It's not a startup that has just raised a series A and opened a flashy San Francisco office.

All that is to say that I don't think the problem is the GIMP devs not knowing what the problems are and needing them explained over and over again.

The problem is a shortage of developers to address them.

So if you can, contribute.

Most graphics programs let you select a region, copy it and then move the copy around to where you want it, the end. You can usually paste into new layer if needed.

But not in GIMP for some reason you have to copy something and 'anchor it' or convert it to a new layer before you ever see it.

This kind of thing just makes me use other software.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop

They taught Photoshop at school, so I found it easier to use GIMPshop than regular GIMP.

Blender never had to play catch up with a proprietary file format. In Blender's world, fbx and any of the video formats are the way to interop with other studios.

In the Photoshop/Gimp world, the interop format is psd. Under full control of Adobe.

There is also the matter of price. Maya and 3dStudioMax are eye watering expensive, while Photoshop is dirt cheap. As a professional photographer, I can get the 300 GBP it costs me to have Lightroom and Photoshop for one year, in an afternoon.

Only Gimp devs would love Gimps interface.

Just the existence of Gimp seems like so much effort flushed down the toilet because of someone's bad, bad taste and incredibly poor user interface design

I cant stand Gimp UI, so not intuitive. And over 25 years of Photoshop use has me locked into a way that image editing should work. This is fantastic and timely.

I never really had an issue with the program UI, though. Maybe because I also never went through the trouble of pirating/buying Photoshop to get used to it. Their new effects system (where they have to be applied and sit on top of the layer until then) was pretty bugged on release on Windows, though.

I'm sure it's a bit like for people who are used to Blender, whereas others find their interface... unique as well.

However, unless they do a Blender and make a sustained effort to improve the UI, understand what people want and how it fits into professional workflows, it's never going to happen.

The attitude seems to be: If you don't like it, fuck you. I think they're genuinely happy with how things are. The inscrutable UI and off-putting name are features not bugs, keeping away the sort of people they don't want.

[1] https://unsung.aresluna.org/photoshops-challenges-with-focus...

Back when they added "export as" in addition to "save as", I told them to please don't do this. Their response was that they want to appeal more to professional designers. I just want a simpler user interface. It is kind of strange that we, as users, depend on upstream developers dictating down UI choices onto us, even more so when things change between versions. I want to be able to choose the UI at all times on my own. Yes, I can patch the source code, but I mean something integrated into the toolkit, as-is. GTK2 had that to a limited extend, you could easily re-assign key combinations, such as in the old bluefish editor. Then GTK3 changed this. I feel that these toolkits are constantly getting worse rather than better over time. One day we need to free ourselves from upstream developers dictating whatever they like to. So, from this point of view, best of luck to the photogimp folks - not sure how well it works, but they make a point with this that I totally understand. (I also have to admit that I often just stick to the default, even though it annoys me, but keeping up with more and more microchanges on my own, also adds to my own burden and time investment. But I really wish I could stop having to accept whatever upstream dictates downstream.)

I see some discussion on the copy paste. Funnily enough i was copy pasting stuff yesterday in Gimp and yeah there is something funky that I couldn't put my finger on. It makes the app feel really janky clicking here and ther doesn't work, renaming the pasted layer. do i click once ? double click? hit enter? I coudln't work it out as the behaviour seemed inconsistent. I also couldn't work out how to get a pasted layer to align to top left. I had to align it manually every time. sigh.

anyway is ther any decent articles that discuss this anywhere that someone could link me?

    a) Solution X does it generally better than Y and their solution is *ported*.
    b) Adapt to solution Y. The end.

Do you remember that foolish Windows-Themes on Linux? Luckily GNOME has killed custom theming. And Apple also. Custom theming is a horrible mess aside from areas where it is intentionally (e.g. Vim color schemes).

But it is also possible that Gimp moves to option A. At some point and they are interested in user-interface improvements. Most people just want to use Single-Window-Mode which shall be default for many years.

There's absolutely no reason to use Gimp when https://www.photopea.com/ exists.

- is non-destructive editing implemented yet in GIMP?

- is stability finally improved, can I running without a never ending crashfest on both ubuntu and macos?

bc tbh the UI was never the issue for GIMP, it just wasn't good enough software.

It reminds of my first experience using macOS, as a long time Windows user. The first few months on macOS was a totally frustrating and negative experience for me - "What the ...? why does the ENTER key not open files or folders? Why is it going to 'rename' mode? Why doesn't double-clicking the title bar on a window maximise the window? Why are some windows maximised and others take their own custom width? Why is the Maximise button making apps full screen!?" - and so on.

The point is that I had become so familiar with the Windows UI, that every other OS UI suddenly seemed alien - "This is not how a UI should work on an OS". (This was also the reason that I hated Ubuntu's DE, as it tried to imitate the macOS UI I was then unfamiliar with). Familiarity means when you face a new UI, you have to spend effort to re-learn your way of thinking around a UI, which can be a frustrating experience (especially as you grow older). That effort / stress also unconsciously creates a negative impression in your mind about the UI. Both Apple and Microsoft know this and that is why they deliberately make their UI distinct and different from each other - whether it is Windows vs macOS or Windows Phone vs ios. Recently someone (a non-geek) asked me if they should buy a Macbook as they had an iPhone too. As they were a Windows user, I warned them that the macOS UI would be frustrating and to try macOS before committing to it. They did, and ultimately decided against it and chose to stick to Windows (buying a Surface Tablet).

As a former graphic designer, and an experienced Photoshop user, I only considered GIMP as a replacement when Adobe decided to make it a subscription. And just as with Windows to macOS, re-learning to use the GIMP UI was a frustrating experience because I was always thinking of "this is how it is done in Photoshop". Once you let go of that "familiarity", and are willing to actually test if the "GIMP way" is maybe better, it becomes a less frustrating experience. (All that said, while I have got used to using the GIMP tools the GIMP way, the overall GIMP layout does have a cluttered feeling and I do recommend installing Photo GIMP - it won't really make GIMP a Photoshop clone, but it will make it more "familiar" and thus easier to "re-learn" how to use it).

That being said, the comfort that millions of people have with the Photoshop interface is in itself an institution, and has to be respected as such (imagine the collective number of man-hours put into learning it.) I don't know what the answer is. But the worst possible outcome is the Firefox outcome, where GIMP ends up chasing Photoshop rather than remaining its own thing.

Just, please, try to get out of your head that GIMP's UI is bad. It's not, it's just different. Don't think of it as a knock-off Photoshop. Deal with it on its own terms. Use these Photoshop skins as a transition rather than a destination.

That means I might have a problem with this approach, just because it doesn't allow for a easy switch between classic and Photoshop UI. It's actually annoying to switch back and forth. If it catches on and brings more users to GIMP, it will become the interface, and leave GIMP vulnerable to IP attacks.

It’s not DWM’s fault. It works fine with programs that support X11 properly. Krita, for example, works perfectly with DWM.

And to summarize and perhaps avert other discussion; it's not so much about being "non-offensive" as it is simply about being professional.