221–230 of 310 posts
I joined IRC to humbly propose a feature. "Why would anyone want that?"
Not copying anything useful from Photoshop was a point of pride.
Congratulations on 27 years of existence. Congratulations on regular GSoC acceptance since 2006.
The biggest stain on FOSS, with the worst apologists, 27 years strong! Try drawing a circle, in the year 2022.
> tell me you've never read a gnome bug report without ever saying it
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?
At this point I don’t think it’s controversial to say that this project existing has harmed creative tools on Linux. 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am confused why you think that Gimp somehow magically used all slots for image software development. It is not like it is extremely well funded or otherwise resource consuming. > because it exists people treat it like a solved problem People complaining about lack of alternative projects in open source is a new one for me > it has such a history no one’s allowed to say it just frankly isn’t usable for it’s one job.…
> I am confused why you think that Gimp somehow magically used all slots for image software development. The linux distribution model seems to lead it to, somehow. If you open up a RedHat machine and ask it for a picture editor, you're going to get Gimp, even though Krita would almost certainly be better at doing what you want.
(or tried filing any such configuration request in any Linux distribution and got it rejected/ignored?)
> To celebrate [...] this nice birthday illustration (fully drawn within GIMP [...] There's some sort of weird inferiority complex when your graphics software is 27 years old and you're still saying 'look we used it for one of our website assets.' It's like telling people at the birthday party that you dressed yourself. I find it equally strange that there are almost no screenshots on the website, outside of the docs…
You don’t even need to look at commercial software. Already Krita is doing much better in terms of both usability and marketing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t even need to look at commercial software. Already Krita is doing much better in terms of both usability and marketing…
Krita [1] was started in 2007 [2], 15 years ago, so I'm not sure it warrants an "already" with any advantages it might have. :) [1]: https://krita.org/en/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krita
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know if it's just americans not wanting to touch a European project or what, but it's just infuriating That's some weird complex. I doubt most people know what piece of free software is European versus American. I further doubt it has any meaningful impact on adoption.
I agree it's bizzare, but why else would it be that all the US Linux distros use Gnome and all the European ones use KDE?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never looked at Krita because it's always been referenced to me as a painting application primarily and not an image editing / photo manipulation tool. I understand there may be some cross over in functionality, but aren't they essentially built for different purposes?
I don't know; a lot of people say something like that but they never seem to give a concrete example of what the different things they need are. Krita has always been able to do all the photo editing I ever wanted to.