Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

The web is full of bad discussions, but some are illuminated by a blinding ray of truth. Recently, commenting on the eternal diatribe between GIMP and Photoshop, the focal point of the issue emerged: the problem is users who are looking for a free alternative and expect it to be identical to the commercial counterpart.

It's the classic syndrome “I switch to Linux but where is My Computer?”.

But the discussion got interesting when someone countered with the usual ballad: “If GIMP were better than Photoshop, everyone would use it. The problem is not between the chair and the screen.”

Ecco, This is where all the logic of the software consumer accustomed to ready-made food collapses. It's time to dot the 'i's’ and to explain why this reasoning is not only wrong, but profoundly harmful to digital culture.

The fundamental mistake: confuse “quality” with “habit”

The first mistake, egregious, it is thinking that the diffusion of a software is directly proportional to its intrinsic quality. I already talked about it in 2010: Photoshop doesn't dominate because it's "better" overall; dominates because it is the industry standard imposed in schools for decades, in academies and companies.

I want to be clear: I don't think GIMP is better than Photoshop, or vice versa. As far as I'm concerned, there aren't two competing programs. It is a question of ecosystem and educational monopoly, not code. Dire “if it were better, they would use it" it means ignoring inertia. It's like saying that McDonald's makes the best burgers in the world because it sells billions of them. Better than what? Better for whom? See what I say: it's not like that.

Just to make the situation even clearer. I'm Adobe:

• I hire dozens of software developers,
• I set a high subscription price (some would say disproportionate) making my own software perceived as of the highest value,
• I offer discounted subscriptions, even a lot, to schools, academies, associations and companies (I build loyalty and habituate tomorrow's customer),
• The students who learned about that software, once they have finished their studies they will look for companies that provide skills with that specific software,
• Companies that have benefited from the favorable price will look for people with previous experience with that specific software.

If not in private school, at least in public schools you need to familiarize yourself with open source software, more than for an economic question (however important), for the philosophical question.

The drivers' alibi and laziness

The comparison with Linux and hardware problems is a weapon of mass distraction. If Wi-Fi isn't working for you on Ubuntu, the fault lies with the hardware manufacturer. But if you can't find a tool on GIMP, you are not facing a technical barrier: you are facing your own mental laziness.

There is no missing driver; there is a lack of willingness to learn new software. You complain that GIMP is not Photoshop? It's like getting on a motorcycle and complaining that it doesn't have a steering wheel. The problem is not the vehicle; it's the rider who claims to drive a motorbike as if it were a car.

Not to mention the various comments “with GIMP I wanted to save a PNG, I had to look it up exports because if you save it creates a file readable only by GIMP. Then when I got to the correct menu I had to select the extension and a whole series of complex parameters… and I was even going to save it as a PDF“. I imagine that with Photoshop everything is much simpler: you just need to think about how you want to save an image and Photoshop saves it.

Free Software has no masters

GIMP was not created to steal market share from Adobe. It was created to offer a powerful and powerful editing tool Free. Whoever develops it responds to the community, not to a board of directors that has to copy the competitor's features to sell subscriptions.

Pretending that free software works to imitate the button you like is pure arrogance of a spoiled consumer.

The chair, the screen is your choice

Yes, the problem is between the chair and the screen. As long as you look for the “free alternative” instead of the “free tool”, you will remain trapped in this logic. Adobe offers you convenience, but at what price? At the price of a subscription that is not for all budgets and at the even worse price of having to depend on them. GIMP gives you freedom for the price of half an hour spent on a tutorial.

The choice is yours. But let's stop blaming the software if we don't want to learn.