I can't imagine how many tokens this cost to make

Github here https://github.com/storytold

I mean: I'll probably get downvoted because we are on Lemmy and the title contains "vibecoding" in it, but holy s**t, are we just getting a viable Photoshop alternative for linux 🤣

The Gimp: am I a joke to you?

~300 open issues. i wonder if that would be more or less, if photoshop were on github.

Kinda.
I've checked in on Gimp several times over the years. I know it's hard to hear, I'm sorry. You're not Photoshop.

I'm looking at those issues... here a guy opened an issue and literally 15 minutes later there is PR with a feature he wanted

https://github.com/storytold/photocraft/issues/2034

lol - now I really want to know how long that'd take at adobe

Any actual complaints other than the fact that the UI isn't identical?

Does forever work for you?

Agreed. Gimp is fine. Its takes a minute for me to figure out where the thing is I want to do. But after thats its easy.

I dont use it (or Photoshop) all that often though.

It's been a few years.
I can check it out again and make a list, if you'd like.

PhotoPea: If you hate yourself, you can even use me on a phone.

Fuck Adobe, obvs. But I wonder how this is going to affect small time devs, who are trying to carve out a living by working on a passion project.

Open source alternatives to paid apps will always exist, but require skill and effort to create. Some guy prompting AI to make a knockoff BetterTouchTool doesn’t sit quite right.

There is a law in software engineering called "ninety-ninety rule"

The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of development time; the remaining 10% accounts for the other 90%.

which can be interpreted as "final touches are the most difficult".

I think it is also true for vibecoding. As seen in a video I've posted, although the app works, there are some small faults yet to be fixed. And as seen in commit history of PhotoCraft - the work isn't finished, it currently intensifies

This is proof that Adobe could make it work if they wanted to but choose not to.

For how many users will the free unfinished or unpolished software be enough? If developers income’s are ripped off by some cat interacting with Claude, then software development outside of the commercial space becomes available only to those who are willing to do so at the expense of their own time.

Also Krita, pretty good.

A lot of artists I know use Clip Studio Paint, too.

in the category "viable photoshop alternative", yes

I like the tool, but anyone claiming that it's a true alternative, hasn't touched photoshop since 1996

I'd say anyone claiming it isn't a viable alternative hasn't touched The Gimp since 1996

Weird, because I do so multiple times a week

So why bother if it's not viable?

Never said it's not viable

It's just not an alternative for Photoshop

For super simple stuff is fine, if a little bit cumbersome

You literally said that fifty minutes ago.

If you read the full sentence, you'll see that I didn't

in the category "viable photoshop alternative", yes

I like the tool, but anyone claiming that it's a true alternative, hasn't touched photoshop since 1996

Sure, Jan

It's a viable simple graphics program

Not a viable Photoshop alternative

I'm not mean enough to call you a joke. I have a lot of respect for what you are and what you can do. But you're no Photoshop dear child.

I'd still rather pirate than use this vibecode though.

still can't change text after applying a filter in $current_year

Someone do Oracle database next so that company can be fully fucked once the AI debt bubble pops

Don't need to apply it. It has got stackable filters now. Individually editable and hideable. Works fine with text. So just confirms my theory that all the haters haven't touched it recently. Just like with Linux (they generally don't distinguish between distributions ofc), when people claim you need the console for everything while you mostly don't need it at all.

Bruh, use photopea

If you have a browser, you have photoshop.

We don't need unsafe vibe coded clones, we have clones with actual development and support

Reposting my relevant comment from yesterday on the Opensource board:

My opinion: this is pointless

LLMs are stochastic regurgitators, but software can already be copy/pasted without cost.

Why should we be interested in an LLM clone of photoshop when there are already clones of photoshop (e.g. https://photopea.com/)?

If I want to use photoshop (or something like it), then I’ll use photoshop (or something like it: i.e. photopea).

There’s literally no point in favour of using the LLM copy, it’s going to have less support and less security (since its training data will have also included prompt injection attacks).

It’s just more of the same, but worse. Even for the sake of argument: if it wasn’t worse, it’d still be more of the same.

I’m not interested in more of the same, I’m interested in things made by people that push the boundaries of what’s possible: (e.g. graphite).

Why should I use software from anybody if I can just have an LLM generate what I want? I don't have to worry about licensing, software becoming paid, getting enshittified or getting abandoned. I can have my own walled garden of my own apps.

that sentence didn't say what you think it says at all

Instead of it does it in .

Gimp will always be awful because it has never been developed with UX as the priority.

There's thousands I can run locally and thousands more I can run from hundreds of places that aren't the hyperscalers.

the last photoshop i used and enjoyed was cs6, and photogimp does everything that did. i’m a big fan.

e:a word

The assumption of "just generate it" is doing a lot of work. There's a lot of assumptions that an LLM produced program will have the same guarantees that a closed source program has. You don't know about licensing because most courts haven't decided on it yet. The enshittification would most likely happen on the LLM provider end. You also wouldn't get the benefit of other people's eyes on the software. You're getting none of the benefits of open source with the consequences of closed source.

No they don't they're buggy as shit

They recently started to try improving on that front, so maybe one day?

I use it every few days and tried to do what I just described before posting about it, and was unable to do so. I don't consider that "not having touched it recently."

And even if it does do that now on some newer version my distro doesn't have, my thoughts are still the same as others in this thread like the bad UX and many other features photoshop has that gimp doesn't.

So the same experience as actual adobe software 🤣 /s

Yes

We're still in the very early days an it's already starting. Give it 5 years and we'll see.

You do realize that Photopea is JS running in your browser right, aka it's slow.

Though I have to admit I'm way more interested in LR clones that are actually good clones.

You do realize that Photopea is JS running in your browser right, aka it’s slow.

Yes I realise it's running in a browser.

No it's not slow.

It's running 5mb of web assembly, so unless running regular photoshop is using more than 50% of your CPU, you're not going to notice any slowdowns.

The only time you're going to notice a slow down is if the thing you're doing would already be annoying slow in photoshop (e.g. opening >500mb non-raw files, in which case it being slow in a browser wouldn't matter since you'd be better off processing the files outside of photoshop anyway).

Oracle won't worry, it's a lawyer firm with a side hustle of computer software (I totally stole this from Ed Zitron)