Hacker News Reader

> Can you cite a single widely used software that doesn't have a FOSS alternative which works on Linux.

Woah, really? There are plenty.

Photoshop & Lightroom debatable, but I can agree — nothing FOSS really substitutes them, unfortunately.

AutoCAD & ArchiCAD. Solidworks. Pretty much all specific 3D modelling tools like Poser (though I don't really need that last one).

Ableton, Cubase, everything from NativeInstruments, including sample libraries which sometimes are the reason why you need KONTAKT, and not some other sampler. U-he Zebra. Hundreds of various VST plugins from different developers: reverbs, phasers, limiters, etc. Often this stuff is quite trivial, but there just is some amount of domain knowledge which random opensource developer just doesn't possess. That's why free stuff available sucks or even doesn't exist.

Decent speech recognition and text to speech. Nonexistent.

OCR is quite better, but still loses to commercial alternatives like ABBYY. Understandably so.

To put it shorter: pretty much any software which isn't trivial to write or requires domain knowledge. The only decent examples of these in the FOSS world I can remember are Blender and Krita.

> Decent speech recognition and text to speech. Nonexistent.

Nuance Dragon SDK runs on Linux, it's not FOSS but it runs there. Just no GUI / Command Line App.

> OCR is quite better, but still loses to commercial alternatives like ABBYY. Understandably so.

Nuance and ABBYY SDKs running on Linux. Quite well. Just no GUI / Command Line App.

Oh and you don't need to use FOSS only just because you are using a FOSS OSS.

And yes Audio / Video is pretty weak on Linux, thats true. However for most other things there are good enough tools. Especially LibreOffice is really really great. It's better for Users migrating from Office 2003 than to migrate to 07/10/13/16. However there are weaknesses, too, like the Dictonary.

Also some bigger Office's Macro's aren't easy replaceable. However Linux is good enough for the most.

Question was about FOSS. Answer is about FOSS. Thus, what you are saying might be useful for somebody, but totally irrelevant to my comment.

> Ableton, Cubase, everything from NativeInstruments, including sample libraries which sometimes are the reason why you need KONTAKT, and not some other sampler. U-he Zebra. Hundreds of various VST plugins from different developers: reverbs, phasers, limiters, etc. Often this stuff is quite trivial, but there just is some amount of domain knowledge which random opensource developer just doesn't possess. That's why free stuff available sucks or even doesn't exist.

Ardour is the basis for Harrison consoles which are fairly well respected. I would also comment that open source audio plugins tend to look much worse than they actually sound. Totally vanilla UI for an audio plugin doesn't inspire much confidence in the audio quality (watch Century of the Self for more on that). I'd personally like to see a real contender for open source clone of Propellerhead Reason. Cubase is far less programming work than Reason IMHO.

Sample libraries aren't "source code" and in that sense they cannot be truly "open sourced". Creative content such as this is more on the Creative Commons side of matters -- for better or worse.

> much worse than they actually sound

UI is usually bad indeed, but I wouldn't really care that much if the actual effects would be done alright. They are not.

> I'd personally like to see a real contender for open source clone of Propellerhead Reason

Well, doesn't really matter: the point still is there's no decent FOSS DAW. Ardour is not terrible, but… just no. And there still is no real use for DAW without any instruments or effects anyway.

But, as a side note, I've never heard of a musician writing some more or less sophisticated music (that is not Prodigy) with Reason. I've used it for a while, and it's pretty nice, all this "hardware interface" concept is really cool, but it's very limited and very limiting. It's like, well, using Mac or Windows vs using Linux — what I can do is strictly defined by the developer, no much freedom out there. Cubase is complicated and glitchy as hell, but with it I really can do pretty much whatever I want. Simpler (and much cheaper) alternative to Cubase I would say might be Reaper, but not Reason.

> Sample libraries aren't "source code"

No, that's not the problem. Sample libraries for KONTAKT are sample libraries for KONTAKT. It is not a bunch of .wav files, it's a proprietary format, which wouldn't work with some other sampler out of the box — unless you specifically make it to, which (I guess) might be not trivial, as it's made specifically to avoid competition. So even if you buy sample libraries for that, or download it from torrents or whatever — it's not about library licensing, it's about being unable to use it with anything but KONTAKT.

IIRC Blender went open source due to an generous gesture by its proprietary owner and a crowdfunding effort that was years ahead of Kickstarter.

Oh. That really explains a lot and reinforces the point. But still it's very successful open source project.

> Can you cite a single widely used software that doesn't have a FOSS alternative which works on Linux.

Yes. Photoshop and Lightroom.

And before you all jump in and slather me with suggestions of Darktable, Shotwell, GIMP, ASP, RAWtherapee et al please know that NONE of these are a true substitute for Lightroom and Photoshop.

Individually you can put together a decent work flow with Linux programmes but it's slow. Particularly for wedding photography as there's just nothing that can offer the same level of speed AND quality that you get from Adobe's programmes. Running them on WINE is hit and miss and very slow for me, and the newest CC versions don't seem to be supported as far as I could see.

I ran Linux Mint for the last year and switched to Windows 10 a few days ago. I absolutely love Linux Mint and would switch back to it immediately (especially as Windows seem a lot more long-winded in terms of 'developer' stuff so far) if I didn't need Lightroom and Photoshop but I just couldn't get a fast enough workflow together.

I'm a massive Linux fan, and I'd literally jump back to it this evening if someone can show me in the comments below a workflow that can match what Lightroom/Photoshop offer. But the reality is there are certain types of requirement that Linux just can't provide yet and, tough as it is to swallow, that's the truth of it.

> Yes. Photoshop and Lightroom.

Have you tried PlayOnLinux (a very, very good and very easy to use WINE wrapper).[1]

It supports CS6 (including PhotoShop) and Creative Cloud installs on Linux.[2]

[1] https://www.playonlinux.com/en/

[2] https://www.playonlinux.com/en/app-2316-Adobe_Photoshop_CS6....

Unfortunately I only have Intel graphics at the moment, so I can't use that. I will look into a cheap card if it does work though, I really would rather use Linux if I can.

> Individually you can put together a decent work flow with Linux programmes but it's slow

So... you're saying that there are substitutes, but that they aren't as fast, you don't want to use them and that (getting back to the discussion) you don't view the privacy concerns with commercial OSes as sufficient incentive.

If so, why not just say that and avoid all the pointless flamage.

There are substitutes, but they are of such poor quality and such user unfriendliness that they're inaccessible to all but the most technically inclined, patient and sympathetic users.

That's sort of the story of desktop Linux, to be honest.

And Ubuntu was keytracking in searches, collects data on its users usage, and does centralized update authority as well. It's marginally better for a substantially inferior experience with much worse hardware support. Especially if you're on a modern laptop.

Again, I fail to understand why we're off on this "linux sucks" tangent in a discussion about privacy. You too sound like you're just making a value judgement (though you use some more colorful language) that software quality trumps privacy. Well... fine. Just say that and be done.

People aren't going to "say that" just because you demand it. So you're saying that, yes, using a text editor to edit JPEG files is a pain, error-prone, and horribly time consuming, but privacy. Fine, just say that and quit cajoling people into falling into your argumentative traps.

It looks like you literally read his first three sentences, thought of a retort, and stopped reading any further so you could start typing.

If you'd kept going, speed was only his (comparatively minor) opening bullet-point. Most of his comment discussed quality issues.

Someone said "I switched to linux, it's great", someone else said "I'd like to, but it's missing some key features/workflows/whatever that I need". I really fail to see how that's "flamage". It's a Windows thread, after all, he/she didn't bring Linux into it.

Perhaps privacy isn't their exclusive value. I think that's also a perfectly valid argument in this discussion.

Nope, I actually said those (predominantly) Linux programmes are not substitutes - it's right there in the comment.

I'm not hating on Linux, I have just used it totally as my daily driver for the last year, I prefer it and would go back to it as I said but I actually need the speed and quality that Lightroom and Photoshop afford.

They cannot currently be replicated by FOSS alternatives unfortunately.

Partly I think the UNIX philosophy gets in the way slightly, as Lightroom offers both catalogue, RAW development, printing, book creating and galleries in one place. This is important as when you manage multi terrabyte catalogues and hundreds of thousands of photos, having a single tool to keep track of everything is a real speed boost.

There are some pretty awesome options in Darktable and RawTherapee but it takes longer to get to the same place as Lightroom and neither tool offered the same ease of noise control.

GIMP on the other hand isn't Photoshop, doesn't aspire to be and is no substitute for the full power Photoshop gives you. It's just got non-destructive layers in the latest release hasn't it? Maybe it'll start to be a bit more of a contender if that's in place now.

I wish Adobe would just bite the bullet and release on Linux, there are tens of thousands of votes/comments for it on the various forum and feedback sites calling for it stretching back probably 10 years.

>Yes. Photoshop and Lightroom.

I'm always surprised how Photoshop is the first thing that comes up when naming software not available for Linux.

Truth is, unless you're in the business, regular people don't need more than what Gimp offers. Never speak of CAD software etc...

They make terrible examples as to why not use Linux. Additionally, as a Linux user I can't think of working with Windows because all the things that it lacks: freedom, software quality (no one sane would trust software from an appstore as you can trust a distro repository), the shell, the efficient use of memory/cpu, the simple software that does the job, all the tools at hand for anything, the fact that 99% of the times the solution to your issues is in stack overflow already, the fact that you're not a customer, but a user. Linux has KDE/Gnome for those that prefer shiny heavy desktop, xfce/lxde for those that like it simple. So many things that Windows just can't offer because it tries to monetize you, regardless of it's countless teams of well paid devs. So I personally can't switch to Windows because it lacks basic functionality that I'd expect from an OS.

Used gimp since v0.54 back in the 90's. It's sure come a long way since then. I've been using v2.9.x on Linux and lately trying it on Windows 10. Not so good on Windows, but the Linux version seems pretty solid.

IOW for most users, including me, gimp 2.9 will be good enough for most anything we're likely to throw at it. And BTW I think xfce works well, reasonably complete (except for controlling Wacom drawing tablets). To me KDE/Gnome, might as well be using Windows...

One reason I do most of my programming from Windows is because I find Linux programming tools to be either very bare-bones, UI/UX-wise or some kind of ill-fitting cross-platform Java thing. I'm talking about run of the mill stuff like a Git UI, Diff Viewer, Text editors, Icon editors and other specialty image and file editors...and also bigger apps that people usually name.

Maybe you prefer a terminal and maybe your terminal can do what my GUI tools can do or maybe they can't or vice-versa. There's going to be a lot of bias when you work and give your life to these things. To me, Linux is a really nice server or device that I use to run stuff but that's all it will ever be until it has a plethora of high quality GUI apps that I want to use.

What apps do you use? I'm just switching over from Linux to Windows and I've been a bit 'lost' without the terminal. I'd love to hear what you're using whatever it is, doesn't matter if it's not specifically for what I'm doing, it would just be great to get a bit of knowledge of what's available for Windows.

Depends on what I'm doing. TortoiseGit is my preferred Git UI. Notepad++ (used with "Notepad replacer") is my quick text-file editor, but mostly I use the free Visual Studio 2015 edition for working on whole projects. When I'm doing Node.js projects I use Microsoft's Node.js Tools extension which has really nice autocomplete and debugging features. Also the WebEssentials extension includes editors for all sorts of web-related file types that I need to edit like LESS/SCSS/Coffescript/etc. Beyond Compare is my diff/patch utility as I mentioned somewhere else. It's totally worth the very low price-tag. Some other stuff I use: Greenshot, Postman, ScreenToGif, IcoFx (free version), Paint.NET, Pencil, yed, mIRC, VirtualBox for my *nix VMs, Putty, WinSCP, 7+ Taskbar tweaker, KeePass. I have also run PostgreSQL, Redis and MongoDB directly on Windows in the past. If I'm using Linux to run code that I'm editing, I can edit it right in the terminal or use the WinSCP feature of keeping a directory in sync so that I can edit everything on Windows but have it stored directly in the Linux VM when I hit the save button.

There are some pain points and growing pains. It could take a while to put together the kit that works for whatever you're doing. One thing that really annoyed me about VS was that it was adding UTF-8 BOM and CR/LF to every file. I had to install and configure extensions like "line endings unifier" and "fix file encoding" to change it. But I always just stop what I'm doing and lookup how to change VS or Windows if it does stuff that I don't want and I usually find an acceptable solution.

Thanks, I'll take a look at what you've mentioned. Much appreciated.

> IMHO, the GNOME and Unity desktops are mature enough to handle 90% of users' needs, the only exception is gaming but that gap is also rapidly getting filled.

This is not really true. For example, high-dpi is still a complete crapshoot, font rendering is often bad bordering on terrible. Unity itself is a usability disaster that hides some of an applications most important elements (menu bar) most of the time. Network manager (Ubuntu) breaks frequently. I could go on...

> hides some of an applications most important elements (menu bar)

I don't know Unity; are you referring to it using a global menu bar, as OSX does? Because the latter is a wonderful idea as far as I'm concerned - it save screen real estate, reduces unnecessary distractions, and has no negative effect on functionality.

By default in Ubuntu (and I know of no way to change this) the global menu bar in Unity is just an empty gray slate until you hover over it and "File", "Edit", "View", etc. appear. This means you have no idea where your mouse should be going until you've reached the top of the screen and have to move left/right until you get to the desired menu.

Oh, fair point - that sounds ridiculous! Is there any advantage to that as opposed to the OSX method (which is to just always show a global menu bar, that acts pretty much like any standard GUI menu, populated with items pertinent to the active application)?

> Oh, fair point - that sounds ridiculous!

Don't say that thing until you try something for yourself! In the latest versions of unity, the global menu is integrated with the title-bar of the window itself. It means, you move the mouse pointer to the title area (which the user naturally does to invoke a menu anyways) and the menu appears there. Moreover, once you get into the habit of doing this, it comes naturally, so the above point that it is non-intuitive to user is just ridiculous. And speaking of:

> Is there any advantage to that as opposed to the OSX method

The advantage is that unity makes a more sensible use of your screen-real estate. Firstly, by combining both title bar and menu bar into one, you have just one bar on the screen when the window is maximized (which is how about 95% of users use it about 99% of time).

Secondly, since menu bar is hidden by default, the only thing you focus on is the window or app content, and the title which also relates to the content. I personally find this kind of workflow much better to work.

Interesting, because I find dealing with high DPI significantly better on Ubuntu than Windows.

And Unity works well for me, my wife, and daughter.

I switched my parents to Ubuntu about 5 years ago. They didn't even blink, and for me maintenance is easier since I can even upgrade the OS over ssh. Zero problems so far.

I tried using a fully Open Source desktop from 1998 to 2007. I finally gave up, because things were "better" but still far worse than windows. It's only gotten worse since then. One of the biggest examples I can see right now is the support compiler chains give in terms of the development process. Visual Studio makes simple what open tools like emacs make near impossible. Remote debugging on windows is a matter of downloading and running the remote debug server, and connecting to it with the local copy of windows. Visual Studio will install any requisite dependencies, transfer app over, and run it all with just pushing debug remotely. For the things I'm working on, where I need access to various hardware devices, such availability is a godsend, and as far as I can tell, any Linux based development environments make such difficult if not impossible to replicate. Other things I notice are Free Software checkers for things like MISRA-C compliance, which puts C programs through much more rigorous checks for safe usage and avoiding poor design decisions. Being open source shouldn't be an excuse for the software to have a fraction of the features other environments have.

Remote debugging is actually quite simple when using QtCreator, gdb and gdbserver. MISRA-C is not just "more rigurous" checking, it significantly restricts the way C is written. It is also a commercial standard that must be bought by implementers.

IMO Windows is a primitive development platform out of the box, one needs to install many tools, a lot of them commercial to replicate what's available on Linux. I've done my share of development on both and strongly prefer investing more effort and time into open source tools instead of some proprietary solution that I have to pay for and which I am not guaranteed to be able to use in future projects.

There is nothing even remotely "primitive" about Windows as a development platform. You let the air out of your own argument when you say things like that.

> Windows is a primitive development platform out of the box

I think it'd be hard to argue that a fresh, clean install of windows isn't an absolutely primitive development platform.

Not that I think it's too relevant of an argument in this discussion, as no developer runs an "out of the box" install as a dev platform, but countering arguments that were never made doesn't seem too productive.

I can't find any diff viewer or git client that integrates directly into any file browser in Linux, like I get with the (FOSS) TortoiseGit and the ~$50 Beyond Compare diff tool i use which I've been using on many projects for years...

I can't even find a diff/patch tool on any platform as good as BC. It has all sorts of heuristics and plugins for different file types and a ton of really advanced features that are easily accessible from it's UI. And those are just 2 of my most basic tools that I use heavily (and I use the keyboard to do everything).

Moving onto text editors, I think the choices on Linux are basically like having to choose between learning Klingon or Vulcan. It's exhausting just thinking about it.

> Consider that the OS that powers all kinds of devices from satellites to embedded devices is Linux, an open-source project where payment isn't a top-priority for developers, but merit is!

I get that and I don't want to denigrate contributors. I've contributed to FOSS of one stripe or another over the years myself.

However I'd probably do a much better job at it if I was paid a decent salary and allowed to work on it full time. And the software would be better for it if I had a team of similar developers, user experience and design people, etc.

Being all things to all people is a great way to be nothing particularly amazing at one thing... something a desktop experience needs.

> All endeavors are like that, not just software projects. More the user participation, better the product focus and development.

It's tough! I think that's the primary reason for porting games to Linux. It'd be great if there was more to the gaming world than Windows. However for small studios there's no incentive to develop for Linux: there's just not a market big enough to sustain a business.

How do you break out of that? I dunno. A black swan maybe.

> Can you cite a single widely used software that doesn't have a FOSS alternative which works on Linux.

Wacom drivers. There aren't any shipped by Wacom for Linux. The open source ones are a stop-gap and better than nothing but aren't as good. Ergo Gimp is a marvelous piece of software but not comparable to Photoshop for professional uses.

I'd add that any alternative that wants to gain traction must provide some benefit over its contemporaries. Software freedom just doesn't cut it for more pedestrian uses of computers.

I can think of several applications provided by the Omni group which have no real analog in FOSS that I'm aware of.

I enjoy toying with linux mint occasionally and have for years, but I think for average user, Linux needs to get as much printer support as humanly possible. I used to say Tax Software was a deal breaker but I guess you CAN get that in the browser now I suppose.

I just suspect if I load Linux to revive say my aunt's old laptop, it'll probably struggle with wifi, have printer issues and she'll be annoyed if she bought taxcut at the store and gets home realizing she can't use it.

a big plus is I think netflix runs natively in the chrome browser now, or pretty soon. Netflix was a hassle for years that made it so I knew I couldn't just recommend Linux to the common man.

Consider that the OS that powers all kinds of devices from satellites to embedded devices is Linux, an open-source project where payment isn't a top-priority for developers, but merit is!

Of course, something that satellites and most embedded devices have in common is minimal need for user interaction. It would be perfectly unsurprising if the world's best embedded OS turned out to be the world's worst desktop OS.

>Linux, an open-source project where payment isn't a top-priority for developers, but merit is!

That makes nice PR to bad it isn't all that true. According to the linux foundation more than 80% of kernel development is done by people being paid for their work.

Getting paid to do something doesn't necessarily mean the payment is the top priority. They might just have been lucky enough to get companies to pay them to do what they would be doing anyway. The question is: could they get a better/higher-paying job working on something else?