leolambda

> forcing them

Opening an issue is not forcing. It's asking. Do we at least agree there?

> PC crusades

It's not a "crusade" in any sense. It's one issue on a GitLab that someone decided to link over here (not one of the people who made the issue, I think). It is about "political correctness" only in that it's genuinely hard to get some people to even consider using this free software because, and ONLY because, of its name.

I think you should rethink your idea of a crusade if you think this is what that word means.

Totally! I agree that they're on different levels of international recognition. My point here is that siphon refuses to agree that they're even the same _kind_ of thing, which makes me think they're not interested in actually reaching a good compromise, for some reason, but just want to be right.

So, you read the issue. What is it you fail to grasp about the conversation "I think, rather than buying Photoshop, you should use this software." "We can't use software with a name like that."

That's a conversation I've had, in real life, with a professor and a professional photographer.

Literally, the only thing holding them back was the name.

How is that zero value?!

Except, you said you CAN imagine that. I just gave you an example of EXACTLY that and you agreed that it was too far. So, clearly, you have some kind of double standard here.

You're arguing in bad faith and it's making you look silly. Stop it.

As someone who participated in this issue, I want to let you know that we chose to engage the current maintainers before forking because that's the nice, respectful thing to do. I, personally, find it extremely aggravating when people fork projects over minor decisions like this. It leads to a huge amount of wasted effort on both sides.

As it is, we're likely to either fork the project (which is underway at the moment), or build a GIMP keybinding compatibility layer for Krita; the second is less preferable because it would require quite a lot of hacking to make the more advanced features work, and would almost certainly not reach 100% parity.

As you note, either one will be a good deal of effort; another reason we wanted to at least ask the maintainers if they would be willing to accept a patch with the name change, instead.

Now what was your point, other than to insult some people whose argument you almost certainly didn't read?

So, great! We've agreed that there _is_ a line, right? A line after which a word is too offensive to too many people to use as a project name; a line over which it's sensible for your users to reasonably and respectfully ask you to change the name, and expect more than a "No. Closed." in response? And your argument is, GIMP doesn't go over that line?

> destroying over 20 years of work to make their name.

Oh right. I forgot filing an issue presenting a calm and reasoned argument for changing one string of text to another was the same as "destroying" a project.

For the vast majority of the non-English world, the acronym for a project called "C UNIX Networking Toolkit" doesn't mean anything but the project's name. That doesn't mean going around using that acronym is a good idea.

The GIMP project has purposely made it difficult to rename; patches making it easier to rename have been categorically rejected by the maintainers.

So, yes, people are currently talking about forking it.

> Wonder how many people who are up in arms about the name actually use GIMP?

I, for one, use it every day. Have you taken a look at the discussion? Your questions are pretty thoroughly addressed, which, along with your final line here, make me think you're more interested in your desire to use ableist slurs and the holy right of software maintainers to ignore any and all criticism without consequences than anything else.

Let us be clear: Nobody in this issue thread cares _at all_ about whether it was "meant" to convey the same meaning as the word "gimp". It is factually true that people find it awkward to recommend in professional settings because of its name, and sometimes the name makes adoption impossible.

Obviously nobody can force the maintainers to do anything, but we can _ask_ them to change a superficial component of their excellent software to make it much more useful, which is what this issue was.