51–60 of 220 posts
It’s not DWM’s fault. It works fine with programs that support X11 properly. Krita, for example, works perfectly with DWM.
GIMP gets the work done. I've never had an issue I couldn't address with its tools, but it's clear the UI was crafted by coders. I'm glad for this approach.
2. GIMP needs RAW support, precision support, and a better data backbone
3. GIMP needs a rename. It's both a sex kink term [1] (not to yuck anyone's yums) and a slur term for disabled people [2]
4. Gen AI will probably disrupt all of this anyway.
I'll continue to say it; this software does not get taken seriously in a useful way to lots of people until it changes the silly name. And to summarize and perhaps avert other discussion; it's not so much about being "non-offensive" as it is simply about being professional.
GIMP gets the work done. I've never had an issue I couldn't address with its tools, but it's clear the UI was crafted by coders. I'm glad for this approach.
1. GIMP needs a total UX overhaul 2. GIMP needs RAW support, precision support, and a better data backbone 3. GIMP needs a rename. It's both a sex kink term [1] (not to yuck anyone's yums) and a slur term for disabled people [2] 4. Gen AI will probably disrupt all of this anyway. [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00I8S3ZHQ [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gimp
That being said, the comfort that millions of people have with the Photoshop interface is in itself an institution, and has to be respected as such (imagine the collective number of man-hours put into learning it.) I don't know what the answer is. But the worst possible outcome is the Firefox outcome, where GIMP ends up chasing Photoshop rather than remaining its own thing.
Just, please, try to get out of your head that GIMP's UI is bad. It's not, it's just different. Don't think of it as a knock-off Photoshop. Deal with it on its own terms. Use these Photoshop skins as a transition rather than a destination.
That means I might have a problem with this approach, just because it doesn't allow for a easy switch between classic and Photoshop UI. It's actually annoying to switch back and forth. If it catches on and brings more users to GIMP, it will become the interface, and leave GIMP vulnerable to IP attacks.
Only Gimp devs would love Gimps interface.
Just the existence of Gimp seems like so much effort flushed down the toilet because of someone's bad, bad taste and incredibly poor user interface design
I've never understood GIMP's approach to copy paste either. They've made a decision that copy and paste must require as many un-intuitive steps as possible. Most graphics programs let you select a region, copy it and then move the copy around to where you want it, the end. You can usually paste into new layer if needed. But not in GIMP for some reason you have to copy something and 'anchor it' or convert it to a new…
People use Photoshop for sheer capability, not for the layout, naming conventions and shortcuts.
er.. no - I've been a daily user of Photoshop since '98 or so, but after getting annoyed with Adobe's subscription model a few years back I bought Affinity Photo and looked to move over entirely to that, yet I ended up back in Photoshop purely because of literal decades of muscle memory meant that every interaction that I had with Affinity's offering came with an undesirable cognitive speedbump. I'm not a fan of Gimp…
That's always going to be a problem with switching from anything to anything other than a clone. I can't play superior, I'm still clinging to MATE for goodness's sake, but at least I know I'm being dumb and have plans to move.
People use Photoshop for sheer capability, not for the layout, naming conventions and shortcuts.
I'm pretty sure 95% of photoshop users only use a feature subset thats also available in GIMP (except for maybe the latest generative infill)