Why is GIMP still so bad?

Re:Why is GIMP still so bad? by phendrenad2 on Monday April 18, 2022 @12:07AM (#31067325)

Something we need to do a better job of in the open-source community is educating people on what to expect from open-source software. GIMP isn't "a Photoshop clone". It's a unique thing. It's not trying to replace Photoshop. Unfortunately, 99% of the open-source community seems to believe that it is. How did we get to this point? When you see this BS, please call it out. Do your part.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why is GIMP still so bad? by Etherlord87 on Monday April 18, 2022 @06:44AM (#31069166)

Google for "Photoshop alternatives". Of course you're free to disagree, but you will be disagreeing with a majority. And since the subject of your disagreement is inherently subjective, I don't see a reason to evangelize people to your opinion, not to mention the condescending tone tone with calling the mainstream opinion BS and appealing to call it out.

Blender isn't a 3D Studio Max or Houdini Clone. But it is an alternative 3D tool, just like Gimp is an alternative raster editing tool to Photoshop. I find it productive to ask both why Blender is so successful and why is GIMP still so bad.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why is GIMP still so bad? by hjkl0 on Tuesday April 19, 2022 @02:14AM (#31080144)

That’s the difference between perception and intention.

GIMP is not intended to clone Photoshop. That doesn’t mean it can’t be perceived to be a good alternative to Photoshop.

[ Parent | on HN ]