Part of the reason I’ve invested so much in Shotcut is because I’m aware of the other FOSS tools for doing things that Shotcut can’t do. If seasoned FOSS users don’t know all the alternatives, it’s extra unlikely Adobe users will take the time to figure it out. We could say the Adobe users need to search for FOSS alternatives better, but consider the number of advanced Shotcut users in this thread that were surprised to learn that Natron existed.
Favorite text compositor software#
After all, if FOSS can’t produce the entire project, there’s little reason to switch from quality already-owned software to a FOSS alternative with perceived limitations. They might stick with Adobe because they didn’t know they could do After Effects tasks in Natron. If all they see is Shotcut as a Premiere alternative from a simple web search, but aren’t aware that the rest of the ecosystem exists, they might pass on Shotcut itself thinking that open source can’t do everything they need (like advanced compositing). Suppose a commercial Adobe user wants to dip their toe into the open source world.
2D, 3D, compositing, painting, etc, and that the tools play nice with each other.
They want to know an entire ecosystem is there to support their project goals. My logic is that people who are serious about producing a project don’t look at just one piece of software individually. I could see a case for mentioning Natron, Gimp, Krita, Blender, etc on the Resources page as alternatives to commercial programs, and show them as a high-level feature equality matrix.
0 kommentar(er)
