I couldn't visit LGM this year (which includes the GIMP developers) because I severely sprained my ankle and have been limping for months now. Ironic, I guess?

Previously, I was at a GUADEC (in Manchester) where I had some issues walking and was harassed by a bunch of drunk Brits who called me a "gimp" among other things. 😒

I've used the software since 1996, despite the problematic name, but thoroughly wish they'd change it. (I have for decades, but even moreso as years have gone on.)

Even with a temporary limp from time to time (and sometimes even on crutches), you really see how cruel people can be, including name calling, shoving, blocking doorways, refusing to give up seats, etc.

I wish people went out of their way to help others in general, and that would include not accidentally name calling or reminding them of times when they've been harassed.

Even so, it doesn't take personal experience at all to understand this, but personal experience does highlight issues.

I brought up GIMP's name being a problem a few times in years past (on IRC and even in person), but, after getting pushback, and because I needed to use GIMP professionally, I guess I held my nose and used it anyway.

I'm happy people are brining it up again now. I'm sad the response from Mitch is still the same.

Instead: They *could* agree that it's not appropriate and state they're considering a new name for the upcoming 3.0 release (which includes the GTK3 port).


@garrett Anyway, I have complex thoughts about how to cut this Gordian Knot, which may not make for good mastodontery.

A lot of it has to do with messaging, though of course I tend to view all community disagreements through the messaging lens first. But I will say that I think it's important to note that the Instead you mention includes two independent things.

@garrett If everyone lobbying for a pkg-name change insists that's the only acceptable outcome, we're likely to remain stuck. On the other hand, asking for acknowledgement of the issue is (a) progress and (b) not nothing to the people who are affected by the name. And (c) actually doable. So I think that ought to be considered a worthwhile outcome to pursue, instead of only focusing on 'you must change the package name'.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!