[TooCreative]

I agree that it feels a bit harsh. I feel a bit guilty.

But "silent mouths don't get fed". And I think I am speaking for a large number of users. And it's been over ten years now. So the voice of users might become a bit louder? I dunno. I read through all the features in the announcement and think "I don't need any of that. Who asked for all these things? Are they really user driven?".

[geocar]

You should feel guilty! You sounded extremely entitled there. How do you feel when someone asks you -- goads you really, into working for "exposure" instead of your usual rates? It's more than a little insulting!

If you want Free Software to be different, change it. If you don't know how now, like with anything else, you can learn how, or you can pay someone who has already spent the time to learn. The gimp project has a page where you can easily reach out to developers working on Gimp and fund them directly. If you think this feature is important, you should reach out and find out how you can help make it happen.

Now I don't work on gimp, but I do make Free Software, and I think most of us who program Free Software aren't working for "exposure". We aren't excited to be "used" by "users", and so of course we do not do anything "user driven". We do stuff because we want to, and when we don't want to, we may want-to for money. Like everybody else.

[totalkrill]

This is very true. It should really be more understood, that open source developer are basically sharing their hobby and what they create with others on their terms, not their users....

Imagine someone building furniture in their free time because they enjoy doing so, and then offers to give it away for free. You see this offer and now have two polite options:

1) decline, because you do not like it

2) accept because you do like it

I have never understood the people who take the third option:

3) complain that the furniture is not to their liking, and then demand that the person builds it to his/hers specification and then give it to them. Free of charge, because that was the original offer right?

[oblio]

The Open Source community does the opposite, that's the issue.

Every time there's a push for commercial apps on desktop Linux, you have a bunch of rabblerousers throwing dirt at said devs. "They should make it Open Source! Micro$oft paid them off"

You can see it in every Linux forum.

At some point Linux distributions should just admit defeat for this kind of software, recognize that the Gimp and co. are just hobbyist software, and accept the real world and endorse commercial software for these use cases.

Instead every time this kind of discussion happens, someone compares a kiddie toy truck (Gimp) to a 10 ton semi (Photoshop).

It's really a shame when true commercial quality Open Source software exists out there, such as Blender.

[geocar]

> It's really a shame when true commercial quality Open Source software exists out there, such as Blender.

That might be because the Blender users banded together and bought Blender[1] (with the help of one of the authors IIRC)

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20021010045558/http://www.blende...

> At some point Linux distributions should just admit defeat for this kind of software, recognize that the Gimp and co. are just hobbyist software, and accept the real world and endorse commercial software for these use cases.

Aren't they already doing that? I think commercial software has been targeting Linux almost since it came on the scene, simply because it made eval easier. Ubuntu distributes lots of nonfree stuff. If you count the enterprise (and perhaps depending on how you count that), I think it's possible more commercial software runs on Linux than on any other operating system.

But I can certainly agree there just isn't very much good commercial Linux desktop software. Do you think it's possible perhaps too many Linux desktop users consider price to be the biggest reason they use Linux (or assume, reading comments like that online that most users anyway) and so there just isn't any money to be had?

[themodelplumber]

If this is true you should really get those users to give you objective evidence that 1) they exist and 2) they feel this urgent about it then, at the very least

Edit: Probably not in the form of HN search results though? Lol come on, a bit of a quality issue there if we're going for objectivity.

GIMP devs have been hammered by highly subjective UX & feature critics for decades now. They are humans and know they'd be doing work on behalf of people who seem complainy, persistent, and lacking perspective compared to their own priority view. So, software Karens? :-) Where's the carrot? How is this issue supposed to turn out well for anyone involved?

If it's really objective and a big deal and not just subjective annoyance compounded by years of boundaries set in your path, show the proof and be convincing about it. And this may seem a stretch but I think it can be done gently if you will it.

[TooCreative]

    get those users to give you objective
    evidence that they exist

Here are a few hundred:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Here are a few hundred thousand:

https://www.google.com/search?q=gimp+%22non-destructive%22