Was that before or after the drama a couple years ago when they updated their TOS to say they can use your art/images to train their AI and you had to accept those new terms in order to keep using (or even uninstall) their software?
You can bet your ass there's a cool billion being shuffled to top lawyers around the country to think of new up protections for this shit. And it'll no doubt end up further restricting the concept of ownership.
That's what I'm thinking. It lacks a lot of the right-click menus so far, these functions are probably hidden in other menus, but this will change over time and then be a perfectly fine alternative to Gimp, Krita and the likes. (I never got into the GUI of Gimp, although I respect it also for its longevity.)
It was funny seeing posts about how they made a 1-to-1 copy of photoshop and it's identical and it was clear the people had never used photoshop. I installed it and took me under a minute of just random clicking around to see it was nowhere near and I could not use it for anything real. So many things missing or broken.
It would be nice if it became an actual usable program, but I won't hold my breath.
I've used both heavily over the last decade. Photoshop is easier out of the box, gimp is free. If you are not as tech-savvy, you might get away with Photoshop, but gimps interface is not as intuitive, and features are harder to find.
There's an inherent problem with that. And it's that you need to be tech Savvy to install a plug in so you wouldn't have that problem if you knew how to do that.
I used Photoshop and Creative Suite for many years, and every time I've switched to GIMP has been very painful. Everything takes about 3 times longer for me to do and several more clicks, if the feature is even available.
Making an alternate GIMP UI that makes it look like Photoshop is dramatically easier than making a Photoshop clone, but somehow that has never taken off.
yeah, props for being honest.
the problem with gimp is not that it lacks capabilities, its how theyre implemented and that they are hidden between the most steaming pile of hot garbage of an UX expierience possible. and that hasnt changed in 20years.
i cant count how often i've heard "just use gimp" by a dev as a graphic designer and it makes me quite rabid...
I wanted to make memes with it back when the popular style was Impact font with a white fill and black stroke. To this day, GIMP achieves that effect using layers and paths that have to be redone every time you change anything. XnView MP is a glorified photo gallery and even that has text stroke. Hell, I'd rather do it in FFmpeg via styled subtitles than in GIMP.
This is blatantly false. I've followed photoshop tutorials using GIMP. Never have I wanted for a tool. Only have I struggled with finding it by another name, or the features of one thing in different places.
Thank you. I never understood the Gimp GUI. It's gotten better over the years and I respect that, but boy I tried and then tried Krita and others. This one felt like home. I'm excited to see it grow.
24
u/FineWolfpacman -S privacy security user-control1d agoedited 1d ago
GIMP is terrible. It's been decades and they still outright refuse to implement or accept PRs that implement a vector shape tool/layers.
It's a GNOME sponsored project marred by GNOME-esque terrible decisions.
Photopea or even Affinity under Wine are better options.
Photopea in browser is actually great as well. I've heard there's a GIMP plugin (? I can't think of the word -- migraine) that changes it to look more like Photoshop.
You have no understanding of the situation, not only gimp is an actual gimp in photoeditor race, it has a different ui (and that is a dealbreaker for many, however small that may seem)
Assumptions also with "keeps up the pace" and "gets 'real devs' on the project."
AKA "assuming the progression is linear" (so many people do this with LLMs; it is not and never will be a guarantee) and "as soon as not-LLM-only code is in there" (which is a massive leap to "make it actually work like the product, not just look like it).
That’s the Crux of it. It’s a clean room implementation. So there is no code that has been copied. Only the functionality, and you can ‘t copyright the function of something “like clicking this button does this”
Depending on how copyright holds out the fallout will be interesting.
That is like someone copyrighting the ability to submit a file via a “submit button”. No one can say “you copied me” for having a submit button or as another example. GIMP can be made to look and act like photoshop and not have it be a copyright issue.
That is why it is legally speaking it will be interesting. Because on paper they essentially recreated photoshop using publicly available photos images and videos and made a unique implementation of the features in rust using AI.
So depending on if there is a legal battle the outcome will be very interesting.
That is like someone copyrighting the ability to submit a file via a “submit button”
You can't copyright something as generic as that. You can't just copyright anything and everything. Companies will try to copyright somethign as broad as possible, but the copyright office will push back and try and make it as specific as possible.
824
u/inactivesky1738 :CachyOS: 9700x: RX 9070 XT 1d ago
Ngl I think if it keeps up its pace and gets a handful and real devs on the project.
And assuming no legal troubles I could see it being accomplished feature complete given a year or maybe 2