aren't we too entitled to ask for such advanced features, and have them shipped quick as well?
It would be unreasonable to expect from unpaid volunteers if they has no ambition to do such work. Which is why I suggest that if you want to see advanced features and professional quality graphics software with a predictable cycle of development then you support the projects that actually try to create such programs.
Krita has a regular development cycle, a clear set of priorities and goals and funded development efforts that clearly lays out what features and improvement are going to be achieved with your hard earned money.
That has been an ENORMOUSLY successful improvement for both the programmers who can now get paid to work on there projects and the artists that now get quality continuously updated graphics software.
If Gimp or any other project deserve funding they have to step up and show the discipline and commitment to there project that successful projects like Krita have. I do not see that at this time so my recommendation is to support the projects that I listed in the OP.
edit
As far as performance is concerned OpenCL or Cuda is not going to save you if your cpu bound memory architecture is not carefully thought for performance. This has always been a major problem for gimp for a long time. The higher bit depth and resolutions that are used now only exacerbate the situation. A general use case now could easily have tens of gigabytes worth of data that the user wants to manipulate delete and expand in real time. I have never seen this addressed in a serious proposal.
So because GIMP doesn't solve ALL of its problems it deserves nothing? I find this unreasonable. So it's not perfect - no software is - but it's very, very useful, and still deserves support from those who utilize and appreciate it.
btw: I do love Krita, and I'm not saying they deserve any less support in favor of GIMP, but Krita is a lousy choice for certain image-editing routines where GIMP excels. Krita much more tailored towards artists, and I'd rather it stay that way.
Comments
It would be unreasonable to expect from unpaid volunteers if they has no ambition to do such work. Which is why I suggest that if you want to see advanced features and professional quality graphics software with a predictable cycle of development then you support the projects that actually try to create such programs.
Krita has a regular development cycle, a clear set of priorities and goals and funded development efforts that clearly lays out what features and improvement are going to be achieved with your hard earned money.
That has been an ENORMOUSLY successful improvement for both the programmers who can now get paid to work on there projects and the artists that now get quality continuously updated graphics software.
If Gimp or any other project deserve funding they have to step up and show the discipline and commitment to there project that successful projects like Krita have. I do not see that at this time so my recommendation is to support the projects that I listed in the OP.
As far as performance is concerned OpenCL or Cuda is not going to save you if your cpu bound memory architecture is not carefully thought for performance. This has always been a major problem for gimp for a long time. The higher bit depth and resolutions that are used now only exacerbate the situation. A general use case now could easily have tens of gigabytes worth of data that the user wants to manipulate delete and expand in real time. I have never seen this addressed in a serious proposal.
So because GIMP doesn't solve ALL of its problems it deserves nothing? I find this unreasonable. So it's not perfect - no software is - but it's very, very useful, and still deserves support from those who utilize and appreciate it.
btw: I do love Krita, and I'm not saying they deserve any less support in favor of GIMP, but Krita is a lousy choice for certain image-editing routines where GIMP excels. Krita much more tailored towards artists, and I'd rather it stay that way.