Hacker News Reader

Comment by RubyRidgeRandy | Hacker News Reader

I've never looked at Krita because it's always been referenced to me as a painting application primarily and not an image editing / photo manipulation tool. I understand there may be some cross over in functionality, but aren't they essentially built for different purposes?

View on HN

I don't know; a lot of people say something like that but they never seem to give a concrete example of what the different things they need are. Krita has always been able to do all the photo editing I ever wanted to.

Looking into it, Krita does seem very capable. I don't think we should really be mad at healthy competition existing in these spaces though, they should lead to better tools for end users.

Only if better tools are actually getting into users' hands though. I don't know what exactly has gone wrong, but somehow it's the Gimp that keeps getting recommended to those end users.

It's installed by default in some linux repos. Getting that changed would go a long way.

Thanks for the information I will check it out

yes, I try to find some opensource software to treat my png file. Google lead me to GIMP, it is not bad so I keep using.

Yeah, I think this is a good point. GIMP has been a default app on so many distros for so many years (to say nothing of existing on virtually every copy pasta “best FOSS/Linux/Free apps list” that lazy SEO bloggers (and now YouTubers) have been making for decades), it’s become just one of those defacto apps that gets all the attention/is the go-to suggestion, even though it isn’t the best option for a lot of people.

And that would be fine if there was a robust community around the project, but there isn’t? Like, I’m not blaming the few maintainers and I’m not blaming the dwindling third party community at all. But I am going to be critical of the distros that continue to install it by default (Ubuntu dropped it as a default many years back IIRC, but Debian and Fedora still include it) and the people that just parrot it as what new users should use, even tho the most fervent defenders admit it is not at all competitive with what you need in an image editing tool in 2022.

Edit: turns out Ubuntu dropped GIMP as a default app in 2009 and someone that seems like yesterday. Changed that sentence accordingly.

We should drop this "healthy competition" myth.

Some of this software has been around as long as I've been alive.

I love Open Source but we should just accept that some of it will always be mediocre at best. And as the other commenter mentioned, there are also negative consequences to something being around (mind share, presence in distributions and online docs, etc).

Nobody has time to wait 4 decades for software to be good.

This makes successful Open Source software like Blender or Firefox or Linux all the more impressive.

> some of it will always be mediocre at best

Noone claims that all open source is great.

I wanted to be nice. Gimp is mediocre at best.

Which is a shame for the huge volume of work put into it. Across 27 (!) years.

This is one of the big problems with so much open-source/Free software: there's a lot of fragmentation, and competition between projects reduces mindshare and developer resources (which were already scarce). So as a result, these projects never become all that popular.

There's a few counter-examples of truly exemplary FOSS software that achieved a dominant position and managed to avoid too much fragmentation so that they became largely adopted: the Linux kernel, PostgreSQL, X.org, etc. But for many others, too many wars have really caused the whole Linux-on-the-desktop dream to not be achieved to the level people hoped. GIMP is one of them, but the Gnome/KDE debacle is probably the biggest.

You say that as if people would be working on the same project otherwise. Guaranteed if they aren't able to work on their competing project in the name of "solidarity", they probably wouldn't work on the other project instead. There are too many social and cultural barriers to being able to enact change in existing projects, which is why competing projects exist. People have different priorities, values, preferences, etc. You're never going to be able to unify all of that to the satisfaction of everybody involved and it would just lead to way too much strife and politics. Way less would get done.

I hate Gnome, but I know people like it. I'm happy that both KDE and Gnome exist, because it also means the people who made the decisions about Gnome's direction won't be making those same decisions about KDE.

There were no social or cultural barriers when the KDE/Gnome war started. It was entirely over a licensing issue. Other than that, the two projects were largely very similar, except that Gnome insisted on using C instead of C++ (and then replicating all of C++'s features in C). It wasn't until later that the two really diverged, with KDE having the "make it as configurable as possible" philosophy and Gnome having the "we're UI experts and know what's best for you little users" philosophy, borrowed from Apple but without the well-funded team of real UI researchers.

Anyway, even with the different philosophy towards users, that could have been done in a single project (i.e., Gnome3 can be a KDE skin), or two closely-related projects (i.e., Gnome3 is a fork of Plasma but otherwise shares the same libraries), reducing a lot of duplicated effort. Instead, we now have 6 or more different desktop environments for Linux and potential new users look at the mess and ask, "WTF?". Or they try one and hate it, and when they ask how to switch to a different one to try it out, the answer is "reformat your hard drive and install this other distro that actually cares about that DE", or "follow this list of command-line instructions and hope it doesn't break because your distro doesn't care about supporting that DE".

It's somewhat ironic that you've included X.org in that list given (a) its history, and (b) how much time and effort has been spent in recent years on creating something to replace it.

You're right that fragmentation can be an issue - but it's often a people problem, not a technical problem: if I have strong feelings on how a particular piece of software should work, and it's made clear that the project leads disagree and any patch to implement such will be rejected, I'm not likely to invest hobby / recreational development time in any other aspect of that project. (That's not meant as a criticism of the hypothetical project leads - merely an observation that when people work on project for the enjoyment of it, rather than for a living, the bar is raised massively in terms of how much a developer needs to "believe" in the project and the direction it's taking.)

>It's somewhat ironic that you've included X.org in that list given (a) its history, and (b) how much time and effort has been spent in recent years on creating something to replace it.

There's nothing "ironic" about it at all. For many, many years, X.org was the only real display server that anyone used, after they all abandoned XFree86 for good reason. Wayland didn't come about until later, and even then, *it was made by the same people*. It was never a competing project.

>if I have strong feelings on how a particular piece of software should work, and it's made clear that the project leads disagree and any patch to implement such will be rejected

This is understandable, but frequently not the case. The KDE/Gnome fiasco, for instance, all started because of an argument about a license.

>merely an observation that when people work on project for the enjoyment of it, rather than for a living

Here again, it's frequently not the case. In the KDE/Gnome fiasco, many of the devs there were employed full-time by companies like RedHat to work on it. So it was really political.

Blender started getting good only a few years ago, before that it was a big UI mess.

If I'm reading their release history right, the big UI rewrite was in 2.57, back in 2011.

That's not "a few years ago". It's "a baby is born, starts walking and talking, goes to kindergarten, primary school and is in secondary school now".

I think it was version 2.8 where it started to become a real alternative to paid programs.

Indeed I always though Krita was an Inkscape alternative, guess I need to try it again (tried it more than 10 years ago or so).

Krita was initially release as a painting program rather than a photo editing program and that was where most of the initial 'advertising' was focused. Also looking at their home page the first thing you see is a screen shot of a digital painting and the words

"Krita is the full-featured digital art studio.

It is perfect for sketching and painting, and presents an end–to–end solution for creating digital painting files from scratch by masters."

So it is not at all clear to most people that it is a tool that can also be used for photo editing.

I think people just feel that the software is not for them. Krita always markets itself as a painting tool for artists, never mentioning image editing. For example, take the first paragraph that you can come across their website:

"Krita is a professional FREE and open source painting program. It is made by artists that want to see affordable art tools for everyone.

- concept art

- texture and matte painters

- illustrations and comics"

I'm not in the business of either, so why would I get the idea of installing it?

We have eight sponsored developers and about six million users. I don't think we're gonna asphyxiate any time soon :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com