4 ms·

What's with the entitlement here? These are people sacrificing their time and going largely unpaid (AFAIK) for their efforts. I for one am happy and grateful th

What's with the entitlement here? These are people sacrificing their time and going largely unpaid (AFAIK) for their efforts. I for one am happy and grateful that these "dodgy" open source evangelists exist and offer us all a choice for free. If I have a subjective usability problem with their software, far more constructive to take the effort to try and fix it myself than complain like a diva.

gilrain 9y ago
The "entitlement" is from people who are frustrated that the open source software movement lacks such a fundamental piece of the desktop software puzzle. The confrontation comes from the fact that one side insists the software is there (GIMP), whereas the other side view them as disconnected from reality since its use in industry rounds to 0%.
- lovelearning 9y ago
  I don't see why perceived usage share in industry should motivate dissing open source devs. GIMP has a user base and fans who obviously think it's good enough for their needs. If the professionals in the industry and their employers have a need for an all-in-one free software that can do everything - image editing, illustrations, maybe throw in 3D and animations while we are at it - then the industry should contribute towards building it. All the building blocks are available, thanks to those dodgy open source devs.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    What can be and what is are two different things. GIMP is not a serious competitor to Photoshop, full stop. So long as there is no serious competitor to Photoshop, that's a huge swath of the professional world (and much of the non-professional) that won't ever give Linux the time of day. There's a reason that Photoshop is teetering dangerously close to being a genercised trademark! And I think the attitude comes in when GIMP is ignorantly held up as if it were a serious competitor. It isn't. It's something else entirely. It might be good enough for people to make memes for internet shitposting, but between the missing features and the alien UI (to the point where a massive reskin [1] was around for a while), it's never going to be used in industry. If the GIMP devs want to continue down this path, more power to 'em, I just want the people claiming that it's a Photoshop competitor to educate themselves :) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop
    - lovelearning 9y ago
      This thread seems to be full of people making baseless assumptions about GIMP that I don't see the GIMP devs themselves make or any open source enthusiast make. Who here is claiming GIMP is a serious competitor to Photoshop, or even a competitor at all? Even the GIMP team doesn't (https://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#are-you-trying-to-develop-a-photoshop-killer-app https://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#are-you-trying-to-dev...). Or that GIMP is targeting graphics professionals or graphics industry? Don't think so... "We do, however, acknowledge the fact that people will treat GIMP as Photoshop replacement no matter what we tell them, and that’s all right with us. You own this software, it’s up to you to decide how you make use of it." It is what it is. A tool. That happens to be free and is good enough for some. As somebody above said, it's like complaining why emacs / kate / geany or whatever editor can't do something that visual studio can. If the industry wants a serious competitor to Photoshop, time for them to start building it anew or taking existing free tools nearer to that goal or funding open source devs to do it for them. Complaining and ranting against open source devs who have zero obligations to the industry is not going to achieve anything.
      - s73v3r_ 9y ago
        To pretend that any of the things said about GIMP in this thread are "baseless" are to stick your head in the sand.
        prokoudine 9y ago
        Fair enough. _Most_ things said about GIMP in this thread are complete and utter made-up bullshit that won't stand fact-checking. How about that? Better? :)
        s73v3r_ 9y ago
        No. Most things said about GIMP and the developers are said because they have basis in reality.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
What's with the entitlement in thinking that something being open source means its above criticism? Further, people have tried to get usability fixes into GIMP, and been shot down, as "that's not what the project wants to do."
- lovelearning 9y ago
  The entitlement I was referring to was based on the tone of the criticism. "I wish Krita had image editing features" wouldn't have got any reply from me. But adding "the open source evangelists always have a dodge" sounds to me like a personal attack on those devs. Do they owe something to the artist community? Or have they breached the terms of some work-for-hire contract from the graphics industry to code an all-in-one tool? Nope. What is the "dodging" in limiting functional scope of a tool? Each and every software project I know of places some limits on what it will and won't implement. Even Adobe has a suite of tools where one tool like Photoshop can do things Illustrator can't and vice versa. It's not Adobe being "dodgy" about their tools, and nor are open source projects. Nothing stops people from forking GIMP, implementing whatever fixes they want, distributing, and even selling it. Refusing pull requests is not a crime.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    "Nothing stops people from forking GIMP, implementing whatever fixes they want, distributing, and even selling it. Refusing pull requests is not a crime." To put that up as the solution is to be fully divorced from reality.
- prokoudine 9y ago
  "Further, people have tried to get usability fixes into GIMP, and been shot down" Just gimme the facts, please.

gilrain 9y ago

The "entitlement" is from people who are frustrated that the open source software movement lacks such a fundamental piece of the desktop software puzzle. The confrontation comes from the fact that one side insists the software is there (GIMP), whereas the other side view them as disconnected from reality since its use in industry rounds to 0%.

lovelearning 9y ago
I don't see why perceived usage share in industry should motivate dissing open source devs. GIMP has a user base and fans who obviously think it's good enough for their needs. If the professionals in the industry and their employers have a need for an all-in-one free software that can do everything - image editing, illustrations, maybe throw in 3D and animations while we are at it - then the industry should contribute towards building it. All the building blocks are available, thanks to those dodgy open source devs.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  What can be and what is are two different things. GIMP is not a serious competitor to Photoshop, full stop. So long as there is no serious competitor to Photoshop, that's a huge swath of the professional world (and much of the non-professional) that won't ever give Linux the time of day. There's a reason that Photoshop is teetering dangerously close to being a genercised trademark! And I think the attitude comes in when GIMP is ignorantly held up as if it were a serious competitor. It isn't. It's something else entirely. It might be good enough for people to make memes for internet shitposting, but between the missing features and the alien UI (to the point where a massive reskin [1] was around for a while), it's never going to be used in industry. If the GIMP devs want to continue down this path, more power to 'em, I just want the people claiming that it's a Photoshop competitor to educate themselves :) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop
  - lovelearning 9y ago
    This thread seems to be full of people making baseless assumptions about GIMP that I don't see the GIMP devs themselves make or any open source enthusiast make. Who here is claiming GIMP is a serious competitor to Photoshop, or even a competitor at all? Even the GIMP team doesn't (https://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#are-you-trying-to-develop-a-photoshop-killer-app https://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#are-you-trying-to-dev...). Or that GIMP is targeting graphics professionals or graphics industry? Don't think so... "We do, however, acknowledge the fact that people will treat GIMP as Photoshop replacement no matter what we tell them, and that’s all right with us. You own this software, it’s up to you to decide how you make use of it." It is what it is. A tool. That happens to be free and is good enough for some. As somebody above said, it's like complaining why emacs / kate / geany or whatever editor can't do something that visual studio can. If the industry wants a serious competitor to Photoshop, time for them to start building it anew or taking existing free tools nearer to that goal or funding open source devs to do it for them. Complaining and ranting against open source devs who have zero obligations to the industry is not going to achieve anything.
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      To pretend that any of the things said about GIMP in this thread are "baseless" are to stick your head in the sand.
      - prokoudine 9y ago
        Fair enough. _Most_ things said about GIMP in this thread are complete and utter made-up bullshit that won't stand fact-checking. How about that? Better? :)
        s73v3r_ 9y ago
        No. Most things said about GIMP and the developers are said because they have basis in reality.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

What's with the entitlement in thinking that something being open source means its above criticism? Further, people have tried to get usability fixes into GIMP, and been shot down, as "that's not what the project wants to do."

lovelearning 9y ago
The entitlement I was referring to was based on the tone of the criticism. "I wish Krita had image editing features" wouldn't have got any reply from me. But adding "the open source evangelists always have a dodge" sounds to me like a personal attack on those devs. Do they owe something to the artist community? Or have they breached the terms of some work-for-hire contract from the graphics industry to code an all-in-one tool? Nope. What is the "dodging" in limiting functional scope of a tool? Each and every software project I know of places some limits on what it will and won't implement. Even Adobe has a suite of tools where one tool like Photoshop can do things Illustrator can't and vice versa. It's not Adobe being "dodgy" about their tools, and nor are open source projects. Nothing stops people from forking GIMP, implementing whatever fixes they want, distributing, and even selling it. Refusing pull requests is not a crime.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  "Nothing stops people from forking GIMP, implementing whatever fixes they want, distributing, and even selling it. Refusing pull requests is not a crime." To put that up as the solution is to be fully divorced from reality.
prokoudine 9y ago
"Further, people have tried to get usability fixes into GIMP, and been shot down" Just gimme the facts, please.