In GIMP, selection works in a way that runs counter to the predominant user interface paradigm. A selection isn't an object that the user can pick up for direct manipulation. Rather, it's a delimited region of the image which confines the effects of editing. Thus, you can't just select a rectangle (or whatever) and then drag it to move the pixels. So yes, that will perplex the average user. Scratch that, probably every user. In Gimp, the move tool selects the entire layer which contains the pixels that you're pointing to, and moves that. The selection "cross-cuts" through layers. So that is to say, you can make a selection in one layer (say by picking out a shape), and then switch to another layer where that original selection is still in effect and delimits the edit operations.
The way you move pixels in GIMP, though it doesn't conform to certain well-established user interface conventions, is learnable (and even discoverable). By the time you used it half a dozen times, you should have picked it up on it.
The way you're evaluating these programs is the equivalent of comparing cars by kicking their tires, slamming the door, and honking the horn.
> I didn't know telling my own experience counted as trolling.
Exact words: "Compare it to Photoshop which does more or less the same things but anyone can naturally pick up and use."
That doesn't at all look like telling one's own experience.
Also, your experience consists of evaluating use cases from Microsoft Paint on advanced image editing tools, then it's not relevant enough.
Your comment amounts to what HN calls "shallow dismissal".