Courtesy to Twitter user XdanielArt (date of publication: 8 June 2024)

  • FireWire400
    link
    fedilink
    English
    16
    edit-2
    13 minutes ago

    Another great alternative to Acrobat (Reader) is Okular; it’s free, open source and runs on Linux, Windows and macOS.

    It’s been my go-to PDF reader since switching to Linux, since it already came pre-installed with Manjaro KDE.

  • @OmgItBurns@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    116 hours ago

    Dreamweaver is still used? I used it a bit back in the day when Macromedia was around and shortly after Adobe got a hold of it. How does it work with the modern web? Does it work well with modern programming languages or is it still just a WYSIWYG HTML editor?

    • Russ
      link
      fedilink
      English
      73 hours ago

      I am surprised that its actually still a product they sell and seemingly update. Looking on their product page, wow it has git support - it can be yours for $22.99/month too!

      (That will also require you to give your soul to them too, via a contract signed in blood)

  • @Jankatarch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    What the actual fuck is adobe acrobat? A pdf editor with subscription model payment? Firefox, the browser, can edit pdf files. It’s 2025.

    • @BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Firefox can do basic annotating, adding text and adding pictures but it can’t make a new PDF from scratch.

      You may be confusing Adobe Acrobat Reader with Adobe Acrobat? Full Acrobat is the proprietary tool to make a PDF file from scratch including some of the more complex functions.

      PDF is an open standard and has been for a while, so there are now plenty of alternatives for most of the functions. LibreOffice Draw and Inkscape can do a lot of PDF creation functions but not all. There are also “print to PDF” options to create basic PDF documents too.

      However some of the more niche functions are not widely supported or well supported; and there isn’t really any opensource dedicated PDF maker that I’m aware of. Layout tools are abundant but I think it’s things like building forms and document signing that is less easily replicated. There is Master PDF - a fully functional PDF maker which is proprietary and available for Linux; it $80 for a perpetual license. I’m not aware of any other alternatives myself.

    • Jyek
      link
      fedilink
      English
      127 hours ago

      Adobe acrobat is THE PDF editor. PDF is a proprietary format created and developed by Adobe. Any software that can edit PDFs is doing so in a format they do not have any control over. And there just aren’t any proper PDF editors that are feature complete. now if you’re an individual who needs to make a PDF in the privacy of your own home, by all means, use a cheap or free or FOSS application to do so. But if you need that PDF to be readable and useable and seamlessly compatible on other computers for other users for ever? Better pay the Adobe tax because there is a good chance, it won’t look the way you expect it to when someone opens it up in Adobe which their company definitely has.

      • @Bouzou@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        160 minutes ago

        I don’t know how it stacks up price-wise, but I’d argue Bluebeam is a far superior PDF editing program. It even covers some word processing, Illustrator, and some PowerPoint adjacent things.

        That being said, I can’t see it as practical for the average consumer.

      • @BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        I’m not sure this true - PDF is an open standard. The issue isn’t generally with layout and reproducibility - a good PDF maker and a good reader will give you an accurate representation of how it looks on all devices once the PDF is created.

        Certainly there isn’t a dedicated FOSS tool for make PDFs; Libre Office and Inkscape do a decent job but not perfect which may be what you’re referring to. And they’re not dedicated PDF makers plus the real problem is building fillable forms and signature tools.

        But there is a proprietary alternative called Master PDF that is a dedicated and supports all the PDF standard features I believe; one perpetual license is $80 compared to Adobe subscription based charging. I’m not aware of other options myself but they may exist. But it’s a viable alternative to the “adobe tax”.

        Also of course if you have Office 365 from Microsoft, you can use Word to export docs to PDF reliably (in my experience). Obviously as far as you can get from FOSS, but it is an option on Linux via web browser if you have it from work for example; at least you don’t have to pay Adobe but it’s scraping the bottom of the barrel for this threat I know!

      • @tehn00bi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        66 hours ago

        There are a few other PDF editors that are cheaper, but they don’t have the same features. PDF seems like something that has outlived its purpose. There has to be other document formats that provide a similar or better experience and prevents alteration.

        • @huppakee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 hours ago

          should be? yes. could be? if one of the big corpo’s with money decides to spend it, yes. But don’t assume ‘there has to be one’, it’s not like file formats suddenly appear like a rare insect or something.

      • @taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        36 hours ago

        it won’t look the way you expect it to when someone opens it up in Adobe which their company definitely has.

        That sounds like a problem between them and Adobe tbh

  • @Baguette@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    138 hours ago

    Neat list, but imo photoshop is closer to being called a photomanipulation/image editor than photography. lightroom is the more dedicated photography software.

    Also I wouldn’t call paint.net an alternative to photoshop. I love paint.net but its a relatively simple image editor and its functionally limited even with plugins.

    • @Bouzou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      158 minutes ago

      Yes, that was my first question: what about Photoshop as an image editor? What is a comparable replacement for that?

  • @j0ester@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    25 hours ago

    Maybe it’s to only spy on Sony. They love pirating Adobe products; and hate when others pirate their stuff.

  • @gamer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    25 hours ago

    Without the title of this post, it’s probably easy for any non tech person to misunderstand this image as being a list of Adobe programs that spy on you, at least on first glance.

  • Pup Biru
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3311 hours ago

    Davinci Resolve has to be one of the most jam packed free software packages available… seriously, it absolutely trounces Premiere at evvvverything

    the model of free for everything except if features you’d want for producing a professional movie, and financed by hardware sales - that you don’t need unless you’re a professional - is absolutely incredible for home users

  • rhabarba
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9613 hours ago

    Honestly, GIMP is not a good alternative to Photoshop. I know, “it’s free” is enough for many people, but it … just isn’t.

    • @anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5913 hours ago

      With GIMP 3.0 it’s a bit better at least, they’ve finally added non-destructive editing:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfaq-Cm1ZkA

      Full changelog here:
      https://www.gimp.org/release-notes/gimp-3.0.html

      I’d dare say that unless you’ve already learnt Photoshop (and have to unlearn it) then Darktable+GIMP works fine for home photo editing.
      If you’re used to Photoshop and your skills with it is what puts bread on the table… then I completely understand not switching tools.

      • @LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        Yeah but it should tell you something that they just figured out non-destructive editing by 2025. Love the team, want to see it succeed, but it’s not PS at all.

        • Rose
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          GIMP didn’t “just figure out non-destructive editing by 2025”. You’re talking as if it was something that the GIMP development team just decided to randomly add recently, after previously ignoring user demands.

          The foundation for that functionality (GEGL) has been in development for ages and was also used for some functionality in 2.6 for a long time. The reason why it took this long is that it’s a pretty fundamental change to how the app works. Also, that meshed with other upcoming changes at the time. Also, small development team.

          • @LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            10
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            I have said several times I have gimp and support them. I didn’t think they just discovered it - I’m saying the fact that in 2025 they just implemented it is indicative of why I say they’re behind.

            They do good work. Yes they’re a small team. It doesn’t change the fact that the software has limitations.

            The question isn’t “are they working hard?” or “are they doing a lot for what they are/their size?” It’s “how does it stack against PS?” And of course they can’t hang with the billion dollar international company with an army of programmers.

        • @anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1712 hours ago

          My understanding is that a lot of tech debt has been removed with the release of 3.0 and I’m hopeful it will make future updates simpler and faster. :)

      • @doxxx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1112 hours ago

        As somebody who has been trying to decided which of the RAW photo editors to use, I can tell you that Darktable has a steep learning curve over Lightroom. The UI is incredibly dense and the names of sliders don’t make sense unless you’re an image science expert.

        • @anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          I’ll take your word for it, I’ve never used Lightroom.

          Whenever I played around with Darktable it seems finding a tutorial to get the effect I wanted was just a minute of searching away, and there’s a ton of beginner tutorials available too.
          https://www.darktable.org/2024/12/howto-in-5.0/

          But then I was the kid that rtfm the game manual on my way home from the store and love dense UIs as an adult. :)

        • jwiggler
          link
          fedilink
          English
          311 hours ago

          Darktable is a godsend to me for converting film negatives.But I pretty much only use image conversion, RGB curve, then fidget with the exposure and RGB sliders in negadoctor a little more then I’m done. No idea how to do anything else.

        • @huppakee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 hour ago

          You could give Photopea a try, if you’re looking for a free (as supported) alternatives, it has all core functions and a interface that looks very familiar. No installation required so you can easily test it, and use it in any browser (not sure how well it works without mouse and keyboard or low end devices though).

          If you want more than core functionality I don’t think there is a (legally) free option out there.

    • @LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2412 hours ago

      Yeah I really like what they’re doing and I applaud their efforts, but they are a solid decade behind PS when it comes to feature parity.

    • symbolic
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1211 hours ago

      The same with Lightroom sadly. The open source alternatives are either too buggy or have UX designed by very “opinionated” people, making them painful and frustrating to use. I currently want to get rid of Lightroom but can’t.

    • @Tonuka@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      I love love love GIMP!!!

      But yeah it’s not a PS alternative, and tbh that’s not really what it’s supposed to be or what its developers want out of it. it’s different

    • @shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      310 hours ago

      My go-to PS app:

      https://www.photopea.com/

      All online, same controls, hell, same icons. I’m a little stunned that Adobe hasn’t sued them into oblivion.

      You can pay to drop the ads, but I’m not really seeing much end user benefit otherwise. Not seeing ads ATM, maybe I blocked 'em.

  • oce 🐆
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5112 hours ago

    For PDF “your browser” should be the default recommendation. Firefox allows to add text and images now. Gimp can also be used to edit PDF.

    • stebo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25 hours ago

      The main reason “your browser” isn’t enough for me is that it doesn’t allow you to add and edit bookmarks, which I use a lot to navigate large pdfs quickly.

      Second is that it’s nice to keep your pdf tabs separated from your browser tabs, and a pdf reader can remember your tabs and exactly which page you were on etc.

      So that’s why I’m using PDF-Xchange, I downloaded it for free idk why it says purchase.

    • @Novocirab@feddit.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      Browser is nice. On Linux though, Okular is superb (except for its occasional problems with forms).

      • oce 🐆
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 hours ago

        What does Okular do that Firefox doesn’t? I’ve used it on some distros because it was the default but I don’t know the advantage compared to using my existing browser.

      • TheTechnician27
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2312 hours ago

        I’m really disappointed not to see Okular there. It’s FOSS, and it’s very cozy and useful.

    • @kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Yeah the PDF category is weird / lacking. LibreOffice Draw and Inkscape can both edit PDFs and are missing as well. Xodo looks like some mobile app only or SaaS product.

      Edit: Xodo does have a free desktop PDF reader but seems like they’re certainly focused on selling their subscription based PDF editor

    • Venia Silente
      link
      fedilink
      English
      711 hours ago

      Isn’t it dangerous now that PDFs can run javascript? (Who had that idiotic idea, anyway?)

    • @ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      212 hours ago

      Xodo and Xchange are both feature rich, lightweight, and easy to use programs. Browser view is fine for a peek but quickly feels clunky.

  • kn0wmad1c
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1810 hours ago

    Just started using reaper, coming over from audition and it’s so similar I didn’t have to re-learn anything.

    • @AstralPath@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      99 hours ago

      REAPER rules. I started on ProTools in 2010. Ditched it for Reaper in 2012 and never looked back. Best $60 I ever spent. I’ve gladly bought multiple licenses for my devices over the years.

      • @jake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        27 hours ago

        REAPER is absolutely one of the best pieces of software out there. I’ve been using it too since maybe 2009, though not so much in the last few years (not moved to an alternative, I’m just not doing so much audio these days).

        I love the business model, the development cycle, etc. and even though it’s not open source it kinda has a similar community feeling. Every bit as feature-filled and capable as any of the industry standards.

  • @anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2111 hours ago

    Just a small thing, but as of the latest release Inkscape has a functioning live-trace tool

    It was one of the biggest things keeping me using illustrator but I used inkscape’s trace yesterday and it worked great

      • @anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1611 hours ago

        It’s a tool that helps ‘trace’ a raster image into vector shapes and paths

        it’s useful for creating vector artwork from raster images - sometimes a logo or icon is only available in a poor resolution raster image, and so having an easy way to convert it into vector saves a ton of time.

        I used it yesterday to create an SVG file for CNC plotting of a company logo. It would have taken me a few hours to hand-trace it myself

    • makyo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      310 hours ago

      How much time have you put into Inkscape now? I’m hankering for some reviews from people who are also refugees from the Adobe ecosystem.

      • @anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        I don’t use it regularly enough to weigh in comprehensively- I use it mostly for processing svg drawings created in other programs for cnc plotting, or for compiling svg drawings onto standardized layouts for sending to a printer

        My only complaint with inkscape is that it’s a bit slow with rendering complex shapes/canvases with many points, but otherwise it does everything I need from a vector program.

        • dantheclamman
          link
          fedilink
          English
          49 hours ago

          The CNC plug in is so useful! I also made my wedding save the dates in it and some figures for a scientific manuscript: worked great.