It’s not just about quality, there’s a lot missing or honestly plain worse in gimp for example, compared to affinity photo. I’m as big a proponent of OSS as any, it’s just that software isn’t there yet.
What’s more, the target audience for that product are usually people who’ve had their chance encounter with programming and have decided against doing it. My anecdotal experience obviously. Edit: I mean it’s unlikely they will contribute to features
I put about 2000 hours of work into $open_source_project. After a huge release 10xing the quality, we had about 1000x as many users.
The existing user base was ecstatic- for many of them, it was all they ever wanted and more. But we had 1000x new people saying “it just isn’t there yet”
Yes, because everyone has different needs. Even blender, which has gone far and beyond most graphical software, would be a no-go for someone because of one or two specifics.
Again, I firmly believe in OSS, but I don’t see how porting more professional software hurts the community or freedom effort, when our biggest hurdle is adoption. Missing things people need is a barriers of entry. Missing things a workplace needs is an automatic loss.
That happens to the commercial folks too. It is just the nature of the adoption curve.
It is the same with price. A few will say that your product is already worth 10x the price. Most will say it’s too expensive. If you drop the price, a few more will see the value. Lots won’t.
More users is more users though. It is not something to get discouraged about. The advantage with Open Source is that, as long as it is useful to some, we have almost an infinite amount of time to expand it to new audiences. Baby steps pay off for Open Source.
Affinity is not affiliated with Adobe. And presumably because Affinity is higher quality than it’s open source alternatives.
It’s not just about quality, there’s a lot missing or honestly plain worse in gimp for example, compared to affinity photo. I’m as big a proponent of OSS as any, it’s just that software isn’t there yet.
What’s more, the target audience for that product are usually people who’ve had their chance encounter with programming and have decided against doing it. My anecdotal experience obviously. Edit: I mean it’s unlikely they will contribute to features
I put about 2000 hours of work into $open_source_project. After a huge release 10xing the quality, we had about 1000x as many users.
The existing user base was ecstatic- for many of them, it was all they ever wanted and more. But we had 1000x new people saying “it just isn’t there yet”
Yes, because everyone has different needs. Even blender, which has gone far and beyond most graphical software, would be a no-go for someone because of one or two specifics.
Again, I firmly believe in OSS, but I don’t see how porting more professional software hurts the community or freedom effort, when our biggest hurdle is adoption. Missing things people need is a barriers of entry. Missing things a workplace needs is an automatic loss.
That happens to the commercial folks too. It is just the nature of the adoption curve.
It is the same with price. A few will say that your product is already worth 10x the price. Most will say it’s too expensive. If you drop the price, a few more will see the value. Lots won’t.
More users is more users though. It is not something to get discouraged about. The advantage with Open Source is that, as long as it is useful to some, we have almost an infinite amount of time to expand it to new audiences. Baby steps pay off for Open Source.
if youre fine with relying on proprietary software you might as well just run it in a windows 11 ltsc iot enterprise vm
That makes absolutely no sense
i do it for Autodesk software, it works pretty well
Windows is fucking miserable and Affinity is not.