The transition from GIMP 2.x to GIMP 3.0 took two decades

https://www.tomshardware.com/software/free-open-source-photoshop-alternative-finally-enters-release-candidate-testing-after-20-years-the-transition-from-gimp-2-x-to-gimp-3-0-took-two-decades

by thunderbong • 2 years ago

42 69 2 years ago

tomshardware.com

2Gkashmiri• 2 years ago

Am I the only one who feels this "article" which is most probably an llm made and could have been a tweet only ?

omoikane• 2 years ago

The main news is that Gimp made a release candidate for 3.0:

https://www.gimp.org/news/2024/11/06/gimp-3-0-RC1-released/

I see that a few people have submitted that link, but they don't seem to be getting much attention:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

So this article is boosting some visibility to the original news, while having little content otherwise.

wrs• 2 years ago

Why, because the only 3.0 features it mentions are SVG icons in the toolbar and the plugin API? No, you're not the only one.

mikae1• 2 years ago

And not the non-destructive editing that is the big thing IMO. I will likely finally say bye to Photoshop. Lightroom was replaced with darktable two years ago.

echelon• 2 years ago

Why is Gimp failing to reproduce the successes seen by Blender? Blender is huge, Gimp is miniscule.

And why won't they change the name? It means not one, but two derogatory things.

cookiengineer3• 2 years ago

Note that this was the case for Blender pre-2.8, too.

The issue with any software of this complexity is tech debt. If anything, GIMP should be a big warning sign about what happens if you bet on e.g. a UI framework which moves on without you.

GTK's development and release schedule is pretty aggressive, especially with the even releases being stable and the odd releases being unstable (which no other library on the planet decided to do so). A lot of cross platform software decided to a refactor to QT because of that, and I'd argue that the problem lies with upstream GTK and its failed API stability promises along the way.

In open source projects, you cannot afford to bet on unstable UI frameworks because you don't have enough time to spend on refactors like this. If every second subminor GTK version breaks your code, it's just not possible to keep up with that.

I'm actually impressed that GIMP wasn't fully abandoned because the sheer amount of code that needed to be rewritten is massive.

bobajeff2• 2 years ago

Lately, I was thinking that flatpack wouldn't be needed as much for Gnome dev if the libraries were more stable.

mook• 2 years ago

Wasn't GTK originally the GIMP toolkit? It's kind of awkward to say you shouldn't have bet on the thing you created in-house…

Of course it's gotten a life of its own since, but that wasn't a thing when GIMP picked it.

Shog92• 2 years ago

The extra irony here is that both apps built their own, entirely custom UIs rather than settle for dependencies on existing kits... The big difference with GIMP was that its toolkit was built to be separable from the rest of the app and eventually became its own project, while Blender's is just ... Blender.

I suspect if you described the architecture of the two apps without naming them, most devs would predict disaster for the latter. But as you say, it has not worked out this way; indeed, GTK has repeatedly dropped or... gimped... functionality that originally existed to facilitate productive interaction with the GIMP UI (such as fast custom shortcut keys), while Blender's UI remains bespoke and quirky, but also insanely powerful.

stephen_g2• 2 years ago

Coming from Photoshop (but now just an occasional user), I tried it when I was ditching Adobe but just found its interface extremely clunky and annoying to use. I’m on macOS so I ended up trialing and buying Pixelmator Pro. I would have looked at Affinity Photo failing that.

Blender’s interface is not super intuitive but I hear once you learn it the UI is good. On the other hand, Gimp felt to me like having a lot of rough edges that would always annoy me.

thezipcreator• 2 years ago

maybe try Krita? I haven't used it much myself but apparently it's good for more than just art.

ngcc_hk• 2 years ago

Is pixelmator just bought by Apple?

garbagewoman• 2 years ago

I think you answered your own question

emmanueloga_• 2 years ago

This is a great question for which I don't have an answer :-)

GIMP was my go-to ever since Paint Shop Pro was acquired by Corel (in 2006 sigh!). Then a few years back I switched fully to Mac and GIMP became borderline unusable, specially at high resolutions. Ever since I'm a bit lost when it comes to picking a new raster graphics editor. Maybe I should try Paint Shop Pro again! The pricing seems to be reasonable.

theanonymousone• 2 years ago

Maybe try Photopea: https://www.photopea.com/

winrid• 2 years ago

Because it sucks. Have you tried to draw an arrow in it? Or add some text to an image and then move the text without figuring out you need to like double click or click hold or whatever to not move the text and instead move the background layer for some reason? Good luck.

Gualdrapo• 2 years ago

I'm chiming on this because as a former GIMP user I don't feel like it "sucks" as a whole but rather that it "sucks" at pretty "basic" stuff, which makes it seem like the whole thing is rubbish.

And it sucks at basic things because its devs deliberately wanted it to be like that. Go ask them why you have to do the thing you mentioned or why it is easier to draw a circle in frigging MS Paint than with GIMP without them turning ultradefensive. Yes, it has happened to me - was heavily downvoted at r/linux some years ago (and at Lemmy like a couple weeks ago) only because I mentioned this.

GIMP has serious UX flaws its devs are not humble enough to recognize that for some reason and it hurt GIMP so much for so long. It "sucks" not because lack or resourcesz lack of time to work on it or lack of manpower,as they want to frame it - but lack of humbleness from its devs.

On the bright side it seems this can be the end of that stupid mentality as they are welcoming new devs and gathered a UI/UX team.

givemeethekeys2• 2 years ago

I used Blender in the early days. It was fast, quick to use, and intuitive once you learned the controls. It made me wonder why other apps couldn't just use Blender's toolkit.

I also used Gimp around that time. It was already quite old. Despite all the functionality, it felt clunky and I wondered why they couldn't use Photoshop's UX - Adobe had already spent millions figuring it out for them.

My guess is that Blender is an effort by artists who created software to help them, and Gimp is an effort by software engineers who created what they feel is a "good enough" open source alternative.

Shog92• 2 years ago

I don't know which "early days" you're referring to, but I remember these complaints already in the very early '00s.

...and then I tried Photoshop for the first time. It was every bit as clunky, but made up for that by also being sloooooow (at least on whatever OS X PowerPC machines the lab had back then). Couldn't figure out why anyone used it.

...then I watched someone who actually knew how to use it use it. It was still slow, still clunky, but they made that weird UI dance.

There are still plenty of apps like that. Particularly when you get into stuff like A/V where no amount of UI glitz will paper over the reality that a few poorly-chosen commands can bring the beefiest machine to its knees. You either spend the time learning how to use the software on its own terms, or suffer.

stackghost• 2 years ago

Why is Gimp failing to reproduce the successes seen by Blender? Blender is huge, Gimp is miniscule.

One is part of GNU, and one isn't. Not even being flippant.

Being a GNU project brings with it all kinds of political baggage that gets in the way of developing good UI/UX.

jeroenhd• 2 years ago

If Blender is what good UI/UX looks like then I'm glad GNU is here to protect us.

Blender has the advantage that its commercial competitors are just as bad or worse. GIMP competes with everything from MS Paint to Photoshop so the standards are different.

It also helps that Photoshop's bizarre non-standard UI has been taught for decades now. Access to some tools and features is a little better than in the ooen source versions but it's still a remarkably terrible UI for a tool used so commonly.

lofaszvanitt3• 2 years ago

Just make it work like PS. Everything is different, non intuitive, a mess. And whenever you sit down and try to work with it you get nervous breakdowns because everything is all over the place. And then you give up and get back to PS.

I have a feeling that this new version will have all the same issues.

pjmlp• 2 years ago

Blender was a commercial product, with an established user base and community that eventually went open source.

That is a huge difference.

brylie3• 2 years ago

I honestly quit recommending Gimp due to its name. Name changes are challenging of course, but not impossible. I understand the developers have a lot on their plates with the 3.0 transition and keeping up with GTK, but I really hope they can make a bit of time to prioritize a more community-friendly name for the project.

vfgfg• 2 years ago

I recommend not being so bothered about trivialities like names being misinterpreted.

Arainach• 2 years ago

Names matter a ton. I would never recommend a product called "Gimp" in a professional environment. The fact that the GIMP team has heard this feedback for multiple decades and ignored it says a lot - both about their ability to take community feedback and about how much they care about ever being a professional tool.

There are two tools: BoringThing and Ninja Sex Death Cult. They both accomplish the same task, but I can recommend one to friends and family without immediately having to explain the name. So I'll use and recommend BoringThing.

romwell8• 2 years ago

I recommend not being so bothered about trivialities like names being misinterpreted.

I'd recommend looking up "gimp" in an image search, and not dismissing valid concerns as trivialities.

On the note of misinterpretation, I'd recommend looking the word "gimp" in a dictionary[1], which offers this:

gimp(n.): 1. offensive : a disabled person

The "explanation" that GIMP stands for GNU Image Manipulation Package works if you're an edgy 13-year-old. Beyond that, any sane person would question the wisdom of using that particular acronym (and why not go for BOOBS or FATCOCK if you really don't care).

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gimp

brylie3• 2 years ago

I tried for a long time to not be bothered and chuckle at the naming mistake. However, it is a bit fatiguing to repeatedly explain to people that the project name isn’t intended to be offensive when they interpret the name in any of the common meanings.

In particular, I’m not going to introduce the Gimp to my ten-year-old son who is interested in art and gamedev, simply because I feel like the meanings/slang are a bit age-inappropriate to discuss and I don’t want him to inadvertently offend anyone.

JellyBeanThief• 2 years ago

It's not misinterpreted. Misinterpretation is an accident that happens when a good faith message can be reasonably interpreted in multiple ways, and the listener's choice is not the speaker's choice. A good faith message is one where the speaker deliberately removes all likely ambiguity they can foresee.

When a bad faith message is "misinterpreted", it's because the speaker was not interested in communicating successfully in the first place.

There exist two things:

1. A name which amuses the developers by honoring an uninteresting bit of historical trivia.

2. A name which contributes to the project's health and success by attracting new users.

One of these things must be selected as more important than the other.

As far as whether GIMP, in and of itself, succeeds or fails, pretty much no one cares. If GIMP vanished, and the practical value lost to the world was big enough, some new project would spring up to take its place. Maybe Krita would expand its scope. The Blender team sure has bank to play with. Whatever.

But what lots of people do care about is the success of open source in general. When software is expensive and closed, fewer people get to use it, and the fewest of them are screwed if what they need is too niche. When software is free and open, more people get to use it, niches become less niche, and niches that remain niche can be filled by anyone with enough DIY motivation. And because all of the benefits of open source rely on a large user community, attracting users is very important, both to individual projects and the whole community.

And right now, the solution the open source community has to offer the world is an embarrassment. This is bad. The GIMP project is selfishly pissing in the water supply the entire open source community is trying to build. No one is going to take that trivially.

ciupicri• 2 years ago

I'm not a native English speaker and the name Gimp says nothing to me, so honestly I couldn't care less.

brylie3• 2 years ago

I understand that slang and curse words may not be as jarring or impactful to non-native speakers. I hear Finnish curse words regularly and they don’t bother so much.

My concern is that non-native speakers still use dictionaries and search engines, so easily learn about the meanings of words.

Additionally, I’ve tried to promote the GIMP in educational environments but the fact remains that teachers and parents are often averse to using the name.

nucleardog• 2 years ago

Well, if for any reason you went "hey, what the hell does that mean" and decided to look it up:

    - (informal offensive) an unpleasant or stupid person: 
    - (informal offensive) a person with a physical disability, especially one that affects someone's legs
    - (informal) a limp (= a way of walking slowly and with difficulty because of having an injured or painful leg or foot )
    - a person who gets sexual pleasure from being hurt or treated badly

(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gimp)

And it's not like this is super obscure or anything. The "most influential film of the 90s", Pulp Fiction, literally had a character that was "the gimp". This is pretty mainstream.

This is along the lines of "Hey co-worker, I found the best text editor the other day. It's called pizdă, you should give it a try! Pizdă seems like it would help you!"

But hey, GIMP is taking it back (https://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#i-dont-like-the-name-...) any day now. It's only been 25+ years. Any day now.

fragmede• 2 years ago

I call it Gim Paint when asked.

indulona• 2 years ago

maybe in next 10 years it will be actually usable.

wruza3• 2 years ago

Linux Desktop never needed GIMP like a regular Windows user never needed Photoshop. Photoshop is “start at work in the morning” software and GIMP is its “artist’s impression”.

What Linux Desktop needed was Jasc/Corel Paint Shop Pro and its modern reincarnation Paint.NET.

But it was never made, imo.

Most tools are either too heavy and similar to GIMP, or indistinguishable from mspaint, or simple photo filters for “editing” photos.

thefz• 2 years ago

There's Pinta for that, but it needs a lot of work sadly.

xtracto• 2 years ago

Similar to this, I still install irfanview via wine in my linux desktop. There's just nothing close to it. I tried some suggestions like nomacs but they are just not there.

The transition from GIMP 2.x to GIMP 3.0 took two decades

Related Stories