Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

schoenitzer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 177 posts

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#91

Post by ravetcofx »

da_chicken wrote: post #52
prox wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love Gimp to succeed but Gimp is made by coders for coders (as you might expect from a open source program) and not by visual artists for visual artists. I don’t have a lot of hope. For years I have been using Affinity and it’s been really good, haven’t looked back. Unfortunately it’s not on linux.

The few people I know doing visual design still balk at a program that lacks native CMYK editing. Honestly I'm still skeptical about the significant improvements made for 3.0 due to the project's history. I remember CMYK being the most common complaint (after the UI) 20 years ago, too. And at the time the entire GIMP project insisted that you never needed it and RGB was good enough. By coders for coders, indeed.

Affinity seems like it works through Wine/Proton

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#92

Post by jrm4 »

prox wrote: post #5
10729287 wrote: post #2

I really want Gimp to succeed. It's a software I've been trying to use since more than 20 years now but the UX is so clunky.... and different than Photoshop. Muscle Memory is a thing. I'm moving my main machine from macOS to Linux (which I also used partially since 20years), moving from a mac mini M1 to a lovely Lenovo M75Q-1 and so far the experience has been great. I'm a (enthusiast) photographer and I have big hop…

I would love Gimp to succeed but Gimp is made by coders for coders (as you might expect from a open source program) and not by visual artists for visual artists. I don’t have a lot of hope. For years I have been using Affinity and it’s been really good, haven’t looked back. Unfortunately it’s not on linux.

As I've said exhaustively before, this is also reflected in the stupid stubbornness in not changing the name.

I firmly believe they could have eaten Adobe's lunch decades ago, but I can't recommend something that may be an ableist slur, and definitely means something that is the opposite of "skilled."

Childish and disappointing.

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#93

Post by Ylpertnodi »

isodev wrote: post #77
mardifoufs wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhhh BBC also stands for something else, and that second meaning is a very common term on the internet.

Describing one’s … favourite desert? (HN is American so not sure we can say the word here) doesn’t constitute an insult - people say it all the time irl. But you’re also right that BBC wouldn’t be a good name for a design tool either. Naming things is hard, someone should setup a focus group :)

Are you thinking of the Coventry University Netball Team? (again).

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#94

Post by jrm4 »

Will continue to say it, this piece of software that could be a mainstream huge deal, a straight-up Adobe killer, will never do this unless it changes its name.

I've mostly given up hope on this, but it's still wild that people who work on the software just seem to very stubbornly not understand this.

Whether you want to blame it on ableism, or perhaps simply "you should name your software after something/someone skilled or professional, not literally the opposite," you're preventing people like me (IT teaching, a go-between between techies and non-techies) from being able to recommend it.

Luckily, Krita's here and for better or worse does the AI stuff.

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#96

Post by veggieroll »

jrm4 wrote: post #94

Will continue to say it, this piece of software that could be a mainstream huge deal, a straight-up Adobe killer, will never do this unless it changes its name. I've mostly given up hope on this, but it's still wild that people who work on the software just seem to very stubbornly not understand this. Whether you want to blame it on ableism, or perhaps simply "you should name your software after something/someone ski…

That's probably true. But offending people with prudish attitudes or without a sense of humor is a pretty common old-school hacker goal.

It serves a valuable community function by protecting the community from corporate interests, non-technical bike-shedding, and overload by "bug" reports that are actually just the user not being technical enough to use the tool properly.

Edit: Also FWIW, I've had no problem introducing GIMP to church groups and in various professional settings.

Double edit: since you mention schools, I should also add that I taught my wife GIMP and she had no problem sharing it in her school (US public high school).

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#97

Post by hackthemack »

jrm4 wrote: post #94

Will continue to say it, this piece of software that could be a mainstream huge deal, a straight-up Adobe killer, will never do this unless it changes its name. I've mostly given up hope on this, but it's still wild that people who work on the software just seem to very stubbornly not understand this. Whether you want to blame it on ableism, or perhaps simply "you should name your software after something/someone ski…

I think they should just rename it as IMP. The gnu is implied. Richard Stallman might complain it should always be called Gnu IMP (New Imp), which is fine.

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#98

Post by jay_kyburz »

DonnieBurger wrote: post #65

I'm patiently waiting for resynthesizer to be ported. Then I will make the move to 3.0. I've used GIMP exclusively as my image editor for the past two decades and it has fulfilled my needs for web development. I really don't get all the gripe around it. It's one of the most valuable free programs on my PC. Sure, it does take time and possibly customization to get yourself a comfortable workflow. But once you get it d…

I tried and tried, but just couldn't make the switch. Krita made it much easier and now I'm 100% Krita.

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#99

Post by DonnieBurger »

jrm4 wrote: post #94

Will continue to say it, this piece of software that could be a mainstream huge deal, a straight-up Adobe killer, will never do this unless it changes its name. I've mostly given up hope on this, but it's still wild that people who work on the software just seem to very stubbornly not understand this. Whether you want to blame it on ableism, or perhaps simply "you should name your software after something/someone ski…

I'd argue that GIMP reclaimed the word for a better meaning. Consider how the word lame has lost its derogatory impact. Googling "gimp" gives me only results about the program. Changing the name now would dilute decades of brand recognition and confuse users, especially those in non-English communities.

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#100

Post by kernal »

idle_zealot wrote: post #61
isodev wrote: post #51

It’s time for a new name. “gimp” may be semantically correct but it hardly prepares one for a “friendly and powerful graphics editing tool”.

This is posted every time this software comes up here. I don't know where you people are from, but in my dialect (Eastern US, Gen Z) "gimp" is just not a particularly rude word. It's used primarily as a verb, meaning "to reduce in efficacy, to hamper." Obviously it has it's noun definition too, bit if you think that has anything to do with the lack of adoption of this software you're kidding yourself, you gits.

Let’s try a scientific experiment. Go to a bar and start calling people GIMP’s and analyze the reactions it receives.
Post reply on HN