About the rules in the krita-artists


Some performance test, Krita vs Photoshop(crop tool)

I was reading through this particular topic and got a little confused about the ‘warning’ message. Maybe he(or she) who posted the comparison was being a troll, but it seems to me that the maintainers are saying the comparison itself between Krita and any other app is trolling(unless there’s a valid suggestion to solution attatched). Is that the case?

So in theory, if I post a comparison between Krita and another app which Krita showed reletively poor performance, would it be a trolling and a violation of TOS in this community?

I’m not demanding anything(atp). I’m just genuinely really curious where the maintainers are drawing the line.


Thank you for asking this question. This would give me a way to clear misunderstanding and also expectations from me as moderator towards users.

Disclaimer: These are my opinions as a moderator of the forum. The opinion of developers and Krita maintainers might be different from mine. We can also ask everyone about this and this is a good place to discuss that. I welcome everyone to chime in.

I am just a volunteer in the project and these reflect my view of what the forum rules should be and how feature request should be about Krita here on this website. When I say “We” in this post I mean it is in my opinion what we as a project should be doing. To be more clear, this is not the collective view of the maintainers or developers of Krita. This is just my view as an admin of this site.

Reason for the warning

The user had made many posts in the feature request thread. These requests were often a screenshot of other application and saying I want this in Krita. For example here is one of the feature request - Path Blur in Krita

The post has no research no explanation of what the feature looks like etc. They explain it on further questioning by a forum member. Take for example this post again - Request : Pulled string option for brush smoothing No explanation about what the requested feature would bring to table, again on further questioning some answer is given, but it is not satisfactory.

The reply to the post was given considering all other post by them, and it was not just for that particular post.

Some more background in general

Over the years there were many requests for implementing one to one carbon copy of features from other programs. It is understandable that people want their workflow to be exactly the same while migrating to Krita from other applications. But we have made it more than clear many number of times, again and again and again that we won’t be making carbon copy of some other application. We have even made a manual page about making feature request due to frustration from answering such request. Here it is - Developing Features — Krita Manual 4.4.0 documentation. I had given the link of that page to the user two or three times. Hence, the warning message.

The language of the post is also important, it is good if the post is not demeaning or bashing Krita. We all know Krita lacks things, but it becomes tiresome to hear the same rants again and again. For example some posts starts from “We need X” or sometimes people write “Krita is just the worst, it will never be good enough unless you implement X”. For example the other day one user asked here on the forum how to delete things on a background layer without showing chequerboard pattern and when answered they said even a basic application like MS Paint did not show chequerboard pattern like that. They could have answered nicely too and pointing things about MS Paint would not make the question more clear.

It’s much better to say “I need to do this constantly and if implemented, it would save my time while doing X”. So, better focus on specifics (what problem do you have, why is it a problem, how would it be solved when the feature is implemented, how important it is) than general things like “Krita = bad, assistants = bad, text tool = bad, brush engine = bad”.

Clearly talking in such language will not give you any attention and would further antagonize people here who are passionate about Krita. I understand people would become often frustrated and annoyed with some behaviour, and they have right to express that, so it is okay to say “I am annoyed by this misfeature, can you please improve this” this is just expressing emotions. And that is okay provided it is a bit polite.

This is general etiquette and common sense in my opinion.

About the rules of the forum

Now coming back to the general discussion of comparing other applications to Krita. We are not saying it is banned and users should not even mention other applications or draw comparisons. Despite the warnings I have not removed all the posts which did that.

Of course to develop a better UI, the research will definitely include prior art. But when doing a comparison, it should be purely in terms of researching not asking to copy something. I know people would say that when something is already present in other application, it is the best, and we should copy good things. I do not say we should purposely make things different from other applications for the sake of being different, I am saying we should consider all applications and derive at the best method by taking ideas from them. For example here is how a hypothetical feature request can be:

Hey I noticed Krita doesn’t have good perspective assistant,

Here is my explaination of how it should work and how my drawing workflow will be better with this new proposal.

Here are list of things that other application already do.

  • Application number 1
    … Advantages/ disadvantages
  • Application number 2
    … Advantages/ disadvantages
  • Application number 3
    …Advantages/ disadvantages

Here is how I envision Krita can do it
It would have idea from application 1 but this would be better if we do it like this, since it has this drawback, etc, etc.

Now I understand doing such research would take time and would be a bit of barrier for making feature request but think about the time that developers would be investing in this. If they are given proper analysis and thought with proper list of requirements, maybe some mock-ups for new UI that the new feature would require, then their decision-making would be easier, and it would help them make better feature by understanding the core problem to solve. We have to arrive at our own solution not to copy someone else’s answer.

Even if the initial post is not so much detailed, it should surely invite other members here for brainstorming and to encourage them to share their view and use case in it. Often times developers have in fact implemented things which have been requested by user citing the features in other applications, for example the creamy flow in brushes.

So to sum it up, it is okay to compare Krita with other application in a genuine and fair way and not just to countlessly list things which are different or not present in Krita which are present in other applications. Continuously posting screenshots and comparing things with an ignorant or rude language despite repeated warnings not to do so, or despite repeated explanation from the developers about why things are the way they are would constitute to wasting precious time of everyone in my opinion. Just to add a sidenote the comparison made in the post that you linked was not fair too. I am happy to make amends to rules provided everybody chimes in and agrees to the changes.


This topic was automatically closed 15 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.