Updates are coming in frequently for all the *Craft apps, and I really like that it's possible to brew install them across many macOS on a moment's notice, so I definitely recommend trying it. However it should not be used for absolutely critical work unless you can verify the functions you need are fine.
But yeah, I think on the whole they're doing great, and actually being quite conservative about the claims they make.
Blender is a little different because every 3D modeling program is odd in its own way, and the new UI was close enough that it was easy to learn after the transition (I do still use the legacy keybinds though).
But Blender is very niche hobby software. To "succeed" (if we define success as capturing a significant user share from closed source spyware), Libre and GIMP need to offer workflows that are close to what the average non-coder technical person expects. Maybe that isn't valued by the teams, or maybe they don't have enough resources to make it happen, but the end result is a reputation of jank.
I dislike vibe coded clones because of concerns about the engineering quality. But the reason they're making waves when traditional FOSS hasn't is that the UX is leagues ahead.
I don't think this is entirely accurate at this point. It has pretty wide adoption in the educational space, and a number of well-known studios have adopted Blender into their workflows.
The Blender development fund wouldn't be topped-up to the tune of $3 million/year if it were purely funded by hobbyists.
But when I say "niche hobby software," I'm talking about the relative scale of the user base.
Every working adult who touches a computer in 2026 is using office software. Photo editing is so common that "Photoshop" has become a verb. These two use cases are behemoths compared to 3D modelers.
Oh definitely. The way some people seem oblivious to all of Word's faults and weirdness― …Oh! You weren't talking about Microsoft Word!
Software having some quirks is fine. Most people would be fine with LibreOffice if they were taught the rudiments of word processing (that; not using Word, but actual word processing) and never came into a situation where they had to use Word or Google Docs.
The difference between all those tools is that LibreOffice will still do its thing in the future. Just as it has done for a long while, while Word will have forced some new subscription model on you and force-fed you some AI-integration, and Google will have done some similar googley shit.
Most people don't use MS office by choice though so "goodness" isn't a particular relevant metric.
Not true. There's inertia and network effects in play that often prevent better products from succeeding against established ones.
Basically the keyboard is all wired weirdly in LibreOffice for Mac.
In my opinion, the user interface of modern MS Office is absolutely horrible.
I have used a lot of old MS Office versions, and until 20 years ago I thought that its user interface was very good.
Then there was a gap of about a decade when I did not need MS Office at work and I also had no reason to update my personally purchased MS Office Professional (which I was running on Linux, using Crossover, where it was more performant and more stable than on Windows).
After that gap, when I encountered again MS Office, I was shocked by how awkward its UI had become meanwhile.
Today I prefer very much the UI of LibreOffice, which is similar to the old MS UI, instead of the modern MS Office UI.
There are a lot of things that I dislike in the LibreOffice UI, but even so, I consider the MS Office UI much worse.
Because there was a time in the past when I was a heavy MS Office user, when using the modern MS Office I am aware about a great number of commands that exist, but I am no longer able to find them in the MS Office menus.
In the old MS Office, those commands were grouped in a way that was logical for me, so it was easy to find them even when I did not know where they were, because I had not used them before. But in the modern interface many commands are not where I would expect them to be, so there have been many case when I had to do a random search through all menus, to locate them after a long time.
For example, moving a text layer (with 'pick layer') requires the cursor to be over the painted part of the glyphs to move that layer, if you miss then the background is moved instead. All that is required is a picking region around the glyphs and it would be fine.
pick a layer or guide
move the selected layersIn my opinion, the quality of MS Word peaked some time in the early 2000s.
So today, given the choice between LibreOffice and MS Word, I would always choose LibreOffice, even if MS Word were free, and despite the fact that LibreOffice Writer has some annoying bugs that have not been fixed for many years, but I find easier to work around those bugs than to cope with the user interface of modern MS Word.
On the other hand, I agree that MS Excel is clearly superior to LibreOffice Calc. Nonetheless, there already are decades since I switched to LibreOffice Calc and I did not need the extra features of MS Excel. For things beyond the capabilities of Calc, I use a real database, though that would probably not be the best solution for a typical office worker.
And the whole "I'm proud of being a curmudgeon " is exactly the problem being identified by others in this thread. It's like you weren't even reading it.
Consider this: Word Processing, and Word Processor UX was a solved problem from his perspective 20 years ago (he is far from alone in this opinion). Quite honestly, I have no idea what Word today is doing for me that the Word I was using 2 decades ago wasn't already doing.
It isn't curmudgeonly to say that a product has reached maturity, and does not need changes. This happens a lot outside of the computing realm; a screwdriver from 50 years ago is basically the same as a modern one. A mechanic using his grandfather's screwdriver isn't "proud of being a curmudgeon" they are just using a perfectly good tool that doesn't need updates.
So perhaps they are not wrong and newer doesn't always mean better.
I understand millions of people are able to use ms word. I just can't work with the UI. It even makes me angry and aggressive. And that's not an easy thing to achieve.
Would you agree that a "new" TV that requires an internet connection is worse than a ten year old TV that just works?
Would you agree that decades of UI research are discarded by supposedly "new" and "modern" computer interfaces?
A big thing that came with the roll out of OOXML, along with the controversy, is that all of the weird serialization corruption bugs went away.
My mileage varies.
The problem is the lack of integration into a wider ecosystem, that's what MS provides.
I don't do photoediting any more, but Gimp + plugins was great. In those days, it wasn't unusual for Gimp to get some new capability before Photoshop (e.g. Liquid Rescale, various denoising algorithms). The academics would often demonstrate their new algorithm using Gimp plugins.
Also LibreOffice (former OpenOffice) had PDF export a decade before Word. This seems to be a ridiculously essential feature. Last but not least, it's way more comprehensive than Google Docs.