Lemmy faces the same expectations problems as every free/libre software
It's the same as with Linux, GIMP, LibreOffice or OnlyOffice. Some people are so used to their routines that they expect everything to work the same and get easily pissed when not.
You are viewing a single comment
Somewhat agree, but don't get me started on a Gimp. To think that gimp was build to be a tool analogous to Photoshop (PS) is naive. It was born to demonstrate GTK GUI widgets and to check boxes on feature list (of supposedly paint program analogous to PS) from programmers perspective at most. Ok, they did the thing, checked the boxes, used all widgets, demonstrated that it works and from that day on it had and still has totaly inneficient workflow compared to PS and nobody cares about that. Answer to sugestions is almost always half assed, apple soused - you are holding it wrong, we are not PS. :)
My 2 cents, you can learn Gimp, you can adjust yourself to it, but if you have ever worked on PS and were good at it (with all its workflow, shortcuts, up to the level where you work one hand on keyboard, having most toolboxes hiden out of your view, etc..) you'll still feel gimpy. It's like comparing of giving commands to the gnome with an axe versus to an elf with a whole bunch of efficient specialised tools, spells and workflows – both trying to create art. I don't use PS daily for how much, maybe >8 years and use Gimp weekly for about 12years – I say, it is still gimpy as f.. And I'm programmer not a designer, designers usualy just hate it. I on another hand understant it (and it's history) and take it as it is, as an inferior gimpy cousin of PS :)
why does no one ever mention krita
GTK literally means "gimp tool-kit" GTK exists because of gimp and not the other way around. Also. Take a look at what Photoshop looked like in 1996 (around Gimp initial release), and tell me that's nothing like the gimp. They used to be pretty similar, but their evolutions diverged. Gimp just choosed to stick with the familiar interface, even in the light of PS' changes. Also PS had tens of millions invested in developing it. Had gimp got a tenth of those resources things would be pretty different for both projects.
You are reasoning with your own conclusion that in the context of the question about workflow efectivenes, acceptance by users, tool usefullness it does somehow matter much or in any way – was it the library created as an afterthought or a tool created as a try to use library, or both where born at the same time. :) Who cares. It demoes everything GTK has/had, it was/is clone of photohop idea and they lost it long long ago, as it is now much less efective in it's workflows. If it was otherwise, the industry standard would be Gimp, but it is just a gimmics of it.
P.S. I'm 100% linux user, my servers linux, my desktop linux, my phone android (ok, that is halfassed linux :) ), my tools and software used, if and then possible, all are opensource and/or free. And still, after many years beeing totaly in FOSS enviroment, I just can't deny the worfly earned pedestal to Photoshop in its area of expertise. That is not to say that Gimp is somehow bad, by me it's just a remote next, and it doesn't even try to run to the same direction :) and it is his choise.