Introduction After a year of work since the first version of GIMP 3.0, we’re proud to release GIMP 3.2! In addition to our main roadmap items of “non-destructive layers”, this release is packed with all sorts of new features, UX/UI refinements, and stability improvements. Non-destructive Layers …
I’m sure the mainstream doesn’t care or even know what problems a subset of people have. I am not saying it is not a problem for those who have, but don’t pretend as if the name is an issue in widespread adoption. In fact, changing the name would only lead to a little adoption, but split the user base and make it even more confusing. Lot of people wouldn’t want to use the old name or the new fork, because everywhere and every article talks about how bad the name was. Therefore many people would just distance themselves from the project, without really understanding the issue or even caring.
Let alone all the references in history, web and tutorials on YouTube which is only written for name “GIMP”. Changing the name of the main project would be a terrible idea. However I propose anyone who have a problem with it to simply fork it, and do a name and brand change. Without much other work, so it is not far behind to original project. This way people having a problem could just use that instead and everyone is happy.
They had way too much ambition, which was beyond name and brand change. They had or planned changes in functionality and features as well. What I suggest is, a simple name and brand change. They just need to create a patch that is always patching after a new version of GIMP, without further ambition.
I’m an old buzzard and walk with a limp so I’m certainly a gimp… and don’t mind being called a gimp… or an old buzzard… even both at the same time… (and using ‘…’ is a privelege of being “Old & In The Way” [band name, album & song title 1975…]…)…
I’m sure the mainstream doesn’t care or even know what problems a subset of people have. I am not saying it is not a problem for those who have, but don’t pretend as if the name is an issue in widespread adoption. In fact, changing the name would only lead to a little adoption, but split the user base and make it even more confusing. Lot of people wouldn’t want to use the old name or the new fork, because everywhere and every article talks about how bad the name was. Therefore many people would just distance themselves from the project, without really understanding the issue or even caring.
Let alone all the references in history, web and tutorials on YouTube which is only written for name “GIMP”. Changing the name of the main project would be a terrible idea. However I propose anyone who have a problem with it to simply fork it, and do a name and brand change. Without much other work, so it is not far behind to original project. This way people having a problem could just use that instead and everyone is happy.
Yeah, there was that “Glimpse” fork with a mission to primarily change the name annnnd…it was quite short lived.
They had way too much ambition, which was beyond name and brand change. They had or planned changes in functionality and features as well. What I suggest is, a simple name and brand change. They just need to create a patch that is always patching after a new version of GIMP, without further ambition.
I’m an old buzzard and walk with a limp so I’m certainly a gimp… and don’t mind being called a gimp… or an old buzzard… even both at the same time… (and using ‘…’ is a privelege of being “Old & In The Way” [band name, album & song title 1975…]…)…
deleted by creator