Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

25 Years of Krita

krita.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 101 posts

Re: 25 Years of Krita

#21

Post by rcxdude »

acomjean wrote: post #10
resource_waste wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seems to be a phenomena I observe in the FOSS community where we reflexively respond to suggestions despite them being far beneath their FOSS alternatives. Only after digging or running into issues, do you find the good stuff. Brand name -> Low quality, highly mentioned -> High quality, rarely mentioned Photoshop-> GIMP -> Krita Windows -> Debian-family/Ubuntu/Mint -> Fedora I almost feel like a religious Zealo…

There is a lot of overlap, but I’d hardly call GIMP low quality. I use Gimp for photos (layers and such) . It wasn’t intuitive but I know how to use it now: I have Krita on an android tablet with a stylus for painting (it’s brushes are amazing) and frankly it’s pretty fun to use. Using open source can be “free” but if you use something a lot they alway need donations.

Compared to Krita's interface, abstractions, and capability, GIMP feels pretty archaic. It's a vaguely capable photo editor but it's awful for digital painting.

Re: 25 Years of Krita

#22

Post by rcxdude »

resource_waste wrote: post #7
sebstefan wrote: post #4

Wow. I could've sworn Krita was only around 6 years old. I've only very recently started hearing about it.

There seems to be a phenomena I observe in the FOSS community where we reflexively respond to suggestions despite them being far beneath their FOSS alternatives. Only after digging or running into issues, do you find the good stuff. Brand name -> Low quality, highly mentioned -> High quality, rarely mentioned Photoshop-> GIMP -> Krita Windows -> Debian-family/Ubuntu/Mint -> Fedora I almost feel like a religious Zealo…

Fedora >> Debian is an interesting take. I've never particularly got along with rpm-based distros, and they always seemed much the same quality, just different. What makes the difference in your opinion?

Re: 25 Years of Krita

#23

Post by hanikesn »

influx wrote: post #18

Sounds like developing in QT is awful. They have had to do so much work porting it to new versions of QT.

Imagine porting a web app to new frameworks over 25 years or keeping up with Macs ui Framework over that time frame ...

Re: 25 Years of Krita

#24

Post by Rinzler89 »

scrlk wrote: post #6
Rinzler89 wrote: post #3

Wow, is it just me or does that screenshot of 2005 Krita 1.4 UI[1] look absolutely amazing? All the icons are very distinctive and clear on what they do and the colors make them pop without stabbing your retinas. Perfect. Feels like the mid-2000's was the peak in software UI design and it slowly started going downhill afte that, with companies chasing the soulless corporate mono-chromatic flat design inspired from mo…

Agreed. I suspect the shift in design occurred when the base assumption moved from "most users have never used a computer before" to "most users are familiar with computers". IMO Windows Interface Guidelines from 1995 are still relevant today: https://ics.uci.edu/~kobsa/courses/ICS104/course-notes/Micro...

And since the new generation of users is growing up with mobile touch devices, we're coming back full circle to "most users never used a computer before".

Re: 25 Years of Krita

#25

Post by shortformblog »

I use Krita for Photoshop-type stuff, and it works great. It is the only good solution I've found in FOSS-land for animated GIFs, and finding it made it easier to wean off Photoshop. Not even commercial alternatives to Photoshop offer frame-based GIF editing. But Krita, fortunately, does.

I know they have a different focus these days, but it'd be nice if they promoted this.

Re: 25 Years of Krita

#26

Post by juliangmp »

I never knew that the project has been around for so long, let alone that its older than myself.

But what I can clearly read from the blog post: Qt likes to break compatibility a lot between their major releases...

Re: 25 Years of Krita

#28

Post by pjerem »

resource_waste wrote: post #7
sebstefan wrote: post #4

Wow. I could've sworn Krita was only around 6 years old. I've only very recently started hearing about it.

There seems to be a phenomena I observe in the FOSS community where we reflexively respond to suggestions despite them being far beneath their FOSS alternatives. Only after digging or running into issues, do you find the good stuff. Brand name -> Low quality, highly mentioned -> High quality, rarely mentioned Photoshop-> GIMP -> Krita Windows -> Debian-family/Ubuntu/Mint -> Fedora I almost feel like a religious Zealo…

You are right, your theory works but it looks like you never tried OpenSUSE. It’s basically Fedora but with great administration tools, a better package manager (but it also uses rpm packages) and with optional AUR-like community packages.

OpenSUSE >>> Fedora >>>> Debian Family

Re: 25 Years of Krita

#29

Post by RobotToaster »

Gualdrapo wrote: post #20
cranberryturkey wrote: post #2

Krita is a great replacement for photoshop.

Call me paranoid, but I think it's harmful for Krita when someone frames it as a Photoshop alternative - because it really isn't. It is a program targeted specifically at digital painting. Yes, it can do some "basic" image manipulation like Photoshop does, and even you can do some animation stuff too - but it doesn't intend to target everything image manipulation wise as Photoshop does. I for one as a graphic designe…

> And they can be one of those people that bitch about FOSS because they couldn't manage to do that specific task they can with propietary software.

I doubt they will bitch less if people recommend GIMP.

Re: 25 Years of Krita

#30

Post by tux3 »

influx wrote: post #18

Sounds like developing in QT is awful. They have had to do so much work porting it to new versions of QT.

That's just any big framework. Porting a large codebase between major releases of GTK (or Javascript frameworks) isn't much better.
Post reply on HN