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 ad

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.