- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
- linux@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
- linux@lemmy.ml
This should be helpful for people that learned Photoshop in the past (for work or in school). From what I understand, a lot of the friction with GIMP is the workflow differences, and potentially unintuitive UI/UX choices.
tldr: recovering Adobe Photoshop user shows you features in the very free and very open source gnu image manipulation program :D
my relevant GIMP config files: https://github.com/BreadOnPenguins/dots/tree/master/.config/GIMP/3.0
GIMP documentation: https://www.gimp.org/docs/
Sadly this was already tried and the developers of the fork were abused and harassed as foss and tech obsessives hate being called out for things and folks solving the problem themselves.
What I meant by “when the time comes to fork, let’s use another name” was not “let’s fork it for the sole purpose of rebranding”. For me a good reason to fork a project would be governance. “Hate forks”, whatever the fuck that made up phrase may be, cause division, so I absolutely understand why people would be against this. That being said, malicious branding is more often than not connected to bad governance, so that would be interesting to find out.
This seems to be quite the nuanced issue, so this will be the last I said, but I would be hella interested to see some more viewpoints on this.
That wasn’t the only thing they did, the legitimately wanted to fix a lot of problems with the GNU Imp too.
Nobody deserves harassment and abuse for changing the name of something.
If they did change stuff technically whcih wouldn’t be adressed otherwise, then I don’t see a reason. Sounds like bad actors.
I did not even talk about harassment, that was you. But I agree, you shouldn’t harass people for this. Does not change that I am against hate-forks, which this did sound like at first.
I don’t understand what you mean here, could you please explain again?
Sorry, badly phrased. If they actually changed stuff technically in their fork, then I see no reason why one would criticize that. That is literally what a fork is for.
Yes, they did actually change things technically. Thanks for clarifying 🙂
I don’t actually see that though, taken a look at their repo, they only seemed to remove branding and easter eggs to distance themselves from the GIMP project. They even went so far as to linger on versions and not merge features from GIMP, so they were actually behind. That would be what I mean by hate fork. Nothing technically good has been done with the repo.
Edit: I think they wanted to change the UI abit too for better accessibility, which would actually be a technical change for once, but other than that I don’t see anything contributed to better software.
To be fair, they were not given enough time before the abuse and harassment happened.
If that didn’t happen it is likely they would have changed and improved more.
You got the name of the fork? I’d be interested.
Glimpse