• @mriormro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    -4
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Oh no! Not a means for a sole developer of a robust, web-based photo editor to make some sort of a living.

    The fucking travesty of it all.

    Listen, it sucks that it’s not open source and that it is now ad-sponsored but the fact remains that there are shockingly poor FOSS alternatives to creative tools (blender is probably one of the few exceptions) and gimp is firmly in that ‘shockingly poor’ category.

    It’s okay to be critical of an open source project and use something that may be proprietary. The world isn’t going to blow up because of it.

    • @ulterno
      link
      English
      78 months ago

      poor FOSS alternatives

      So you’d rather have ADs in place of a Layers panel?


      For those who can't read between the lines

      The fact that it has ADs, is also considered as one of the factors deciding its quality.
      And so is the fact that it can’t be run when the internet connectivity is slow/non-existent.
      Not considering those features as factors while judging the application just gives incentive to everyone else (including the prepaid ones) to include ADs in their UX.

      If this is how we promote them, soon, you’ll be seeing ADs (on top of the Subscription fees) in Adobe software.
      - Hard to believe? Look at Windows.