Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Sep 2009 22:52 UTC, submitted by abraxas
Thread beginning with comment 386215
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Agreed. Especially about the dumb name. I just hate acronyms, especially recursive ones. GIMP is indirectly recursive:
GIMP - GNU Image Manipulation Program
GNU Image Manipulation Program - GNU is Not UNIX Image Manipulation Program
GNU is Not UNIX Image Manipulation Program - GNU is Not UNIX is Not UNIX Image Manipulation Program
And so on...
How about thinking up some name that's actually creative and descriptive. GIMP sounds like a placeholder.
The descriptive part is actually important. It would not be any better to call it "Gimpex" or something. The name must suggest function!
The descriptive part is actually important. It would not be any better to call it "Gimpex" or something. The name must suggest function!
How does "Gimpex" suggest function? If you want to suggest function, why don't you call it... Image Manipulator? How about the GNU Image Manipulator? Which is pretty much what we call it. How is that different from Adobe PhotoShop? Except, of course, that "Photo Shop" makes it sound like I am going to take my prints there to be developed and does not suggest that I can alter them.
And, in fact, the name does not need to suggest the function. "Excel" certainly does not say "Spreadsheet", for example.




Member since:
2006-11-26
It's been a long time coming. GimpShop never worked well for me.
Now if they'll change the dumb name, get rid of the gummy feel when drawing on the canvas, and get a full 16-bit workflow and color management they'll be head-to-head with PaintShopPro and Corel PhotoPaint.