And that arrogant "I understand it, why don't you?!"-attitude is exactly what's so often the main issue in the design process of open source software.

I'd recommend watching by Tantacrul, the design lead for MuseScore and Audacity. In it, he shows some videos of first-time user tests he conducted for Inkscape recently. It's really fascinating to see, how users fail to do what they want because of confusing UX choices. And often it isn't even that hard to fix. But open source image editors are just full of these little annoyances by now, which really smell like the result of inadequate user testing. And no professional would prefer to work all day with software full of little annoyances when there are alternatives.

I mean, just try adding text in Krita, for example. There's a giant pop-up where you have to format your text without actually seeing it on your image. That's just klunky and far more time consuming than a WYSIWYG approach would be.

Tantacrul – Achieving Excellence in Open Source Software Design #FOSSDesign

More: https://25.foss-backstage.design/news/session/achieving-excellence-in-open-source-software-design/Speaker: Martin Keary, aka TantacrulIn this talk, Mar...

^YouTube

My strongly held suspicion is that it's a form of the dunning-kruger effect. People have a lot of experience using software-A so much so that they tend to overlook just how much skill and knowledge they have accumulated with that specific software. Then when they try software-B they misconstrue their lack of knowledge with that specific software as complexity.

You just answered yourself.

Can I ask your perspective on the comments here saying that Krita and Inkscape just aren’t comparable to their commercial alternatives?

I am a professional and have been doing this since... Well, I started with Mac OS 7, let's put it that way. Krita and Inkscape are like using craft scissors to cut sheetmetal. They re simply the wrong tool for the job. They are maybe 10% comparable to Adobe apps. Affinity apps are probably 60% or 70% comparable.

I've written a few articles in LibreOffice and the things I need to be able to do just can't be done in order to follow the structure of the zine I was writing for. It's a hobby zine and the work is free by everyone so they just reformatted it for me; but it still inconveniences others when things aren't within a certain expected standard. I do blame microsoft for it though; all office apps uses the same standard except microsoft, unfortunately all the users uses microsoft office...

and no, krita, inkscape, gimp, etc. can't replace Affinity. Affinity itself could barely replace Adobe in their first place. but it still has, for many. so it's not a learning issue. Affinity is more intuitive than Adobe, so in this case Adobe is just outdated.

the issue is more than just a lack of features. The UI is at least 15 years out of date.

Professionally the software just isn't there; and it's a real shame too, because I feel very uncomfortable using ANY microsoft products (on principle). But as far as Photoshop goes, there is photopea which is a great free browser based clone. Sadly there is no illustrator or indesign browser based clones that can match the quality of photopea, and the only desktop apps up for the job of matching Adobe is currently the Affinity Suite.

Understandable.

Advertising for a change needs great effort. I'd rather spend the effort in improving gimp, writing down whats missing and how to get there. Adding suppor for affinity won't improve gimp, does it?

It doesn't. But I wait something around 20 years for Gimp, all of my hope is gone. Inkscape evolved a lot, also Krita. Gimp just made babysteps in case of UI and UX and this is basically because of the outdated underlying technology as far as I know.

I am an FOSS frontend dev myself, so I hate to say this. I would love to fully switch to FOSS gfx software, but especially with Gimp, its a pain in the ass, to with it.

The problem is that if widespread Linux adoption is the goal, then the tools for amateurs isn’t going to cut it. Not even close. Tools that professionals use need to be available and they need to work like they do on macOS and Windows, it’s pretty much that simple. I think Darktable is fine for me tinkering around with my amateur photos. If I were a professional using it daily I’d probably hate it.

As much as we wish it wasn’t true, most people don’t really give a shit about their OS. It’s the logo that appears when they boot up their computers to work. What they do care about is having their tools available to them, if they can’t use the Adobe Suite, Pro Tools etc (and no, WINE is not a practical solution for most of these people) then Linux of any flavour is functionally useless to them. It’s changing somewhat now, but it’s why you’ll find that a lot of people in the creative industries stick with macOS, because for a long time the options for those professionals were just better on that platform and people tend to stick with what they know.

On the other side of that coin, you have software vendors looking at the single-digit market share that Linux on the desktop “enjoys” and coming to the fairly reasonable conclusion that building packages, fixing bugs and providing support for myriad different distros just isn’t worth the headaches it will inevitably cause for them.

Classic chicken and egg problem.

Nah, they work great. The problem is just your generation.

If you learned the other tools first, you would say that adobe suite is clunky, difficult to use, and not suitable for professionals.

Gimp and inkscape both run fine on macOS and Windows.

I'm not really sure what assumptions you can reasonably make about me or my generation given that you have no idea who I am or how old I am, but I've been working with FOSS in my personal life for about 20 years give or take, a bit less than that in my professional life. I actually used to work in the music industry professionally before changing careers to tech with a FOSS slant during the pandemic, so I've seen both sides of this coin.

I'm genuinely not trying to shit on FOSS tools or say that they're not suitable for creative professionals (my gripes with Darktable are very much personal to me), I love FOSS and the philosophy strongly aligns with my personal values but it's not just about how "good" these tools are on an objective level. This is a cultural problem as much as it is an engineering problem, as you seem to have correctly identified.

You have to understand how ubiquitous something like Pro Tools suite is in the music industry and for how long that has been the case - the Pro Tools session format truly is a global industry standard by anyone's measure. You can walk into just about any professional recording studio on the planet with your session files and the recording engineer will know exactly what to do with them, and so will mastering engineers and record producers. If you go to school for audio engineering, they're teaching you Pro Tools. There are entire companies that produce outboard gear and control surfaces just for use with Pro Tools. You get the idea. The reason for that ubiquity is that Pro Tools, like many other creative software solutions, captured the market in the 90s when every other solution was an utter joke in comparison and they built on it from there. Sure, there's fantastic alternatives now, but when you know Pro Tools like the back of your hand and so do all of your colleagues and collaborators, when all of your hardware and software works with it seamlessly... how likely are you to change?

I'm not suggesting that this isn't a problem by the way - vendor lock-in is a serious bugbear of mine - but it's a very real barrier to getting creative professionals to switch to FOSS alternatives, and in turn to getting software vendors to take FOSS platforms seriously. It's a reality that cannot be hand-waved away by saying that x or y tool works great and that people just need to learn it and switch so that they can use Linux. If you can't run Pro Tools on Linux, that's a whole industry that won't use it. It's that simple.