imposition, even if corporations benefit greatly from lobbying themselves into becoming the standard.
Yeah I just want a tool to get my shit done and get paid
File format standards certainly, and OSS generally embraces those (at least if they’re non-proprietary), but UI doesn’t have to be standardized. On the other hand though not everything needs to be a unique snowflake. UIs should take the things that work well and experiment with what doesn’t.
Lets also not pretend that proprietary apps don’t screw around with UI design just as much. I can’t count how many times now Microsoft has redesigned the UI of something that was perfectly fine and didn’t need redesigning only to end up making it worse.
Sure, I can agree with that.
The problem with OSS tends to be that engineers are more willing to work on it than UX designers and it’s quite rare for them to have the lead on that area. Forget convention, just on quality. There are exceptions (hey Blender!), but not many.
More often than not what you get is some other paid upstart hit some big innovation and then that propagates and sometimes it gets to open source alternatives before it does to fossilized, standardized professional software.
I do think there’s some value in having UX that makes it easier to jump back and forth, though. Especially if your positioning is “I’m like this paid thing, but free”. The easier you make it for the pros to pick up and play the easier you can carve some of the market and the more opportunities you give to newcomers learning on the free tool to migrate to the paid tool if the market demands it.
I think part of the problem is that “good” UX isn’t a single thing but a continuum. It’s very dependent on the skill level of the user. Often what makes a good UX for a newbie is a bad UX for a power user and vice versa. OSS tends to attract power users and particularly the ones working on some software in a particular area tend to be domain experts. That in turn can lead to designs optimized for very advanced use cases that end up being frustratingly opaque to an “average” user or even worse a newbie.
Blender is an excellent example of this. It’s regarded as one of the best 3D programs out there but it’s far from a simple piece of software to pick up. What saves it is that all the commercial alternatives are just as obtuse as it is and so the ground level expectation is that it’s going to be complicated.
Likewise many OSS and Linux tools expect or even require CLI usage which while great for power users putting together scripts and pipelines are often opaque and unintuitive to someone who is still learning the domain.
This focus on power users leads to turning newbies away and funneling them towards the commercial offerings where they then get used to their quirks and limitations of those apps so that when they do eventually become power users the quirks and limitations of the OSS alternatives feel strange and off-putting to them.
Ehh… As somebody who is old enough to remember before the standardization and consolidation of software, I disagree with you.
A workforce that are trained in more software options makes them more valuable to the company. It pushes for constant innovation. It’s not efficient, but innovative processes almost never are. It also increases the difficulty to replacing experienced employees.
The widespread adoption of Photoshop as the standard has depressed wages and increased job insecurity. I also suspect that the trend of simplification in designs is the direct result of this. Mediocre talented designers are selling boring easy to create designs to artistically blind CEO’s.
I mean… cool, but by that logic you want to design all your graphic designers from painters and artists to do posters with brushes again.
That’s just not practical, and “it’s not efficient, but” is a massive dealbreaker for a whole lot of applications. Artisanal product has a premium and is very cool and if you can get away with making a living out of it I find that amazing.
But sometimes somebody just needs a poster made or a shop logo or a trash bag removed from their wedding picture background. Industrial work at pace is important and the baseline for a work area.
I’m also not sure what time was before the standardization and consolidation of software. Word replaced Wordperfect. Photoshop replaced the Corel Suite. Premiere replaced (or at least displaced) Avid. It’s not like there weren’t industry standards before.
Some companies still use proprietary stuff and train people on their in-house software, it’s doable. It’s just easier for most of the pack working with multiple clients and vendors to be using the most popular thing at any given time.
Well, on the other hand, it’s by far not always the case that the program one person is currently using is already the best choice for their use case. For example, in the process of degoogling, I’ve begun using a lot of programs that are actually better for me than the ones I previously used (e.g. Notesnook > Google notes). Of course there’s friction/effort involved in finding the best replacement, but there’s just no way around that if the goal is to get away from the defacto standards.
Sure. And I love finding better solutions, particularly when they’re for a thing I do for my own sake.
But if you’re a newspaper that is ingesting hundreds or thousands of pictures a day from dozens of photographers and having half a dozen people editing all that input into a database that a dozen composers and web editors are using at the same time sometimes janky but universally familiar is a lot more valuable than “better at this thing on interesting ways”.
It doesn’t mean you can’t displace a clunky, comfortable king of the hill. Adobe itself used to be pretty good at doing just that. Premiere used to be the shitty alternative kids used because it was easy to pirate before it became THE editing software for online video. The new batch of kids are probably defaulting to Resolve these days, so that one feels wobbly. Other times you just create a new function that didn’t exist and grow into space previously occupied by adjacent software, Canva-style.
But if you see a piece of industry-standard software with a list of twenty alternatives broken down by application, skill level or subsets of downsides the industry standard is probably not about to lose their spot in favor of any of those anytime soon.
Countering Animator with Blender, that’s brutal. For at least some stuff Blender is also the better Illustrator.
Or if you have to use Adobe products, at least have the decency not to pay for them.
A newer alternative to After Effects: https://pikimov.com/
It’s still got a ways to go, but it’s off to a good start.
As much as I am loath to admit it, nothing comes close to feature parity with Photoshop. All the others are pretty replaceable, but if you are a professional who depends on a lot of the really advanced features you’re going to have a hard time replacing it. GiMP isn’t even close tbh. I admire the work they’re doing but they are a decade behind PS.
Good news is that is not most people.
I keep hearing this but having never really used Photoshop myself. What are all the missing features?
I’m not a professional but there hasn’t been anything that I wanted to do in GIMP that I couldn’t do because of its limitations and with GIMP 3.0 having non destructive editing I have no complaints other than the sometimes janky UI.
If you’re not a professional than no it is highly unlikely you will run up against these issues. I was pretty clear about this in the many other comment chains I was involved in.
Still, millions of professionals use Photoshop, so that means there are millions of people that cannot use these alternatives.
What is the closest thing to PS in terms of features?
What’s your opinion on Affinity (Designer/Photo)?
If you’re getting down and dirty with color correction, object removal/replacement, and just depend on a lot of plug-in’s for your sauce, Affinity is lacking. Most people who use photoshop, however, do not need all that. Affinity is a solid program that definitely works for prosumers and below, as well as some professionals (depending on use case).
And I get it’s not popular to talk about but Adobe has fully embraced AI and some of their tools are legit. I don’t use it, but some folks really like firefly.
But that’s what makes GIMP special. There’s some users who feel that Photoshop has stopped being relevant for some uses among those users. GIMP may be a decade behind but it could be swimming in what people remembered best about Photoshop before its enshittification and retains that kind of nature.
Sorry, there just are no alternatives to Photoshop, with Affinity Photo being the closest replacement nowadays, to the classical PS functions. Affinity Designer feels the same for Illustrator.
What about Krita? Not sure exactly what Adobe product it would be an alternative for though. I know a lot of what people use it for used to be done with Photoshop, but I think Photoshops core demographic is a slightly different use case. Also Inkscape as an Illustrator alternative?
For drawing/painting yeah, krita is comparable, especially if you set the presets to be similar to ps. I haven’t tried krita with photo editing much though
What’s the Audacity/Tenacity deal?
Enshitification by owners of Audacity including telemetry. They eventually backed down, but that was after Tenacity forked off it and people started using and improving it.
What state is tenacity in these days?
I can’t press the record button without it crashing and it fails to see half of my audio inputs, so I’d say not great.
The sad reality of audio software has been that usually the paid commercial software is better and more reliable. I’ve used Audacity alot for work, and it gets it the job done, but tools like iZotope RX are light years beyond in features and UI/UX.
Works great for me
Same. Although I only use it for very basic things. Honestly I mostly have switched to Davinci’s Fairlight, which is built into Resolve.
A few years back Audacity got acquired by a commercial entity. They then proceeded to cause some controversy regarding user privacy.
I think they walked back some of them, and changed the installer to allow disabling the data collection; but by that time, a few forks have started popping up. Tenacity seems to be what many people eventually settle on.
God out of all the software I’ve used over the years, to see Audacity go to hell like that is sad. I was not expecting that. And to think once upon a time, i replaced a little program called Cooledit Pro (which was bought by Adobe if I recall), with Audacity.
Apparently Audacity has been bougth by a company which subsequently did crap with it. https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/s9isqj/help_tenacity_a_fork_of_audacity_after_its/
Not sure how good Tenacity currently is
the trademark got bought. it’s still FLOSS, and they pledged to keep it that way, for whatever that’s worth. code can’t be retroactively un-gpled, so if they did decide to close it down they couldn’t just take it offline, only do new development in private. the big fishy thing was that they added a CLA to their repo, which only affects developers. as an end-user you’re fine.
also, the “crap” was a draft proposal of opt-in telemetry, which was subsequently scrapped. the company in question is based in the EU, anyway, so they would have to abide by the gdpr for any collected information.
For PDF “your browser” should be the default recommendation. Firefox allows to add text and images now. Gimp can also be used to edit PDF.
The main reason “your browser” isn’t enough for me is that it doesn’t allow you to add and edit bookmarks, which I use a lot to navigate large pdfs quickly.
Second is that it’s nice to keep your pdf tabs separated from your browser tabs, and a pdf reader can remember your tabs and exactly which page you were on etc.
So that’s why I’m using PDF-Xchange, I downloaded it for free idk why it says purchase.
Browser is nice. On Linux though, Okular is superb (except for its occasional problems with forms).
What does Okular do that Firefox doesn’t? I’ve used it on some distros because it was the default but I don’t know the advantage compared to using my existing browser.
I’m really disappointed not to see Okular there. It’s FOSS, and it’s very cozy and useful.
Started using it recently and i agree!
Xodo and Xchange are both feature rich, lightweight, and easy to use programs. Browser view is fine for a peek but quickly feels clunky.
Yeah the PDF category is weird / lacking. LibreOffice Draw and Inkscape can both edit PDFs and are missing as well. Xodo looks like some mobile app only or SaaS product.
Edit: Xodo does have a free desktop PDF reader but seems like they’re certainly focused on selling their subscription based PDF editor
Isn’t it dangerous now that PDFs can run javascript? (Who had that idiotic idea, anyway?)
The Affinity Suite is so worth it. Pay a single time and get all the apps on all major OSes.
Also udemy has some fantastic courses to learn the whole suite, each can be purchased for lifetime access for $10-15 USD. The instructors I bought from are still actively updating their courses and I get all the new stuff, even though I bought when AD was still on v1.3.
If you’re looking to learn it’s a really affordable way to do it.
Which courses do you recommend?
Here’s the main one I used to get started.
I’ve started one on creating abstract art in Affinity that seems pretty good and I have a few others in my learning queue from him on specific parts of affinity that look really good but I haven’t done yet.
Him and Lindsey Marsh have a bunch of content out there on the whole suite. I took Lindsey’s course on graphic design theory that was pretty good but that course used adobe so i used it more for general concepts. I think either of them would be a good place to start.
They got bought out by Canva though, so I’m sure the enshittification will follow. Such a shame.
No Linux support though, which is a bummer these days.
so not all major OSes
I mean, windows and Mac. So yes, all major OSes. The whole “year of Linux” has been a nice meme… For a few decades now.
The world runs on Linux
Yeah Linux is absolutely not a major OS (nor will it ever be)
I’m no layout expert, but I did do some desktop publishing about 15 years ago 10 min in Scribus had me tearing my hair out. Installed InDesign and, while it’s still not easy to catch up on the modern capabilities, it was worlds ahead.
GIMP is just fine for casuals. It’s not close for professionals.
Truthfully I think that one major issue with open source programs that don’t have corporate involvement is that people who are great at code don’t always have the same skill in UI/UX. However, with support and a larger community, great things can happen. The barrier is getting that adoption level. If more people casually use the product and contribute financially or in code, it will help tremendously.
I used to do layouts for children’s books back around 2010. The company used pagemaker still. I tried scribus, and the books I did manage to finish produced pdfs not usable by the print shop. I ended up buying a copy of CS5.
Now I use affinity suite, I am still learning it all.
I really like this layout, it’s easy to read
Except the OSs in the lower compact section
And not defining the abbreviations.
lol. coreldraw is fucking terrible
