I've also used Krita of late, and that too is a very good piece of software worth checking out if you want to do photo-editing and digital painting.
But it is very difficult to make professional grade designs/templates/mockups with gimp (i would venture impossible but im sure someone could do it given enough discipline just as someone could build a httpserver in pure x86 if they really wanted to)
source: long time Gimp and Photoshop user, have worked professionally as a UX/UI/Graphic designer and software developer, and have really tried to get on board with gimp bc its open source, saves $50 monthly, and is hackable all unlike ps, it even has a lisp scripting language! I couldnt do it even with that much goodwill so i honestly cant see any less motivated designer using it.
EDIT: of course designers or a ps alternative might not be gimps market at all, and instead just normal end users, in which case gimp should definitely not be criticized. I think people (unjustly perhaps) want gimp to be a ps alternative for designers, its not. plain and simple.
You mean something like this? http://asm32.info/index.cgi?page=content/0_MiniMagAsm/index....
EDIT: Scratch that, it's just a CGI application and not an HTTP server on its own. Still, I think it's pretty neat :)
Glad to see you are back to GIMP for the first time since 1998.
And also to be fair, from my perspective that leaves GIMP only a few years behind other packages.
I admit I use GIMP all the time, and have for years. It has a scripting language (ok just Lisp but with image-processing primitives) that I use to generate hundreds of images for card games. Photoshop has some arcane scripting ability but they sell it. My game club didn't want to pay, which is reasonable. So GIMP has been useful to me for years.
> I can't even begin to use GIMP unless my investment is preserved.
> I admit I use GIMP all the time, and have for years.
That's quite all right. I'm not perfect either :)
> Gotta wonder why though, with a 'flatten' option already there, there's need for two versions of 'Open File', one that screws you and one that works
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Open File opennns files as new images. Open as Layer appends an image to an already opened one. Or am I reading you wrong?
On my windows 10 machine, I hope I'll be able to run Gimp. I don't know if the Linux Subsystem makes it possible.
That's not a complaint, I've no right to complain as I've not documented and raised the bugs. I've just worked around them, which I appreciate is selfish.
But it works just as well/badly on 7, 8.1u1, and 10 in my experience. And it's still my go-to image editor for anything that Irfanview can't do.
In an ideal world, gimp is retired and Krita becomes the Photoshop alternative and the community can focus on really getting behind Krita.
Also, this update puts it in a great stance against Photoshop in general. Now it has a more similar user interface -- something I see people complain about a lot ("Gimp can do everything but I just don't understand the UI like I do with Photoshop"), awesome support for brushes and symmetry (Photoshop was always a bit better with these from what my artist friends told me a few years back), etc.
It is a bit of a shame that the official builds lag behind this update, though. I'm on OS X and I'd love to try this out now, but building from source sounds a bit too tedious for me to play around with it for just ~10 minutes.
It not, they can make all the other improvements they want, but Gimp will still be lagging a decade behind Photoshop.
Darktable is now also an option for many tasks since they have a powerful mask manager and module duplication.
Which makes the app sit somewhere in the middle between something like Lightroom and PS. While still being completely non-destructive.
Photoshop non-destructive? That's a good one.
PS is less destructive than Gimp.
But far, far away from a non-destructive app like the ones mentioned above.
Caveat: I am pro PS user. Since the time before it was called PS (Barneyscan) – aka ~25 years.
And I have a BG in blockbuster VFX. An industry where image editing truly is non-destructive.
If not, they can make all they want, but Photoshop will still be lagging 20 years behind GIMP.
See how silly that sounds?
Likewise GIMP to Scribus, which can convert your RGB images to CMYK before producing the PDF.
While common, it's increasingly antiquated for printing companies to insist on CMYK. There are print standards that enable hand off of PDF for blind transfers where all content is defined in a device independent color space.
Over-cooked one of your previous tweaks? Just open the corresponding adjustment layer and change the settings.
Wish you hadn't applied that filter 10 operations ago? Just switch off or delete that adjustment layer
Removed a bit of someone's ear while deleting the background? Just paint it back in on the mask layer
And if you really want to start over again, just delete all the adjustment layers and you're back to square one. The original image is untouched.
Someone disdainfully said I'd picked an "arbitrary feature" to complain about. For a professional designer [which I am] NDE is not just a "nice to have" feature, it's an essential one. Hence why Gimp will never be taken seriously by design professionals —no matter how many pointless icon themes it comes with.
Well, people, this is open source: contrary to commercial products from Adobe, you can do it yourself and get all the features you want! Also, nobody is asking you to use GIMP; you're just welcome to make use of other people's hard work here.
When you board the plane, you are given a seat, four bolts, a wrench and a copy of the seat-HOWTO.html. Once settled, the fully adjustable seat is very comfortable, the plane leaves and arrives on time without a single problem, the in-flight meal is wonderful. You try to tell customers of the other airlines about the great trip, but all they can say is, "You had to do WHAT with the seat?"
Yes, but that reflects my experience. I use emacs, st, zsh, SBCL, Python, Go, Debian: the flakiest software I run is Firefox.
Others have a different experience. They use gedit, gnome-terminal, bash, Ubuntu: the most stable software they run is Firefox.
Windows, OTOH, is so bad that it tries to download OS updates as monolithic, multi-GB blobs instead of small package updates. This can be bad when one has insufficient hard drive space for the monolithic blob but plenty of space to install a few packages and update them.
Windows advertises to one. Debian doesn't. Windows tracks one's input. Debian doesn't. Windows is slow on old hardware. Debian isn't. Windows has a fairly crappy interface. Debian doesn't (whether default, or using one of the available replacement DEs/WMs).
You clearly haven't tried using AfterStep ;)
But let's keep the comparisons to desktop environments made this decade. Enlightenment 0.17 GNOME3, KDE Plasma 5, etc. if you're using Mint's Debian Edition (and new converts should if they're too scared to try Calculate Linux), you're likely to boot into something relatively pretty the first time.
FVWM and IceWM, for example, might be ugly (though only by default -- I've seen pretty configurations of both), but I've always found them quite usable. AfterStep, though... * shiver *.
Love the simile. I am a human Linux-papercut entity with scars covering every inch of me, from months of struggling to do every single development task from symbolic debugging to editing to mounting storage to finding drivers for old well-supported devices that somehow never got Linux support. But its a living! I make good money papering over Linux's shortcomings for industrial clients. So its got that going for it.
Instead, every time I use Windows I get a papercut.
(To get this back on topic: I love and use GIMP, and I particularly love that a Free alternative to Photoshop exists, but I agree it's very complex and its interface is a mess).
I'm a developer though, for most people it doesn't really make a difference. It's just a matter of being used to something. My girlfriend liked Ubuntu a lot for the graphics (she asked me to install it after seeing me use Linux Mint and Debian for a year or so), but eventually switched back to Windows because a single website wouldn't work (some flash player thing, which Adobe stopped supporting) and she's just more used to working with Microsoft Office 2007, Windows Live Mail (or whatever they call it these days), and the general Windows 8.1 workflow.
Same for me with LibreOffice: I'm used to it now and in Microsoft Office (which is admittedly prettier) I have to search for every feature all over again.
I guess he’s also actively hostile to Linux for some reason. Mounting SD cards and USB drives is one thing that Linux is so much better at than Windows, where every USB drive needs its own permanent entries in the Registry. Except when the drive is hosting a modern Microsoft filesystem with its armada of active patents, but then you get a different bad experience than JoeAltmaier was describing.
I'm critical of Linux because I have wide experience on a variety of OS development environment over a number of releases. I've ported Linux kernel code and Windows network stack components; written desktop, embedded and mobile Windows, Linux and other more exotic OS drivers. I've seen what is available, what level of support for OS/kernel development exists. And I've formed strong opinions.
My current distaste derives from the fragile Ubuntu 14.04 auto-mount system that can get out of sync between the kernel mounts and the desktop representation. Put USB drives in and out too fast, and the desktop can show drives that are gone; can miss drives that are mounted; can even on occasion leave files in device folders that mask the mounted device so you copy Gbs of deployment data and it all goes into a file instead of on the media.
So I've earned every paper cut. They're not imaginary; I'm not so much 'actively hostile' as battle-weary.
I was just pointing out that my experience (in a different problem space, admittedly!) is the exact opposite: I find Linux way better and more comfortable to work with than Windows.
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Windows has going for it, but I'm at a loss. I haven't had any driver issues on Linux in over 5 years at this point, and I don't play games, so I have literally no reason to use Windows except for the fact that it's what's supported on my employer's laptops.
Although there is a choice of 74 different types of fork for the in-flight meal, the pilot has an alarming tendency to crash into the side of mountains. When you point this out to fans of the airline you are told either;
1: The pilot is a volunteer. What do you expect?
2: At least with Linux Airlines you get to choose which type of fork you're holding, when you crash into a mountain!
3: If you don't like the way the pilot keeps crashing into mountains, why don't you fly the plane yourself?
I really have no other wishes for Gimp aside from stability and performance:
- I learned the Gimp hotkeys first
- I know the menu structure around filters and so on is weird compared to PS, but I know it
- I like selecting, zooming and scrolling better in Gimp, somehow I have the feeling of more control and find it easier to make something pixel-perfect while getting sent non pixel-perfect .psds
- I like the old multi-window interface, even though it took me some time in the beginning to grasp it
- the text tool is fixed now
Maybe the only thing, which sounds interesting to me are the advanced and non-destructive layer options and transformations (or whatever these features are called in PS), but then again: I know my way around Gimp and if the PS layers were fully supported it would already be fine for me.
Edit: Have seen another comment about non-destructive editing and found out, that it is on the roadmap for 3.2 after GTK3 in 3.0. So my hopes are that this way the PS counterparts will be supported, too.
But I also believe, that over the time technical debt like this is a huge advantage for the company, because it fences off competitors entering the domain through integration.
Another example is the Adobe PDF spec. In my opinion a thoroughly overdesigned document structure where it's nearly impossible to implement every possible way of positioning an element. Trust me, i've seen alot of differently produced PDFs and it feels like each one of them is a unique snowflake.
The only one who profits is Adobe which provides the only Reader supporting every feature imaginable...
As an open source alternative to LR I can really recommend Darktable. In many ways it is even more powerful than LR, but the usability and raw conversion engine sometimes lacks. Noise reduction and color handling is not quite up to par with LR.
Look at it this way: your camera captures a lot more information than a JPG can hold. Either you let the camera decide which bits to keep, or you shoot RAW and use a tool like Darktable to help you decide for yourself.
And because I know what my tooling is capable of, I can tweak the first stage (setting up the camera to capture the image) bearing in mind the way I want to process it, to get a better picture than I'd otherwise be able to take in that context.
Of course, I could also set up the camera to have the right levels of saturation, sharpening etc. before taking the picture, but the camera controls aren't nearly as fine-grained and I don't have time while shooting to tweak and re-shoot every image several times.
So your argument is you limit your manipulation to just the camera, with its crappy screen and limited ability to show you color calibrations.
There is something to say about that as an art form. Some people use pin-hole cameras. Some people still use film. That's fine if that's what you're going for. But just because you load a photo into software doesn't mean you're editing it any more than just flipping those settings on your camera.
Then, of course, there were guys like Jerry Uelsmann, doing 'photoshop' effects in a darkroom equipped with 14 enlargers.
By that criteria Ansel Adams, Paul Strand, and just about every famous photographer ever are not "real photographers".
It's even more silly with regard to digital photography because raw sensor data is just a bunch of numbers that have to be interpreted and converted to an image somehow. There's no such thing as an unprocessed digital photograph. Either a person is shooting RAW and tweaking the conversion themselves, or the camera is doing it behind the scenes using a preset interpretation of the raw data.
I guess you're too young to have ever worked in a 'real' 'old skool' darkroom then?
Where do you think the phrases like "mask" and "burn in" that your graphics software uses came from?
At the moment their donations page says, that you can support some conference. While it is a nice way to give something back, it is not a cause that gets me excited about donating or telling others to donate.
IIRC, it used to be that even the core Qt libs were GPL (unless you paid for a commercial license), while now most (but still not all) libs are also available under the LGPL.
GTK has always been plain LGPL 2. Nothing scary.
KHTML/WebKit: I don't think the GTK/Gnome folks ever wrote a browser engine.
KDevelop: Did the GTK/Gnome folks ever write a significant IDE with a code model?
Krita: It's focused on painting/illustration and doesn't directly complete with Gimp. Among artists doing this Krita is likely more popular than Gimp now, since the latter isn't even in the running. (Support for MyPaint brushes is progress on that front, though painters want many other features.)
For KMail/Kontact there's Evolution, but arguably neither ever became really popular if you compare them to, say, Thunderbird.
Krita serves their website over https and the download over http from some mirror. Can't find any trace of a hash on their site either.
Gimp is actually overfeatured for what they need, but that was the only thing I found which I could install with a good enough certainty that I won't infect their computer with malware.
EDIT: I mean drawing geometrical stuff. Of course it's good for general drawing.
They are knowingly using this dark pattern to make ad money which is too bad, because as you say the app is really good.
I just remembered that there's also Dia (diagram editor), I might give that one a try.
Size: 85M (88670208 bytes)
Last modified: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:27:01 GMT (Unix time: 1460359621)
SHA-256 Hash: 5d6574f750a188f67548d965ce6a8abd4d33479bc64f88130e545250e179a0e1
SHA-1 Hash: bf969c7ce56aac754eb84a2123caa9cbf4174884
MD5 Hash: ee0b82e82a98086dccad7f1344888a1c
That being said, we have to trust something.
Don't even think about "give me this, this, this, and this; check that it is the right version from a trusted source; make it so!" (PortableApps can do that, so it's demonstrably possible, even on Windows)
Progress? We don't need no steenking progress! Package managers are for lusers who prefer clicky GUIs over Glorious Hard Work and spelunking in the dark corners of the net! (How that ever got pushed as user-friendly?)
1. Chocolately (https://chocolatey.org/), which most people don't know about, or
2. The Windows Store, which I hope never catches on.
It's great if you're forced to used Windows as your development machine.
What's worse is when your One True Package Manager creates a broken package because the packager has no clue what they are doing. Debian and SSH ring any bells? Would using an exe provided by the developers have that problem?
At the moment it's however largely a case of Microsoft quietly developing a quite powerful tool and then going out of their way to not tell anybody about it. Microsoft has also not shown any interest in developing and supporting their own general software repo (I guess they don't want to compete with their app store). So we've basically got to wait for third party developers to fill the cap. Fortunately the people behind chocolaty are working on this and have said they'll have something ready by Summer 2016.
Also sha1 should be avoided nowadays, but at least it's not md5...
For Inkscape and GIMP to be a good alternative for Adobe's apps, I think they need to improve on UI a lot. I wonder if there is any umbrella organization which can look after FOSS Design apps like GIMP, Inkscape, Krita etc.
Yes there are cheaper alternatives from affinity of pixelmator, but from photography's point of view PS + LR are still one of the best, feature rich and user friendly tools for photography.
As opposed to its $800+ asking price before that? It's now $10 per month for Photoshop and Lightroom, so $120 per year.
When what you're buying is a download from the same server, with the same internationalisation and features, that sticks in your throat a bit.
When good enough (for me) competition became available in the form of Pixelmator and Affinity I stopped using Adobe products completely.
Things might be better with the subscription pricing but I don't want to be dependent on Adobe again. For my business I could always claim the price back as an expense, it's more the principle of not tolerating gouging.
IMHO no other US company has been as bad at price gouging EU customers as Adobe.
They gouged Australians even worse!
 Latest New Yorker Cover was Created in Photoshop 3.0 on Mac OS 7 (http://gizmodo.com/5059533/latest-new-yorker-cover-was-creat...)
Turns GIMP developers encourage private campaigns focussed on developing specific features.
Another good article on current state of GIMP: http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/gimp-is-20-years-ol...
I think Bountysource is better here but for mega issues like UI redesign or GTK3 port etc a campaign may be the right way to go.
Though the reasons it worked for us don't really apply to the Gimp situation.
Diaspora was successful in the sense that it got lots of money. It was slightly less successful in delivering on its promises.
But the platform selection was probably wrong - a lot of people probably was distracted by it.
Note that he's not core team member. It was a personal fundraiser.
This seems to apply to the majority of FOSS projects.
Paying for consulting services, donations, books and trainings isn't enough for a monthly salary.
If GIMP is ever going to support the desires of professional designers, it's going to have to be developed by designers. Maybe I'm wrong, but I am willing to bet that the people who actively use and develop GIMP are people with programming experience who are doing some digital imaging on the side that doesn't require things like CMYK or high bit depth. GEGL and GIMP have been in development for a long time now, but have advanced in areas that the user base cares about, but not necessarily in areas that professionals care about. Simple as that.
If you really hate Photoshop, learn Scheme and contribute to GIMP and GEGL.
I do want to comment on the non-destructive editing feature; I feel like that's also a serious designer convenience, but it's never been something that I have personally desired. In fact, I wouldn't really want it, I think. In other software packages that have similar non-destructive capabilities, like Maya, the "history" of an object becomes more and more cumbersome over time. Maybe this doesn't happen in Photoshop, IDK. To be honest, I'm perfectly fine duplicating layers are "backups" before deciding on the right look.
The last several times I've had to do graphics work I've used GIMP and taken the time to learn how to do the (now much more limited) things I needed to do using its workflow. I'm perfectly happy with it and relatively convinced that if I had to be doing serious image editing work, I'd be able to do so in GIMP.
So when people talk about how they prefer Photoshop, I believe there are a few reasons and all of them have little to do with GIMP being inferior as a product and much more to do with pure preference (emacs vs vi, style):
1. A large number of people are very well trained in every corner of Photoshop's workflow. The frustration factor is much higher for these folks because they're not having to learn something new, they're not expecting it to take a while to do things, they're expecting to be able to be as capable in GIMP as they are in Photoshop having never learned how GIMP works. My first experience with this was moving a selection while I was still making it -- something I do constantly -- hold space in PS and drag. That doesn't work that way in GIMP.
The closest analogue I can think of to learning Photoshop was when I broke down and decided to learn Vim - I remember being overwhelmed at how much information I had to keep in mind just to do basic tasks - command permutations, keys that didn't seem similar to any other product and the like. Photoshop is hellishly complex in this manner. Being a GUI product for image editing, I think this surprises people when they dive in. Needless complex? Perhaps in some places, but much of the complexity is necessary.
2. There's seventy tutorials for every kind of manipulation you might want to do in Photoshop. There's sometimes not even one in GIMP. Many people have grown used to finding quick answers for how to do common things in Photoshop due to the wealth of resources available and get frustrated when they can't find the equivalent in GIMP. This adds to the perception that GIMP is inferior - "Everyone uses Photoshop, see all the tutorials?"
Between versions 3 and 4, I had purchased several $100+ books, subscribed to print magazines at $99.00/yr and spent countless hours learning how to be productive in the tool. The variety of tutorials out there serve to make learning the product a little harder since you can follow a handful of steps to get the desired effect without understanding enough about it to produce a similar effect using the tools from the walk-through.
 Try explaining how to use the Pen tool to someone who's never encountered it or something similar. You start by describing its purpose, the variety of ways it can be used, showing examples, then explaining how to manipulate each of the points using a variety of CTRL+ALT clicks. Oops, you dragged the point when you meant to change the orientation of the curve. Wrong key.
Qt 5 gets this right. The only frustrating thing there is how many applications still use Qt 4… (same applies to GTK 2, I guess)
One of the issues I've had with Gimp on Windows is pen support, though the Wacom pen on the Surface Pro 2 has been iffy anyway. Pen use is worse though with Gimp, Inkscape vs. MS apps, but with some luck the new Gimp version will do better.
Since Darktable is also workflow tool, I'm pretty curious about how well these two are integrated. For example, if I prepare a whole batch of photos in DT without exporting them, is GIMP smart enough to import the files with those settings automatically?
When I switched to Mac, I was searching for something similar, but in the end decided to use Gimp. However, the thing is just incredibly slow. I have MBP 13 Retina and it takes 6 seconds to apply simple "bucket fill" on an image 3000x4500. Is this normal?
They're highly usable but of course care must be taken with changes in the native format.
The one feature I am looking forward to for editing in this release is the Select remove holes feature.
Having to expand, contract, and feather selections to remove the small holes caused by a color select with a threshold value was a real pain.
So I was excited to see a new version. Checked the features and ... nope.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
And also his changes to your specs will be welcomed by the GIMP core team...
On Linux, it feels like I am running through mud when I use Gimp. I need to invest the time to simplify my workflow, obviously.
I select windows with alt-tab and I can assure you that multi-window mode in gimp is a nightmare.
What's "objectively more approachable" for one application, makes zero sense for another.
When you alt-tab to the application, all of the child windows come to the foreground. You don't have to alt-tab 4 times to bring all of the various windows forward individually.
From my personal experience, most people doing graphics usually have a multiple monitor setup. That alone rules out Gimp's single window mode for me.
Putting aside the discussion on Skype, I was answering your "I have no idea why one could find single-window more usable" from my point of view, that is, a newbie user doing the occasional edit/filter/crop.
For such a casual use case, yes I find the single-window mode more usable.
I just went to the download page to find out this is not a stable version.
But, as the page says: "GIMP 2.9.4 is quite reliable for production work, but there are still loose ends to tie"
It must be very, very bad at text handling then.
Pinta Image Editor (open source for Linux, BSD, Mac, Windows) finally works reasonably well as an alternative. For years, Pinta crashed resizing an image larger than the screen, and did annoying things like adding the markers from a selection area to the image itself. Those bugs were finally fixed this year. It doesn't have as many bells and whistles as Photoshop or GIMP, but the user interface is entirely graphical and straightforward.
(and we had to Google for BDSM. It does not seem to be a BSD Unix variant... and now that I think about it: it might be the reason why FreeBSD is not so popular!)
Not only I'm pretty sure that there is an Indic / Chinese language spoken by hundreds of milions people, where Inkscape is a bad word...
Also -- even if in my eyes it's a bit childish from the Gimp team to stick to what seems to be perceived as a bad name -- i perceive as even more childish that people keep on complaining that an acronym means something "bad" in their language.
Next time you come to the south of Switzerland, I'll invite you for a joyful train ride from Locarno to Domodossola:
I don't usually complain about it, I'm just being honest about it having an effect on how much I promote it. In other words, I talk about it less because of its name. I also doubt I'm the only one. You can paint this as irrational if you want, but if the idea is to promote a free alternative to Photoshop (which makes Gimp a very useful project for the open-source community) it seems a little off to reduce its popularity over something as simple to change as the name.
For the GIMP team it isn't.
"Whether you are a graphic designer, photographer, illustrator, or scientist, GIMP provides you with sophisticated tools to get your job done. You can further enhance your productivity with GIMP thanks to many customization options and 3rd party plugins."
Their goal seems to be a good tool, not an alternative to any other software.
And it works well for me! Thanks Gimp.
It's just like LibreOffice/OpenOffice, of course these tools stand on their own merits too, but again the reason they're important to the open source movement, i.e. what makes them useful in promoting open-source, is that they fill the same gap in the market as Microsoft Office.
Speaking generally, the approach to pushing open-source in practical way is to build open-source tools that cover the key functionality that commercial software offers (as well as functionality that commercial software doesn't yet offer) in order to provide people with less of a reason not to switch.
In other words, Gimp is an "alternative to Photoshop" when framing it as part of the open-source movement (which is what I had implied with my earlier comment). This is not the only framing that can be applied.
It's not about causing trouble, it's about something that ends up detracting from the project. Imagine if someone released an IRC client called Dildo, would you expect some backlash about the name choice?
Ah, I see.
On a slightly unrelated note, as a front-end developer only 2 things have stopped me from using Linux full time.
1. Lack of Photoshop on Linux
I know Adobe tried a few years ago and didn't have enough sales for the Linux version to justify the development and maintenance costs.
I have used GIMP 2.8 on Linux. The filters and effects and the UX in general didn't justify using it as the only tool in production. Also it seems that GIMP development has happened at a very slow pace for past 5-6 years. In fact, off the top of my head, I can't seem to remember a new exiting feature to it for a long time.
There are a few other Mac only low end alternatives like, Acorn, PixelImator and Affinity Photo. Last time I tried Acron. Wasn't impressed. Planning to give Affinity Photo a shot this year. Sketch seems to be picking up as the UX tool of choice but it is also Mac only. I think most of the product makers in this category seem to think, if you are a professional you can get yourself a Mac. However, Apple likes to charge a lot of premium for its products, which puts its products out of range for lots of junior developers and smaller companies in developing economies like India.
2. Lack of MS office on Linux (This is not really that critical these days, just a good to have.)
This not really needed for development. But lots of non-technical people use MS Office for documents and specifications. So as a professional it's just easier to get a MS license. And now on subscription model it's quite affordable.
I still wish google will release Google Docs as a fully offline product. Something like Google Docs packed as Electron based app will make it more usable for people in India, where always on connectivity is still an issue in major parts of the Country.
I haven't used Windows as my main machine for 8 years now. I use a Mac mainly because it gives a stable Unix-like OS with good enough UX. Have waited for Desktop Linux to happen for 16 years now. It has been in "quite close but not there yet" status for past 4-5 years now. But don't know how long this phase is going to last for Linux Desktop.
Then there's macros. Yeah, yeah, people shouldn't use them, but they do, and when LibreOffice crashes on particularly weird ones while MSO Just Works™… well. (Yesterday I came across a particularly fun example: 100kb data wrapped into 30 megabytes worth of macros that all did exactly nothing, but were part of the client's default template, and so in every file they send out. LibreOffice hangs when trying to parse them, even when disabled, Excel works.)
Edit: Why the downvotes? I answered the question. Disagreeing with facts doesn't make them disappear.
Placements of images and use of complicated formatting options in tables was also a problem. Quite a few Business Analysts are quite good with these advanced options in MS Office, as it's the main tool they use. It reflects in their documents. :-)
Haven't looked back since.
I dont know about other but this is going to be a big leap forward for sure
I fell like printing will be irrelevant/obsolete before Gimp offers proper CMYK support
Gimp, no matter its merits, will never be taken seriously as a Photoshop alternative by designers until it has rock-solid CMYK support. Even though most designers I know, myself included, are desperate to get out from Adobe's grip.
As an aside, I recently led the switch in our studio from Photoshop to Sketch: the designers were literally bouncing in their chairs for joy as they realised how much better it was.