@thelinuxEXP "The noo yo over of features has no bearing on the quality, though?" - Why not? It's not the only metric of course but it is a very significant one. "Tabs" were a feature. How would you like to use a browser that has no tabs in 2025?
Posts
-
To be clear: I’m not saying the GIMP name is awesome and should be kept at all costs. -
To be clear: I’m not saying the GIMP name is awesome and should be kept at all costs.@thelinuxEXP I propose confirmation bias - ‘it does the specific things I need it to do well, therefore it is a good in general’. It isn’t. Count the things the other software does and how well to get the general picture. Otherwise, it’s just good enough for you. Right?
-
To be clear: I’m not saying the GIMP name is awesome and should be kept at all costs.@thelinuxEXP Of course, everything is an opinion. Except user numbers and performance metrics. They tell the story.
-
To be clear: I’m not saying the GIMP name is awesome and should be kept at all costs.@thelinuxEXP And that goes for GIMP too. Ask some people who are actually in the business for why GIMP is so horrible in its UX and why it lacks industry standard feature sets. Ask them why they pay through the nose for Photoshop or why Affinity is still profitable when GIMP is for free. GIMP is once again like a lot of OSS ‘good enough’. It is not great. And it is most noticeable if you have used great software already.