The option to modify GIMP to your needs is what made GIMPshop possible, so
there is nothing blocking you (or a team of developers) from doing that.
There are things that work differently than Photoshop, and some of those
things are actually a very good thing, and some work much better than
Photoshop (I say that as a 13 year user of Photoshop, and 6 year user of
GIMP). The things that haven't proven to be good are being fixed, and
cleaned up, and refined, and some are already available to test in the
development branch (note for example the unified transform tool). The best
thing to do is file bug reports and feature change requests. It is not as
useful to just copy Photoshop's interface, because, even if it were easy to
do that, or useful in the way you might suppose, it's not the purpose of
GIMP to copy Photoshop.

It's probably better to see it as an alternative image manipulation
program, rather than a replacement for Photoshop. GIMP will probably never
support the latest PSD formats for example, so if you require 100%
compatibility, you will still have to use Photoshop. The interface has
gotten a ton better over the years, and will continue to do so. This may or
may not be in-line with what Adobe does with Photoshop. You are also free
to fork GIMP if you really really need a Photoshop UI rip-off. It can be
done, and may get a lot of support. I personally think the time would be
better spent helping development of the core GIMP project, and refining the
tool UIs to be better than Photoshop, not merely the same. There are also a
lot of videos, books, etc. about how to make the switch from Photoshop to
GIMP for long-time Photoshop users.

That's my 2p.


On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Webdrifter <> wrote:

> Dear developers,
> Photoshop has been the number One in photo editing for decades. Gimp has
> always been the alternative that could never push Photoshop from it's
> throne, despite being free of charge. However, potentially Gimp should be
> able to knock Photoshop of it's throne. But there are three reason is never
> has. Those reasons are: "interface", "interface" and "interface". Most
> people in the industry are used to the Photoshop interface and those who
> want to get into the industry need to learn the Photoshop interface (By
> this power alone Adobe has always been able to refuse porting Photoshop to
> the Linux environment and maintain it's steep pricing).
> Than one day in 2006 Gimpshop emerged. Scott Moschella created a Gimp
> version with Photoshop look and feel. It blew us all right out off the
> water. Downloads of Gimpshop really skyrocketed, thus proving the viability
> and deer need for a product like this. A product that not only can knock
> Photoshop off it's throne, but that could get rid off Photoshop's dominance
> and arrogance alltogether.
> (In the end it would have made Gimp the leading software and thus the
> leading interface builder for photo-editing software, making it possible to
> gradually lead people towards a real Gimp-interface that would suite us
> all, and forcing Photoshop to follow the Gimp-interface instead of the
> other way arround).
> It was the turning point of a possible total triumph for the free software
> movement. Using the interface of leading propriatory software opened up new
> horizons for other free software. However, than some greedy bastard nicked
> the url, and used it to make money on Scott's achievement.
> This frustrated Scott so much that he stopped updating Gimpshop for later
> Gimp releases. A beautiful flower was broken. You would think the Gimp
> society would have picked up on this, however it never happened. Million's
> of people are still waiting for the miracle to happen again. Will it....
> PS: Before we get into a useless discussion on which interface is better
> (Gimp or Photoshop), I would like to state that I have no problem whith the
> Gimp interface what so ever. And I do recognize the ongoing effort to make
> it better and better. But there is also is immense need for the OPTION to
> change te interface to a Photoshop look and feel. We should recognize this
> need and use it to our advantage, instead of ignoring it. If for some
> (juridicial?) reason it is not possible to integrate this feature in the
> official Gimp-version, at least a tool to make it possible should be made
> available through the Torrent-network.
> _______________________________________________
> gimp-developer-list mailing list
> List address:
> List membership:
> List archives:
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:
List membership:
List archives:

Reply via email to