Next. They should drop everything and solely focus on improving ux & ui . Every time I open gimp to try and get acclimated to it, I close it back out of frustration. Nothing is intuitive in that software. Not even the naming of the tools settings.
UI/UX is a very very difficult job. I've only ever known a few UI/UX artists that were any good, and OMFG, are they expensive.
You can't just drop everything and focus on something where you don't have domain experts. Not to presume too much about you, but that would be like saying you need to drop everything you're doing and focus on brain surgery next year. UI/UX is art. It's a very specific type of art that, unfortunately, doesn't come easy for people. There are companies for hire that work professionally on UX/UI, but they're not cheap either. Anyone can spot bad UX, but knowing how to fix it in a way that works for everyone, that's nearly a unicorn.
I've been using gimp since it was released for daily driver projects.
I've been using Photoshop for about a decade when required for gigs.
I can get around either app pretty decently at this point.
If you drop any new user into either, they'll be absolutely lost.
If you drop a seasoned Photoshop user into GIMP, they'll not only b
... Show more...
Nothing is intuitive in that software.
UI/UX is a very very difficult job. I've only ever known a few UI/UX artists that were any good, and OMFG, are they expensive.
You can't just drop everything and focus on something where you don't have domain experts. Not to presume too much about you, but that would be like saying you need to drop everything you're doing and focus on brain surgery next year. UI/UX is art. It's a very specific type of art that, unfortunately, doesn't come easy for people. There are companies for hire that work professionally on UX/UI, but they're not cheap either. Anyone can spot bad UX, but knowing how to fix it in a way that works for everyone, that's nearly a unicorn.
I've been using gimp since it was released for daily driver projects.
I've been using Photoshop for about a decade when required for gigs.
I can get around either app pretty decently at this point.
If you drop any new user into either, they'll be absolutely lost.
If you drop a seasoned Photoshop user into GIMP, they'll not only be lost but be unable to use their vast array of plugins and macros and aren't quite (but non-technically are) impossible for the average user to work on.
We can't make Gimp Photoshop-like. We can make strides to improve Gimp, but it's beyond reach for the current team. Maybe we can start a crowdfund to get a UX company to take a stab at it, but even at that we'd need buy in from the developers and it would likely be an incredibly large rework, not unlike the current one that took quite a long time.
@rumba @mtchristo To gently disagree with you here: UI/UX work is absolutely not art, and in fact, this painting of the profession as some artsy fairy-dust non-technical creative magic is a big part of the reason why FLOSS projects have trouble attracting designers—they don't respect their work.
UI/UX makes broad use of scientific evidence as to how people see, perceive, and interact with things around them. Conducting studies is literally part of the job at large companies, and those who do not have the budget rely on resources like reports from the Nielsen Norman Group to get up to date information on topics such as how people's eyes scan a page, how content influences this, effectiveness / interaction rates of different design patterns, et cetera.
Unfortunately for the odd designer who does wind up in a discussion on a merge request on GitLab, their expertise is often treated a
... Show more...
@rumba @mtchristo To gently disagree with you here: UI/UX work is absolutely not art, and in fact, this painting of the profession as some artsy fairy-dust non-technical creative magic is a big part of the reason why FLOSS projects have trouble attracting designers—they don't respect their work.
UI/UX makes broad use of scientific evidence as to how people see, perceive, and interact with things around them. Conducting studies is literally part of the job at large companies, and those who do not have the budget rely on resources like reports from the Nielsen Norman Group to get up to date information on topics such as how people's eyes scan a page, how content influences this, effectiveness / interaction rates of different design patterns, et cetera.
Unfortunately for the odd designer who does wind up in a discussion on a merge request on GitLab, their expertise is often treated as a difference of creative opinion by developers who know nothing about basic design principles such as gestalt psychology.
The problem of poor UX in FLOSS can't be attributed to a lack of talent; the fact is that FLOSS projects are not hospitable environments for designers, both technically and culturally. For a start discussions happen on GitLab et al, platforms which are confusing to people who aren't developers. And then, whereas if a non-technical user started arguing with devs on matters they don't understand they'd be booted from the discussion, devs who clearly don't have even basic design knowledge get carte blanche to debate against designers (on design, not technical feasibility), and their positions are treated as equally valid because they see design expertise as art—a subjective matter of mere opinion.
If FLOSS devs want usable interfaces (and I'm not convinced many of them do) this is the problem that needs to be solved.
To gently disagree with you here: UI/UX work is absolutely not art,
UI without art is just a bunch of shitty buttons no one wants to press. Come to think of it, that's one of the problems with Gimp. There is a UI, it's just not a good one.
UX is arguably design. But most design departments would place UX as a mixed discipline.
scientific evidence as to how people see, perceive, and interact with things around them.
You're describing Usability. This is, in fact, its own discipline that should direct both UX and UI.
The problem of poor UX in FLOSS can’t be attributed to a lack of talent; the fact is that FLOSS projects are not hospitable environments for designers, both technically and culturally.
That's just saying it's a lack of talent because FOSS teams are inhospitable. Blanket statements like that ring as a stereotype.
their expertise is often treated as a difference of creative opinion by developers who know nothing about basic design principle
... Show more...
To gently disagree with you here: UI/UX work is absolutely not art,
UI without art is just a bunch of shitty buttons no one wants to press. Come to think of it, that's one of the problems with Gimp. There is a UI, it's just not a good one.
UX is arguably design. But most design departments would place UX as a mixed discipline.
scientific evidence as to how people see, perceive, and interact with things around them.
You're describing Usability. This is, in fact, its own discipline that should direct both UX and UI.
The problem of poor UX in FLOSS can’t be attributed to a lack of talent; the fact is that FLOSS projects are not hospitable environments for designers, both technically and culturally.
That's just saying it's a lack of talent because FOSS teams are inhospitable. Blanket statements like that ring as a stereotype.
their expertise is often treated as a difference of creative opinion by developers who know nothing about basic design principles
The consumers of the product know nothing about basic design principles either. Does their opinion not matter either?
If FLOSS devs want usable interfaces (and I’m not convinced many of them do) this is the problem that needs to be solved.
So, forgive me if I'm reading too much between the lines, but what you're saying here is if FLOSS wants better UI, they need to engage someone who says they're an accomplished UI artist and blindly execute their vision even against their own impressions of the requested work?
Maybe there are reasons the FLOSS devs don't want to sign up for that?
UI without art is just a bunch of shitty buttons no one wants to press.
You're describing Usability. This is, in fact, its own discipline that should direct both UX and UI.
Disagree. I do not believe that the design of a button is art. Even things like the roundness of the corners have justifications that relate to usability, which is an inherent part of design, and it always has been. Visual hierarchy is usability. Type selection is usability. Gestalt theory is usability. The hanging punctuation in medieval manuscripts is usability. UI, UX, usability: It's all just design. In fact, if you're a "designer" who is regularly putting out work that doesn't meaningfully consider usability, you may well be an artist instead!
That's just saying it's a lack of talent because FOSS teams are inhospitable. Blanket statements like that ring as a stereotype.
This is a thought-terminating cliché, but thanks for d
UI without art is just a bunch of shitty buttons no one wants to press.
You're describing Usability. This is, in fact, its own discipline that should direct both UX and UI.
Disagree. I do not believe that the design of a button is art. Even things like the roundness of the corners have justifications that relate to usability, which is an inherent part of design, and it always has been. Visual hierarchy is usability. Type selection is usability. Gestalt theory is usability. The hanging punctuation in medieval manuscripts is usability. UI, UX, usability: It's all just design. In fact, if you're a "designer" who is regularly putting out work that doesn't meaningfully consider usability, you may well be an artist instead!
That's just saying it's a lack of talent because FOSS teams are inhospitable. Blanket statements like that ring as a stereotype.
This is a thought-terminating cliché, but thanks for demonstrating my point by flatly negating my personal experience as a designer who does volunteer for FLOSS projects from time to time.
The consumers of the product know nothing about basic design principles either. Does their opinion not matter either?
This is a strawman. My point was not that no one's opinion but that of a designer matters. My point was that when designers are making recommendations based on their knowledge and experience that relate to design problems, the opinions of people who do not have expertise on these matters should not be treated with equal weight.
So, forgive me if I'm reading too much between the lines, but what you're saying here is if FLOSS wants better UI, they need to engage someone who says they're an accomplished UI artist and blindly execute their vision even against their own impressions of the requested work?
Yea, again, this is not what I'm saying. If a designer says "hey, we should probably put that button here for X and Y reasons," devs should have the humility to understand that, as a design professional, they probably have a reason for saying so that goes beyond 'I think it looks nicer.' That's the cultural component. The technical component is that FLOSS projects need to meet designers where they are and not ask them to use platforms they're likely not familiar with in order to participate.
This is exactly the problem they face. I use GIMP since ~15years. Any change they make will annoy me to a degree. But I also understand that getting into the UI is not that easy. They somehow have to manage these two completly opposing interests.
To be honest, nothing is intuitive in any complex software. Every time I open Photoshop I want to cry in pain. But it isn't because Photoshop is bad (that I don't know actually), but because I am not familiar with it at all
It is essential that you explain exactly what you find unintuitive, otherwise -forgive me, but- this feedback is worthless. Make a bullet list, with captures, show how you would rename or rearrange things. Do your part !
Its not useless when literally 99% of the people who tried GIMP Over the past 25+ years have had the exact same reaction, pretending its not a thing its whats useless
This is what always frustrates me when people complain about GIMP's UI!
The common opinion is to "make it more like Photoshop", but Photoshop is absolutely not beginner friendly - most of those people are just familiar with it already.
I remember being completely lost and constantly getting annoyed when I first started using Photoshop.
It is worthless, in fact. Because it's not actionable. Read what the above user said again :
Every time I open gimp to try and get acclimated to it, I close it back out of frustration. Nothing is intuitive in that software. Not even the naming of the tools settings.
Nothing in here is specific enough to do anything about it. Imagine you're a developer, and you read this. What do you do ?
As users, we may not be able to program stuff, but we can do so much design work. Making mockups takes some time but it's within our reach. Let's all contribute to the best of our ability. If all a user can say is "Nothing is intuitive", then their feedback can only be dismissed. Because it's not actionable.
Oh and once you done all of the writeup actually submit it to the devs so they can work with it instead of leaving it to languish on a random web forum
There are many examples of software where the UI etc can be changed. I have never felt comfortable in GIMP's UI, but then again I'm much more of a vector guy.
Off-Canvas Editing Paint tools can now automatically expand the width and height of a layer as you draw! You can select “Expand Layers” in the tool options to enable drawing past the current boundaries of layers.
More features such as guides and auto-expanding layers can be used to work in the off-canvas space!
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.
I wish I could, but this is a systemic problem, not a problem with one individual project.
Is the mindset that anyone looking for open source, FOSS, or Linux stuff is already tech-savvy enough to know exactly what they are looking for based solely on a text description?
These projects are run by volunteers, they don't have the unlimited budget for designers that Adobe does. And to be honest, it kinda seems like you're just criticizing them for no good reason. Have you personally designed and built a website that doesn't suck?
These projects are run by volunteers, they don’t have the unlimited budget for designers that Adobe does.
A few screenshots would be nice. Not asking them to make a high-production video intro shot on a cruise ship with RED cameras and featuring an A-list celeb.
And to be honest, it kinda seems like you’re just criticizing them for no good reason.
On the contrary. I want to see them reach a wider audience. I want to see FOSS, Linux, and other open-source projects become more accessible and widely available. For me, the way many of these projects present themselves is like gatekeeping to keep people away.
Have you personally designed and built a website that doesn’t suck?
Yes, but I won't doxx myself, so there's no proof I can give you.
Regardless, as a user and someone who wants to see open-source projects succeed, my comment should only be taken as constructive criticism.
On the contrary. I want to see them reach a wider audience. I want to see FOSS, Linux, and other open-source projects become more accessible and widely available
then contribute, it's called "open source" for a reason or at least raise an issue where the maintainers can see? Not on some random link aggregation platform about an announcement?
Contributing is exactly what he is doing. You dont have to make a PR to contribute to a project, he is trying to bring awareness to an issue he is passionate about. Him sparking the conversation can make waves much larger than he can manage by doing the screenshot marketing for projects himself one at a time. There are way too many projects for one person acting alone to make a real dent.
idk, he got those words into atleast 200 peoples heads from here, and probably many more that didn't vote on it. I would say getting that many people to think about it is pretty good for the couple minutes it took to write that comment down.
200 people that aren't contributing. They actually have a page on their site encouraging people to get involved in the site design: developer.gimp.org/core/wgo/
They don't need somebody to tell them their site sucks. They need somebody to HELP them make it better, to DO the work that you seem to be implying is very easy! They're literally begging for it on their website.
Not criticizing the website design. I don't expect them to have an expensive flashy website. I am criticizing you for equating the snipping tool with having an unlimited budget for designers like adobe does. It does not take a team of designers to add a screenshot to your website showcasing a feature.
For sure, I don't mean to blanket all FOSS projects under the same observation. But I've seen some projects where the idea is brilliant, and it fills a gap that no other software can, but they have piss-poor instructions (or none at all) and hardly describe what the project is or does. You only learn about them by chance, which is a real shame.
Here's another example: Navidrome (navidrome.org/) is an awesome, self-hosted music streaming software.
But their homepage doesn't have a screenshot, so you have no idea if the UI is just command prompt, ugly, unintuitive, or the best thing ever. Even the "learn more" page has no screenshots unless you really go digging.
Compare that to another FOSS self-hosted music streamer: ampache.org/
Simple website, but at least you can see exactly what to expect from the UI. Huge advantage even if they two apps do the exact same thing (both based on the Subsonic backend).
A web based audio/video streaming application and file manager allowing you to access your music & videos from anywhere, using almost any internet enabled device.
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 peopl
... Show more...
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.
Gimp doesn't have a marketing problem. Its well known its just that not many people like it. It is not a nice program to use. I think gimp3 fixes a lot of the janky ui but I'll have to try it out again
Yeah, every time I have ever tried Gimp, attempting to do anything felt like someone had purposefully been contrarian and made every operation work in the hardest and most confusing way.
And someone may say, "well, you just have to learn it!" OK, sure. Or I can use something that makes much more sense from the jump like Affinity Photo. (Yes, I know you have to pay for it, but it's worth it. Yes, I know not everyone has the money to do so.)
this is exactly my opinion on it. one of my main gripes was the text rendering. if i needed to change some text i basically had to redo all of the work on any shadow or stroke as well, not just correct a spelling mistake or whatever. very excited to check out the new version.
I think it's because marketing is expensive and marketing people know that corporations have money to throw at them, and the moment they lower their prices for a FOSS project, they might not get their old revenue when working for a company that can definitely pay what they ask.
We need some sort of FOSM (Free and Open Source Marketing) that helps FOSS projects based on some sort of queue and whoever has recent changes that needs marketing.
These are all excellent ways someone can contribute to a project. Our project website has a repo anything can contribute to to make changes, even the blog entries are statically generated pages.
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.
If I want to know more I would go to documentation or tutorials.
See, that's not normal, though. You shouldn't need to "dig deeper" to find out what a product is or what it does.
The well-designed homepage should simply tell you that within seconds of visiting. Any additional clicks should only be to "learn more", but not to learn about.
If this was an analogy, imagine a street lined with restaurants.
On one side you've got "Vinny's Italian Pizzeria", "Joe's Burgers and Fries", and "Mary's Bakery and Treats". Each has posters of what they sell posted on the windows, and a QR code to their online menu.
On the other you have "Sal's Food", "Frank's More Food", "Sal's". The windows are either covered in brown paper, or have stock images of "food", but nothing specific about what they actually make. To learn more, you have to go inside, ask someone for a menu, wait for that menu, then have a look. But the menu lacks photos! You either have to know what they are describing to you in the menu, or you would have to have already dined the
... Show more...
If I want to know more I would go to documentation or tutorials.
See, that's not normal, though. You shouldn't need to "dig deeper" to find out what a product is or what it does.
The well-designed homepage should simply tell you that within seconds of visiting. Any additional clicks should only be to "learn more", but not to learn about.
If this was an analogy, imagine a street lined with restaurants.
On one side you've got "Vinny's Italian Pizzeria", "Joe's Burgers and Fries", and "Mary's Bakery and Treats". Each has posters of what they sell posted on the windows, and a QR code to their online menu.
On the other you have "Sal's Food", "Frank's More Food", "Sal's". The windows are either covered in brown paper, or have stock images of "food", but nothing specific about what they actually make. To learn more, you have to go inside, ask someone for a menu, wait for that menu, then have a look. But the menu lacks photos! You either have to know what they are describing to you in the menu, or you would have to have already dined there before.
Does the latter experience sound good? Because that's how too many open-source projects present themselves, and it's to the loss of the volunteer devs and their potential user base.
The Free & Open Source Image Editor This is the official website of the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP). GIMP is a cross-platform image editor available for GNU/Linux, macOS, Windows and more operating systems. It is free software, you can change its source code and distribute your changes. Whether you are a graphic designer, photographer, illustrator, or scientist, GIMP provides you with sophisticated tools to get your job done. You can further enhance your productivity with GIMP thanks to many customization options and 3rd party plugins.
Man, that text does the app no favours. "Image editor" could mean that it crops photos. But GIMP does a hell of a lot more. It's been "the open-source photoshop" for decades, and they're really selling themselves short. Screenshots would have made it so much easier to see what the software does.
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
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: 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.
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.
Yeah! I got a couple of them into it when people came to me asking how I do my own edits, and from there it seemed to just be word of mouth.
Thankfully I helped the first through get the basics down and they then passed that knowledge on and so forth, so it's worked out pretty well. A bunch of broke ass skaters will learn anything as long as it's free, it's why we spend most of our time falling.
How is Krita? I’m on a Mac and my biggest problem with Gimp and Inkscape has always been lack of MacOS integration. Mostly with the UI but even shortcuts were wrong when I tried it. And the mouse/trackpad gestures were the dealbreaker.
I use Pixelmator, which hopefully continues to be a well developed pay once app, even though Apple just bought them. That and Sketch get me all the design tools I need for 2D and web.
It's more of a paint program, and it's great if you have a pen and tablet. I haven't tried out gimp for while, but it was more of a photoshop alternative at that time. I think Apple's version of Krita would be Procreate, but Krita is free.
Have you checked out Affinity? They support Mac and iPad, and are comparable with the core Adobe suite. Its a buy once scenario (per major version release). My only problem is they don't support Linux.
Of note, they were purchased last year by Canva, but it has been stated they will keep the Affinity products separate for purchase.
Your first problem is you're using a Mac. But beyond the obvious trolling, Krita excels at painting and is getting better at text as well -so far text tools have left to be desired but they've been working on a revamp for some years now, probably coming rather soon. What I find lacking as a daily user (I do illustration in Krita, animation in Blender) is the general image manipulation tools. Transforming, snapping, transform masks... are often either lacking in flexibility or poorly performing. I use Affinity Publisher on the side for compositing my illustrations with text for print or web, I wouldn't be able to rely on just Krita for that. But for painting, it's absolutely fantastic -performance wise, usability-wise, the shortcuts are so well thought out it's a joy to use. It's really made with painting in mind. If you like using filters, they have a good G'mic integration with hundreds of builtin filters. I can't comment on their mac builds though, you'd have to try them yourself.
I don't know about the Mac experience specifically but Krita was incredibly intuitive as someone who hasn't touched creative software in about 15 years. I downloaded it a couple of weeks ago, doodled a little, then remembered I suck at digital drawing and closed without saving
I mean, the Adobe website flashed me pop-ups about not being in the right location, about cookies - I would choose GIMP based on this.
I choose FOSS 90% of the time because they are not beholden to the same conventions that compel most for-profit products. A lot of the concerns I'm reading about readability, marketability, etc ring absolutely true for life-or-death for-profit ventures, but there are definitely people who don't mind missing all of that stuff in exchange for good and decent software.
The goal, after all, is to be image editing software, not an advertisement.
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.
Unless 3.0 has solved it, the gimp has a steep UI problem and a learning curve such that mass appeal on the website would be inappropriate anyway. I love it but I love it because I've been using it my whole life and know it very well. Foss in general struggles with useability due to a lot of hard to overcome problems - mainly, that by the time someone is ready to contribute to any given foss project, they're already intimately familiar with its foibles and probably have strong opinions about what UX elements are sacred cows and should not be fixed.
Well, it has solved it in large part, yes. Tablet pen buttons are correctly recognized on Windows at last, GTK3 allows panels to be dockable pretty much anywhere, the interface looks generally sleek.
Now perhaps you could specify what aspect of the UI you find problematic, otherwise it's hard to respond to such a vague statement. Imagine you're a developer, and you read a piece of feedback that says "the gimp has a steep UI problem". Where do you go from there ?
I mean, I could make a list of things I think are problems, but I've been using it since a bit after 9/11 so I dont think my guesses would represent new user experiences. I am mostly going off what people tell me when they try to learn it.
otherwise it's hard to respond to such a vague statement
I wasn't writing advice for the devs, I was making a general statement about why foss stuff doesn't tend to suit glitzy, highly marketable front facing stuff, using gimp as an example
I'm not involved with Gimp development, I've been watching it from the side, so I can't tell if there's an actual lack of contributions related to UX design -but so far I have only seen the public respond with the same sort of vague feedback : "the UI needs work". Unfortunately that's as unhelpful as it gets. Spending some time designing interface mockups, or writing up descriptions of how such and such feature should work, now that's helpful, and is something pretty much any user can do.
I was making a general statement about why foss stuff doesn’t tend to suit glitzy, highly marketable front facing stuff, using gimp as an example
Yea, I believe that's true. And it is always a resource problem, because with limited resources, developers focus on making the thing work first, look nice second
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"
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.
Hey, you look interested in becoming a marketing volunteer for GIMP. While GIMP is not as competitive in marketing as the others, you can help them if you want. 😎
Incredible. This is one of those hard to believe moments.
It's been 21 years since the release of GIMP 2.0.
It's been more than 10 years since work on a majorly overhauled GIMP 3.0 was announced and initiated.
And it's been 7 years since the last major release (2.10).
I can't wait for the non-destructive text effects. After all these years of dealing with the fact applying drop shadows meant the text couldn't be edited, at last it's no longer an issue.
As a long time - pre version 2 - gimp user my first thought was "what, don't be ridiculous" and now I dont know what to feel. Why would you do this to me personally
Yeah GIMP is more than a decade behind Photoshop and a lot of other software in many respects.
It's frustrating. Basic things like content-aware fill for small spaces, not even AI generating huge things for large missing pieces but removing some text over a person's cheek or plaid shirt, something in total 100x100 pixels big or so. Just doesn't exist. You can clone stuff but it's not aware of things like the gradient of a shadow that it should match or a highlight or other basic things so you're left doing extensive work using layers and then cleaning it up to be visually acceptable using multiple tools over 10 minutes of time whereas Photoshop does it with one tool in an instant.
GIMP is generally geared towards photo-editing, so if you have an existing image, you can use GIMP quite well to e.g. cut out parts of it or to apply effects. It's not really geared towards digital painting or creating new images from scratch, like Krita and presumably IbisPaint are.
Aw man i was hoping for a big ui upgrade like when blender released version 2.8 that now even cinema4d is copying.
I fear gimp truly doesnt care about its ui/ux because technically everything you want to do is possible as long as you learn the ways ans they dont care to attract an audience thats not die hard FOSS people. For example schools havent been able to use it because theyre so deadset on their nsfw name and schools cant have kids googling gimp with the pictures that will show up
No self-respecting UI designer would ever want to work on that dinosaur of a codebase. The GIMP team is simply unable to do what Blender did, even if they made the UI their number one priority.
They’re not refusing. They’re actually doing the opposite. But they needed to get their house in order first.
The 3.0 upgrade was the result of the getting their house in order and modernizing. Doing cosmetic changed before hand would have made no sense because those changes would have been thrown away when they would have to modernize things anyways.
I think I have an analogy.
Gimp was like an old American style wooden house that was flooded. After the water recedes you could try to make things look nicer by plastering and painting the walls etc. But as goes with flooded houses if you do this the mold will rot everything out.
In order to save a flooded house you need to remove all the dry wall and use fans to dry out the internals. Once things are dry then you can plaster and repaint things.
Gimp 3.0 was them ripping out dry wall and air drying the internals. Now that that is done it now makes sense to clean up the UI.
If you clean up the UI before you dry the walls out it’s just a waste of time because those improvements woul
... Show more...
They’re not refusing. They’re actually doing the opposite. But they needed to get their house in order first.
The 3.0 upgrade was the result of the getting their house in order and modernizing. Doing cosmetic changed before hand would have made no sense because those changes would have been thrown away when they would have to modernize things anyways.
I think I have an analogy.
Gimp was like an old American style wooden house that was flooded. After the water recedes you could try to make things look nicer by plastering and painting the walls etc. But as goes with flooded houses if you do this the mold will rot everything out.
In order to save a flooded house you need to remove all the dry wall and use fans to dry out the internals. Once things are dry then you can plaster and repaint things.
Gimp 3.0 was them ripping out dry wall and air drying the internals. Now that that is done it now makes sense to clean up the UI.
If you clean up the UI before you dry the walls out it’s just a waste of time because those improvements would need to be ripped out with the dry walls always.
It’s not perfect as far as an analogy goes but it’s close. Gimp should have never let the house flood in the first place. (Analogy breaks down here a bit). But since they did. They needed to fix the fundamental before it would be worth fixing the UI.
This all being said they could at this point genuinely refuse to change things UI wise. I hope they choose to pull a Blender or Krita but they don’t have to.
They refuse to do the same because migrating from GTK 2 to GTK 3 took 7 years to achieve with a diminutive team and they still implemented a multitude of requested features.
Why, because its been the single most requested change by the GIMP community for 20+ years and its the one thing they refuse to address?? Dont be silly, its not like the devs are acting like the guy who makes Filezilla who has been steadfastly refusing to implement a 'dark' feature simply because he does think anyone wants it.. oh wait
Is that seriously a thing with Filezilla? I had to use it for something recently and downloaded it for the first time in years. Couldn't find any way to not blind myself no matter how hard I tried.
Nice. I wonder if they'd be open to rewriting portions in Rust to catch these types of issues with the compiler instead of the user. I'm willing to help if someone else gets the devs on board.
Exact same thing happened to me. I opened it, read through the new welcome screen, and said ok let's go! First move was to select a brush and it crashed.
Kind of regret not trudging up the steep learning curve of that hellscape GUI earlier now that sounds like it's finally useable, but better late than never.
Brilliant and huge congrats to the amazing people who worked on it. One silly question though, is the "new" Gimp logo supposed to look out of focus or are my eyes getting old?
To all of the authors below who have disparaging opinions on the UX/UI experience and or the download ability. It’s a volunteer project for a reason. If you have such grand ideas and abilities put your money where your fingers are and fucking sign up.
Declaring that the only legitimate feedback comes from people who are also capable of doing the work is not a good way to solicit constructive feedback.
To all of the authors below who have disparaging opinions on the UX/UI experience and or the download ability. It’s a volunteer project for a reason. If you have such grand ideas and abilities put your money where your fingers are and fucking sign up.
I get it. You made a mistake, are embarrassed, and are now pointing things back on the messenger instead of just saying, "Oh shit, my bad," and moving on with your life.
A lot of the hate GIMP gets is people coming from Photoshop expecting it to work like Photoshop. In fact that's true for a lot of Adobe-like open source projects. That's why "industry standards" are dangerous and really only exist to keep one company rich.
My hate comes from wanting it to work like LView Pro. There's no Linux image manipulation program that comes close to meeting the standard they set in 2001.
I want to contact them (Valve), and tell them that if they are planning of releasing a Half Life game, to name it Half Life 4. Just to troll the entire world.
Gosh randall is always on point, though. Either a complete psycho or a savant of the human perspective (laziness, i guess? It seems like most of his stuff is mocking the lazy process fails in science, bureaucracy or people interactions)
GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) version 3 has been released. But when will Valve release Half-Life version 3? They have already released 1, 2, the episodes, and Alyx. But when will Valve release 3.0? This is not fair because even GIMP has reached version 3.0, but Valve's Half-Life has not. 😔
mtchristo
in reply to Zarlin • • •like this
Nathan likes this.
Open Source reshared this.
rumba
in reply to mtchristo • • •UI/UX is a very very difficult job. I've only ever known a few UI/UX artists that were any good, and OMFG, are they expensive.
You can't just drop everything and focus on something where you don't have domain experts. Not to presume too much about you, but that would be like saying you need to drop everything you're doing and focus on brain surgery next year. UI/UX is art. It's a very specific type of art that, unfortunately, doesn't come easy for people. There are companies for hire that work professionally on UX/UI, but they're not cheap either. Anyone can spot bad UX, but knowing how to fix it in a way that works for everyone, that's nearly a unicorn.
I've been using gimp since it was released for daily driver projects.
I've been using Photoshop for about a decade when required for gigs.
I can get around either app pretty decently at this point.
If you drop any new user into either, they'll be absolutely lost.
If you drop a seasoned Photoshop user into GIMP, they'll not only b
... Show more...UI/UX is a very very difficult job. I've only ever known a few UI/UX artists that were any good, and OMFG, are they expensive.
You can't just drop everything and focus on something where you don't have domain experts. Not to presume too much about you, but that would be like saying you need to drop everything you're doing and focus on brain surgery next year. UI/UX is art. It's a very specific type of art that, unfortunately, doesn't come easy for people. There are companies for hire that work professionally on UX/UI, but they're not cheap either. Anyone can spot bad UX, but knowing how to fix it in a way that works for everyone, that's nearly a unicorn.
I've been using gimp since it was released for daily driver projects.
I've been using Photoshop for about a decade when required for gigs.
I can get around either app pretty decently at this point.
If you drop any new user into either, they'll be absolutely lost.
If you drop a seasoned Photoshop user into GIMP, they'll not only be lost but be unable to use their vast array of plugins and macros and aren't quite (but non-technically are) impossible for the average user to work on.
We can't make Gimp Photoshop-like. We can make strides to improve Gimp, but it's beyond reach for the current team. Maybe we can start a crowdfund to get a UX company to take a stab at it, but even at that we'd need buy in from the developers and it would likely be an incredibly large rework, not unlike the current one that took quite a long time.
Nathan
in reply to rumba • •@rumba @mtchristo To gently disagree with you here: UI/UX work is absolutely not art, and in fact, this painting of the profession as some artsy fairy-dust non-technical creative magic is a big part of the reason why FLOSS projects have trouble attracting designers—they don't respect their work.
UI/UX makes broad use of scientific evidence as to how people see, perceive, and interact with things around them. Conducting studies is literally part of the job at large companies, and those who do not have the budget rely on resources like reports from the Nielsen Norman Group to get up to date information on topics such as how people's eyes scan a page, how content influences this, effectiveness / interaction rates of different design patterns, et cetera.
Unfortunately for the odd designer who does wind up in a discussion on a merge request on GitLab, their expertise is often treated a
... Show more...@rumba @mtchristo To gently disagree with you here: UI/UX work is absolutely not art, and in fact, this painting of the profession as some artsy fairy-dust non-technical creative magic is a big part of the reason why FLOSS projects have trouble attracting designers—they don't respect their work.
UI/UX makes broad use of scientific evidence as to how people see, perceive, and interact with things around them. Conducting studies is literally part of the job at large companies, and those who do not have the budget rely on resources like reports from the Nielsen Norman Group to get up to date information on topics such as how people's eyes scan a page, how content influences this, effectiveness / interaction rates of different design patterns, et cetera.
Unfortunately for the odd designer who does wind up in a discussion on a merge request on GitLab, their expertise is often treated as a difference of creative opinion by developers who know nothing about basic design principles such as gestalt psychology.
The problem of poor UX in FLOSS can't be attributed to a lack of talent; the fact is that FLOSS projects are not hospitable environments for designers, both technically and culturally. For a start discussions happen on GitLab et al, platforms which are confusing to people who aren't developers. And then, whereas if a non-technical user started arguing with devs on matters they don't understand they'd be booted from the discussion, devs who clearly don't have even basic design knowledge get carte blanche to debate against designers (on design, not technical feasibility), and their positions are treated as equally valid because they see design expertise as art—a subjective matter of mere opinion.
If FLOSS devs want usable interfaces (and I'm not convinced many of them do) this is the problem that needs to be solved.
Open Source reshared this.
rumba
in reply to Nathan • • •UI without art is just a bunch of shitty buttons no one wants to press. Come to think of it, that's one of the problems with Gimp. There is a UI, it's just not a good one.
UX is arguably design. But most design departments would place UX as a mixed discipline.
You're describing Usability. This is, in fact, its own discipline that should direct both UX and UI.
... Show more...That's just saying it's a lack of talent because FOSS teams are inhospitable. Blanket statements like that ring as a stereotype.
UI without art is just a bunch of shitty buttons no one wants to press. Come to think of it, that's one of the problems with Gimp. There is a UI, it's just not a good one.
UX is arguably design. But most design departments would place UX as a mixed discipline.
You're describing Usability. This is, in fact, its own discipline that should direct both UX and UI.
That's just saying it's a lack of talent because FOSS teams are inhospitable. Blanket statements like that ring as a stereotype.
The consumers of the product know nothing about basic design principles either. Does their opinion not matter either?
So, forgive me if I'm reading too much between the lines, but what you're saying here is if FLOSS wants better UI, they need to engage someone who says they're an accomplished UI artist and blindly execute their vision even against their own impressions of the requested work?
Maybe there are reasons the FLOSS devs don't want to sign up for that?
Nathan
in reply to rumba • •@rumba
Disagree. I do not believe that the design of a button is art. Even things like the roundness of the corners have justifications that relate to usability, which is an inherent part of design, and it always has been. Visual hierarchy is usability. Type selection is usability. Gestalt theory is usability. The hanging punctuation in medieval manuscripts is usability. UI, UX, usability: It's all just design. In fact, if you're a "designer" who is regularly putting out work that doesn't meaningfully consider usability, you may well be an artist instead!
... Show more...This is a thought-terminating cliché, but thanks for d
@rumba
Disagree. I do not believe that the design of a button is art. Even things like the roundness of the corners have justifications that relate to usability, which is an inherent part of design, and it always has been. Visual hierarchy is usability. Type selection is usability. Gestalt theory is usability. The hanging punctuation in medieval manuscripts is usability. UI, UX, usability: It's all just design. In fact, if you're a "designer" who is regularly putting out work that doesn't meaningfully consider usability, you may well be an artist instead!
This is a thought-terminating cliché, but thanks for demonstrating my point by flatly negating my personal experience as a designer who does volunteer for FLOSS projects from time to time.
This is a strawman. My point was not that no one's opinion but that of a designer matters. My point was that when designers are making recommendations based on their knowledge and experience that relate to design problems, the opinions of people who do not have expertise on these matters should not be treated with equal weight.
Yea, again, this is not what I'm saying. If a designer says "hey, we should probably put that button here for X and Y reasons," devs should have the humility to understand that, as a design professional, they probably have a reason for saying so that goes beyond 'I think it looks nicer.' That's the cultural component. The technical component is that FLOSS projects need to meet designers where they are and not ask them to use platforms they're likely not familiar with in order to participate.
Open Source reshared this.
rumba
in reply to Nathan • • •mojofrododojo
in reply to rumba • • •bring back gimpshop for those who don't want to deal with it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop
GIMPshop - Wikipedia
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)hexagonwin
in reply to mtchristo • • •The Menemen
in reply to hexagonwin • • •Nalivai
in reply to mtchristo • • •Hadriscus
in reply to mtchristo • • •KneeTitts
in reply to Hadriscus • • •Its not useless when literally 99% of the people who tried GIMP Over the past 25+ years have had the exact same reaction, pretending its not a thing its whats useless
zenpocalypse
in reply to KneeTitts • • •markko
in reply to zenpocalypse • • •This is what always frustrates me when people complain about GIMP's UI!
The common opinion is to "make it more like Photoshop", but Photoshop is absolutely not beginner friendly - most of those people are just familiar with it already.
I remember being completely lost and constantly getting annoyed when I first started using Photoshop.
Hadriscus
in reply to KneeTitts • • •It is worthless, in fact. Because it's not actionable. Read what the above user said again :
Nothing in here is specific enough to do anything about it. Imagine you're a developer, and you read this. What do you do ?
As users, we may not be able to program stuff, but we can do so much design work. Making mockups takes some time but it's within our reach. Let's all contribute to the best of our ability. If all a user can say is "Nothing is intuitive", then their feedback can only be dismissed. Because it's not actionable.
Trainguyrom
in reply to Hadriscus • • •Hadriscus
in reply to Trainguyrom • • •InFerNo
in reply to mtchristo • • •elucubra
in reply to InFerNo • • •prototype_g2
in reply to InFerNo • • •graphene
in reply to mtchristo • • •rumba
in reply to Zarlin • • •SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
uis
in reply to rumba • • •gon [he]
in reply to Zarlin • • •Showroom7561
in reply to Zarlin • • •Man, after decades, why does GIMP still have a marketing problem?
Just visit gimp.org/ and compare it to adobe.com/ca/products/photosho…
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.
Official Adobe Photoshop - Free Trial and Online Photo & Design App
www.adobe.comlike this
Sylvestris likes this.
Xeroxchasechase
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •Showroom7561
in reply to Xeroxchasechase • • •I wish I could, but this is a systemic problem, not a problem with one individual project.
Is the mindset that anyone looking for open source, FOSS, or Linux stuff is already tech-savvy enough to know exactly what they are looking for based solely on a text description?
catloaf
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •sushibowl
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •Showroom7561
in reply to sushibowl • • •Do the operating systems the contributors use not have a screenshot function?
I mean, seriously, simply highlighting a few features would make a massive difference.
I speak for all projects, not just GIMP.
PeachMan
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •Showroom7561
in reply to PeachMan • • •A few screenshots would be nice. Not asking them to make a high-production video intro shot on a cruise ship with RED cameras and featuring an A-list celeb.
On the contrary. I want to see them reach a wider audience. I want to see FOSS, Linux, and other open-source projects become more accessible and widely available. For me, the way many of these projects present themselves is like gatekeeping to keep people away.
Yes, but I won't doxx myself, so there's no proof I can give you.
Regardless, as a user and someone who wants to see open-source projects succeed, my comment should only be taken as constructive criticism.
juli
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •then contribute, it's called "open source" for a reason or at least raise an issue where the maintainers can see? Not on some random link aggregation platform about an announcement?
野麦さん
in reply to juli • • •Zeoic
in reply to juli • • •PeachMan
in reply to Zeoic • • •Zeoic
in reply to PeachMan • • •PeachMan
in reply to Zeoic • • •GIMP Developer - Contributing to the main website: www.gimp.org
developer.gimp.orgPeachMan
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •IF YOU HAVE EXPERTISE, THEN CONTRIBUTE, DAMMIT: developer.gimp.org/core/wgo/
They don't need somebody to tell them their site sucks. They need somebody to HELP them make it better, to DO the work that you seem to be implying is very easy! They're literally begging for it on their website.
GIMP Developer - Contributing to the main website: www.gimp.org
developer.gimp.orgShowroom7561
in reply to PeachMan • • •It's like you need high-level programming training to even understand how to contribute to their project. Where's the "Edit" button, for example?
I've contributed dozens of hours to other projects (namely OpenStreetMap), but it's DEAD SIMPLE to contribute there.
☂️-
in reply to PeachMan • • •fubbernuckin
in reply to PeachMan • • •presses screenshot button
PeachMan
in reply to fubbernuckin • • •fubbernuckin
in reply to PeachMan • • •makingStuffForFun
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •fmstrat
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •Showroom7561
in reply to fmstrat • • •For sure, I don't mean to blanket all FOSS projects under the same observation. But I've seen some projects where the idea is brilliant, and it fills a gap that no other software can, but they have piss-poor instructions (or none at all) and hardly describe what the project is or does. You only learn about them by chance, which is a real shame.
Here's another example: Navidrome (navidrome.org/) is an awesome, self-hosted music streaming software.
But their homepage doesn't have a screenshot, so you have no idea if the UI is just command prompt, ugly, unintuitive, or the best thing ever. Even the "learn more" page has no screenshots unless you really go digging.
Compare that to another FOSS self-hosted music streamer: ampache.org/
Simple website, but at least you can see exactly what to expect from the UI. Huge advantage even if they two apps do the exact same thing (both based on the Subsonic backend).
Ampache - Music Streaming Server
ampache.orgsuperkret
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •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.
Showroom7561
in reply to superkret • • •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?
like this
underrate170 likes this.
garretble
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •You are right. I just checked out gimp.org, and...IS there a single image of the software on that site?
If they want new users, asking them to blindly download software without even a look or maybe a video of new features is not it.
superkret
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •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 peopl
... Show more...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.
madthumbs
in reply to superkret • • •Fizz
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •garretble
in reply to Fizz • • •Yeah, every time I have ever tried Gimp, attempting to do anything felt like someone had purposefully been contrarian and made every operation work in the hardest and most confusing way.
And someone may say, "well, you just have to learn it!" OK, sure. Or I can use something that makes much more sense from the jump like Affinity Photo. (Yes, I know you have to pay for it, but it's worth it. Yes, I know not everyone has the money to do so.)
dadarobot
in reply to Fizz • • •Showroom7561
in reply to Fizz • • •Holy hell. I felt like that 20+ years ago when I started using it... I'm surprised that it never got better, from the sound of it.
EddoWagt
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •borth
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •I think it's because marketing is expensive and marketing people know that corporations have money to throw at them, and the moment they lower their prices for a FOSS project, they might not get their old revenue when working for a company that can definitely pay what they ask.
We need some sort of FOSM (Free and Open Source Marketing) that helps FOSS projects based on some sort of queue and whoever has recent changes that needs marketing.
Showroom7561
in reply to borth • • •Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by "marketing". I'm not talking about spending tens of thousands of Facebook ads, or any ads, really.
A few screenshots on a product page would be more than enough for some projects. Highlight some key features. Generate interest.
It's really low effort stuff that makes a huge difference.
Alex
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •Fisch
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •swelter_spark
in reply to Fisch • • •piconaut
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •I actually like the GIMP website homepage more than the one for photoshop.
Its simple and efficient. If I want to know more I would go to documentation or tutorials.
The photoshop site just looks like a random squarespace template with a bunch of stock photos.
etchinghillside
in reply to piconaut • • •Showroom7561
in reply to piconaut • • •See, that's not normal, though. You shouldn't need to "dig deeper" to find out what a product is or what it does.
The well-designed homepage should simply tell you that within seconds of visiting. Any additional clicks should only be to "learn more", but not to learn about.
If this was an analogy, imagine a street lined with restaurants.
On one side you've got "Vinny's Italian Pizzeria", "Joe's Burgers and Fries", and "Mary's Bakery and Treats". Each has posters of what they sell posted on the windows, and a QR code to their online menu.
On the other you have "Sal's Food", "Frank's More Food", "Sal's". The windows are either covered in brown paper, or have stock images of "food", but nothing specific about what they actually make. To learn more, you have to go inside, ask someone for a menu, wait for that menu, then have a look. But the menu lacks photos! You either have to know what they are describing to you in the menu, or you would have to have already dined the
... Show more...See, that's not normal, though. You shouldn't need to "dig deeper" to find out what a product is or what it does.
The well-designed homepage should simply tell you that within seconds of visiting. Any additional clicks should only be to "learn more", but not to learn about.
If this was an analogy, imagine a street lined with restaurants.
On one side you've got "Vinny's Italian Pizzeria", "Joe's Burgers and Fries", and "Mary's Bakery and Treats". Each has posters of what they sell posted on the windows, and a QR code to their online menu.
On the other you have "Sal's Food", "Frank's More Food", "Sal's". The windows are either covered in brown paper, or have stock images of "food", but nothing specific about what they actually make. To learn more, you have to go inside, ask someone for a menu, wait for that menu, then have a look. But the menu lacks photos! You either have to know what they are describing to you in the menu, or you would have to have already dined there before.
Does the latter experience sound good? Because that's how too many open-source projects present themselves, and it's to the loss of the volunteer devs and their potential user base.
Hadriscus
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •Dig deeper ?
Homepage text :
Showroom7561
in reply to Hadriscus • • •Hadriscus
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •thesystemisdown
in reply to piconaut • • •I feel like the Adobe marketing is somewhat pointless. Anyone that has been in the target industries for any amount of time already know the deal.
GIMP is not Photoshop. They are not competitors. It's a difficult transition. I'm not sure we should even bother drawing a comparison.
I've used Photoshop since 1992. I know, I'm old. I started using GIMP about four years ago. I recently got to the point where I can function.
Money and momentum is a motherfucker. Adobe has fuck you money. GIMP has volunteers. Those that don't like their site should volunteer time or money.
Edit: fwiw I like the GIMP site better too.
PurpleClouds
in reply to piconaut • • •Hnery
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •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
GnuLinuxDude
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •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.
Showroom7561
in reply to GnuLinuxDude • • •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: 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.
Home
RawTherapee0_o7
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •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.
Showroom7561
in reply to 0_o7 • • •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.
GnuLinuxDude
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •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.
Showroom7561
in reply to GnuLinuxDude • • •Yes!! I'm glad I was able to illustrate my point better.
pelespirit
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •Krita.org does a nice job of showing off their work and so does Blender
They're not flashy, but they definitely make me want to download them and check them out.
Features — blender.org
blender.orgShowroom7561
in reply to pelespirit • • •Hadriscus
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •deeferg
in reply to Hadriscus • • •Hadriscus
in reply to deeferg • • •deeferg
in reply to Hadriscus • • •Yeah! I got a couple of them into it when people came to me asking how I do my own edits, and from there it seemed to just be word of mouth.
Thankfully I helped the first through get the basics down and they then passed that knowledge on and so forth, so it's worked out pretty well. A bunch of broke ass skaters will learn anything as long as it's free, it's why we spend most of our time falling.
anomnom
in reply to pelespirit • • •How is Krita? I’m on a Mac and my biggest problem with Gimp and Inkscape has always been lack of MacOS integration. Mostly with the UI but even shortcuts were wrong when I tried it. And the mouse/trackpad gestures were the dealbreaker.
I use Pixelmator, which hopefully continues to be a well developed pay once app, even though Apple just bought them. That and Sketch get me all the design tools I need for 2D and web.
pelespirit
in reply to anomnom • • •Broken
in reply to anomnom • • •Have you checked out Affinity?
They support Mac and iPad, and are comparable with the core Adobe suite. Its a buy once scenario (per major version release).
My only problem is they don't support Linux.
Of note, they were purchased last year by Canva, but it has been stated they will keep the Affinity products separate for purchase.
Hadriscus
in reply to anomnom • • •I can't comment on their mac builds though, you'd have to try them yourself.
Trainguyrom
in reply to anomnom • • •KneeTitts
in reply to anomnom • • •I fully converted all my workflows to Krita a long time again, its amazing
GenderNeutralBro
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •FOSS projects are often labors of love.
Nobody who isn't completely deranged loves marketing.
KnightontheSun
in reply to GenderNeutralBro • • •Me: Hello niece, what career will you embark on once college is over?
Niece: Marketing.
Me: [audibly] Ah, I see. [inaudibly] Where did our family go wrong???
certified sinonist
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •I mean, the Adobe website flashed me pop-ups about not being in the right location, about cookies - I would choose GIMP based on this.
I choose FOSS 90% of the time because they are not beholden to the same conventions that compel most for-profit products. A lot of the concerns I'm reading about readability, marketability, etc ring absolutely true for life-or-death for-profit ventures, but there are definitely people who don't mind missing all of that stuff in exchange for good and decent software.
The goal, after all, is to be image editing software, not an advertisement.
kevincox
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •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.
DarkSpectrum
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •SorteKanin
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •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.
knexcar
in reply to SorteKanin • • •SorteKanin
in reply to knexcar • • •oyo
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •nasi_goreng
in reply to oyo • • •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.
KneeTitts
in reply to oyo • • •Which is why I use Krita and recommend it to other people... telling them to use GIMP would get too many laughs and weird looks
socialjusticewizard
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •Hadriscus
in reply to socialjusticewizard • • •Well, it has solved it in large part, yes. Tablet pen buttons are correctly recognized on Windows at last, GTK3 allows panels to be dockable pretty much anywhere, the interface looks generally sleek.
Now perhaps you could specify what aspect of the UI you find problematic, otherwise it's hard to respond to such a vague statement. Imagine you're a developer, and you read a piece of feedback that says "the gimp has a steep UI problem". Where do you go from there ?
socialjusticewizard
in reply to Hadriscus • • •I mean, I could make a list of things I think are problems, but I've been using it since a bit after 9/11 so I dont think my guesses would represent new user experiences. I am mostly going off what people tell me when they try to learn it.
I wasn't writing advice for the devs, I was making a general statement about why foss stuff doesn't tend to suit glitzy, highly marketable front facing stuff, using gimp as an example
Hadriscus
in reply to socialjusticewizard • • •I'm not involved with Gimp development, I've been watching it from the side, so I can't tell if there's an actual lack of contributions related to UX design -but so far I have only seen the public respond with the same sort of vague feedback : "the UI needs work". Unfortunately that's as unhelpful as it gets. Spending some time designing interface mockups, or writing up descriptions of how such and such feature should work, now that's helpful, and is something pretty much any user can do.
Yea, I believe that's true. And it is always a resource problem, because with limited resources, developers focus on making the thing work first, look nice second
KneeTitts
in reply to Hadriscus • • •Flipper
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •Infrastructure / gimp-web · GitLab
GitLab☂️-
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •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.
Eyck_of_denesle
in reply to ☂️- • • •☂️-
in reply to Eyck_of_denesle • • •Eyck_of_denesle
in reply to ☂️- • • •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.
☂️-
in reply to Eyck_of_denesle • • •TonyTonyChopper
in reply to ☂️- • • •Nalivai
in reply to ☂️- • • •☂️-
in reply to Nalivai • • •Hadriscus
in reply to ☂️- • • •That's false, not sure why you would say that. Literally just visit the download page
krita.org/en/download/
Download
Download☂️-
in reply to Hadriscus • • •Hadriscus
in reply to ☂️- • • •irelephant [he/him]🍭
in reply to ☂️- • • •Leeuk
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •pHr34kY
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •The photoshop page doesn't even have a download link.
0/10 would not download.
The Menemen
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •Showroom7561
in reply to The Menemen • • •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.).
The Menemen
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •Showroom7561
in reply to The Menemen • • •Ok, let's get off Adobe for a second... here's a FOSS example: 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?
Home
RawTherapeenewfoundlandsteak
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •Hadriscus
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •Showroom7561
in reply to Hadriscus • • •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.
AuroraB
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •the gimp one displays normally, while the adobe one shows a blank white page.
the choice is obvious
Kalvin
in reply to Showroom7561 • • •OsrsNeedsF2P
in reply to Zarlin • • •mogoh
in reply to Zarlin • • •GitHub - flathub/org.gimp.GIMP
GitHubDioEgizio [he/they]
in reply to Zarlin • • •tauren
in reply to DioEgizio [he/they] • • •WhiskyTangoFoxtrot
in reply to tauren • • •hperrin
in reply to Zarlin • • •FUCK YES!!!!!
I’ve been waiting for this for years! Omg, what awesome news!!
Majestic
in reply to Zarlin • • •Incredible. This is one of those hard to believe moments.
It's been 21 years since the release of GIMP 2.0.
It's been more than 10 years since work on a majorly overhauled GIMP 3.0 was announced and initiated.
And it's been 7 years since the last major release (2.10).
I can't wait for the non-destructive text effects. After all these years of dealing with the fact applying drop shadows meant the text couldn't be edited, at last it's no longer an issue.
thingsiplay
in reply to Majestic • • •socialjusticewizard
in reply to Majestic • • •deeferg
in reply to socialjusticewizard • • •KneeTitts
in reply to Majestic • • •Majestic
in reply to KneeTitts • • •Yeah GIMP is more than a decade behind Photoshop and a lot of other software in many respects.
It's frustrating. Basic things like content-aware fill for small spaces, not even AI generating huge things for large missing pieces but removing some text over a person's cheek or plaid shirt, something in total 100x100 pixels big or so. Just doesn't exist. You can clone stuff but it's not aware of things like the gradient of a shadow that it should match or a highlight or other basic things so you're left doing extensive work using layers and then cleaning it up to be visually acceptable using multiple tools over 10 minutes of time whereas Photoshop does it with one tool in an instant.
LemmyGo
in reply to Zarlin • • •Ephera
in reply to LemmyGo • • •It's not really geared towards digital painting or creating new images from scratch, like Krita and presumably IbisPaint are.
XNX
in reply to Zarlin • • •AdrianTheFrog
in reply to XNX • • •The UI looks the same lol
The layers are the big thing, but its hard to show because the final result looks the same anyways
XNX
in reply to AdrianTheFrog • • •Filtered word: nsfw
Aw man i was hoping for a big ui upgrade like when blender released version 2.8 that now even cinema4d is copying.
I fear gimp truly doesnt care about its ui/ux because technically everything you want to do is possible as long as you learn the ways ans they dont care to attract an audience thats not die hard FOSS people. For example schools havent been able to use it because theyre so deadset on their nsfw name and schools cant have kids googling gimp with the pictures that will show up
like this
Nathan likes this.
_____
in reply to XNX • • •they could have just called gims or gim
naming stuff is important
RoyaltyInTraining
in reply to XNX • • •mholiv
in reply to RoyaltyInTraining • • •I mean the whole point of doing the mega rewrite to gtk3 was specifically to enable such forward looking progress.
What they did in the 3.0 release was, largely, a massive modernization of a dinosaur code base.
Now that it’s done it makes sense to do a UI overhaul. Before 3.0 it made no sense to even try, now it does.
KneeTitts
in reply to mholiv • • •mholiv
in reply to KneeTitts • • •They’re not refusing. They’re actually doing the opposite. But they needed to get their house in order first.
The 3.0 upgrade was the result of the getting their house in order and modernizing. Doing cosmetic changed before hand would have made no sense because those changes would have been thrown away when they would have to modernize things anyways.
I think I have an analogy.
Gimp was like an old American style wooden house that was flooded. After the water recedes you could try to make things look nicer by plastering and painting the walls etc. But as goes with flooded houses if you do this the mold will rot everything out.
In order to save a flooded house you need to remove all the dry wall and use fans to dry out the internals. Once things are dry then you can plaster and repaint things.
Gimp 3.0 was them ripping out dry wall and air drying the internals. Now that that is done it now makes sense to clean up the UI.
If you clean up the UI before you dry the walls out it’s just a waste of time because those improvements woul
... Show more...They’re not refusing. They’re actually doing the opposite. But they needed to get their house in order first.
The 3.0 upgrade was the result of the getting their house in order and modernizing. Doing cosmetic changed before hand would have made no sense because those changes would have been thrown away when they would have to modernize things anyways.
I think I have an analogy.
Gimp was like an old American style wooden house that was flooded. After the water recedes you could try to make things look nicer by plastering and painting the walls etc. But as goes with flooded houses if you do this the mold will rot everything out.
In order to save a flooded house you need to remove all the dry wall and use fans to dry out the internals. Once things are dry then you can plaster and repaint things.
Gimp 3.0 was them ripping out dry wall and air drying the internals. Now that that is done it now makes sense to clean up the UI.
If you clean up the UI before you dry the walls out it’s just a waste of time because those improvements would need to be ripped out with the dry walls always.
It’s not perfect as far as an analogy goes but it’s close. Gimp should have never let the house flood in the first place. (Analogy breaks down here a bit). But since they did. They needed to fix the fundamental before it would be worth fixing the UI.
This all being said they could at this point genuinely refuse to change things UI wise. I hope they choose to pull a Blender or Krita but they don’t have to.
KneeTitts
in reply to mholiv • • •meh I believe they can walk and chew gum at the same time, I think they just wanna walk and not chew gum at all
mholiv
in reply to KneeTitts • • •Darkhoof
in reply to KneeTitts • • •Manalith
in reply to XNX • • •KneeTitts
in reply to XNX • • •Why, because its been the single most requested change by the GIMP community for 20+ years and its the one thing they refuse to address?? Dont be silly, its not like the devs are acting like the guy who makes Filezilla who has been steadfastly refusing to implement a 'dark' feature simply because he does think anyone wants it.. oh wait
deeferg
in reply to KneeTitts • • •Darkhoof
in reply to deeferg • • •somegeek
in reply to XNX • • •Filtered word: nsfw
joshfaulkner
in reply to Zarlin • • •Mana Oatbun
in reply to Zarlin • • •like this
underrate170 likes this.
RoyaltyInTraining
in reply to Mana Oatbun • • •P4ulin_Kbana
in reply to RoyaltyInTraining • • •iamkindasomeone
in reply to Mana Oatbun • • •merdaverse
in reply to Mana Oatbun • • •sugar_in_your_tea
in reply to Mana Oatbun • • •Mana Oatbun
in reply to sugar_in_your_tea • • •sugar_in_your_tea
in reply to Mana Oatbun • • •StorageB
in reply to Mana Oatbun • • •sfu
in reply to Zarlin • • •JacksonLamb
in reply to sfu • • •Darkhoof
in reply to JacksonLamb • • •JacksonLamb
in reply to Darkhoof • • •Good to know, thanks.
Kind of regret not trudging up the steep learning curve of that hellscape GUI earlier now that sounds like it's finally useable, but better late than never.
Leeuk
in reply to Zarlin • • •TheWilliamist
in reply to Zarlin • • •surph_ninja
in reply to TheWilliamist • • •TBi
in reply to surph_ninja • • •surph_ninja
in reply to TBi • • •NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
in reply to surph_ninja • • •surph_ninja
in reply to NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ • • •Just scroll up.
TheWilliamist
2025-03-18 12:27:10
NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
in reply to surph_ninja • • •Right, and the initial sentence
modifies the rest of the text
Point being, feedback is welcome, disparaging opinions are not.
Nobody declared that "only legitimate feedback comes from people who are also capable of doing the work."
Reading comprehension, my friend.
surph_ninja
in reply to NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ • • •NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
in reply to surph_ninja • • •...uh...likewise?
I point out to you how you're mistaken, and you just go, "nuh uh."
Cool...
surph_ninja
in reply to NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ • • •NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
in reply to surph_ninja • • •I get it. You made a mistake, are embarrassed, and are now pointing things back on the messenger instead of just saying, "Oh shit, my bad," and moving on with your life.
Have a nice day, man. Riveting conversation.
interdimensionalmeme
in reply to TheWilliamist • • •James R Kirk
in reply to TheWilliamist • • •the_q
in reply to TheWilliamist • • •swelter_spark
in reply to the_q • • •TheWilliamist
in reply to swelter_spark • • •BlameTheAntifa
in reply to TheWilliamist • • •Octagon9561
in reply to Zarlin • • •🦊 OneRedFox 🦊
in reply to Zarlin • • •weker01
in reply to Zarlin • • •No, no, no. It's the end of times. I can hear the trumpets of the apocalypse.
Now Valve needs to release half life 3 and the world as we know it will truly perish.
Jokes aside. I hope this means work on a UI overhaul can seriously begin.
nuko147
in reply to weker01 • • •Jokes aside Fresh leaks suggest Half-Life 3 development may be nearing completion .
Fresh leaks suggest Half-Life 3 development may be nearing completion
Kyle Orland (Ars Technica)rmuk
in reply to nuko147 • • •Don’t you dare give me hope.
Edit: Holy shit. Orland actually says that exact line in the linked article. Kudos.
nuko147
in reply to rmuk • • •VonReposti
in reply to nuko147 • • •P4ulin_Kbana
in reply to VonReposti • • •Tuukka R
in reply to nuko147 • • •The Unfortunate Truth
in reply to Tuukka R • • •@nuko147 @opensource
weker01
in reply to nuko147 • • •S_H_K
in reply to nuko147 • • •Gimp 3, Half life 3, Bloodborne 2
blind3rdeye
in reply to nuko147 • • •nuko147
in reply to blind3rdeye • • •Dagnet
in reply to blind3rdeye • • •chiliedogg
in reply to nuko147 • • •unphazed
in reply to weker01 • • •arc
in reply to Zarlin • • •flambonkscious
Unknown parent • • •Thankyou!
Gosh randall is always on point, though. Either a complete psycho or a savant of the human perspective (laziness, i guess? It seems like most of his stuff is mocking the lazy process fails in science, bureaucracy or people interactions)
Kalvin
in reply to Zarlin • • •