I've been using blender as soon as the first OSS release, and I never considered the UI to be "bad". Learning curve was much steeper than it is today, but it was very efficient after being learned.
And that's the main point: I'm not pitting blender's UI choices against another product just on the merit of being accessible from the uninitiated or looking at another product. That's the kind of comparison you make if you want to make a clone of another product.
It would be the programmer's equivalent of saying "I don't understand why vi is not more like vscode".
> Just I don’t know how possible it is, nor how reliably that would work
When I drove a Smart over a tiny snowy incline without the ability to turn ABS off I realized what "city" in "city car" meant. I doubt this would work well in anything except city a road. Driving on snow, especially over the inclines of a mountain, would match my definition of "drunk driving"
Fully agree. I was playing in the early 90ies with warez CDs and played with most photo editing packages at the time as a poor teenager.
Photoshop for me was actually the worst software package of the bunch from a casual user, and never understood why it was so popular. My impression was that without plugins it was next to worthless.
As I migrated to full-time linux early, gimp wasn't perfect to what I was used to, but it was pretty ok. The ui is a bit different, but nothing extreme. I really don't see the parallel with blender: blender today still requires a minimum of RTFM to get going, while you can do almost everything with gimp just by trial and error.
I assume there are nuances you encounter as you get more deep into photo editing. But as a newcomer, and my experience with greenfield colleagues to both, is that this is just an internet trope. You get used to one, and complain about that "the other is not the same". This is the dumbest form of complaining ever.
I've attempted multiple times to use krita for example after reading HN and seeing the praise, and while I agree it has a somewhat more intuitive ui, for actual photo editing (that is, not drawing), I still prefer gimp.
And that's the main point: I'm not pitting blender's UI choices against another product just on the merit of being accessible from the uninitiated or looking at another product. That's the kind of comparison you make if you want to make a clone of another product.
It would be the programmer's equivalent of saying "I don't understand why vi is not more like vscode".