See, the thing with this argument is that, however much I agree with the basic idea, it’s still not useful. We can agree, sure, that overall the UI and UX (two different things) on GIMP is not as subjectively good as Photoshop. But saying, it’s easier, it’s faster, it’s whatever, still does not help at all. It’s still all just vibes and impressions, it’s not actionable.
“The default UI is not like Photoshop” is inactionable. It’s different from the opinions I left on this thread. That GIMP need to have a way to save and reload layouts, that’s an specific feedback, concise, concrete and actionable. I also agree that some workflows take too many clicks, maybe have simplified tools to do common actions. That is also actionable, specific, concrete.
Your comment offers nothing to go on with. It even manages to ignore and bypass my criticism, it doesn’t address the “Industry standard” bias and privilege. Because when pros try GIMP the response “It doesn’t work the way I expected and are used to, so I don’t like it” is a garbage feedback. The only thing you are offering is “clone photoshop”, and that’s just not what the project has ever been about, or will ever be about. So the conversation is fruitless.