So tired of Adobe. They're part of the problem.
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/3376057
I held off on Windows 10 for as long as I could until my job required it. Now this nonsense. I hope this isn't the start of them joining on the web DRM bandwagon.
1727
Comments221
Trying to be relatable while they force you to use their browser or choice.
How do you do, fellow users?
Nah, they're just snakes with hands, nothing weird about that.
So skinks?
TIL about a new animal.
um actually i really love when corporations like mcdonalds use all lower case and talk sassy to show that theyre just like me 💅💄
😂
Fuck Adobe, not supporting Linux, and now not even supporting Firefox, the once most used browser? Whoever pirates their crappy software deserves a statue.
since flash died I'm happy that I don't even know what adobe does anymore.
Something with trying to claim they own PDFs and Photoshop I guess
The pdf standard is open, though criminally bloated. Their pdf software ('pro' as well as the freemium 'reader' which looks like adware nowadays) is used only because it's the most lenient with respect to files barely complying with the 'standard' -- which includes things like application forms from government agencies.
... that is, if they can be said to 'own' the pdf format, it's only because they smeared it all over with their shit. A bit like how hippos mark their territory, I guess.
Is there a FOSS/free PDF program that will let me fill in and digitally sign/encrypt a pdf?
Yup, I know Okular (KDE's PDF tool) at least works. I don't know if it works on Windows or macOS, but I'm sure there are other tools that do.
Thanks! I'll look it up and try it out. Getting real tired of having to use shady web apps to get around something I have to do regularly as part of my job but for some unfathomable reason isn't a default app on every computer where I work.
Normalize using pirated proprietary software for professional work😉
I'd like my statue doing one of Luigi's taunt poses, please
I wonder what their excuse will be once Linux surpasses MacOS in market share.
"Whoa there!"
Go fuck yourself with that fellow kids corporate speak. That pisses me off so much, way more than it probably should.
It's not cute, it's condescending.
Oh noez! This page had a teensy weency little oopsy! The code monkeys are working to fix the problem.
Absolutely disgusting.
OOPSIE WOOPSIE!! Uwu We made a fucky wucky!! A wittle fucko boingo! The code monkeys at our headquarters are working VEWY HAWD to fix this!
Honestly I'd respect that more.
Unfortunately they're still a default app in the business world. Basically everyone at least uses Reader if only because it's what people expect when they open a PDF.
SO glad Firefox has a built-in pdf reader now.
Thankfully, there's a huge variety of pdf readers (not so much for editors, unfortunately)
My favorite for Windows is Sumatra
Sumatra is really cool. That was my only PDF reader for a long time when I was using Windows.
Any software company that uses monthly subscriptions as their business model can fuck right off. Let us own what we buy.
I just immediately pirate any company who does that
@Yoru @onlooker I just immediately pirate any company.
You wouldn't download a company!
There isn't anything that Adobe charges money for that you can't find an open source alternative for.
As another comment suggests, try to change your user-agent. Chameleon is great.
Are we surprised that Adobe is doing this? Adobe is exactly who I would've suspected adapting this bullshit immediately.
This is the main issue with that web DRM "security" shit that Google is trying to push. They have such a great market share now that big websites can now afford to put a check "only for Chrome" losing a very small percentage of users
Not that the DRM thing isn't going to fuel this behaviour but this is already possible with the current browser specs. The DRM shit will just make it worse.
Try using this: User-Agent Switcher and Manager
Doesn't that one have ads?
Edit: Yup, it does.
Yup. Often these User agent switchers just do the trick. But some companies design their stuff to break on FF. (I'm looking at you Microsoft)
This thing is a lifesaver. I use it all the time.
This is exactly what I was about to comment
Get a user agent switcher extension
I haven't checked, but I'd guess it's because of some non-standard feature that only Chromium supports, not because of user-agent.
In my experience, companies typically use this message because they only officially support/test on the listed browsers. They block out any other browser to cut down on support emails. If you spoof your user agent so the site thinks you're using a supported browser, somewhere between 95%-100% of the functionality will usually work just fine.
Companies should test to open web standards and tell users to file a ticket with their browser devs if something breaks because of nonstandard behavior.
That's what our devops team does. All of my company's internal web apps are tested against chrome only and that's all that's supported. It will usually work with Firefox so it's not a big deal unless you have an issue and they find out you're not using Chrome.
A lot of sites work with just a useragent switch. Still worth trying
That's the thing - i haven’t checked either. Guess what's the next step? User agent switcher
I tried Gimp for a longer time, too, but I could not get used to the complicated layer management, missing layer effects & layer adjustment features. I will try out Affinity.
Have you tried https://www.photopea.com/ ? It completely replaced my use of Photoshop and it felt very familiar where Gimp did not. Worth a look but ymmv
It took me a ridiculously long time to switch to GIMP and If I wasn't all in for FOSS I wouldn't have done it. I really can't imagine any of the designers I know using it full time.
No version for Linux. Does it work under Wine?
Unfortunately not because it's not a normal exe file but it's installing as a side loaded "windows store uwp app" (I don't know the exact term)
It's not an one-time purchase. I bought Affinity Photo for this purpose and then they released Affinity 2, and it wasn't a free upgrade for Affinity 1 owners.
I'm not buying Affinity 2 and buying every new release just like Parallels do.
Yes you can. Paying for a major upgraded version is the alternative to an evergreen subscription, but allows you to milk more usage out of your purchase if you don't need the latest and greatest.
Expecting a one time purchase to entitle you to updates forever is asinine.
I have found most of the "high learning curve" is based more on work flow. Muscle memory can screw with you when trying to learn a new piece of software. I used to use Dreamweaver back in the day when I was on winblows, made the switch to Linux started using bluefish and had to change my work flow which was hard to learn because I was indoctrinated in the way dreamweaver worked. Actually had to relearn some aspects of web design since I had gotten used to the convenience of dreamweavers macros that were pre-installed
Not supporting Firefox is WAY down the list of crimes Adobe has committed against their customers. I’m not all surprised by this post
There isn't anything that Adobe charges money for that you can't find an open source alternative.
No real replacement for After Effects unless if you want to juggle between 5 programs and then lose clients because they can't open your project files
You can't animate text on a video clip without spending a lot of time, something which is 2 clicks on after effects
I know, I love blender and work with it when I can, but I do motion design professionally and it's painful how there's no alternative to after effects
We have to stop confusing compositing and motion design, Blender is great for compositing, absolutely not 2D motion design. The only software that could efficiently replace After Effects on some aspects would be Cavalry, but it’s still on early development.
is there a list of that
https://github.com/KenneyNL/Adobe-Alternatives
thanks a lot!
Im REALLY trying to make myself learn Affinity Photo, but I just keep falling back to PhotoPea which is like an in browser Photoshop clone
Krita? Not good enough?
Not for photo editing or pixel art. Krita is a painting tool.
Wym not photo editing? You can do everything aswell in Krita. Changing hues, retouching, selection, layers, saturation, tone balance. All there.
And you can most definitely use it for pixel art. Even if you don't want to use Krita there exist paint.net, aseprite, piskel or pixelorama. No need for hundreds of dollars for PS.
Got stuck in hospital for a few weeks recently and used the opportunity to finally learn Affinity.
I'm now really liking it. Takes a few tries to get into it though.
I particularly like it on the iPad with the Apple pencil. A bit less so on my windows laptop.
The GIMP is superior to Photoshop in every way. Fight me.
I am listening.
Pro retoucher here. What would you recommend? I've tried to switch to Affinity a few times but not tried anything else.
Gonna give pixelmator a try, thanks!
Krita > GIMP
Honestly ever si ce I discovered Krita I never went back to GIMP. Maybe gimp is more customizable at the base level but fuck me if Krita doesn't make transitioning out of Photoshop a breeze. Changing from PS to Krita is like switching from a metal baseball bat to a wooden one. Switching from PS to Gimp is like switching out your metal baseball bat for an unfelled pine tree.
I will recommend GIMP or Krita usage even more
Krita used to be a full suite. They just decided to give up fighting GIMP and focus on what Krita is best at (effectively illustration).
@PopOfAfrica @navitux there was a cool mod of GIMP, gimpshop that made it quite usable. Unfortunately a domain squatter registered the domain and filled the website with Spyware. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop
www.photopea.com
pixlr.com/x
pixlr.com/e
Try a user agent changer
This is also the company that charges you to cancel your membership. Like, 60 bucks or something, sometimes more, to stop using their product. Horrible company. Bloatware, laggy software anyways.
what?
Paralysed, dumbstruck?
No!
Adobe, a company which developed nothing but just bought off 3rd party software by acquiring the actual developing company, and stitched everything together somehow, like a Frankenstein's Creature, and finally sold it as a service.
Thank you, but no thank you.
Same applies for Autodesk.
Oracle, IBM and sap too
No wonder why 2013 was the worst year ever.
Are you kidding - they basically invented the problem. They were one of the first to move to the "rent your software" model way back when
DaVinci Resolve for video.
Kdenlive is pretty decent these days too
@jeena @PeleSpirit The UI is still bad, I don't mind using GIMP if I want to quickly edit a photo but I otherwise just use Photoshop
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/culturehustle/abode-a-suite-of-world-class-design-and-photography-tools
Time for #abode , I want to believe ;)
No way this isn't just satire or even a scam.
Are they going to be open source, support linux, and end the corporate elitism around graphic design software? If so I'd definitely use it and support it if it releases, if not then I wouldn't. I do not and will not support commercial elitism.
I bet I'm going to get quite a few whiny replies for this from people going "but muh money" or "dEveLopErs nEeD tO bE paYed foR thEiR woRk" if you want to be paid you set up donations, if you think trying to force people to pay is better, just remember that you can't actually Force anybody to pay for anything (hell even Adobe can't, people still pirate Adobe software).
It would certainly be nice to have more Linux and open source projects, but that doesn't seem to be this projects goal. I suspect that there's a market for not always online adobe style products, even with piracy I'm sure the money is a lot better than donations. Also could you share what your definition of commercial elitism is?
I've refused to use Adobe for a while because of their bullshit. Their main product I care about is Lightroom, but Darktable is a perfectly fine replacement for it
Fuck Adobe. As an industry professional I have to use multiple offerings from them, and they have ALL gotten worse, rather than better. It all started going downhill when they started their bullshit subscription-only model.
They're not part of the problem. They're the problem.
https://webcompat.com/
Anyone linking that also need to be linking the FTC. Adobe forwards all communication from the web compact to the bin, with disdain.
To be fair I think most of the reports on webcompat go straight into the bin.
User Agent Switch
I have been removing Adobe from my life starting way back with Flash, long before it was discontinued. Then Acrobat and the final thing to go was when I switched to Affinity Photo and Designer and ditched Photoshop. It works every bit as well for me but I never was a Photoshop power user. For a long time the only company that showed up when I searched online to see if my email had been pwned was of course Adobe and that was over a decade ago.
So, you can't use adobe with a widely-used and -accepted browser, you must use one of the notoriously unscrupulous and anti-privacy tech giants' browsers. Nothing worrying there! /s Also, more of "Bullshit As Usual" from adobe
I’d seriously consider if your task can be accomplished with any other software. Personally I find LibreOffice Draw to be a perfectly adequate Adobe Acrobat Pro replacement for most situations. I know everyone has a different workflow though.
Does a user agent change this
wait so it straight up just refuses to work if it detects that you have Firefox via the user agent??? I knew Adobe was scummy, but THAT MUCH?
That's the go to way to do it, you only allow the browsers that you know work, Firefox probably works fine for most things but maybe one feature breaks and instead of fixing it they decided to remove it from the whitelist
That dude ain't joking. You can bypass similar bs by changing user agent
The server just sends files as responses to http requests. If the server is playing nice and just checks the user agent reported by the client, then that's what you would expect.
And, it might make sense to do so in order to provide a product that meets certain requirements. It is certainly worrying that they need to do that, and not a good thing to make products exclusive to proprietary clients.
yes, you can find an addon for it in the marketplace
Although this isn't convenient. You could always file an issue on WebCompat to fix this.
This is exactly why I switched from Photoshop to Affinity. It's just as good and somewhat even better than PS and it's a one time purchase forever. I will never look back.
"I held off on Windows 10 for as long as I could until my job required it."
Good, users like you are the reason ransomware happens. Fucking update your shit. Windows 7 isn't secure anymore.
@c0mbatbag3l @jeena Or just stop using MS products. They build in backdoors just for criminals anyway.
Source please?
@sugar_in_your_tea
Old anecdotal knowledge from the 1990s.
Became public in these court cases:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics
MS successfully countersued STAC because they were using proprietary DOS calls, ie reserved for MS products only giving them an advantage.
There is no reason to believe MS ever discontinued their use.
So you're saying that they're the criminals in question? Or are you saying that somehow they're selling access to those old MS-DOS APIs?
I'm really not sure how any of this supports the original claim that Microsoft makes APIs specifically for criminal companies. All it says is that they make APIs for themselves. They're a POS company, sure, so there's no reason to stretch the truth.
@sugar_in_your_tea
I never said or meant to imply that.
MS builds backdoors for their own use.
Criminals can use those backdoors.
I quoted your exact words.
@sugar_in_your_tea cute.
A backdoor is not an api.
A proprietary call is justified for competitive reasons but creates vulnerabilities.
Why do you think they exist?
Or do just troll?
"Trust me bro"
How do you know he wasn't using Linux?
"Held off" doesn't really sound like he switched from one to another, just like he's holding out on updating the OS.
Fuck your judgemental horseshit. Enjoy your loss of ownership and telemetry laiden trash.
I use arch btw.
/s but seriously "held off" doesn't mean "kept using aftsr end of service" like you assumed. Lots of people waited till 7's end of life to switch.
@TeepoPeeto @c0mbatbag3l Stuck with Win2k from 1999-2010, was forced onto XP when stuff like games wouldn't install because 2k didn't have Windows Firewall. Never mind the PC already had a decent firewall (think it was atGuard).
Still use Win7, in a VM, as it's where my 🏴☠️ Adobe products run.
I don't even understand the hate. It works well, stable, fast and pretty decent on RAM. Even early on I haven't had any major issues.
Yeah, I'm generally an early adopter of software, even installed XP media center edition and Win 8 as soon as they were available through the volume licensing center. I've never understood the hate around 10 or 11 on the whole. Yes they have a few frustrating aspects, but overall, they're significant improvements. I occasionally use a win 10 device at work, and it feels clunkier than 11 now. 7 was great, but it isn't worth compromising an entire network for.
I like how you just assumed win7.
I held off to - when 7's support ended I moved to 8.1 and used openshell to make it look like 7. When 8.1 support ended I moved to 10 finally. I have to stay on a supported os for security and compliamce, but I make my employer pay for the upgrades and I don't rush to the latest version - as long as its still supported I'm not moving.
I have a light at the end of the tunnel tho. My work tools are getting official linux versions. My work laptop has been windows but my home desktop has been linux. I may be able to drop windows entirely soon.
Edit: "he didn't upgrade AND he disagreed with our hive minds opinion! Quick downvote!" How about you just Go back to reddit losers.
Of course I assumed windows 7, no one liked Windows 8/8.1
I'd wouldn't blame anyone for skipping right over it to 10, it's what I did. We are all required to run 11 now but 10 is still fine from a security posture at the moment in my opinion.
I'm not security, just a network engineer with a background in security auditing, so I could have out of date info on 10 still being safe, but it still gets updates at least.
Thank God I never had to learn any Adobe products, one of the most anti-consumer companies out there.
Adobe has been a constant frustration for me. I was having issues with Acrobat DC on Windows 10 and ended up having to uninstall the 64 bit version and installing the legacy 32 bit version in its place.
I want to use something else for PDF editing but our company refuses to consider alternatives.
I miss the days of Creative Suite. You know, when you can just buy the thing once and do whatever you want with it for the rest of your life?
I actually miss the days of Macromedia even more. Those round icons with the weird typography are just timeless. Especially the Flash logo.
Macromedia Fireworks was amazing, and so pleasant to use. And obviously Adobe killed it off at the first opportunity.
I just wish I can track down a copy of Macromedia Studio 8 for my using pleasure
The ISO image files are available on the Internet archive.
You'll probably have to find a license key for yourself though. Shouldn't be too hard.
I had that exact problem when trying to activate my copy of CS6 (physical, too). I just couldn't find a license key anywhere. The ones that I did find never worked. That was 4 years ago, so I don't know if I could do it again with success.
I was really hoping that the current AI tool revolution would finally kick Adobe off but with them buying Figma (which shouldn't have been allowed by anti trust in the first place) I don't see that happening yet. One day though.
I hijack this to inform that LR for Android can be revanced.
as in something similar to YouTube revanced? Do you know if there a community or discord? That would be neat
Yes, it's on the revanced GitHub..
I only have a telegram channel with apks (without guarantee on them).
could you invite me to the telegram? trying to wrap my head around compiling code from github scares me lol
Looked it up and apparently its for tiktoks and AI. So, youre not missing out on much.
Hear hear. If you make the mistake of subscribing to Adobe canceling is like pulling teeth. Can't stand them as a company.
Their billing has been shady as fuck for two decades. This company is the worst.
Fuck Adobe
Its a clear sign they feel threatened. Their fall is near.
I love how on most sites it works with a user agent switcher
Always have been. All along the way there's been an issue on sites or software and Adobe has been there
🧑🚀🔫🧑🚀
Yep, fuck em.
Remember when they killed Flash? That sucked
I think Apple was more to blame for that.
Everyone was knifing Flash. It had to go. It was a mess and hard to port or secure. I mean Adobe could have open sourced it and it could have got sorted, but HTML5 was chomping at the bit to replace it. Flash content is now slipping into the "digital darkage".
Making it open source would mean it's easier to archive old flash content. It would also make it easier to port or secure. It's the only ethical choice.
Oh I agree, but that wasn't in Adobe's nature.
Ya fuck them, they should've killed flash five years earlier.
Proprietary software has basically just turned into a giant grift and it makes me not want to use any of it anymore.
Nah, honestly I get this. They likely don’t let you run it in Safari either.
The problem is that each browser use different rendering and JavaScript engines. They all follow the same spec, but implement things differently, and at a different pace. Firefox tends to be really speedy with adding features.
Rendering is one thing, but for web apps the main issue is how they each implement JavaScript differently. Chromium uses the V8 engine, Safari uses JavaScriptCore, and Firefox uses SpiderMonkey.
Each one of these implementations handle certain JS features differently.
Array.prototype.sortis a good example.This means that when developing your application you need to keep track of what differences each browser has, and write/use polyfills or conditionals to ensure that your methods work as expected on all platforms.
This becomes cumbersome quickly, and easily leads to a messy code base and technical debt as the application grows.
It further complicates testing since you’ll need to test each release on each browser.
The easy cop-out solution is to just support a single platform, and direct people not on that platform to use the browser you’ve developed for.
The go-to choice there is obviously Chrome, since it has the most users. Photoshop Express is a free application developed with the hopes of hooking people onto buying a subscription. Thus they’d want as big a reach as possible. It would make no sense to develop for Firefox and push people to use that instead from a business perspective, most people wouldn’t just download a second browser just to use an app.
Edit: you can obviously spoof your user agent and bypass the check that way. Some features might be broken in Firefox though, and I wouldn’t expect a fix.
As a developer with 7+ years industry experience this is a very weak excuse to not support browsers.
Differences in features are usually down to bleeding edge stuff and I don't think your example of sort would apply because the end result is the same.
I know Adobe are more prone to using newer browser features but there really shouldn't be anything that's not simple enough to assure support across all browsers. Especially for a company as big as Adobe. It's inexcusable. We rarely have to use polyfills now, that was more a problem when I was starting out, mainly due to IE11 still holding out.
Sure, but it's a common excuse.
The company I work for doesn't test on anything other than Chrome because we have a relatively niche audience that uses corporate-provided computers, and Chrome is available on all machines. The app seems to work fine, but we don't spend any QA resources on it.
The last company I worked for was the same way, but with a little more diverse userbase. Testing on Firefox would increase our QA time, and very few customers cared, so we only supported Chrome. I would occasionally fix things for Firefox, so the app mostly worked fine, but at didn't spend any QA resources on it.
And so on. I'm guessing that's the case here as well. They don't want people complaining about things not working if it works fine on Chrome. Firefox may work fine, but they're not willing to spend QA resources proving it, and they don't want the support overhead from customers complaining if something doesn't work properly with Firefox.
Yeah sure, fine for the SME sized business and I've done it in the past for features like offline web behaviours (wasn't public facing). But tbh it's a shitty excuse even at that size and outright inexcusable for Adobe. I wouldn't get away with this at my current place which has significantly less resources than them. Don't make excuses for Adobe and it's a weak excuse at best.
I'm not making excuses, I'm describing what companies already do today. If they can get away with it, they just won't support multiple browsers.
If we had even one customer that used Firefox, I would be adamant that we support it at my company. But we don't. We know who our customers are because we're in a B2B relationship and we lock out everyone else (we make a niche product for a niche market in a niche industry; total users are in the hundreds).
Adobe doesn't have that excuse, but they have the brand recognition that people will go out of their way to use their products, so they can get away with not supporting Firefox. It's still stupid, but it's a viable strategy given their position in the market.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying it's good to target one browser, I'm saying it's practical, so a lot of companies do it. My response is to not use services that block me out, and to recommend alternatives to friends.
This isn't 2005.
That's literally the first supported browser they list in OP's screenshot.
Hmm. Good point.
Could be because Safari is using WebKit and so people assume that Safari and Chrome works the same way because back in the day they were quite close.
WebKit is Apple’s fork of KHTML and KJS, both originally made by the KDE project (yes that KDE) for the Konqueror browser.
Google used WebKit (WebCore specifically) when building Chromium, but replaced KJS with a new JavaScript engine called V8. V8 is still used in Chromium today, but also went on to become Node.js
Apple forked KJS, their version is now called JavaScriptCore.
The support for Safari could be because of an assumption that since Chromium was built from Safari, they’d work more or less the same, but they don’t.
It seems more likely that Adobe supports Safari because Safari is the main browser on macOS. Adobe supports Windows and macOS (and I would guess a lot of their users are on macOS), so it doesn't make sense not to support it, regardless of how cumbersome that makes the codebase.
Additionally, Photoshop Web (Beta), which is available to paying customers, has the same levels of browser support.
While we're talking about history, Firefox was originally called Phoenix, then Firebird (trademark infringements), and was born from the ashes of Netscape Navigator (and the original architect behind the Mozilla project did not have much faith in the future of Mozilla and left the company/project).
Microsoft Edge was previously based on EdgeHTML, which was canned within 2 years, and is now based on Chromium. Opera used the Presto engine for a long time, but now uses Chromium, and a bunch of Opera developers used this as an excuse to split and create their own browser with their own—yeah, okay, Vivaldi uses Chromium too. There was a time when Google promoted Firefox on the front page of google.com instead of Internet Explorer. A time obviously before Google Chrome became a thing—after that, Firefox's position as "second-most popular browser" was quickly retired. It's kind of crazy Firefox ever managed to get that much market share considering it was competing with pre-installed browsers like Internet Explorer and Safari; Firefox was never pre-installed on any platform except GNU/Linux.
And Konqueror is still kind of around today. First comes the Navigator, then the Explorer, and then the Konqueror, anybody?
Safari is the only browser available on iPad, and I wonder if they formally support tablets with that web app.
But it could also be as you described.
Another good point. I forgot Adobe is targeting the mobile market as well. However, I doubt Adobe wants to ship a webapp as an official product for mobile devices. Steve Jobs might have wanted to only support webapps on iOS in the beginning, but we're at a point where most users won't accept anything but an app as a first-class experience. It could make sense as a beta product though.
And it's not necessarily that Safari is the only browser available on iOS/iPadOS, but that Webkit is the only browser engine supported, so Google Chrome/Firefox/Brave and others are using Webkit while changing the appearance and some features of the browser. Minor nitpick.
Personally, I'm all for Adobe going to the web with their products. It means I don't need to keep a Windows or macOS computer around to get some of my work done. I do wish Photoshop Web wasn't a completely buggy mess which is impossible to do any real work with. I don't mind if they don't support Firefox, although I would prefer they did.
We're discussing browser engines, so whether the shell is from Google or Brave is irrelevant. You're technically correct I guess, but it's a weird thread to be pedantic in.
Yeah, the "write once run everywhere" nature of the web comes with some pretty big caveats. Despite JavaScript being pretty fast, it's still way slower than native code, and web pages seem to be a lot harder to get right consistently than a desktop app where you're in control of all of the GUI libraries.
I'm still excited about more things being available on the web as a Linux user, but the promise of Web 2.0 hasn't really happened and native apps are still the way to go.
So I just don't touch Adobe products. They don't solve actual problems I have that FOSS apps don't, so I ignore essentially their whole catalogue.
I initially thought you really did mean "only Safari is allowed on iPad", and then I realized you were talking about the browser engine. As I said, it's a nitpick, but not entirely a distinction without a difference. Technically the browsers can have other features like...the ability to choose a search engine not on the blessed Safari default list. Or a pin-unlock screen like Brave has. But for rendering, it matters exactly zero, so the difference is irrelevant in this thread.
I don't know—I think the web has been pretty successful at getting things to run consistently on different operating systems (minus DRM, though that's intentional), but yeah, different screens and different browser engines are definitely pain points. It's why everyone standardizes on Chrome.
What about Electron? Is it any better? It bundles the browser after all, haha, so no worries about compatibility there.
I wish I could! I use DaVinci Resolve where I can, and Affinity Photo/Inkscape for other things, but sometimes it's necessary for collaboration. I personally despise Adobe software for several reasons, but I'm not getting away from it any time soon.
In particular, I'm never going to find a replacement for inDesign.
core-jshas existed for nearly a decadeSafari is one of the listed supported browsers
"Firefox uses spidermonkey"
So THAT'S why the extension is called grease monkey.
this was a great explanation. I'm fully onboard with the "fuck Google and their web drm nonsense" but there has to be a disconnect from avoiding bad actors and recognizing the reality of the industry. ty for posting.
I feel like it’s necessary to mention that I’m just speculating, and don’t have any affiliation with Adobe, thus I can’t say for certain that I know why they choose to not support Firefox.
I’ve been in the position before though where I’ve chosen not to support non Blink/V8 browsers for the reasons listed above.
The fragmented nature of the web platform makes it a pain to develop for, in a way you don’t necessarily experience with “real” languages.
I have been, and honestly still am, of the opinion that Mozilla should just forego their engine and move to Chromium. Not because one is better than the other - if anything I think Mozilla’s implementations are, as they tend to be more “by the book” - but in unifying the web platform it’d be easier to develop for, and it would bring the added bonus of Google not having as big a monopoly on what goes on in Chromium.
Microsoft moving to Chromium was big in that sense, so I’d love to see an established FOSS vendor like Mozilla exert their influence on the project.
Yes, move all browsers to chromium and give google absolute and total dominion of the internet.
What a fucking brilliant idea.
Problem isnt browsers, anyway. Problem is adobe locking their bullshit behind subscriptions and DRM instead of just being able to buy it and own it like you used to.
Would Mozilla and Microsoft get control over Blink and Chromium? Surely someone has ultimate power over which pull requests are merged into main(or however they do it), and that's Google. Mozilla could fork, but now they're back to the problem of developing their own browser to compete with Chromium.
You could try changing your spoofing your Userscript, then you could keep using Firefox.
I'm so glad I'm not working in an industry that requires me to be beholden to that garbage company.
I've tried switching from Lightroom to Darktable and/or Rawtherapee, but found neither to produce the results I wanted. Any other alternatives I should try?
Not FOSS but I switched from lightroom to Capture One and found it superior in almost every way.
I actually did use Capture One Express for a time and was quite happy, but I recently switched back to my old Olympus MFT and sold my Fuji gear for financial reasons (which unfortunately makes the price for Capture One tricky right now). I may just have to try to make do with Rawtherapee for now.
These are the best foss/free available. I used darktable for some time, and I can say for sure it does the job well, but at the cost of your time. If you aren't into toiling over each photo Lightroom is the way to go
Visited the same site from my browser. Didn't get this though.
Which browser? And which device? And which pages on the site?
Firefox, win10, this website in the image up until the .com.
Wow. Before, I could use it with no issues, but then recently, it would just randomly log me out (even on Chrome), so I had to use the app on the Microsoft Store. (Which I'm pretty sure is just a web browser)
As a web dev imma play devils advocate and say I get it. Cross browser support is hard sometimes and Firefox has some of the weirdest quirks.
That being said this isn't some hobby project its a multi billion dollar company so absolutely they could be doing better.
As a fellow web dev, I disagree! Cross browser support adds very little overhead in my experience, and not doing it in 2023 is really just lazy and unacceptable imo.
Back in the day it was harder, especially supporting IE 11-, but now since there are really only 2-3 rendering engines to develop for it shouldn't be as hard.
Also, they already support safari which is the hardest browser to support of the group. Firefox support is trivial compared to making sure it looks good on safari.
Agreed honestly the only ones I really run into nowadays are Safari issues
That is an incredibly weak excuse for a company like adobe.
Yeah, they should have the resources to hire pretty much the best devs, it's not like they are a startup or in some kind of backwater situation. They're an old company with a big name and a lot of money.
Why do you use adobe products? I tried Photoshop about 10 years ago, when i was developing a DLC for a game (multilayer textures up to 4096*4096 with addition, substract effects with AO map, normal, specular maps) it was totally ok with GIMP, but with photoshop it crashed as used about 6x more RAM than gimp for the same file 🤣 and i didnt see any improvement over GIMP. Maybe now it would be different due to the AI things in ps, or maybe not 😆
If you paid for Photoshop you should've gotten Inkscape and Substance Painter instead, much better for 3D assets
I didnt paid for it. I created non organic assets (vehicles), and optimized them as possible, including efficient uv maps and easy to repaintable texture, so the automatic uv mapping of such tools wouldnt be a good choice
Oh man at least try substance painter once, it takes the hassle out of creating PBR textures and materials. It's a really good investment. Probably the best tool for creating complex materials and textures.
It works almost exactly like Photoshop with layers and generators with the added benefit of being able to paint your materials onto a model and stack those materials ontop of each other in real time.
Then when you're done you hit export and choose a preset that defines what gets exported like Colour, Metal, Rough, Normal, AO etc or you can create your own and pack multiple textures together (I pack metal, rough and AO together then split the RGB and split the channels in Unreal or Unity to save memory). You can do non PBR too so you have diffuse, gloss, normal etc
It creates an easy to repaint (without having the source 3d model) efficient UV layouts like this?
Or a lot of smal faces broken to small pieces, like automatic UV mappers do?
I think there was a misunderstanding on my part. Substance Painter was designed to be used with your 3D models to paint, if you lack the actual 3D model then Substance isn't suitable for your workflow. But if you have access to the model and the UV map your painting onto isn't malformed (UDIMs or overlapping islands) then this is what Substance was designed to do.
Then it can't be used for community repaints. Of course i wont share the source 3D model with the community, just the exported ingame model, as its payware
Yes, there are tools to paint on models many years ago, i've seen this in blender 10+ years ago, but its not suitable to support after release repaints, also automatic uv maps are not efficiently use the texture (too many small islands, with padding between).
Apologies my experience is with video games. Useally creating seams and manually unwrapping is my go-to method because I can control exactly how an object is unwrapped(though no padding can cause issues with really low texture resolutions because islands will bleed into each other). Then i use Substance to create all the textures and export them into the desired configuration and format.
Though I assume your textures will be saved in a format that preserves the layers so the user can isolate the body paint and the decals if they need to change them (don't have much experience with that pipeline).
Useally what I do for decals is have them as a separate material using an atlas texture (grayscale only for alpha mask so players can choose decal colors) if users need to modify it but as you mention you can only have one material.
Also I want to guess that is a diffuse map for a train, never have the patience to do 1 to 1 recreations of real life vehicles (people get really picky about detail)
It is no revelation that this slow shit gradually moves into obscurity, if you can't catch up with the development of web and implement features on time you're out of competition
I do appreciate that Firefox exists so that we have a choice to use something that isn't Chromium and mainly controlled by Google.
But from a business perspective, as Adobe, why would they devote developer time to supporting Firefox? Just to not piss off some nerds that care about that type of shit? What's that like 1% of the population?
Firefox has almost a big market share as safari and bigger than edge, yet here we are.
They're all Chrome for Christ's sake! Edge? Opera? Brave? They're the same browser! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
Not by a mile
Safari is the default browser for Apple which Adobe likes and while most people don't use Edge it's chromium at the end of the day.
Diehard Firefox user but calling out those examples ignores the facts at the end of the day.
From a business perspective they just look cheap, lazy and snobby because plenty of other sites, even way smaller sites with far less resources, seem to figure it out just fine. Firefox may not be huge but it's been around and plenty of people use it. It's not like it's some nerdy little niche side project. They aren't paid to decide what browser you're allowed to use and we all know they can afford to not be shitty about it. I'm tired of the "business perspective" and no longer willing to see anything by it for any even remotely large company. That's what got us into this mess. Their business perspective can suck an egg.
Firefox afaik is web standards compliant so if you make it work in Firefox, it'll work in all other browsers that are standards compliant (including Chromium based browsers).