Hacker News Reader

Comment by vunderba | Hacker News Reader

If I'm evaluating a potential application whose core functionality does not require external resources/servers (Dropbox for example) and they don't at a minimum offer some kind of perpetual fallback license (aka the Jetbrains annual subscription model), then I straight up bounce.

Examples of good alternatives

- Pixelmator > Photoshop

- Davinci Resolve > Premiere

- Reaper > Audition

I have no interest in renting my tools.

View on HN

You actually can still buy Office. It's quite expensive though.

I suppose it always was.

https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/p/?LinkID=2113574&CLCID=0x10...

That's honestly less than I would have expected. I still have an old copy of Microsoft Office 95 though I no longer have the hardware with which to run it. Ditto a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS6 which I believe was the final version before they went full on subscription.

i reckon these software ought to run fine in a VM, perhaps running something like windows xp. Unfortunately, with photoshop, the hardware drivers for the various drawing tablets will probably not function (or remain available).

Also work on a brand new Linux with wine.

Actually come to that, my wife has Windows 10 and runs Photoshop CS2 occasionally.

I tested PS7 on ARM64 Windows and it ran fine even. A little blurry on the high DPI display though.

Here's what Microsoft won't tell you: If you buy standalone office and it is not allowed to phone home to Microsoft at least once a month, it stops working. This can happen if you use it on a disconnected computer or you just have a reverse firewall rule blocking microsoft domains.

I’m not sure that’s true. Last Office I bought was “Home Edition 2016” and it’s been running on a machine that doesn’t have internet access since 2017 without any issues.

2016 is almost a decade in the past. The phoning home thing hasn't really taken off at the time.

Microsoft doesn’t release an Office version every year. They technically released 2019, 2021 and 2024, but they have all been “Office 16” versions. As far as I could tell they are more or less “service packs” + random improvements/small features on to of the 2016 base. I was planning to upgrade last year but life got in the way and I only use that machine in the deep winter. Do you know what release they introduced that in?

If I block it from accessing Microsoft domains in Little Snitch, it goes into readonly mode after about a month. Opening a hole in the firewall lets it start working again. Previous versions from several years earlier didn't do that.

Fuck 'em — pirate that shit with a clean conscience https://massgrave.dev/office_for_mac#office-activation

I hear https://ms.codes/ sells office and stuff.

I recently helped my sister upgrade from an extremely old MBP that couldn't upgrade past 10.13 to a pre-retina MBA that couldn't upgrade past macOS 12. Her ancient version of Office from the MBP wouldn't run on the MBA.

I was unable to figure out how to download/purchase a version of Office from MSFT that would run under macOS 12[1]. But in my searching, I ended up here:

https://github.com/alsyundawy/Microsoft-Office-For-MacOS

So she's now running a volume-licensed version of Office 2019. MSFT seems to tolerate not necessarily legitimate volume licensing I guess as these have been floating around the internet forever.

[1] e.g. https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/msoffice/forum/all/what-...

My go-to strategy still seems to hold up: https://www.g2a.com/search?query=microsoft%20office

> I suppose it always was.

I have a very vague memory that is was $200 in the 2000s, so if accurate the price has gone down.

I would also like to throw in Lightworks into the “very good Premiere alternatives”. If you are ok with exporting 720p, the free version is pretty capable but if you want higher export resolution it cost money.

It has a subscription option, but also a “buy outright” option, and it’s often on sale for half price for the permanent license, ends up costing around ~$200 and it works on Windows, Mac, and Linux.

I think it’s very good, though I am not a professional video editor by trade.

I upvote any option that has a “buy outright” baked in.

You are easy to satisfy.

Once upon a time, we complained about undependable applications that, although installed on a computer, dared to "phone home".

Before that, we complained about undependable applications that, while not fucking around with remote servers, employed invasive and annoying anti-piracy measures.

I don’t love that Lightworks phones home, but FWIW, Lightworks’ support has been very good when I have contacted. They were very helpful when I needed to migrate a license when I had to swap to another computer.

This might not seem like much but that has been something I have struggled with other companies over.

I haven't personally used it much, except for a very simple cut but I have heard very good things about KDENLive too.

I've used KDENLive and it's about as comparable to Resolve or Lightworks as Windows Movie Maker is to Premiere.

I think you need to distinguish between classes of users, e.g. home consumers needing some basic editing features vs. a hollywood studio, and the spectrum in between.

I use KDENLive a lot and I find it to be an excellent product. Not perfect, but well thought out and powerful. Documentation I give a C grade too. It's awesome that some exists, but it tends to be outdated and frequently omits details about the specific thing needed. On Linux I do recommend using the App Image or Flatpak though as I have run into dependency issues (mainly codecs) when using system packages such as Fedora's.

For a typical user/consumer who just needs a video editor that can do more than just trivial cuts, I think it's an excellent option and it's the one I use and recommend to others. Unless you're looking to do advanced or highly complex products, it can do it all and in a fairly intuitive way. There are also youtube videos and such that demonstrate nearly everything you might need to do so there are plenty of available resources.

I dunno, all the home users I know use Resolve. It's pretty easy to learn Resolve, with their tutorials you can go from "never edited a video" to "able to edit a simple short film" in about a day.

I really enjoy the affinity suite.

Yeah, likewise, just wish they did Linux

Same.. it'd totally be a take my money moment... same for Topaz Labs' software. Though I accept that I'm a minority user and it probably isn't worth the efforts for them... similar to codec support issues for Davinci Resolve's free version on linux.

Do you have any good alternatives to Photoshop that are open source? And that are not GIMP.

Nothing against GIMP, I just found it too hard to learn coming from photoshop.

I'm looking for a simple editor that can do color adjustments, crop/resize images, and add text.

There’s Krita…

https://krita.org/en/

Krita is so good, and so easy to use! I rarely use gimp now

> I'm looking for a simple editor that can do color adjustments, crop/resize images, and add text.

Those are all pretty simple in GIMP though? I'm not doubting that they are different from Photoshop but how long could it take to learn the GIMP way?

I'd like to know more about color adjustments. I know GIMP can do them in some form, but I have no idea what the options are or what kind of results I should hope to be able to achieve. Documentation doesn't really seem to address these questions, though it is available if your question is "how do I run this menu item I found?" (Answer: open the menu, and click on the menu item.)

Cropping and resizing are trivial. It would take less than one minute to learn how.

There's a Colors menu in Gimp 3. But it's destructive and only for the selected layer, not the special layer type you get in Photoshop.

You can use the gmic plugin alongside with Gimp, and adjust the CMYK values. I use that all the time. Color adjustments like yellow -> orange, or green -> purple, might exceed your expectations. Photoshop is excellent at it as well, i have never used Photoshop to compare though.

For more professional work Clut (Color Look Up Table) is supported by gmic as well.

I also made my own open source tool to pass gmic filters to whole videos, see an example here [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8of-R-5zcs

The biggest issue I had migrating as a Photoshop user since 1996 was the key bindings. But using the config files people shared online sorted that.

I'm not going to link to a specific one implying I'm recommending it, but a web search will show multiple.

One important gimp note is if you don't have 3.0+ already, get it. It finally has non-destructive editing, which is the main reason I had to keep using ps for for a long time.

> The biggest issue I had migrating as a Photoshop user since 1996 was the key bindings

RIP GIMPshop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop

PhotoGIMP is the current thing like that I think?

Neat: https://github.com/Diolinux/PhotoGIMP

It's easy to change keybindings on Gimp, most of mines are ones i used in photoshop 4-CS2.

>It finally has non-destructive editing

not for the fonts unfortunately, if you resize a text with the scale tool, it gets rasterized

GIMP takes some time getting used to, but it's reliable, it will stick around and having used it for the past 20 years, I have issues switching to something else.

I use Paint.net for simple tasks like those you listed. I paid $10 for it in the Microsoft store but I think you can get it for free from the website.

Paint.net isn't free software, it's proprietary freeware. It used to be free a long time ago, but the author is a tool and made it closed source because people were creating other versions of it.

Pinta is a free reimplenetation: https://www.pinta-project.com

For simple things, I use mtPaint on Linux and PhotoFiltre on Windows. They are easy to figure out and very stable.

Paint.Net on Windows. Though on Windows there is Paint, that is less capable, but still no equivalent is on MacOS OOTB. (Also the drama around Paint is worth its own bashing).

I'd be interested in a similar basic tool as paint for mac and Linux (and possibly also for windows, if MS crappifies Paint, after it has tried to kill it earlier)

Pinta (essentially a reimplementation of Paint.NET) exists for MacOS as well as Linux and Windows: https://www.pinta-project.com/releases/

There are some subtle quirks where pinta just doesn’t play ball in a way that is intuitive to a PDN aficionado.

Photopea is very close but i keep coming back to PDN either VM or RDP

I want to like Pinta, but some of the load/save behaviors are just weird... not sure if I last tried the Flatpak version or not, but I've tried it on both Mac and Linux a few times... It's my go to for quick edits, but far from a fav.

I tried Pinta, and honestly it has so many subtle differences from PDN, it was really uncomfortable and unproductive for me. I could not get to like it, but will give it some more time.

Also the icons are terrible (at least on the mac), I find it really hard to identify a tool, these monochrome icons set me off and slowed me down since Visual Studio 2012. This fad is a really good example for design trends ruining productivity.

I use Photopea which tries to mimic Photoshop UI and runs entirely on your browser. In fact, you can even install it as a Web App to run it offline. Pretty intuitive UI.

https://www.photopea.com/

Yeah, but Photopea has a monthly cost and this post is about avoiding that. I love pwa, but I need image editing maybe once a month, I'm not going to pay a subscription for that

Isn't it dogmatic to think so. Sometimes it makes sense to rent tools.

Naturally. I've rented an mini excavator in the past to dig up stumps for a one time job. It made sense more sense to rent it since it was for a one-time task, and purchasing the kubota would have cost more than 5k.

Given we're on HN news, I thought it was implied that I was referring mostly to the exhaustion at being faced with a perpetually increasing amount of rent-seeking in the form of SaaS.

Additionally, for a lot of professional software, we aren't given the option for short term rental. For creative cloud, I pay monthly but agree on a annual basis. There's a more expensive month-to-month sub, but still you have it at minimum for a whole month.

With software subscriptions, I don't have the option of saying "I need to rent lightroom for 3 hours to edit this session." and have it be priced accordingly. No matter what, I'm on the hook for at minimum a month. On the flip side of that, since I use it so frequently, it's insulting that my only option is just to rent it. I can buy other tools outright and own them, so I'd also like to own my digital tools as well.

While those producing tools for living might not have an interest on keeping offering them free of charge.

Eventually that guy/girl in Nebraska is going to look elsewhere.

OP did not assert that they wanted software free of charge.

Resolve is cool for pro users for others who basically just want to do small edits with straightforward software chrck out kdenlive

Honestly, Resolve isn't that difficult, especially if you're OK with watching some tutorials to get used to it. It's certainly no more difficult than Premiere (for basic tasks, of course).

I teach those programs (after working with them for years as a freelance editor/colorist).

Resolve is worth learning, and not that hard, you're right. But Resolve is not a "pick it up and it pretty much explains itself" software either.

Wishing there was a capable Lightroom alternative.

Darktable? https://www.darktable.org/

Also Capture One, they have a perpetual license but the changes they made in 2023 to the perpetual license was quite bad. Now if you buy that version, you’re locked to the version you purchased and don’t get new features.

> I have no interest in renting my tools.

While I appreciate the sentiment, the world where you could use the same software for many years without updates is gone. These days developers have to invest significant time and effort into making sure the software just runs on the constantly updated operating systems and platforms — which costs money on an ongoing basis. Expecting your software to be updated regularly without paying regularly makes no sense.

So either you intend to run that exact binary that you downloaded (because that is the tool you bought), or the ongoing costs need to be covered somehow. Some companies do it through subscriptions and some play a game of "no, you don't have to update, but here is this new shiny (more bloated, too) version that we produce every 2 years, you can get it for $50 and OWN IT FOREVER (well, until the next shiny comes along in 2 years time". But it's a game, and the drawback is that there is incentive for bloating software instead of just maintaining it and fixing bugs.

While I do recognize those concerns I'll note that it is still a viable model and not just for indie devs. Look to the DAW world (Ableton, FL Studio, Bitwig, Logic, etc.) if you're ever curious about building a sustainable business model around a flat pricing structure.

You listed software that range between $500-$15k. Last time a “I want the option to pay for my software” posts here I replied to was about Infuse. And people complained that “$80 is an absurd amount for a software” and “Why isn’t there a free version?”

A software that costs $500-15k is only feasible for a B2B type business.

> You listed software that range between $500-$15k.

i’m confused… all versions of the DAWs they mentioned in the parent comment are as near as makes no difference below £500.

> Live 12 Suite: £539

> Live 12 Standard: £259

> Live 12 Intro: £69 (nice)

https://www.ableton.com/en/shop/live/

> FL Studio Full: £469 (nice)

> FL Studio Signature: £279

> FL Studio Producer: £199

> FL Studio Fruity: £89

https://www.image-line.com/fl-studio/compare-editions/

> Bitwig Studio: £339

> Bitwig Studio Producer: £169 (nice)

> Bitwig Studio Essentials: £79

https://www.bitwig.com/buy/

> Logic Pro: £199

—-

in case you were replying to their original top-level comment

> Photoshop £22.99 pcm (£276 pa)

> Photoshop Photography £19.99 pcm (£240 pa)

> Photoshop All Creative Cloud £59.99 pcm (£720 pa)

this last one ^ bundles all the proprietary adobe “rented” software they mentioned into one package.

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/plans.html

so even then your figures don’t seem to make sense?

> Photoshop All Creative Cloud £59.99 pcm (£720 pa) > this last one ^ bundles all the proprietary adobe “rented” software they mentioned into one package.

And the worst thing about that 'package' is that if you need (say) just Photoshop + Illustrator - well suddenly the 'cheapest' way to do that is paying for the entire package of garbage that you don't want and will never need.

Wow. Flat out wrong and/or hallucinated for both DAW software and the original recommendations.

In USD currently:

FL Studio Producer Edition = $180

Logic X = $200

Bitwig Producer = $200

Ableton Standard = $450

Reaper = $60 (personal use) or $225

Pixelmator = $50

Davinci Resolve = Free or $300

The professionals who still use unstable platforms are forced to rent their tools, sharecropper style. What about professionals like me who made the leap to a stable platform? "Exact binary you downloaded" hasn't been in my toolbox for a long time now.

I don't know many people left who pay for their OS these days.

> the software just runs on the constantly updated operating systems and platforms

Don't forget that VMs exists.

I don't mind paying the upgrade price when I need the newer version, but that should be an informed decision. These day, subscriptions are actual gatekeepers to features where when you cancel it, you lose access to the software "pro" features.

VMs don't solve the problem. I was also a fan of running stuff in VMs (using VMware), and then the Apple Silicon transition happened and my Windows VMs no longer work.

> These days developers have to invest significant time and effort into making sure the software just runs on the constantly updated operating systems and platforms — which costs money on an ongoing basis.

What’s different today?

The Internet happened, and operating systems evolve much faster. You could buy a piece of software and run it on MS-DOS 5.0 for a long time if you didn't need networking and the software did what you wanted it to do. You didn't have to update.

Today everything is connected to the internet and exposed to threats, so the updates are much more frequent, and OS makers take advantage of this to push additional stuff and even more changes. The result is a treadmill.

That’s only sustainable if we pour a humongous percentage of our GDP in upgrading all software all the time.

Well, yes, that's what's going to happen .. because that churn increases the GDP number.

Time to settle on wine as portable API. Bloatware is custom drawn anyway, so a drawing context is all environment they need.

It's simple. I buy a computer and buy the software. This software is installed on this computer and will will work unless the computer is broken. When you bought a CASIO keyboard you do not expect it to stop working after 3 years because it's installed newest updates.

Of course CASIO is not connected to the internet, it won't allow me to steer it with my fancy phone app. So maybe, just maybe, connecting everything to the internet is a simple mistake?

I bought my Lightroom when it was possible and am using with my camera. Once I buy a new camera, it won't be supported in lightroom. And I won't be able to upgrade it because now they moved to the subscription model. And I make photos every 5 months let's say... And lightroom them even less often

Darktable is an excellent lightroom replacement that does exactly what you need it to do for people that open it once every 5 months.

Thanks. Will check

Reaper’s “i’m going to stop you from using the software for six seconds with a sufficiently obtrusive, non-arrogant, guilt tripping message about being non-free and you should really purchase a license but you can keep using it and download new versions even if you don’t purchase a license” is absolutely genius and a good sort-of counter example to your covering ongoing costs point. at least it highlights the problem for me i guess. (edit: actually, it’s the same problem i guess that you allude to in your last sentence).

i’ve used repear for years on and off without paying anything. new updates come out all the time. fixes, new features etc. (every time i open Reaper I hang my head in shame for not having bought a license).

repear isn’t a profit optimised entity. i gather it is software created and maintained primarily for people to use. licenses cover costs.

adobe/microsoft are profit optimised entities. people using the software is secondary to them making money off it. subscriptions are there to make them profit, not to cover their costs.

I got a reaper license 10 years ago because I too insist on paying for good software, then I never used it.

If you are actually using the software for important tasks, you don't update the OS. If you need something from a new OS, you buy another machine.

It's easy to keep your machines secured even if they are using a decades old OS. Businesses are still depending on a lot of old software and hardware, because it gets the job done with great efficiency.

I understand where you're going with performance and feature updates, but what about security updates? Those are often flaws that were present at time of shipping.

If I buy a physical lock that's found to be easily opened with a toothpick once it's in the mass market, I'd expect a recall and it to be fixed. With software, it's even easier to deploy a fix.

There's an expectation that purchased software is usable. A server that's connected to the internet that can be compromised easily is no longer usable. Firms selling software applications have an obligation to provide security updates for the life of the product.

A day later, as I'm reading the responses and looking at the negative points on my comment: I have to learn to avoid commenting in certain topics on HN. It seems that most people here want their software to be FREE, or at least sold for an inexpensive one-time fee, which I can understand. But they also have a certain model of running a software business in their minds, which is simply wrong.

My bet is that none of the commenters in this thread (full of mentions of sustainable development) actually run a full-time software business and make a living on it. I do. Which is why I understand why subscriptions make sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com