Thanks. I guess the demo restricts those backup and export features.

I know it exists, but would rather self-host and not have this data linked to Strava.

Not sure how data is exported from that app, though.

Can you screenshot that?

I see an export attachments (does nothing when I tried), and reports (only prints the data, but doesn’t export in any meaningful file format).

I don’t give a shit about my car, but I’d love to use this for my bikes! I’m currently using a spreadsheet and self-hosted calendar to keep track, but this would be “easier”.

I tried the demo, but maybe I missed it: how do you export the data you’ve input, in case you need to move it to somewhere else or if the project stops, and you want to back up the data?

Data portability is as important to me as self-hosting.

Singlefile is the only one that works reliably for me.

Linkwarden would have been awesome, but I had so many issues with it when I was self-hosting. I think it’s improved since then, though.

You can access Jellyfin through a browser, too. Is that an option for the Samsung TV?

It’s like you need high-level programming training to even understand how to contribute to their project. Where’s the “Edit” button, for example?

I’ve contributed dozens of hours to other projects (namely OpenStreetMap), but it’s DEAD SIMPLE to contribute there.

Come to think of it, there have been a number of times where I’ve wondered about what a foss project does/looks like and I think a single screenshot would’ve just been a big help in understanding how it behaves.

Yes!! I’m glad I was able to illustrate my point better.

I think my point was missed. I wasn’t saying that GIMP should copy what Adobe does (I can’t stand Adobe and their “business model” spyware bullshit.

My point was more to show that Adobe showcases the features of the software, so a potential user knows what it does without needing to go through the trouble of downloading it. It may not be what the user wants, and that’s ok, at least they know!

But GIMP is so vague in their description and offers no insight to what the app does or looks like. There’s no need to be mysterious.

Man, that text does the app no favours. “Image editor” could mean that it crops photos. But GIMP does a hell of a lot more. It’s been “the open-source photoshop” for decades, and they’re really selling themselves short. Screenshots would have made it so much easier to see what the software does.

Ok, let’s get off Adobe for a second… here’s a FOSS example: https://www.rawtherapee.com/

Easy to understand exactly what it does, screenshots are excellent. Surely, you can agree that this is better than how GIMP presents itself, right?

Taste aside, you can easily see what features Photoshop has, rather than guessing, right?

I should have used a FOSS example, since Adobe is just bad in general (users saying the page has pop-ups, etc.).

For sure, I don’t mean to blanket all FOSS projects under the same observation. But I’ve seen some projects where the idea is brilliant, and it fills a gap that no other software can, but they have piss-poor instructions (or none at all) and hardly describe what the project is or does. You only learn about them by chance, which is a real shame.

Here’s another example: Navidrome (https://www.navidrome.org/) is an awesome, self-hosted music streaming software.

But their homepage doesn’t have a screenshot, so you have no idea if the UI is just command prompt, ugly, unintuitive, or the best thing ever. Even the “learn more” page has no screenshots unless you really go digging.

Compare that to another FOSS self-hosted music streamer: https://ampache.org/

Simple website, but at least you can see exactly what to expect from the UI. Huge advantage even if they two apps do the exact same thing (both based on the Subsonic backend).

An informed user goes through that much effort. Most users are not informed and will do a quick search, download something that looks remotely what they think they need, and they’re done.

This is why it’s frustrating that some really good open-source software end up being lost in a sea of other stuff that was easier for someone to download, without doing a ton of research.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be a website, but a website should be “home base” for a software, company, etc. If not the official website, then the developer has less control over the presentation of their product, which would suck.

App stores are successful for a reason: they offer a quick, accessible means to find 1000s of apps or desktop software. And if an app has a poor description or piss poor screenshots, they are skipped very quickly.

The same applies to the UX and UI of an app or website. A poor experience can cause someone to uninstall it (or exit the page), even if it offers them the features they want/need.

Yeah, I never got into illustration or 3d art/animation, but I sure as hell know what Blender is!

If I want to know more I would go to documentation or tutorials.

See, that’s not normal, though. You shouldn’t need to “dig deeper” to find out what a product is or what it does.

The well-designed homepage should simply tell you that within seconds of visiting. Any additional clicks should only be to “learn more”, but not to learn about.

If this was an analogy, imagine a street lined with restaurants.

On one side you’ve got “Vinny’s Italian Pizzeria”, “Joe’s Burgers and Fries”, and “Mary’s Bakery and Treats”. Each has posters of what they sell posted on the windows, and a QR code to their online menu.

On the other you have “Sal’s Food”, “Frank’s More Food”, “Sal’s”. The windows are either covered in brown paper, or have stock images of “food”, but nothing specific about what they actually make. To learn more, you have to go inside, ask someone for a menu, wait for that menu, then have a look. But the menu lacks photos! You either have to know what they are describing to you in the menu, or you would have to have already dined there before.

Does the latter experience sound good? Because that’s how too many open-source projects present themselves, and it’s to the loss of the volunteer devs and their potential user base.

It is not a nice program to use.

Holy hell. I felt like that 20+ years ago when I started using it… I’m surprised that it never got better, from the sound of it.

These projects are run by volunteers, they don’t have the unlimited budget for designers that Adobe does.

A few screenshots would be nice. Not asking them to make a high-production video intro shot on a cruise ship with RED cameras and featuring an A-list celeb.

And to be honest, it kinda seems like you’re just criticizing them for no good reason.

On the contrary. I want to see them reach a wider audience. I want to see FOSS, Linux, and other open-source projects become more accessible and widely available. For me, the way many of these projects present themselves is like gatekeeping to keep people away.

Have you personally designed and built a website that doesn’t suck?

Yes, but I won’t doxx myself, so there’s no proof I can give you.

Regardless, as a user and someone who wants to see open-source projects succeed, my comment should only be taken as constructive criticism.

LOL. Brother, I get what you’re saying, but I think you missed the point. If Random User X is just looking for an image editor, and they are presented with a few options they know nothing about. Do you think they’re going to even bother with the one image editor that doesn’t have any screenshots?

Just another comparison, a little more relevant: https://www.rawtherapee.com/

You know EXACTLY what it is and what it does within about 2 seconds. That would be more than enough information for someone to at least make the effort to download the software.

I think it’s because marketing is expensive

Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by “marketing”. I’m not talking about spending tens of thousands of Facebook ads, or any ads, really.

A few screenshots on a product page would be more than enough for some projects. Highlight some key features. Generate interest.

It’s really low effort stuff that makes a huge difference.