For professionals used to Photoshop, yes it is that bad. People want what's familiar because they're used to it and they're busy or lazy. They don't want to learn something new.
If GIMP wanted to increase their userbase by a million overnight, they would make it look more like Photoshop.
The problem is they and many current users are huge FOSS zealots and see this kind of thing akin to selling your soul to the devil.
Eh.. I understand exactly where they're coming from. If you're trying to make money with a product then this is something that can happen. You can argue all day long that it's no longer technically "open source", but IMO for 99% of usecases (anything that's not a Confluence integration), it still is... even still non-copyleft.
Of course there will still be people that argue open source is antithetical to capitalism in general... but not everyone agrees with you.
except gaia is one of the largest forums on earth.
they have more subscribers than Apple TV+
it was funny even before the last line though
I just don't see the point. I can't think of any good reason to have one personally.
I would love to be proven wrong though.
Except there were scientific studies done at the time that "proved" it was safe, even as a cigarette filter. Can't really blame people for trusting that IMO.
Now I wonder what was actually so flawed about those studies.
99% of browsers and their forks also expose your real OS via javascript (navigator.platform), even on Tor Browser. Some in the privacy community say this information is actually worthless (it could be lying), but I don't know for sure.
Not everyone wants to live in the terminal. I would argue most people don't.
Lorne is a dick, and Al is too smart for him. Playing by SNL's rules and dealing with their own writers would not end well.
I think this is more of a failure of the license itself. It's not a good look to allow something explicitly and then go "no not like that!"