It’s those damn computer makers! Damn them all to hell. They won’t pre-install, so clearly that’s what is keeping the far superior OS with single-digit marketshare. Clearly, that must be it!1!!

On the plus side, even if you did need to update Linux, it’s not like you are running anything on it anyways.

perfect

No way would that kid be frowning. If this was legitimately in the late 70s or early 80s that kid would be ecstatic with the graphics.

They are laughing at you, not with you.

But its even worse than just smugness.

It is unjustified smugness. If Linux was soooooo much better than every other OS, it should be the dominant OS by now. But it’s not. Not even close.

Cue up the “WeLl ThAt’S BeCaUsE iT iSn’T PrEiNsTaLlEd” comments.

That’s simply not true. The vast majority of CAD, CFD and FEA software is run on Windows (with many not even having Linux versions) and that has been the case for decades. The installation process on Windows is almost universally a straightforward process, and the times it isn’t, is usually because that software has (or had) Unix roots from ages ago and the clunky nature of anything related to Unix comes through.

Someone’s been feeding you bullshit.

I’m 100% certain there would be little difference because people need an OS that can run the software that they want, and just as importantly they need to be able to actually install and use it and Linux has never even tried to make that process anything but a nightmare. And I’ll stop you right there with your various flavors of Mint or Ubuntu or Elementary or the dozens of other distros. Users don’t care about endlessly tinkering. They want something that just works. Linux doesn’t offer that.

desktop Linux is totally viable

I think this shows the opposite.

If a FREE option that claims to be more efficient/faster (but usually isn’t in real life) is less than 2% of the market, something is wrong. Very, very wrong. Since when do people turn down free stuff, unless that free item is that bad?

I have heard some good things about newer versions of Blender, but I haven’t had the project to give me a chance to try it out yet. But the original UI of Blender were soooo bad that my expectations are not super high. Blender is a piece of software that makes me especially sad because it is indeed a VERY powerful piece of software, and I despise Autodesk so much (who has a monopolyu in that industry) that I would LOVE to see Blender be more friendly.

Apparently it depends on who you ask in here… some think that people should just use it and be grateful for having it because it’s free! Others claim that it was never aimed at being a useful tool - mission accomplished, I guess! Congrats? Others think it’s a perfectly fine piece of software because they’ve never edited photos for a living or done any graphic design work but it checks off feature boxes, so it must be good.

This is all so indicative of the whole open source software community. Arrogant developers who think that just because they wrote a piece of code, the public should lavish them with praise regardless of how useless that software should be. I did a thing, so honor me!1!!

Why should open source software demand that a user “read manuals completely” and yet other software doesn’t require that? Are the people who program open source software that talentless that they don’t even know how a user of their own software uses it? That’s a FAILURE of the developer. Time is money, and if it takes for me to purchase a piece of commercial software to get the kind of talent to write software which makes me a more efficient worker, then hell yeah most people will be willing to do just that. But then let’s please stop pretending that Linux and most open software is a viable alternative. It’s not. It’s mostly just a “tech demo”. The arrogance of the Linux community is pretty hilarious.

Stop claiming that you have some piece of software that is “just as good as” Photoshop then. Stop acting like you have any software, quite frankly because GIMP, like sooo many other open source programs, are just “tech demos”. Some programmer wanted to flex his coding skills and out popped a piece of software that might be 11.5% faster than a commercial program, but is too clunky to use. This whole argument shows why Linux will always lose in the OS world because far too many of those who use it, and even more who develop for it just don’t get that at the end of the day people use computers to get work done, not to fiddle with this or fiddle with that. We aren’t here to praise the coding gods because you could accomplish some task. We need to edit a photo or color correct a video. We want to model something to 3D print or engineer a part that will be machined. Actual tasks that regular users do.

If all you want to do it text your programming muscles, then do so. But don’t claim you’ve developing a useable piece of software. I mentioned this to someone already… A far better alternative is Photopea. It’s browser based and is partially open source. While GIMP has almost 100 people tied to the project, Photopea was written by ONE guy. And it’s great. Again, within the limitations of what browser-based software can offer. But it mirrors Photoshop as closely as possible and is a joy to use as long as the project doesn’t get too heavy (because again, it runs in your browser). So since clearly GIMP wasn’t written by people who give a shit about the end product as a real usable tool, then maybe the Linux community should stop proclaiming that it’s a real usable tool whenever someone asks “ok, but what kind of software can I use on it?”.

Follow industry “standards” that have existed for literally 3 decades.

And yes, when a piece of software dominates it’s particular industry as much as Photoshop does, it is considered a standard.

And to be clear, GIMP is just one of many such pieces of software that quite frankly are awful from a users perspective. Some will claim that “oh well it’s simply because it’s new software” but it’s far, far more than that and it shows a complete disconnect between those who write the software and those who use the software.

I find it curious that a way better alternative to GIMP is the browser-based Photopea which is partially open source. It doesn’t have the speed for heavy work because it runs in your browser, but because it mirrora Photoshop, it’s workflow is far more natural to someone who edits photos for a living. Doing a quick search it looks like a single person worked on Photopea, while almost 100 people over many more years have been working on GIMP. One is typical open source software - a bunch of people trying to learn a bit of programming, trying to flex their skills but clearly not actual graphic artist.

What part of this don’t you understand?

I KNOW I’m not talking like a developer. I’m not one. I’m a fucken user. That’s the point. The point that so many piece of open source software completely miss.

And you just did it again.

I don’t care if there is a little gerbil in a wheel spinning inside my machine. I don’t care if it is a nuclear reactor making it go. To the user, that’s is immaterial and you are missing that point.

As a user I don’t care HOW a piece of software is made. I care that it works and I can get my work done. There is a workflow to most jobs. You do this before you do that. You click on this tool 10x as often as this other one. Few open source programs bother to understand that all important work flow because usually the people writing the code aren’t the people who ultimately use the code.

I can say it again and again and again and I just know I haven’t gotten through to you.

It’s a god awful UI. Throw Blender into that mix as well.

I totally hear you. This is what far too many of these open source projects don’t get. Software needs to be usable. Fast code means squat if you are a user and you are pulling your hair out because the software forces you to work a way that is not intuitive.

This is the most Linux-ist answer ever.

I’m talking from a users perspective. I don’t give a flying fuck about whatever development technologies you are taking about because ultimately I don’t care. The vast majority of people don’t know - or care - how their car works. They just know it has to start. That’s how you folks lose the battle. You wrote code because you want to practice your skills or learn some new techniques or just because your bored. That’s great. That’s fine. But you’re not asking people that USE that software HOW it’s used. Next to zero effort is put into workflow. Your code might be fast. It might be bug free. Congrats, but if it takes 10 clicks to accomplish something that other software can do in 2, then that’s a problem. If the workflow is totally disjointed and not how a graphic designer actually works, then what good is that 2.735% more efficient code going to do for them?

The fact that my post was about UI and workflow and youre talking about Unix principlea speaks volumes to why open source software tends to be so bad from a users perspective.

Wait, so are people going to claim that the start-up speed is the problem with GIMP on Windows and not the god awful UI? This is the problem with the Linux crowd. You guys write software to write software and not because you are a user of that software. A clunky UI - which is far, far too common on open source applications - will cost someone a heck of a lot more than a few seconds in getting work done.