Post

gimp is kinda jank yeah but when people have Serious Takes about how it needs to improve all i can read is "here is how these four guys working intermittently for free have FAILED to live up to the international company making twenty billion dollars a year"

"personally i would just make it be good" great, stop fucking posting about it and get to work then

this is frustrating in a way that's hard to fit in a bleat but it boils down to people not appreciating the outright miracle that open source software is in the first place and then wanting to be treated like a customer when it's not an exact replica of something that costs $700

the thing krita and blender have in common is that PEOPLE GAVE THEM A LOT OF MONEY

the developers of other foss software aren't idiots waiting for someone to tweet "have you tried making good ux?" at them — they just don't have the resources to hire ux designers and do user studies and whatever else because they are giving their fucking work to you for free

It would be cool if we could do the free open source software thing without both sides having some sort of pretentious anger associated with it. I definitely understand that a lot of these developers and Linux enthusiasts are tired of people asking for help or complaining.

However, I would argue that putting some effort into making the software easier for people to use goes a long way in solving that problem. If multiple people are having a similar issue with my software, that's a signal to me that I need to do something better.

Consumers are always going to be dumb and silly, so the best you can do is partially tame that by implementing at least some measure to solve their problem or to at least defer the problem somewhere else.

Krita is incredibly powerful, but it's entirely unintuitive and difficult to use. Gimp is great, except when it's not. The problem here is that there is no good Photoshop alternative. So it's unfair for any of the alternative softwares to be propped up as legitimate alternatives.