this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
738 points (99.6% liked)

Open Source

34663 readers
1304 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml 15 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

I would have to choose GIMP (in spite of this awful name) because that page loaded without javascript and the photoshop page requires me to enable javascript.

I know I'm being a bit facetious, here, but... Adobe can afford to hire full time front end devs and designers. FOSS projects can't really compete with Adobe's investors.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 8 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

LOL. Brother, I get what you're saying, but I think you missed the point. If Random User X is just looking for an image editor, and they are presented with a few options they know nothing about. Do you think they're going to even bother with the one image editor that doesn't have any screenshots?

Just another comparison, a little more relevant: https://www.rawtherapee.com/

You know EXACTLY what it is and what it does within about 2 seconds. That would be more than enough information for someone to at least make the effort to download the software.

[–] 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

If I recommend some software to someone, most normies I know would directly go on to youtube and check some guy using and reviewing a software. The "official website" wouldn't even cross their mind.

In this day and age if a random user really wants something, they have a miriad of options to see what they're about to use. Forums, Youtube, blog posts and so on.

If a user doesn't even bother a bare , they're better off not downloading random executables from the internet.

The website isn't end all, be all of how users find a software demos. You seem to think a single website is enough for users to make their choices these days. It isn't the 90s.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 3 points 14 hours ago

An informed user goes through that much effort. Most users are not informed and will do a quick search, download something that looks remotely what they think they need, and they're done.

This is why it's frustrating that some really good open-source software end up being lost in a sea of other stuff that was easier for someone to download, without doing a ton of research.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a website, but a website should be "home base" for a software, company, etc. If not the official website, then the developer has less control over the presentation of their product, which would suck.

App stores are successful for a reason: they offer a quick, accessible means to find 1000s of apps or desktop software. And if an app has a poor description or piss poor screenshots, they are skipped very quickly.

The same applies to the UX and UI of an app or website. A poor experience can cause someone to uninstall it (or exit the page), even if it offers them the features they want/need.