3 ms·
Maybe the lack of devs? I cannot imagine which commercial company would be interested in supporting GIMP development. Let's face it, financial support for open-
by liuliu 16y ago
Maybe the lack of devs? I cannot imagine which commercial company would be interested in supporting GIMP development. Let's face it, financial support for open-source software development is critical (KDE/Gnome may be the exception, but the financial investment into these two may be justified indirectly). ImageMagick fit the niche that the web needs server-side image processing library and made money from it. But GIMP is client-side, semi-professional image processing software, who have the incentive to financially support it? (Maybe some professional graphic design companies, but again, they may not have the top-dev for image processing software, that is a big investment for them). I may miss something here, please correct me if I do so.
- stuaxo 16y agoThey are indeed lacking devs.
- teilo 16y agoI don't disagree with anything that you say. Don't get me wrong. I am not blaming the devs or criticizing them. The work they have done is wonderful. But the state of development and the obstacles to taking this forward are what they are.
- teyc 16y agoThere is also a more general problem that Gimp is hard to build. I was doing some JavaFX exporter fixes and getting the environment right took most of the time. Otherwise, I found the code base quite clean.
- stcredzero 16y agoLet's face it, financial support for open-source software development is critical (KDE/Gnome may be the exception, but the financial investment into these two may be justified indirectly). Well, in the case of KDE there's Qt licensing. I seem to recall some commercial support for Gnome as well.