[pessimizer]

It's just Photoshop addicts needing the UI to be identical to Photoshop because when they use GIMP their muscle memory is broken.

To be fair, though, all industry professionals are forced to be Photoshop addicts. But Photoshop's UI is objectively awful; it's the 10,000 hours you spent in it that makes it seem sane. You could have learned Thai in 10,000 hours, too.

The real weaknesses in GIMP have been in its lack of some necessary functionality, especially some that is necessary for print. The great thing about being GPL is that when the stuff is eventually added, you own it forever.

[cameronh90]

Photoshop's UX is poor, but everyone is used to it. GIMP's UX is even worse, and nobody is used to it. And based on those screenshots in the article, it has, if anything, got even weirder and less intuitive.

I'd probably try and power through if there was even close to feature parity, but it's only just now catching up with where Photoshop was in 1994.

[KaiserPro]

Gimp's UX was ok in 0.9, same with photoshop.

GIMP was meant to be a drop in replacement for early photoshop, so it makes sense that it follows that UX idea.

[inferiorhuman]

  It's just Photoshop addicts needing the UI to be identical to
  Photoshop because when they use GIMP their muscle memory is
  broken.

Nah. Sometimes I just want to edit something without having to do the export song and dance.