6 ms·
> People want your software to have more features, have fewer bugs, and not be exploited. So you and every one of your competitors are on an update treadmill. I
by codeflo 1y ago
> People want your software to have more features, have fewer bugs, and not be exploited. So you and every one of your competitors are on an update treadmill. If you ARE stable, you'll probably fall off. If you are on the treadmill you are accumulating code, features, bug fixes, until you either get off or a faster competitor emerges.
Runners on treadmills don't actually move forward.
- Ygg2 1y agoKinda the point of the threadmill metaphor. If you are standing on a threadmill, you will fall right off. It requires great effort to just stay at one spot.
- BobaFloutist 1y agoBut adding features isn't staying at the same spot.
- Ygg2 1y agoHonestly. I think it is. All software exists in a kind of attract consumer/developer evolutionary race. If I assume your point is true, wouldn't everyone then just switch to Paint for all 2D picture editing? I mean it's the fastest - opens instantly on my machine vs 3-4sec for Krita/Gimp/Photoshop. But it's also bare bones. So why isn't Paint universal used by everyone? My assumption: what people want is to not waste their time. If a program is 3 seconds slower to start/edit, but saves you 45 minutes of fucking around in a less featureful editor, it's obvious which one is more expedient in the long run.
- GoblinSlayer 1y agoI use paint, because it starts fast so I don't waste my time. When I want complex edit, I use paint.net - because it does everything yet starts million times faster than Krita/Gimp/Photoshop. In fact paint.net 3 already had all the features in 2008, after that it was vapid churn, it's literally impossible to notice the difference.
- Ygg2 1y ago> When I want complex edit, I use paint.net That's kind of my point. Even you eschew Paint's simplicity when you need a more complex transformation. Nothing you do in Paint.Net isn't impossible in Paint, given enough calculation and preparation. So a performance isn't the deciding factor. It's the speed of achieving thing X (of which startup/lag is a tiny cost). Similarly in Paint.Net you could emulate many Photoshop features (e.g., non-destructive editing), but doing so would be tedious (duplicate layer, hide layer adjust copy layer, then edit until you get it to where you want it).
- GoblinSlayer 1y agoPerformance is a deciding factor, it's the reason I use paint and don't use Krita/Gimp/Photoshop. I use Ctrl+Z for non-destructive editing in paint. Also paint has a more reliable and predictable UI, you never know what those overly smart editors will do. Will they add too much antialiasing? Randomly switch to subpixel precision? Insert transparent background (antialiased)?
- Ygg2 1y ago> Performance is a deciding factor There are two things in play: just because it's a deciding factor for you doesn't mean it's a deciding factor for everyone else. Second, even for you, Paint isn't enough. You also got Paint.net. You can reproduce almost any effect in PS or Gimp or Krita in Paint/Imagemagick. Why not just use those two for everything. It's the same thing as using an IDE vs notepad(++). Anything done in the IDE behemoth can be done in notepad. Albeit at a significant time penalty, and with way more CLI jousting. > I use Ctrl+Z for non-destructive editing in paint That's not really non-destructive editing - that's Undo. A non-destructive editing means you can edit, change things, save, close the program. Reopen file after X days amount of time, and change effect or thing you applied.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 1y agoCould be, if you're attracting some users who wanted the new stuff and pushing out other customers who just wanted fast and stable.
- BobaFloutist 1y agoI guess if the same spot refers to marketshare