Calligraphy pen/tool is still unusable, messy and less responsive (lower resolution, more angular, etc), much worse than in 0.92, and it's been this way ever since 1.0. It also now requires windows ink to be on, and they removed devices panel so you can't even tell if your device is recognized properly. It's bad with a tablet, but it's still just as bad and much worse in comparison even with the mouse. It's kinda disappointing to see this bad of a regression to just linger there for years. Here's the issue for this problem on their gitlab https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/work_items/1473#note_...
Part of it would be solved in the next major release as you've seen in the issue. Another part would be fixing the tool itself which probably requires separate time and effort.
Mind you that Inkscape is being worked on by volunteers until very recently where there are 2 new contractors specifically for fixing bugs in 1.5.
One thing about pen tool that can be kind of tricky to adjust even in 0.92 is Mass parameter, where even in that version there's not enough granularity literally just between 0, 1 and 2 (it honestly could use about a 100 levels to adjust between just 0 and 2), and the lack of granularity and pen control is made even more severe in 1.x where there's not enough granularity even between just 0 and 1, and even 1 already feels much slower than higher settings in 0.92. Though I'm not sure if fixing that would even be that pressing at all if it was just brought up to 0.92 level of performance.
I don't know if anything is solved in 1.5 dev build yet, but the calligraphy pen there seems to be even worse than before and worse than even in 1.4.4. It's frankly impressive. I take it nobody actually uses that tool for drawing at all (which would explain a lot really), otherwise the issues with it would be immediately glaring a while ago.
It's a dev build for a reason. The canvas itself has performance regressions, especially prominent on Windows. You'd have to wait for the development to happen, otherwise I'd like to see patches.
It's not so much "waiting", but rather semi-curiously checking roughly every year if anything changed whenever there's a new 1.x release popping up somewhere like this, and then promptly going back to the old version that actually works.
I remember my car broke down, it was trash worth maybe 200 in scrap metal at the time. The tow to the yard was like 100 or something. I was screwed and couldn't get rides to work. My buddy lent me a car he had for free. I did not complain once to anyone about the things wrong with that car, and I never will. I even fixed some small issues with it to return the favor. The guy and that car saved my livelihood at the time.
I realize that's a little dramatic. I also think people are allowed to raise issues. But the entitlement and the way people talk about free software is annoying. Especially when alternatives cost as much as a used or new car.
If you have a Ferrari pallete for software then I hope there's an alternative that satisfies that for free, if so say so, otherwise shut up, contribute, or pay the Ferrari dollars already.
Eh. I draw the line in a slightly different place. I think saying that some piece of software is bad is not an attack on the developers. It doesn't imply ill will, or entitlement or any of that. People are allowed to write whatever software they want. And its generally net positive to share that software, for free, with the world.
These things are true at once:
- Good work inkscape developers! Inkscape is used by lots of people. I'm happy for the developers and the users, and I hope inkscape keeps getting better.
- I don't want to use inkscape because when I tried it, it seemed ugly, slow and buggy.
The only problem here is when people equate "this program is junk" with "this person is junk". That's a very dangerous belief to have, because it makes an enemy out of practice. And an enemy out of experimentation. The road to expertise is paved by mistakes. If bad quality work makes you a bad person, you can never learn a new skill.
I think you are right. But I also know what it's like to be on the other side of it. Taking it personally isn't the big issue.
Instead of celebrating a release the top comments are things like "this one thing doesn't work therefore trash, and unusable". Which reads like coercion for the devs to go spend a bunch of time and prioritize their life to satisfy someone at the free all you can download buffet.
The thing that sucks about it is. The devs will go fix that thing. Make a new release. Then the top comment will be some other bug, because all software has them. Then if there are no bugs it will be something else like the devs cousins dogs affiliation the the neighborhood cat. It just gets old to me.
I know what its like to be on the other side of it too. I've had plenty of things I've done posted to HN over the years. I've gotten all sorts of comments.
Honestly, I'm chuffed and always a little surprised when people read what I've written, or when they like my work. If someone says your software has a bug, that means they liked what you're doing enough that they took time out of their day to try it out. It means they care about the problem you're solving enough that they want you to fix it.
I'd take criticism every day over getting no response at all. Criticism of features means you're solving a problem people care about. If the feature they criticise is obscure, it means all the other features are working better.
I don't know if that point of view is teachable though. Even knowing all that, I feel criticism incredibly acutely in person. Stepping on stage and showing your work to a crowd is terrifying. But I think its good for us. It tempers us, somehow. Makes us more real.
As an open-source developer, feedback is about 1% of what I need. Contributions are the other 99%. However, the reality is flipped where what I get is 99% feedback (issues/feature requests in the issue tracker) and 1% contributions. And this is not a "significant regression", I use Inkscape very often for graphics work and it works great for me. And it does not "justify" regressions, but if you are not willing to fix it yourself, you have no right to do anything other than kindly request a fix, not complain about it. And btw, I don't search hacker news for "feedback", I search my issue tracker.
There seems to be pervasive opinion among FOSS enthusiasts that the software being free and volunteer made is kind of get out of jail card for not only criticism, but often simply just feedback.
I deeply appreciate that FOSS exists. But - subjective feeling - in general it always had certain reputation for jankiness and user unfriendliness. Sniping down feedback "because the software is free" certainly contributes to that perception. If I have a choice between free, volunteer made software that's unreliable or doesn't even work for some of my use cases, and a commercial, but non-free product, I will be pragmatic about it and choose the latter.
Because the authors don't owe you anything. You aren't giving them a single thing. They don't have to justify a thing. There is no SLA, no contract, nothing.
Feedback is fine, but there are so comments being things like "ermahgerd I paid nothing for this thing and a feature wasn't working What the actual F!". Go file an issue and fix it yourself buddy.
Users don’t owe the authors anything either. If they want to ignore longstanding complaints, they can toil in obscurity.
Heck the only reason this post made the front page of HN is because of lingering goodwill that was built up when the software was actually decent. Now that it’s regressed into uselessness, the goodwill is drying up. I, frankly, don’t have any interest in the software anymore, since it was rendered unusable. I recommend everyone steer clear of it as well.
I don't think it really matters if they are on the front page of HN. It's free software they don't need to market it right? Maybe it helps them find people willing to contribute to the issues though. So there is that.
You are free to do that. I've only used inkscape like half a dozen times. It was fine for me.
Yeah, I'm keeping it in mind. 0.92 still works great. There's basically nothing that's so severely lacking in 0.92, or anything that would be so enticing in 1.x, so there's no pressure to switch at all, and it may as well stay broken forever.
It's a little odd to me that the tool regressed so badly in 1.x and stayed the same for five years though, even despite some apparent attempts to fix it, for something that i assume is a core tool (it's right there on the toolbar), though maybe not so much if it's so low priority that it stays unaddressed. It's not a situation where people are asking for something new to be added, it's a feature that worked fine before that got broken years ago and stayed broken. It's frankly bizarre to see hot new releases get touted year after year, while a part of core experience just stays broken.
But again, it's kinda fine because the old version is just there, it just makes for a bit of an odd caveat when recommending it to people, for them to stick with the old version because it works better (well, actually works at all). It's a little unfortunate for the new users that might not know that and will just get the latest version and won't experience a feature properly though. (like, if I was a new user to it and picked up any 1.x version and tried the tool there, it would be clear that it's unusable for drawing and it'd be immediately dismissed, even though it actually works pretty great in older versions)
Inkscape is the only software that I see people get so defensive about when criticised. I even had the lead dev appear in my mentions and try and start fighting me on twitter when I complained on my own timeline about the performance on macOS. Weird culture
I think I know who you're talking about then :) Yes, some years has passed and they are no longer active (and we have a leadership committee instead of lead devs now).
Maybe there can be some kinda suggestion box and a voting system for suggestions or existing things? Like an open suggestion box, where people could submit potential entries and vote on whether they belong there and are dead or not. And for existing entries, to vote on whether something is truly dead or not, like 'yep, this is dead', or 'nope, this is still alive' (some things may be less popular, but that's not them being dead/actually completely discontinued and defunct). Not necessarily for ranking or putting it together into one score, but perhaps just showing a number of how many people think either way about something
also, 'Coming up in the graveyard' makes it sound like something's gonna arrive here like it's newly dead, like it's about to be shutdown with a deadline, when it's just anniversaries, which really should be clearer at the top of that box
Especially americans? The popularity and demand for homogenous american products and services (and other similarly homogenous things from other countries) overseas shows that it's not just "especially americans". What point would that even make? If anything the amount of people and customers of such things worldwide could easily outnumber just the people who live in one country, even as big. Desiring a level of service is not really a "uniquely american" thing. Perhaps there's also some impression that there's some "international homogeneity" that blurs things and makes it seem like it's coming from one place (even though it's a mix), but seemingly "cultural and local" things in other countries can be no less homogenous. Going from one japanese ryokan to another you're gonna experience the same level of homogeneity.
All of them are optional and can be disable at the instance-wide level, in addition to some of them having account level opt outs.
They also are still generally bound to an instance's own horizon: there's no global "trending feed" (and it would be really hard to create one), these optional "algorithmic" tools still differ from instance to instance based on what that instance follows and its trading relationship to its neighbors.
File - Overwrite file, that's been there for a while. It can be turned into a hotkey, it's unmapped by default, and I don't think that'd change nor should it change, given how user hostile that'd be, the long history of how it works in editors like that, and with how they lean towards non-destructiveness of it all. Also, that just sounds like perhaps a simpler editor would be a better fit, like Paint.
4) The Bluetooth standard is just kinda bad. Technically there should be enough bandwidth for better quality audio, but the existing profiles like headset mode drop audio quality down to 8-16 kHz sampling rate in mono, not just for mic but for audio you're listening to as well. It's a huge flaw and it's been bad for decades with seemingly no improvement at all (at least certainly not in a way that could be widespread and commonly used).
It's so bad you'd almost wish for a brand new wireless connectivity or wireless audio standard, or even resort to some proprietary 2.4 GHz nonsense, because it's genuinely so horrid. You could have the best most expensive headphones in the world, but because of Bluetooth and its ancient profiles and mic support it's gonna have baseline absolute garbage mic quality no matter what.
If it was a pure communication platform, we wouldn't be in this situation.
Social media as it exists in mainstream life is an advertising platform which happens to have a few methods humans can use to communicate with each other. But that's a bug, not a feature.
Tech companies are involved in lobbying, so maybe it's not as irrelevant or unconnected as you might think. Fees are how they make the money that goes into it.
Even if they pick a distro and decide to install it, more often than not the install process is still overly convoluted even in just making installation media.
Going to a distro website and trying to find where to get it (ubuntu has a habit of leading with literally anything else other than regular desktop distro on their front page). Finding a download page, and having it just spit out an iso file, with no explanation on what to do with it, or 'how to install' link in sight (debian, it's very nice that there's a big download button, but like...then what. where's the explanation link. it's buried under other downloads, but that's not very intuitive). Getting to a 'how to install' page and having it be intimidatingly long, perhaps even needlessly. Sites, pages and explainers being laid out in confounding ways, and install process sometimes laid out in a bit of an overcomplicated way. (debian has an installation guide that's presented perhaps in the most intimidating way possible to a new unwitting user, and also buried under click on a click on a click. somehow writing the iso is not even among the first dozen of pages there. ubuntu mate gives you links to iso downloads, and yet the installation process is buried under 'faq' (again, not very intuitive or straightforward), that faq only has a bunch of oddly laid out 'making installation media' pages, and the rest of actual installation process is just somewhere else.)
That's before someone even gets to the actual install process. Somehow all of that stuff hasn't gotten more streamlined or user friendly. If you try to see how one would go about getting and installing any distro, you'd quickly see that it's very confusing and convoluted, way more than it has to be, or needs to be to appeal and be simple for new users.
There's glimmers of hope, like fedora which has its media writer, which is gonna hold your hand through the whole thing. Even that links out to github for a download, despite clicking on a seemingly specific 'windows/mac or linux' button. It's a little buried too, below iso downloads, when it really should be brought up more forward, and explain a little bit better on how it's gonna guide you thru the whole thing.
It really should be an app that's gonna guide you thru it, or a dead simple 1-2-3 step tutorial that's gonna guide you thru writing an image (download writer, download iso, write an image - laying it out more than that is just overcomplicating it really, at least in the initial quick install guide), with a clear, visible link to it - and yet somehow even this is too high of a bar for many distros to clear.
What has done a number on the ease of installing linux is how compact discs have just went away, because having a compact disc, burning it, or having it be just sent to users was making that step of the process simpler. Sure, writing to a USB is easy, but the expectation that everyone's just gonna have a spare usb is naive (and you're never gonna hear that you actually need to buy a usb stick in any of those guides lol), and there's just a little more opportunity to fuck up there (overwriting other disks, unless the writer app is laid out nicely and fail-proof). Distros might as well start selling usb sticks with installers on them. If someone's gonna be brand new to the whole thing and they're gonna have to buy a usb stick anyway, they might as well buy it from the distro with the distro on it already.
Some distros may want to get real about how a new user would even navigate their websites in order to get the thing. Like just trying to go thru that process themselves and see what's that experience like.
> There's glimmers of hope, like fedora which has its media writer, which is gonna hold your hand through the whole thing. Even that links out to github for a download, despite clicking on a seemingly specific 'windows/mac or linux' button. It's a little buried too, below iso downloads, when it really should be brought up more forward, and explain a little bit better on how it's gonna guide you thru the whole thing.
> It really should be an app that's gonna guide you thru it, or a dead simple 1-2-3 step tutorial that's gonna guide you thru writing an image (download writer, download iso, write an image - laying it out more than that is just overcomplicating it really, at least in the initial quick install guide), with a clear, visible link to it - and yet somehow even this is too high of a bar for many distros to clear.
Sorry, but this is just ridiculously nit-picky. How much more hand-holding do you need? Everything you want is literally there. Are you complaining that Fedora also addresses Linux users, at all?
Fact is, installing an operating system is a bit of an involved process. Realistically, people wouldn't even start with the docs, but some YouTube tutorial... But man... Fedora tries so hard! The site is ultra clean and on-point. Docs are friendly and very much 1-2-3 structured, they maintain a fucking media writer to do all the complicated shit like choosing a mirror and checking signatures, a simple installer where all complexity is hidden and you can just hit 'next'. What the hell do you want more?
MacOS and Windows don't even consider OS installation and only show you where you can find their OS preinstalled. Lol.
(I do have to agree with you on ubuntu.com tho. Haven't opened their site in a while and... jesus christ, what a mess!)
Fedora is the better example there. (i literally say that it's the glimmer of hope there lol.) It's an actual utility slash app that will do everything, and not just a file that's just thrown at you with no pointers.
(Though even fedora's download page could use a more clearer "How to install" link next to the iso links there. cause even clicking on Documentation there isn't gonna lead you to an installation tutorial or even let you easily find one there without digging. and even what's written where is either not that great or just doesn't exist lol. like, i would just straight up disagree on docs being friendly in regards to install process. though maybe that's not even necessary cause you're just gonna boot into the installer that'll take you through it. and again, it links out to github instead of actually downloading it right there, which only adds unnecessary confusion. how hard could it be to actually split links per platform? this is again the sort of thing where some people there might presume that 'users will just figure it out', that they will hunt out the correct file there on a page that looks nothing like previous one and is more geared towards devs, even though it could've been streamlined further. putting media writer higher up on the page is a nitpick, lack of a prominent installation guide is not, cause it's not linked to, and it also seemingly doesn't even exist. there's https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/f36/install-guid... but not for a more recent version, i guess it just got lost in the shuffle.)
Some Linux distros aren't really doing as good as they could be at making things more accessible to a wider audience and less proficient users. And so the install base stays where it is. I don't think it's extremely nit picky to point out that just linking to an iso and expecting people to just figure it out without even clearly linking to a tutorial is not very accessible. And it really could be as simple as just actually having a link that says "How to install" or "Installation guide", and it's baffling when that stuff is buried. People could use trying to look at these things from a perspective of a new user who's not familiar with these things, and not just from someone who's in the know. Cause it's not actually intuitive or accessible having to dig around a website, trying to guess which of the links would take you there. (other downloads? documentation? support? none of these are an actual guide, and sometimes you won't even find a link to a guide there either.) There seems to be an assumption that just giving an iso file is enough, and that assumption is incorrect.
For example, Debian does kind of a bad job there cause it just throws an iso there and leaves you to poke at other links and guess, the installation guide there is buried under a bunch of clicks for some reason. Ubuntu is pretty good (though im still baffled why won't they feature their desktop version even more prominently on their front page. now that's an actual nitpick), and it actually outlines 'how to install' right there next to the download, and has an actual link to a more comprehensive tutorial too, that's laid out pretty nicely as well. (that's pretty much perfect really. though some other flavors of ubuntu might not be as great there.) Compare https://www.debian.org/releases/forky/amd64/ and https://ubuntu.com/tutorials/install-ubuntu-desktop (both also first results from google on 'distro name how to install'). Debian's idea of a guide is kind of diabolical in comparison. It looks intimidating, it's plainly a pain in the ass to navigate, it's not laid out well whether you a new user or even if you know what's up, it's easier to just give up on that page and look elsewhere for something better formatted. But hey, maybe Debian isn't even really meant to be all that accessible or to be for the kinds of users that ubuntu might cater to. Or rather, it just won't be, if it's gonna be like that.
Windows is quite easy to install. They have a media writer too and their installer is pretty straightforward. It'll even do an in place upgrade that will just work. They clearly have considered OS installation, and have a couple of different tools available for it. They also still sell usb sticks with an installer on it.
To be honest, I don't think Debian and Fedora are even targeting total beginners and that's fine with me. I love Fedora, but I wouldn't recommend it as a first ever Linux distro.
But yeah, I have to take back my rage somewhat, since I realized the Fedora docs are not once mentioning what actually to do with a "boot medium". Granted the installer is pretty self-explanatory, it's a bit odd the rebooting hint is omitted.
I disagree on the GitHub thing. It's an easy way to maintain and safely distribute the binaries. It's likely a thing of maintenance capacity and I won't fault anyone for that. All this shit is free... And lots of it is work in progress.
Also quite frankly, if someone can't be bothered to pick the right binary for their OS, the whole process of installing a new OS is maybe a bit too advanced to do unsupervised. Let's be real, this level of curiosity and engagement is required to install and run Linux. I don't think it should be pushed onto anyone not up for the challenge. In my experience, that doesn't end well.
Again, all this shit is free. Fedora, although backed by Redhat, does not profit at all by anyone installing Fedora. They don't nudge you towards commercial products, don't collect or sell your data, no subscriptions, no ads... nothing (in contrast with Ubuntu, which actually does these things). Any voice of entitlement just hurts me a little, seeing how much they try.
reply