I'd argue it's better to use actual alternatives. Half of the issue with free and open source software is that it's userbase is too small. If more people used it, it could actually improve in many ways.

Lets take gaming on Linux as an example. The userbase on steam is somewhere around 5%. So there is almost no incentive for developers to make games that run nativly on Linux. Its actually easier to run the games in a compatibility layer then to get a Linux port of a game. And although wine and proton work incredibly well, sometimes even running a game better than on windows; a Linux native version of every game would be ideal. Which will never happen with such a small userbase.

Next you have the terrible business practices of these companies. Even if you use the pirated versions. You are in their ecosystem and their community. You increase their profitability and their stock price simply by continuing the industry standard.

Pirated versions of software like this is excusable if you need it for work or sometihing. But imagine if instead of staying with the status quo, you use and help improve actual free and open source alternatives. Versons of software that don't steal your data or monetize how you use it by selling your input to others or stealing it for "AI" datasets.

Imagine using free and open source software that gives you feedom because your data stays on your devices, your creations belong to only yourself or who ypu choose to share it with, and you work with others to improve it; even if it's by just submitting bug reports. Imagine using something like that which you find so altruisticly beneficial that instead of pirating the software that has no respect for you, you donate money to the devs of free and open source software. Yes, I'm a pirate. But I do donate money to the right causes and something that protects my freedom is worth both my time and my money.

This is how we got these monopolies in the first place.

free* as in beer, not as in speech. we still don't really own it.

No, they are not free, they are gratis alternatives.

"Free software" is one term, and it's meaning was defined in 1986 by RMS. Non of these software existed that time.

The word "free" in our name does not refer to price; it refers to freedom. First, the freedom to copy a program and redistribute it to your neighbors, so that they can use it as well as you. Second,** the freedom to change a program, so that you can control it instead of it controlling you; for this, the source code must be made available to you.**

Pirating a software still shows a company that there is interest in it. They will only know they are screwed when people stop buying and stop pirating

Wrong. I and other devs can modify free software to make it work on Linux. You can't do that with Photoshop and Premiere

Zorin OS, Gimp, and the last one looks like Blender or DaVinci software.

I wouldn't say that Linux & Gimp are objectively better, but they sure are better in the long run, since you plop "gimp" into a nix configuration and never have to deal with installation and cracking.

I use Krita because I do hand drawn animation so I haven't pirated photoshop since like . . 2008. Also use a tiltpen with it to paint tangent normals for bump mapping sometimes. Once I obtained good drawing tablets and stopped painting with my mouse I stopped caring about photoshop and its features

You don't even have to pirate Windows. Without activation everything will work besides some customization (I think you could not change wallpaper) which you can easily bypass if you would really wish to.

The only wrong option is paying for it.

How can you pirate Photoshop and Elements? They are WebAssembly binaries that phone home before you are allowed to use them.