this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2026
434 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
83963 readers
4414 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Have you tried Gimp and Inkscape?
Or Krita
Is krita closer to gimp or inkscape? How does it compare/contrast to that one?
Gimp and Inkscape are excellent programs, I LOVE them. But, they are not Adobe replacements.
Please explain to non-artist techies like me why? I keep hearing that refrain but no one can ever explain to me what these FOSS alternatives are actually missing that keeps people from switching.
Based on my experience with Office -> LibreOffice I have to assume it's some combination of laziness about learning something new, "the interface looks old" nonsense, and being unwilling to work through bugs/quirks (even though Office has plenty of its own bugs/quirks - they're just different from LibreOffice's and again, people don't want to learn something new).
Am I wrong? Am I missing something? Specifically, what makes Photoshop not just better than GIMP, but SOOO MUCH BETTER that people are willing to give their money to bourgeois a-holes for the privilege of running software that they will never truly own, that spies on them, that injects unwanted AI into everything, etc.
Why is that? Is it just the user interface? Performance? Or are they missing features that you need?
Inkscape and Gimp developers, although busy, have still implemenyed some of my feature requests. That's less likely with Adobe. If there is something you need in the open source ones, it's likely already on their list to do. If not, request it.
Well, as I stated in a sibling comment, Gimp did replace Photoshop for me. I’m a semi pro user for two decades. My only issue is with its UX, but PhotoGIMP helps a great deal here.
Yes.
How do they compare, in your experience?
They are better than they were. But they are still at least 10 years from being able to match Adobe software - partially because we need to wait for Adobe patents to run out, so that other software can replicate an intuitive software experience.
Ugh, nothing "intuitive" should ever be patentable. Can you imagine if "horizontally-ruled paper" was patented? Or "handles on cooking pans," "shirts with two sleeves," or anything of that sort?
Like, why should anyone have to avoid an obvious feature just because someone else did it first? It's insane.
Also, FOSS projects and non-profits should be exempted from patent restrictions.
I think my CS6 - the last non subscription Adobe Suite from 2012 - is still more intuitive and better to use than the newest GIMP version
Can you elaborate on this? The first time I hear there are patents regarding some intuitive interface. What is that?
Even if so, why not replicate the best of all similar apps, Affinity and Pixelmator too.
Not interface. Experience.
Do a quick web search and you'll learn all about Adobe patents on features.
What do you mean? I have no idea what to search for. I’d appreciate some links, or some unfolded explanation. Can you patent features? Sounds a bit absurd.
Can I patent booting the OS from a USB drive? That’s a feature, isn’t it?
All I could find is some statistical overviews without much detail, and a more list of recent patents which are all related to AI.
Is there a specific feature that you wish was in the others? I don't really understand the difference between UX and UI
Well, I do understand the difference between the UI and UX, but I have no idea what they are implying. I asked that question precisely because I have no idea what to search for.
The difference between UI and UX is simple. The UI is just the interface: it’s how the app, service, anything, interacts with its user. The experience is … well, the experience of it. E.g. Gimp is awful at UI, but the UX is not that bad, because if you’d get some basic ideas, it’s quite useful, even despite its ugly UI. Sometimes it’s not that easy to distinguish one from another, that’s why the two are usually combined. Interface can be pretty, and most people would call it good, but the experience of using it could be just terrible. Also, experience is what transfers from your experience, so, for a graphics editor, it’s expected that it would follow some de-facto conventions, even if they’re pretty stupid. Once you’d delve into it, it gets difficult to separate, but if we’d simplify, I’d call a UI is just how it looks, and the UX is how it works. At least that’s how I see it. If there’s someone who can explain these better, I’d appreciate to be corrected.