Its certainly OK for a product to innovate, as GIMP has. But sometimes the differences are gratuitous. That doesn't help with GIMP adoption, because admit it, most folks have some exposure to Photoshop already.

Further, GIMP suffers (as many mature products do) from a certain baroque-ness of feature. Its menus and features have grown from someplace less mature, to where they are. And it shows in the clumsy menus that make sense if you went along for the ride but for a 1st-timer are just confusing.

> Its certainly OK for a product to innovate, as GIMP has.

I'm not sure the GIMP's UI choices can generally be described as "innovating". I think they're generally just the obvious GTK+ default options, implemented without much testing or tweaking.

GTK is the Gimp Tool Kit. I expect GIMP to use the defaults: historically they created to toolkit for their needs, and so they should choose the right defaults for them.

Note that the above is historical. GNOME selected GTK long ago and has somewhat strong armed GTK development away from GNOME. I don't follow either project closely enough to suggest how much.

Here's an example that was just pointed out to me by prokoudine:

https://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/commit/?id=52ad5bb2a11e39f...

The default situation was that the toolbox grabbed the focus when clicked. That meant various actions, eg. "Show/hide docks", didn't work if the last thing you clicked was the toolbox. That's an annoyance created by "accepting the defaults", that's thankfully now been fixed in light of real-world usability issues.

It's like they've confused the valid idea of an open source programmer being tainted by looking proprietary source code, with the ridiculous idea that a user interface designer would be tainted by looking at or using a proprietary user interface.

Some aspects of Photoshop's user interface are patented, but it's much safer and wiser to LOOK at them and be aware of them and read the patents, so you're consciously aware of what not to do accidentally, and able to work around them.

> I think they're generally just the obvious GTK+ default options, implemented without much testing or tweaking.

GTK+ is the GIMP ToolKit; the entire toolkit is GIMP's innovation.

> And it shows in the clumsy menus that make sense if you went along for the ride but for a 1st-timer are just confusing.

Would you mind being a wee bit more specific? :)

Sure! Running a script is under 'Filters' for some reason. To undo a brush, that's under 'Windows' inexplicably. Filters like Feather and Distort are under 'Select'. Keyboard shortcuts are under 'Edit'. The Plugin Browser tool is under 'Help'

My favorite: 'File' has 'Open' above 'Open as Layers', as if you'd more commonly want to destroy all your image layer info when opening an image file. In fact, with 'flatten' there's no need for 'Open' at all?

These things maybe made some sense at some time, who knows. But now, its like a blender went through the menus and scattered features at random.

I'm fairly sure that 'Open as Layers" allows you to open multiple files at the same time as layers in a single images, instead of opening and adding each individually. Open will open an image with all its layers as you would expect, it won't flatten it. Feather and Distort operate on the selection, so being under Select makes sense.

I'm probably out of date. Used to be, you had to have plugins to open exotic formatted files like "pdf"; initially the plugin for that just imported the flat bitmap. But that was long ago.

> Running a script is under 'Filters' for some reason.

You mean the script console? Where would you rather see it?

> To undo a brush, that's under 'Windows' inexplicably.

Er... I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate please?

> Filters like Feather and Distort are under 'Select'.

Well, they are not exactly filters, and they affect the selection rather than actual pixel data.

> Keyboard shortcuts are under 'Edit'.

We don't have a Settings menu :)

> The Plugin Browser tool is under 'Help'

Where would you place it?

> My favorite: 'File' has 'Open' above 'Open as Layers', as if you'd more commonly want to destroy all your image layer info when opening an image file.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.

> In fact, with 'flatten' there's no need for 'Open' at all?

Why?

I can answer these. But consider: the fact that it seems confusing it the whole issue here. Not that it makes sense to you.

And note I am using Gimp 2. So these things may have changed.

Scripts: I would imagine these would be under Tools.

A quick survey of apps show that options and settings are usually under Tools. Or Files.

And the Plugin Browser is an odd bird. Its details I struggle with when writing scripts. Its reasonable that a database could be under Help. I need it when I'm writing scripts, and no other time. And there's nowhere to go from there - no 'copy example to cut buffer' etc. I'm accustomed to viewing it from a Script console, so I can construct each argument. But not a thing I'm ever going to browse like other Help items.

Admittedly, nested menus is a fairly opaque way to categorize features. Everything is hidden unless you 'open the little door' like an Advent calendar. You can't search for anything without just doing a click-fest down the row. Its a shortcoming of the paradigm. Why others turned to the hated 'ribbon' etc - to make feature-hunting more transparent.

Please don't blame Blender for that! ;)

Photoshop isn't available unless you pay money or violate copyright, so I can well imagine not having exposure.

That could be me. I think I might have used it though, on a System 6 Mac with a 1-bit black-and-white screen. (resulting opinion: Photoshop doesn't support color)

There is a web site called "youtube" that has many many free video tutorials explaining how to use Photoshop. There is nothing about self imposed ignorance to be proud about.

> Any changes to GIMP that make it more like Photoshop, or acknowledgement that there's anything about Photoshop that GIMP should emulate, are considered anathema.

Not really, no. Whenever people ask us to do smth like what Photoshop does, all we ask back is to explain why it is better. Perhaps you should answer that question every once in a while?

Have you actually used Photoshop yourself, or spent any time watching the millions of free Photoshop tutorial videos available on youtube? If not, then why not?

And also: why throw down the gauntlet about never changing the name from GIMP, unless your point is to offend people for being "politically correct", and marginalize your project so nobody will ever consider using it in a professional context, on purpose?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gimp

gimp (ɡɪmp) n

1. offensive slang US and Canadian a physically disabled person, esp one who is lame

2. slang a sexual fetishist who likes to be dominated and who dresses in a leather or rubber body suit with mask, zips, and chains

> Have you actually used Photoshop yourself

I've been Photoshop user since 1997.

> why throw down the gauntlet about never changing the name from GIMP, unless your point is to offend people

I'm not trained to deal with people who apparently seek to be offended.

This is not about labeling the idea of treating disabled people politely and not insulting people with hurtful name calling as "political correctness" and labeling people who object to offensive and inappropriately sexual language as delicate snowflakes "who apparently seek to be offended". The term "gimp" is an offensive slang term, as well as a sexual term, according to the dictionary definition. You're trolling if you pretend otherwise. The purpose of GIMP is not to fight against political correctness, or arouse people sexually, it is to edit images. Using a purposefully offensive name does not help edit images, or encourage people to take it seriously.

I don't know how much training you have in the meaning of words of the English language, but do you understand this definition or not?

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/gimp

The noun gimp is sometimes used to describe a limp or another physical disability, although it's an outdated and offensive word to use.

If you comment on someone's gimp, call the person a gimp, or say, "Look at that guy trying to gimp across the parking lot without his crutches," you've chosen a very objectionable way to talk about a disability. People will know what you mean if you use the word, but they're likely to be offended by it. Gimp was first used in the 1920's, possibly as a combination of limp and gammy, an old slang word for "bad."

> Using a purposefully offensive name

I'm afraid you still don't get it. We have no purpose to offend anyone. All the offense is self-inflicted.

I wish you spent this much time on making the world a better place to live in.

Yes I do get it, and you're perfectly illustrating my point. That's precisely the kind of defensiveness, glib brushing off of feedback, denial of the obvious, cultivated ignorance, redirection and projection that I'm talking about.

It's not just your use of the word "GIMP" that offends people, it's also the lengths you will go to deny it's offensive and instead lay the blame on your users and supporters themselves, for being narrow minded and easily offended. And also your Machiavellian approach of redefining the meaning of a word to be all about your own project and nothing else, then calling on your users and evangelists to do the Sisyphean task of re-educating the public, commercial and educational institutions that the well known historical dictionary and pop-culture definitions of "gimp" no longer apply. I'm not making this stuff up:

"Basically our approach is to redefine what "Gimp" means. ... If it is a problem in your local area (some areas in the US typically) that is unfortunate, but we need to rely on your powers to explain that we're helping in getting rid of the derogatory interpretation of the term "Gimp"." -Simon Budig, GIMP developer, April 11 2015, http://www.gimpusers.com/forums/gimp-developer/17151-gimp-in...

Year after year, many people give you feedback explaining why it's a problem. Time and again, you deny it, happily marginalize and ignore them, and try to turn it around by accusing those people -- YOUR USERS AND SUPPORTERS -- of being "narrow minded", which insults them and drives them away:

"I seriously doubt that the name is effectively keeping GIMP from being used. And I am all happy to ignore the very few people who are so narrow-minded as to having a problem with the name." -Sven Neumann, GIMP developer, December 12 2004, http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berke...

I am trying to make the world a better place, by giving you honest feedback like you requested, with numerous citations and quotes of your leaders and users, and asking you to please consider not using such an offensive term, and not accusing your own users of being narrow minded and easily offended, because not only is it sabotaging the potential success of your own project in particular, but it's also an embarrassment to the open source community in general:

"Is there any thought on salvaging the marketing effort and renaming this product so that it can be taken seriously by people and institutions? Also, a big barrier to entry adopting Linux for people is a solid graphic manipulator. The bad branding is causing many people in my art communities around Austin to avoid Linux in general." -Sam Bagot, GIMP user and supporter, April 8 2015, http://www.gimpusers.com/forums/gimp-developer/17151-gimp-in...