GIMP has always claimed to be a replacement for Photoshop, and has always failed to live up to that claim when I've tried it.
After being lied to, I'm not eager to try again and see if I'll be lied to again. I'll just use Photoshop because it has always worked where GIMP never has.
If GIMP has truly, finally achieved their stated claims of replacing Photoshop (presumably through feature parity), then I'm glad to hear it for all those still willing to try it, but I've no interest in wasting any more of my time verifying that claim than I already have in the past.
Except that GIMP never has claimed that. Sure, some users of GIMP have made that claim, and many reviews in magazines (back when those still existed) and on website have made that claim, but the GIMP people have always made clear that they are making their own thing, not an X-replacement.
After being lied to, I'm not eager to try again and see if I'll be lied to again. I'll just use Photoshop because it has always worked where GIMP never has.
If GIMP has truly, finally achieved their stated claims of replacing Photoshop (presumably through feature parity), then I'm glad to hear it for all those still willing to try it, but I've no interest in wasting any more of my time verifying that claim than I already have in the past.