51–60 of 310 posts
For it to have such a bad UX after 27 years is a feat in itself. I can't fathom that to this day people present it as an alternative to Photoshop where it's little more than an unusable Paint. I mean, photopea.com is free, developed by a single guy, and runs in the browser, and it's light years ahead of Gimp.
>and it's light years ahead of Gimp. Photopea makes millions. Maybe if people donated to support Gimp's development it wouldn't be that behind.
Still no adjustment layers, still no layer styles. It’s so easy to just critique away…but really? Really? Those are just absolutely essential image editing software features. What have they been prioritizing ahead of that?
And no macOS native gui ;_; It’s almost unusable in OSX because of that.
GIMP is legendary. One of the first FOSS projects I ever used. I pirated Photoshop soon after trying it. Krita ( https://github.com/KDE/krita | https://krita.org/en/ ) is a more intuitive UX imo.
Oh… okay.
Did you also steal a car right after you learned how to drive?
Still no adjustment layers, still no layer styles. It’s so easy to just critique away…but really? Really? Those are just absolutely essential image editing software features. What have they been prioritizing ahead of that?
If another project had become the de-facto we’d have all those basic features.
Instead we’re stuck with something that almost provides the basics ok, because it exists people treat it like a solved problem, and it has such a history no one’s allowed to say it just frankly isn’t usable for it’s one job.
GIMP is legendary. One of the first FOSS projects I ever used. I pirated Photoshop soon after trying it. Krita ( https://github.com/KDE/krita | https://krita.org/en/ ) is a more intuitive UX imo.
> One of the first FOSS projects I ever used. I pirated Photoshop soon after trying it. Oh… okay. Did you also steal a car right after you learned how to drive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand this recurring retort. Does it mean that to use a tool you must be capable of building it? Does it mean that to share criticism you must be able to build it? I’m thinking about applying this logic to the rest of life and it’s rather amusing to imagine the silence. Hmm, maybe that wouldn’t be so bad. I think one could more fairly say, “offer up money for someone to build the features you need” but I…
> Does it mean that to share criticism you must be able to build it? No. I've reported a lot of tickets/feature requests for a lot of projects that seemed to be taken good. But criticism that seems entitled is rarely appreciated, and surprise about some obviously, severely underfunded project missing features is not very impressive neither. There is a shitload of other missing features OP could have mentioned on this…
What specifically in the comment suggests a sense of entitlement? For me, I see none. I see a, “as an expert user, it’s surprising that such an important feature has been missing forever and I would like to criticize that.”
Edit: I’m not allowed to reply to your response but thank you for taking the time to respond.
Still no adjustment layers, still no layer styles. It’s so easy to just critique away…but really? Really? Those are just absolutely essential image editing software features. What have they been prioritizing ahead of that?
Its open source, so feel free to prioritise your own workload into making this feature.
Why would anyone with the talent required to do that invest time in a project that hasn’t been able to add these basic features.
Cloning the current GIMP feature set into a modern and competent system is easier than trying to work with the team that can’t ship these features alone.