Zxzax is correct that GIMP is an alternative to Photoshop, so the tool pallet is appropriate for editing photos. The typical workflow is: (1) stack layers, (2) mask layers, (4) composite. It’s rare to draw a circle on top of a photo. Usually it’s most efficient to select an area of a photo with a rectangle to isolate it on a layer, then use masking to refine the non-rectangular edge. If your goal is to draw a 2D illustration & work with gradient meshes, then Inkscape is an alternative to Illustrator. Both those programs are for illustrating in 2D and there are purpose-built features for drawing & editing shapes.
That said, GIMP does have real UX issues. For example, the controls and GUI elements don’t scale well to high resolution screens and could be much better on tablets like the Surface. They’re also missing CMYK color space support. But, I always assume they’re waiting for Adobe patents to expire to add those features.
>small developer led teams often refuse to bother to even consider that they have to change anything to fix these things.
The GIMP developers are aware of this pitfall and want to avoid it, there is even a FAQ entry about it: https://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#i-dont-like-gimps-use...
CMYK support is not a UX issue, that is another thing that's missing on the backend. I don't think it has anything to do with patents, the problem is more because of lack of manpower.
Anyway, you might be right about this issue, I am not an expert on image editing. However I do understand UX and your view on development will lead to horrible UX like what you have in Gimp. It might work great in enterprise products where you sell features and not UX, but a product intended to be used by normal users needs more work on UX for people to like them.
Just to make it a little clearer what I mean here: if there were actual shape drawing capabilities on the backend then it would be pretty easy to make any kind of circle/ellipse tool that you wanted, or set up the circle tool to do what you want by default, but those don't exist right now.
That isn't what UX is about. I am making games, and stuff that isn't simply moving things about is a core part of user experience. For example consider a game where you want to move around armies on a map. You can implement that by moving around the armies using numpad only, or you can calculate a shortest path on a mouse click to a location and show it to the user. Both allows the same kind of movement, but the second offers way better user experience which is why all modern big strategy games uses it over one step at a time movement.
> but my point is you can't just get that by changing around the ellipse select tool
I never said that a good UX was easy, I just said that the developers of GIMP didn't want to put into the work to make GIMP have good UX, and a lot of that work is redesigning the technical architecture or implementing those features the tedious ugly way. It is possible to make it decently easy to make easy to use tools for gimp, I just don't know all the details of what those tools should do exactly but I know how to build that sort of things. When making games you don't have as patient users as you have in GIMP, so you'd never get away with that kind of UX, so from my perspective when your product has GIMP's level of UX then it isn't complete as a product since it would basically ensure business failure.
>the developers of GIMP didn't want to put into the work to make GIMP have good UX
From what I have heard from GIMP developers, this is not correct. There is plenty of desire to fix issues, the main issue is lack of contributors. Please help if that's what you're interested in.
You're talking about "getting away with the UX" but I'm also not sure what you're talking about there, GIMP is not a commercial product that is trying to get customers. It's an open source project driven by volunteers who improve it in their free time because they feel like it.