> Respectfully, that's kind of a ridiculous "impression," easily refuted by many of us who have wanted to recommend GIMP to people.

Is it though? Almost every time the topic is discussed, I see someone in the comments only then learning that the word is also known by some as a slur.

> Like, if the word "poop" was in the name of some otherwise good software.

Except that ‘poop’ is a common word with a single common meaning. ‘Gimp’ is not a common word and has several different meanings, one of them a slur, another kinky, and others probably innocuous (if even more uncommon). Many people (even among native English speakers, though let’s not forget about the rest of the world) only know the word as the name of the program. The two don’t really compare.

I think "Do people commonly understand 'gimp' as a derogatory word?" is the wrong question.

The right question is, "Did _enough_ people understand 'gimp' as a derogatory word to harm its adoption?" and the answer is probably yes.

The people complaining about GIMP's name are the ones who love and use it, who have seen the name cause problems. There's a modicum of grief for the counterfactual (of how much better GIMP might be if it didn't set up artificial barriers for itself), and the frustration with people who obstinately don't see the problem.

I think both questions are good to ask. Another follow-up question would be ‘how big is the damage to adoption’, since the answer could range from ‘barely perceptible’ to ‘devastating’. An answer closer to the latter would, in my opinion, make a great reason for a name change.

I doubt if anyone’s mind was changed about adopting GIMP.

People who never hear about GIMP in the first place are never going to use it.

Someone asks, "How did you make that?" and your answer is PhotoShop and not GIMP. That's one less person who might use GIMP, and one less person who might introduce GIMP to other people, and so forth.