Are the Krita developers paying you to go off the rails like this?

I think you’ve got that backwards.

Not liking the name of the software I use and saying your preferred application is superior is better because it’s prettier are emotional arguments.

I stated that Krita doesn’t do what I need it to do at the moment but would consider switching to it if it did.

I didn’t say the GIMP is better for all use cases. I said it’s better for my use case. And it’s really weird for you to get this defensive when both applications are FOSS.

Some photo editing features were either never added, or they feel clunky to use. Either way, the GIMP is better suited even if it’s uglier.

Krita is a great tool for artists, but I’m not going to force myself to use it instead of the GIMP, and I’m not going to tell others it’s designed for something it’s not. I’ll keep checking in on it, but until it does what I need it to, it’s not going to become my main tool for photo editing.

Krita may have started out as a photo editor, but that’s clearly not its focus today. If I need to edit a photo, I will use a tool better suited for that task, even if that tool isn’t as pretty as Krita.

Yeah, it confused me at first, but now I love it and never want to have to go back to dealing with Device Manager freaking out if I need to move a drive or swap out hardware.

Linux doesn’t have a Device Manager or database like Windows does. It automatically picks the appropriate drivers for the hardware in the system when it boots, based on what drivers are installed. And as others have mentioned, most distros ship generic kernels with all the open-source drivers included.

That’s what I thought. People keep saying Krita is a great alternative to GIMP, Photoshop, and Affinity Photo, but photo editing is not its focus at all.

Isn’t Krita more focused on digital painting than photo editing? I always end up going back to the GIMP because of that even though I use KDE.

I find the package manager clunky.

As someone who generally likes Arch, I feel like this isn’t brought up enough. Every Arch user seems to love pacman, but I find it way clunkier to use than apt and dnf. It’s like they made it cryptic on purpose.

All five times are listed here.

None of that other stuff matters if they’re this incompetent at something as basic as SSL certificates. It’s not dogma. It’s not nitpicking. This is Security 101. I can’t recommend a distro that fails this badly at a basic security task to newcomers.

I’m sorry, but the fact that they failed to renew their SSL certificates and told their users to change their system clocks as a workaround, not once, not twice, but FIVE times so far… well, that’s not petty. That’s security 101. That tells me they can’t be trusted to provide a secure operating system.

The rest of your points, I mostly agree with you on. I really wanted to like Manjaro when I tried it a few years ago. I would love to see more newbie-friendly distros that aren’t based on Ubuntu and GNOME. But I can’t recommend a distro that can’t even manage to do SSL renewals right.

You keep ignoring every single example I’ve given you by saying it doesn’t matter because Apple.

Wrong.

They’re ALL doing ALL of it. Microsoft’s Surface laptops and tablets are even less repairable than iPads and MacBooks, and Google’s devices become paperweights as soon as they get bored (and they WILL get bored… see the size of the Google Graveyard).

Arguing over which one is the worst offender ignores the bigger picture and will lead to things continuing to get worse.

I said that Microsoft and Google are guilty of the same stuff as Apple. You said they don’t. So I provided examples.

Apple is the only one that gets the blame on the Internet, especially here in the Fediverse, but they’re all guilty.

Microsoft’s own Surface devices are among the least repairable on the planet. And Google has a browser and search monopoly, and almost all of their hardware is disposable once they get bored with it.

Good ol’ inertia! Most people think anything but the familiar is too hard.

So Microsoft and Google do the same stuff as Apple, but for some reason Apple’s the only one guilty of planned obsolescence?

BTW I mentioned phones because you said “devices”

That’s fair. I’ve noticed that Wine’s support of non-game software can be hit or miss depending on what it is.

I’d say your case is more necessity than willingness.