No, it has special source, because it 1) was literally the first practical photo editing software for home computers 2) has been in continuous development since 1987 and 3) is clearly designed for artists, not programmers. It’s not just how long the development has been, but also how much resources have been poured into it compared to open source and other competitors - and to what end. Gimp may only be just nine years younger, but it’s clearly (just look at its insane user interface) typical of an issue that is very widespread among open source projects: It’s developed by programmers for programmers, with little regard for non-technical users and actual workflows.
Not all open source software suffers from this, but a ton does. It’s frustrating any time I’m trying to get people to e.g. switch to Linux and other open source software; they often run into a wall of poor usability. This is the main thing that prevents mass adoption of the Linux desktop. The fact of the matter is, most developers of open source software are highly technical people who are developing this software for themselves and other highly technical people. This might be fine for you and I, but it won’t win over the better washed masses.
Sometimes it’s usability walls, but sometimes a user just so adjusted to the poor usability of the market leaders, and struggles to work with a more sane UI.
Photoshop is perhaps the most complex piece of software you can teach yourself without relying on any external resources. It’s the opposite of poor usability and this was even the case decades ago.
Gimp and the Linux desktop experience are not more sane UIs compared to Photoshop and Windows. Both have issues, but usability is not among them.
I was talking in principle, more than in the specifics.
And I am very willing to believe you with respect to Photoshop, as I have never used it (I have occasionally tried, and failed, to use GIMP). My graphical needs have always been better served by vector graphics e.g. Inkscape.
I have used Windows extensively (and still have to from time to time), and it’s usability is at least as bad that of a (sane) Linux distro (OK, not Gentoo). It’s just it’s usually bad in different ways. Windows is exactly the case where it’s about getting used to the badness, rather than about it being superior.
Accessibility, on the other hand? That’s still better on Windows.
No, it has special source, because it 1) was literally the first practical photo editing software for home computers 2) has been in continuous development since 1987 and 3) is clearly designed for artists, not programmers. It’s not just how long the development has been, but also how much resources have been poured into it compared to open source and other competitors - and to what end. Gimp may only be just nine years younger, but it’s clearly (just look at its insane user interface) typical of an issue that is very widespread among open source projects: It’s developed by programmers for programmers, with little regard for non-technical users and actual workflows.
Not all open source software suffers from this, but a ton does. It’s frustrating any time I’m trying to get people to e.g. switch to Linux and other open source software; they often run into a wall of poor usability. This is the main thing that prevents mass adoption of the Linux desktop. The fact of the matter is, most developers of open source software are highly technical people who are developing this software for themselves and other highly technical people. This might be fine for you and I, but it won’t win over the better washed masses.
Sometimes it’s usability walls, but sometimes a user just so adjusted to the poor usability of the market leaders, and struggles to work with a more sane UI.
Photoshop is perhaps the most complex piece of software you can teach yourself without relying on any external resources. It’s the opposite of poor usability and this was even the case decades ago.
Gimp and the Linux desktop experience are not more sane UIs compared to Photoshop and Windows. Both have issues, but usability is not among them.
I was talking in principle, more than in the specifics.
And I am very willing to believe you with respect to Photoshop, as I have never used it (I have occasionally tried, and failed, to use GIMP). My graphical needs have always been better served by vector graphics e.g. Inkscape.
I have used Windows extensively (and still have to from time to time), and it’s usability is at least as bad that of a (sane) Linux distro (OK, not Gentoo). It’s just it’s usually bad in different ways. Windows is exactly the case where it’s about getting used to the badness, rather than about it being superior.
Accessibility, on the other hand? That’s still better on Windows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition