- cross-posted to:
- freesoftware@lemmy.zip
- foss@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- freesoftware@lemmy.zip
- foss@beehaw.org
GIMP 3.0 has been more than one decade in the making as the port from GTK2 to GTK3, also transitioning away from Python 2 to Python 3 support, and a wealth of other improvements from the UI to lower down into enhancing this open-source Photoshop alternative.
The GIMP project announced on X/Twitter today that they have entered the string freeze for this much anticipated release.
I know people like it, but I agree.
And as silly as it sounds, I think the name is a big part of why businesses haven’t ever wanted to touch the project or invest in it.
Imagine telling your average upper management guy or board member that you want your workers to use software called gimp. They’re probably not gonna want to hear you out.
Anecdotally I know of a local NHS practice that refused to use GIMP, and was even sceptical of other subsequent suggestions of other FOSS due to the terrible impression they got from the GIMP name during a pitch to use more FOSS.
I get it’s their identity, their project. Nobody has the right to dictate the name but them. But it’s also fair to point out that they probably shot themselves in the foot by giving their software a juvenile and weirdly fetishy name.
Why doesn’t someone just fork it and change the name?
Like, I dunno, “Super Human Image Treatment” or “Consistently Lovely Image Treatment Oriented for Real Imaging Stars”
Actually, someone did, changing the name to “Glimpse”. They announced it as an explicit fork that would continue development under the new name.
As far as I know, that’s as far as they got.
To be fair, if the fork sole purpose is to just re-label the software and make people that have irks because of the name start to use the software, who are we to judge?
People use Photoshop, but there is no shop and any photo in it at all (at least not when I was usin it, maybe they built in microtransactions already)
Shop as in workshop, presumably.
I don’t think that’s quite equivalent to having your name be gimp, which means, depending on definition, a fetishist in a full body latex suit who generally wants to be degraded or injured for sexual satisfaction, or a slur term for the severely disabled.
Eh, we can argue about language all we want but at the end of the day if it is still the same code just with a different branding, someone will be bound to automate the process eventually. It’s FOSS, if someone is willing to put in the works to enable people who think the brand name is a hindrance for their change then more power for them no? We even change master/slave terminology in CS and many other field for the same reason (linguistic)
Uh huh. Yet somehow the NHS has no issue plastering its name next to Virgin.
Businesses around the world, who have no idea what a few people use the term gimp to mean, are no different. The name makes no difference to them. To most people around the world, gimp means that photo editor.
A few people? It’s a widely known term.
Lmao no it doesn’t. Almost nobody knows about this project. People know Photoshop.
People speak many different languages around the world. Gimp doesn’t have a bad connotation outside small and sad group of people. A subset of English speakers only. People like that should not dictate what the rest of us, outside their bubble, do.
Since it is FOSS, couldn’t they just take the source code and just re-compile it with different naming? Like how Debian did with Iceweasel naming and branding, though I know in their case it wasn’t due to not liking the Firefox name/branding.
Been tried, already died.
“Glimpse”