nasi_goreng

In a way, POC and BIPOC is only intended for usage in America or some extent Western world. It can be considered as non-inclusive term in a international context.

(I'm saying this as I often see American trying to use this in international discussion, not specifically to you).

Black as a term in general as expression in Asia also often doesn't work (except in some area). For example, some Southeast Asian people historically being called "black people" by European, and that still sticks in some region, tho might be in different language.

Some people that have lighter skin also can be heavily discriminated. Even Dutch-Indonesian, Arabic-Indonesian, etc used to be discriminated because anti-foreigner narative. These people often already stay in the area for as long as 400 years.

The term "white people" in some parts of Asia also often does not work, as some native people here can have lighter skin than average "white people."

Even in context of Europe, some group of "white people" also often being discriminated, especially for minority ethnic groups. Their opinion often invalidated because they're white skinned (white=instant previlage, according to some people).

(Sorry for random info, I'm native Javanese ethnic and Indonesian btw :P)

Just sharing info: lumped them altogether does not work in international manner. BAME as a term is UK-centric and only works in UK social situation.

Except if you want UK-related communities for the community.

I conclude that as I've been helping people setting their computer as well as teaching people to use various softwares for 15 years :)

I always try to know what things they want to do and their skill level, then recommending software that might be suitable for them. It can be proprietary, but most of the time I tried to recommend FOSS alternative instead.

That's why I said "majority of people."

There's always small group of people that prefer certain software and refuse to change, they might even hate when the software gets updated. Heck, some people even still use obsolete creative softwares despite the development company is dead for almost 20 years.

I'm talking flexible UI as relative to Clip Studio Paint.

The software is now an industry standard for manga, webtoon, 2D animation, and general ACG-related illustration in Asia. It was so good that there's no other alternative that have it. Not even Photoshop or Krita.

I read that Krita dev also agree that it will be nice to have it.

There's a ton of unique workflow only be possible with it.

My point is that if you want a future-proof software, you need a solid code base. Affinity already fix that. Clip Studio Paint done that. GIMP dev is currently working on it.

Regarding Shape Tool: this feature is dependant on Vector Layer. The earliest attempt to implement this is back in 2006: https://web.archive.org/web/20061219233008/http://lunarcrisis.pooq.com/wiki/Gimp/SoC2006Log

I recommend to check the discussion for Shape tool and Better vector Tool here: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/issues/11190

If you check Gitlab repository of GIMP, they're actually rewriting some old-codebase to be more future-proof. And that works really takes time. https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/commits/master

A lot of major design software are actually doing this. For example:

• Manga Studio -> Clip Studio Paint. CSP is now "de-facto" software standard of comic industry, including webtoon. Hugely popular in Asia.
• Serif PhotoPlus -> Affinity Photo. It was regarding as the best Photoshop alternative with arguably easier interface and better performance.

You cannot just slap new feature continuously. The software will end bloated and slow like Photoshop.

I believe when majority of people saying "Photoshop has this, we should do this as well" are not actually saying GIMP should create a total carbon-copy.

People loves easy to use interface, not carbon copy of Photoshop, even if they don't say that. They just don't know how to articulate their frustration better.

When Affinity Photo emerges as actual Photoshop alternative, no one complains regarding "not being Photoshop clone" because the interface is actually easier than Photoshop, while still being advanced software.

New GIMP user complaining about interface "not being Photoshop clone" is indicator that GIMP interface is not easy to use and intuitive enough.

No. Importance of UX simply means advance users can customize their workflow while making it easy to use for casual users.

Kinda like Krita or Blender. Both are not perfect, but the dev are working on it, together with the community.

Even GIMP dev also working on that, they have GIMP UX issue tracker here: https://gitlab.gnome.org/Teams/GIMP/Design/gimp-ux/

"your program should look and behave exactly like this other program made by a corpo, because I've learned that one already"

Oftentimes established workflow is already simple. There's no need to reinvent this from scratch. Example: Npainter and AzPainter are heavily inspired by PaintToolSAI. Inochi Creator is a clone (with unique feature) of Live2D Cubism.

You can go on random comment section on internet, and people are starting new "console war" for Steam Deck vs Nintendo Switch.

People are not tolerating to the regime.

We are helping individual to contribute on open source project.

We should punish the government, but not individual participation in global community.