Comments on: Open source software for design company

Question: Open source software for design company

spinko — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 03:50:28 -0800

Open source software for a professional web design company.

Design filter.

I've been running my company for nearly 2 years now and is now concerned paying the premium for software for my staff.

I've already converted the office in to using OpenOffice which works brilliantly.

What Im looking for is opensource / paid software (reasonable cost) that is similar to:

1) Dreamweaver (doesnt matter if there are 2 separate sofware for CSS and xHTML)
2) Photoshop (I know Gimp is there any better?)
3) Flash
4) Quark Xpress

I cant live without Adobe Fireworks and is willing to pay for that. Its just when you look at the full package (all software) per staff its roughly £1500 / $3000.

By: chrismear

chrismear — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:01:26 -0800

What features of Dreamweaver do you use? Do you use it essentially as a specialised text editor, or do you use the visual layout tools and get it to write the code for you? And do you rely on the site/file management tools, like templates, synchronisation, stuff like that?

By: chrismear

chrismear — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:02:04 -0800

Oh, and is this on Windows, Mac, or both?

By: the dief

the dief — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:22:05 -0800

1) Nvu. Not quite as feature packed as Dreamweaver, but the price is right.

2) The Gimp. Yeah, you mentioned that already. But if you're looking for a nice transition you may want to consider Gimpshop, which is the Gimp with menus rearranged to be more Photoshop-like.

3) Nothing (yet) (that I know of) equivalent, although large swaths of Flash are open standards (ECMAscript, et. al.) and I expect Flash will follow Java within five years in becoming completely OS.

4) Probably Scribus. I haven't used it much, but it definitely has its followers and is worth digging into.

All of these will (supposedly) work on Mac, Windows and Linux, although I've only tried them out on Linux, so YMMV.

By: spinko

spinko — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:41:57 -0800

Its all on Windows.

By: spinko

spinko — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:46:25 -0800

With Gimpshop, do you have to install Gimp 1st? as it doesnt seem to work in Vista.

By: twistedonion

twistedonion — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:51:06 -0800

Obviously I can't speak for your company but we tried this for a bit and went back to Pro apps... two big reasons - productivity and compatability.

Compatability probably doesn't matter so much to you as you aren't in print design but we get artwork supplied in Illustrator, Indesign and Quark formats all the time.

Productivity. Say you charge £70 per hour for development. Is it worth double the time on a project because you've ditched Dreamweaver and your developers are desperately trying to get the same functionality out of nvu and a text editor?

Each to their own but you get what you pay for and if it's a professional outfit then there's something wrong if you can't pay for the tools of your trade.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for Open Source software to be up to scratch but it isn't and imho you will end up frustrating your staff with substandard tools and ultimately your clients with substandard designs.

But to answer your question, here's what we tried (all mac based):

1) Nvu for Opensource. If you want to spend around £50 per user then CSSEdit and TextMate

2) GIMP - nothing comes close. But it's still a steep learning curve, especially if you have staff trained in Photoshop. PhotoGIMP helps but still, you'll find nothing comparable to Photoshop.

3) Nothing.

4) Scribus or Inkwell might do the job. But seriously, if you don't want a holy (and possibly costly) war between yourselves/clients/printers when something doesn't get printed as expected then stick with Quark or Indesign.

By: DU

DU — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:05:31 -0800

Why are people saying there's nothing for Flash? What's all this then? In particular, this and this? (No seriously, I want to know why these don't meet the poster's need.)

By: twistedonion

twistedonion — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:31:36 -0800

DU, you got me really excited there... I don't think are comparable to the Flash app though in the same way that say GIMP is like Photoshop or OpenOffice is like Word (as in wysiwyg develpment tools)... maybe I'm missing something though but it's like suggesting a text editor to replace Dreamweaver, which i admittedly did.

From Signals question though I got the impression that he was looking for similar functioning tools to what he already uses.

By: twistedonion

twistedonion — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:32:19 -0800

Where did I get Signal from, Spinko... sorry

By: DU

DU — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:39:37 -0800

I just started looking at this last night myself, so I could be way wrong, but I don't think it's quite as bad as a text editor replacing Dreamweaver. There are plugins for Eclipse for instance.

By: signal

signal — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:09:26 -0800

Most of the opensource flash tools are actionscript editors / compilers / exporters, etc., i.e.:good for programming, not so much for layout, design, etc.

By: bonaldi

bonaldi — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:12:39 -0800

twistedonion has it right: this is a false economy. There's a reason these guys can charge what they like for software, and it's because there's virtually no competition (this is also why Photoshop is effectively resting on its laurels these days).

If you make your staff try to use shitty, alien software, they'll reject it and reject you. The good ones will leave.

Also, you type "is" for "I'm"? Weird

By: DU

DU — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:17:12 -0800

..good for programming, not so much for layout, design...

Well that's good news for me, even if not the poster.

By: twistedonion

twistedonion — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:22:42 -0800

Spooky, I mention signals name and up he pops!

By: SteveInMaine

SteveInMaine — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:31:29 -0800

For #2 I'd suggest you take a look at Paint Shop Pro. It started out as freeware, then shareware, and now it's a full featured program for around $80.

By: SteveInMaine

SteveInMaine — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:35:33 -0800

...and I have to add on to that if you hire professional designers in your business, they'll likely be more productive using what they know, which is most likely the industry standard tools that mentioned in the original question.

By: ardgedee

ardgedee — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:56:45 -0800

Open-sourced Flash competitors: Some are good, but none offer the feature set and compatibilty of Flash itself.

Gimp instead of Photoshop: A robust application, requires a very long relearning curve, and antagonistic to nonprogrammers trying to perform complex tasks. Fails to do some things Photoshop can do. Does not properly handle Photoshop CS2 files.

When a client asks for Dreamweaver/Contribute compatibility you'll have to manually construct the template files and DW-instruction comments in the HTML files.

And so on. You will eventually embarass yourself by telling a client you can't do for them what one of your competitors can do.

The reason Open Office works so well for you is that you don't depend on it to generate your end product. And with the existence of fully-fledged open-source applications and environments in other fields (gcc, emacs, and so on), it's tempting to assume that graphical applications are close as well. Unfortunately they're not.

If you're begrudging three grand per desk for every eighteen-month product cycle, that amounts to (40 working hours * 75 working weeks) one pound per desk per hour. Increase your rates accordingly. And measure your response when a client tries to beat down the price of the software you're writing for them.

I'm not totally down on using free software. In fact, I've been auditioning Aptana lately, and it looks very promising, although it needs generous screen real estate.

By: amtho

amtho — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:09:30 -0800

Sorry for the side question, but maybe it's relevant -- is there some kind of list/documentation detailing what Photoshop can do that Gimp doesn't currently do?

By: mrbugsentry

mrbugsentry — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:12:22 -0800

[biased, since I'm in the software business]

If you are being asked to pay $3K for flash, dreamweaver, and photoshop, you are being ripped off. Let's run the numbers again:

CS2 creative suite $900. (if you whine, cdw will discount it thus)
Macromedia suite $900.
total: $1800
life of software = 3 years.
annual cost of software per seat: $600.
hourly cost of developer's time: $20 (low for sake of argument)
hourly overhead: (insurance, rent, hardware, training, cost of hiring, etc.): $10.

So buying name brand is a break even proposition if it saves 20 hours a year. Assuming a 2000 hour year, you break even if the name brand tools are 1% more efficient than the open source competition. Anything over that is gravy.

That, to me, is a no-brainer.

[/biased, since I'm in the software business]

By: purephase

purephase — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:18:19 -0800

Paint.NET is an excellent little "photo editing" tool, but it can be used for a lot more. For most of the web stuff I do, it works. Really depends on what level of graphic design there is involved though.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:33:44 -0800

Are you really going to take Photoshop from your designers hands?!

That seems like that would hurt your talent pool i.e. be pennywise and pound foolish.

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:45:15 -0800

Also, Inkscape. It's basically the open source equivalent of Adobe Illustrator.. but lots of people use Photoshop for things they should really be using Illustrator for, so it's worth keeping in mind. It has good Windows builds too.

By: chrismear

chrismear — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:45:50 -0800

If you are being asked to pay $3K for flash, dreamweaver, and photoshop, you are being ripped off. Let's run the numbers again:

CS2 creative suite $900. (if you whine, cdw will discount it thus)
Macromedia suite $900.

Unfortunately, UK list prices are simply more expensive. The new CS3 Web Premium lists at £1,195 before tax, which is about $2,350. The US list price is $1,599.

By: twistedonion

twistedonion — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:57:15 -0800

Unfortunately, UK list prices are simply more expensive. The new CS3 Web Premium lists at £1,195 before tax, which is about $2,350. The US list price is $1,599.

This is stopping me from upgrading and is a reason why this question is of interest. Adobe are completely ripping off the UK buyers which is why I had a look round myself.

Anyone know if you can get an international English version from the US and bring it over with you? Could get a "free" holiday out of that one

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:59:24 -0800

So, WHY are the international prices higher? Is there an official statement from Adobe about this? Is there any discernable reason for the price difference?

By: grouse

grouse — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:28:13 -0800

Anyone know if you can get an international English version from the US and bring it over with you?

I don't know if you can get a version in the U.S. that has colour spelled with a U or not. But at these prices, who cares? You can bring it back to the UK, but you might have to pay VAT and duty.

So, WHY are the international prices higher?... Is there any discernable reason for the price difference?

Prices in the UK are almost always higher. The most important reason is that it is what the market will bear. People will pay higher amounts so why would a business sell for less?

Costs are higher as well, though. For one thing, everyone else charges more, so doing business in the UK (in order to set up support and distribution channels) will cost more because they have to pay the same higher prices to others. The additional regulatory protections for customers probably makes selling goods and services more expensive. Finally, you don't have the same economies of scale as in the bigger North American market.

By: ardgedee

ardgedee — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:39:20 -0800

As an aside, the U.S. price for a software upgrade of the CS3 Web Premium suite is $500, not $1600. If you've already got this software, the cost burden is considerably less onerous than you claim.

By: twistedonion

twistedonion — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:21:14 -0800

Is there an official statement from Adobe about this? Is there any discernable reason for the price difference?

From the Register:

An upgrade to Creative Suite 3 Design Premium from CS2.3 costs an American $471.90 with Californian sales tax. The exact same upgrade in the UK costs £546.38, equivalent to $1080.31 as of going to press. That's a markup of almost 130%, significantly beyond the usual price-doubling that Brits have reluctantly come to expect.

When contacted regarding all this, Adobe said: "We set pricing in each market based on customer research, local market conditions and the cost of doing business ... the EU has 10 major languages, 4 major currencies ... the costs of doing business in European markets are significantly higher per unit of revenue than in the US.

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:52:45 -0800

I was all ready to buy CS3 here in the UK myself and even put aside some money for it, but two things put me off.. firstly, they announced it just after the end of the tax year (total idiocy, everyone likes to spend their profits before new tax year!!), and secondly.. they're reaming us. I'm looking to go over to open source solutions when the current stuff gets old myself.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:40:02 -0800

The exact same upgrade in the UK

Since it's in the UK doesn't that mean it's not the exact same? and thus is the cost coming from the fact that Adobe, an American company, codes in USA English and then converts to other languages and has to test the versions in said languages?

By: grouse

grouse — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:50:01 -0800

Brandon: That's some of the cost. Other costs are listed in both my and twistedonion's comments.

By: bonaldi

bonaldi — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:14:24 -0800

Since it's in the UK doesn't that mean it's not the exact same? and thus is the cost coming from the fact that Adobe, an American company, codes in USA English and then converts to other languages and has to test the versions in said languages?

You know, for a $600 saving, I'd put up with colour being spelt as color.

By: elliot100

elliot100 — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:00:15 -0800

Pretty sure that it's the same software with all language options included wherever you buy it, although the CS3 downloadable versions are region-locked in some way.

I'm in the UK and just bought Creative Suite 2 from Amazon US. Yes I know it's a version old, but it was my last chance to upgrade to the suite from the ancient Photoshop 5.5. Saved a fair amount after import tax and shipping paid.

I don't think price differences that large can sustain.