|
|
|
|
|
|
by katmannthree
1945 days ago
|
|
|
Not the person you replied to but here's my take for the two that I can comment on: 1) Godot: No. Godot is doing pretty well with the resources they have. Making a 2D/3D game engine is an incredibly complex task and they have only a handful of people writing code. To compete with unreal and unity they'd have to have a ton of funding, a layer of FOSS-competent management (a somewhat rare thing), and many more developers. 2) Gimp: Yes but that will never happen. Gimp has a handful of issues. They're chained to a difficult framework and a large amount of the value they provide as a tool comes from their plugin library so they can't just start ripping things out. They also have rather questionable branding (both in the name and the splashscreens, especially the ones in development versions) and a hearty resistance towards throwing on even a veneer of professionalism. Whether or not they should change to fit what the rest of the world considers appropriate is a philosophical question I'm not touching, but the effect of their not doing so is pretty evident. Krita (a very well managed project in comparison) has basically eaten Gimp's lunch for a lot of workflows and will continue to do so while gimp withers away (which has basically already happened, gimp's GTK3 builds are only just now about to release, 10 years after the first GTK3 release and right after GTK4 dropped -- bear in mind that GTK was originally developed as a custom widget toolkit specifically for gimp). |
|
|