Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2024 11:59:11 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <20241226115911.00000558@gmail.com>
References: <vkjmdg$30kff$1@dont-email.me>
	<1814c96a2531ed89$71164$2566989$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
	<20241226105710.000038df@gmail.com>
	<1814d0bcbc9ec299$70911$364562$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2024 20:59:16 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="575bb90967cb82d316a838c77e6140d7";
	logging-data="3207194"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18pLId9jV6wNSwl4n8JPKoK+K2CzsvHdtQ="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FjXxymez1IIKq/lkiafRsdW1q2Q=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 3920

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 19:27:45 +0000
Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> wrote:

> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!  You were a farce since the day you
> were born.

Never claimed otherwise!

> All image editors, like all word processors, spreadsheets,
> and accounting software, etc., are EXACTLY the same.  They all
> do the same fucking thing and none of them can stake a claim
> on having the definitive GUI.
> 
> But idiots like you, will always be duped.

I'm not even stating that as a criticism; there's nothing wrong with
copying what works, and in fairness even Photoshop has a clear lineage
back to MacPaint. But pretending that there's no imitation going on,
when GIMP started out looking like one version of Photoshop, and its
big "facelift" revision served to make it look like the newer versions
of Photoshop, is just silly.

> > The biggest difference is that Photoshop's workflow
> > and UX choices are generally well thought-out and helpful, while
> > GIMP's are clunky and awkward.
> 
> Only to a mental asshole like you.

Clearly, I am dealing with a master of rhetoric.

(I could write an essay on how slackass GIMP's UI design is - I have,
elsewhere, and if you'd like I can go and dig it up - but I think a
single example will suffice to illustrate the general point: the GIMP
team have *no* idea what the point of keyboard accelerators is. They
*have* accelerators, but they frequently assign the same letter to
multiple elements in a single menu/window, so that instead of being
able to quickly navigate through the most commonly-used paths by muscle
memory - as you can in Photoshop and other well-designed professional
software suites - you have to sit there hitting the same key multiple
times until you can visually confirm that the focus has cycled to the
option you want, at which point you might as well have just used the
mouse.)

> True artists, and their cerebral programming side, envision
> in their minds the concepts first and the GUIs much, much later,
> if at all.

I mean, it's certainly true that form ought to follow function, and
that *working well* is more important than being slick. But good
functionality and good UI design are *not* mutually exclusive, and
treating UI design as if it's a "later, if at all" consideration is a
good way to produce software that is intuitive only to its developer(s).

> My advice to you is simple:
> 
> Keep out of professional territory.  You will remain a cheap
> dilettante until your dying day.

I shall treat this golden wisdom with the reverence it deserves. Thank
you, O great sage, for blessing me with the insights of your mighty
brain.

> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

*Master* of rhetoric.