10 ms·

A bunch of people spend A LOT of their time developing a FOSS alternative to photoshop and the first comment online is someone bitching about a small GUI change

A bunch of people spend A LOT of their time developing a FOSS alternative to photoshop and the first comment online is someone bitching about a small GUI change 7 years ago. Classic open source community. Sorry to say it. This is the exact reason Libre Office looks like it's from 1996 and it stops normal users from using it.

llukas 7y ago
I was casual user of gimp for simple editing tasks. I stopped using it as gimp not only broke existing behavior but is "special" in that regard - other programs follow standard. No hard feelings :) Libre office added ribbons etc as an option. It is not forced on anybody.
- scoutt 7y ago
  I also use gimp for simple "cleanup" tasks and brightness/contrast. I wonder, what is the alternative you are using now, and if it's free like gimp?
  - llukas 7y ago
    ksnapshot, krita/inkscape, gwenview, darkroom, rawtherapee
    - prokoudine 7y ago
      darkroom is called darktable :)
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
I doubt that many people really care that much about how Libre Office looks. They probably care more about things like the damn math being wrong unless you force recalculation, something I encounter frequently in documents created by Libre Office and read in the same version of Libre Office.
- lucideer 7y ago
  Some people may care about the math issues (not a problem I've hit personally), but I would wager many many more people care how it looks. Especially the millions of users who download it because their friend told them to, open it, get a negative first impression, barely use it, and then pay Microsoft.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    Do you even listen to yourself? "It doesn't matter that the product doesn't actually work, what's really turning off users is that it isn't pretty enough!". No wonder so much open source software sucks.
    - yellowapple 7y ago
      > "It doesn't matter that the product doesn't actually work, what's really turning off users is that it isn't pretty enough!" This is unfortunately a very real phenomenon. You're telling me you've never worked with/for a company that went gung-ho on some half-baked pile of junk of a system because some sales guy wowed the execs with some flashy "whitepapers" and pretty demos? If not, then you're luckier than I've been, that's for sure.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        Sure, and when it is deployed and everyone hates it they keep using it because no on wants to admit they built a pile of junk based on pretty pictures. But that's not how it works with open source, because I can simply choose not to use your garbage. Do you see the difference?
inferiorhuman 7y ago
A bunch of people spend A LOT of their time developing a FOSS alternative to photoshop and the first comment online is someone bitching about a small GUI change 7 years ago. The "small GUI change" was a big fuck you to existing users who've gotten GIMP to the level of visibility it's at today. The existing users just weren't flashy and high status enough. The "small GUI change" was the GIMP devs pushing a file format absolutely nobody uses in order to attract professional users that aren't going to migrate to GIMP anyways. Meanwhile actual pro features like CMYK support (because it's more difficult than mangling the UI), tablet support on Windows/Mac (because porting to GTK3 is less important than mangling the UI), and cryptographically signed binaries (because nothing screams professional product like getting binaries from an unknown developer). Mangling the save/export workflow was done purely out of spite and to minimal/no benefit. And now we have a new version of GIMP on an old version of GTK slowly chipping away at the supposed competitive advantage that GIMP's own format has. Meanwhile integration with actual professional products like Lightroom will continue to be more awkward than necessary. Kudos.
- prokoudine 7y ago
  > The "small GUI change" was the GIMP devs pushing a file format absolutely nobody uses in order to attract professional users that aren't going to migrate to GIMP anyways. We do not push any particular file format. We push a safe workflow. Before 2.8, we got a ton of complaints about saving to JPEG and then not finding layers and other extras upon reopening. Doesn't seem to happen nearly as often with 2.8 and onwards. I wonder why... :) > Meanwhile actual pro features like CMYK support Done in the backend, will eventually be done in UI. > tablet support on Windows/Mac (because porting to GTK3 is less important than mangling the UI) I have no idea what you are talking about. Care to elaborate? > and cryptographically signed binaries (because nothing screams professional product like getting binaries from an unknown developer). DMGs for GIMP are signed since version 2.10.10. What the hell are you talking about? :) > Mangling the save/export workflow was done purely out of spite In a fantasy world maybe.
mixmastamyk 7y ago
I prefer a classic office app. Not interested in ribbons and other unique UI items that are not standard across all apps.

llukas 7y ago

I was casual user of gimp for simple editing tasks. I stopped using it as gimp not only broke existing behavior but is "special" in that regard - other programs follow standard. No hard feelings :) Libre office added ribbons etc as an option. It is not forced on anybody.

scoutt 7y ago
I also use gimp for simple "cleanup" tasks and brightness/contrast. I wonder, what is the alternative you are using now, and if it's free like gimp?
- llukas 7y ago
  ksnapshot, krita/inkscape, gwenview, darkroom, rawtherapee
  - prokoudine 7y ago
    darkroom is called darktable :)

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

I doubt that many people really care that much about how Libre Office looks. They probably care more about things like the damn math being wrong unless you force recalculation, something I encounter frequently in documents created by Libre Office and read in the same version of Libre Office.

lucideer 7y ago
Some people may care about the math issues (not a problem I've hit personally), but I would wager many many more people care how it looks. Especially the millions of users who download it because their friend told them to, open it, get a negative first impression, barely use it, and then pay Microsoft.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  Do you even listen to yourself? "It doesn't matter that the product doesn't actually work, what's really turning off users is that it isn't pretty enough!". No wonder so much open source software sucks.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    > "It doesn't matter that the product doesn't actually work, what's really turning off users is that it isn't pretty enough!" This is unfortunately a very real phenomenon. You're telling me you've never worked with/for a company that went gung-ho on some half-baked pile of junk of a system because some sales guy wowed the execs with some flashy "whitepapers" and pretty demos? If not, then you're luckier than I've been, that's for sure.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      Sure, and when it is deployed and everyone hates it they keep using it because no on wants to admit they built a pile of junk based on pretty pictures. But that's not how it works with open source, because I can simply choose not to use your garbage. Do you see the difference?

inferiorhuman 7y ago

A bunch of people spend A LOT of their time developing a FOSS alternative to photoshop and the first comment online is someone bitching about a small GUI change 7 years ago. The "small GUI change" was a big fuck you to existing users who've gotten GIMP to the level of visibility it's at today. The existing users just weren't flashy and high status enough. The "small GUI change" was the GIMP devs pushing a file format absolutely nobody uses in order to attract professional users that aren't going to migrate to GIMP anyways. Meanwhile actual pro features like CMYK support (because it's more difficult than mangling the UI), tablet support on Windows/Mac (because porting to GTK3 is less important than mangling the UI), and cryptographically signed binaries (because nothing screams professional product like getting binaries from an unknown developer). Mangling the save/export workflow was done purely out of spite and to minimal/no benefit. And now we have a new version of GIMP on an old version of GTK slowly chipping away at the supposed competitive advantage that GIMP's own format has. Meanwhile integration with actual professional products like Lightroom will continue to be more awkward than necessary. Kudos.

prokoudine 7y ago
> The "small GUI change" was the GIMP devs pushing a file format absolutely nobody uses in order to attract professional users that aren't going to migrate to GIMP anyways. We do not push any particular file format. We push a safe workflow. Before 2.8, we got a ton of complaints about saving to JPEG and then not finding layers and other extras upon reopening. Doesn't seem to happen nearly as often with 2.8 and onwards. I wonder why... :) > Meanwhile actual pro features like CMYK support Done in the backend, will eventually be done in UI. > tablet support on Windows/Mac (because porting to GTK3 is less important than mangling the UI) I have no idea what you are talking about. Care to elaborate? > and cryptographically signed binaries (because nothing screams professional product like getting binaries from an unknown developer). DMGs for GIMP are signed since version 2.10.10. What the hell are you talking about? :) > Mangling the save/export workflow was done purely out of spite In a fantasy world maybe.

mixmastamyk 7y ago

I prefer a classic office app. Not interested in ribbons and other unique UI items that are not standard across all apps.