At my university, our CS classes use either free and open-sourced

>>58622417
This has nothing to do with it being "okay", FOSS creative tooling is just inferior. Not all of it is "bad" (I get along fine with GIMP) but that doesn't change the fact that the solutions which *just so happen* to have shitfuckloads of corporate money behind them are better to use.

Also, it may also have something to do with with programmers being able to program kickass tooling because they are programmers...can't say the same about most artists.

>>58622591
programmers in general are okay with learning a complicated interface to perform a complicated task. Artists generally aren't.

>>58622417
Artists free programs are a bit shitty... also big companies use that so the teach that

>>58622665
Photoshop isn't complicated?

>>58622417
I think it has mostly to do with flexibility. A programmer that only knows how to program inside an IDE using a proprietary toolset isn't a very flexible or very good programmer. A programmer that knows the fundamentals behind their craft and how their code is built can generally get by both with and without an IDE to guide them.

The same cannot be said of artists- even if they still know the fundamentals behind what it is they do when creating and editing images, it is enough for them to know how to do those tasks in one program or program suite.

Doesn't help that schools receive massive discounts on these types of software, as it means that students are less likely to look into learning alternative software for their career.

>>58622417
We make our own tools, we have more tools, there are more people working in FOSS tools thus FOSS tools are better for us.

Artists don't make their own programs