while it is true that you cannot accurately display Pantone on screen, Pantone colors are essential for getting things printed correctly & good graphic (print)

while it is true that you cannot accurately display Pantone on screen, Pantone colors are essential for getting things printed correctly & good graphic (print) designers know exactly how their screen representation might differ from the paper prints. I agree that the gimp is functionally good for many users, but right now it's caught in a weird space splitting 2 markets rather than committing to one. if it is intended to be a complete alternate to photoshop, great, make it so. you can start with the list above, but there are many other features beyond those that are similar but not the same. if the intent is not to be a replica of photoshop & rather to provide a photo editing tool that covers a wider market (that maybe doesn't need Pantone/print integrity) that's fine too - but then they've got a lot of work to do in making the experience friendly to that wider/non-photoshopper market. I don't think the parent was spreading FUD, rather, i think gimp needs to be more clear about setting expectations. maybe it's just a me-problem that doesn't apply outside this anecdote, but i've tried to get convinced by gimp many times through many versions and it's always hit that uncanny valley that inspired too much fear, uncertainty & doubt to become part of my everyday workflow.