5 ms·

> it is still more robust than software created by multi-billion dollar corporations OSS software has few to no profit incentives. It it written to do somethin

> it is still more robust than software created by multi-billion dollar corporations OSS software has few to no profit incentives. It it written to do something, not to sell something. It also has little time pressure. If a release slips, there is no impact to quarterly numbers. Commercial software is not an engineering effort, it is a marketing exercise.

f1shy 2y ago
But interesting that with no time pressure, OSS does not miss lots of features of commercial products. Often their are even ahead.
- throwaway984393 2y ago
  [dead]
- qznc 2y ago
  I disagree. OSS is only ahead if there is no money in it, like new programming languages. Whenever it is profitable, OSS projects just cannot compete with professionals working full time. OSS is usually reinventing the wheel free from commercial pressures (Linux, GNU, Apache). Or they are previous commercial products (Firefox, LibreOffice, Kubernetes, Bazel).
  - Thorrez 2y ago
    >Whenever it is profitable, OSS projects just cannot compete with professionals working full time. Windows is profitable, but Linux is competing well on servers.
  - sillywalk 2y ago
    > OSS projects just cannot compete with professionals working full time. Many OSS projects have professionals working full time on them.
  - LtWorf 2y ago
    Can you explain why apple, google and microsoft all use a fork of a browser made by KDE?
    - qznc 2y ago
      They use a fork of a browser engine and there is no money in building a browser engine. The money is in building a browser around the engine because there you can inject tracking and try to make your product unique.
- aAaaArrRgH 2y ago
  Not when it comes to video/image/vector editing. DaVinci Resolve, Adobe and Affinity are still miles ahead of FOSS creativity tools like The GIMP.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    Try Krita, Darktable, Scribus and Blender. You're comparing household name with household name. Commercial software has a marketing budget, but free software spreads more by word-of-mouth (or association with a big and processional organisation like GNU), so that's an apples-to-oranges comparison. GIMP isn't very good, as free software image editors go: Script-Fu, plugins, or UI familiarity are basically the only reasons to choose it these days.
    - qznc 2y ago
      Is there any feature in Krita, Darktable, Scribus, or Blender, which Adobe products do not have? It certainly is the case the other way round.
      - spookie 2y ago
        I'm curious as to which ones they do not have compared to Adobe products. The only one I can think of is proper material layer painting in Blender, you can get there with addons but haven't found one that's as good. Genuinely the only thing that I miss, and I do this full time.
      - wizzwizz4 2y ago
        Darktable has some features that RawTherapee doesn't, and vice versa. I imagine that some of that stuff isn't in the Adobe software. (I've heard that recent versions of Lightroom have removed local file management support, which both these programs still have – though don't quote me on that.) Krita has a lot that Photoshop doesn't: https://docs.krita.org/en/user_manual/introduction_from_other_software/introduction_from_photoshop.html#what-krita-has-over-photoshop https://docs.krita.org/en/user_manual/introduction_from_othe... .
- philistine 2y ago
  You obviously haven’t compared GUIs, the most hodgepodge mix of we have that feature! in a sea of confusion and disrespect for interface standards.
nyrikki 2y ago
To remove the technology part. When Komatsu decided to go after Catapiliers market, the set quality as their first strategic intent. They then made sure that later strategic steps were beholden to that earlier one. XP/Agile manafesto emphasized 'working software' which in theory was to have a similar intent. But the problem with manafestos is that people package them and sell them. Agile manafesto signatories like Jeff Sutherland selling books with titles promising twice the code in half the time don't help. OSS has a built in incentive to maintain quality, at least for smaller projects. Companies could, but unfortunately management practices that make people quite successful becoming habits that are hard to change even when they want to. Hopefully these big public incidents start to make the choice to care about quality and easier sell. The point being is that quality is still an important thing for profit oriented companies, but it is easy to drop it and only notice it after it is too late. Showing that it aligns with long term goals is possible, but getting people to do so is harder.

f1shy 2y ago

But interesting that with no time pressure, OSS does not miss lots of features of commercial products. Often their are even ahead.

throwaway984393 2y ago
[dead]
qznc 2y ago
I disagree. OSS is only ahead if there is no money in it, like new programming languages. Whenever it is profitable, OSS projects just cannot compete with professionals working full time. OSS is usually reinventing the wheel free from commercial pressures (Linux, GNU, Apache). Or they are previous commercial products (Firefox, LibreOffice, Kubernetes, Bazel).
- Thorrez 2y ago
  >Whenever it is profitable, OSS projects just cannot compete with professionals working full time. Windows is profitable, but Linux is competing well on servers.
- sillywalk 2y ago
  > OSS projects just cannot compete with professionals working full time. Many OSS projects have professionals working full time on them.
- LtWorf 2y ago
  Can you explain why apple, google and microsoft all use a fork of a browser made by KDE?
  - qznc 2y ago
    They use a fork of a browser engine and there is no money in building a browser engine. The money is in building a browser around the engine because there you can inject tracking and try to make your product unique.
aAaaArrRgH 2y ago
Not when it comes to video/image/vector editing. DaVinci Resolve, Adobe and Affinity are still miles ahead of FOSS creativity tools like The GIMP.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  Try Krita, Darktable, Scribus and Blender. You're comparing household name with household name. Commercial software has a marketing budget, but free software spreads more by word-of-mouth (or association with a big and processional organisation like GNU), so that's an apples-to-oranges comparison. GIMP isn't very good, as free software image editors go: Script-Fu, plugins, or UI familiarity are basically the only reasons to choose it these days.
  - qznc 2y ago
    Is there any feature in Krita, Darktable, Scribus, or Blender, which Adobe products do not have? It certainly is the case the other way round.
    - spookie 2y ago
      I'm curious as to which ones they do not have compared to Adobe products. The only one I can think of is proper material layer painting in Blender, you can get there with addons but haven't found one that's as good. Genuinely the only thing that I miss, and I do this full time.
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      Darktable has some features that RawTherapee doesn't, and vice versa. I imagine that some of that stuff isn't in the Adobe software. (I've heard that recent versions of Lightroom have removed local file management support, which both these programs still have – though don't quote me on that.) Krita has a lot that Photoshop doesn't: https://docs.krita.org/en/user_manual/introduction_from_other_software/introduction_from_photoshop.html#what-krita-has-over-photoshop https://docs.krita.org/en/user_manual/introduction_from_othe... .
philistine 2y ago
You obviously haven’t compared GUIs, the most hodgepodge mix of we have that feature! in a sea of confusion and disrespect for interface standards.

nyrikki 2y ago

To remove the technology part. When Komatsu decided to go after Catapiliers market, the set quality as their first strategic intent. They then made sure that later strategic steps were beholden to that earlier one. XP/Agile manafesto emphasized 'working software' which in theory was to have a similar intent. But the problem with manafestos is that people package them and sell them. Agile manafesto signatories like Jeff Sutherland selling books with titles promising twice the code in half the time don't help. OSS has a built in incentive to maintain quality, at least for smaller projects. Companies could, but unfortunately management practices that make people quite successful becoming habits that are hard to change even when they want to. Hopefully these big public incidents start to make the choice to care about quality and easier sell. The point being is that quality is still an important thing for profit oriented companies, but it is easy to drop it and only notice it after it is too late. Showing that it aligns with long term goals is possible, but getting people to do so is harder.