Usually I'd strongly bias toward OSS. But gimp's ux is just so bad, I'd sooner use (_vomits_) adobe knowing I'll have to wrestle a bear in order to cancel my subscription. But there's no need. Figma, while not OSS, is free, and it does have acceptable UX. I'm a newb who occasionally needs to brush up an image or combine multiple images for my startup. I got more done in figma in thirty minutes than in gimp in 3 hours, and was much less frustrated. I could never find the relevant button (or sometimes even pane) in gimp. If you already learned gimp, use it, but for anyone else it's false economy - the time you lose fighting its UX outweighs the feelgood/freedom of using OSS.
IMO it feels quite entitled of Mac users to expect open source software to cater to the (rather weird) UI conventions of their proprietary operating system.
I'd posit this is more knowing your user. Lots of photo editors/multimedia types use Macs, so it would only help GIMP if they offered Mac keybinds out of the box, or even mimicked the keybinds Adobe Photoshop has.
Seems pretty trivial to bind a settings screen to, eh, however you even make that symbol on US international keyboard, insert that here. Why not submit a pull request to create that bind? Or have you at least mentioned that this bothers you, maybe they'll even do the work for you?
I used it to create some art. I created image layers using p5.js and combined those 5 images using the previous version. I found the layering system pretty obvious, with the opacity and merging very straight forward. I used to be pretty ok at photoshop.. before the subscription days. The export vs save as was a little confusing but the whole process wasn’t hard.
Those images got into an exhibition so I’m pretty happy.
Photoshop literally has whole training companies and conferences on how to use the software. I ended up at a photoshop world conference. When I was on Mac I’d use pixelmator for quick crops and edits (or even the preview). That’s easier, but these programs are very powerful and you need a little bit to learn them.
Yeah, It's not about what's easy (especially in a community like this). These tools aren't for people who necessarily desire easy solutions. It's just about hat pays and what you grew up with. Microsoft used a similar approach decades ago, and it paid off in spades. But navigating Windows also isn't as easy as we'd think as people who grew up on it.
I think the name concerns are legitimate just on the basis that it sounds awkward, regardless of whether it's offensive or not. An image editor named Gnome or Goblin, or even Midget (widely regarded to also be offensive), would be fine, because those make me think of cute little people. A 'gimp' is a weird guy in a leather suit or a guy with a messed up leg, and I don't really want to think about any of that when I open my image editor.
Tech isn't the best at naming thing but it hasn't really stopped much. A version control system is named after an insult in UK English. The tip tech companies are a fruit, a name thst sounds like clown sounds, and a rain forest (so, pretty horrible communication on what they do). The name of this site sounds like some kind of silk road at firs blush.
There can be some absolutely dreadful, politically incorrect names, but I don't think any of GIMP's significant problems came from it's namesake.
Doesn't matter what the name is, as long as people remember it. Trust me, the name "GIMP" is not what's holding their project up. It's competition with Adobe and the likes.
However it's great that they're making gradual progress. I've used Gimp for years.
That name reminds me of PUBG and Proton-GE (specifically the GE part). Both awkwardly named after one person's internet handle. If sufficiently shortened, and ideally also pronounceable, I think it can work. With that in mind, "CSAS" might not be the best, though maybe people could pronounce it "Sergeant Sea-Sass". Then the biggest problem I see is the # of syllables, but if you've already established context, you could probably shorten it further in subsequent usage to "Sea-Sass" or CSAS only, which is only about as bad as "LDAP".
If shampoo was introduced today, the product would be laughed out of the room: who would put some sham poo on their heads? Nevertheless, people are fine with this weird word once it's become traditional.
If "gimp" is an ableist slur, is "lisp" an ableis slur, too? And does that Unix manual-viewing command seem to assume masculine superiority? While at it, that Unik signal-sending command would definitely be banned in Boston for indiscriminate cruelty.
I mean, come on. Humans are able to differentiate between meanings of a word, and even possess a sense of humor, to a degree.
That said, I'm totally not a fan of naming projects in a playfully stupid, disgusting, or, worse, obscene way. Sadly, people get their kicks out of that more often than I would like. But I think that the hooliganish joy of doing so critically depends on the rest of us reacting to such a name in an inflamed way, like above. There's something to be said about feeding trolls as a self-defeating behavior.
Is there some other manual-viewing command that you believe it has been confused with? Is it that you are not aware that a eunuch is still considered a man?
Unix is a play on eunuchs, because it was jokingly referred to as an emasculated version of Multics. Linux is a play on top of that. Certainly we must cancel Linus Torvalds posthaste!
I think the problem is a lot of people need very occasional image manipulation. Back when I was a photographer, I could have easily paid 5x more for my Photoshop subscription and it would have been worth it.
Now that I’m not, the $10 a month is a harder pill to swallow, even though I use it quite a bit. A subscription pricing model isn’t great for those that need something once a week or month or whatever.
I hear complaints from its users who describe using Adobe software like they're in an abusive relationship[1][2]. Personally, the software license is the problem for me. I don't want to make a piece of proprietary software a major part of my life or workflow. I've got GIMP, Krita, and InkScape for when I need to whip up a diagram or something. Luckily I do not need to use software like this too often.
Adobe is infuriatingly intrusive. So much so that at some point I wanted to uninstall it and never deal with anything adobe ever again, only to find out they demand that I log in to uninstall their crap.
Nothing Adobe will ever again be installed on my PCs.
I suspect many who make software would never do what adobe does (deliberately make it difficult for customers to leave). Entirely subjective, of course, but I consider Adobe's retention strategies very sleazy (although not uncommon).
That said, can also see the utility in making deals with the devil: if it means getting your own software done faster and better, then it might be worth it, even if it feels gross.
Nice work. I've never subscribed to Adobe products, so I haven't experienced it first hand. My thinking is if your software is great, you shouldn't need lock-in contracts or adobe-like tactics. (I've dodged similar subscription models like economist magazine and masterclass purely due to the utility of the subscription being outweighed by the knowledge I'd one day have to endure a frustrating process to unsubscribe).
It's super easy, don't listed to hypersensitive people who can't stand two seconds of sales pitch. The same goes for the Economist, when I unubscribed the rep asked me if I'd like a 50% discount on a yearly subscription, I politely declined and that was it. One advantage of this is that you can easily pretend you're canceling in order to get a big discount. Some people just love to complain about every little thing.
Given the negative sentiment around Adobe's cancellation flow, you'd think they'd advertise the fact that you get a 'free year of everything' and 'zero issues'. Seems weird!
