[dsego]

I share the sentiment, a lot of open source alternatives can't decide whether they want to be a replacement, a professional tool, a beginner user-friendly tool or just a playground for software devs. GIMP is awkwardly in the middle and has been stuck for a long time, it never met expectations, but became the default answer to any questions involving photoshop alternatives.

[cmyk_student]

I think the challenge is that there are so many expectations. From reading and responding to issue reports, it seems like a group of people expect us to be Photoshop and another group expects us to be MS Paint - and making one group happy (non-destructive editing, for instance) annoys the other group. :)

GIMP is meets a lot of people's needs though (though we can always do that better). I'm in the process of transcribing interviews by GIMP's maintainer from professional artists who use GIMP and other free/libre software in their workflows, and it's really interesting to see what they're able to do.

[swiftcoder]

> it seems like a group of people expect us to be Photoshop and another group expects us to be MS Paint - and making one group happy (non-destructive editing, for instance) annoys the other group

This feels like it would behoove the project to pick a lane and tell the users which one of these it is supposed to be. You have a worse experience for all by trying to keep both camps happy, and also ceding one of these verticals would open up mindshare for another open-source project to step in and cover that instead

[cmyk_student]

We do - we state exactly what GIMP is and what we aim for. That doesn't stop people from having their own conceptions.

The "more like MS Paint" group tends to be longtime users who often prefer the destructive editing approach of GIMP 2. We try to respect people who currently use the software, while also trying to implement new features as intended on the roadmap.

Given the number of great open source art programs today, I don't think we're keeping anyone from doing anything. :)

[swiftcoder]

> We do - we state exactly what GIMP is and what we aim for

Respectfully, I just re-read the gimp.org homepage, about page, and FAQ. The only relevant passage I found is the FAQ where it states that GIMP is not trying to be a photoshop replacement (but that people regularly misinterpret it as such).

[cmyk_student]

The first section after the recent news on the home pages says "High Quality Photo Manipulation: GIMP provides the tools needed for high quality image manipulation. From retouching to restoring to creative composites, the only limit is your imagination."

That seems clear enough to me about our focus, though one thing I've learned since I've started contributing is that whatever you think is clear enough, probably isn't! (Hopefully that doesn't come across as sarcastic - I mean it sincerely. I've helped out with writing news posts and been amazed at seeing how people interpret sections I thought were perfectly clear. It's been a learning experience!)