GIMP 2.99.18: The last development preview before 3.0
GIMP’s final development preview before the long-awaited 3.0 release has reignited debate over its user experience, particularly quirks like layer boundaries and the absence of simple, discoverable tools for common tasks. Commenters praise the project’s longevity and new features such as early non-destructive editing, but argue that decades of technical debt, limited funding, and reluctance to mimic Photoshop’s conventions have left it lagging behind rivals like Krita, Pixelmator, and Photopea. Others counter that, as a largely volunteer-driven GNU project, GIMP can only evolve as fast as its contributors and sponsors allow, and should be judged as a free alternative rather than a full commercial competitor.
Layer boundaries and UX friction
- The new “Expand Layers” option reignites long‑standing criticism of GIMP’s explicit layer boundaries.
- Many argue boundaries should be invisible/automatic, like in other editors, because painting “does nothing” outside a layer’s bounds is baffling and forces constant “Layer to image size” operations.
- Others defend explicit boundaries as conceptually clear (like transparent slides) and useful for layers larger/smaller than the canvas.
- Proposed compromises: auto‑expanding boundaries by default; defaulting layer bounds to image or content size; or hiding “bounded layers” as an advanced/Frame-like feature.
- Some note that removing boundaries is technically hard due to deep assumptions in the code and edge cases (layers larger than canvas, filters like noise, blend modes without a rect).
General UX, discoverability, and workflow
- Many see GIMP’s UX as idiosyncratic and “deliberately obtuse” compared to other image editors.
- Recurrent example: drawing a simple outlined circle requires an indirect workflow (ellipse select → stroke selection), and text‑along‑path is similarly multi‑step and non‑editable.
- Lack of easily adjustable vector/shape layers (lines, boxes, circles, text) is a major pain point for some.
- Others report being productive and happy with GIMP, suggesting expectations from other tools amplify frustration.
- Some call for a “Photoshop compatibility mode” (hotkeys, behavior) or outright mimicking established UI conventions to leverage existing tutorials and muscle memory.
Non‑destructive editing and feature “lateness”
- The announcement of non‑destructive editing is welcomed but also mocked as arriving decades after Photoshop’s adjustment layers.
- One view: GIMP historically chased “perfect” architectures (e.g., complex NDE) instead of shipping “good enough” features earlier, losing mindshare and tutorial ecosystems.
- A developer response notes that even partial NDE (GEGL‑based color tools, layer effects) already improves workflows and may pave the way to adjustment layers in 3.x.
Funding, governance, and project trajectory
- Multiple comments stress GIMP’s tiny volunteer team and lack of full‑time developers, contrasting it with Krita (which funds several devs) and commercial tools.
- Some say GIMP is “critically underfunded”; others claim it actually has enough money but has been slow to organize a nonprofit and spend it.
- Debate over GNU/FSF: GIMP is (or was) a GNU project, but FSF mainly does advocacy, not funding development; ideological reluctance to corporate funding is cited.
- Blender, KiCad, FreeCAD, MuseScore are cited as examples where focused funding and UX overhauls transformed similarly old, awkward projects into serious professional options.
Attitudes, expectations, and alternatives
- Some see harsh UX criticism as open‑source entitlement and remind that contributors owe users nothing.
- Others argue dismissing usability complaints as “user expectations from other editors” is harmful if GIMP wants wider adoption.
- Several suggest alternatives (Krita, Inkscape, Pixelmator, Photopea, Photoshop) for different needs, while others remain grateful to GIMP as a free tool that “gets the job done,” especially for amateurs.