Hacker News Reader

Comment by iLoveOncall | Hacker News Reader

For it to have such a bad UX after 27 years is a feat in itself.

I can't fathom that to this day people present it as an alternative to Photoshop where it's little more than an unusable Paint.

I mean, photopea.com is free, developed by a single guy, and runs in the browser, and it's light years ahead of Gimp.

View on HN

GIMP is the only software whose UI makes me feel completely stupid. Every 1-2 years, I install it, fire it up to crop an image. I stare at the screen, right click a few times, then I close the app after admitting total defeat. It's been like this for 20 years.

A few years ago, I found out that Irfanview runs under Wine. It's a great feeling to understand the UI of a program.

I just categorically disagree that you can conclude anything about GIMP on this basis. I will strongly agree with anyone who says that GIMP is missing features and that it's subpar for graphic designer work. But I've used GIMP for over 15 years now and I have the exact same experience as you when I try to do anything in Photoshop. I simply can't find my way around Photoshop's interface at all. Does that mean that Photoshop's interface is terrible? No. It means I'm not used to it.

The crop tool is literally one click away in the GIMP interface, by the way, and once you activate it, it works like it does in any other program.

I'm in the same boat, love gimp and use it all the time. Like any other non trivial software, it takes a bit of learning but it's funny to see a lot of vocal people on HN complaining how UI are now some dumb down and see in the case of gimp the wish to make it simpler, you can't please everyone

Just to give you a feedback from a new (neutral) user who had no experience of either image editing concepts and tricks; OR an image editing tool like Photoshop or GIMP. I could at least navigate my way through in Photoshop but never in GIMP in only a handful of times I have used both of these software in my life. GIMP was always the software that I wanted to love, but every time I uninstalled it after a few failed attempts.

For me, it was just that I have been using Photoshop for years, and GIMP for 3 times max. I took the time once, and clicked through all of the menus, and settings, taking at least some seconds to read what they do. I think it took around two hours. After that, working with was much smoother. And now, when I sit back to Photoshop, I appreciate the adjustment layers and text effects, but I'm similarly confused about the UI as I was back then with GIMP. It really is just a matter of familiarity.

Running in the browser is a no-go for lots of organizations, and Gimp runs in portable mode for those that can't install anything on their workstation.

Yeah, it's not amazing, but Gimp is light years from Paint. Just removing background on stuff, crap like that, 80% of the graphics stuff people ask me for at work. It's not PS, it's not even Blender-levels of OSS, but it works alright.

Now, compositing and actual challenging graphical stuff, different story.

I said that as "it is way better despite having more limited resources". You can even download the files of photopea.com locally and use it offline but that wasn't my point.

Yeah, I dig it. If they weren't all old people I'd tell 'em to use Krita, but that's even more scary than OPEN SOURCE.

>and it's light years ahead of Gimp.

Photopea makes millions. Maybe if people donated to support Gimp's development it wouldn't be that behind.

Lol this is an obvious lie.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9urjmg/i_made_a_free_...

It was a serious Photoshop competitor before it made a single cent.

What the link you gave is supposed to show?

>It was a serious Photoshop competitor before it made a single cent.

Can you provide an actual reference of this? The AMA you gave explicitly says Photopea is making a revenue.

> After the first 7 000 hours of work (around 5 hours a day during 3.5 years), I haven't made a single dollar (it was just my hobby during the college).

3rd paragraph.

You can see what it looked like at that time by looking at the blog posts.

Then maybe point to the blog posts rather an AMA that clearly doesn't contradict anything that I said before stating "this is an obvious lie"? Yes, they worked on the project without making revenue initially. Was it that good then?

This is a stark validation of capitalism.

no - litigation from Software Patent holders has prevented progress

That’s an interesting perspective. Did GIMP get there first but just not patent the tech or it just makes it so that GIMP cannot replicate improvements?

Adobe Photoshop was originally written for the Apple Macintosh pre-OSX in the late 1980s, pre-dating GIMP massively. Large numbers of software patents soon followed. trivia- Microsoft Word was also written natively for the Mac OS -- it was many, many years before a graphical Microsoft version was available.

Gimp would get more donations if they put more effort into making it approachable and accessible. It's a problem with community-driven projects in many contexts: it's so worthy that criticism is stifled, even where this would lead to improvement and needed growth in the community.

FYI GIMP's bitcoin donation wallet currently contains 362K USD. It peaked at about 1.2M USD a few months ago (yay btc volatility).

Funding isn't what's holding GIMP back. Leadership is.

Edit: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1NVMCeoBfTAJQ1qwX2Dx1...

They also accept a dozen other donation methods.

I would donate to a fund seeking to end gimp entirely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com