Results 1 to 8 of 8
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- Join Date
- May 2013
Why are opensource software solutions not recognized
My hobbies are webdesign and photography so i used to use photoshop quite a lot. I didn't want to use wine to emulate ps on linux so i decided to go with the best opensource alternative which is undeniably GIMP. So i installed layerstyles and stuff like that, i even customized it a little bit so that it resembles photoshop more. I mostly did that because of the number of photoshop tutorials so that the transition between those tutorials and gimp would be easier for me.
But i just can't help it, it still feels so unprofessional compared to photosho but i think even a free opensource application can be a real success if managed correctly
This is just a one example. What i was trying to say by this is that open source software usually lacks some stuff like good website. When i checked the official website of gimp it made me feal uneasy, i'm no professional web developer and designer but i think there are much better solutions. Same goes for the inkscape, its website looks even worse in my eyes. I mean yeah these websites are pretty simple which is good in some cases but definitely not in the case of software aimed for designers. Imagine if gimp had much better website and performed better on windows (no idea, how it works on mac) That would mean more users which means more developers which mean more features and at the end of the day better final result?
Could somebody explain me why it is this way? And I don't think that the fact that the software is free mean that they don't have funds for good marketing and website... I mean if I get better i might even do better website for free! Why? because i think opensource needs more attention even from less technical persons....
Does anybody feel the same as i do? Or is there some kind of hipsterism in those sucky websites?
This isn't intended to disrespect opensource or any of those developers, this is just a try to make it better
So let me know what you think about this
Need to measure things by how useful the tools are and how productive you can get stuff done, what constrains you. Those are the things that the developers [should] focus on, and those are the things, that in my opinion will make it a professional editor or not.
Best get used to using Gimp and Inkscape, Adobe is only going to have the Creative Cloud on subscription from here on. dpreview.com/news/2013/05/06/Adobe-kills-perpetual-licenses-as-creative-suite-moves-to-creative-cloud-cc
I use an older Photoshop and Inkscape, but I see little difference in the look.
- Join Date
- May 2013
slw210: not like i was ever using legitimate copy of it
But this is not what i ment. i mean why aren't Opensource solutions more competitive towards their commercial alternatives?
- Join Date
- Apr 2013
A little off-topic, but I'll mention that there is a package called "GimpShop" - the Gimp 2.8 that clones the old photoshop interface quite nicely ( I felt right at home there...)
It really comes down to the developers and what they consider important when developing and creating there software.
What i mean by that is you get developers that will make it look really flashy and professional but the software is a pile of crap; you also get developers that don't put as much effort into the look and design but the software is great; and finally u may get something that looks really good and is a great piece of software or is just a piece of crap all round.
Which is the case for anything commercial or open source
You may or may not be surprised but a lot of it does come down to funding and time. Majority of the time opensource developers aren't getting paid for the hours of work they put in, they are doing because they a) enjoy developing and/or b) like providing something back to the community at no cost.
Another note to consider is Photoshop is created by paid developers to make that software, i.e. the developers have to put there best work forward unless they want to be fired or not receive a higher pay. Adobe as a company would want their software to be as professional as possible and as functional as possible, otherwise no one would buy the product.
Although your question is inadvertently more about funding and time than you realize.
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
Answer lies in your question itself : why do not you Subalee who have seen a problem with the open source websites, do something to improve them. After all it is both your right and a moral duty. Whatever is your reason for not doing it might be also the reason why those working on open source do not do so either.
Mostly the open source programmers are focused on the hard programming issues inside their software, and not on the outside like looks, ease of use, and so on. It is like a car designer working mostly on the machine and not enough on the paint.
Another problem that I have faced is that open source programs expire very fast. Every few months a new version of Linux comes out and then you have to start afresh. All the downloaded programs must be downloaded again and some are no longer compatible. Many programs that you liked are no longer possible to use in the new version.
Open source application programs are not always backward compatible and sometimes the progress is towards the worse, or giving up something that was good before. In a version of Red Hat Linux that I started with around 1998, there was an excellent C learning program called xwpe or so. Nothing as good exists any more, and xwpe did not continue with the later versions of Linux.
Problems are inevitable when large numbers of independent persons work freely. It needs a dictator to keep discipline and to drive a system towards commercial success and to get a good show. Free people cannot do it. However I still prefer the freedom of open source, especially the absence of pressure to use pirated copies of proprietary programs.
It makes me want to smash my face repeatedly into a wall until I bleed out.
"Moral duty" ? Please..
That useless Stallman logic is one of the worst arguments ever. "Yes, open source software sucks, so you should help us fix it." That's not a reason, that's a cop-out. People who use that logic are grasping for answers to say the least.
Expire fast? Different versions of Linux? What?
Just about every major distro now runs ELF...as long as a program (and any dependencies) is compiled and linked in ELF, then it will work on pretty much every GNU/Linux OS. Creating packages is easy, relative to writing the program, which is why every major program exists in different packages, and proprietary software vendors have no problem packaging for the more popular formats (deb and rpm IMO). So programs neither expire fast nor (at least in the case of most user-mode programs in a 2.6+ kernel) really dependent on the system version.