But do they want to do a full UI revamp? My impression is that a lot of people in the gimp ecosystem are happy to be aggressively unwelcoming to a broader audience. They don't see the name or the poor ux as a bug, but as a feature, and actively attack people who want to fix these issue. They call then "snowflakes" and "SJWs" and are gleeful when they fail to make any kinds of improvements.

Some of these people can be found in this very thread.

The problem with gimp is not one of budgets, it's that many of the people involved in gimp see its current state as how things should be.

> They don't see the name or the poor ux as a bug, but as a feature, and actively attack people who want to fix these issue.

They will probably not attack people who want to fix these issues, but only those who leave drive-by one liner low effort comments about the UI.

They do attack people who want to fix the issues. See Glimpse as an example.

Perfect illustration of why it's really easy to see the parallels between the immaturity of not wanting to change the UI and the immaturity of not wanting to change the name. "Glimpse" was a fantastic idea and resistance to it is pure childishness.

I can't speak for everyone, but as developers we are trying to emphasis UX/UI work more. We have a dedicated repo now for user feedback, designs, and proposed solutions: https://gitlab.gnome.org/Teams/GIMP/Design/gimp-ux/-/issues We implement from there as we can, once consensus has been reached.

We also highlight UX/UI improvements in each new release post. Just like with coding, we rely on volunteers to help with this (you definitely don't want someone like me deciding on interfaces!) We have a couple active designers assisting us, but we're always looking for more feedback!

Audacity makes me think that UI isn't the real problem.