5 ms·

Surely you must understand that the intersection of people that want to run graphical manipulation software and have the time and expertise to work on the GIMP

Surely you must understand that the intersection of people that want to run graphical manipulation software and have the time and expertise to work on the GIMP codebase is rather small? Sure, the Steve Wozniaks of the world have always had the ability to write their own GIMP plugins or whatever, and you're right: that hasn't changed. But there were a few decades there where the rest of the world could actually own commercial software, and that had a lot of upsides. Those days are drawing to a close. (Yes, I know that EULAs attempted to "license" software to you instead of truly letting you own the software. But for all practical purposes, you did at least own it to the extent that it would continue to work even if the software vendor's servers went down, or they decided they didn't like you using their software, or your government decided they didn't like you using the software vendor's software, or whatever.)

mnutt 12y ago
Even so, in this scenario lots of people will discover that GIMP is good enough and so its popularity will rise, interoperability may become better and more people will take an interest in working on it. Photoshop piracy was the worst thing that ever happened to the GIMP.
- JeremyBanks 12y ago
  If your vision of how people can continue to own their data in the future relies on GIMP being improved to the point that's not unbearably painful to use, you're failing to reassure anyone.
  - indlebe 12y ago
    Daily GIMP user here, pretty much the only thing you can't do is print CMYK.
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      The problem with GIMP isn't its featureset, but its interface. It's so foreign to anyone who works with graphics that whatever UI metaphors it uses fail to resonate with people, so they just end up confused. What GIMP probably needs is an overhaul that copies what Photoshop does. People understand Photoshop, and it's the industry standard.
      - leni536 12y ago
        It's so foreign to anyone It's foreign to photoshop users, GIMP is just different. I really don't like those open source software that want to copy some proprietary one. They tend to copy the mistakes of the other software too. Maybe GIMP doesn't have all the features that photoshop has but copying photoshop is not the way to go.
      - unhammer 12y ago
        I've never understood the problem with the GIMP UI, what is it about it that is so foreign? From what I can tell the UI's look fairly similar too: https://gtchan1.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/5-gui-photoshop.jpg https://gtchan1.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/5-gui-photoshop.... http://www.gimpchat.com/files/196_2012-05-12_214936.jpg http://www.gimpchat.com/files/196_2012-05-12_214936.jpg There's various widgets that contain e.g. tools, layers, history, fonts, tool options; and of course each tool might have its own options. (Also, the team itself have said in various ways that they'll never have as their goal to be a "Photoshop clone", as I understand it that's an unreachable and thus depressing goal. It's a lot more motivating to simply try to make something that works well than trying to cater to every whim of those who don't want to pay for Photoshop.)
        dagw 12y ago
        From what I can tell the UI's look fairly similar They may look superficially similar, and at a high level have the same tools, but from a fundamental workflow point of view there are too many things that are just very different (non-destructive editing, smart objects etc). the team itself have said in various ways that they'll never have as their goal to be a "Photoshop clone" And that would be fine and if they'd done something unique or innovative with the UI and really made it their own. Unfortunately they didn't and they're stuck looking kind of like a half-baked Photoshop clone. And as long as that is kind of what they look like, then that is how they'll be judged.
    - stan_rogers 12y ago
      ...or use most classes of non-destructive adjustment layers. Or use many of the more desirable and time-saving (read: cost-effective, even when compared to "free as in beer" plugins. Gimp isn't useless by any means, but it's not a Photoshop replacement yet, any more than Corel's Paint Shop Pro is. (But it will be soon, right? It's been "going to be" for a very long time.)
ChuckMcM 12y ago
"Surely you must understand that the intersection of people that want to run graphical manipulation software and have the time and expertise to work on the GIMP codebase is rather small?" Of course I do, and those people will be faced with an uncomfortable choice, suffer the 'free' tool or pay for access to the 'non free' tool. And the people who run the 'non free' tool will use that money to pay engineers to improve it. And the engineers working on the 'free' tool will do so without remuneration or reward other than knowing they built something they like.

mnutt 12y ago

Even so, in this scenario lots of people will discover that GIMP is good enough and so its popularity will rise, interoperability may become better and more people will take an interest in working on it. Photoshop piracy was the worst thing that ever happened to the GIMP.

JeremyBanks 12y ago
If your vision of how people can continue to own their data in the future relies on GIMP being improved to the point that's not unbearably painful to use, you're failing to reassure anyone.
- indlebe 12y ago
  Daily GIMP user here, pretty much the only thing you can't do is print CMYK.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    The problem with GIMP isn't its featureset, but its interface. It's so foreign to anyone who works with graphics that whatever UI metaphors it uses fail to resonate with people, so they just end up confused. What GIMP probably needs is an overhaul that copies what Photoshop does. People understand Photoshop, and it's the industry standard.
    - leni536 12y ago
      It's so foreign to anyone It's foreign to photoshop users, GIMP is just different. I really don't like those open source software that want to copy some proprietary one. They tend to copy the mistakes of the other software too. Maybe GIMP doesn't have all the features that photoshop has but copying photoshop is not the way to go.
    - unhammer 12y ago
      I've never understood the problem with the GIMP UI, what is it about it that is so foreign? From what I can tell the UI's look fairly similar too: https://gtchan1.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/5-gui-photoshop.jpg https://gtchan1.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/5-gui-photoshop.... http://www.gimpchat.com/files/196_2012-05-12_214936.jpg http://www.gimpchat.com/files/196_2012-05-12_214936.jpg There's various widgets that contain e.g. tools, layers, history, fonts, tool options; and of course each tool might have its own options. (Also, the team itself have said in various ways that they'll never have as their goal to be a "Photoshop clone", as I understand it that's an unreachable and thus depressing goal. It's a lot more motivating to simply try to make something that works well than trying to cater to every whim of those who don't want to pay for Photoshop.)
      - dagw 12y ago
        From what I can tell the UI's look fairly similar They may look superficially similar, and at a high level have the same tools, but from a fundamental workflow point of view there are too many things that are just very different (non-destructive editing, smart objects etc). the team itself have said in various ways that they'll never have as their goal to be a "Photoshop clone" And that would be fine and if they'd done something unique or innovative with the UI and really made it their own. Unfortunately they didn't and they're stuck looking kind of like a half-baked Photoshop clone. And as long as that is kind of what they look like, then that is how they'll be judged.
  - stan_rogers 12y ago
    ...or use most classes of non-destructive adjustment layers. Or use many of the more desirable and time-saving (read: cost-effective, even when compared to "free as in beer" plugins. Gimp isn't useless by any means, but it's not a Photoshop replacement yet, any more than Corel's Paint Shop Pro is. (But it will be soon, right? It's been "going to be" for a very long time.)

ChuckMcM 12y ago

"Surely you must understand that the intersection of people that want to run graphical manipulation software and have the time and expertise to work on the GIMP codebase is rather small?" Of course I do, and those people will be faced with an uncomfortable choice, suffer the 'free' tool or pay for access to the 'non free' tool. And the people who run the 'non free' tool will use that money to pay engineers to improve it. And the engineers working on the 'free' tool will do so without remuneration or reward other than knowing they built something they like.