undefined | Better HN

0 pointsqayxc5y ago0 comments

> If you work or have hobbies that have to do with photography, music, audio editing, video, multimedia in general etc, it's more of a wasteland.

I'm quite fascinated by this dilemma: on one hand there's too much choice with Linux (desktop environments, package managers, shells, ...) while on the other hand there's the complaint that there's too little choice (graphics suites, DAWs, CAD/CAM packages, 3D rendering apps, video editing...).

The actual complaint, however, is that there's no Pro Tools, no Final Cut, no Adobe Suite - because that's what people actually mean when it comes down to it.

The perceived "wasteland" primarily refers to just a handful of very specific products, most of which do have equivalents in Linux (not all FOSS, mind you), albeit often with vastly different workflows associated with them.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

coldtea5y ago· 2 in thread

They do have equivalents, mostly FOSS, some not FOSS (e.g. Reaper and Bigwig are not FOSS), but they generally those aren't the top picks of pros (or hobbyists for that matter).

That said, for 3D it's a much better situation, but for video, music, and graphic design it's much bleaker. And even when you do 3D you still want some Photoshop, video editing and other stuff, unless you're part of a large team and only do modelling etc.

Then there's a big ecosystem of smaller utilities, plugins, specialty drivers, and stuff, that also doesn't work.

qayxcOP5y ago

> [...] but they generally those aren't the top picks of pros (or hobbyists for that matter)

But that's exactly what I said: the complaint isn't that there is no software available. The complaint is that VERY specific software isn't available.

There's Gimp, Krita, and Darktable for image- and photo editing, but people still keep asking for Photoshop. More often than not the very same people, mind you, who also complain about Adobe's subscription model and pricing in general!

They don't want to be able to do the same work - they want to do the same work the exact same way using the exact same software. Same goes for video editing as well - there's kdenlive, OpenShot, DaVinci Resolve, Lightworks, and yes, even Blender can do it. But, nope. People want Premiere, Sony Vegas, and Final Cut - the rest doesn't even cross their mind.

That's the issue at hand - not lack of software. It's unwillingness to learn (pros don't count - they have different needs and concerns) and all to often just plain ignorance of alternatives.

The big ecosystem of smaller utilities is met by FOSS - here marketing and communication (as well as terrible naming in most cases) are the biggest factor.

Plugins and special drivers can be a problem, I fully agree with that. The question is however, whether this is relevant for hobbyists and people who just want to get started.

Seeing as special drivers are only required for special hardware (graphics cards and studio equipment comes to mind) and that plugins can easily exceed the cost of a small workstation, we're starting to leave hobbyist territory again.

coldtea5y ago

>They don't want to be able to do the same work - they want to do the same work the exact same way using the exact same software.

They don't merely want to the same work. They also want the best of class software. GIMP is not Photoshop by a large margin, for example. Ardur is too little to be compared to Logic or Cubase or ProTools (even without the issue of plugins). And so on...

>Same goes for video editing as well - there's kdenlive, OpenShot, DaVinci Resolve, Lightworks, and yes, even Blender can do it. But, nope. People want Premiere, Sony Vegas, and Final Cut - the rest doesn't even cross their mind.

No, many would be happy with DaVinci Resolve. But then they'd need many other parts of a video/post production workflow still not available on Linux in good form or any form.

It's not just "you're a videographer, you use Premiere on Windows, just switch to Davinci on Linux". Because I also e.g. might use AfterEffects, tons of video plugins not available on Linux, Photoshop and Audition for post-production work, several post production utilities, drivers for different peripherals I use for video, and so on. Oh, and plus all the saved presets and automations and such they've made for those.

DaVinci on Linux is great, but only solves a small (albeit core) part of the workflow.

Also, it's very understandable that professionals have invested in learning programs and constellations of programs.

Would a heavy Emacs user move to another platform that doesn't have Emacs - but offers e.g. Jove?

So it's not about unwillingness to move from Photoshop to say Gimp and Krita because they're "different". It's that Gimp and Krita are quite behind in several aspects, and that their presence only solves a small part of a professional (or hobbyist for that matter) workflow.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse