I think the UI and lack of non-destructive editing is holding it back more than the name, but IDK
the UI for GIMP is so horrifically bad that I basically refuse to use it. Not like, on principal or anything, if it improves i’d be happy to give it a shot, but because every experience I’ve had with it has been pretty immediately negative, and finding solutions to problems I have seems more effort than its worth. I want gimp to be good, it’s a mature piece of software with a lot going for it, but it also feels like its design is kind of up its own ass, in a sense? It’s weird.
I know what you mean — it’s like a 90s design paradigm that doesn’t take current conventions or best practices into account at all.
Thank goodness. I hate most current UI.
It’s funny that one thing I really liked about it was the floating windows and toolbar. Then everyone complained and they brought it all together. But now people I work with using software that we pay nearly a million dollars to license are getting all excited becuase they introduced… floating windows.
Normally I wouldn’t take comments like this to heart. But I tried the latest beta recently after maybe 15y and wow. You’re totally bang on. I was stunned how bad the UI was. How bad the app was. Upon reading this, it all just sort of makes sense.
I’m sad things are so bad on the Linux front that this is the most highly rated design tool. Linux community deserves better.
The sad thing is like, it’s an INCREDIBLY mature piece of software. It’s well regarded for a reason. But if a piece of software requires that I fight with it to get it to behave how I want, that maturity has zero value at all. It kind of feels like a microcosm of Linux itself like 10-15 years ago, when I was tinkering with it in middle and high school. It’s functional, but it asks you as a user to change how you think about using something like it in the first place while also forcing you to make concessions that seldom seem worthwhile.
And if Linux at large can get there, with things like proton and flatpak and Wayland and mature desktop environments and whatever else, gimp can too. But it seems like it’s got a contributor base of people that like it’s weird eccentricities, and take the UX development companies like Adobe and affinity (now canva) have invested and just shirked it on principal. And like, I get having an aversion to those sorts of companies/projects/developments, there’s a lot of dark patterns there that are concerning. But I also feel like the kind of Linux user that defends and possibly enjoys GIMP in its current state is content fighting with their machine and the software on it, and forgets that there’s value in taking joy in interacting with your computer. Good UI and good UX are implicitly valuable (not to mention the accessibility benefits, but that’s a whole different conversation), and I feel the FOSS space forgets all of that completely. It’s a shame.
There’s always been a real stick in the mud attitude with GIMP. No matter how many people cry out about it’s confusing UX it’s always tried to serve the existing userbase rather than design to expand its usefulness to more people. I think this is a shame and is why GIMP never achieved what Blender has.
I remember trying to use it the best part of 20 years ago when I wanted to make animated gifs. It was so hard to use it was easier to pirate photoshop/imageready. Then a year or so back I tried to use it as I had moved to being a Linux user and was kind of astonished that the UX was still so bloody hostile.
I don’t think I’m a moron (though how many morons do… so take this with a pinch of salt) but trying to figure out how to do basic things like cut and paste, cropping etc. without reading documentation just goes hellishly wrong. Any time I take the time to follow a guide on how to use it I’m taken aback by how unintuitive it is and once I’m done I forget it’s idiosyncrasies immediately.
I remember “gimpshop” being a thing at one point, which I never got to use but heard it used the processing of GIMP with a more photoshop like UX. Though I believe that project lapsed.
Anyway, yeah it’d be nice in a world where things like GNOME have become such beautiful UXes that projects like GIMP have the courage to revolutionise themselves.
Having spent ages trying to adopt it and failing like 20+ years ago it’s just crazy to me that every time I give it another chance, it still doesn’t have non destructive editing and is still a non-intuitive UI from hell. It feels like they want it to be like this.
They’ve been working on GIMP 3.0 for over a decade, which has non-destructive editing, as well as an upgrade to the UI toolkit (although actual UI changes are still to-do). They don’t want it to be this way, development has just been insanely slow. Mostly due to lack of developers and donations, although that has been changing recently.
They planned to have GIMP 3.0 out by May, but with so many delays it might be a few months yet.
NDE available in the next version https://daviesmediadesign.com/gimp-3-0-update-non-destructive-editing-complete/?noamp=available
I absolutely love the UI. It’s literally a major part of why I prefer it.
which is great for you, but not for anyone who has even briefly used more mainstream options
Cool condescension, but I’ve been using Photoshop on and off since 2005, have occasionally used Illustrator, and used to spend an absurd amount of time with Flash. In addition to GIMP, I currently have Krita and Inkscape installed.
I literally prefer GIMP’s UI. It doesn’t have extra shit, it doesn’t try to force me into a single window, and it goes really, really well with a multi-monitor setup. I don’t care that it doesn’t automatically edit non-destructively, because my workflow is adapted to it. Layers and folders are plenty.
No one piece of software is going to be the ideal solution for everyone. That’s capitalistic exceptionalism infecting the rational analysis of what tool suits which user best. Photoshop may suit you better, but I’d take the sleek usefulness of GIMP over the bloat that accompanies all that extra stuff I don’t need any day.
Why do I need an AI strapped to my tool for pixel art, pathing, and masking?
Yes and it does help tremendously, but I much prefer Krita. What I’d really like is Affinity Photo on Linux, even if it isn’t FOSS…
You might have missed the news, Affinity sold out to Canva. Really sucks, Affinity was the only truly good alternative but I put it in the mental “never touch” category immediately when that happened.
This really isn’t the article it wishes it were :-\ It kinda reeks of “I’ve picked a thing I want to argue and now I’m going to make up an argument for it” down to admitting that good sources aren’t available (which makes me wonder whether there are no good sources at all or just no good sources that support the author’s argument).
Bonus unpoints for the BDSM reference, just because I hate seeing that term held up as a negative or scary kind of thing and I feel like and/or choose to believe that’s the point in such an unprofessional article, rather than simply meaning “Look, it means sex stuff and that’s unprofessional.” So there. Nyeh! 😝
Also, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone who actually used or contributed to the GIMP (or intended to) complain about the name. I’m interested in seeing some actual data on that, if there is any. Personally I wouldn’t particularly mind a name change but I can’t say whether it’d get more attention and interest than it’d lose to irritating people accustomed to the current one.
To add to this, I’ve been using GIMP on and off for a decade and I’ve never given any thought to the name. It’s all capitalized. I didn’t think it was a backronym, I thought it was just an acronym.
I’ve used this in professional settings (I used to work in academic molecular bio), and I was very evangelical about it. Especially because we’re not doing high-level artistic work, we just sometimes need something for processing microscope images or making graphics for scientific publications.
I’d say to any and everyone, “You know, you don’t have to pay an annual subscription fee for Photoshop: there’s this free, open-source program called GIMP that does most of what you need and you don’t have to pay a thing! Want me to install it for you?”
I didn’t even think to be embarrassed about the name, and no one ever seemed to care in conversation. As others have said, the bigger impediments are people’s attachment to commercial software and interface challenges. This is just an absolutely silly complaint to make.
the author of the article wrote an article a while ago about how they think steam is enshittifying and becoming bad because they got rid of mac support and some people didn’t like steam in the 2000s, so I think this person just takes controversial opinions randomly and writes about them.
As far as the article goes, the word gimp isn’t necessarily seen as problematic because of its sexual reference but rather as a derogatory term for disabled people. And just because many people agree that they don’t care, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care. Democratic decisions fall flat when they deal with issues of minorities. The large majority of people doesn’t care about disabled people. So basing ethical considerations on the majority’s opinion is really no good idea. Same goes for other discriminatory language and slurs where always the same arguments are presented. I think the article does a great job of portraying the gatekeeping biases of such discussions.
Idunno where you got the idea that I’m for slurs or against disabled people but it’s kinda insulting, especially when you took “sometimes said as a derogatory word” and ran it like it’s the whole point or the article over the complaint that got its own paragraph (the Pulp Fiction bit) and shared the same sentence the disability bit is in, or the one that got the whole rest of the article (that it’s vaguely unprofessional). In fact I’m getting more irked every time I go look for evidence that I’ve misinterpreted it. Reading through a couple crap anecdotes to one that actually says something, we get a VP smirking at the name, which makes me wonder whether that person’s just a hateful prick smirking at a disability term or one of the many who giggle at any reference to anything associated with sex. The other three are just “some people dislike the name.” I conclude that the article does not take issue primarily with the name being an abusive term and wonder why you’d say that.
I muchly dislike careless use of abusive terms (I’ve probably got an essay or two ranting over the usage (and existence) of “crazy” and “insane,” for example) so I really don’t disagree that abusive terms should be treated much more seriously.
My entire point was that the author seems to be throwing things at the wall hoping something sticks, not seriously worrying some spooky scary BDSM critter (hi, it’s me :3 ) is gonna tie them up (of course not, the ropes are for me :3 ), nor that anyone’s getting bullied by the tool’s name or it’s irritating old wounds or really anything at all. I don’t think they’re taking any of this seriously. If the term’s abusive in a way that can’t be neutralized by taking it from abusers and making it something else (an arguably valid thing to do) then that’s worth actual serious discussion and not just part of one sentence in a six-page essay.
tl;dr: The article barely even mentions anything about disability and, I think, does so more as an excuse for itself than out of any serious concern for anyone. My complaint/point is, to be clear, exclusively that the article is crap and not that abusive terminology is okay. The article has failed to demonstrate any actual problem with the name itself other than handwavey “some people say” that it’s vaguely unprofessional.
Fair points, you’re certainly right about the lack in quality of the article. And I totally get why you feel offended by something with a sexual or even bdsm connotation immediately being considered derogatory or scary. I think this is really a counterproductive statement for someone to make if they wanted to talk about offensive language. Shaming sexual deviancies is offensive in of itself.
It seems like the consensus of this thread is that the name isn’t holding it back. That was my thinking going into it, but the article makes some very valid points such as the name (being related to a sexual and sometimes derogatory word) making it a non-starter in some organizations.
I have it installed on all our computers at work for basic image editing, but we’re a small business and never gave it much thought. I can absolutely see it being problematic in a school setting, however. More to the point, Adobe has ably demonstrated: get them hooked on your software in school and you’ll dominate the market. Imagine if kids had been learning GIMP instead of Photoshop all these years.
Anyway, I’ve got no dog in this fight. Just pointing out what I see as a valid point in the article.
Also, I like their original name possibility of IMP much better. The mascot could have been a cute little imp instead of … whatever it is now.
The name holds it back more than you know. No EP or AD wants to put “The GIMP” on their software list for a project. I have to have a conversation with someone ensuring we’re good on all our licenses, and they ask, “What is this GIMP thing?” Answering it makes me sound like an unprofessional jackass. The company would rather just pay Adobe.
It should be renamed to GLIMPSE. Gnu/Linux Image Manipulation Program Special Edition
I don’t even want to tell people I use it because of its name. I would never bring it up in a work setting in this day and age when I look at Slack and see everyone list their pronouns.
The fact they haven’t clued into this is just wild to me. A shame it throws the work of so many people under the bus.
Also, to call it after the Pulp Fiction character is insane to me. Let alone that everyone on the team signed off on it. What were the second choices? Diarrhea? Herpes? Like dafuq.
Or some edgelord trying to get people to watch 2 girls 1 cup back in the day. The scene in the movie was deeply disturbing. It actually made my partner at the time cry because she had been SAed before. Even for me, I did not enjoy and while the movie was amazing, the scene only took away from the film (I know the entire thing was hyper violent and disturbing).
I can’t even imagine referring to it let alone thinking back on it fondly. I always thought GIMP was an acronym. This news shook me because I’m actually on the contributor list.
Also, I would never admit its origin in this day and age. I’m still in shock learning this!
Most of the world does not have English as a first language and thus the meaning of the word “gimp” is not widely known. Personally I do agree that the name is dumb, but it’s a very English as a first language issue. My daughter is learning to do basic stuff with GIMP in school because it’s free. The name is not an issue because nobody knows what a gimp is.
I’ll use the cliche meme of “I was today years old when I learned where the name comes from”. Just made the connection when I read this article, and I love Pulp Fiction.
But I too am not a native English speaker. Just always accepted the clunky acronym as the reason for the name.
I guess you can’t quantify how much the name has helped it. How many people remember it because of its quirky name. Without knowing both numbers it’s hard to know if it’s a net positive or negative.
Meanwhile I still don’t know what gimp is besides it being a graphics software.
A gimp is any of the following:
- A cripple
- A particular kind of BDSM role
- Twisted silk, worsted, or cotton with cord or wire running through it, used chiefly as upholstery trimming.
- (in lacemaking) coarser thread which forms the outline of the design in some techniques.
- fishing line made of silk bound with wire.
The last three I got from the internet.
No one. No one remembers it fondly because it’s got a “quirky” name. That’s not how software works. People use software because it’s useful. Not because it’s edgy or has memorable branding. I would rather a competent design tool period. The name is irrelevant. We aren’t selling cookies or an energy drink. We are empowering people to get things done. You think your spoon with a hole in it is going to sell because you call it “Faggot”?
Surely anyone who feels that it’s an urgent problem can make a fork which is fully identical in every way except for the logo and name and branding
Since the amount of effort that would be required for that would be infinitesimal compared to what was already done to make the software
And then produce all these good things which you say are being held back
Or, wait, did you mean you wanted someone else to do that because you feel that it’s super important enough to insist that someone else should do it but not important enough to do yourself?
As I recall someone made the same lame argument about the name being divisive, a fork was created called Glimpse and it fell on its face not long after it was formed. Things like this are a waste of energy, nobody cares that it’s called gimp.
Plenty of words have multiple meanings, but I rarely think of them when I’m using a word to mean a specific thing. I know the meanings of gimp, but I never think of them when using GIMP; perhaps because it’s capitalized and I always assumed it stood for something (and it does).
But anyway, and more importantly than that, what you describe is a problem that you might run into with any word.
A small subset of the world population can view it as an insult, but for the vast majority it means nothing. Sort of like the word “negro” in Spanish, which some English people take offense to when they hear it. I even searched “gimp” in 3 different search engines, and the first 2 to 5 results were always the GIMP. Most people have no other concept for the word.
Let me put it this way: you say you’d favor Kira, but how do you know that there aren’t some kids in Egypt, or Russia, or someone else in the world, that take offense to the word “Kira”?
Yeah, I mean glimpse seems fine; in general it seems completely fine if someone says “hey I think this is a problem for some percent of people who have weird priorities in life because they are corporate or weird thinking, I support the idea to solve it and make a friendly name for them”
It’s just that if the response is “yeah that percent of people are not our problem, we just want to make this project and we did, thank you and good day”, then you need to be able to say “ok I will make the fork to fix it then” instead of writing up a big blog post demanding that they need to obey you on what your opinion of the priorities for their own project should be.
