- Joined
- Oct 6, 2016
I'd argue the bigger issue is that GIMP just isn't very good to begin with. It's always had the reputation of a third string Photoshop clone, a clone so mediocre that most of it's intended use demographic ends up pirating Photoshop anyway thus harming adoption.
I don't think it lacks power, it's just limited by its obscure, often perverse user interface and steep learning curve to the point that learning to do even basic stuff in it takes more time than learning to use something like Photoshop barely competently enough to do a broader range of stuff.
It's no big secret that gimp is an unfinished mess. Even photoshop's horrid bug riddled modern incarnations (With the fucking stupid marquee offset they added in CS4 that forever confuses low resolution artists) can't match up to gimp's sheer will to blow dick.
...and yes, I still use gimp instead of it so I should fucking know.
There's tons of stupid decisions:
Why do you have to manually float selections to move them when literally every other common operation automatically does this?
Why was Gfig ever added? (and the vector layers feature buried in the code never exposed?)
Why do brushes have to be an odd numbered size? Why is gimp so jittery with 2x2 brushes?
SEVERAL COMMON OPERATIONS FOR EDITING THE PALETTES OF INDEXED IMAGES ARE MISSING. YOU CAN'T EVEN DELETE COLOURS.
Why is the colour quantization so rubbish?
...but the fact is. If gimp's neckbearded cave dwellers can't pump out a quality product. How will a bunch of charlatan trannies do any better?
A bunch of charlatan trannies who's first order of business is to completely rewrite it because they can't use C++.
It looks like they're going to use D as their language. They acknowledge that C# probably makes more sense, but they've gotta rub it in Micro$soft's face!
Be fair, have you ever had the displeasure of using Visual Studio?