Yeah I feel like “industry standard” and “vendor locked” are kinda opposites?

Yeah this is a reasonable take. GIMP has its core set of users, and, even though I could be wrong about this, I suspect that they like the UI as it is. They’re not beholden to making the most generalized image editing software for Linux.

I’m a huge Krita fan! But like others I mostly use it for the drawing and painting.

How is it as an alternative to GIMP? (Which I use for simple cut and pastes and that kinda thing.) I haven’t actually been able to figure out where the wall is that says “No, use GIMP for this.”

Does GIMP maybe have better filters and layer operations and that kinda thing maybe…?

I use both.

Krita is for drawing. GIMP is for making memes.

You are comparing Apples and Oranges

There is a practice where software companies will either provide their software to schools and colleges for free or will pay schools and colleges to use their software. This leads to the students using this software, learning that software’s sole paradigm, and essentially forces them to use that software going forward because of how difficult it is to shift to another software with a different paradigm. This is Vendor Lock-In. The vendor locks you into their software.

This leads to all future workers being trained in that software, so of course businesses opt to use that software instead of retraining the employee in another. This contrasts with the idea of what an ‘industry standard’ is. The name suggests that it’s used in the industry because it’s better than other software, but in reality it’s just standard because of lock-in.

This is how Windows cornered the operating system market - by partnering with vendors to ship their systems with Windows pre-installed.

It’s an thing people used to say when they wanted to justify not using the software gimp

I agree.

Just recently, I used GIMP 3.0 to create what will become a sticker on the side of a dozen hockey helmets.

It was a small project but it probably went back and forth a dozen times as each version delivered sparked new ideas or new questions on what was possible. Layers, filters, alpha channel, Smart Selection, and working with text and font outlines were all essential.

I don’t do all this stuff all the time. There is no way I would ever pay for Photoshop. Yet, my standard Linux install had everything I needed to get it done. And it was not that hard.

Truly amazing when you think about it. We are all so entitled.

It’s possible in Ligma, too.

To give a specific example of how powerful Blender is, in geology there are very very very very expensive 3d modelling programs and then there is like… Sketchup which I guess Google hasn’t abandoned? idk… even the basic GIS software for geologic mapping from ESRI is expensive AF, especially if you want to do any fancy 3d rendering or map making.

Enter this guy

You already know this guy is cool as fuck just from that photo, but let me tell you how exactly how lowkey cool Marcus Schwander is.

(btw I have zero connection to this guy, I know next to nothing about him, I literally just found his videos from searching “Blender Geology” on youtube randomly)

His video series shows quite clearly and exhaustively how to do extremely complicated geologic mapping of complex fold belts with lots of faults using Blender. What I can’t stress enough is that the workflow he is detailing in the proprietary software world would be EXTREMELY niche, require exhaustive licensing and setting up payment and getting software keys… blah blah blah and ultimately it would be a very expensive workflow, possibly requiring software licenses that cost thousands of dollars or more (I am not kidding). On top of the prohibitive cost, any kind of documentation, additional plugin development, or content creators who make tutorials about how to use the tools is an order of magnitude rarer for those tools because access to the tools in the first place is so prohibitive (and is usually only along narrow circumstances, not the kind of situation someone would organically decide to make a youtube tutorial channel about a software that costs $30,000 a license necessarily). In contrast, try searching for “Blender tutorial” in youtube and just take a cursory glance and the absurdly exhaustive amount of resources out there about learning Blender.

I have been teaching myself Blender because I want to make similar tutorial videos because it is ridiculous to me idea that in 2025 geologists don’t have an open format to visualize geologic structures and map them in a natural 3d environment that can be then shared with other geologists, in a established non-proprietary format that a geologist can ensure that any other geologist can open and view the model/data themselves, because again if you have a computer you can get Blender…

I am firmly of the belief that Blender should be taught as a basic part of a Geology curriculum along with a GIS class, not a primary focus or anything, but the tool is so general and so broadly useful that I think we owe it to future scientists to teach everybody we can how to use Blender.

As a last point, I want to emphasize that I am not suggesting using Blender to make cool fancy cinematic visualizations of Geology because it looks cool, or suggesting trying to do lots of complex modelling and computation in Blender instead of a GIS software, those are both awesome uses of Blender but what I am suggesting is that by simply teaching the next generation of Geologists how to use a 3d modelling software just for the simple purposes of giving them a tool to sketch out ideas or explore a geologic map from a 3d perspective (which can be useful ESPECIALLY when talking to other people about specific geologic structures that are difficult to explain without a 3d perspective to point to) Blender is going to forever change how Geologists use computers to do Geology.

It is a cool moment because on the flip side… there is a LOT of money in Geology and I think the Blender community could and will absolutely find serious, sustainable long term funding from Geology companies and academia associated entities that could massively bolster development capability and funding security.

No everything in Linux has to be used through the terminal, how else will I feel elite. If there has to be a gui let’s make sure it looks like it was designed in 1995, so everyone hates it and just uses the terminal instead

Blender is great after a decade of pro maya use. Ux is nowhere near as good but man, its like stepping into the contemporary times from the middle ages.

Vendor lock-in is bad and Adobe’s business practices are bad, no matter how you cook it. There are so many viable alternatives to Adobe stuff.

Problem is, Photoshop power users don’t often want to hear about any alternatives. GIMP is just one of the most popular culprits in this regard. That’s exactly the kind of mindset that the vendor lock-in creates.

I’m kind of happy that I stuck with GIMP when I was younger. Now, I have absolutely no fear of trying out any software that comes my way. I do most of my photo work in Affinity Photo. Don’t have problems with GIMP either, use it for some other stuff.

The only way to get people to switch from Adobe is to wait for Adobe to make the life unbearable for their own customers. Some time ago there was a huge movement for people to switch from Premiere to DaVinci Resolve because Premiere really is pretty horrible these days.

Docker Engine, without the Docker Desktop licensing and VM overhead

I don’t do graphic design and only use GIMP for making memes. Could you give a few pointers, why GIMP is not usable compared to photoshop?

I use Krita, Aseprite, and Gimp. I must say, though, I’m loving Gimp 3. Now if we could just push past the proprietary docx plugins bullshit and make odf industry standard…

Edit: Ah, shoot. I forgot Inkscape for vector art. Shame on me… I love Inkscape.

yes, actually. but i want to see gimp succeed as a professional tool.

I’ve used krita at an amateur level, pretty good would recommend

I’m most of the way there except jet brains… I just don’t have it in me to spend the years it’ll take to become as familiar with a different tool.

With this logic, why have a rectangular selection tool, when the grid and freehand selection achieve the same result?

For anyone thinking this is the solution, it’s not. This technique produces a rasterized circle in a destructive editing workflow. What people that are complaining actually want, is a non-destructive tool, like the planned shape tool that will let everyone easily make vector shapes, like circles. It is part of the ongoing plan to add non-destructive workflows to GIMP, it’s a game changer and the gimp team is doing great progress, so kudos to them.

Not an actual shape tools, as shape created should be editable (usually as vector layer).

That method resulting an rasterized circle.

…and GIMP dev actually planning to add shape tool.

Or ABNT or DIN or (…)

W3C

It feels like your making a semantic argument to downplay how tight grip these softwares have on their respective industry markets.

If you are only ever considered for a job if you have Photoshop experience, and that is the normal treatment across the majority of the industry, that’s a standard that the industry is now holding you to - an industry standard if you will. It does not need to be backed by a governing body for it to still count.

My current understanding is that you will not get a job at a major CGI company by knowing Blender (though the film ‘Flow’ shows that might change going forward). You have to know softwares like Houdini, 3ds Max, Maya, etc…, if you want to be treated seriously.

That’s beautiful. Card backs?

Cool design.

Is it possible to learn this power??