The highly objective problem with Linux. No content creation software. Gimp is a joke. Kx studio also laughable...

The highly objective problem with Linux. No content creation software. Gimp is a joke. Kx studio also laughable. If you want to create professional grade music, professional grade image manipulation,professional grade video editing, there is no point in running linux. I wish there was a way ( besides with wine muh machine is running it better). And if on top you want to play games well...realistically there is only windows. Thats why linux for desktop use is only on 3%. Sad but true.

Then make your own and contribute to the solution instead of whining about the problem.

classic

You forgot about the professional grade spyware there, champ.

You do realize there are several software companies that run only UNIX-based systems, right?

I'm a software dev and I don't need any of that microshilling/apple shit.

Why have computers at all then tbqh

If you are not poor you are making content on OSX onstead of using poor quality ports on Windows.
Honestly there is only Linux and OSX, Windows is only for the poor and /v manchildren.

I don't make music, I don't edit movies or photos. So I don't need it.

Why can't people make up their own minds about which operating system to use. ffs

>Gimp is a joke
Because it has 'commonly' (according to Photoshop users) used tools behind 9000 million options?

lmms

Are you from the 80's?

why use DAWs when you have trackers

I don't edit videos and gimp works well enough for making memes and infographics so why do i need a $2,000 status symbol again?

To counter this, you should write a simple script. If you cant do that, you should not be using computers at all.

Hipsters fucking everywhere

Yeah...
turns out OS's are good for different things, who'd say, eh?
If you're to be a professional musician or graphic designer, you need a mac. If you want games, windows, and if you want a customizable environment and dealing with rather raw data, linux

is this the "do you edit photos, or make anything creative with your pc" thread? op says that if you want to create things linux is useless, which is true.

it doesn't work like that. you firstly choose software then os.

LMMS is ok for music
Krita is great for drawing

Other than preference and complicated UI or whatever is GIMP's problem, you could do professional image manipulation in it. One feature that I noticed is lacking compared to Photoshop's is liquify. Not sure what it's called in GIMP, but it is a bit shit.

I'm legitimately wondering what it is that you can do in Photoshop and can't do in GIMP.

>Honestly there is only Linux and OSX
while I'm inclined to agree, this is not completely true
There is also windows, if you're some idiot who just wants to play flappy bird and check facebook.
But if you're in any way serious about computers (aside gaming) you don't even pay attention to the guys who say windows because you can automatically dismiss them as not knowing what they're doing

Bitwig (cross-platform DAW) looks pretty professional but I agree with OP. Whenever I do photoshop, audio or video editing I just boot into win7.

Windows Philosophy

Linux Philosophy

But muh fruity loops

Casuals that comprise the majority of the consumer market don't give a shit about creating anything other than selfies. Android has shown us that.

pretty sure is sarcastic. if not then why would somebody who wants to make music/photo/video waste time on making complex music/photo/video etc. software when such software already exists and waits to be used.
point being?

I've never seen that synth before.
Is it new?
What are its main features/selling points?

Not op, but that is not a synth itself, it looks a controller plugin for a hardware synth, in this case the elektron analogue 4

>professional grade music
ardour, renoise
>professional grade image manipulation
gimp is fine
>professional grade video editing
lightworks

Oh yeah that looks like it, thank you.
I don't know shit about hardware stuff, as I'm too poor to even look at them lol

Those are very far from professional grade.
They're good for amateur, but I wouldn't call them "professional grade".

>professional
You keep using that word...

What you mean to say is there is no consumer/"prosumer" shitware. There is plenty of professional software, you simply do not know about it or have access to it being that you are in fact not a professional.

>I wouldn't call them "professional grade"

Yes user, I'm sure those movies were made entirely in Lightworks and nothing else.

>do not know about it or have access to it being that you are in fact not a professional.

user doesn't know how knowledge works??

or pirated software??

Tariq Anwar - Editor of 'The King's Speech'

Winner of two BAFTA Awards, 2011 Academy Award-nominee Tariq Anwar says that having used other systems, Lightworks 'is a far superior editing tool'.


Henry Stein - Editor of 'Celebration Day'

Music video editing maestro and big-title TV series editor Henry Stein says that Lightworks 'just lets you get on with the job of editing'.


Jill Bilcock - Editor of 'Road to Perdition'

'Moulin Rouge!' editor Jill Bilcock is a big fan of the Lightworks controller and tells us that 'it's truly a great system to work on'.
Read the interview


Scott Hill - Editor of 'Bruce Almighty'

Devotee Scott Hill tells us why he loves Lightworks and says that 'it's an editing tool that happened to be a computer, and not a computer that’s an editor.'

No but go ahead and keep believing they used Windows Movie Maker to do 90% of the editing

Photo editing - gimp, darktable
DAW - Ardour

Not the same lightworks, it used to be a highly proprietary and high-end system before its current incarnation, which has nothing in common with the original and was basically just developed in the last few years.

>run only UNIX-based systems
>don't need "apple shit"

I'm not sure who will use it, because you will have to pay $60, but Reaper is getting a Linux port.

>Implying I said anything about them not liking it
>Implying I didn't specifically mean they used it along with other stuff and not that they didn't use it by itself.
>Implying those are impressive movies from the video-editing point of view.
>Implying I said anything about Movie Maker.
>Implying this is only about Lightworks and not in general about the list of sub-par programs I was originally replying to.

All that text to admit that you were wrong and that Linux has professional video editing programs. Too much effort, if you ask me.

I never daid that Linux only has shitty programs.In fact it does have good programs. Good for amateur.

Also nice strawman and dodging of the arguments.

(You)
>Those are very far from professional grade.

Yes... And?

Is English your 2nd+ language?

To repeat my point in simpler words, I think they're not bad, but to be on the "professional grade" level they need to get better.

I've been using bitwig lately as my DAW and I have to say I'm pretty pleased. Reminiscent of Ableton.

Lightworks is literally used by professionals

I'm on arts school and i use a Mac ;^)

Was it not a few Ableton devs that walked out and started Bitwig?

if you're making music with VSTs that are 99% flash 1% synthesizer you're not making professional-grade music

Maybe, don't know the story. I just know that it runs on linux with all the VSTs I use and has all the features I used with ableton. I'd personally call it professional quality, since I'm a professional musician and it suits my needs, but I couldn't say whether it is as feature complete as more mature DAWs on windows or mac. I haven't noticed anything really lacking, but I haven't gone out of my way to look, either.

*Lightworks is sometimes used by professionals
FTFY

Just like GarageBand is sometimes used by professional musicians and MS Paint is sometimes used by professional graphic designers.
It doesn't mean that they're top-level software. Just that they're sometimes used by professional for one reason or another.

A professional can use subpar software and he would still be a professional and the software would still be sub-par.

If Rick Rubin said he likes to use the Nokia 3310 ringtone composer to work, that wouldn't make that program professional-grade. It would only make it "sometimes-used-by-professionals".

> tfw cant even use high end softwares costing 10000 dollars to make shitty dubstep on Linux

Then, for the most part, users of other operating systems don't have reasonable access to professional grade software either. Most truly "professional" grade stuff is prohibitively costly and often tied to specialized hardware setups. And hell, if you're going to need specialized hardware anyway, and you're working hard enough on a project to make it worth paying exorbitant sums of money for the hardware and software, then it really doesn't matter that much what OS that software runs on. It's a specialized system.

What Linux does right, though, is that it provides many "sometimes-used-by-professional" open source alternatives that make pretty competent creative tools available to even casual users. They may not be truly comparable if you had the dollars to spend on the professional setup, but they often provide 80-90% of the features at no cost.

In other words, I'm pretty happy with how the linux ecosystem is now with creative software, and it's really only been improving.

>Gimp is a joke

Nice try faggot

That can be used to argue that nothing is professional software

>Photoshop is sometimes used by professional graphic designers. It doesn't mean that they're top-level software. Just that it's sometimes used by professional for one reason or another.

I mean the Aviator isn't a quirky indie movie going for a lo-fi home video aesthetic. It's a $100 million dollar production that won an Oscar for Best Film Editing and it was made in Lightworks.

I pirated mine for free :^)

There are interesting plugins for GIMP in the AUR. I just love GMIC.

For photo editing, RawTherapee is also excellent, I use it a lot, supports film emulation.

Please, name names of these supposed 1% synths.

Nope.
At least in the video-editing/movie industry you can get pro stuff at least on Mac.
Maybe it won't be on the same level of some James Cameron custom technology kind of stuff, but for the rest of the "normal" professionals who don't use specialized stuff (which is obviously a very rare scenario), Mac (and sometimes Windows) software is what everybody uses.

There's a difference between "sometimes used by professionals" and "very often used by professionals" (or even being the industry standard).

>I mean the Aviator (...)
?
Every software (at least the non-shitty ones) has its good examples of work that was done with it. It doesn't change the fact that, while being good enough to be used for top-quality stuff given the right amount of talent, it still doesn't compare to some other non-linux pieces of software that are used in much more impressive movies.

Massive, reFX Nexus, literally anything touched by ImagineLine

Massive is extremely powerful (albeit now overused in EDM, but this doesn't make it bad), Nexus isn't even a synth but a rompler (it literally plays samples, manipulates them a little bit, and that's it).
Image-Line makes a lot of bullshit but Sytrus and Harmor alone are insanely powerful, and most of the other stuff (when it's not something outdated that got replaced by something newer, or something deliberately simple) is still not bad.

Did you just google some random VSTis?

More feature films have been made with Lightworks than with Vegas or Premiere, so it's at least as professional as those.

Add Final Cut Pro to that list.

The Linux philosophy is 'Laugh in the face of danger'.
Oops.
Wrong One.
'Do it yourself'.
Yes, that's it.
- Linus Torvalds

>it's not a professional creation because I don't like the plotline
This is weapons-grade autism

I don't know about the data, so I'll believe you on this one, but it's completely irrelevant, since you're still arguing that a program being used by professionals implies it's as good as its other rivals in the professional field.

>>it's not a professional creation because I don't like the plotline
Can you please point out which part of my message you got that from?

Pixar would like to have a word with you

>you're still arguing that a program being more used by professionals implies it's as good as its other rivals in the professional field.
Uh, yeah. What else would make a program "professional" or not?

I find your definition of "professional" to be so mercurial as to be meaningless. You can use your lax definition to essentially turn every argument in to "I'm right and you're wrong because I said so."

It's not important whether linux has the industry standard software or whether the software is used very often or not. What matters in this context (that is, analyzing the overall quality of linux's creative software ecosystem) is the relative feature completeness and comparable functionality between free, open source alternatives to industry standards. As free, open source linux alternatives begin to approach the "vaguely comparable" mark they start being of increasing interest to companies/professionals due to their low/zero cost, and, for large companies, the ability to easily write new plugins/features really can't be underestimated.

Not only are Linux alternatives to industry standards pretty decent right now in general, but free/open source alternatives are seeing increasing marketshare among professionals for the aforementioned reasons, not to mention the trend of increasing interest in porting proprietary software to linux, partially due to large businesses like Disney choosing to run software like Photoshop through wine yet still demanding reasonable support from Adobe.

What's stopping you from using Wine?

>OP complains there is no content creation software
>OP is a retard, ’cause there’s every software development needed on UNIX

kek

No, the Linux philosophy is "become a programmer to be able to edit videos"

or, you know, use lightworks like hollywood does.

>Every software (at least the non-shitty ones) has its good examples of work that was done with it. It doesn't change the fact that, while being good enough to be used for top-quality stuff given the right amount of talent, it still doesn't compare to some other non-linux pieces of software that are used in much more impressive movies.
Opinions you fucking faggot.

Hollywood hasn't made a good movie in a decade though

Honestly, I tried to use LMMS, several time, and I really wish I could completely switch to Linux. But let’s face it: if you’re a semi-pro or a pro, LMMS is complete shit.
It can’t compete with other pro software available on Windows and OSX— though I don’t like OSX, I can’t deny it’s great for content creators.

>extremely powerful [citation needed]
I can do everything those synths do with Live's operator and a few plugin effects.
Or Live's sampler, in Nexus' case.

>What else would make a program "professional" or not?
Being used by professionals means it's technically a professional program. It doesn't mean it's professional-grade. Only that it's used by professionals, and therefore can be pedantly called "professional", just like if MS Paint were to become popular in graphic design, it would become "professional software" while being miles away from "professional-grade" competitors in terms of quality and features.

We're literally arguing about semantics now.

1- It seems to me that you're implicitly saying that Linux software is good and almost comparable to its non-linux counterparts but it's not quite there yet. This has been my point since my first post.
2-See my response to the other post in the above paragraph.
3- When I talk about it being used or not by professionals, I do so in response to those post that make that argument (such as the firse one with the picture containing movie titles). It's literally a digression from my main point (that, regardless of how and how much they're being used, Linux programs are a few steps behind their non-linux competition). It's really just to answer that guy (or maybe it was you) on that specific point that I don't care about.

>literally anything touched by ImagineLine

So you just haven't actually used their synths then...

Image Line's synths are all deceptively powerful, even 3x3OSC.

This exactly.
The only tool that's wroth anything is blender.

GIMP is garbage, krita isn't much better as well.

As long as I don't have a good Photoshop replacements i just cannot switch to Linux.

Yeah but have you actually made a coherent argument that Lightworks isn't "professional grade" despite it being an industry tool

Try Bitwig.

No, you literally can't. In both cases.
I've never used Nexus (only seen it being used by other people), but I've used extensively both Massive and Ableton (including obviously Operator and Sampler) and I can tell you with 100% certainty that it's literally impossible.
Maybe you can get close to nexus with weird contraptions using racks and M4L devices, but other than that, no.

Also nobody uses Nexus for its capabilities, but for its libraries. Nobody cares about its features (as long as they don't suck too much obviously), since the only important aspect of it is the quality of sounds available for it.
I personally prefer KONTAKT, but it's the same argument.

>industry tool
What do you mean by this?

Image manipulation:
GIMP

Video editing:
lightworks

DAW (digital audio workstation):
BItwig, Ardour

3D work:
Blender

You clearly just don't do your research or don't spend the time to learn how to use the tools. You say they aren't professional grade cause YOU don't know how to use them or aren't professional.

You know exactly what he means by this.

>No, you literally can't. In both cases.
>I can tell you with 100% certainty that it's literally impossible.
I'm sure it must be the software's fault then :^)

If I uderstand correctly, he means I argued against it by saying it's a tool used in the industry (that's what I understand "industry tool" means).
Which is something I didn't do.

And to people who say GIMP is bad, it's honestly pretty great with plugins. It's just vanilla GIMP that is pretty weak compared to photoshop. I feel like people hear "oh, GIMP is linux's photoshop alternative, guess I'll try it" then see that it isn't powerful enough out of the box and drop it before exploring the actual ways GIMP can be competitive.

And then Krita, as far as drawing/painting programs go, is really quite good at what it tries to be. That is to say, it was never intended as a photoshop replacement as much as a competitor to programs like SAI.

I did the same. I REALLY tried to like LMMS but after fucking with it for a while I had to come to the realization that it's nothing more than a shitty FL Studio clone... and a clone of an ancient version for FL Studio... and if I want to use something similar to FL 3.x-4.x then I might as well dig up the CD I have those old installers on and use the real deal.

Having said that energyXT shows promise. The biggest issue I will always have is that the bulk of my VST's just don't work under Linux.

kdenlive for video

linux also has most of the best softwares that exist for recording & music, as well as zero latency

I won't argue graphics though, krita is way better than gimp but still lacks

Profissional = OSX and Windows
Hobbist = GNU/Linux
Mainstream = BSD*

Alright then, tell me how to make the sounds available as wavetables in it, and at the same time ring-modulate them, modify the waves in real time (with the bend/formant controls), have two parallel filters (that feature combs, allpasses, screams, etc.), have great control over the routing and (advanced) effects position inside the signal chain of the synth itself.
All this, being modulated by crazy envelopes, LFOs and step sequencers that modulate each other.
You literally can't.

Also because Massive is a subtractive/wavetable synth and Operator is an FM one.

For Nexus, as I said, It's possible to get close to the software's functionality (which are irrelevant) by using a combination of racks, multiple instances, etc. (while with Nexus you just have to open it and use it), but it's impossible to get its sounds (which are the only relevant point for even using Nexus in the first place), as they're almost never available for Ableton and the few that are exclusive for it aren't often very good.

Again, try bitwig.

P.S. there are both wrappers and bridges available to run windows VSTs on linux e.g. dssi-vst, festige, airwave, as well as a pretty large selection of open source VSTs

>linux also has most of the best softwares that exist for recording & music
like what?

If I do, I'll probably test it out under Windows. I'm not a fan of Ableton so something designed by their programmers doesn't have a lot of appeal.

3% is way too high more like 1.5%

>point being?

Professional grade creation suites are irrelevant to success of linux and therefore not a problem with linux OSs in any ways.

From the devs themselves? Supported distro is Ubuntu I guess?

source pls

This.
Trackers are so much more comfy, especially for drum programming.