Beyond it not being FOSS and requiring an Internet connection, ads are beyond a dealbreaker for me. I’d recommend the cost and effort of manually compositing with transparent film, lightbox, and cameras over anything with ads.
Yeah, the dev has a right to make a living but there are better ways than contributing to the rot of the Internet and inserting vectors for malware into your software.
Oh no! Not a means for a sole developer of a robust, web-based photo editor to make some sort of a living.
The fucking travesty of it all.
Listen, it sucks that it’s not open source and that it is now ad-sponsored but the fact remains that there are shockingly poor FOSS alternatives to creative tools (blender is probably one of the few exceptions) and gimp is firmly in that ‘shockingly poor’ category.
It’s okay to be critical of an open source project and use something that may be proprietary. The world isn’t going to blow up because of it.
So you’d rather have ADs in place of a Layers panel?
For those who can't read between the lines
The fact that it has ADs, is also considered as one of the factors deciding its quality.
And so is the fact that it can’t be run when the internet connectivity is slow/non-existent.
Not considering those features as factors while judging the application just gives incentive to everyone else (including the prepaid ones) to include ADs in their UX.
If this is how we promote them, soon, you’ll be seeing ADs (on top of the Subscription fees) in Adobe software.
- Hard to believe? Look at Windows.
https://www.photopea.com/
No one should have to suffer through gimp.
So you’d rather have ADs in place of a Layers panel?
Ublock doesn’t fully work but there are extensions to block ads on Photopea.
I’m just going to put this here, since it feels like a good continuation.
Between ads and gimp, I choose ads.
Beyond it not being FOSS and requiring an Internet connection, ads are beyond a dealbreaker for me. I’d recommend the cost and effort of manually compositing with transparent film, lightbox, and cameras over anything with ads.
Yeah, the dev has a right to make a living but there are better ways than contributing to the rot of the Internet and inserting vectors for malware into your software.
It’s better to choose knowingly rather than unknowingly, so… nice.
What’s wrong with GIMP? I used photoshop before, but GIMP pretty comfortable for me.
Oh no! Not a means for a sole developer of a robust, web-based photo editor to make some sort of a living.
The fucking travesty of it all.
Listen, it sucks that it’s not open source and that it is now ad-sponsored but the fact remains that there are shockingly poor FOSS alternatives to creative tools (blender is probably one of the few exceptions) and gimp is firmly in that ‘shockingly poor’ category.
It’s okay to be critical of an open source project and use something that may be proprietary. The world isn’t going to blow up because of it.
So you’d rather have ADs in place of a Layers panel?
For those who can't read between the lines
The fact that it has ADs, is also considered as one of the factors deciding its quality.
And so is the fact that it can’t be run when the internet connectivity is slow/non-existent.
Not considering those features as factors while judging the application just gives incentive to everyone else (including the prepaid ones) to include ADs in their UX.
If this is how we promote them, soon, you’ll be seeing ADs (on top of the Subscription fees) in Adobe software.
- Hard to believe? Look at Windows.