Lg webos.It forces ads on us
Ask HN: Software you hate but can't replace?
21–30 of 328 posts
Re: Ask HN: Software you hate but can't replace?
#22Windows
Re: Ask HN: Software you hate but can't replace?
#23Adobe suite. After effects, illustrator, inDesign etc Adobe in the above fields of design are industry leaders, and have the features & functions we’ve come to rely on. Adobe’s pricing model has become very aggressive, and quite unaffordable for lots.
It's so true. I'm using affinity for image editing these days but it's just a shadow of photoshops ease of use and power. Fuck paying for ps though.
Re: Ask HN: Software you hate but can't replace?
#24iOS and Android
You can try Sailfish OS [0], from Jolla. It can be installed on selected devices.
Re: Ask HN: Software you hate but can't replace?
#25Jira, for sure, and it seems hard to run away from, almost everyone use it
It seems like the only alternative is to fund my own startup, with me as a sole shareholder, just to forbid Jira forever
Re: Ask HN: Software you hate but can't replace?
#26Web browsers. But I'm not sure if I hate either the web browser or Javascript.
Re: Ask HN: Software you hate but can't replace?
#27Lg webos.It forces ads on us
Not a replacement, but maybe it helps.
https://rootmy.tv/
Re: Ask HN: Software you hate but can't replace?
#28Whatsapp. It's a garbage app, made by a garbage company running like garbage on a garbage protocol. There is no realistic alternative because friends and family expect you to have it.
Out of interest what do you not like about the whatsapp app? The core functionality seems pretty solid to me.
Re: Ask HN: Software you hate but can't replace?
#29iOS and Android
[deleted]
Re: Ask HN: Software you hate but can't replace?
#30MS Teams: What makes it bad: First of all, it uses Electron, thus it is laggy and wastes too much resources. Maybe it is just a pet peeve of mine, but I hate , if an application does not look native on my GNOME Desktop and does not follow any HIG. Another factor is the proprietary nature of MS Teams. If it was open, there would probably be some other client/some way to have a real native client. My preferred alternat…
> What makes it bad
I mean aside from technology choices, It's just very bad at video calls.
I don't want an "artistic" layout of people that is constantly switching around, or comedy "sitting in a theatre" options. If someone doesn't have video on it'll confusingly highlight some random other participant while they are talking, and when nobody is talking it'll choose a random person with the microphone on and boost whatever background noise (or typing) it can up until it matches speaking volume.
Despite randomly boosting silence, it'll aggressively gate anyone talking, with an obvious fade-up at the start of their sentence and if you are lucky, aggressively cut off the end of their sentence. If you aren't so lucky, it'll do this in every pause between words.
Add to that, random disconnects, chat randomly not working, finding it hard to actually get a list of participants, and that it apparently wants to be slack but makes it hard for people to work out how to actually re-use a channel for the next meeting.
But of course it gets bundled in with all the other office stuff the company purchases; making it the "default" that you have to fight against using. We were only saved against moving to Teams for _all_ our telephony by the fact that it's linux support is really, really bad and that's what all our engineers use.