GIMP 3.0 has been more than one decade in the making as the port from GTK2 to GTK3, also transitioning away from Python 2 to Python 3 support, and a wealth of other improvements from the UI to lower down into enhancing this open-source Photoshop alternative.
The GIMP project announced on X/Twitter today that they have entered the string freeze for this much anticipated release.
And as silly as it sounds, I think the name is a big part of why businesses haven't ever wanted to touch the project or invest in it.
Imagine telling your average upper management guy or board member that you want your workers to use software called gimp. They're probably not gonna want to hear you out.
Anecdotally I know of a local NHS practice that refused to use GIMP, and was even sceptical of other subsequent suggestions of other FOSS due to the terrible impression they got from the GIMP name during a pitch to use more FOSS.
I get it's their identity, their project. Nobody has the right to dictate the name but them. But it's also fair to point out that they probably shot themselves in the foot by giving their software a juvenile and weirdly fetishy name.
Businesses around the world, who have no idea what a few people use the term gimp to mean, are no different. The name makes no difference to them. To most people around the world, gimp means that photo editor.
Since it is FOSS, couldn't they just take the source code and just re-compile it with different naming? Like how Debian did with Iceweasel naming and branding, though I know in their case it wasn't due to not liking the Firefox name/branding.
I think you're vastly overestimating how many people know about a random FOSS image editor. Gimp is not a household name.
When most people hear the word "gimp", they likely have something akin to this in mind (not an image editor):
IMO, that hinders adoption and certainly hinders financial support. It's an amusing name, granted, but it's not a good one if you wish to be taken seriously.
I just flipped through the introduction of a GIMP book that the authors hoped 3.0 would be out so they could cover it but ultimately based the book on 2.6 due to delays. It's copyright 2012, apparently something (didn't) happen.
Er, yes. It's one of the main features being introduced in 3.0. I don't know why you would just assume they're not adding it without looking it up. It made quite a bit of noise when it started being in the works.
Oh! Well that's awesome then, thanks for the correction. I did look it up but ended up on some "top feature" article which barely mentioned any features beyond layer multi select. I should have looked further.