That being said (and keep in mind I am only one fallible data-point) the community situation is roughly equivalent to what I remember Blender being like when I first started using it (maybe in 2007-2008).
- Very few professionals were using Blender, if any.
- Most tools were being written for Maya. Every time someone would link a cool tech product with crowd simulations or plant growth, it would always be a Maya plugin.
- Any college/high-school modeling/animation courses you took would be using Maya.
- That meant that if someone wanted to learn professional animation/modeling, they'd learn Maya's paradigms, and then Blender would seem extra weird. This was back when you just had to get used to the weird 3d cursor.
- Compatibility between the two programs was awful. I remember wrestling with the options to get 3D models to export in a format that wouldn't be completely messed up when imported in Unity. I don't remember if I ever got it working.
There were people who used Blender because it was free and swore that it was just as powerful once you got used to it, but they were largely techy people. And even if they were right, none of the digital artists or studios who's work I really respected cared at all. If you wanted to get an actual job with animation, you used Maya, period. Only hobbyists could afford to spend the time learning a separate program.
So it doesn't bother me too much to see Krita in the same position. I care more about the trajectory/velocity of development, and who I see using the software. I see a lot of programmers using software like Gimp, but I see a larger focus from Krita on actual artists, and a more pragmatic prioritization of features artists use.
If the core community stays really friendly for artists, and they keep on releasing at their current pace, then I suspect adoption will eventually come. Or at least, I think it's a decent enough bet that I'm willing to use the software in its current state and regularly throw money at its development.
