Jakub Steiner wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 12:38 -0600, Roland Hordos wrote:
> what Sven possibly meant here was for you to prove that the name GIMP is
> a reason why the product isn't used in a professional IT setting,
> whatever that is. I have been using GIMP professionally for over 5 years
> and Novell, Inc. for example doesn't have a problem selling it as part
> of their enterprise OS.
Here's one example for you.
I've used GIMP for about 5 years in a professional capacity at 2 different
places of employment. At the first place, I
was in a marketing department. We all had Photoshop installed, but I used GIMP
95% of the time. The VP of marketing
would always smirk and make some dorky comment whenever he was looking over my
shoulder and asked what software I was
using. Basically, he didn't take GIMP as very serious software due to its
name. Granted, if he took the time to let me
show him how awesome GIMP is, he would come around. But he simply doesn't have
the time for that (not a hands-on
graphics guy), but he makes the final say of which graphic software packages we
use/purchase. That's a piece of US
culture for you that's not tied into the OS market.
Personally, I think the name should change not because I find GIMP derogatory
but because I think a name that somewhat
identified (even vaguely) what sphere the software is used it would be a boon.
Inkscape is an excellent name in my opinion. It is somewhat ambiguous, but you
definitely know that software named
Inkscape must have something to do with the artistic sphere. That's all you
Gimp-user mailing list