Just assume both did exactly the same thing and cost the exact same amount (free or otherwise). Which would you choose based on their website?
Why does GIMP (and pretty much all FOSS) have to be so secretive about their product? Why no screenshots? Why not showcase the software on their website?
It’s so damn frustrating that every FOSS app appears to be command line software, or assumed that the user knows everything about it already.
Devs, you might have a killer piece of software, but screenshots go a long way to help with gaining interest and adoption.
Idk if GIMP has a marketing problem but I definitely agree that FOSS projects should add screenshots and a description of what the program does to their website and repo. It really annoys me when someone links a piece of software and it just doesn’t say what it does and there’s no screenshots that would make it easy for me to see what it looks like and how the UI is structured. When there’s no screenshots I’m rarely even interested in trying it out because, even with a description, I don’t really know what it is. Like, I wouldn’t be interested in a car based on only a description, I’d have to see a picture of it too.
This is a frequent source of frustration for me, too. Can’t even tell if it’s cli or gui a lot of the time, based on the documentation. If I could just see what it looks like, I’d have a good idea right away of whether it might meet my needs.
Not only AI editing examples which makes me thing the tool is AI only.
An overview of the variety of major features it has rather than just AI editing.
Links to helpful documentation rather than endless marketing pages that say nothing.
Really think only thing I would like to see is some screenshots and examples of using the tool, rather than just info on what it does. But the Photoshop page barely has this, just a few examples of the AI tools.
Open Source software is not a product that needs marketing.
The devs making Gimp gain literally nothing from you downloading and using it.
Stop applying capitalist logic to one of the few aspects of life that haven’t been monetized yet.
Surely, if nobody is using the software, then there’s no incentive to keep making it.
Making a tool you or the company you work for need yourself, fun, learning, community, doing good, showing off, status, being remembered, (even if it’s just in a circle of 10 people)…
Marketing generates interest. Interest gets users. Users (hopefully) get donations and/or contributions to the project.
Irrelevant for the vast majority of open source projects, which will never be financially profitable.
why not be clear and avoid wasting people’s time as they try to figure out what exactly a project is about?
Maybe because the volunteers working on the project in their free time are programmers, not marketers or good communicators?
Also, they aren’t wasting anybody’s time by creating useful software and giving it away for free.
I realize I’m being confrontational towards you, but this mindset of demanding things from people who literally give away free stuff with no strings attached rubs me the wrong way, every single time. And this mindset is much too prevalent, even to the point of harassing, insulting and threatening open source devs for choices they make in their projects.
The devs owe you nothing. If you don’t like what they do, simply don’t use it.
There are other options out there, but they may come with a $23/month price tag.
I would have to choose GIMP (in spite of this awful name) because that page loaded without javascript and the photoshop page requires me to enable javascript.
I know I’m being a bit facetious, here, but… Adobe can afford to hire full time front end devs and designers. FOSS projects can’t really compete with Adobe’s investors.
LOL. Brother, I get what you’re saying, but I think you missed the point. If Random User X is just looking for an image editor, and they are presented with a few options they know nothing about. Do you think they’re going to even bother with the one image editor that doesn’t have any screenshots?
You know EXACTLY what it is and what it does within about 2 seconds. That would be more than enough information for someone to at least make the effort to download the software.
If I recommend some software to someone, most normies I know would directly go on to youtube and check some guy using and reviewing a software. The “official website” wouldn’t even cross their mind.
In this day and age if a random user really wants something, they have a miriad of options to see what they’re about to use. Forums, Youtube, blog posts and so on.
If a user doesn’t even bother a bare , they’re better off not downloading random executables from the internet.
The website isn’t end all, be all of how users find a software demos. You seem to think a single website is enough for users to make their choices these days. It isn’t the 90s.
An informed user goes through that much effort. Most users are not informed and will do a quick search, download something that looks remotely what they think they need, and they’re done.
This is why it’s frustrating that some really good open-source software end up being lost in a sea of other stuff that was easier for someone to download, without doing a ton of research.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be a website, but a website should be “home base” for a software, company, etc. If not the official website, then the developer has less control over the presentation of their product, which would suck.
App stores are successful for a reason: they offer a quick, accessible means to find 1000s of apps or desktop software. And if an app has a poor description or piss poor screenshots, they are skipped very quickly.
The same applies to the UX and UI of an app or website. A poor experience can cause someone to uninstall it (or exit the page), even if it offers them the features they want/need.
You’re right. I wasn’t familiar with rawtherapee but just seeing that home page immediately clued me into the fact that it was some kind of image program. Didn’t even need to read a single word.
Come to think of it, there have been a number of times where I’ve wondered about what a foss project does/looks like and I think a single screenshot would’ve just been a big help in understanding how it behaves.
Come to think of it, there have been a number of times where I’ve wondered about what a foss project does/looks like and I think a single screenshot would’ve just been a big help in understanding how it behaves.
Yes!! I’m glad I was able to illustrate my point better.
I don’t know man, I think the Photoshop homepage reeks of corpo crap, whereas the Gimp homepage does a good job at cleanly presenting the program in a quick way. Maybe I’m just used to FOSS, or already too allergic to corporate software, but going by the homepage design, my preference is obvious, there’s not even a contest
I think my point was missed. I wasn’t saying that GIMP should copy what Adobe does (I can’t stand Adobe and their “business model” spyware bullshit.
My point was more to show that Adobe showcases the features of the software, so a potential user knows what it does without needing to go through the trouble of downloading it. It may not be what the user wants, and that’s ok, at least they know!
But GIMP is so vague in their description and offers no insight to what the app does or looks like. There’s no need to be mysterious.
dont forget how they expect you to compile it. some projects offer a nice .msi for windows, a .whatever for mac, and then linux users just get a link to their github. i mean cmon.
edit: i’m not talking specifically about gimp, my dudes.
I switched to Linux because there were almost no good open source apps on Windows. The comparison is not fair considering how drastically the parameters are changing.
Also a lot of solo devs do try to maintain some community repos.
I’m not trying to disagree but I haven’t come across any projects that only wanted the Linux users to build. You can correct me.
i have found a couple before but havent bothered with them, i don’t remember which they are but it sure peeved me off to be the only one told to “build it yourself”
Idk I like the gimp page. Two clicks, and you’re into the tutorial on how to edit pictures. The first page gives you all you need to know: Image manipulation program.
adobe’s page otoh… Well after the first two popups, I gave up.
…
Alright, Second try and four popups later, I’m in. gotta admit the funny animations and the tools they show off are pretty nice
Man, after decades, why does GIMP still have a marketing problem?
Just visit https://www.gimp.org/ and compare it to https://www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop.html
Just assume both did exactly the same thing and cost the exact same amount (free or otherwise). Which would you choose based on their website?
Why does GIMP (and pretty much all FOSS) have to be so secretive about their product? Why no screenshots? Why not showcase the software on their website?
It’s so damn frustrating that every FOSS app appears to be command line software, or assumed that the user knows everything about it already.
Devs, you might have a killer piece of software, but screenshots go a long way to help with gaining interest and adoption.
Be the change you want to see.
Idk if GIMP has a marketing problem but I definitely agree that FOSS projects should add screenshots and a description of what the program does to their website and repo. It really annoys me when someone links a piece of software and it just doesn’t say what it does and there’s no screenshots that would make it easy for me to see what it looks like and how the UI is structured. When there’s no screenshots I’m rarely even interested in trying it out because, even with a description, I don’t really know what it is. Like, I wouldn’t be interested in a car based on only a description, I’d have to see a picture of it too.
This is a frequent source of frustration for me, too. Can’t even tell if it’s cli or gui a lot of the time, based on the documentation. If I could just see what it looks like, I’d have a good idea right away of whether it might meet my needs.
Actually I would pick GIMP.
Really think only thing I would like to see is some screenshots and examples of using the tool, rather than just info on what it does. But the Photoshop page barely has this, just a few examples of the AI tools.
Open Source software is not a product that needs marketing.
The devs making Gimp gain literally nothing from you downloading and using it.
Stop applying capitalist logic to one of the few aspects of life that haven’t been monetized yet.
That’s highly debatable.
Surely, if nobody is using the software, then there’s no incentive to keep making it.
Marketing generates interest. Interest gets users. Users (hopefully) get donations and/or contributions to the project.
Even from a purely practical standpoint, why not be clear and avoid wasting people’s time as they try to figure out what exactly a project is about?
I’m not suggesting that GIMP take out Facebook ads. But my god, would a few screenshots kill the project?
Making a tool you or the company you work for need yourself, fun, learning, community, doing good, showing off, status, being remembered, (even if it’s just in a circle of 10 people)…
Irrelevant for the vast majority of open source projects, which will never be financially profitable.
Maybe because the volunteers working on the project in their free time are programmers, not marketers or good communicators?
Also, they aren’t wasting anybody’s time by creating useful software and giving it away for free.
I realize I’m being confrontational towards you, but this mindset of demanding things from people who literally give away free stuff with no strings attached rubs me the wrong way, every single time. And this mindset is much too prevalent, even to the point of harassing, insulting and threatening open source devs for choices they make in their projects.
The devs owe you nothing. If you don’t like what they do, simply don’t use it.
There are other options out there, but they may come with a $23/month price tag.
I would have to choose GIMP (in spite of this awful name) because that page loaded without javascript and the photoshop page requires me to enable javascript.
I know I’m being a bit facetious, here, but… Adobe can afford to hire full time front end devs and designers. FOSS projects can’t really compete with Adobe’s investors.
LOL. Brother, I get what you’re saying, but I think you missed the point. If Random User X is just looking for an image editor, and they are presented with a few options they know nothing about. Do you think they’re going to even bother with the one image editor that doesn’t have any screenshots?
Just another comparison, a little more relevant: https://www.rawtherapee.com/
You know EXACTLY what it is and what it does within about 2 seconds. That would be more than enough information for someone to at least make the effort to download the software.
If I recommend some software to someone, most normies I know would directly go on to youtube and check some guy using and reviewing a software. The “official website” wouldn’t even cross their mind.
In this day and age if a random user really wants something, they have a miriad of options to see what they’re about to use. Forums, Youtube, blog posts and so on.
If a user doesn’t even bother a bare , they’re better off not downloading random executables from the internet.
The website isn’t end all, be all of how users find a software demos. You seem to think a single website is enough for users to make their choices these days. It isn’t the 90s.
An informed user goes through that much effort. Most users are not informed and will do a quick search, download something that looks remotely what they think they need, and they’re done.
This is why it’s frustrating that some really good open-source software end up being lost in a sea of other stuff that was easier for someone to download, without doing a ton of research.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be a website, but a website should be “home base” for a software, company, etc. If not the official website, then the developer has less control over the presentation of their product, which would suck.
App stores are successful for a reason: they offer a quick, accessible means to find 1000s of apps or desktop software. And if an app has a poor description or piss poor screenshots, they are skipped very quickly.
The same applies to the UX and UI of an app or website. A poor experience can cause someone to uninstall it (or exit the page), even if it offers them the features they want/need.
You’re right. I wasn’t familiar with rawtherapee but just seeing that home page immediately clued me into the fact that it was some kind of image program. Didn’t even need to read a single word.
Come to think of it, there have been a number of times where I’ve wondered about what a foss project does/looks like and I think a single screenshot would’ve just been a big help in understanding how it behaves.
Yes!! I’m glad I was able to illustrate my point better.
FOSS projects are often labors of love.
Nobody who isn’t completely deranged loves marketing.
Agree, however on clicking the photoshop link was first hit with 2 popups before I could see the page.
I don’t know man, I think the Photoshop homepage reeks of corpo crap, whereas the Gimp homepage does a good job at cleanly presenting the program in a quick way. Maybe I’m just used to FOSS, or already too allergic to corporate software, but going by the homepage design, my preference is obvious, there’s not even a contest
I think my point was missed. I wasn’t saying that GIMP should copy what Adobe does (I can’t stand Adobe and their “business model” spyware bullshit.
My point was more to show that Adobe showcases the features of the software, so a potential user knows what it does without needing to go through the trouble of downloading it. It may not be what the user wants, and that’s ok, at least they know!
But GIMP is so vague in their description and offers no insight to what the app does or looks like. There’s no need to be mysterious.
I couldn’t agree more and I see it everywhere as well. It’s systemic.
Problem is, people on Lemmy are techies who might actually prefer the Gimp site. But any “normal” person would not.
I mean, the name is a bigger problem than anyone seems to want to admit…
Majority of area in the world does not recognize it as negative thing.
Even for English, English itself is diverse language. Singaporean English, Indian English, Asian English, definitely not negative in all of them.
Forcing one standard of language as a universal is a bad precedent for language diversity.
dont forget how they expect you to compile it. some projects offer a nice .msi for windows, a .whatever for mac, and then linux users just get a link to their github. i mean cmon.
edit: i’m not talking specifically about gimp, my dudes.
“They” most of the times is solo devs and you can’t blame them for that. GIMP does have flatpak, appimages, etc.
solo devs can spin windows executables and mac installer but not linux…?
I switched to Linux because there were almost no good open source apps on Windows. The comparison is not fair considering how drastically the parameters are changing.
Also a lot of solo devs do try to maintain some community repos.
I’m not trying to disagree but I haven’t come across any projects that only wanted the Linux users to build. You can correct me.
i have found a couple before but havent bothered with them, i don’t remember which they are but it sure peeved me off to be the only one told to “build it yourself”
compiling a program takes like 2 clicks dude
That’s false, not sure why you would say that. Literally just visit the download page
https://krita.org/en/download/
i see what you did there
I sure hope so
Idk I like the gimp page. Two clicks, and you’re into the tutorial on how to edit pictures. The first page gives you all you need to know: Image manipulation program.
adobe’s page otoh… Well after the first two popups, I gave up.
…
Alright, Second try and four popups later, I’m in. gotta admit the funny animations and the tools they show off are pretty nice
the gimp one displays normally, while the adobe one shows a blank white page.
the choice is obvious
I mean, tastes are different, but I really did not like the photshop page design.
Taste aside, you can easily see what features Photoshop has, rather than guessing, right?
I should have used a FOSS example, since Adobe is just bad in general (users saying the page has pop-ups, etc.).
All I see is “Ooooh look, we use AI!” which actually repels me quite a lot. The page leaves the impression that photoshop is a toy, not a tool.
Ok, let’s get off Adobe for a second… here’s a FOSS example: https://www.rawtherapee.com/
Easy to understand exactly what it does, screenshots are excellent. Surely, you can agree that this is better than how GIMP presents itself, right?