It must be a coincidence that all of the things on that list would be to the minor detriment of the wealth of billionaires and trillion-dollar companies if they were implemented

It’s more complex. In Photoshop, it’s a single tool. In GIMP, you make a circular selection, convert it to a path, and then stroke the path.

Not only is this more convoluted, it’s bewilderingly unintuitive to beginners and is definitely one of GIMP’s shortcomings.

I doubt that GIMP will ever overtake Photoshop. Adobe has the money to employ (and does employ) hundreds of experts in their fields to work on Photoshop for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Although GIMP is very impressive as an open-source project and a massive testament to how far the free software model can go, it is still, at the end of the day, made by a ragtag band of (mostly) amateurs volunteering their time. Adobe, by brute force, can deliver a higher-quality product just by having the resources to employ the best people to work for them.

I love GIMP. I use it for all my image editing needs and would never consider giving a dime to Adobe. But I don’t do it for a living and I respect the opinions of those who do when they say that GIMP isn’t a good replacement for Photoshop.

Just a cursory glance, but GIMP still doesn’t seem to support additive curves and CMYK support is still rudimentary and needs a plugin

I think for a real Photoshop vs GIMP comparison from the eyes of a professional, I’d like to share Franklin Veaux’s perspective. He’s an author, graphic designer, and the infamous local polygamist.

I think most of the complaints are that Microsoft Office doesn’t work. Which is true. The web version of Microsoft Office is honestly kinda terrible.

And no, people don’t want to use a product that does the same thing as Microsoft Office, they want to use a product called “Microsoft Office”. No, it’s not logical, and doesn’t make any sense at all but it’s how people are.