Steve Thompson wrote:
> About the whole naming issue.
> I remember recently attending a local club for photography
> enthusiasts. The question came up of what image editing software
> various people used. Photoshop was a frequent answer, as one would
> anticipate, as were a number of other Windows based tools. I made
> mention of the Gimp, and people looked at me rather peculiarly. I
> went on to mention that it was a very powerful application and
> completely free, but beyond their bewilderment, not even a bit of
> interest was expressed.
Maybe a 15 minute GIMP demo of something that is not easy to do in
Photoshop is in order. Most clubs are happy to have offers to show new
> A cute name just doesn't spell for me the kind of future user
> penetration I would like for the Gimp to have. Names do have value -
> do you think an image editor called 'Snuggles' would gain much
> traction with serious photo professionals? I don't, because just like
> 'the Gimp', it conveys a tool that doesn't take itself seriously.
I have no trouble taking 'GIMP' seriously--the website is good at
showing it is a major program, with documentation and tutorials. If you
can introduce it well enough that someone other than you mentions at a
photo club meeting that they had fun trying out the GIMP, the name is no
longer a barrier. But are you sure the name is a barrier? it may be
that people like what they are used to and don't like learning curves,
no matter what they are called (it probably took quite a bit of time for
them to become comfortable with their first image editing program).
The odd name could help people remember it.
"'Smuckers,' with a name like that it's gotta be good"
Gimp-user mailing list