3 ms·

Simply put, a FLOSS alternative to professional software isn't an alternative if it's unable to be used professionally. The barrier for freelance and hobbyist w

Simply put, a FLOSS alternative to professional software isn't an alternative if it's unable to be used professionally. The barrier for freelance and hobbyist work isn't people's concerns with dethroning these proprietary applications. Can you get hired at a large studio with Blender on your resume? Absolutely. And Krita is slowly heading down a similar path. GIMP, on the other hand, is dead-set on being relegated to a corner for FLOSS purists. It still doesn't have a complete CMYK workflow. It can't compete with Photoshop, and its authors have stated they don't want to compete. And until something comes along that can, people will continue to learn and use the proprietary option first and foremost.

boogies 6y ago
This seems mostly true, but on “a FLOSS alternative to professional software isn't an alternative if it's unable to be used professionally”: Photoshop is not exclusively professional software. Last I knew, it costed $10 a month. That's a serious barrier to entry to exceptionally poor residents of slums within developing countries, like the disabled boy who lifted himself out of poverty with GIMP and other FLOSS (https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-software-gimp.html#content https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-software-gimp.html#content), but it's basically pocket change to privileged people in the first world like plenty of YouTubers I've seen use PS as part of hobbies like tiny indie gamedev. This seems like an OK niche for GIMP to target while Krita gets more professional. It's tempting to want them to unite and make one raster editor to rule them all, but it doesn't seem necessary. GIMP doesn't seem to need dedicated full time devs and effort comparable to 3D software, which is more inherently complex and in proprietary form is licensed for orders of magnitude more money than PS.

boogies 6y ago

This seems mostly true, but on “a FLOSS alternative to professional software isn't an alternative if it's unable to be used professionally”: Photoshop is not exclusively professional software. Last I knew, it costed $10 a month. That's a serious barrier to entry to exceptionally poor residents of slums within developing countries, like the disabled boy who lifted himself out of poverty with GIMP and other FLOSS (https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-software-gimp.html#content https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-software-gimp.html#content), but it's basically pocket change to privileged people in the first world like plenty of YouTubers I've seen use PS as part of hobbies like tiny indie gamedev. This seems like an OK niche for GIMP to target while Krita gets more professional. It's tempting to want them to unite and make one raster editor to rule them all, but it doesn't seem necessary. GIMP doesn't seem to need dedicated full time devs and effort comparable to 3D software, which is more inherently complex and in proprietary form is licensed for orders of magnitude more money than PS.