[F3nd0]

> Anyone who works in a primarily English-spekaing country knows what it's like to try to use GIMP at work, especially in K-12.

Over the many times this topic was brought up here, plenty of people from English-speaking countries have said that no, they’ve never had a problem with it.

Yes, some people did have a problem with it. It's a valid point to bring up. But that does not mean their experience must have been shared by literally everyone else, or even the majority of people in similar circumstances.

[lynndotpy]

That's fair, it's likely not _everybody_ would have a problem. But _enough_ people would. There are contexts where I've had no problems (e.g. in an office where every cubicle had at least one Linux machine, plenty of people had already heard of GIMP).

I think if GIMP had a different name, it would have had less friction in its adoption (or a higher "R-number"), Adobe would be less extractive (for having viable FOSS to compete with), and GIMP would have had more investment (in terms of money and dev hours). I'm certainly happy GIMP isn't completely abandoned, at the very least.

[jrm4]

But what it DOES mean is -- okay, is it really worth it to KEEP it, or might you be able to get adoption, fans, traction, possibly more developers etc. etc. if you were to change it?

What is the strong motivation behind keeping the name and was it valid?

(No. The answer is no, it was not. There's no real good reason to keep it compared to the potential upsides.)

[F3nd0]

I would have answered differently, but I guess you were asking yourself…?