On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 21:17 -0400, Brendan wrote: 
> ... The name doesn't help 
> either. Just basing this on countless interactions I've had with models or 
> other photographers sitting here near my workstation, seeing me download my 
> images and go through my workflow of digikam download -> Gqview to delete the 
> bad ones -> Gimp to edit the good ones -> showfoto to apply different color 
> effects (Infra, BW conversion, etc.) 

I have to agree with Brendan on this one.  While I realize that the
name holds a lot of weight and recognition within the open source
community, it is actually real a barrier to gaining acceptance in the
larger CG community.  I've tried to introduce several web designers and
photographers to this eminently useful program, and every single one
of them has been taken aback by the name.  When I go on to explain the
meaning of the acronym the usual response is something along the lines
of "Oh... they really should come up with something better..."

In fact, though I now use the Gimp on nearly a daily basis, I
distinctly remember that when I first heard of and started using it
(back before the .com bubble went pop) that the name was at best
unsuitable for marketing purposes in my soon-to-be Internet media
empire.  Had I not been on an pro-Linux / anti-Microsoft warpath at the
time, I may well have shelled out the cash for Photoshop.

I've basically been desensitized to the offensiveness of the word in
the English context, but most non-Gimp users have not.  And as Brendan
points out, clients are *not* impressed by something with an offensive
name.  There's a similar phenomenon in the audio production business
where "everyone" (see: narrow minded producers) knows about ProTools,
and not using it can actually eliminate some customers.

Just to clarify, I don't really care about the name, but many of my
clients have.


Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to