5 ms·

If they are intended to replace professional software, there is a reasonable expectation that it can actually do just that. I'm thankful that there are some rea

by least 5y ago

If they are intended to replace professional software, there is a reasonable expectation that it can actually do just that. I'm thankful that there are some really amazing open source projects that allow many people access to applications capable of producing professional results "for free" (while being "free"). They are fighting an uphill battle with less resources for the "professional" users, though. > I find the worst is with OSS projects that are intended to replace professional software. Software that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars. The price of software isn't ever really going to be a consideration when it comes to software that is supposed to be "professional." Obviously when you have direction and strong incentives (make more money) products tend to gain capabilities and polish at a rate that an uncompensated OSS project can't match. But none of that matters to someone trying to edit a video or score a soundtrack or create illustrations or whatever else they're trying to do with their "professional" software. > I've seen some of the most vitriolic and nitpicky comments towards that and other similar software, over sometimes the stupidest things like ui differences to the commercial equivalents or something equally as shallow. Except user interface is extremely important for professional software. You are committing a lot of time to learning the way around an application that is extremely complex. This is why people get stuck on a particular digital audio workstation or nonlinear editor versus another. There is an extremely steep learning curve to switch. Free software should be trying to lower the barrier to entry which means replicating user interfaces of popular commercial software. UI differences aren't stupid, they're really important, especially for software that you're expected to be using day in and out every day. > Myself, I'm just happy there's so much professional quality open source software. I'm also thankful for it. Not everyone is a professional who can afford the high prices of commercial software and having access to such powerful tools for free is incredible. When I was a kid I pirated a lot of software. Macromedia Dreamweaver and Photoshop were really important to me at the time but nowadays exploring interests is much easier (and safer).

grawprog 5y ago
These things are being made by people mostly for free. I know there's corporate funding and donations amongst bigger projects, but they're being made by people, for free, so that a free alternative to expensive software can exist. It's one thing to complain about software you pay for negatively. When I used alphaCAM and Park Industry software I expected to be able to phone them any time and they'd hop on TeamViewer and help me with any and every minor problem, but alphaCAM costs $10,000/year. For that $10,000/year i have every right to complain or ask for any bit of customer service I want, for $0/Ever, I can deal with it, make a polite suggestion and hope for the best, or submit a patch.
patrick451 5y ago
> The price of software isn't ever really going to be a consideration when it comes to software that is supposed to be "professional." I don't think this is really true. When choosing between say, python and Matlab, the price of a license absolutely weighs heavily into the discussion.
- least 5y ago
  I'll readily admit that in certain fields (particularly programming, but also programming-adjacent ones) open source software is good enough and arguably better than commercial offerings. In those cases yeah, people are going to maybe have discussions on the merits of using the free software over the commercial closed-source ones. That's how it should be. That's not how it is for a lot of creative fields, though.

by least 5y ago

grawprog 5y ago

These things are being made by people mostly for free. I know there's corporate funding and donations amongst bigger projects, but they're being made by people, for free, so that a free alternative to expensive software can exist. It's one thing to complain about software you pay for negatively. When I used alphaCAM and Park Industry software I expected to be able to phone them any time and they'd hop on TeamViewer and help me with any and every minor problem, but alphaCAM costs $10,000/year. For that $10,000/year i have every right to complain or ask for any bit of customer service I want, for $0/Ever, I can deal with it, make a polite suggestion and hope for the best, or submit a patch.

patrick451 5y ago

> The price of software isn't ever really going to be a consideration when it comes to software that is supposed to be "professional." I don't think this is really true. When choosing between say, python and Matlab, the price of a license absolutely weighs heavily into the discussion.

least 5y ago
I'll readily admit that in certain fields (particularly programming, but also programming-adjacent ones) open source software is good enough and arguably better than commercial offerings. In those cases yeah, people are going to maybe have discussions on the merits of using the free software over the commercial closed-source ones. That's how it should be. That's not how it is for a lot of creative fields, though.