There’s something so pleasant about having GIMP around, efficient and so far removed from the disgusting greed that drives so many of the projects featured here.
I know a lot of people don't like that but sometimes I feel that FOSS projects are intentionally sabotaging themselves by ignoring industry standard options/conventions and instead they are following open source ideas just to be different. GIMP is the perfect example of that and generally speaking UI/UX is the main symptom.
Blender was able to move forward by not listening to the FOSS crowd but to the industry. And see where are they now compared to GIMP.
Gimp was never in such a situation.
Culture is important.
Which brings us back to why so many people dislike Gimp, and/or see it as a posterchild example of bad FOSS alternatives.
I agree, and Culture IS important. And I think the culture around many Open Source "Alternatives" is harming themselves and the overall FOSS community. From Mastodon via Gimp to Nextcloud.
Blender is a very popular, maybe the most popular, for the tasks its used for. Gimp is not.
Not to mention the fact that if you ever mention in any way that GIMP's UX/UI could be better to anyone of its veteran devs they would turn weirdly ultra defensive and take everything personal.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/graphic_design/comments/rdtodb/adob...
Because I fail to see all the comments here as negative and unfounded. (and my guess why there is often negativity towards GIMP, is because it was too often advertised as a adequate Photoshop replacement, which it is not, so people got disappointed with it)
It will lead to someone with the insight on how to make actual material improvements frustrated and angry that they don't have the technical skill (or time) to grapple with a complex codebase, and the people with the technical skill working on the codebase dismiss people with actual knowledge in different domains.
"Patches welcome" is not any kind of welcome. It's basically a euphemism for "fuck off, I don't want to have a conversation to make something better, I just want to hack on Feature X".
Yeh, this line is very common in that project that rhymes with chrome.
Meanwhile contributed features get stuck at "needs design team" for years.
Development to improve software should be a conversation between skilled and knowledgeable workers across many domains. Without that, you don't get improvement, you get feature creep.
"Patches welcome" is a conversation killer.
That said, if you have any kind of project (open source or not), and someone with significant experience in a domain outside your own makes a suggestion of something that could be improved, then the progressive and constructive response is "tell me why I should think that. What value is there in making this change? How will it be better" which opens up a dialogue, instead of "Hey man, RTFM and start coding" which is alienating (but your position is that there's actually nothing wrong with this. It is wrong if your goal is to create quality software).
I do design work sometimes, and when someone tells me "it doesn't look right", whether it's technically perfect or not, it means it's wrong. They might not be able to explain, but I know it's wrong somehow, and it's my responsibility to fix it. I don't sit them down in front of the keyboard and say "Ok, wiseguy, you fix it. You might need to take some classes at art school though". And sometimes that person is a designer and they say "Well, this composition is unbalanced, but you could try shifting that element a little to the right" and I'd be dumber than Trump if I didn't try that.
The subjectivity thing is interesting though. UX is not 99% subjective, and I don't know how you arrived at that figure. Start with Fitts Law, which is a thing, and not subjective and is measurable. Lots of people have spent a lot of time quantifying this stuff. There's science to it, and, yes, there's an irrational "feelings" component to it, but you ignore either or both at your peril.