4 ms·

If you're referring to the ink scape / gimp comment, that's because it's not realistic to expect that of your graphic designers / artists. The FOSS editors lack

If you're referring to the ink scape / gimp comment, that's because it's not realistic to expect that of your graphic designers / artists. The FOSS editors lack many critical features these professionals want. Even if they don't need those features, you'll be hurting their career by making them learn a whole new program that won't be a transferable skill outside of this job. Imagine your job decided to use an old IBM mainframe, and made you learn PL/I and z/OS. It's not like LibreOffice to Office, which are nearly drop in replacements for most people.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> The FOSS editors lack many critical features these professionals want. The main issue with these features is that they're numerous and the specific set of features that each individual needs is different, so the projects can't just instantaneously add support for them all but adding support for any given one is only a modest effort. Large institutions have software developers and the programs are open source. That means you can reasonably add the features that your people need. And as those features get upstreamed the projects improve overall. > Even if they don't need those features, you'll be hurting their career by making them learn a whole new program that won't be a transferable skill outside of this job. The programs are free, and also run on Windows and Mac, so they could continue using them in their new job too. Especially now that they have the features needed in their subspecialty.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  If what you said was true or viable we would already see these programs flourish. Tell me, why hasn't a company like Google supported gimp? They have a lot of artists and support a ton of other projects.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    In order for it to work you have to actually do it. How much in donations or patches has Google put into GIMP?
    - zeroCalories 3y ago
      The reason they don't is because it would not be cost effective, and their artists don't even want it. You need the artists to accept these tools first.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > The reason they don't is because it would not be cost effective Google is a trillion dollar company. Their annual revenue is larger than the GDP of more than a hundred countries. A million dollars is pocket lint and they have a billion users to amortize it over. > their artists don't even want it. You need the artists to accept these tools first. They don't want it because it lacks features they want. Give them access to a developer who can add any feature they ask for and see what happens.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> The FOSS editors lack many critical features these professionals want. The main issue with these features is that they're numerous and the specific set of features that each individual needs is different, so the projects can't just instantaneously add support for them all but adding support for any given one is only a modest effort. Large institutions have software developers and the programs are open source. That means you can reasonably add the features that your people need. And as those features get upstreamed the projects improve overall. > Even if they don't need those features, you'll be hurting their career by making them learn a whole new program that won't be a transferable skill outside of this job. The programs are free, and also run on Windows and Mac, so they could continue using them in their new job too. Especially now that they have the features needed in their subspecialty.

zeroCalories 3y ago
If what you said was true or viable we would already see these programs flourish. Tell me, why hasn't a company like Google supported gimp? They have a lot of artists and support a ton of other projects.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  In order for it to work you have to actually do it. How much in donations or patches has Google put into GIMP?
  - zeroCalories 3y ago
    The reason they don't is because it would not be cost effective, and their artists don't even want it. You need the artists to accept these tools first.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > The reason they don't is because it would not be cost effective Google is a trillion dollar company. Their annual revenue is larger than the GDP of more than a hundred countries. A million dollars is pocket lint and they have a billion users to amortize it over. > their artists don't even want it. You need the artists to accept these tools first. They don't want it because it lacks features they want. Give them access to a developer who can add any feature they ask for and see what happens.