3 ms·
>Gimp is quite on par with photoshop, and unless you are a pro, the difference of feature set doesn't matter. It's not about the features. I agree there's mor
by na85 4y ago
>Gimp is quite on par with photoshop, and unless you are a pro, the difference of feature set doesn't matter.
It's not about the features. I agree there's more or less feature parity for the 90% of use cases, but gimp has bad UX.
It's just clunky and frustrating to use, and there's no sugar coating that fact.
I hate using gimp.
- hirako2000 4y agoI don't argue the UX is lacking, i still hate using Photoshop even more, and would have liked, as a kid, to be told how to use open tools even if not as good. It surely would have been better than what i got: Windows 98 which only had MS paint in it at my high school computer room, and that wouldn't be the only productivity tool missing on any Windows machine we may find at schools even today, while some linux package manager is 1 click and 1 command away to install literally whater, for free, probably better security reviewed than the next commercial product.
- prmoustache 4y ago> It's just clunky and frustrating to use, and there's no sugar coating that fact. Having used both as well as alternatives (like paint shop pro and some others), this is mostly resistance to change. You are used to photoshop so anything with a different paradigm will feel unituitive. Same with libreoffice and office if you don't care to understand the concepts. Resistance to change is a strong thing. Objectively, macos and windows desktop are slow and clunky interfaces compared to say, gnome3. Yet many people even among linux users hate the later because they have been used to slow and clunky and don't understand smooth.