1. 23

  2. 18

    Should employees of coca-cola only be allowed to drink coca-cola? Should people who work at Samsung only be allowed to use Samsung devices? If something else does the job better then you should probably use that.

    And before people bring “ethics” in to this, the Linux Foundation is not the FSF. Retraining people who produce these sort of graphics (possibly from external companies) is not really a good investment of funds, even if the tools on Linux would be equivalent. Better to spend that money to improve those tools, for example.

    And the whole complaining about the stock image is just silly.

    1. 8

      It’s good to keep in mind that LF is a trade org, not a public interest non-profit, both to steer expectations and the level of support the wider community should provide them.

      That said: Blender is gearing up to become a popular professional 3D modeller in large part because they have dedicated dogfooding campaigns - namely every open movie by the Blender Foundation which is always accompanied by supporting development work.

      If the LF has any interest (as a trade org) to promote the Linux desktop (I think they do, even if it’s not their top-most priority) it would be good to have similar campaigns: Let domain experts use that environment while having developers work on the tooling immediately and with short feedback loops with those users.

      1. 5

        Yeah, that would be useful, but it’s quite different from “random person at LF struggling to get the required output with tools they’re not familiar with and may be less good than alternatives”.

        One of the things Blender probably did right was focus on funding right from the start, so people could work on it full-time to do this kind of stuff and more. Right now it employs 24 people, but even with just 2 or 3 devs you’ve got buckets of more time to actual make a good end-product (and crucially, also help out devs wanting to contribute). If you compare this to GIMP – which is just a few people working on it in their spare time – or many of the Open Source PDF tools, then it’s quite a different story. I have the impression that the GIMP people don’t want to go down the same Blender did, and are happy with how things are – which is fair enough – but then don’t be surprised if professionals prefer Photoshop.

      2. 1


        Made in Scribus. Successfully translated into multiple languages. Some outside of FSFE.

        1. 3

          I already used Scribus back in 2007 when I published/edited the Scouting magazine for my region, migrating from Microsoft Publisher that the previous guy used.

          This was a long time ago, but migrating was rather time-consuming, and I had to relearn everything I learned in Publisher. It certainly wasn’t “free”, as in that I needed to invest quite some time in it (DTP isn’t always the easiest software to learn/use). I also had some problems getting it delivered to our printer; from what I remember I eventually managed to get the PDF output just right so it printed well, but it took some effort. With Publisher, this was easier as they were already familiar with it and could just open the Publisher files.

          There were also some other issues with it; I think the way justified text worked was pretty borked at the time, but again, this was a long time ago so I’d hope that’s improved now. I also had to fix the FreeBSD port first before I could actually use it 🙃

          As with GIMP, Scribus seems like a small hobby project. Actually, it seems there are just three people working on it, with the majority being done by two people. That’s very fine and all and the results are pretty impressive for such a small team working in their spare time, but you can’t expect that to be able to compete against professional products with a bunch of people working on it full-time. Is it possible to publish stuff with it? Sure, I did it myself. Is it the best tool for professional use? Probably not.

          As a sidenote, Microsoft Publisher was actually pretty decent as well; the only Office product I somewhat enjoyed using. In the end, the main advantage was that I could publish stuff from my FreeBSD desktop, instead of having to reboot to Windows to run Publisher.

          So yeah, sure, it’s possible. But why? What’s the point?

          1. 2

            No point if your only goal is to get it done now for yourself. But imagine all OSS promoting orgs to pay someone to actually improve Scribus and GIMP to match their needs. Instead of subscribing to Adobe, which only deepens the lock-in hole.

      3. 14

        What do you expect? The tooling of an industry that makes these documents isn’t available on Linux, do why do it there? In addition, the Linux foundation mostly represents server/embedded interests, not desktop, so it’s not urgent.

        1. 1

          Looks like 2020 is not the “year of the Linux desktop”, according to the Linux Foundation itself. ;)

          The Linux foundation mostly represents corporate interests, and these don’t include the desktop.

        2. 9

          I find it interesting that folks often play down or dismiss the fact that Linux is Free Software, as if it isn’t part of an ecosystem founded upon and dedicated to the idea of sharing source code. I also find it interesting that the Linux Foundation has lost its pride in funding a portion of that ecosystem.

          Dogfooding isn’t necessary, but it is both a point of optics and also of how well our ecosystem satisfies and provides for its inhabitants. As builders of Free Software, we should have a modicum of satisfaction from our tooling; it is, in a specific sense, a failure of Free Software when Free Software’s own proponents choose non-free alternatives for any purpose, let alone the purpose of self-promotion and legibility to the rest of the community.

          1. 5

            I think you get at the heart of the comments - this article has a big baked-in assumption that the LF is committed to the FSF’s principles, and nobody sees any reason it should be. Examining that assumption and the marginalization of the FSF over the last couple decades would be a really interesting article. This one comes off as a troll.

          2. 8

            I don’t agree with the criticism of the stock photo. That’s reuse, under fair terms, of the image. Seems like the spirit of open source.

            The complaint about the software is more appropriate. It’s not surprising to me, having worked at the Linux Foundation a few years ago; all the engineers used Linux but all of the business and marketing folks there used Windows and macOS. Still disappointing.

            1. 6

              Better than a stock photo is no photo. If you need to show smiling faces, show your team instead of random/anonymous persons. It is more authentic and credible.

            2. 5

              Most Linux people I know of enjoy it when workplaces lets workers use whichever operating system they’re most comfortable with. I wonder why some people are so incredibly upset when the person hired to produce pretty reports is given that same choice of tools, just because their employer has “Linux” in the title.

              To be clear, there are two complaints here. One is “The report looks kind of generic because it’s using a stock photo”. That complaint is fine I suppose. The other complaint is “the Linux Foundation’s report writer/editor is allowed to choose tools other than Linux”. That’s the complaint I have an issue with.

              1. 4

                Until there are Linux equivalents, not just “clones,” of the Adobe toolchain in Linux, this is to be expected. You can hire professional designers and let them use the tools they need, or you can say “GIMP and Scribus only!” and turn out terrible looking publications because most designers won’t work with those tools.

                Alternately, they could use LaTeX or troff and produce the sorts of documents that those tools are great at producing.

                1. 7

                  There are people who produce excellent quality output using those tools, like David Revoy. At least some of those people are even available for hire.

                  1. 1

                    You can hire professional designers and let them use the tools they need…

                    Never met these professional designers you talk of. Far more often it’s just status signalling jerks who use the most expensive hardware and software because they do the “social media magic” or “glossy brochure secret sauce” everyone is so crazy about lately.

                    I’ve met several video specialists who did not understand their formats nor did have any meaningful video editing skills.

                    I’ve met UI designers who were unable to explain white space rules for an UI kit they “designed”.

                    I’ve met PR staff who did not even know how they’ve licensed the illustrations for a book they’ve published only to find they were - of course - not compliant.

                    I’d take someone who can use Scribus and GIMP and Inkscape over anyone who “needs” Adobe products, because the later only guarantees high costs. Not better results.

                    Also, the brochure could’ve been set as effectively in LibreOffice on Linux. There is nothing special in it.

                    1. 3

                      Never met these professional designers you talk of. Far more often it’s just status signalling jerks who use the most expensive hardware and software because they do the “social media magic” or “glossy brochure secret sauce” everyone is so crazy about lately.

                      You need to expand your social circle. I e-know plenty of people who work in graphic design who are both professional and passionate about their work.

                      1. 1

                        Yeah, might be a central Europe thing, because that’s what sits on the other side of the table when we open a public tender or try hiring.

                        And don’t get me started on their salesmen…