this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
917 points (95.4% liked)
linuxmemes
21222 readers
112 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wait, so are people going to claim that the start-up speed is the problem with GIMP on Windows and not the god awful UI? This is the problem with the Linux crowd. You guys write software to write software and not because you are a user of that software. A clunky UI - which is far, far too common on open source applications - will cost someone a heck of a lot more than a few seconds in getting work done.
There's alot of irritation and bad general assumptions here lol. Krita, vlc, firefox, kdenlive etc exist and are amazing.
Gimp's ui is pretty bad though imo, even if it's good enough. I'd pirate and use photoshop as it is now if I could.
Is it a bad UI? Or is it a case of "I know where this thing is in Photoshop. Why isn't it in the same place in GIMP?"
It's a god awful UI. Throw Blender into that mix as well.
Yeah, Blender UI is so terrible, that people were asking to make separate library, so Blender's UI could be used by other projects. SARCASM.
I find the recent versions of Blender to be much more approachable. Have you tried it?
I have heard some good things about newer versions of Blender, but I haven't had the project to give me a chance to try it out yet. But the original UI of Blender were soooo bad that my expectations are not super high. Blender is a piece of software that makes me especially sad because it is indeed a VERY powerful piece of software, and I despise Autodesk so much (who has a monopolyu in that industry) that I would LOVE to see Blender be more friendly.
It's an awful UI. Last time I tried to use it, it took a while to find where the layers menu was. I don't think I found how to make a brightness / contrast layer before I gave up and booted back to Windows and Photoshop.
wait people are supposed to use GIMP I think it was for that special level of hell for graphic designers
Apparently it depends on who you ask in here.... some think that people should just use it and be grateful for having it because it's free! Others claim that it was never aimed at being a useful tool - mission accomplished, I guess! Congrats? Others think it's a perfectly fine piece of software because they've never edited photos for a living or done any graphic design work but it checks off feature boxes, so it must be good.
This is all so indicative of the whole open source software community. Arrogant developers who think that just because they wrote a piece of code, the public should lavish them with praise regardless of how useless that software should be. I did a thing, so honor me!1!!
What fixes would you apply to GIMP's UI to make it better and more convenient to use?
Follow industry "standards" that have existed for literally 3 decades.
And yes, when a piece of software dominates it's particular industry as much as Photoshop does, it is considered a standard.
And to be clear, GIMP is just one of many such pieces of software that quite frankly are awful from a users perspective. Some will claim that "oh well it's simply because it's new software" but it's far, far more than that and it shows a complete disconnect between those who write the software and those who use the software.
I find it curious that a way better alternative to GIMP is the browser-based Photopea which is partially open source. It doesn't have the speed for heavy work because it runs in your browser, but because it mirrora Photoshop, it's workflow is far more natural to someone who edits photos for a living. Doing a quick search it looks like a single person worked on Photopea, while almost 100 people over many more years have been working on GIMP. One is typical open source software - a bunch of people trying to learn a bit of programming, trying to flex their skills but clearly not actual graphic artist.
I tried to use GIMP when my PS sub ran out and I NEEDED to get some pics edited. Good GOD it took me way too long to get used to the workspace. Workflow was cut ion half, I guess that's a thing with any new program but it took me like maybe a minute to figure out Darktable when I switched from LR.
I totally hear you. This is what far too many of these open source projects don't get. Software needs to be usable. Fast code means squat if you are a user and you are pulling your hair out because the software forces you to work a way that is not intuitive.
The developers of free software will never beg you to use their software, that's what companies with commercial software do.
They surely try to appeal to a certain userbase so they also ask for feedback, bug reports, testing and also contributions, translations because they aren't working for you, they are working with you. Your phrases sound kind of entitled, like there's someone that ows you better software, but there's no one to complain to except to those who tell you that GIMP/any software is totally fine for everyone without knowing your specific use case. Developers of free software are anyone with any skillset who will try their best, but it doesn't mean they're masters, people who code to flex will probably be found at code golfing competitions instead
Stop claiming that you have some piece of software that is "just as good as" Photoshop then. Stop acting like you have any software, quite frankly because GIMP, like sooo many other open source programs, are just "tech demos". Some programmer wanted to flex his coding skills and out popped a piece of software that might be 11.5% faster than a commercial program, but is too clunky to use. This whole argument shows why Linux will always lose in the OS world because far too many of those who use it, and even more who develop for it just don't get that at the end of the day people use computers to get work done, not to fiddle with this or fiddle with that. We aren't here to praise the coding gods because you could accomplish some task. We need to edit a photo or color correct a video. We want to model something to 3D print or engineer a part that will be machined. Actual tasks that regular users do.
I really don't understand why you're so damn salty, I did not claim that "it is just as good" at all, did you even read? I just told you to stop listening to those that tell you that without knowing what you do. And why do you keep insisting that every developer of free software is out there to show off their higher performance solutions, when it very clearly isn't their only goal (and in this case I never heard anyone bragging that GIMP is so stupidly fast that it completely outclasses Photoshop), most times it's actually an afterthought, to go back and improve the performance because after making something you realize with your own and the users' testing, that some processes take too long.
Yes, it's a common complaint that it doesn't use GTK 4 yet, it's still on GTK 2.
Thank you for mentioning and subsequently introducing this to me. Definitely a nice modification of GIMP. I'm used to GIMP's interface from years of use, but this is simply much more intuitive.
It's a problem you have since your OS pretends that Software (or a Computer in general) isn't complex.
Linux crowds use *NIX principles that are >50 years old and didn't change a lot, because they work. Not because some software devs circlejerk or want to annoy you.
This is the most Linux-ist answer ever.
I'm talking from a users perspective. I don't give a flying fuck about whatever development technologies you are taking about because ultimately I don't care. The vast majority of people don't know - or care - how their car works. They just know it has to start. That's how you folks lose the battle. You wrote code because you want to practice your skills or learn some new techniques or just because your bored. That's great. That's fine. But you're not asking people that USE that software HOW it's used. Next to zero effort is put into workflow. Your code might be fast. It might be bug free. Congrats, but if it takes 10 clicks to accomplish something that other software can do in 2, then that's a problem. If the workflow is totally disjointed and not how a graphic designer actually works, then what good is that 2.735% more efficient code going to do for them?
The fact that my post was about UI and workflow and youre talking about Unix principlea speaks volumes to why open source software tends to be so bad from a users perspective.
no, you're talking from a patreon perspective. You have no clue of the subject and you simply demand people serving stuff the way you think is best. Also you don't care why things are the way they are.
Basically a Karen User.
Exactly. The vast majority buys a $50.000 car and only use 2% of it's features. And if the manufacturer starts to charge for a feature you like or decides to spy on you, there's nothing you can do about it.
What part of this don't you understand?
I KNOW I'm not talking like a developer. I'm not one. I'm a fucken user. That's the point. The point that so many piece of open source software completely miss.
And you just did it again.
I don't care if there is a little gerbil in a wheel spinning inside my machine. I don't care if it is a nuclear reactor making it go. To the user, that's is immaterial and you are missing that point.
As a user I don't care HOW a piece of software is made. I care that it works and I can get my work done. There is a workflow to most jobs. You do this before you do that. You click on this tool 10x as often as this other one. Few open source programs bother to understand that all important work flow because usually the people writing the code aren't the people who ultimately use the code.
I can say it again and again and again and I just know I haven't gotten through to you.
I understand all of it. I just point out your dilemma. Your whining will get you nowhere.
You're a user not willing to read manuals completely but expect stuff to work at your fingertips. You'll get older and as stuff keeps changing, you'll find it harder and harder to catch on. You'll spend a shitload of money to people promising the ease of good old patterns you are used to but you just can't keep up with folks using more efficient techniques.
And well, FOSS just doesn't seem to be your thing. Obviously, you need to unload your frustration on some service hotline worker... or random people online.
Why should open source software demand that a user "read manuals completely" and yet other software doesn't require that? Are the people who program open source software that talentless that they don't even know how a user of their own software uses it? That's a FAILURE of the developer. Time is money, and if it takes for me to purchase a piece of commercial software to get the kind of talent to write software which makes me a more efficient worker, then hell yeah most people will be willing to do just that. But then let's please stop pretending that Linux and most open software is a viable alternative. It's not. It's mostly just a "tech demo". The arrogance of the Linux community is pretty hilarious.
The Unix principles generally don't translate well to interactive graphical interfaces.
Which principle exactly? Early motif UIs still are in use in a lot of nieche applications.
Not saying UI design is easy or FOSS apps shine with excellent GUIs, but they work for their users and complaining doesn't help.
My point is: Either improve the UI or pay someone to improve it. Or at least make a suggestion to the devs but don't blame linux people for not providing a free product perfectly adapted to your personal habits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy
I assumed this is what you were referring to.
I was talking about all *nix-typical principles. e.g. that everything should integrate into batched jobs. Modularity. Human readable error messages. Transparent logging. Integrated software repositories & version control, man pages. file permissions & user groups. etc.
Stuff that seems strange and unnecessary complex for new users, who don't know how to use stuff.
So, what are you going to do about it ? Contribute ? Learn the ins and outs of gimp, and propose some UI changes ? And if you don't have time to do that, who does / who cares enough for that ? People who code stuff like GIMP generally don't really care for UI, or have the time. They're volunteers, passionate people. Not designers.
That's also a broad generlization. Firefox has bad UI/UX ? (Sometimes yeah on some niche things but I wholeheartedly believe google is at fault somehow) What about Krita ? Blender has been doing UI work last I heard of it, so that's also that. Paint.net was also open source. Chromium has bad UI ? Android ? Vs Code ? GNOME ? KDE ? Element ? Jitsi ? Signal ? Wordpress ?
Yeah, gimp sucks. And the type of people who are "linux elitists", that tell you you suck for not enjoying bad UI, also suck. But why not make a meaningful change to the world ? Try to hope for a world where GIMP is actually usable ?
If all you want to do it text your programming muscles, then do so. But don't claim you've developing a useable piece of software. I mentioned this to someone already... A far better alternative is Photopea. It's browser based and is partially open source. While GIMP has almost 100 people tied to the project, Photopea was written by ONE guy. And it's great. Again, within the limitations of what browser-based software can offer. But it mirrors Photoshop as closely as possible and is a joy to use as long as the project doesn't get too heavy (because again, it runs in your browser). So since clearly GIMP wasn't written by people who give a shit about the end product as a real usable tool, then maybe the Linux community should stop proclaiming that it's a real usable tool whenever someone asks "ok, but what kind of software can I use on it?".
You sidestepped the topic of "open source apps have bad UI/UX by default", that's just not true. I agree that GIMP has pretty bad UX, there's no questioning it, it also has a long history and that means technical debt when devs don't work on it very consistently, the Photopea dev got to start anew so they could skip working on old code. I think we also underestimate that the widespread availability of clear UI and UX guidelines in recent years that came with the emergence of new platforms like Material for Android initially and then all other platforms subsequently, helps a lot in shaping how non-designers can imagine the layout of their software.
The project is also important to their livelihood (since it is commercial) so the dev will put all their effort into making it better.
This is meant more as an explanation rather than an excuse of course, but it's also to say that yeah, maybe if one of us wanted they could make the next cross platform Photoshop, but they need the skill, the time and the incentive to work on it. Plenty of free software manages to have a good interface even without being commercial, but when the type of things they try to achieve is a very big undertaking you can see that most glaring examples have the money going in it (Blender), others survive on being simpler, being born later, having more dedicated developers that maybe get to work on a new exciting/pleasant language etc.
There are certainly exceptions to the rule, but you really do notice it. Another interesting example is Thunderbird that for so long has remained stagnant with its aging UI/UX rules (some might think they were always better, I guess that's up for debate) and now after painstaking work to modernize the code they were successful in also modernizing the interface quite a bit.