Sadly, I don’t see Gimp ever competing with Photoshop. It’s not necessarily a feature parity thing, nor is it a mind share thing. It’s as you’ve said - it’s not built by creatives to be the best possible tool for many types of design.
It’s truly a shame, because for years Adobe slept on different aspects of digital design, and there was a true opportunity to build a Linux-first tool that made things like Web Design so much simpler. It’s an unpopular opinion, but Linux window managers have always lacked creative input. There has always either been a design-by-commitee, or a design-by-engineer feel - and this is reflected in how poor Gimp and design tools are in the Linux space.
In reality, Linux could have the best photo editing and design-specific tooling, but sadly the tooling either lacks a creative touch, or lacks features that are truly needed to be competitive.
I think my biggest issue with the Gimp is that it simply exists. If it didn’t exist there’d be a huge hole in the free software space and people would get together to build software to fill it. But of course there’s no guarantee that would actually produce something better.
Maybe the real problem with the Gimp is that it’s built to scratch an itch for its own developers who are used to its bizarre UIs and workflows. For all the people I’ve seen complaining about the Gimp over the years, none have stepped up to create an alternative. I think this is likely due to the intersection between visual arts people and software engineers being extremely small (and likely most working for Adobe already).
That’s like saying “The biggest problem with the French Revolution is that it happened. If it hadn’t then the conditions would have been perfect for a popular uprising against the ruling class.”
I mean the Gimp in particular. My point is that if we could suddenly wish the Gimp into non-existence (a counterfactual) then we could get a do-over. But because the Gimp actually exists it occupies a niche that could go to something better. Instead of banding together to create a better tool, people just grumble a bit and then use the Gimp (or hand over their wallet to Adobe).
You can learn any workflow. Adobe Photoshop was pretty alien to me the first time I used it in school. The thing that made it easier was how good the documentation was on adobes website. I recommend anyone try krita to see if it works better for them.
I’ve heard it’s not as feature rich as gimp but more people coming from Photoshop seem to like it.
but, since it’s open source - in principle those creatives and ux designers could actually pitch in and offer their expertise to help improve further versions?
Engineers don’t know how to manage or include designers in their process. At least all of the “full stack” and “front end” devs I’ve encountered — almost always they never know how to do a single thing about design unless they have some background or appreciation for it.
Most open source tool have the same thing that it feels like it’s made by engineers. I think that’s because it’s true, most FOSS tools are made by engineers for engineers. Because most project start with someone needing something and then creating it and sharing it.
Chances of a programmer needing something and then making it is a lot higher, than an artist needing it and then making it as then there’d be a need to have the necessary skills to make the software. As someone not from CS field I’ve seen how much of redundant programs are present for CS related tasks while barely some exists for other fields because the overlap of programmer and that field is low specifically FOSS programmers. And a few programmers that field would have don’t have the high level software development skills, so most open source tools made by them are “works on my machine, or works for this specific task” even though with less than 1% more effort they could have made a generalized tool.
but Linux window managers have always lacked creative input.
What do you mean? Window managers’ job is to show windows where they are desired and not show windows where they are not desired. With optional bells and whistles like snapping to edges and autoresizing to screen quadrants.
So, can anyone elaborate on question instead of downvoting? Is it dragging windows that lacks creative input? Is it resizing windows that lacks creative input? Or it is showing window itself what lacks creative input?
It’s like saying clipboard always lacked creative input. There is only so much it does. Copying, pasting and optionally working with history. That’s it.
Well, I guess you might want to rotate the window by 45 degrees, then ok, this is not what most window managers just allow to do. And other major OSes doesn’t allow at all AFAIK.
Sadly, I don’t see Gimp ever competing with Photoshop. It’s not necessarily a feature parity thing, nor is it a mind share thing. It’s as you’ve said - it’s not built by creatives to be the best possible tool for many types of design.
It’s truly a shame, because for years Adobe slept on different aspects of digital design, and there was a true opportunity to build a Linux-first tool that made things like Web Design so much simpler. It’s an unpopular opinion, but Linux window managers have always lacked creative input. There has always either been a design-by-commitee, or a design-by-engineer feel - and this is reflected in how poor Gimp and design tools are in the Linux space.
In reality, Linux could have the best photo editing and design-specific tooling, but sadly the tooling either lacks a creative touch, or lacks features that are truly needed to be competitive.
I think my biggest issue with the Gimp is that it simply exists. If it didn’t exist there’d be a huge hole in the free software space and people would get together to build software to fill it. But of course there’s no guarantee that would actually produce something better.
Maybe the real problem with the Gimp is that it’s built to scratch an itch for its own developers who are used to its bizarre UIs and workflows. For all the people I’ve seen complaining about the Gimp over the years, none have stepped up to create an alternative. I think this is likely due to the intersection between visual arts people and software engineers being extremely small (and likely most working for Adobe already).
I mean…that’s the reason Gimp exists?
That’s like saying “The biggest problem with the French Revolution is that it happened. If it hadn’t then the conditions would have been perfect for a popular uprising against the ruling class.”
I mean the Gimp in particular. My point is that if we could suddenly wish the Gimp into non-existence (a counterfactual) then we could get a do-over. But because the Gimp actually exists it occupies a niche that could go to something better. Instead of banding together to create a better tool, people just grumble a bit and then use the Gimp (or hand over their wallet to Adobe).
You can learn any workflow. Adobe Photoshop was pretty alien to me the first time I used it in school. The thing that made it easier was how good the documentation was on adobes website. I recommend anyone try krita to see if it works better for them.
I’ve heard it’s not as feature rich as gimp but more people coming from Photoshop seem to like it.
but, since it’s open source - in principle those creatives and ux designers could actually pitch in and offer their expertise to help improve further versions?
Engineers don’t know how to manage or include designers in their process. At least all of the “full stack” and “front end” devs I’ve encountered — almost always they never know how to do a single thing about design unless they have some background or appreciation for it.
Most open source tool have the same thing that it feels like it’s made by engineers. I think that’s because it’s true, most FOSS tools are made by engineers for engineers. Because most project start with someone needing something and then creating it and sharing it.
Chances of a programmer needing something and then making it is a lot higher, than an artist needing it and then making it as then there’d be a need to have the necessary skills to make the software. As someone not from CS field I’ve seen how much of redundant programs are present for CS related tasks while barely some exists for other fields because the overlap of programmer and that field is low specifically FOSS programmers. And a few programmers that field would have don’t have the high level software development skills, so most open source tools made by them are “works on my machine, or works for this specific task” even though with less than 1% more effort they could have made a generalized tool.
What do you mean? Window managers’ job is to show windows where they are desired and not show windows where they are not desired. With optional bells and whistles like snapping to edges and autoresizing to screen quadrants.
So, can anyone elaborate on question instead of downvoting? Is it dragging windows that lacks creative input? Is it resizing windows that lacks creative input? Or it is showing window itself what lacks creative input?
It’s like saying clipboard always lacked creative input. There is only so much it does. Copying, pasting and optionally working with history. That’s it.
Well, I guess you might want to rotate the window by 45 degrees, then ok, this is not what most window managers just allow to do. And other major OSes doesn’t allow at all AFAIK.