My wife and I use it all the time for things like grocery lists, packing lists, etc. It's nice to be an able to collaborate in real time on a checklist, and I haven't found an app that can replicate that convenience.
Ultimate Guitar Tabs. After spending years getting a community to contribute to one of the best music resources on the web, they turn around and lock all but the most basic features behind a pay wall.
A service that provides sheet music. I am learning the piano and I find it difficult to find accurate and reasonable sheet music for much I want to play. Some of it is obscurity, but even when it's findable, the service is monetized to make it unpleasant
The ultimate goal of the IMSLP is to gather all public domain music scores, in addition to the music scores of all contemporary composers (or their estates) who wish to release them to the public free of charge
IMSLP currently has 231,406 works, 755,950 scores, 83,070 recordings, 27,907 composers, and 2,027 performers.
The frustrating thing is that, at least for me, there are no perfect word processors geared for novels and other scenarios where you manage large text masses.
Scrivener is one of those cases where you have a pretty excellent software that doesn't have a lot of problems OSS alternatives have. I have smooth time with it. But at the same time, the software always could be better.
Probably the best OSS novel writing software I've used is Org-Mode for Emacs. But, you know, it's based on Emacs, so it squeaks around the edges and gives the impression that it's a miracle it runs as brilliantly as it does.
I don't know whether rm is memory-safe or not, but vpr is. By 'memory-safe alternative' I meant that this alternative is memory-safe, but not that rm isn't.
Kind of funny how this gets taken down and yet there are a plethora of discords dedicated just to almost openly selling Methamphetamine... shows you who holds real power.
Now admittedly I'm not someone who often uses drawing programs, but my biggest issue in GIMP is that I never seem to be able to find what I'm looking for.
In the two images you posted you can actually see an example of such a case. In Krita all the tools (or whatever you'd call them) in the bar on the left are ordered in a logical way, and separate types of tools are also visually separated by separator lines. The bar with tools is also only 2 icons wide, which makes scanning for the right tool a bit easier, since you can mostly just scan along the vertical axis. In GIMP it's just a pile of low contrast icons in seemingly random order. Unless you've used it enough to know the order, you're gonna have to do a lot more searching. And searching will be way harder since you'll have to search horizontally and vertically.
It's like reading a website where the text is taking the whole with of the screen and without paragraphs (GIMP) vs reading a website where the line length is constrained, the text is horizontally centered, and there are proper paragraphs.
I feel like this example reflects my personal experience with both. I've used quite a few different types of image editing programs, and with most of them I can fairly easily find the stuff I need. Using GIMP however, I used to be quite lost. Nowadays it's gotten better because the windows are not all floating around and I've used it more. But still, I only found Krita after using a fair bit of GIMP, and yet I felt instantly more at home because the UI was easier to navigate.
Edit: That being said, GIMP is a very cool program. I don't want to hate on it too much. It's helped me countless times. The UI has already improved a lot since the floaty window days, and I hope that continues.
Can, but not by default. The default setup is what leaves an impression on most users. Most users opening GIMP for the first time expect to be able to find stuff that they need, not have to first spend a lot of time getting familiar with all of its options. It shouldn't be needed to first spend time opening all the sane default windows and re-aliging stuff every time you boot it for the first time. At least, that shouldn't be the case of GIMP wants to be as popular with non-technical users like Krita is.
Also, the tool bar still doesn't have the nice separations between tool functions, and it still feel a bit more chaotic. Not sure of it's the icons or the order.
You call it "quick to judge and superficial", but imo that's the wrong attitude. Every tool we use as humans should be designed to be as intuitive as possible. It makes it easiest for people to learn how to use a new tool. That doesn't mean that a tool cannot be complex or customizable, but the default experience should make it easy for new users to quickly achieve something. Once they grow accustomed to the tool they can tailor it their own way.
No tool has to do this, but if it wants to be widely used then this is kinda necessary.
There's a reason why there are whole fields of study into human media interaction, and why software companies hire UI designers. Everything that doesn't have to be explained in words and text because it is intuitive saves mental overhead for the user and makes the application more accessible.
I have not used either, but I can say that Krita's UI is closer to Photoshop than GIMP's appears to be. That might be why people are opting for that application, for the sense of familiarity if they were trained on Photoshop.
I will say that any application which is used for digital painting should also be good at image manipulation, so if Krita does both well, I can see why it would be preferred over GIMP if the painting tools are lacking.
Looking over the screenshots, for GIMP, I am hoping that is not the default layout of tools. Having a jumbled block of icons is a lot harder to visually parse than a stack of pairs. I also find myself wondering why they use up so much space on the left to include a weird cutout of their mascot above the tools.
On the right, I am also not sure why the layer thumbnails are pushed so far to the right when they could be immediately adjacent to the visibility toggle.
It doesn't look terrible to me, but I am not surprised that people using an app for visual design might be more critical of design flaws in the app itself.
This sounds a lot like how people would use windows paint for simple things over photoshop. Many folks just want a simplified tool. I was estatic to find out firefox now gives simple pdf editing capabilities instead of me importing it into libre office draw.
I guess i am so used to the layout i barely have a problem, but finding things in GIMP, isn't it the same as Photoshop? I mean, maybe not for Krita, but in GIMP you can change the settings so the tools are all visible instead of being on little boxes.
Im not sure but im guessing most people complain because they want something intuitive and easy although my wife uses photoshop and I could not get her to use gimp so the layout must be different to some degree.
thing is I don't use photoshop. my wife does. its hard to explain her personality but im not using any convincing chips on this particular battle as we have more important things to get handled. Maybe someday.
I have trouble with both, but more experience with GIMP. I can't stand all the little tool buttons with no text. I want the name of each tool always visible on its button.
All I want is to GIMP to save tabs layout as workspaces. That is enough. Part of GIMP hate is based on 15 year old complaints. Just like people still complains today about stuff of Linux that has been resolved for decades. It's just memery that has stuck around.
There are issues with GIMP, but none are about the stuff most people meme about in social media. Every tool has room to grow, but GIMP UI suffers from the “too amateur to know what's wrong” loud majority effect. Imagine someone who has no concept of music appreciation in their lives sits at the front of a grand organ. Then proceeds to complain that the pedals get in the way of sitting on the stool and that he founds the three keyboards redundant and unintuitive. This notion is valid, from his point of view. But it informs nothing about the usability of that particular instrument for a professional organ player.
The same thing tends to happen with several software packages, specially the open source ones. Since they don't have the industry standard tag, they don't get any leniency when it comes to learning their features and capabilities. Then, when the amateur checks them out, they don't compare it to the industry standard (which does have a leniency license) but compare it to the simplified, accessible for everyone and strip down apps. These people don't have the foresight to understand that this tool is capable of way more than their reference point, and the initial friction is an indicator of their inexperience, not of the tool's quality or potential.
The amateur is more comfortable sitting in front of a Casio learner piano. And we shouldn't lend much credence to their feedback about the ergonomics or key feel of a Steinway concert grand.
You are complaining about the amateur? A pro will never use gimp. Ps is too integrated into professional work, not too mention it has a better ux, it's more stable, uses more for formats, had better support,... The semi pros still prefer to use affinity. You are only left with amateurs! And still, they prefer to use krita, a program not even meant for this kind of work!!!
There is no doubt that there are big problems with gimp.
You missed the point of my post. You're right in that you are left with amateurs as an audience. But, and it is a big but, the amateurs aren't comparing you to Photoshop, they are comparing you to the UX friendly app they have on their phone (no matter if they say otherwise). Yet the pro won't ever give GIMP any chance because it doesn't carry the “industry standard” label and the privilege that comes with it. When people are learning graphic design or photoediting they are mandated to learn Photoshop. Either by a rigid teaching system or the cultural environment prevalent amongst the people with strong passion to learn on their own. The result is that a lot of UX and UI quirks and headaches (which photoshop does have, let's not lie to ourselves here) are overlooked or just accepted as the norm. Humans can adapt to a lot of fuckery and bad design, that doesn't make it good UX. GIMP does not have the label, leniency or benefit of the doubt from anyone. Just read this thread, people complaining and whining about the default layout. No one has addressed the things that GIMP does better UX wise or when ways to overcome its shortcoming are mentioned people react with hostility and denial. Most even admit that they have never used GIMP or that they have no business anywhere near an image editor. But here we are, discussing the opinions of the peanut gallery based on feefees and second hand vibes.
Pros don't give gimp a chance but many of us still test try it. It's not viable, not only because Adobe is a must have because of interoperability but because it's faster to work in, it's faster, more stable, more supported,... literally there is no category in which it was worse. Ux is not the best for sure, but it's still way better than gimp.
Even more, everything works in the same patterns as the users expect. Same as other graphical programs. It's easier to use, easier to switch, easier to use similar software. That's ux. Gimp doesn't have that.
Because of all that, it doesn't have a target audience beyond someone who is just very determined to use something free.
See, the thing with this argument is that, however much I agree with the basic idea, it's still not useful. We can agree, sure, that overall the UI and UX (two different things) on GIMP is not as subjectively good as Photoshop. But saying, it's easier, it's faster, it's whatever, still does not help at all. It's still all just vibes and impressions, it's not actionable.
“The default UI is not like Photoshop” is inactionable. It's different from the opinions I left on this thread. That GIMP need to have a way to save and reload layouts, that's an specific feedback, concise, concrete and actionable. I also agree that some workflows take too many clicks, maybe have simplified tools to do common actions. That is also actionable, specific, concrete.
Your comment offers nothing to go on with. It even manages to ignore and bypass my criticism, it doesn't address the “Industry standard” bias and privilege. Because when pros try GIMP the response “It doesn't work the way I expected and are used to, so I don't like it” is a garbage feedback. The only thing you are offering is “clone photoshop”, and that's just not what the project has ever been about, or will ever be about. So the conversation is fruitless.
What is actionable? Maybe this :Make ux more like ps so more people will be able to use it or want to use it? :)
You want small things to fix? Small actionable things. I'm saying there is a broader issue that you cannot easily patch.
I don't care about your criticism of ps, many people have tons of criticism, I have tons, none of it matters with the situation at hand.
What was gimp project about? Pushing users away with design patterns that exist nowhere else?
OK, in terms you understand. The criticism "GIMP is not like Photoshop" is crap advice, its shit and your shitty attitude is offensive and insulting to the hard work of devs. Go keep sucking the adobe boot since you seem to like the taste of dirt on leather so much. "Just clone Photoshop" is a meme useless attitude to have.
As others have mentioned, it's simple things takes alot time finding/figuring out.
I use GIMP within Ubuntu MATE few times a week to edit pictures. Simple edits nothing major.
One of the thing I need regularly is to highlight certain part of the picture.
Now in Microsoft Paint I can draw a rectangle, choose its border thickness, and color in 2 seconds.
I have learned how to do the same in GIMP few times but it took alot of time and I still forgets after few weeks.
So now I just reboot the PC and log into Windows or use Windows virtual machine and draw rectangle in 2 seconds in Microsoft Paint.
Mine is extremely simple use case, so I can only guess how difficult or how time consuming it would be for actual professional to create artistic work in GIMP vs Photoshop (or in similar commercial software).
It's not what the buttons look like, it's what they do. In Krita, making an ellipse involves clicking the ellipse button and dragging it somewhere. You now have an ellipse, and you hold shift if you want to make it a circle instead.
In GIMP there is no direct ellipse tool, there's only an ellipse select tool, likewise you hold shift to make it a circle. Then you use a menu item to select the border of your selection, getting a popup to let you determine how much pixels you want. And then, you use the fill tool or fill menu item to fill it. That's a surprising amount of clicks to accomplish what's most likely the single most common task for anyone opening a screenshot in an image editor. I'm not aware of any easier/faster method to do it. Feels like it should exist, but this is also what you get if you search for how to draw a circle in GIMP, so if it exists everyone's missing it.
GIMP's method gives you more power, but you rarely ever need that power. But when you do, Krita also has ellipse select, border select and various fill tools that can be strung together in the same way.
Hm, yeah, i never used the Elipse tool, i guess yeah, that should give the advance settings as an option, but going simple should be first, wish we could reach out the devs, but it's not an easy task. :/
Open Source
Oldest
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 51 day(s) ago).