[whisps]

Isn't that the beauty of OSS? People can fork projects for whatever reason they want to.

They are not at all hostile to GIMP--they encourage donating to the GIMP org--but I think their reasons for an alternative are sound:

Glimpse Image Editor is an optional alternative intended to assist users that are offended or made uncomfortable by the "gimp" name, and assist free software advocates that encounter barriers when they recommend the GNU Image Manipulation Program to friends, family, coworkers and employers.

However, Glimpse does have some other differences from GIMP which might interest you:

We also focus on making the software more "enterprise ready" so it is easier to modify and distribute for schools and workplaces. That means fewer "easter eggs", improved build and packaging tooling/documentation, backported fixes on a known-stable base we support for at least a year, and a more efficient Windows installer. We also plan to have a more predictable release cadence, as that will assist IT departments with their software deployment schedules.

https://github.com/glimpse-editor/Glimpse

[enriquto]

> We also focus on making the software more "enterprise ready" so it is easier to modify and distribute for schools and workplaces. That means fewer "easter eggs",

Honestly, I don't understand how can people be so severely misguided. If one place would benefit greatly for easter eggs in free software is precisely a school.

But if they are backporting useful documentation, well, it's alright. There's nothing wrong with a fork, but the stated reasons are dumb.

[frenchyatwork]

> Honestly, I don't understand how can people be so severely misguided.

Sounds like a good description of school administration to me.

Creativity is critical to a good education, but it's also difficult to measure. Educators want to be able to show (to themselves and others) that they're being effective in a measurable way, so unless you're being creative in a specific and controlled fashion, it's a distraction.

[jansan]

They can do with their time whatever they want, but creating a fork to remove all light-hearted and fun parts of a software feels a bit dumb.

[mtmail]

The write 'fewer', not to remove all. And it's one of many changes listed, not the main one.

[karatestomp]

Even Excel has (had?) a secret flight sim.

[lynndotpy]

Had -- Microsoft has essentially had a no-easter-eggs policy since at least 2002 as part of their "Trustworthy Computing" initiative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustworthy_computing

They have a blog post from 2005 on the matter: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/blogs/larryosterman...

> One of the aspects of Trustworthy Computing is that you can trust what's on your computer. Part of that means that there's absolutely NOTHING on your computer that isn't planned. If the manufacturer of the software that's on every desktop in your company can't stop their developers from sneaking undocumented features into the product (even features as relatively benign as an Easter Egg), how can you be sure that they've not snuck some other undocumented feature into the code.

[enriquto]

This "Trustworthy computing" thing is 100% bogus if you cannot compile the code yourself.

[Avamander]

https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-windows-10s-windows-fe...

Hmm.

[Drdrdrq]

Ironic, given the tracking built into Windows 10 Home.

[frenchyatwork]

Oh, that was very much planned.

[throwanem]

Not for a quarter century now, more or less.

Whimsy is a wonderful thing, taken in moderation. It has no place in tools meant for serious work.

[throwanem]

If Gimp implementors had spent less time on "light-hearted and fun" and more on boring but actually important stuff like rendering text well, I might not have spent the last decade or so steering everyone I possibly can away from Gimp and toward Photoshop for professional work.

I took a chance on the Gimp because I believed in the cause - I wanted it to be a viable alternative to Photoshop. It very nearly cost my firm a contract big enough that losing it would probably have put us out of business - and would certainly have put me out of a job. Software that screws up that badly doesn't get a second chance.

[prokoudine]

> I took a chance on the Gimp ... It very nearly cost my firm a contract big enough that losing it would probably have put us out of business... Software that screws up that badly doesn't get a second chance.

I'll be 100% blunt and unpleasant here, OK?

You tried using this software in production without prior testing. And yet somehow the developers of that software are to blame? I'm afraid, this means that in the decade that passed since then you learned nothing.

[throwanem]

Who said anything about a lack of prior testing? I hadn't used it with such a business-critical client before, but that's not the same as saying I hadn't used it before.

It's also not the same thing as saying I am, or then was, a fool. But your own uncharitable and erroneous assumptions are your concern, not mine, for all that they and others like them have long since ceased to surprise me in the context of criticizing a beloved FSF flagship product.

[prokoudine]

"I made a choice that was wrong for our business because I didn't know enough, but I'm not the guy to blame".

No, you still haven't learned a thing.

[throwanem]

I mean, look, I get it, okay? You're a Gimp contributor [1], it's easy to feel attacked when somebody criticizes your work, especially when that work is very meaningful to you. But that's no excuse to deliberately mischaracterize what I've been saying, as you have done in this thread. If you think I'm wrong, you can find a way to say so that doesn't require also calling me incompetent.

As I said, I understand that it's easy to feel attacked when someone criticizes your work. But that's still no excuse to make it personal, the way you're doing here, or the way you have considerable prior form [2] for doing. It's not just that this sort of behavior on your part is rude and uncalled for, although it is also those things. Such behavior - and I'd think this would be important to you, even if simple courtesy evidently is not - gives an extremely poor representation of the same project you're trying to defend.

I'm not going to get any further into this with you, because there's clearly no point in doing so. Your mind is, by all the available evidence, extremely made up, and I don't come to Hacker News to be pointlessly insulted.

But, to briefly reiterate in parting what others have already said at length, you might consider changing your behavior, whether to maintain civility in discussions of this sort, or if you can't manage that, then simply to avoid engaging in them at all. What you're doing right now does neither the Gimp, nor its current and past contributors, any good at all.

[1] https://www.gimp.org/author/alexandre-prokoudine.html

[2] https://www.gimpusers.com/forums/gimp-developer/21084-alexan...

[renewiltord]

Well, I suspect they build the thing to the degree they need the thing. I use GIMP for some stuff but I can't draw on it like I can draw on Krita, for instance. Pity it didn't work for you.