Slashdot Mirror


A First Look At The GIMP 2.0

An anonymous reader writes "Brice Burgess has given everyone a good peek at what's coming in 2.0 for the GIMP in his review over on NewsForge. Don't like the old UI? It's gone. All new. There have also been megawumpus improvements in the text tool. Brice says he sees some room for improvement still, but overall he is "very impressed."" (Slashdot and NewsForge are both part of OSDN.) The new text tools are a big step up, though the interface as a whole remains a love-it-or-hate-it thing.

713 comments

  1. And still... by jdray · · Score: 5, Funny

    And still at the same low price! How do they do that?

    --
    The Spoon
    Updated 6/28/2011
    1. Re:And still... by bbsguru · · Score: 3, Funny

      No Kidding!
      I would gladly pay 100 times as much, and I never even USE this stuff!

    2. Re:And still... by Rand+Al'Thor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Volume, baby. Volume.

    3. Re:And still... by klang · · Score: 0, Redundant

      make that a cool thousand times as much! :-)

    4. Re:And still... by sinergy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      They can keep that low price because there is no R&D. Sorry to be flamebait, but Gimp still doesn't hold up against Photoshop. A copy is never as good as the original.

      --
      ...
    5. Re:And still... by rufo · · Score: 1, Funny

      I won't be satisfied until it's 3 easy payments of $19.95 and comes with a free bottle of window cleaner.

      --
      My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.
    6. Re:And still... by el-spectre · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Untrue, sometimes a competitor can learn from it's predecessor's mistakes and improve. That said, the Gimp still isn't up to photoshop's level, but it's good enough for many uses (and I will remain a PaintShop Pro man).

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    7. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, man, are you the Dragon?

    8. Re:And still... by notque · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's close enough to photoshop that instead of spending the time to crack it, i'll just use gimp instead.

      It's helping people stay legal.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    9. Re:And still... by Gherald · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Stupid wetlander, on Slashdot he is known as the Car?a?carn.

    10. Re:And still... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're not just flamebait, you're a troll. Of course there's R&D...it's just at the user-developer end. There's plugins that do things nobody wants to spend the time to implement in Photoshop.

      The core system does a lot, but the real usefulness of the GIMP (at least for professional folks) lies in that they can write up a perl script to accomplish any damn thing they can think of. Of course, you can write C plugins as well.

      You can't do that so easily with Photoshop unless you've already invested the time and money to make it common practice. (Which, sadly, a lot of firms do. It's easier to commit to trudging an extra couple of miles in familiar territory than risk learning something new.)

    11. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah, now there is a classic troll. anyone seen Spanish Inquisition? I was expecting him...

    12. Re:And still... by el-spectre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds fair. I use PSP for similar reasons. It doesn't have some of the higher end functionality, but I don't really use that anyway. PSP is fine for web work, and the $100 price is fair.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    13. Re:And still... by RoLi · · Score: 1, Informative
      Gimp still isn't up to photoshop's level

      Why that? What can you do with Photoshop that you can't do with the Gimp? Gimp now has the CMYK color scheme, so the only real pro-Photoshop argument has faded...

      Actually, Gimp's layout is a lot better for multi-monitor (or multi-desktop) layouts (yes, for those who insist on using a single-window layout can use the new dockable feature, so Gimp can do both) so I'd say it's already somewhat better than Photoshop, especially in the usability department.

    14. Re:And still... by tjw · · Score: 2, Funny

      Volume, baby. Volume.

      That's exactly how First Citiwide Change Bank stays in business.

      Bank Representative: All the time, our customers ask us, "How do you make money doing this?" The answer is simple: Volume. That's what we do.

      (From an old SNL commercial.)

      --

      XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UB E-TEST-EMAIL*C.34X
    15. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! Our chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to the Pope! Um, I'll come in again...

    16. Re:And still... by justMichael · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually, Gimp's layout is a lot better for multi-monitor (or multi-desktop) layouts (yes, for those who insist on using a single-window layout can use the new dockable feature, so Gimp can do both) so I'd say it's already somewhat better than Photoshop, especially in the usability department.

      I believe your argument only holds water for the Windows version, at least as I remember it.

      The Mac version of Photoshop has the menubar and floating toolbars, put them wherever you want.

      I'll have to check out the new release on the Mac though, sounds better than it was.
    17. Re:And still... by jdray · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I've been thinking of buying Photoshop Elements for much the same reason (enough functionality). I cut my teeth on Adobe graphics tools, and am comfortable with the interface (ctrl-drag for this, ctrl-alt-click for that). However much I appreciate a good OSS tool (like The GIMP), I'm willing to pay $100 for software I like better.

      So, how do you feel Paint Shop Pro stands up against Photoshop Elements?

      Also, any idea how either one of them runs on WINE or CrossoverOffice?

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    18. Re:And still... by larkost · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, the GIMP still is not a Photoshop killer, the CMYK support is still in its infancy, no where near ready for use in pre-press. I am watching it eagerly, as my boss is more concerned about what we spend than the work we get done... *sigh*...

      I can use it for web stuff (color precision doesn't matter), but for pre-press we cannot get away from Photoshop... beyond CMYK and ColorSync support, paths, clipping, masking, and RAW support is not up to par.

    19. Re:And still... by ozbird · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why that? What can you do with Photoshop that you can't do with the Gimp?

      Prevent forgery of bank notes?

    20. Re:And still... by el-spectre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I haven't used PS elements in years, so I can't advise there. I've owned PSP 5-7, (and maybe soon 8), and more or less stuck with 'em.

      check out appdb.winehq.org for compatibility questions. At this point I pretty much use windows for graphical work, and linux for programming.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    21. Re:And still... by mrm677 · · Score: 1

      Gimp still doesn't have a magnetic lasso selection tool nor automatic dust&scratch removal.

      These are show-stoppers for me.

    22. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photoshop is SUPPORTED by crossover office, so I guess it works pretty well on that. Seeing as crossover is just an extended version of WINE anyway, i guess it could also be convinced to work on WINE.

    23. Re:And still... by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 2, Informative
      PSP ver 8 is way ahead of Photoshop Elements 2.0.

      Elements users, correct me if I am wrong, but Elements doesn't support Layers (Adjustment or Mask) , Channels etc amongst other things, while PSP supports them.

      If you want about 50% of PS functionality and can't use anything but PS UI, then go with Elements , otherwise if you want 90% of PS functionality and don't mind a slightly slower performance, go with PSP.

      If you are into graphic design, I am not sure what to advice you , but if you are into photography, then I would recommend a very fast Harddisk and tons of RAM. PSP some times gets stuck writting undo/redo data to disk.

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    24. Re:And still... by thelexx · · Score: 1

      A few months back I decided to give the GIMP another try for some web graphics I needed. The lack of image layer manipulation capabilities alone made me abandon the GIMP in frustration after wrestling with it for a couple of hours. I don't think what I was trying to accomplish was completely _impossible_ in the GIMP, but it sure as hell wasn't as straight-forward as it should have been. Completely non-obvious would be a better way to describe it.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    25. Re:And still... by ssbljk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have never looked at some software as killer of other one. Right question is: is it good enough for me and my needs? I think that Gimp is good enough for lot of people who work with graphics. Photoshop is nice piece of software, but is it necessary that everyone pay for features that won't use anyway. If you really need it, and don't have OSS alternative, then pay for it. Not before.

      --
      /ss
    26. Re:And still... by Johnathon_Dough · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, I am not sure about on the windows side, but I have a ton of apple scripts set up for Photoshop on the mac. Between those and photoshops built in actions I can automate just about anything that I would want to.

      The biggest issue with the GIMP that I see, is that the majority of people out there making money with photoshop have no desire to learn something new. I include myself in that...I have been using photoshop now since version 2, and can use the app practically in my sleep. There is no need to think about "now how will I do that? What menu/palette/option is that?"

      I have played with the GIMP off and on, and while I think it is a great program. I see no reason to switch to it for my main app. Especially as 2 hours of billable work pays for an upgrade to photoshop.

      --
      If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
    27. Re:And still... by hp46168 · · Score: 1

      *puts on asbestos underwear* Twain Acquire on Windows with multiple TWAIN sources? sorry I just wish they'd fix it. TWAIN came out with a new spec. Not sure how big of a deal it would be to get the new spec incorporated.

    28. Re:And still... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 4, Informative
      Elements users, correct me if I am wrong

      You're wrong :^) I'm not an Elements user anymore, but it had most of the Photoshop functionality, including layers.

    29. Re:And still... by bay43270 · · Score: 1

      The Windows version of Photoshop has floating tool pallets too. It works fine with multiple monitors (unless you want to display two images on separate monitors). The Mac version, of course has separate windows for everything (and they don't all show up as separate tasks as they do in the gimp).

    30. Re:And still... by ktakki · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Why that? What can you do with Photoshop that you can't do with the Gimp?

      Adobe has integrated Photoshop and Illustrator to the point where they might as well be the same application. Photoshop's .PSD files have text layers that are editable in Illustrator, and you can use many of the same filters and plug-ins in both programs.

      This vertical integration extends from fonts and color management at one end to printing at the other, with the applications (Photoshop, Illustrator, GoLive, InDesign) in between. The Gimp might get awfully close to Photoshop's feature set, but until there are mature and stable open source vector graphics and page layout packages, all the Gimp will do is steal market share from PaintShop Pro.

      k.
      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    31. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It has the magnetic lasso, only it's called "intelligent scissors." Been there since at least 1.2.

    32. Re:And still... by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Why that? What can you do with Photoshop that you can't do with the Gimp? Gimp now has the CMYK color scheme, so the only real pro-Photoshop argument has faded..."

      Faded? A few days ago, a buddy of mine decided to venture into the wonderful world of Texturing as it related to 3D animation. He took a digital photo and wanted me to help him make a textur. He didn't have Photoshop, so he downloaded Gimp. I use Photoshop on a daily basis, I've gotten to know virtually all the features in it. I've learned quite a bit about how to do some of the things you need to do. I don't mean just what buttons to push, but what is being done to the image to get to the result. I sat down at his computer and started flipping through the features in Gimp and.. ouch. It felt like Photoshop lite. It was very limited in what transparency modes it had. There was almost none of the workflow shortcuts that PS has, like Layer sets etc. My experience trying to paint or smudge was... inconsistent. It's like they didn't tune it to what an artist would use it for.

      That was about as far as I got. GIMP is not in a state right now where it'd save me $150 for the next PS upgrade. Not only that, but Adobe's chugging ahead with new stuff as well. (I can't believe what an upgrade 7 was from 6...)

      I'm going to be honest with you: I think most of the peeps that are dependent on Photoshop are terribly interested in voicing in on this argument, thus the perception that it's "faded". No, it's not Photoshop. But that's not really the question, is it? It's "is it Photoshop enough for you?" Well that's a different deal. You can do your cropping, color balancing, contrasting, etc. That's fine. Just don't get too general about this. Photoshop is a $600 tool. Mastering it can earn you a living. Apps like that are very difficult to keep up with in the Open Source world.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    33. Re:And still... by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
      What can you do with Photoshop that you can't do with the Gimp? Gimp now has the CMYK color scheme, so the only real pro-Photoshop argument has faded

      RTFA. They say that the new CMYK handling is "far behind" that of the commercial programs.

      The other area that Photoshop is currently way ahead is interface. It remains to be seen how much of that gap will be closed by the new version of the Gimp.

      Interface is important because a good interface directly leads to higher productivity. For professional use, this is important. For example, a mere 10% loss of productivity in a department of 10 graphics artists means you need to hire on more person. The cost of one more person is WAY more than the cost of 10 Photoshop licenses.

    34. Re:And still... by mrm677 · · Score: 1

      Thanks...I'll have to re-evaluate Gimp.

    35. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I am not yet familiar enough with GIMP or Photoshop to rate either of them I would like to raise the point that it is good news whenever a open software alternative to a windows platform product improves its GUI, features, etc. because they are closer to reaching equality with their windows competitors. This forces the Photoshop or other windows equivilants developers to improve their code, support, and/or features because they are no longer able to dissmiss an OSS product because it "wont work on a user's system, is hard to use," etc.

    36. Re:And still... by Curtman · · Score: 1

      TWAIN? I thought Windows folk had all been embraced and/or extended by now.

    37. Re:And still... by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Wow, people actually *use* the magnetic lasso? That thing is a waste of time in my experience. Most of the time you have to go back and adjust the mask or selection by hand all over the place, so the time you *think* you saved by using it gets wasted.

      It's much easier in most cases to use the path tools and create a nicely shaped path around the object. Now, if we're talking hair or something equally difficult, the lasso may be a good choice. Nine times out of ten, however, the path tool gets the job done quicker and easier.

    38. Re:And still... by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "You can't do that so easily with Photoshop unless you've already invested the time and money to make it common practice. (Which, sadly, a lot of firms do. It's easier to commit to trudging an extra couple of miles in familiar territory than risk learning something new.)"

      This might be a killer app if artists tended to be heavy into scripting. About the only thing most of us would use it for would be automating a bunch of repetitive tasks, and Photoshop has a wonderful macro recorder that handles that with a nice useful UI.

      The R&D for GIMP is coming from a software engineer's perspective, not an artist's. I don't really have an issue with that until people start asking why us "stupid people would pay so much for an app." It's sort of like asking why somebody would drive with a manual transmission. Frustrating, iddn't it?

      The R&D for GIMP, if it has aspirations to compete with Photoshop, need to change gears. Those of us that make livings off the software want our healing brushes more than we want perl scripting.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    39. Re:And still... by dbc001 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed. The Gimp's greatest flaw is it's interface. And from the screenshots it doesn't look like it's improved much. If the interface is as flexible as they claim, they really should do some interface-templates. When you start the Gimp, it should ask whether you want the UI to look like Photoshop, MSPaint, or Paint Shop Pro, and set things up accordingly. Then Users could define their own templates to improve the UI over time. That should solve all the interface problems.

      I have also been annoyed by all the taskbar entries (as others have already commented). There's really no excuse for opening so many windows.

      I'm not a coder, but I have to say that I'm surprised that Gimp hasn't split off/forked into more projects. If I were a talented coder, it seems like these interface problems could be fixed relatively easily?

    40. Re:And still... by glk572 · · Score: 1

      windows also has the floating tool palets. works just great in multi monitor.

      --
      Well art is art isn't it, but then again water is water; and east is east; and west is west; and if you take cranberries
    41. Re:And still... by glk572 · · Score: 1

      As far as I am aware gimp lacks transform tools, like skew and distort. I make heavy use of them in my work, photoshop's transform tools are great.

      Gimp is great for web work, or for light duity image editing, but for high res photo illustration photoshop is really the only choice that I've found to be worthwile.

      --
      Well art is art isn't it, but then again water is water; and east is east; and west is west; and if you take cranberries
    42. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The other area that Photoshop is currently way ahead is interface. It remains to be seen how much of that gap will be closed by the new version of the Gimp.

      Well, that's what you think. I think the Gimp interface is better. Why? Because I've used Gimp far more than Photoshop, so I'm used to the "weird" Gimp interface. In fact, it goes so far that I don't even like the look and feel of Photoshop.

    43. Re:And still... by FLEB · · Score: 1

      I'm a fan of switching to "Quick Mask" mode and using the paint tools. Instant soft- or hard-edging, easy paradigm, nice rubylithic visual cues.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    44. Re:And still... by grolschie · · Score: 1

      The old gimp UI was horrible. GIMP has never tried to be photoshop.I too prefer Paintshop Pro. I use 7.0 AE. Anyone know if PSP will ever support 48bit images?

    45. Re:And still... by TekPolitik · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If the interface is as flexible as they claim, they really should do some interface-templates.

      My view of the interface is that it's not so much that the interface is flexible, but that they've broken each thing that would be a single feature in other graphics programs into multiple sub-features. The result is that to draw a box, you have to go through a a bunch of steps to do what would be one step in another interface. But you can also combine the sub-steps in different ways to do something different.

      This makes technical sense to programmers, but it's insane for a user interface. What it needs is a mechanism for providing an interface to reassemble the sub-features back into the one-step feature you can find in other interfaces. This is closely related to your suggestion, and would be one step in implementing it.

      I shouldn't have to select a box area, use fill, and deselect or merge layers to draw a damned box (or worse if I want a border around the box). I should be able to click on the "box" tool, mouse-down for the start point, drag, mouse-down for the end point, and be done with it.

      Even other drawing applications that use layers allow for this, and then allow you to customise the appearance of the box later.

    46. Re:And still... by gilrain · · Score: 1

      What's the command in GIMP for changing the pixel aspect ratio? You know, so you can design for mediums in which the pixels aren't square?

    47. Re:And still... by JET+666 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "If the letters "s", "i", and "g" appear consecutively in your s*g, you are lame."

      i resemble thet remark.

      --
      De sig boss de sig
    48. Re:And still... by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1
      OK, I stand corrected then.

      But still many people who have used both claim, PSP has more features than Elements.

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    49. Re:And still... by janbjurstrom · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, how do you feel Paint Shop Pro stands up against Photoshop Elements?

      We did some comparisons at work about a year ago (local news organization) - we were (still are) looking for good, cost-effective, graphics tools for some of our photographer's tasks, for prepress work, workflow automation (image format conversions, meta-data creation, etc.), and so on.

      I think I remember Photoshop (not sure if it applied to Elements too) has much stronger color handling, especially working with non-RGB colorspaces (i.e. handling CMYK, et al., making it more suitable for advanced printwork - which made e.g. GIMP a non-starter for many of our needs).

      But, PSP Pwns PS in scriptability. PSP's scripting language is a more or less full implementation of Python (v. 9+ I think). Pretty cool stuff. I think every function/command/etc. in PSP is Python scriptable (I should check, but it's late...).

      (That said, for quick image manipulation, I still reach for PS more often, because I've used it since v2.5.)

      --
      668.5
    50. Re:And still... by cosmo7 · · Score: 1

      It took me a while to find what you meant, but rubylithic is an excellent word. I tip my hat.

    51. Re:And still... by hp46168 · · Score: 1

      you're kidding, right? We just talked about not paying for photoshop or picture-it or whatever else ilk. TWAIn is a standard that wasn't created by microsoft. so, it can't be that bad, can it?

    52. Re:And still... by denks · · Score: 1, Insightful
      The core system does a lot, but the real usefulness of the GIMP (at least for professional folks) lies in that they can write up a perl script to accomplish any damn thing they can think of. Of course, you can write C plugins as well.

      Unfortunately until graphics artists learn Perl or C, which is not likely to happen...ever, this will not exactly be a good selling point for them. Its a bit like trying to convince them they should be using Linux instead of a Mac because they can view the source code. They make their money from designing graphic art, not coding.

      --

      I am Monkey, the Great Sage, equal of heaven!
    53. Re:And still... by Curtman · · Score: 1

      No, its not bad at all. I was just taking a subtle jab at MS because they don't support the standard, and they're pushing this WIA crap. Like DirectX over OpenGL, and like .Net over Java..

    54. Re:And still... by thorstneren · · Score: 1

      Photoshop is quite scriptable as well you know.

      --
      - thorsten
    55. Re:And still... by BigSven · · Score: 3, Informative

      Set the X resolution independent from the Y resolution and turn off Dot-for-Dot mode. This is one of the things that GIMP could do years before PS (just like multiple undo).

    56. Re:And still... by hp46168 · · Score: 1

      i get it... or bmp over jpg wav over mp3 wmv over ogg etc...

    57. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah but gimp is for engineers. Artists have photoshop and much larger budgets for art than engineers. When you need a simple design, gimp usually works pretty good for engineers, it has a good measurement toolbar, enough variety of colors, and its pretty easy to use. It can even do a bit of art though more on the painting side than say photo editing. I think if you want to do photo editing you get a program designed for it, like "photo"shop. Not that image processing is bad, just it doesn't seem like gimp's target audience. I mean its primarily developed for linux. How many artists do you know use linux? They all use macs.

    58. Re:And still... by jelle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmm. That can be arranged.

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    59. Re:And still... by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      MSPaint? You had me going there for a while. :)

    60. Re:And still... by forgotmypassword · · Score: 1

      I don't really have an issue with that until people start asking why us "stupid people would pay so much for an app." It's sort of like asking why somebody would drive with a manual transmission. Frustrating, iddn't it?

      My manual car was $1,300 cheaper than an automatic.
      My manual car is rated at a few more miles per gallon than an automatic. It's how you drive though.
      My transmission is never going to go bad, costing thousands of dollars in repairs.
      And most importantly, ain't no punk ass, little, 15 year old bitch down the street gonna steal my car, because he has no clue how to use a stick and 3 pedals.

      If the prices were the same, and the car doesn't allow hot wiring, then I would probably buy an automatic.

    61. Re:And still... by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

      let's hope yor logic doesn't prevail here on /. i've wasted many a good hour here, and i wouldn't want common sense to screw with that, ya hear!!

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    62. Re:And still... by ubernostrum · · Score: 1
      The core system does a lot, but the real usefulness of the GIMP (at least for professional folks) lies in that they can write up a perl script to accomplish any damn thing they can think of. Of course, you can write C plugins as well.

      Because as we all know, graphic designers the world over have been clamoring for an app that lets them write macros in Perl and Scheme.

    63. Re:And still... by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1

      The gimp now supports both ways of doing it. You can have multiple windows or you can dock them to one window, or even do both. Take a look at this screen shot. I have all the dialog windows docked and can get to them by clicking the tab.

      http://web.tampabay.rr.com/jdrabb/files/gimp-1.3.j pg

      Note: you need to copy and paste the link since my host does not allow external linking.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    64. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which taskbar entries? Oh you're using Windows. Too bad.
      GIMP's interface is just fine. Learn to use it just like you learnt to use Photoshop's.

    65. Re:And still... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "How many artists do you know use linux? They all use macs. "

      Virtually all the artists I know use Windows 2000 or XP. I'm not talking about a small handful of people, either. The primary app they use is 3D Studio MAX, and that's not available on Mac.

      Not that it defeats your point, but it was worth mentioning. I think you're right, GIMP is for engineers. I have no issue with that. It's the "but GIMP is as good as Photoshop" comments, well I take issue with those since they're not specific enough.

      In any case, we're not in a huge disagreement here so I just let it settle here. G'nite.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    66. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, there was a time when Graphic Design was a somewhat hazardous occupation. Beyond carpel tunnel, that is.

    67. Re:And still... by Lathan · · Score: 1

      Elements 2.0 has layers and channels, last I checked. Still, since I usually draw realtime as opposed to design and photo editing, I use Painter 8 much more. So don't quote me on this...

    68. Re:And still... by AME · · Score: 1
      What it needs is a mechanism for providing an interface to reassemble the sub-features back into the one-step feature you can find in other interfaces.

      Scripting?

      (That's not the best GIMP-script tutorial I've seen, just the first one that Google returned on "gimp script tutorial".)

      --
      "I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
    69. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > is that the majority of people out there making money with photoshop

      well with photoshop CS you won't be "making money" no more

    70. Re:And still... by varslot · · Score: 1

      But acording to a recent slashdot posting: "Sony has delayed the launch of the PSP handheld gaming system in the U.S. until it has a 'reasonable amount' of titles to launch with the system. This will push the PSP to 2005 in the States..."

      My question is: How Did You Get Hold Of PSP Already?????

      --
      There arises from a bad and unapt formation of words a wonderful obstruction to the mind. (Francis Bacon)
    71. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I just love how someone will make a funny reference on /. and someone else has to come in behind them and expand upon on it in a totally laugh-killing way, removing all hint of subtlety. And as if that wasn't enough, they get modded up for doing so.

      Even if it wasn't a deliberate reference, pointing out somewhere where someone else used the same punchline isn't funny.

      If it is a reference, getting a reference is not nearly as clever as making the reference.

      I'm so happy you got the joke, but inevitably it is the dumbest person in a group who thinks they need to explain it to everyone else.

      "duh I get it! knuck-kuck! [elbows buddy in the ribs] it's like those SNL sketches!"

      Very clever of you to realize. :-| Now if you'll settle down, I'll tell you about the rabbits again.

    72. Re:And still... by akadruid · · Score: 1

      Photoshop is only better if you have already used it. I went to choose between PS and the GIMP a few weeks back - never having used either - and couldn't find any reason to crack PS, let alone pay for it. Pre 2.0 GIMP is already a competitor, 2.0 can only be better.

      --
      "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
    73. Re:And still... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Informative
      This is only really a problem if you use Windows. Solution - don't use Windows.

      I don't really use taskbar buttons at all these days. Virtual desktops are more efficient and easier to use by a long, long way.

    74. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to use it just like you learnt to use Photoshop's.

      Honestly, I tried that. I only use photoshop for web graphics, gimp should be able to satisfy my needs. I tried for a week to be as productive in gimp as in photoshop. I failed. The gimp interface is a disgrace on an otherwise fine software project. It's cluttered, illogical, unstructured, unintuitive, and while it exposes too much detail in some area's, it exposes too little in others. I truly hate it now, and until a radical overhaul of it is done by someone who actually knows UI design, I'm not touching gimp again.

    75. Re:And still... by clicclic · · Score: 2, Informative
      Elements has ~80% of Photoshop 7 functionality. It does NOT have Channels or CMYK and its' color space management is uber lame. A patch must be applied to ensure digital camera images from EXIF-compatible cameras do not import as sRGB.

      That said (the bad stuff), Elements has some amazing tools in it that the programmers seem to have hidden from the accountants. Elements does NOT have paths, but you can use the magnetic lasso tool to create paths, then just save them as layers (Layer>New>Layer via Copy) or Selections. That's right: no channels to speak of but you CAN save selections. Not sure how they got that by the beancounters/QA but hooray for providing this power.

      Adjustment Layers are available, but layer groups are not available. Also, there is no Curves in Elements so if you import an image from PS7 with a Curves adjustment layer, it's locked. You can turn it off/on but you can't double click and edit.

      I haven't seen Photoshop 8 yet so cannot comment on its file browser, but Elements 2.0's file browser is just as good as Photoshop 7's. Which isn't saying a TON but you get my drift. Also, Elements file format is 100% compatible with PS7. Opening and editing in either is seamless.

      If you edit images exclusively then the price point of Elements is totally amazing (compared to all the other inflated Adobe products). But I think Paint Shop Pro is a better deal, although I've never liked its trailer-park UI...

    76. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Based on your sig, your previous hero must be the Alabama judge who dropped the 10-Commandment block into his court.

      Why bother with changing pesky laws when judges can just declare "Well, I think it should be this way." Why bother reviewing the issues and seeing what (if any) ramifications could occur. It's full speed ahead, as long as I get things my way, who cares what happens to society?

      Rule of Law is dying (not in the same way as Apple/BSD). The US is changing over to the Rule of Me. --fasten your seltbelts, the decline of society is always bumpy.

    77. Re:And still... by tjw · · Score: 1

      I just love how posting informative posts on slashdot results in putdowns for being too informative.

      I could see your point if original post was referencing an original work that most poeple were aware of, used the same phrasing as the original, or _was_ original, but it wasn't.

      --

      XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UB E-TEST-EMAIL*C.34X
  2. Pulp Fiction Drivel by DarkHelmet · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Bring out the gimp..."
    "But the gimp's prelease."
    Well I guess you're just gonna have to go CVS him now won't you."

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:Pulp Fiction Drivel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Subversion would be more appropriate.

    2. Re:Pulp Fiction Drivel by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 3, Informative
    3. Re:Pulp Fiction Drivel by rokzy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      er, what kind of retard mod made the parent informative?

      FYI, the Pulp Fiction quote, word-for-word correct or otherwise, has nothing to do with GIMP 2.0 and qualifies for Funny at best.

      now mod me +1 Insightful -2 Offtopic, and while I'm at it I'll take a -1 Troll for "fuck you, you stupid dickheads!"

    4. Re:Pulp Fiction Drivel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Who is sed?"

      "sed's dead, honey. sed's dead."

      =====

      I'm gonna get id | eval on your ass.

      =====

    5. Re:Pulp Fiction Drivel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice. very nice. 3rd best slashdot post ever. (just showing my support for quality posting :).

    6. Re:Pulp Fiction Drivel by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      "Eenie meenie minie mo, catch a mirror by it's toe..."

    7. Re:Pulp Fiction Drivel by boy_afraid · · Score: 1

      [Ezekiel 25:17]

      Jules: The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

      BAM! BAM! BAM! BAM! BAM!

  3. Flame me if you want... but... by Uhh_Duh · · Score: 5, Flamebait


    Are any of these features NOT copied from PhotoShop?

    --
    -- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.
    1. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by T1mmzy · · Score: 1

      I think that the new release resembles both photoshop and autoCad because of the use of text controls.

    2. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by petabyte · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are any of these features NOT copied from PhotoShop?

      I believe they were unable to copy the pricetag.

      I've been using 2.0pre for awhile and I really like it. Has some firework-esq features and it was really easy to make up graphics for my website :).

    3. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by yppiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod parent up. It's not a troll.

      The author is asking whether GIMP is doing things that we don't see in commercial tools. I'm interested in this, too.

      --Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

    4. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by Sarcastic+Crybaby · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What's wrong with copying features as long as they're useful and the copyist doesn't claim inventorship (is that a new word?) of said features? How much does PhotoShop cost? If it's > 0, then I hope that's one ``feature'' the GIMP 2.0 developers didn't copy.

    5. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by Paladin128 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Script-fu -- incredibly useful for automating content generation. Very clean, easy, and powerful.

      I'm not a pro, but I use GIMP because I find it simpler and less daunting than Photoshop, and still almost as powerful.

      --
      Lex orandi, lex credendi.
    6. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by vasqzr · · Score: 5, Insightful


      One feature not included is the "Call the FBI when you scan in a $20" feature.

    7. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by haystor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I use Gimp for a couple things for jpgs coming out of my camera:

      rotate-left abc.jpg
      rotate-right abc.jpg
      thumbnail abc.jpg

      I'm working on a smarter resize script that bring pictures down from 340k on the camera to something more manageable like 100k.

      How is this accomplished with photoshop? Can it be done with just photoshop or does it require another purchase?

      --
      t
    8. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by RoLi · · Score: 1
      You mean like script-fu?

      Or Gimp being able to use multiple monitors by using several windows and not just one window?

      Gimp is one of the finest graphics apps currently available.

    9. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "resynthesize" plugin has no analog in photoshop
      that I am aware of. Just the existence of this plugin makes me keep gimp on my computer next to
      my copy of photoshop.

    10. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by Roompel · · Score: 2, Informative
      Or Gimp being able to use multiple monitors by using several windows and not just one window?

      At least Adobe's Photoshop has been offering this feature for many many releases already.

      That leaves us with script-fu. Again, Photoshop has been scriptable for ages now. It's just a different language that is used in Gimp. The concept is not even the slightest new.

    11. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I imagine that many of the features are generic enough that any imaging package would possess them.

      Two features in particular that are certainly NOT copied are:

      1.The amazingly low price tag (free)
      2.The ability to run on other platforms then Windows and OS/X

      Personally, I think these are important and useful features :-)

    12. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're proud of that why?

    13. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by arkanes · · Score: 2, Informative

      OP asked for features that were not copied from photoshop, not features that are not in photoshop. Gimp was scriptable well before Photoshop (at least on the PC). Multimonitor support I'm not sure about but I'm pretty sure the Gimp had that first too.

    14. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actions would be the most basic way to do this, and it requires no additional purchase and not even any programming language skill. Batch process and you can polish off an entire folder with only a couple mouse clicks. Real easy.

      People who bring up automation or multi-monitor capability as something GIMP does that Photoshop doesn't are simply talking out of their ass.

    15. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by BlowChunx · · Score: 4, Informative

      I use the wonderful part of ImageMagick called 'convert' which will rotate, resize, etc. All from the convenience of the CLI (or scripts). Heck it will even make animated gifs out of your images!

      Try it, it's free.

    16. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Are any of these features NOT copied from PhotoShop?

      Not flaming, but how many features *are* there to put into an image manipulation app, anyway? GIMP and Photoshop are two programs that do basically the same thing. Of course there are going to be similar features.

      To put it another way: My Honda has a steering wheel on it, just like a Ford. It has a gear shift, and tires, and pedals too! It's so unoriginal. Are any of the features of the Honda NOT copied from Ford?

    17. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by samhalliday · · Score: 1
      anyone got any decent pointers to easy to follow docs for using the scripting?

      as an example for what i would be doing: i have a big bunch of PNG files which are all A4 size scans of 4 photographs each. if i could write a script which would crop the 4 photos each into their own file, rotate them and rescale them to 1000 pixels wide (maybe renormalise) and save as jpegs, i would be a very happy chappy.

    18. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by schon · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's not a troll.

      Of course it's a troll.

      The author is asking whether GIMP is doing things that we don't see in commercial tools. I'm interested in this, too.

      Like what, exactly? What features are missing from Photoshop that you'd like to see in Gimp, and when did you discuss them with the developers?

    19. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by haystor · · Score: 1

      I wasn't really trying to say that Gimp does something photoshop doesn't. I was genuinely asking. The $600 price for photoshop is prohibitive for me and I haven't used it since version 3.

      You mention some mouse clicks. Can you do it so it all runs from the command line?

      --
      t
    20. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by gniv · · Score: 1

      I don't know about using script-fu, but you can use convert, which is part of the ImageMagick suite. It comes prepackaged with most Linux distros.

    21. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by solios · · Score: 1

      Aside from Script Fu, who cares? I'm a Photoshop artist- specifically, 5.0.2. Six royally screwed things over, and seven and eight are even worse. I'm stuck using 5 in Classic in OS X because later versions are horribly slow and godsawful BAD by comparison.

      If the GIMP were as useable as Photoshop, I'd be using it. As it is, I pay attention to releases and feature additions, but they're a very long way from being what I need in a graphics application (which is, quite specifically, photoshop 5.0.2 with some fixes and improvements.... additions to 5.5 through 8 are not the kind of "improvements" I need. :P)

    22. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "How is this accomplished with photoshop? Can it be done with just photoshop or does it require another purchase?"

      Photoshop's automation tools make that really easy. Hit 'record', give it a name, go through the process, then hit stop. It records the actions you've performed and makes a button out of them. You can even say "Go look at this directory and go through each of these files and repeat these steps". It's powerful, and doesn't take long to get it running.

      Adobe also has a scripting client for Photoshop, free for download from their site, but I should let you know I haven't used it yet. Haven't needed to.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    23. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "What's wrong with copying features as long as they're useful and the copyist doesn't claim inventorship (is that a new word?) of said features?"

      Because some of us already have Photoshop. So to use GIMP, despite it's price tag, it would have to be better.

      Not everything is about price. There is a cost to 'free'. If I have to tell my client I can't do something he asked because GIMP hasn't copied a critical feature yet (and believe me, it is missing a few of those), then I haven't saved $600. I'm not making up wild extremes here. There's a reason why a lot of places have several programs that are similar in nature. It's not uncommon for an artist to have both Photoshop and Corel Draw, for example.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    24. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by Fruit · · Score: 1

      I think you'd rather want to use jpegtran for rotations: it rotates your JPEGs losslessly.

    25. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      But what would you have the GIMP do that Photoshop doesn't? Photoshop sets the mark, similar tools try to keep up. Nothing new in that. What innovation are you itching to show up in the GIMP?

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    26. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by gilrain · · Score: 1

      Back when I was a young graphic artist, we were using Photoshop -6.0! That was the best one yet. The program has gone downhill since then. For us, of course, it was uphill both ways -- not downhill.

    27. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by CBravo · · Score: 1

      script fu definately sucks. It probably works, but I didn't get it to work (and yes, I know scheme/lisp already). The documentation really fell short of giving meaningfull examples which are complex enough to actually say something.

      I settled for convert since what I wanted to do was possible with that too. Too bad because I liked the idea.

      --
      nosig today
    28. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by DrPascal · · Score: 1

      Hey --

      PS Actions are like macros in other programs. You basically start "recording" an Action, do a handful of stuff (resize, filter, etc) and then hit "Stop." Then with the Batch command you can say "do this Action to each file in this dir, and save it in this dir."

      I'm a keyboard/CLI guy myself, but I cut my teeth on Photoshop, so many GIMP things are new to me. Glad to share in the other direction. :-)

      --
      DrPascal: Not the language, the mathematician.
    29. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by barryfandango · · Score: 1

      AFAIK the Gimp has no plans to incorporate the latest anti-counterfeiting measures planned for most commercial image software and printers alike. So that's one.

      --
      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
    30. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by Quarters · · Score: 1

      Photoshop has had recordable actions since about version 5. It has had a scripting interface since version 7.

    31. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    32. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by Sarcastic+Crybaby · · Score: 1
      Well, I didn't ask, ``Why don't all Photoshop users switch to the GIMP?'' The comment I originally replied to seemed to indicate that the GIMP isn't as good as whatever-is-the-best simply because---according to the original commentor---the GIMP developers copied features from other programs. That is, it sounded like, ``Don't use this; it has features like this other program,'' which doesn't come across to me like a valid reason to not use software. Of course, there's a good possibility that I totally misunderstood the original commenter.

      The crack about Photoshop's price being a ``feature'' not to be copied was meant only as an attempt at a funny ha-ha---an attempt which apparently failed.

    33. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Photoshop's automation tools make that really easy. Hit 'record', give it a name, go through the process, then hit stop. It records the actions you've performed and makes a button out of them.

      But that doesn't work when the process involves a step that says "Examine the size of the resulting image, calculate some new values for the compression parameters, then undo the compression and try it again with the new parameters. Repeat until the size is within x% of the target".

      More generally, simple "record and playback" automation doesn't work for any situation where calculations need to be made, or decisions need to be made. I have a GIMP script, for example, that creates a copy of an image with the date and time the image was taken rendered on it in nice anti-aliased white text with a black border, appropriately sized and placed in the lower-right hand corner of the image. To do this, the script:

      • Reads the EXIF headers on the image file to extract the date and time string.
      • Reads the EXIF headers to extract the orientation field (important in being able to decide which corner is the lower right-hand corner).
      • Examines the image resolution to determine an appropriate text size.
      • Changes the date/time string into a more "natural" form (from "2004:04:13 16:54:22" to "4:54 pm, Fri Feb 13, 2004").
      • Renders the string in nicely anti-aliased white text with a black border.
      • Calculates the size of the rendered text, then computes the proper offset in the original image in which to place it (considering orientation).
      • Composites the rendered text onto the image, blending the edges a little.
      • Saves the resulting image to a new file (name computed by inserting "_date" into the old file name).

      And, of course, I can run this script on every image in a directory with a couple of mouse clicks.

      Taking advantage of the automation capabilities of the GIMP is more akin to programming than it is to macro recording and playback, but it's actually not that hard even for non-programmers, and it's very, very powerful.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    34. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by End11 · · Score: 1

      Flame me if you want... but... (Score:5, Flamebait) look what you've done

      --

      Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? Who knows? Who cares?
    35. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by swillden · · Score: 1

      script fu definately sucks. It probably works, but I didn't get it to work (and yes, I know scheme/lisp already). The documentation really fell short of giving meaningfull examples which are complex enough to actually say something.

      Try GIMP's Python or Perl scripting instead. They work much better. Examples are still hard to come by but I didn't really find them necessary. Just use the DB browser and search for the functions you need and it gets to be pretty obvious how to accomplish whatever you need.

      I settled for convert since what I wanted to do was possible with that too.

      I always use ImageMagick wherever it works. It can't do nearly as much as the GIMP, though.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    36. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info. :)

      Sounds useful. Might download GIMP in case I ever have to go through that sort of business.

      I'd like to mention that Adobe has some sort of scripting addon you can download for free from their site. I have no idea how powerful it is, though. (I would expect GIMP's to be stronger given how it's made....)

      Cheers

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    37. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by plover · · Score: 1
      Could you please put a copy of that script on the web somewhere? I could use that exact functionality!

      Thanks in advance!

      --
      John
    38. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      You could write a plugin for photoshop to do that exact same thing. I don't know how hard it is to write a plugin, but I can't imagine it being much harder than script-fu once you get used to it.

    39. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by swillden · · Score: 1

      I've fiddled with writing Photoshop plugins. Script-fu is much easier, even for an experienced programmer, and it would be much easier for a non-programmer.

      However, someone else pointed out that since version 7, Photoshop now has scripting support, with support for Java and VB, so it looks like PS has caught up in this area.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    40. Re:Flame me if you want... but... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Could you please put a copy of that script on the web somewhere? I could use that exact functionality!

      Actually in its current form, the functionality I mentioned isn't actually a single script. It used to do exactly what I described, but I have since moved some of the functionality into a separate program, which I'm cleaning up and will put up on SourceForge in the next couple of weeks.

      The program (currently called kprintprep, although I'm looking for a better name -- suggestions welcome!) allows you to walk through a directory full of images, selecting which ones you want to print. For each image you print you can also:

      • Specify a cropping region that is exactly 4x6 or 3x5 (your choice). You can move the crop rect around, resize it, and change the orientation.
      • Specify image orientation (for cameras that don't put it in the EXIF headers).
      • Specify whether or not you want to print the date/time on the image.
      • Add a short comment to print on the image in the lower-left corner (or not).
      • Specify whether or not you want to "enhance" the image in a couple of ways -- unsharp mask and saturation increase.

      The program then generates a small file containing the selected info and places it with the image. The file is really simple and looks like:

      FileName=IMG_6407.JPG
      Print=True
      DateTime=2004-0 2-02T08:41:10
      CropRect=((208,92),(1163,1525))
      In cludeTime=True
      Rotation=0
      Comment=First day of school
      AutoLevel=True
      IncreaseSaturation=10
      Uns harpMask=0.25

      From the GIMP, you then run the script, which reads the files in a directory and "executes" them. For each file which specifies "Print=True", it performs the specified rotation, cropping, enhancement, text rendering and saves the result to a new file in a different directory.

      The program that generates the files is a KDE program, so if you're on Windows it won't work for you, though if you find some other way to generate the printprep files, you can still use the GIMP script.

      After looking at the script again, it looks like the only essential element in the printprep file is the FileName. Every other line can be omitted and the script will default, or you can specify the lines if you don't like the defaults.

      Anyway, if you're interested, e-mail me at shawnNOSPAM@willden.org (leave the nospam *in*) and I'll let you know when it's all available on sf.net.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  4. I obtained a preview release by Amsterdam+Vallon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let me just say that you WILL NOT be disappointed.

    It's amazing all the new features, even just the small little useability things, that were added.

    Watch out PHOTOSHOP!

    --

    Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
    1. Re:I obtained a preview release by bonch · · Score: 1

      Why should Photoshop watch out?

      Seriously...why? Photoshop already has 2.0's new features and more.

    2. Re:I obtained a preview release by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Watch out PHOTOSHOP!"

      Why? It's not like I can return Photoshop.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:I obtained a preview release by damiam · · Score: 1

      Does it have the price tag?

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  5. Uh, gone? by jargoone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looking at the pictures, the old GUI is hardly "gone". It's changed a little bit, and they've added docking capability. Great.

    Great tool, but the GUI makes it difficult to find things, IMO. I was hoping for something more from a "new" GUI.

    1. Re:Uh, gone? by ImaNumber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They've also added a menu to each images, so no more right-clicking. This was a big complaint for new users...they didn't know where to find more options.

    2. Re:Uh, gone? by Milo77 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I agree. what changed? the underlying ui code? it looks just as ugly as ever...i suppose its skinnable so i can wrap it in something prettier - perhaps something written by a 14 year old with a lot of time on his hands...

    3. Re:Uh, gone? by Slowtreme · · Score: 1

      Frankly I see nothing new in the GUI that makes me think anything was updated. This looks like GIMP to me

      --
      Post: Sigged, for your pleasure.
    4. Re:Uh, gone? by justsomebody · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You should stop looking and try to use it.

      Feel of new Gimp GUI is completely different than the old one

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    5. Re:Uh, gone? by RoLi · · Score: 3, Funny
      The GUI is great because you can use multiple monitors with it.

      The new GUI combines the best of both worlds: You can put whatever you like in a single window and you can use as many windows (on as many different screens) as you want.

      I'd say Gimp 2.0 is put clearly ahead of Photoshop.

    6. Re:Uh, gone? by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This may be news to you, but you can do that with Photoshop too. In fact, I have all my Photoshop palettes on my second monitor (my PowerBook's built in display), freeing up my entire external monitor for the document.

    7. Re:Uh, gone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey stop knocking 14 year old skin, I have dedicated my life to its pursuit! :-X

    8. Re:Uh, gone? by cronot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're saying that probably because you were expecting a MDI interface like Photoshop's. GIMP will nerver have this, because of a GTK limitation/stand.

      "Limitation" as in GTK doesn't implement a MDI-like interface. "Stand" as in they won't never implement it, because of their opinion on this - they think MDI is evil, and while at first I didn't agree, after working with GIMP for awhile (and the new interface *IS* better, but you have to use it to understand why), I've came to belive that MDI is not necessarily the best answer.

      For Photoshop guys going to GIMP, maybe an MDI interface would be more friendly, but that's another matter

    9. Re:Uh, gone? by radish · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course, no professional photoshopper's ever use multiple monitors! Sheesh.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    10. Re:Uh, gone? by Whyrph · · Score: 1

      What the hell is wrong with the GUI? I never understood this. The right-click menu is great - lots of things don't require even moving the mouse away from teh picture. And you only have to re-arrange dialogs when you restart, which if you're serious about doing graphics work should be pretty much never. So what's the disadvantage?

    11. Re:Uh, gone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd just like to quote PerversionTracker and say, "OH GOD IT BURNS!"

      That seriously has to be the worst interface I've ever seen. And I've used a lot of crappy custom VB-app Windows software. Hell, I've made some, along with some crappy old-school Mac stuff. But damn that is ugly.

      Quick! Someone get this guy a Mac!

    12. Re:Uh, gone? by be-fan · · Score: 0, Troll

      How about a completely different toolkit? And are you seriously claiming that every single GTK2 theme in existance is ugly? Several of them are done by professional artists (no 14 year old!)

      Dipshit.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    13. Re:Uh, gone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't understand why people think MDI is so evil. I do realise that it IS often used where it shouldn't be, such as many older GUI word processors and that awful Windows 3.x program manager, but there are places where it is the right UI for the job.

      When I work with graphic images for my web page I work with many small images open at once. Imagine working with many small pictures on a real desk. Would you really have all those pieces on your desk where they might be on top of documents and other stuff? Or would you rather have some kind of cutting tray so when you want to put it aside it is easy to do so? If you have a second desk to work on, great but perhaps I prefer to work in the same place all the time?

      So MDI *can* work well and this is a place where it could. At least make it an option!

    14. Re:Uh, gone? by be-fan · · Score: 0, Troll

      Please fucking use it before commenting. The UI is *very* different. Its actually usable without special training now...

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    15. Re:Uh, gone? by BiggyP · · Score: 1

      i'm sorry, but some of us like the UI, i personally find the Photo$hop way of working absolutely abhorrent. while they have made a large number of modifications to the interface which will, no doubt, be of benefit to photoshop users while retaining the GIMP user interface which the existing userbase know, use, and find to be effective. take some time to learn how to use the UI and you'll get on fine.

      as for the reviewer, if the guy had even slightly more than a glancing knowledge of the GIMP, or had ever bothered to try it out before then we'd have a more valuable article on our hands, as it stands i'm simply not impressed, i'm amazed that he can't even work out how to subtract from the current selection, that really was a shortsighted complaint.

      he could do with R'ingTFM!

    16. Re:Uh, gone? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      Photoshop not only supports multi-monitor, but you can save your pallette locations and load them back in on a whim. This is not only useful for working with different aspect ratios, but also for multi-monitor as well.

      Photoshop is quiet pleasant with multiple monitors, and I don't have to go running around my taskbar.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    17. Re:Uh, gone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad screenshot, that - it's actually a comparison of new and old UIs, so it actually has two copies of Gimp on the screen. Only three of the five windows are actually from the new version.

      The key thing is the window on the left, which contains the main tool palette and several option panes attached to it. And the window labelled "Brushes, Patterns..." which has more of the option panes docked in a set of tabs.

    18. Re:Uh, gone? by krumms · · Score: 1

      Feel of new Gimp GUI is completely different than the old one

      Yeah, it's called Gnome 2 :P

    19. Re:Uh, gone? by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Frankly I see nothing new in the GUI that makes me think anything was updated. This looks like GIMP to me

      Are you even looking? On the left is Gimp2, on the Right is Gimp1. You telling me they look the same? Is there something wrong with your eyes?

    20. Re:Uh, gone? by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Yes, you've been able to do that with Photoshop for ages. But they're not talking about that, rather the ability to have two different documents, each on a different monitor. They say you can't do that, because Photoshop has an MDI. I think you can make the window double-wide, although it's a bit goofy.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    21. Re:Uh, gone? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      That's Mr. Dipshit to someone with an ID like yours.

      /sarcasm

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    22. Re:Uh, gone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably because of the new mouse pad and the optical mouse you are now using, you idiot!

    23. Re:Uh, gone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, since GTK 2's menu handling sucks, if you open the wrong submenu by mistake you have to wait a few years for it to figure out what you meant. Clicking on it, which would work on the interface they're ripping off, just closes all the menus. Nice enhancement, that.

      All the old train wrecks are there; the path tool, drawing straight lines, and stuff. All the improvements are listed in the /. writeup. Not very impressive for three years or so of work.

    24. Re:Uh, gone? by be-fan · · Score: 1

      My ID is lower than both of yours :)

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    25. Re:Uh, gone? by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? I scatter Photoshop documents across my displays all the time, at least on my PowerBook. I can't speak for the Windows version of Photoshop, however.

      yours

    26. Re:Uh, gone? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      See! (LOL)

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    27. Re:Uh, gone? by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      That because you're on a Mac, which handles an MDI setup a *ton* better than on Windows (or pretty much any other toolkit). On Windows, if you've an app like Photoshop that has multiple windows, it's all encased in a bigger window, so you don't have to duplicate the menu for each document. The Mac does this by default by having the oh-so-handy menu bar at the top of the screen.

      Sorry, speaking to the the majority before. I am a Mac user too, but used to talking about Windows. :P

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  6. Mouse pointers? by Negatyfus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, does it finally have mouse pointers like Photoshop, that are the size of the currently selected brush so that you can actually see how big an area you are affecting?

    1. Re:Mouse pointers? by optikSmoke · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yes it does.

    2. Re:Mouse pointers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you use gimp for a while when not in "photoshop mode" as I like to call the mindless 'graphic artist' whinge about not wanting to change, then you'll realising you really don't need them. It's something you get used to quickly.

    3. Re:Mouse pointers? by psocccer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, definately one of the most annoying things about gimp for me, but they've made it so the brush becomes your cursor now if you want, it's a config option.

    4. Re:Mouse pointers? by jnikkel · · Score: 4, Informative

      yes, at least Gimp 1.3.21 does.

    5. Re:Mouse pointers? by jcupitt65 · · Score: 1

      Yes, been there for a while in the development series.

    6. Re:Mouse pointers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woohoo!

    7. Re:Mouse pointers? by Negatyfus · · Score: 1

      Ah, you prefer guessing whether that one pixel hits your pointer over having visual aid that you can use to figure out if you're messing something up? Keeps the excitement in graphic design, doesn't it? I've hit Undo more times than necessary because of this. And don't even try to smudge with an arrow as a pointer without getting frustrated.

    8. Re:Mouse pointers? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes it does.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    9. Re:Mouse pointers? by bay43270 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know if they have this yet, but it should have a shortcut key (Caps lock in Photoshop). I switch back and forth between the more precise cursor and the brush sized one constantly.

    10. Re:Mouse pointers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to wait for 2.0 for that...

    11. Re:Mouse pointers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get tired of listening to your boyfriend beg for my junk because he says you have a little pencil dick.

  7. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm thinking I might even switch back to Linux. One reason I originally ditched it (Mandrake 6) was because GNU/GIMP just couldn't do some of the things that Photoshop required (WRT layering, gamma settings, etc.).

  8. What?! Old GUI is gone?! by maliabu · · Score: 2, Funny

    i'm sure some Gimp diehards will start complaining the change of GUI, and how 'difficult' it is to get used to the new GUI :)

    1. Re:What?! Old GUI is gone?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the UI from Sodipodi - hopefully it can be configed in a simular way.

    2. Re:What?! Old GUI is gone?! by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      Naw. Anybody who's been using The Gimp for long enough to be 'diehard' is a Linux/OpenSource fan, and used to ever changing GUI elements.

      --
      ---
    3. Re:What?! Old GUI is gone?! by xjimhb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Think about it for a minute ... a new interface is never as intuitive as the old one you are used to, let alone more intuitive. Maybe, once you get used to it, it will be better, or maybe not ... but it is going to take a fair investment in time and energy to figure out if moving ahead is good or bad, and a real pain to move back if you made a mistake.

      Looking at the writeup, I saw only ONE improvement that I really, really want - the multi-line text tool. And the reviewer was careful to point out that other goodies (like a multi-COLOR text tool) were NOT implemented.

      Personally, I'd be just as happy if someone would retrofit that new multi-line text tool into 1.2 and forget about the rest of it. I've taken the time to get used to right-click menus and floating toolbars and such, it wasn't that hard. So pardon me if I don't enthuse for changes that disrupt all the current users just to make things easier on a few newbies!

    4. Re:What?! Old GUI is gone?! by Stween · · Score: 4, Funny

      Real diehards want a Gimp with a command-line interface. ;)

    5. Re:What?! Old GUI is gone?! by optikSmoke · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ummm.... the right click menu and floating toolbars are still there. You can dock if you like, but it isn't required, and turning the menu off in image windows is quite simple (I did, I find it wastes space).

      Besides, the new text tool isn't a vast change, functionality-wise, from 1.2's "dynamic text" plugin or whatever it was called (sorry, I haven't used 1.2 in awhile).

    6. Re:What?! Old GUI is gone?! by VAXGeek · · Score: 2, Funny

      yeah, the syntax could be like this:

      PEN DOWN
      FORWARD 10
      RIGHT 45
      etc. etc.

      --
      this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
    7. Re:What?! Old GUI is gone?! by escher · · Score: 1

      a new interface is never as intuitive as the old one you are used to

      Counterpoint: Mac OS 9 -> Mac OS X

    8. Re:What?! Old GUI is gone?! by escher · · Score: 1

      Actually, a LOGO scripting language for Gimp would be pretty cool... at least for the Geek Factor.

    9. Re:What?! Old GUI is gone?! by spinlocked · · Score: 1

      ...a new interface is never as intuitive as the old one you are used to...

      Not intuitive, familiar. As a wise man once said: the nipple is the only intuitive interface.

      As a breast man I agree.

      --
      # init 5
      Connection closed.


      Oh... ...bugger.
    10. Re:What?! Old GUI is gone?! by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      I believe that's Tcl/Tk

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    11. Re:What?! Old GUI is gone?! by MyHair · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? You know it must already exist.

      (I love these tools for batch conversions/resizings/thumbnails!)

    12. Re:What?! Old GUI is gone?! by Lenolium · · Score: 0

      There is.
      Actually, it's not command line driven, it's a network daemon mode. I wrote a ad-banner creator system that connected to the daemon mode of GIMP, and through the power of scheme (btw, GIMP has a horrible scheme development environment) and some CGI's (real, written in horrible-horrible C CGI's), we had a pure server-side image creator that people needed no javascript for. It was neat, but a big pain in the ass. Oh, and back then, you had to run a dummy X server, so it would have something to connect to.
      So, next time you want a command line GIMP, remember, it's just a telnet away!

  9. That interface... by kingLatency · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was pleased to read in the blurb that the interface was improved. Looking at the screenshot, though, it doesn't seem overhauled, it seems refined. Looks like the interface still is not too great.

    --
    "I've got to stop masturbating! It makes me too lazy! Stop it, Albert. Stop it." -- Albert Einstein
    1. Re:That interface... by optikSmoke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Indeed, I've been using a 2.0 pre-release for awhile, and the improvement is cosmetic mostly. The dockable tool windows are great, but a functional MDI would be much more useful. Why? Window management is fine on linux with virtual desktops (one of mine is dedicated to gimp), but (a) it doesn't really work if you need GIMP on windows, which even with virtual desktops added has clumsy window management, and (b) more importantly, it is impossible to have windows automatically and intelligently resize themselves "around" the toolbars. MDI can do this easily and well, I and see no reason for this constant MDI-phobia (or is it SDI elitism?). Apps like Kdevelop have already proven that MDI can be done well, and the GIMP's SDI is the first complaint I get from people who might consider switching from Photoshop.

    2. Re:That interface... by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      Actualy it is.

      I use gimp for a long time way before 1.0 and I've always felt it more comfortable than Photoshop. Yeah, I'm always bitcin about my 3x22" monitors and Phottoshop not being able to use it as I would like.

      But Gimp 2.0 was love on the first use. After I tried first preview, I think about 20 preview releases back, I cant stand old Gimp anymore

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    3. Re:That interface... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>> I and see no reason for this constant MDI-phobia

      There's no MDI phobia, sir. It's just that MDI is freaking hard to implement, so GTK+ doesn't implement it. Not worth it. Feel free to contribute it to GTK+ if you feel so inclined, that's how open source works.

    4. Re:That interface... by Choron · · Score: 1

      Or better switch to Qt and they'll get a working one !

      --
      "Naughty, naughty, naughty, you filthy old soomka !"
    5. Re:That interface... by ImpTech · · Score: 1

      Well for one, GIMP is MDI, not SDI. Its just not old-windows-style parent-child-whatchamacallit MDI. In fact, in Visual Studio, dialog-based MDI (GIMP-style) is an option for your base program. At any rate there seems to be no consensus on which is better (just read all these comments!), except that dialog-based MDI is probably better on Linux, and afterall GIMP is really a Linux app first. Sorry Windows guys, if you don't like it either write your own or pay for your software.

    6. Re:That interface... by optikSmoke · · Score: 1

      No, actually "old-windows-style parent-child-whatchamacallit MDI" is called SDI. I quote from the Wikipedia definition (and the definition as I have always understood it): Single Document Interface (sometimes called SDI) is a way to organize graphical applications into individual windows that are handled separately by the operating system's window manager... Applications that can edit more than one document at a time (like word processors) will therefore give the user the impression that more than one program is running. GIMP is definitely SDI; each image runs under its own window handled by the window manager event hough it is only one application.

      Secondly, though I do occasionally use GIMP on windows, I primarily use it on Linux and my main reason for preferring MDI is independent of the platform. Put simply, MDI organizes toolboxes and windows much more effectively, because it is "aware" of them. With MDI, there is no need to position image windows manually to be able to access all the tools and the entire image simultaneously; hitting "maximize" does that for you. On linux this is somewhat alleviate (at least in KDE) with "always-on-top" window managet options, but manual positioning is still necessary as maximizing the image window would cause it to be partially obscured by the toolboxes.

    7. Re:That interface... by optikSmoke · · Score: 1

      Whoops that "Submit" button sure looked an awful lot like "Preview".

      s/alleviate/alleviated/
      s/managet/manager/

      That should do it.

    8. Re:That interface... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is no mere subtle change in interface. I've used gimp 1.2 for a while (along with years of photoshop 3-7), and the new interface in 1.3/2.0 is superb. I always felt 1.2 was a little aqward, but 1.3 takes away all of my concerns. It may have all the same functionality, but the functionality is now much easier and not hidden from the user. I'm sure we all got used to tearing off menus in Gimp 1.2. You don't need to in 1.3. Its great. Its like comparing internet explorer to firebird. Sure, they both do the same things. But firebird is much better at it. The analogy holds true to gimp 2. With Gimp 2 I feel comfortable to use it instead of photoshop for almost all non-print graphics.

    9. Re:That interface... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust me, we would ALL love that (well, the GTK fans would bitch, but then that's part of being a GTK fan :)).

      Thing is, GTK means, -GIMP- Tool Kit.

      After spending so much time and work bringing GTK up to where it now is, regardless of where you and I think that would be, do you -seriously- think they're going to admit that they were wrong from day one and are now switching to another toolkit?

      I don't think anyone in the -world- would have the humility to pull such a move.

      This being said, I hear they did try to make the UI more independant from the backend, so maybe, just maybe the KDE guys will start producing one of their great UIs (KDevelop, Quanta, mmmm...) for the GIMP backend. This would seriously rock.

    10. Re:That interface... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even if they made it as simple as when you select any of the open gimp windows, all your other gimp windows come to the front as well. nothing quite like tabbing out to check some mail that just arrived and then having to bring each one of your gimp windows back to the front individually. what is productivity really.

    11. Re:That interface... by pugnatious · · Score: 0

      IIRC only the windows version of photoshop uses MDI ,because they didn't wanna put a menu on each and every single window.

  10. Will there be an improved Windows version? by swb · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That doesn't carry a bunch of GTK baggage with it and a slew of warnings and gotchas?

    1. Re:Will there be an improved Windows version? by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 4, Insightful

      GIMP without the GIMP Tool Kit. I don't think you'll be seeing that any time soon.

    2. Re:Will there be an improved Windows version? by swb · · Score: 1

      So all the GUI manipulations and bitmap editing GIMP is capable of require the use of GTK to create the UI?

      I should have expected my other question would get modded down by the slashbots -- it's not flamebait, anymore than expecting Mozilla to use a platforms native UI elements would be.

    3. Re:Will there be an improved Windows version? by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 4, Informative

      The original versions of GIMP used the Motif took kit. Since it was not Free, and Lesstif wasn't up to running the GIMP, the developers started work on a tool kit just for the GIMP. This was also about the time that KDE development started up with QT. Seeing how flexible the tool kit being created for the GIMP was, other developers started writing other programs using the same kit. Thus GNOME was born.

      Seeing all the work the core GIMP developers put into GTK, I don't image they'll put the time into porting it to another widget set. That is not saying it can't be done. Just don't get your hopes up.

    4. Re:Will there be an improved Windows version? by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there a project called KIMP at some point which was going to be a Qt port of GIMP? The problem IIRC was that the GIMP relied heavily on the Gtk event loop, and the Qt event loop is completely different so it couldn't be used.

      Even so, these days you can embed a whole Gtk app in a Qt app if you want, so I don't see why just the graphics panes could be made into components and a whole new GUI wrapped around it. Duplication of effort, yes, but IMO worth it for KDE... and Windows, actually.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    5. Re:Will there be an improved Windows version? by Arioch_BDV · · Score: 1

      "GIMP relied heavily on the Gtk"

      If i got it correct GTK is GIMP ToolKit - it was created as part of the GIMP itself :-)

    6. Re:Will there be an improved Windows version? by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Well I know that. What I'm saying is the event loop was tightly bound to it, rather than being flexible enough to port to other toolkits.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  11. The GIMP is... by pwroberts · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ah, another fine newspost that leaves it to the pretty icon to explain what the hell the thingy in discussion actually is.

    What about people browsing with images turned off, you insensitive clods?!

    Anyway, the GIMP is the GNU Image Manipulation Program. It's a dandy freebie Photoshop for Linux and other platforms, dude.

    1. Re:The GIMP is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The icons have alt attributes. It's actually probably more obvious what the discussion's about if you browse with image loading/displaying disabled.

  12. Is it just me.... by Markos · · Score: 0, Troll

    Or does it look like the same thing, cept it uses gtk2 and has some pretty icons?

    1. Re:Is it just me.... by lederhosen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It feels better I would say. I like the docking feature, and many people will like the fact that the menu is in the window now (you do not have to right-click). Better text tool allso.

    2. Re:Is it just me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And docking... I'll take it you haven't actually used it or read anything about it, huh?

    3. Re:Is it just me.... by optikSmoke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and many people will like the fact that the menu is in the window now (you do not have to right-click)

      Hah! I spit on your menu! That was the first thing I turned off, in fact -- I find the right-clicking to be the best part of the gimp's interface; it provides convenient, quick, and easy access to basically everything. It's probably my number-one wish when using Photoshop that it had a similar right-click menu.

    4. Re:Is it just me.... by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Us Mac owners only have one mouse button, you insensitive clod!

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    5. Re:Is it just me.... by lederhosen · · Score: 1

      Well, it is good for the people that likes it!

      I, myself like my emacs21 without menubar and without toolbar. The fine thing though, is that the option exist!

  13. Worst screenshots ever by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 2, Troll

    Why show the whole desktop (complete with terminal windows and task bars) that is 66% dead space when showing off one app that isn't a task bar or a terminal window?

    Bad advocacy and then some.

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:Worst screenshots ever by skinny.net · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why show the whole desktop (complete with terminal windows and task bars) that is 66% dead space when showing off one app that isn't a task bar or a terminal window?

      Unfortunately, they couldn't figure out how to use the new selection tools.

    2. Re:Worst screenshots ever by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "Bad advocacy and then some."

      According to the article, it seems to have been written by a journalist who's used GIMP about once every three months. So expect some simple screenshots, and things like putting minor bug reports in as part of "a review"

    3. Re:Worst screenshots ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what WM was the guy using in those screenshots anyway?? i'm just curious.

    4. Re:Worst screenshots ever by Trogre · · Score: 1

      It's called context; seeing the software running within a complete desktop environment.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:Worst screenshots ever by kpaul · · Score: 1

      And how can anyone expect to do serious design work with that hideous desktop color?

    6. Re:Worst screenshots ever by Slack(er)ware · · Score: 1

      It looks like XFce to me.

  14. Yucky by Lane.exe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The UI is still clunky and cluttered looking, but overall GIMP is an amazing program for the right price. It may never be a substitute for Photoshop, CAD or Illustrator, but for the weekend graphics hacker who doesn't have 600 dollars, this is a step in the right direction.

    --
    IAALS.
    1. Re:Yucky by lederhosen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For most people it is a replacement for Photoshop.
      It is not as good but most people wont feel much of a difference.

      Ilustrator is a totaly different program.
      And Sodipodi is not close to Ilustrator.

    2. Re:Yucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but that's not all. Photoshop and Illustrator have a major problem. They don't run on Linux.

      Therefore I can't use them... Ah well

    3. Re:Yucky by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny... I'd have said "therefore, I can't use Linux." :-)

      Most people choose their OS based on the tools they need to use, not the other way around. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just making a point.

      yours

    4. Re:Yucky by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      Linux isn't just an OS. It's also a religion.

      I look back now on the days when I solely used Linux at home. I was 'socking it to the Man' at Microsoft in my hair shirt. I remember instances where I was elated because, for instance I finally had a vector based drawing program working as well as Corel Draw 3.0 on Windows 3.1. I could even print stuff.

      At some point, though, I said 'nuts to this.'

      Plus decent computer hardware is cheap enough now that I have a KVM switch and can run various OSes on multiple machines. I wouldn't be without X CD Roast for burning CDs. But I use Micrografx Picture Publisher, not The Gimp, for bitmap editing of my web graphics.

      --
      ---
    5. Re:Yucky by steveha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And for those of us who need things Linux provides, but don't need PhotoShop, Linux and GIMP are the right tools.

      I wouldn't dream of telling a professional graphic designer to use Linux; the pros need PhotoShop. But if you just want to make a few digital photos look a bit better, or make some simple graphics for a web page, the GIMP is all you need. And it runs on Linux.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    6. Re:Yucky by RockMunchies · · Score: 1

      What pisses me off is that the Gimp could've had a much better, streamlined interface, if they weren't such a bunch of conservative heads. See here : www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berk eley.edu/msg04956.html They declined the offer of a talented designer who gave them some good advice on how to takle various design issues which are affecting productivity. Instead, we're stuck with this clunky interface...

    7. Re:Yucky by RockMunchies · · Score: 1

      The image isn't there anymore... Google cache : http://images.google.com/images?q=gimpstreamline2. png&num=30&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&safe=off&sa =N&tab=wi

    8. Re:Yucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny... I'd have said "therefore, I can't use Linux." :-)

      I don't support corrupt organisations, no matter how "good" the software that runs on it is.

    9. Re:Yucky by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      Yep. Couldn't have said it better myself.

      Of course, if you just need to do those things you mentioned, there's free/open tools available for you on any platform. I suspect they're probably easier to use than The GIMP, too. (Not that I've tried the latest GIMP, so I could be wrong. I doubt it though.)

      cheers

    10. Re:Yucky by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      Are you voting for Nader by any chance?

    11. Re:Yucky by steveha · · Score: 1

      Do give GIMP 2.0 a try; I rather like it. It's easier to find things you want.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    12. Re:Yucky by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      Will do. :-)

  15. This just makes my day! by sharkey · · Score: 2, Funny
    Don't like the old UI? It's gone. All new.

    I was just today commenting on how every application would be improved by using Microsoft Office style non-buttons in its interface.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    1. Re:This just makes my day! by arose · · Score: 1

      Thank GTK you can change the theme and get "real" buttons.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    2. Re:This just makes my day! by pugnatious · · Score: 0

      Absolutely hate those

  16. What about the rest of us? by ivan256 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What about those of us that *do* like the 1.3 GUI? Fuck you?

    Fortunatly it seems that they kept it quite similar. I had these horrid visions of a photoshopesque MDI that will probably give me nightmares now. I like to manage my own windows, thank you.

    1. Re:What about the rest of us? by robertchin · · Score: 1

      Then you should be using the Mac OS X version

    2. Re:What about the rest of us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use the gimp in windows. Is there a way to auto-raise the toolbox / toolsetting windows when I switch from different tasks to any of my gimp images?

    3. Re:What about the rest of us? by Kenja · · Score: 1
      "What about those of us that *do* like the 1.3 GUI? Fuck you?"

      You know the open source mantra, "if you dont like what we offer, write somthing different".

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    4. Re:What about the rest of us? by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      I was hoping that it would no longer clutter up my task bar with a block for every single subwindow it creates (including palettes, controls, toolbars, etc). So I'll still have to choose between letting the GIMP take over my task bar, or collapsing all GIMP windows into a single item, so I can't select different documents. Oh well. Fortunately I have a Mac and Photoshop for when I want good usability, and I can stick to using the GIMP for convenience on my Linux boxes.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    5. Re:What about the rest of us? by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Informative

      See, your problem is that you have a taskbar, which is a flawed utility that is useable with only a fixed number of windows before it runs out of screen space.

      You should try out sawfish without gnome. Instead of a taskbar, you'll have a cascading menu when you right click on the root window that groups your application's windows by application. There's probably a taskbar out there somewhere that does something similar, but I've yet to see one, and you'd still be wasting all those pixels.

    6. Re:What about the rest of us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the closed source mantra? "If you don't like what we offer, well tough shit?"

    7. Re:What about the rest of us? by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If I wanted to do a bunch of click, slide, click nonsense with a cascading menu, I wouldn't be complaining about the dozen windows that collapse into a single "GIMP" item on my taskbar. I don't mind wasting the pixels used by a taskbar; they're cheap. :)

      A toolbar is very useful for single-click access to perhaps a dozen currently-open documents or apps... or at least it would be if it not for the GIMP cluttering it with buttons which are neither apps nor docs, and which serve no useful purpose there... or on a cascading menu that groups windows by application.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    8. Re:What about the rest of us? by arose · · Score: 1

      Or get a WM without such silly things at all. Best way to run the Gimp, but YMMV.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    9. Re:What about the rest of us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the closed source mantra actually goes something like:-

      "If you don't like what we offer, well, nobody will buy it."

    10. Re:What about the rest of us? by escher · · Score: 1

      One of the very few features I actually like about Windows XP is that when the task bar starts to get crowded it collapses multiple instances of the same window/app type into a single task bar button that you can click to get a list of all windows in that group.

    11. Re:What about the rest of us? by BigSven · · Score: 1

      I was hoping that it would no longer clutter up my task bar with a block for every single subwindow it creates (including palettes, controls, toolbars, etc).

      But that's exactly what happened. Palettes, controls, toolbars can now all be grouped in one or two dock windows. Perhaps you should try the interface before complaining.

  17. YER SUPPOSED TO SAY 'MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL' ERI... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..um, I mean Amsterdam!

  18. What about Gimp-Print? by leinhos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Will this release have a compatible gimp-print plugin?

    1. Re:What about Gimp-Print? by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      It already has, and always had, you just needed to have right devel packages, otherwise configure failed

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    2. Re:What about Gimp-Print? by mAineAc · · Score: 1

      it had one when I compiled it about 10 minutes ago. Haven't tested it yet though :)

    3. Re:What about Gimp-Print? by leinhos · · Score: 1
      Really?

      From the Gimp-Print Project page forums, the following question was (as of 2/4/04) asked:
      I guess I'm asking if there is a "clean" way to build and configure the latest GIMP-2.0 and gimp-print w/o having a GIMP-1.2 installed.
      which had the reply:
      There isn't yet. The Print plugin needs to be ported to the GIMP 2.0. Anyone want to volunteer?
      Can you actually print from GIMP 2.0?
  19. I see... by groman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I see they didn't go with an MDI-style interface. Having independently floating windows makes GIMP practically unuseable, unless it's the only program running... [grumble]

    1. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, virtual desktops?

      I give the gimp its own desktop in gnome 2.4 and well, I actually like having the separate windows. But I guess its personal preference.

    2. Re:I see... by GigsVT · · Score: 0

      I see you still are stuck in the Windows world, where you only have one desktop.

      It's easy enough to make a new desktop and put the Gimp on it by itself.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever heard of virtual desktops?

    4. Re:I see... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      The GIMP is one of those apps that really justified the Amiga's "screens" concept, where each app had the option of running in a virtual workspace to itself (that would be created and removed automatically), where everything including the screen mode could be customized.

      Unfortunately I don't think it was ever ported to that platform. And the platform's (for all intents and purposes) dead at the moment, what with the lack of resource tracking and memory protection. C'est la vie.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      N replies all saying the same thing pretty much... wow. Does no one actually think that MDI / non-MDI could be an option at the very least? Why should I have to install a window pager for this when I don't need one for everything else?

      Oops... using the clunkiest and most esoteric interface gets you more geek points. My bad.

    6. Re:I see... by jared_hanson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      MDI is something that is particular to Windows, and Linux by extension since the general interface trend is to copy Microsoft.

      Mac OS X (and probably prior, but I have no experience) advocates not using the MDI paradigm. I switched from MS to Linux and now I use both Linux and Mac. At first the absence of MDI was a little daunting and I didn't like it.

      However, after a couple weeks of adjusting, I'd say I agree with Apple that MDI is a horrible idea and should be avoided. I find managing my workflow far more efficient when my windows are constrained only by my desktop rather than some application that deems itself smarter than I am.

      --
      -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
    7. Re:I see... by kinnell · · Score: 1
      Mac OS X (and probably prior, but I have no experience) advocates not using the MDI paradigm.

      So does Qt. The documentation for the MDI widget says that research has shown that MDI is confusing, so the widget should not be used, but it's just provided for completeness.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    8. Re:I see... by Sax+Maniac · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This is overgeneralized, MDI is not purely evil.

      Everyone likes Mozilla's tabbed browsing, right? Well, that's just another form of MDI. It's windows-within-windows, but done right.

      What is evil is MS's old brain-dead MDI where you have a blank useless desktop with icons on top of it that can be hidden. Tabbed browsing just this trimmed of some extra features.

      What Mozilla does also right is that the whole SDI/MDI model not an either-or choice anymore. Want all pages in different windows? Fine. Want all pages in one window? Fine. Wants some pages in some windows? Fine. I showed Mozilla to various family members who usually use computers, and they all immediately love tabbed browsing.

      MS doesn't seems to understand which is better. They keep going back and forth between SDI and MDI when the answer is both!

      --
      I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
    9. Re:I see... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      I particularly like MDI applications because they provide the applications with a visual "hierarchy". I.e. non-MDI apps with windows floating around your desktop could just as well have been windows belonging to separate applications. This is what's messing with my head, but maybe it's just because I'm just not used to it. I enjoy MDI apps at the moment though, since a) no junk in alt-tab / task bar, and b) the windows are subwindows to the application window which makes sense since... well, they are in reality too.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    10. Re:I see... by Dylan+Zimmerman · · Score: 1

      Earlier versions of MacOS are very much MDI. They just aren't Microsoft MDI. Microsoft made the decision to use container windows for the official Windows MDI whereas Apple opted to use a sort of transparent sheet MDI.

      Each app has its own plane that contains all of its windows. For instance, all of the Finder windows are on the Finder plane. It's kind of odd to click on a single Finder window and have them all zip to the top, but it can also be useful.

      It's been a long time since I've been able to use OSX, so I honestly don't remember whether it works the same way, but I know that the "Classic" versions of MacOS used a type of MDI.

    11. Re:I see... by swb · · Score: 1

      What I dislike about MDI applications is that they are hostile to multiple monitor setups. You can manually resize an MDI app to cover the entire display area on two monitors (but then it covers the entire display area on two montiors...), but I haven't found an MDI yet that knows how to sanely handle the fact that there are two monitors and the MDI desktop is merely stretched over both.

      In other words, when you open or resize a window when the MDI window is zoomed over both displays, you get a stretched window. OK, I can manually resize these, but it's such a hassle to go back 10 years in time to fully manual window management.

    12. Re:I see... by 0x1337 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Install a window pager?

      Boy... try not uninstalling it in the first place, most "non-esoteric" WMs have pagers.

      Unless, you're in a win32 world.

    13. Re:I see... by bay43270 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I fought this argument for quite a while at my last employer. I agree with everything you say - except the Microsoft bashing. MS was completely wrong with their MDI implementations of 1987. MDI implementations in Program Manager, Word (until Office 2000), Excel, VB (until v6?), and other programs all sucked bad. But Microsoft did sort things out. They now recommend against MDI in traditional terms (they don't seem to agree with your definition of MDI).

      Meanwhile, they started transitioning office to SDI (which is appropriate for most Office apps). They also use both MDI and SDI in Outlook (you can switch views with the navigation on the left, or open an entirely new window).

      But the topic that started this all: Photoshop. The Windows version of Photoshop uses the traditional MDI windows for the images (which is a pain in the ass for multiple monitors), but separate panels for the tools (which are NOT constrained to the MDI interface). The Photoshop tool panels are even an improvement over the Gimp, as they don't show up as separate tasks in the task bar. Photoshop for the Mac beats them both however. EVERYTHING is treated as it's own window, but the pallets can still be hidden quickly, accessed on demand as a pull down or arranged on a another monitor.

    14. Re:I see... by grantm · · Score: 1
      Everyone likes Mozilla's tabbed browsing, right? Well, that's just another form of MDI. It's windows-within-windows, but done right.

      Well actually, no I don't like Mozilla's tabbed browsing at all. I like each web page to appear in a different window so that Alt-Tab works between all open documents whether they be word processor, spreadsheet, web pages etc.

    15. Re:I see... by jared_hanson · · Score: 1

      Some apps on Linux that don't use MDI suffer from the problem of cluttering the taskbar. I suspect this is the fault of relative immaturity.

      On Mac OS X, certain windows are "toolbar windows." They are only displayed when one of the document windows of that app is currently active. For instance, the Photoshop toolbar is only displayed when you have a image window selected. If you use Safari, the Photoshop toolbars will be hidden from the screen.

      In addition, there is no concept of a taskbar in OS X, but rather the dock. The dock is quite nice in that it minimizes clutter as all windows of an app are listed in a fly-up window from the application icon.

      I never used Mac until a few months ago, but everyday I become more and more impressed with how it operates. If only Linux could be more this way I could justify using my x86 boxes more.

      --
      -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
    16. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why it's so great that you have a choice. You don't have to use tabbed browsing if you don't want to.

    17. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Everyone likes Mozilla's tabbed browsing, right?

      No, but thanks for asking. Your desktop is already MDI, why add another incompatible layer on top?

    18. Re:I see... by escher · · Score: 1

      I like each web page to appear in a different window so that Alt-Tab works between all open documents

      Just a suggestion: Keep related groups of web pages tabbed in a window, have multiple mozilla windows for each group.

      (I absolutely love tabbed browsing. I'm never going back! NEVER!!)

    19. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Visual Studio 2003 uses tabs, fairly well too. You still can't separate documents from the "workspace" afaict. Not sure how that could be worked in without making things really confusing.

      But what I'm saying is that it's not "Microsoft doesn't," it's "Microsoft didn't." Of course, I imagine some parts of Microsoft still might not.

    20. Re:I see... by Arioch_BDV · · Score: 1

      Those tabs are badly cloned MDI, like the one in Opera. Indeed, when You have a lot of different windows - MDI sucks. But when windows a similar, like web-poages or word documents - then MDI rocks. But sure, the Gimp is not to place all those windows to task bar, it is better to have it's own one if it needs so. Like Borland Delphi for example - mayne windows - but only one on taskbar.

    21. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Gnome Human Interface Design Guidelines.

    22. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I have currently about 30 webpages open while I'm running only 6 other applications. If they were all in the same alt-tab list the navigation would become impossible.

    23. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "However, after a couple weeks of adjusting, I'd say I agree with Apple that MDI is a horrible idea and should be avoided."

      And it has been avoided with Dreamweaver MX, much to the chagrin of many Mac users who wish for an integrated FTP window and tabbed documents.

  20. UI by Ween · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know im gonna get marked troll, but I really would like the option of having the gimp ui as one cohesive window with moveable panels instead of 50 windows I cannot keep track of. I think there's a reason why there arent any other applications I can think of that use that layout anymore. They have all switched the the single window approach. It may not be as powerful or whatever, but it sure is easier for some of us folk. And no, I dont know enough to submit a patch and yes, I realize that the software is free.

    --


    Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt --Abraham Lincoln
    1. Re:UI by ArmorFiend · · Score: 1

      I never had a problem with it when I ran window maker, which happens to provide sticky, always on top windows and iconify-all-windows-of-applicaiton.

      Now I switched to sawfish and it makes the Gimp really hard to use, so hard I often relogin with wmaker, or at least fire it up on its own virtual desktop.

      So, if you're hell bent, you could wmakerize yourself.

    2. Re:UI by trtmrt · · Score: 2, Informative

      I also hate that in the Gimp. I've been using 2.0 for some time now and you can basically use a single window. In 2.0 you can now add different tabs to the same window instead of opening separate windows (for the brushes, for example). You can still detach the tab if you are in a masochistic mood :). I really like 2.0 I have to say. It has some glitches (at least the build I installed) with the selection tool but other than that I was happy with all the improvements.

    3. Re:UI by Miffe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Run GIMP and a simple window manager in Xnest. Then you get almost the same feeling as Photoshop.

    4. Re:UI by forgotmypassword · · Score: 5, Informative

      The second thing you notice about the new version is the GIMP's "dockability." All dialogs (Brushes, Layers, Tool Options, etc.) can now be detached from the main window and shown in a separate window, added to an existing dialog window, or hidden from view. The software saves all changes you make to your view preferences, so that when you next go to work, your tools remain laid out as they were during your last session. This not only allows you to create a custom environment that suits your needs, but also helps reduce screen clutter.

      Like that?

    5. Re:UI by jcupitt65 · · Score: 1
      You need a better window mananger and it won't be a problem (I know, standard annoying reply, but it's true).

      Having said that, there are some horrible hacks which will give you a one-window gimp session that sort-of works.

    6. Re:UI by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I really would like the option of having the gimp ui as one cohesive window with moveable panels instead of 50 windows I cannot keep track of"

      Create a new desktop. Launch GIMP in that desktop. Voila, 'one cohesive window'.

      Switch back to the original desktop to see whatever you were working on before, free of any GIMP-induced overcrowding.

      I hear that even Windows is going to support multiple desktops soon...

    7. Re:UI by pavon · · Score: 1

      Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt -- Abraham Lincoln

      hehe, I think one needs to read his own sig. That is exactly what the new gimp does.

    8. Re:UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the all open images are still using their own window.

    9. Re:UI by iantri · · Score: 1
      I don't understand why people keep bitching about applications with multiple windows.

      Last time I checked, this is how all Mac apps work (as of Mac OS 9.1). In fact, the GIMP's main competitor (Photoshop) works the same way on the Mac! (Photoshop 5.5.. can't comment on newer versions)

      The GIMP's biggest UI problem (IMHO) is that the main menus are in the context menu. This is fairly useable, but completely non-intuitive..

    10. Re:UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GIMP in windowmaker is great.

      Move all the gimp stuff to a seperate workspace.

      Lost a window in all the muddle ? Middle click, get your app list, click on the window you want, and up it comes.

      Don't panic!

    11. Re:UI by evilad · · Score: 1

      It might make a good _option_ but I hope it never becomes mandatory. One thing that I absosmurfly love about KDE is holding down alt and resizing any window with the right mouse button.

      I am constantly trying to use this functionality on MDI child-windows, and it drives me absolutely mad that I can't.

      I'm sure that there are lots of similar "cool window management tricks" in other WMs that you lose when you go to an MDI interface.

    12. Re:UI by TekPolitik · · Score: 1
      Having said that, there are some horrible hacks which will give you a one-window gimp session that sort-of works.

      It appears that the linked application is no longer available - at least it's not available from the places kde-look says it is.

    13. Re:UI by Seanasy · · Score: 1
      ...or hidden from view.

      Is like the Mac way where the utiity windows disappear when the app loses focus? If so, that is an improvement. I think most people's (OK, ,my) problem with GIMP's MDI would go away if they did this. I like Mac's MDI but the GIMP, for me, is a confusing mess.

    14. Re:UI by Ween · · Score: 1

      Yea well, I guess the implemented that feature since I tried it out sometime back ... make that way back.

      --


      Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt --Abraham Lincoln
    15. Re:UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How? I've opened up GIMP for the first time, dismissed the tips, and I'm left with two windows, one containing the toolbox and tool options, the other containing the layers dialog and brushes dialog. When I open an image, that appears in the third window.

      What I would like is for the first two windows to appear as panels in each image window that I open. I don't consider that to be MDI, and I don't consider it to be unreasonable. I just can't find a way of doing it.

    16. Re:UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Create a new desktop. Launch GIMP in that desktop. Voila, 'one cohesive window'.

      Great, so I have to resort to switching between multiple desktops now? I reserve that for unrelated tasks - when editing an image, I often like to have a couple of file windows open to transfer it across to the server or something.

      Interfaces should _get out of the damn way_. Why don't the GIMP developers understand that?

    17. Re:UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thankyou! I was getting bored of all the comments about MDI and was thinking that `X11 supports this inherently by allowing you to specify the root window on a per application basis, what's the problem?'. But I couldn't find a tool that allowed the user to do this and was seriously considering writing one just to prove that it could be done -- you've saved me an afternoon of bother.

  21. Export SVG into illustrator? by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why not save yourself a gazillion bucks and export it into the excellent (and Free) Sodipodi.

    It's a fantastic vector graphics editor, one that reminds me slightly of Draw on the old Acorn, but more powerful.

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:Export SVG into illustrator? by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you tried inkscape? from what i can tell its sodipodi with abit more and they seem to have more frequent releases.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:Export SVG into illustrator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      reminds me slightly of Draw on the old Acorn

      Ooo... those are magic words. I loved !Draw. The only vector package I've ever found curves to be intuitive in.

    3. Re:Export SVG into illustrator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I tried inkscape, but I found it's GUI sucks compared to Sodipodi. Went back to the old and true Sodi :)

  22. Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by MajorDick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have been waiting , obviouslly in vain for a version of the gimp to come out with REAL CMYK capablities. I personally know of about 10 people I worked with that would jump on the Gimp bandwagon. WHY in gods name hasnt this been implemented yet ?

    1. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Blame adobe. They have the patents over much of the CMYK processing space.

      It's not that gimp won't do it, it's that legally they can't until adobe release the patent, or allow the gimp authors to use it for a low price.

      Personally, I'm in favour of a constitutional amendment that insists patents are only valid on commercial products, but that free/oss software is immune from such. It's the only way to increase competition to benefit consumers.

    2. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by jnikkel · · Score: 1

      You could always check out this plugin:
      http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separa te.shtml

    3. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by haystor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Probably because print people, who make up a very small minority of graphics program users, aren't providing the code for CMYK.

      This is like the desktop problem with Linux. For most of the people making Linux, the desktop is essentially done. I personally can do 90% of what I need on the desktop as soon as I can open multiple xterms. I can do 100% of what I need with Gimp without CMYK. I imagine most other people contributing and using Gimp are the same.

      --
      t
    4. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by jcupitt65 · · Score: 1

      It's coming with GEGL (together with 16 bit). Another year or two I guess.

    5. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what you say makes sense, and that's from my point of view as a pro photoshop user. It's one of those tools that generates so much of my income that it's cost (less than a week's pay) is well worth it. Even factoring in that I need a proprietary OS I pay for, it's still worth it to me.

      Equally, for the majority of gimp users (and there are MANY of them) it's facilities are all they need, and refinements like 2.0 are welcome additions to an already worthwhile program.

    6. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      WHY in gods name hasnt this been implemented yet ?

      Perhaps there are patent issues? There are 59 patents that relate to the terms "CMYK" and "Pantone". Some of them may actually apply.

    7. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been waiting , obviouslly in vain for a version of the gimp to come out with REAL CMYK capablities. I personally know of about 10 people I worked with that would jump on the Gimp bandwagon. WHY in gods name hasnt this been implemented yet?

      Young man, there's no need to feel down.
      I said, young man, pick yourself off the ground.
      I said, young man, 'cause you're in a new town
      There's no need to be unhappy.

      It's fun to stay at the C-M-Y-K.
      It's fun to stay at the C-M-Y-K.

      They have everything for you men to enjoy,
      You can hang out with all the boys ...

      It's fun to stay at the C-M-Y-K.
      It's fun to stay at the C-M-Y-K.

    8. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never understood the point of cmyk in a graphics app. You're working on a RGB device, USE THAT FACILITY. The only time CMYK is needed is when printing, and the device driver does that conversion for you

    9. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I'm in favour of a constitutional amendment that insists patents are only valid on commercial products, but that free/oss software is immune from such.

      Boy people sure are getting slap-happy about throwing shit in the constitution now.

      I think we need a constitutional amendment that says dogs that bark after 10pm must be taken to the pound.

    10. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by faust2097 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't "blame Adobe". These are useful, non-trivial, novel patents that took a lot of research to develop. Unless you think that specific pieces of directionally influenced [non-symmetric] 4D to 3D matrix math with interactive tuning are just so obvious to everybody that they're not worth protecting. This stuff isn't the one-click patent.

      If the Gimp team wants real CMYK they can do it themselves with a team of volunteers, a few Gretag spectrophotometers and several years of fine-tuning but there's a reason that everyone licenses this stuff from Pantone, Screen, EFI, Adobe, etc. and it's because it's really, really, really hard to do.

    11. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      After Gimp 2.0 is out, that should be in about a month or so, they will start new version which will have completely different color manipulation, and allowing CMYK and such color models to be edited.

      Those 10 people will have to wait for Gimp 2.2,... or it will be 3.0??

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    12. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by jcupitt65 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not true, there are plenty of open source colour management systems around, for example Little CMS.

      The problem is that gimp's internals are all designed for 1 and 3 band 8 bit images. When they get GEGL up and running, gimp will have real CMYK.

    13. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More importantly cut software pantents time frame down to a more realistic technology time frame. 7 years is long enough to own the entire life of a software product. If the pantes were something more like 7-12 months the patents would server there pourpus of "I inveneted it, I should be alowed first to market." whilte not providing a long term (in software time) monopoly.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    14. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      In Texas, it is the only way to make new laws, but thats because the Texas constitution is broken. Supposedly it was designed to be broken.

    15. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by warrax_666 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the GIMP people can't afford to fend off patent-related lawsuits.

      Even if the GIMP people develop CMYK processes (and whatever that entails) completely independently of Adobe, Pantone, etc., but just happen to stumble on algorithms similar to any of the already patented methods, they could be dragged to court. Any you know what? Adobe, Pantone, etc. would win. That's because patents don't take into consideration whether or not you actually developed something from scratch. If the end result of your development (or "borrowing" ideas) is too similar to a patented algorithm or method, it's infringing.

      Since almost anything related to CMYK is patented by these companies, it's just too dangerous to even try to develop some of this stuff... It's basically a minefield of patents.

      I can see why someone might blame Adobe for not allowing their patented techniques to be used by OSS/Free software, but there is no point. Businesses exist for the purpose of making money, and you don't make money by giving away your R&D to your competitors (whether the competitors' products are Free or non-free is irrelevant). Businesses have no morals.

      Instead of blaming Adobe, blame the patent system.

      --
      HAND.
    16. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Blame adobe. They have the patents over much of the CMYK processing space.

      The irony is that Photoshop doesn't use standard CMYK. It uses CIE CMYK. Which is why Ghostscript has to say -dUseCIEColor when working with Adobe-generated EPS files, otherwise the colors look washed out due to the smaller color gamut of CIE.

    17. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by LordK2002 · · Score: 1
      Unless you think that specific pieces of directionally influenced [non-symmetric] 4D to 3D matrix math with interactive tuning are just so obvious to everybody that they're not worth protecting.
      I am afraid I do not consider mathematics to be "protectable", obvious or otherwise.

      By all means give credit to those who made the discovery, but why should I or anyone else have to buy a license to multiply some numbers? Should we have to pay the descendants of Isaac Newton for calculating gravitational forces or solving a differential equation?

      Thoughts are not property. Period.

      K

    18. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm in favour of a constitutional amendment that insists patents are only valid on commercial products, but that free/oss software is immune from such.

      Since when are "commercial" and "free/OSS" (assuming free-as-in-freedom) mutually exclusive? It is entirely possible to sell software commercially under the GPL or other free/OSS license.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    19. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some people disagree with the patenting of math in general, actually.

      Especially since, in some sense, it's discovered, not invented.

      Some people think there might be more effective ways of encouraging innovation and bringing about the advancement of knowledge and useful arts...

    20. Re:Ad when is REAL CMYK Coming ? by Slashamatic · · Score: 1
      The technique is as follows, just embed the CMYK code like this:
      #ifdef PATENT_ENLIGHTENED

      ...CMYK STUFF...

      #endif
      then just leave a note in the readme that the code should only be enabled when compiling the GIMP for use outside the patent's reach.
  23. Great by ericlp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Been using Photoshop for over 10 years. Hard to get out of that comfort zone. Been using Gimp for some stuff lately and kinda like it.

    1. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here but Im just waiting for it to the small things well instead of trying to do too many things.

      The "save for Web function with which you can preview an image next to the original under different GIF, PNG, and JPEG settings"
      is something that is a time saver for web related graphics and I find it amazing that they didnt get to this option in this version.
      If youre not going to be a Photoshop killer than at least try to be practical.

      zack

    2. Re:Great by solios · · Score: 1

      Heh. I do a lot of web graphics work, and I've NEVER found Adobe's products to be competetive, or even useable for that matter. I've been using Fireworks MX for image optimization- it does an awesome job of it in terms of file size and quality.... and if for some reason you want to, oh... do a rollover and write out some HTML, I was able to figure it out in Fireworks in about four seconds- compared to Imageready, in which I never actually found the process. :P

      Price point is the problem, obviously- but Fireworks does things Right in terms of optimization, so if the GIMP can beat that (especially for batch processing), then it's something I'll have to look into. O_o

  24. ..megawumpus improvements.. by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Funny
    There has also been megawumpus improvements int the text tool

    Wake when there are gigawumpus improvements.

    (Did I use that properly? Should I be ashamed?)

    1. Re:..megawumpus improvements.. by dustmote · · Score: 4, Funny

      How does one measure things in wumpuses? Does one have to look in the code and play, in effect, Hunt the Wumpus?

      --


      -1, "1337" speak
    2. Re:..megawumpus improvements.. by eth1 · · Score: 1

      Given how many times I was messily eaten by a plain old wumpus back in the day, the idea of a megawumpus, let alone a gigawumpus is quite frightening.

    3. Re:..megawumpus improvements.. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Nope. Just play "hunt the wumpus" for a few hours and you will learn to estimate how much wumpus things are.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    4. Re:..megawumpus improvements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to play it on my TI94/A many moons ago. I remember that the most frustrating thing was either when I got trapped in a circular tunnel with no escape, or when the wumpus did. I played for about an hour trying to find him on that last one.

    5. Re:..megawumpus improvements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does one measure things in wumpuses?

      It's a long and complicated procedure, involving the Library of Congress.

    6. Re:..megawumpus improvements.. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      I was always drawing a map. And depending on implementation of Wumpus cavern generator, it may or may not be possible. Once I got the cavern split in two, Wumpus in the other half :) But that's what the bats are for. True, you risk you get dropped into a pit or into wumpus jaws, but that's the only way to get in shot range. (and of course not getting eaten is damn hard if the cavern area is small...)
      I wrote Wumpus for my TI-81 myself :)

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    7. Re:..megawumpus improvements.. by srhuston · · Score: 1
      (Did I use that properly? Should I be ashamed?)

      Only a picowumpus.
      --
      Three dits, four dits, two dits, dah!
      Radio, radio, rah rah rah!
    8. Re:..megawumpus improvements.. by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      What, are you dead-heading again?

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  25. Slices? by moosesocks · · Score: 1, Informative

    Will it do image slicing like Adobe's ImageReady does?

    If not, it will remain virtually useless to web designers. I just don't get why on earth the Gimp doesn't have this feature, as it is incredibly simple and incredibly useful.

    (Imageready is bundled with photoshop, and is essentially a photoshop modified for web-graphics work)

    Oh.... the UI still needs a lot of work. It's a giant step forward, but still sucks compared to most commerical packages.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    1. Re:Slices? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      You know, I filter the string "ImageReady slices" in my incoming email, and it's never hit on anything that isn't spam. I never knew it was an Adobe product, I always thought it was some sort of spam program.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Slices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ImageReady is a crutch for "web programmers" that know nothing about programming.

    3. Re:Slices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It already does image slicing. Click on the rulers and drag down or across to mark the regions, then use the pyslice plugin, or guillotine plugin.

    4. Re:Slices? by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      Just as parent noted, but if you still aren't satisfied you can try
      Script-Fu -- Selection -- Split An Image If you want to slice it too matrix.

      btw. it has Image Map too for slicing web hotspots that produces HTML output for them

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    5. Re:Slices? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Create yourself a few image Guides and then use the Guillotine tool. Instant slicing.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  26. Hooray! by smileyy · · Score: 0, Funny

    The graphic design department at my company (7000 artists) is already planning on dumping Photoshop for GIMP 2. We're going to sell our licenses to local schools and use the proceeds to buy coke and heroin. This is the best news I've heard all year!

    --
    pooptruck
    1. Re:Hooray! by Fred+Freddy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Dude, sell the cocain and heroin to local schools and use those proceeds to set up a meth lab. Local schools looooove heroin and cocaine (and you can do it as a fundraiser - "Meth Bakesale Today" or something).

  27. images off? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
    What about people browsing with images turned off, you insensitive clods?!

    I'd suggest updating that 300 baud, acoustically-coupled "modem" you have to something modern, like at least a 2400 bps. Seriously, stuff doesn't load *that* slow on a 53k, even.

    1. Re:images off? by pwroberts · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm on DSL. I'm just thinking of my poor disadvantaged modem-bound brethren.

      Not to mention people browsing on text terminals. Lynx forever!

    2. Re:images off? by James+Lewis · · Score: 1

      I think it is kind of an unreasonable complaint as well, but there is another use for browsing with images off. PDAs usually have this option. They are somewhat slow in displaying images, regardless of their connection speed, and the images fill up the screen and make for a lot of scrolling.

  28. From the article by Auckerman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "The highly anticipated version 2.0 of the GIMP, due out next month, will run under Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux"
    I think their definition of running on OS X is different from OS X users definition is. If I have to install GTK, X-Win (iirc isn't default in 10.3), and perhaps a few other GNU libs to make it work, then it doesn't run on OS X. That simple. Not that I care too much.

    RANT
    I think one of the big problems with GNU radicals that make the rest of the OSS advocats look bad is their total lack of care for anything not GPL and their irrational insistence that something like GIMP runs on OS X. It doesn't, it runs under X11 which runs on OS X. A big difference. /RANT

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
    1. Re:From the article by cjpez · · Score: 1
      Er, okay. Me, whenever I start up one of my trusty ol' X applications inside my GF's OSX box, I'm willing to accept that the software "runs in Mac OS X."

      By your logic, practically nothing runs on Linux. Want xchat? Well gosh, you've gotta install GTK, X Windows, perhaps some other GNU libs... What's wrong with requiring dependencies? This has nothing to do with "GNU radicals" and everything to do with the fact that, well, you can run Gimp in OSX.

    2. Re:From the article by Blob+Pet · · Score: 1

      um...so would you like the developers to say that it DOESN'T run on OS X? I think there are going to be some OS X users out there who are going to prove otherwise.

      A lot of apps have dependencies. Just because some of them don't package all of them into a nice install doesn't mean you need to get your panties in a bind.

      --
      "...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
    3. Re:From the article by petabyte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I take it you're not a member of the development team then? I never understand where people get off criticizing OSS solutions because it doesn't do some random thing you want. The code is all there - if you want a native Cocoa version, get coding.

      Sure there are things, I'd _LIKE_ done to some of my favorite OSS projects (plug for GNUCash 2.0 to get finished :)), but I can't code my way out of a wet paper bag and am just greatfull for having the tools I have.

      Oh and gimp 2.0pre2 works fine on my G4 at work now that I've installed yellow dog. YMMV.

    4. Re:From the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they could make a statically linked OSX version but they would probably be sneered at by the other uber-geeks that think that staticall linked is evil (it's not, and those that say it is are stupid)

      Mozilla, Open office and a poopload other good apps are statically linked... this should be too.

    5. Re:From the article by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, they wrote the software, it's up to other people to package it and make it easy.

      There's no problem with a bunch of people donating time chosing not to support a platform, and they make it easy for someone who _does_ want to support the platform by releasing the code - all that would be required is converting GTK calls into Aqua calls and reimplimenting the libraries.

      In the meantime they gave you a working solution (install GTK etc - which then gives you access to ALL gtk apps, not just this one) - and you have the temerity to bitch about it?

      --
      Beep beep.
    6. Re:From the article by RoLi · · Score: 1

      I've heard that the latest (or next?) version of MacOSX includes X support out of the box, but I could be wrong. Can anybody confirm?

    7. Re:From the article by transient · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You're missing the point. The highest priority in interface design on the Mac is fitting in. When you code for the Mac, your application must look and feel like other Mac programs. If it doesn't, then you've created an app that technically "runs in Mac OS X" but is by no means a proper Mac application. Normal users will be confused at best, disgusted and annoyed at worst. Pass judgment if you like, but that's the way it is.

      Mac programs are held to certain standard, and running on X doesn't cut it.

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    8. Re:From the article by Auckerman · · Score: 1

      Dude, they wrote the software, it's up to other people to package it and make it easy.

      Ease of use starts with the development process. Why clean a mess after it's made rather than before? My impression is that apologist for the lack of ease of use for OSS code seem to think that's someone elses problem that will be resolved Real Soon Now (tm).

      "There's no problem with a bunch of people donating time chosing not to support a platform"

      Never said there was.

      "and they make it easy for someone who _does_ want to support the platform by releasing the code - all that would be required is converting GTK calls into Aqua calls and reimplimenting the libraries."

      As Open Office discovered, that's not an easy thing to do. The closest I've seen is in ABIword which one guy has an Aqua version of it "running". It's been in that state for some 2 years now. I commend him for his effort, I'd love to use ABIword on OS X.

      "In the meantime they gave you a working solution (install GTK etc - which then gives you access to ALL gtk apps, not just this one) - and you have the temerity to bitch about it?"

      I bitch about the claim, not about the effort. When a OS X user reads: "(Insert software name) runs on OS X", they envision it does just like Office X, Quake 3, TaxCut, etc do. Not in the half assed: "Well, if you install these 3rd party GPL GUI libs and an X11 hacked togethor by Apple from OSS software, it will run exactly like a Linux app, isn't that great!!!!". No, that's not great, it's a marvelous hack, but not an OS X app.

      --

      Burn Hollywood Burn
    9. Re:From the article by transient · · Score: 1
      A lot of apps have dependencies. Just because some of them don't package all of them into a nice install doesn't mean you need to get your panties in a bind.

      A typical Mac user will get their panties in a bind over this. Macs are about consistency and simplicity; they are not about chasing dependencies that the developer was too lazy to include in the installer. There is an installer, right? Or better yet, a single application bundle that the user can simply drag to their Applications folder? No? Then this is not a proper Mac program, and saying it "runs in Mac OS X" is technically correct but mildly deceitful.

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    10. Re:From the article by transient · · Score: 1

      This is not "some random thing." The developers are claiming that GIMP runs on OS X without (apparently) really understanding what they're saying. Until I can install GIMP by dragging one file to my Applications folder, and run it without installing the optional X11 package, GIMP is not a proper Mac application. I presume the original poster wouldn't be complaining if the developers hadn't made the technically correct but still dubious claim that GIMP runs on Mac OS X.

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    11. Re:From the article by djh101010 · · Score: 1

      I've heard that the latest (or next?) version of MacOSX includes X support out of the box, but I could be wrong. Can anybody confirm?
      It either ships with it, or you install it simply. The download is at

      http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/download/ Works great, no muss, no fuss. I don't know if 10.3 has it installed by default, but it's a quick enough install.

    12. Re:From the article by remahl · · Score: 1

      Yes, the latest version of OS X, 10.3 Panther does include an X Server. However, it needs to be launched as a separate application so it is not fully integrated. The X11 environment is also not selected as part of a standard installation.

    13. Re:From the article by Blob+Pet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Mac users are going to throw hissy fits then let them. "Proper Mac" or not (and I think some Mac users have to get off their philosophical high horse), the fact that the Gimp developers are taking the time to release an OS X version ( and probably won't make a dime as a result, instead getting flames from the likes of you) tells me that they aren't as lazy or deceitful as you would lead people to believe. It's one thing to make a constructive suggestion, but it's totally another to be a trollish flamer.

      --
      "...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
    14. Re:From the article by transient · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call it a philosophy, really. Or a hissy fit, for that matter. The Mac gives developers tools to make life very easy for users. When a developer doesn't take advantage of those tools, they will alienate people simply by being different. It's not a philosophical issue, it's a matter of inconsistency and undue complexity. Nobody (well, nobody sane) looks down their nose at someone for not packaging their application like everyone else's, they just wonder why the developers chose to make things more difficult than they need to be.

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    15. Re:From the article by cjpez · · Score: 1
      I don't believe that the Gimp folks ever said anything about it being a "proper Mac application." Let's look at the quote one more time, shall we?
      The highly anticipated version 2.0 of the GIMP, due out next month, will run under Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux.
      Where in there do they state that Gimp is suddenly going to use the native OSX gui? Nowhere. They said it'll run on OSX, that's all. And it will.
      Mac programs are held to certain standard, and running on X doesn't cut it.
      For a program to be an "official Mac-OS-X-Runs-Using-Native-GUI-Using-Apple's-Guide lines-Etc" program, of course. The Gimp isn't, and probably will never be (unless someone more familiar with OSX coding decides to do a port), one of those programs. Nor does it claim to be.
    16. Re:From the article by BigSven · · Score: 1

      All you need to do is to type "port install gimp2" into your Mac OS X terminal.

      Well, you need to have installed darwinports beforehand. But since darwinports allows to create image files also, it's just a matter of time until someone creates that file you can drop onto the finder and start using gimp.

      Your arguments are so badly researched, it is obvious how much of a troll you are.

  29. Screenshots comment by MikeCapone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure the screenshots at Newsforge would be more impressive if the guy didn't have the ugliest desktop I've ever seen. I mean, a green background?

    It should be noted that when you are trying to convince people that something is good, it helps when it also looks good.

    Now, sure you can abstract the green theme (is that guy colorblind? maybe he likes red?) and see the improvements in the GIMP, but still. It just doesn't look very professional.

    1. Re:Screenshots comment by johnkoer · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with you 100%. Also, did you notice the image that was being edited/created? If you are trying to show off a graphics program you should really be editing an image that shows the true power of the program, not a doodle that could have been drawn by my two year old nephew.

    2. Re:Screenshots comment by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Well maybe he is trying not to be biased, and write just that, a "review", and not to convince anybody.

    3. Re:Screenshots comment by toiletmonster · · Score: 1

      i liked it.

  30. hard to find things? by Penguinisto · · Score: 0
    ...one click of the right mouse button brings up the whole GIMP menu, right there :?

    /P

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  31. Dock Bar? by forsetti · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can anyone tell me what the OSX-ish dock thingamabobber at the bottom of the screenshots is?

    --
    10b||~10b -- aah, what a question!
    1. Re:Dock Bar? by Rgb465 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Its a tweaked GNOME taskbar.

    2. Re:Dock Bar? by trtmrt · · Score: 1

      That looks like a superkaramba theme running on kde. On www.kde-look.org there's plenty of OSX like docks for superkaramba.

    3. Re:Dock Bar? by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Informative
      Looks like a gnome panel, told not to expand to cross the entire desktop and offset up a little. It's pretty easy to get that look with the right background image.

      Personally I like to make them translucent at the bottom of the screen in a more traditional gnome layout. I would think a panel where he has it would either get windows over it a lot if he doesn't have it configured to stay on top or would get in the way a lot if he does have it configured to stay on top.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    4. Re:Dock Bar? by q-jones · · Score: 1

      I think its a Gnome desklet (gdesklet). Maybe the StarterBar desklet.

      http://gdesklets.gnomedesktop.org/

  32. Being different for being different by sielwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Docking doesn't count as "all new" re: the GUI.

    Really, the fact that all tools are under a single window hasn't seemed to hurt the Adobe family of products from being wildass popular. So what, other than being different for the sake of being different, is the point? Copying popular Windows/Mac apps isn't a bad thing if it is what people really like about the user experience.

    Folks seem to like the "one window to bind them" approach. Additionally I (and probably others) can't stand to use GIMP with its bazillion windows cluttering my taskbar (as it gets in the way of quickly ALT-TABing throug different apps).

    Also, would it kill them to mirror the prebuilt binary/installer packages on a machine larger than a Casio calculator? I spend more time trying to get Gimp on Windows than using it.

    Ok... that's it... #def rant 0.

    --
    What is music when you despise all sound?
    1. Re:Being different for being different by Telex4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really, the fact that all tools are under a single window hasn't seemed to hurt the Adobe family of products from being wildass popular. So what, other than being different for the sake of being different, is the point?

      With multiple virtual desktops (a feature Windows and Macs lack), I can have one bit of The GIMP on one desktop, and other dialogues on another. This means, for instance, that I can keep informative dialogues open and switch over to them when I need them.

      I'm sure serious graphic-heads find uses for it too, but there's one. And really, unless you have a very busy background, it doesn't make much difference.

    2. Re:Being different for being different by Alan+Hicks · · Score: 1
      Really, the fact that all tools are under a single window hasn't seemed to hurt the Adobe family of products from being wildass popular.

      Well now you can have everything in one docked window with tabs if you want. That's not terribly different from Phtotoshop.

      Folks seem to like the "one window to bind them" approach. Additionally I (and probably others) can't stand to use GIMP with its bazillion windows cluttering my taskbar (as it gets in the way of quickly ALT-TABing throug different apps).

      Then they can dock the windows and it's not that much different. Personally, I prefer having them split up, and from what I've seen, most graphics artists do too. Of course, most of the people who are serious about graphic editing are using dual monitors, and keep all their tool dialogs open on one monitor, and the images on which they are working on the other. Different strokes for different folks.

      --
      Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
    3. Re:Being different for being different by ajs · · Score: 2, Informative

      The GUI is in fact, "all new" in the very real sense that the code is wildly different. If you use it for a while, you'll see that while the new Gimp retains much of the initial impression that the old Gimp did, this is clearly a Wilbur of a different color.

      Much of the UI was re-written and much of the internals were made into a library. Gimp 2.0 also boasts a much improved plugin mechanism and real support for many of the structural things that people had been asking for, and without which modern features of photo-editing software could never be added. Does this mean that Gimp 2.0 is the be-all, end-all? Not even close, but it does mean that Gimp 2.0 is on a much more viable development path than 1.anything was.

    4. Re:Being different for being different by bonch · · Score: 1

      But Photoshop also works across multiple monitors, so there's no reason to bring it up as an advantage that Gimp has.

    5. Re:Being different for being different by Heretik · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just because Photoshop does it means the GIMP should, or else they're just being stupid and intentionally different. *rolls eyes*

      Yeah, MDI.. good idea. "Hey, let's have a window, with a little kinda-window-manager in it, that manages little kinda-windows, and that whole big real window can run in a real window manager". Genius. That's not redundant and stupid or anything.

      In either case you can arrange the 'sub-windows' however you want.. what exactly is the benefit of having a big, stupid box around them all?

    6. Re:Being different for being different by Rand+Race · · Score: 1

      I use a 3rd party virtual desktop app with dual monitors on OS X and Photoshop - which does not run under a single window and never has on Macs - moves its pallates and dialogues into whichever virtual desktop the active image is open in although it doesn't care which monitor they are displayed on. Odd.

      --
      Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
    7. Re:Being different for being different by Telex4 · · Score: 1

      Not multiple monitors, but multiple virtual desktops on one monitor.

    8. Re:Being different for being different by fbg111 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what exactly is the benefit of having a big, stupid box around them all?

      Alt-tab through "big windows", Ctrl-tab through "sub-windows". When I'm developing a website for example, I usually have open simultaneously all of the following: a code/html editor window, 2 IE windows (one to my development webserver, the other to the production site, a Mozilla window with two tabs, an Opera window with two tabs, FTP client, and GIMP or Photoshop. If it's GIMP, with all its unbounded sub-windows open, Alt-tabbing from GIMP to editor to browser to FTP client and back is made that much less efficient than with Photoshop. When using GIMP, I tend to resort to the mouse instead of Alt-tab to switch among windows. That's one reason at least why many people (Windows-users at least) like the bounding box of Photoshop. Think of it terms of tabbed browsers vs. IE.

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    9. Re:Being different for being different by psocccer · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why it's so bad for gimp to use multiple windows with your desktop showing under linux, but Photoshop on OSX does exactly the same thing, and no one seems to complain. I don't know if this is a configuration option or something for OSX, but if photoshop is doing it there, then clearly there must be at least some demand for this layout.

    10. Re:Being different for being different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With multiple virtual desktops (a feature Windows and Macs lack)

      Windows lacks virtual desktops? I guess I'd better stop using them then...

    11. Re:Being different for being different by digitect · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more on either point: GIMP needs MDI, and it needs a single package installer on Windows.

      I wish there was some way to evaluate *the graphics experience level* of the multi-window crowd. Perhaps its more comprehendable for a newbie, but for those of us who need a powerful graphic app professionally, multiple top level windows is a joke. If I have three dozen graphic files open and I need to cross reference email(MDI), web browser(MDI), and a text editor (MDI), all related to some web site I'm developing, why is it that only the graphic program is allowed to spew windows all across the desktop? We certainly don't tolerate this behavior in other applications.

      --
      There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
    12. Re:Being different for being different by swillden · · Score: 1

      Perhaps its more comprehendable for a newbie, but for those of us who need a powerful graphic app professionally, multiple top level windows is a joke.

      Better tell all of those professional graphic artists using Photoshop on OSX that it's a joke. I'm sure they'll be glad to know.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    13. Re:Being different for being different by digitect · · Score: 1

      Have you ever used an Apple? Take a look at Photoshop on OSX. There is only ever a single menu, and it is always positioned at the top of the desktop. It changes to the focused app's menu bar, which means that the desktop is nearly MDI, and not the SDI of Microsoft Office and GIMP. (And at least a key combination in both Apple and MSOffice drop a menu of the other windows. In GIMP, keys can't reach to another window in the app's same session.)

      Mac has never implemented the sort of SDI that Windows or GNOME has. This comment pretty clearly expresses how Apple's basic windowing interface cleverly skirts around the major SDI issues in GIMP.

      This whole GIMP interface debate could be solved with the addition of just a few tiny options. The day usability is actually designed rather than filtered out of political discussions and developer whim is the day GIMP quadruples its user base and becomes a practical alternative on Windows.

      --
      There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
    14. Re:Being different for being different by swillden · · Score: 1

      I was just about to respond and explain why none of the issues you mention are a problem, but then I got to the last line of your post:

      ... and becomes a practical alternative on Windows.

      Ahhh. Can't help you there. Both KDE and GNOME offer mechanisms to easily and conveniently solve the problems you mention, but I can certainly see how it's a problem on Windows.

      GIMP's Windows support is very much a matter of "Yep, it'll build on Windows too", but all of the developers and most of the heavy users run Linux. There is some discussion of incorporating the Windows GIMP mailing list into the GIMP user list, which also gets copied to the developer list. Perhaps more communication with Windows users will help solve these problems.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:Being different for being different by Heretik · · Score: 1

      so your window managing environment sucks.

      I don't think doing stupid things to app UIs is the solution to this problem.

  33. This could finally kill my last dependence on M$ by stry_cat · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've been using 1.2 for a while now (almost 3 years). Now that it has CMYK I can cut in half (or maybe more) the number of times I have to boot to M$ Windows and use Photoshop. Of course I'm a little worried by:
    Admittedly, the current rendition of CMYK in the GIMP is far behind that of commercial offerings
    What exactly does the author mean by this?
  34. my approach to it ... by timothy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Within a few weeks of encountering the GIMP, I prefered its interface to that of PhotoShop. Since a lot of people obviously (and vehemently disagree), well ... No accounting for taste :) However, if you use:

    a) Virtual Desktops, as many as you'd like (one per active image, perhaps? Or a "GIMP" desktop, not so bad either ...)

    b) Your DE /WM set to auto-raise, focus follows mouse. This lets all those little interface boxes sit wherever you'd like and pop up with a swipe of the mouse.

    Works for me, anyhow :)

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    1. Re:my approach to it ... by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Sorry but having more than 4 virtual desktops available is ductaping a scratch. Wrong solution for an obvious problem--lack of a cohesive UI strategy. (NeXTSTEP still is the only one that got it right)

      Auto-raise/focus follow the mouse is annoying as hell. I want the power to be in the choice of onClick not onFocus.

      GIMP is a nice free tool. If it wants to help launch Linux into DTP prominence it should offer a compelling experience, not a lesson in time spent learning how it works due to sparse documentation and examples by seasoned GIMP professionals.

      Someone should port GIMP to OS X using Cocoa, following Apple's UI Guidelines and see just how much broader the appeal will be. Afterall, there are no barriers to porting GIMP Objective-C/Cocoa.

    2. Re:my approach to it ... by macshit · · Score: 1

      Someone should port GIMP to OS X using Cocoa, following Apple's UI Guidelines and see just how much broader the appeal will be.

      Does Apple even follow them these days?

      Er, jokes aside, my impression was that programs like the gimp tended to be treated rather specially, in that many users were `professionals' who prefer a highly efficient/productive interface over one that is easy for newbies to come to grips with.

      Since such an interface often entails many highly application-specific tweaks and optimizing for speed rather than obviousness, it seems doubtful that simply following some general-purpose UI guidelines would make much difference, no matter how good they are for `average' programs.

      Indeed, my personal impression is that classic mac behavior tends to emphasize clarity at the expense of efficiency in some (many?) cases, which just Isn't Going to Fly in this case, I think.

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
  35. Great text tool by SkankhodBeeblebrox · · Score: 2, Funny

    "There has also been megawumpus improvements int the text tool."

    But apparently not megawumpus improvements in spelling/typing ;)

  36. Go drink a nice tall glass of stfu. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, why the hell would anyone want to know where they are about to paint?

    moron.

    1. Re:Go drink a nice tall glass of stfu. by dave_f1m · · Score: 1

      Simple: it's centered on where the pointer thingy is. A three year old should be able to figure that out, idiot. What I'd like to know is how the fuck you could possibly work with a circle showing the extant of the brush area when you're using a pressure sensitive tablet. moron.

    2. Re:Go drink a nice tall glass of stfu. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOu've never used a wacom then, have you? That's what they have those "new fangled" button thingies on the device for.

      Troll something you have a clue about please.

    3. Re:Go drink a nice tall glass of stfu. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'd like to know is how you can type when you're jerking your meat on your mother's ass.

      Doesn't your boyfriend get jealous that you're wasting your man chowder on a bitch?

  37. GUI "all gone"? by k98sven · · Score: 1

    I would hardly say moving the right-mouse-button menu to the top of the image window a major difference.
    Definitely a major improvement (why wasn't it there to begin with), but it's still there when you right-click.

    I'd prefer to use my right-mouse-button for other things.. (This is probably configureable, but I don't think it should even be the default)

    All in all, it IS quite improved (I can find 'flip image' next to rotating image now) but I wouldn't say "all-gone"..

    Now if only programs like DIA, who chose to perpetuate this lousy design, would also change their minds..

    RANT MODE:OFF

  38. gimp interface... grrr... by paRcat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ok, I'll be the first to admit that a lot of people won't agree with me, but I know of plenty of others that definitely will.

    I'm not a Photoshop user. I use the Corel line of products. Why? Corel puts everything into one window. I'm aware of the pains in programming an interface, but I don't understand why a separate option isn't there for the rest of us?

    Please?! If only the Gimp was like this, I would use it. It would be a learning curve, but I could do it. Instead, I have to make sure I have enough room on my desktop to fit all the tool windows I need, along with enough space to view the image I'm manipulating at a size bigger than 40x40. y'know? Every time I give the Gimp a try, I'm impressed with the features, but not impressed with the interface.

    I just can't use it. "It's hopeless... utterly, utterly, hopeless."

    1. Re:gimp interface... grrr... by Telex4 · · Score: 1

      The "problem" is that The GIMP began as a program for X, not Windows. With multiple virtual desktops (a feature Windows and Macs lack), I can have one bit of The GIMP on one desktop, and other dialogues on another. This means, for instance, that I can keep informative dialogues open and switch over to them when I need them.

      I suppose an MDI solution might help Windows users with cluttered taskbars though.

    2. Re:gimp interface... grrr... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Well, much of that is fixed in 2.0, as you can do things like dock tool dialogs in one place, accessible via tabs, so they don't pop up everywhere.

    3. Re:gimp interface... grrr... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish. GIMP can't be like this, though, because of the four types of MDI interfaces, GTK+ is only able to do the 'all panels are toplevel' and 'tabbed panels' type. The GIMP 2 interface is a mix of both, and frankly, it not not -that- horrible.

      Please note that the GIMP devs -are- aware of the UI problems. I hear that a lot of the work that went into GIMP 2 aimed at making the UI code and the backend code independant, so that third parties can provide new UIs for GIMP.

      I'm personally drooling for an IDEAl-moded interface. Works so damn well...

    4. Re:gimp interface... grrr... by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1

      It's not just windows users. I use X exclusively (with KDE at the moment), have done for years, and I don't like using virtual screens.

      I like everything on one screen, but with gimp not having proper MDI it can be a real pain in the ass to use, windows always getting covered up, then having to fish through to bring them to the top. If I make the always on top then they get in the way of my other windows.

      MDI would make it soooooo much cleaner.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    5. Re:gimp interface... grrr... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I know this doesn't address issues when working with multiple images, but with 2.0 you can dock all those little dialog windows into one.

      Though I myself find it less usable that way. I like having my brushes window in one corner, my layers in another, and part of the filters menu immediately to the right of the file I'm editing..

      Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    6. Re:gimp interface... grrr... by Redundant+offtopic+t · · Score: 1

      I haven't touched gimp, but after reading several posts such as yours about the need for mdi with gimp, i'm curious--is the main part of your frustration with the gimp iface that these windows should be implemented as tool palettes? Or are the windows in question for some other use?

      Over the past decade plus i've worked with pretty much every gui made, and have found that mdi (especially microsoft's implementation) is generally the worst way to implement a document-based interface. (I'll split a hair here and say that tabbed browsing, while related to the mdi concept, is not an mdi implementation.)

      Perhaps the need for gimp in mdi stems from kde copying msoft's implementation of the task bar?

    7. Re:gimp interface... grrr... by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Hey, editors, can we have a "-1: Bitching about MDI or SDI" moderation? Because I'm sick to death of seeing posts like the above every-single-goddamn-time Slashdot has a GIMP article. "I love SDI, it's so great!" "You're crazy, I can't stand MDI, I don't see how anyone could like it, everyone who claims to must either be insane, stupid, or lying!"

      Okay, done ranting, feel better now. I just wish people would stop carping over which is better. Who cares? It's a matter of personal preference. Acting like you can't understand why someone would like it the other way is just being ign'ant.

      (Of course, the best are people like me, who can use MDI and SDI with equal aplomb, and don't have any trouble with either interface style. Ha! I win!)

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  39. This isn't really a new feature, by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 3, Informative

    but palletted drawing in The Gimp remains superior to Photoshop. Photoshop was neither designed nor marketed towards any of the markets that do pallete based art/graphic design.

    1. Re:This isn't really a new feature, by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Photoshop was neither designed nor marketed towards any of the markets that do pallete based art/graphic design.

      Photoshop wasn't designed for content creation at all. It's a photo manipulation program.

      I find it interesting that so many graphic artists are using photoshop to do what Illustrator, Freehand, and Painter are much more adept at.

      Strangely, this only applies to web designers. People who do print work tend to use the proper tools for the job. All the graphic designers here at work (I work for a newspaper) use Illustrator and Freehand.

      Content creation with photoshop is like painting with a brick.

    2. Re:This isn't really a new feature, by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      I can only speak for the work I've done for newspapers myself, but Photoshop is very good for content creation. Namely, merging photographs and clip art into a different sort of composition than the original parts, where photo manipulation IS content creation. I don't think I have a single work I've done in Painter that hasn't been run through photoshop, usually for compositing or for the great selection tools. Of course, by the time you start adding type or captions, you are importing your custom graphic into illustrator or pagemaker or the like if you are competent, so I don't disagree with you there.

      The problem with Photoshop is that its diversity has effectively smashed development in similarly versatile and featured drawing programs. I know people who still use GEM, because they haven't found anything better for working with palletted art. It's really tempting to look at things like Photoshop simply because it already has so many of the tools you'd want.

    3. Re:This isn't really a new feature, by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

      Content creation with photoshop is like painting with a brick.

      Wish I had some mod points for this comment! While you're right about creating something from nothing, there are times (many times) when you need to extract something from an image. I've become pretty adept at using the selection tool in various ALT/CTRL/SHFT configurations to get just the right mask. And when you're feeling lazy, it's relatively easy to tweak the Magic Wand tool to grab what you need.

      I suppose it's like the difference between "primitive" style cut-out or collage work and the more traditional paintbrush or pencil.

      Don't forget, the real reason web designers without proper training tend to use Photoshop for their art or design work is because 90% of their work is pretty simple (buttons, banners, etc.) and all has to be exported to a rasterized format (JPEG, GIF, Bitmap, etc.)

      Print people (newspapers, advertisers, etc.) have to deal with the real world. Raster images (as opposed to vector graphics produced by Freehand or Illustrator) can't be resized without interpolation. If you want to work in Photoshop, you'll have to deal with giant file sizes (600 dpi tends to require hundreds of megs per sheet). Also, while most printers can handle enormous data files (my HP 1500 can print full-page 4-color in about a minute a sheet) it's a lot easier to go from Illustrator to encapsulated PostScript than it is to convert from raster.

      If your work is almost all at 72 dpi (and it will be if your primary building blocks for "design" are ripped off of other people's websites) it's just easier to stay in Photoshop.

  40. Feature request by Syberghost · · Score: 4, Funny

    A toolbar button to download the next upcoming Fark Photoshop contest.

  41. At last... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    ...with CMYK and ColorSync support the GIMP will finally put to rest all of the complaints of the Photoshop zealots who insist the GIMP is somehow an inferior product.

    Watch out Adobe, your days are numbered

    1. Re:At last... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because GUI and workflow means nothing?

    2. Re:At last... by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      >finally put to rest all of the complaints of the Photoshop zealots who insist the GIMP is somehow an inferior product.

      No, the "all new interface" is 90% the same. Won't stop me from using PS.

    3. Re:At last... by Johnathon_Dough · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually, simply being able to sutput a CMYK file and not work within the color space, GIMP is still useless to anyone in the print world.

      I spend about half my time in the RGB space, then the other half in CMYK, there is no reliable way to translate "take 2% out of the magenta and 7% out of the black" acurately from RGB->CMYK.

      As long as I am making these kind of corrections to CMYK files there is no way I can rely on GIMP

      The other side is, I pay for photoshop because I can work best within it. 10 years of using an application makes it both familiar and "easy". I have no problem paying adobe for upgrades to allow me to make money.

      --
      If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
  42. RAW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But how does it handle RAW files from my digital camera? For post-processing this is critical.

  43. I just never got used to it by British · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I first took a look at GIMP several years ago, the first thing that turned me off was all the seperate palettes are treated as apps. Saw the same thing in Sodipodi and Inkscape. Seemed that it was the trademark for open-source drawing applications. Didn't like having 5-6 tasks on my taskbar for just one app. On inkscape, if I mistakenly close the last image, the whole app closes down.

    All I want are dockable or floating palettes that use a small font size(ie not screen hogs) just like PSP, Photoshop and illustrator use.

    And on a second note, I don't wish to see my desktop peep through. A big gray dull background would be less distracting. I've grown way too used to MDI in Windows apps to comfortably use the open source SDI way.

    Mod me down for said redunant comments.

    1. Re:I just never got used to it by Speare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The default setup of the GIMP 2.0 has a "small" theme, which uses tiny fonts and minimizes the deadspace between various control widgets. Use it, and it makes an 800x600 screen almost usable, and a 1600x1200 screen into a polo field.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    2. Re:I just never got used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about

      xsetroot -gray

      for the desktop showing through problem?

    3. Re:I just never got used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple solution: don't use it then. I don't think anybody cares.

    4. Re:I just never got used to it by .com+b4+.storm · · Score: 1

      Didn't like having 5-6 tasks on my taskbar for just one app. On inkscape, if I mistakenly close the last image, the whole app closes down.

      This isn't just the fault of an app, it's mainly the fault of whatever is managing the windows. Photoshop uses multiple windows/palettes on the Mac, but nobody really complains. Why? Because all the windows are tied to the application. The OS/window manager/whatever should be smart enough to know that yes, these 5 windows belong to The GIMP, so they should not be listed as 5 separate items in the task manager. The task manager is supposed to manage tasks, not windows!

      In my opinion, MDI is just a hack for poor management of windows and applications.

      --
      "Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
      -- Ryan Stiles
    5. Re:I just never got used to it by BigSven · · Score: 1

      Usually just a matter of configuring your taskbar to group windows from one application. GIMP sets all the window manager hints that are needed to do this. It's also trivial to configure your WM to iconify all GIMP windows if one is iconified and whatever other feature you would want. Why should the GIMP developers go through the hassle of implementing window management themselves when the tools to do the job are all out there already?

    6. Re:I just never got used to it by ShogZilla · · Score: 1

      in sodipodi or inkscape (works same in both):

      rclick->view->add new docked toolbar

      close your original toolbar. Voila, clutter gone.

      f11 makes it full-screen - no desktop peeping through. f12 makes floating windows pop up when in full screen.

      HTH.

  44. rasterman words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it appears the rasterman prophesy was correct: "GIMP will reach 2.0"

  45. Afew suggestions by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I like the way you can select the colour sampling in jpeg compression (4:2:2 4:4:4 etc) nice touch. It really really really really really really needs adjustment layers like photoshop at the very least, without adjustment layers you might aswell be painting on a real canvas in terms of later adjustability. I can live with out plug-in/filter previews although you could technically add that ability automatically without even needing to modify the current plug-ins - just make the plug-in work with a second version of the image while clicking ok would apply the plugin and imeadiately re-launch the window for tweeking.

    If you then added a way of remembering the settings of that particular plug-in on a layer you could add the ability to go back at any time and adjust a plug-in/layer and have that adjustment filter through to the current image - that alone would out-do photoshop!!

    Adjustability is what its all about, anyone else with me?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  46. Toilet Paper Template by Iron+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ha! on this screenshot, I notice that they have the all imporant toilet paper template... a must have. :)

    --
    If my enemy's enemy is my friend, what happens if my enemy is his own worst enemy?
    1. Re:Toilet Paper Template by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the way I get my work done, even when I'm pooing, is NOT OF YOUR BUSINESS!!

      BTW, I forgot to tell the developers that I use extra-wide, scented toilet paper...

    2. Re:Toilet Paper Template by gg3po · · Score: 1

      All the better to do things like this [kde-look] :-) -3po

      --
      ---
    3. Re:Toilet Paper Template by poopie · · Score: 1

      That is truly funny. I imagines a bunch of people working at large paper mega-corporations designing the floral prints and quilted stitching patterns using photoshop with CYMK color separations ... and then I imagined some small linux-based toilet-paper company crowing about the virtues about being able to replace photoshop with GIMP for toiletpaper design. ... or imagine feeding a roll of TP into your printer and printing custom designs ???

    4. Re:Toilet Paper Template by sharkey · · Score: 1
      the all imporant toilet paper template

      Whoops, that's a hypo. It's supposed to be "SCO Stock Certificate".

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  47. Much Needed Improvements by miyako · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The gimp is a fine project as projects go, but it seems to me that there are a few things gimp needs before it will be able to really compete with Photoshop
    First off, brushes, Photoshop 7 has a great brush system, being able to combine brushes is great. Photoshops size, color, shape dynamics as well as jitter control via pen preassure and tilt are great.
    This brings up point number 2
    This is just from my experience, but getting GIMP to work with a pen/tablet is like pulling the teeth of a grumpy aligator, it's just not worth it. I have a wacom tablet that supposedly works with drivers from the wacom linux project, although I can get it to work as a mouse in X, I have had 0 luck getting it to work with gimp
    The last thing is a UI improvment
    I haven't used the new version yet, and its hard to tell from the screenshots, but GIMP has some major usability problems when working with multiple layers, history editing, and things of that nature. I think the multiple document interface is a good thing, and the tool selection window is not bad, but having to right-click on the document to get the standard utility menus is a pain in the rear.
    Because of the afore mentioned problems I have not used GIMP extensively for actual work, instead I photoshop on my mac, but it seems to have a solid painting engine underneath it, and many of the filters are better than those available for photoshop, even if some of them are a little to flashy.
    All that said, I do graphics professionally and so perhaps I just put more demand on an application than the average user, but right now gimp seems like just a nice toy untill they get some of that stuff fixed.
    I do prefer to use Open Source software when possible and wait eagerly for the day when GIMP or another project is a usable alternative to Photoshop, and I will be sure to give this new release a go, but I think we may still have a while to go.
    Off Topic but, if anyone has had luck getting a Wacom tablet to work under Linux with GIMP and can let me know how to do so as well I'd love to know.

    --
    Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
    1. Re:Much Needed Improvements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I've gotten it to work. And yes. It is a pain in the ass. A big one. And all the details of in won't fit here. Send a mail to the gimp user list. People there will help you. (or even our IRC channel).

    2. Re:Much Needed Improvements by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1

      You don't have to right-click on the document to get the standard utility menus any more. Gimp 1.3 has the menus at the top of the document window by default.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    3. Re:Much Needed Improvements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't tried using a Wacom tablet myself, but I noticed that this FAQ
      points to some information. See question 18.

      HTH.

    4. Re:Much Needed Improvements by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      The gimp is a fine project as projects go, but it seems to me that there are a few things gimp needs before it will be able to really compete with Photoshop
      The GIMP doesn't need to compete with Photoshop. It's free. Its continued existence doesn't depend on how many people use it. It bothers me when people act like an open-source equivalent to some popular proprietary program must be in direct competition with it. GIMP has nothing to lose -- the whole point of it was to have a decent image manipulation program that didn't cost $649.

      Granted, some people will feel a burning need for GIMP to be used by more people than Photoshop -- some kind of irrational pride thing, I guess. I don't want or need GIMP to somehow "beat" Photoshop (if that was even a meaningful thing to say). What I do sometimes want is to be able to get friends or family using a particular open-source program instead of the closed-source equivalent.

      If you say, "My wife/friend/kids/whatever won't use this program until X, Y, Z." The closed-source response to the latter is, "Hmm, a bunch of people are asking for X, Y, and Z, we better do it before they go buy Photoshop." The open source response to the latter is, "Good for you. Why don't you learn how to program and add those features?" Whether or not you use GIMP literally doesn't affect them.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    5. Re:Much Needed Improvements by miyako · · Score: 1

      a little sparse on the details but better than anything I've been able to find hence forth. thanks.

      --
      Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
    6. Re:Much Needed Improvements by miyako · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I understand your point, but I think we might be using a different definition of the word "beat".
      I am the author of a few open source projects myself, and I would be more than happy to contribute code to GIMP, however what I know about image editing algorithms (or GTK+ for that matter) wouldn't fill a thimble.
      While businesses might compete moniarily, as programmers, we compete in the arena of software quality. It is not irrational to take pride in ones work. In the projects that I have started and worked on it has never been about getting the most people to use the program, or making money off of it, but it has been about having fun and creating the best program that we can create.
      As a programmer I want to see my programs beat the competition because I enjoy the challenge of creating something, and I want to create the best solution out there. I'm sure many developers, OSS and otherwise, feel the same way.
      When I say X,Y,Z needs to happen before GIMP can beat photoshop, I am saying "Hey, GIMP developers, I am supporting you!, if you guys want some ideas on how to make your pet project the best it can be, think about adding these features." It might not be as helpful as actually coding, but I know that I find it helpful to have people tell me what they would like to see happen with my projects.
      I completely agree with you on the closed-source response to complaints, but the open source response is either "Hey, that is a good idea, the program would be better with that, lets add it as a matter of taking pride in our work" or "Hey, we hear you but we don't think we can do it at this time, but if you want to your free to do so". I think you missed out on the former of those.
      Whether or not I use GIMP doesn't matter to the GIMP team, but making something they can be proud of surely does, and they should be proud of what they have so far, I'm just saying that maybe there are some ideas that they haven't considered or realized how important they are untill someone says something.

      --
      Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
    7. Re:Much Needed Improvements by NickABusey · · Score: 1
      --

      - Nick Busey
      www.pedalbmx.com
      www.nickbusey.com
    8. Re:Much Needed Improvements by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      When I say X,Y,Z needs to happen before GIMP can beat photoshop, I am saying "Hey, GIMP developers, I am supporting you!, if you guys want some ideas on how to make your pet project the best it can be, think about adding these features." It might not be as helpful as actually coding, but I know that I find it helpful to have people tell me what they would like to see happen with my projects.
      I'm sure that's what you mean, but using the word "beat" means something completely different. It's like saying, "I punched that guy," and someone says you shouldn't hit people, you say, "No, no, I didn't actually touch him, what I meant was that I looked at him funny." Fine, maybe that's not what you mean, but you're going to confuse people if you say something and intend it to mean something that it normally would never mean!

      And anyway, most people who say things like "If GIMP wants to beat Photoshop..." really DO think that there's some imperative for the GIMP programmers to somehow out-compete Photoshop in the capitalistic sense. They're not saying, "The GIMP people should take more pride in their work by adding these features." Notice that that statement doesn't mention Photoshop. If what they're actually trying to say doesn't involve Photoshop, why do they mention Photoshop in what they're actually saying?

      Of course there's nothing wrong with taking pride in something you've created, or trying to write better software as a matter of principle, but that's not what I'm responding to. I'm responding to those who are (or appear to be) implying that the GIMP programmers need to be *worried* that they won't out-compete Photoshop. Further, your statements imply that some/most/all open source programmers work on OS projects because they want status, respect, have big egos, etc. What about people who write software because they need a particular tool to do a particular thing, and don't care how many other people use it?

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  48. command line processing by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

    Does GIMP have command line options to manipulate photos?

    I.E. are there command line options to make pics 100x200, or add a shade of blue, make a thumbnail, stuff like that?

    1. Re:command line processing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what ImageMagick is for.

    2. Re:command line processing by Quill_28 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Never heard of it.

      It is related to GIMP or some other project.

      Or am I actually going to have to get off my duff and start googling? ;)

    3. Re:command line processing by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Just use script-fu or perl-fu or such. Gimp is slightly too...powerful? for plain command line stuff, but launching its functions from perl and writing perl script to do what you intend to do is probably the way to go.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  49. What everyone *really* wants to know ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can you work with scanned currency? [slashdot]

  50. Re:1.x is over my head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, but you do

  51. Still no way to draw a circle in GIMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I'm afraid.

    1. Re:Still no way to draw a circle in GIMP by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      "Select circle/ellipse" (hold shift to make circle, add ctrl to draw middle-edge, not diagonal of square it's inscribed into), then pick the right brush and color, "stroke", done.
      Been there from pre-1.0.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  52. Thanks for the windows by voice+of+unreason · · Score: 1

    I'm really glad that the GIMP's continuing its tradition of Windows support. I can't help but think that this could do a lot to promote free software. Someone who's never used free software before may not want to leap to a whole other operating system, but if you hand them a copy of the GIMP, and tell them "It's like Photoshop, but free", they'll get right into it. If there were more applications like the GIMP, I think it'd be a lot easier to ease people towards the large scale use of free software.

    Me, I'm coding a game under Windows, and using the GIMP for the art work even as we speak. Rock on, GIMP 2.0!

  53. Color depth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have there been any improvments in the color depth? Last I knew, there were only 8 bits per channel. This was one of the areas where Photoshop could be a big win.

  54. Pain and Pain Me More by tarsi210 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I view the Gimp as a very extensible, flexible program.

    That being said, it's completely unusable for long periods of time by a guy who, admittedly, is NOT a graphic artist.

    I use graphics programs like secretaries use computers. I want it to do what I want it to do, I don't want to know why, I don't want to know when, and I sure as hell don't want to have to spend a half hour figuring out HOW to do something. Ever tried to do something like a inner bevel in Gimp? I'm sure it can be done, but for the life of me I can't figure it out. And that, to me, is a failure of the program for users such as myself.

    Maybe you graphics types find it just fine, but it certainly doesn't work for us reg'ler folks.

    1. Re:Pain and Pain Me More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      The best example I have found is how to draw a ring.

      You'd think such a simple thing would be easy to do, or at the very least, something that a newbie could figure out.

      You have to:

      1. Select a circle. 2. Fill the circle with the ring colour. 3. Shrink the selection. 4. Cut out the middle.

      I haven't tried any 2.0 prereleases yet, but it's pretty damn obvious that if it takes them to version 2.0 to get an easy way of drawing a fucking ring, that ease-of-use isn't high on their list of priorities.

    2. Re:Pain and Pain Me More by Queuetue · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah. And it's hard to draw a cat in, too. That's Gimp's fault. And the blue I pick is never the right one to match my bathroom. The Gimp stinks.

      Why won't they support us guys who don't want to learn how to use the program? We matter!

    3. Re:Pain and Pain Me More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Maybe you graphics types find it just fine, but it certainly doesn't work for us reg'ler folks.


      Reg'ler folks don't start talking about inner bevels. They generally only care about resizing, image grabbing, redeye removal, and adding text.

    4. Re:Pain and Pain Me More by foandd · · Score: 2, Informative
      Lessee, lemme draw a circle in Gimp:
      • Select a circle.
      • Stroke selection.
      Gee, how is it done in Photoshop?
      • Select a circle.
      • Stroke selection.
      Got news for ya bunky: the fact that you're a fucking moron says nothing about the quality of the programs you can or cannot use.
    5. Re:Pain and Pain Me More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, it's obvious to a Photoshop user. So what? A new user will look at the documentation which specifically says Select/Fill/Shrink/Cut. Just selecting a circle is totally non-intuitive. And Stroke Selection? How do you do that? Tools menu? no. Select menu? no. Edit menu? bing!

      I love the GIMP, but there is definately a steep learning curve. My advice to anyone thinking of using the GIMP is to do some of the online tutorials.

    6. Re:Pain and Pain Me More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you part of the friendly open source community I'm always hearing about?

    7. Re:Pain and Pain Me More by kavau · · Score: 1

      In other words, GIMP is the EMACS of the graphics world!

    8. Re:Pain and Pain Me More by tarsi210 · · Score: 1

      For all those that replied, thanks. Interesting points, some of you, the others are just idiots.

      My point, of course, was that Gimp isn't for the mainstream user. And that's fine -- it doesn't have to be. Maybe it's intended for more intense people with more time to climb the learning curve slope.

      PSP was something that took me very little time to learn to do things as simple as a circle OR as complex as an inner bevel (which is two mouse clicks in PSP). The Gimp might be powerful enough to do that, but it isn't intuitive in that I don't need to read the manual to figure it out eventually just by playing around (which is how I learned PSP...who needs a manual when you can "get it" after a bit?)

      I'm not giving up on the Gimp, I think it has lots of potential, but it's certainly not something I can give to my mother and she'll figure it out, nor is it something that I can easily think, "Oh, I want to use gradients today" and easily find in 5 minutes.

    9. Re:Pain and Pain Me More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that Photoshop is similarly broken is of no concern to me. When I want to draw a ring, I don't immediately think that I need to select a circle, and then use something called "stroke selection". I start looking at the tools that are intended for drawing.

      Jesus, you are right, I've just realised. What kind of a moron must I be to look at the drawing tools when I want to draw something?

    10. Re:Pain and Pain Me More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's some funny shit Queuetue. :) I'm gonna laugh about that for awhile tonight. Ha.

      Josh

  55. Re:This could finally kill my last dependence on M by jcupitt65 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can output to CMYK in gimp2 with an ICC profile, but you can't edit CMYK directly. Gimp is still 1 and 3 band 8 bit only.

  56. PhotoShop by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

    Hopefully, as GIMP closes in on PhotoShop, Adobe will realize they need to release a Linux version.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:PhotoShop by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 1

      No need for Adobe to release a Linux version. Head on over to Frank's Corner and take a look at PS7 running via WINE.

    2. Re:PhotoShop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...as GIMP closes in on PhotoShop

      YOW! Man, I nearly pissed myself reading that! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!

      "closes in on Photoshop"! Geez, my sides hurt d00d, that was the funniest thing I've read today!

    3. Re:PhotoShop by Doctor+Crumb · · Score: 1

      If the Gimp is close enough to Photoshop to make them do that, why would anyone pay for Photoshop/Linux when they could just use the Gimp for free?

    4. Re:PhotoShop by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
      If the Gimp is close enough to Photoshop to make them do that, why would anyone pay for Photoshop/Linux when they could just use the Gimp for free?

      Because if you do imaging profesionally, some people require photoshop files for team projects. It's the way it is.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    5. Re:PhotoShop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " If the Gimp is close enough to Photoshop to make them do that, why would anyone pay for Photoshop/Linux when they could just use the Gimp for free?"

      Because some people and organizations still prefer Photoshop and couldn't care less if the GIMP is free or not. Simple really. Many of the major animation studios have asked Adobe to port Photoshop to Linux as they are using Linux, and using Linux they know about the GIMP, and yet they still want to use Photoshop, on Linux! There be your answer! Or in other words, or a word. Preference.

  57. Sticking with Paint Shop Pro by SpaceRook · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Don't get me wrong...The Gimp is great and I was impressed with all it's features. There are some very nice filters. But whenever I need to quickly do something (like get a screenshot of a webpage and quickly figure out what colors are what) I keep falling back on Paint Shop Pro. I was never able to do things quickly in the Gimp.

  58. Whining about one window by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 4, Informative
    I see a lot of complaining about the Gimp using multiple windows for everything, where people want an MDI interface with just one parent window instead.

    To that, I'll remind you that your Linux window manager probably has multiple desktops. It sounds incredibly stupid for its simplicity, but once you realize it, there's absolutely no problem with the interface.

    I'll also encourage you to use 0x808080 or something similarly neutral for the background on that desktop. You'd be surprised how much the surrounding noise can affect the way you work. I even go to the extent of making all my window decorations a soft grey when I'm drawing up stock schemes or otherwise doodling.

    1. Re:Whining about one window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how the virtual desktop helps when you want to switch quickly between apps via alt-tab?

      I don't understand why some people hate MDI. When Opera for Linux was released people were complaining "but it uses MDI it sucks". Now all major browsers except IE support MDI (tabs). Why something like this hasn't implented as an option in GIMP 2.0?

    2. Re:Whining about one window by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Using a window manager that supports grouping, etc. (like Enlightenment) is highly recommended as well I might add. Just because Windows likes to make big EXEcutables with meta-data and resources built-in and big MDI windows with lots of sub-windows doesn't make it the right way to do things.

      I love being able to arrange my desktop of Gimp windows the way I want and not have a big blank "GIMP" window taking up space on my desktop.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    3. Re:Whining about one window by solios · · Score: 1

      Not to be trollish, but you'd be surprised how many people aren't using the GIMP on Linux- but rather, are using it in Windows or OS X. Neither of which has virts.

      But then, Mac apps don't have one Giant Parent Window like Photoshop, etc. do on Windows, and I haven't had any problems using a colorful background on my desktop for the last five years.... :P

      The GIMP widgets need to be the same scale as Pro Graphics Apps widgets, instead of two to three times larger. :| Change that and I'm sure fewer people will be complaining about the ONE BIG WINDOW thing.

      If not, well... they need to try using non-Microsoft operating systems. :P

    4. Re:Whining about one window by grumbel · · Score: 1

      I have used Gimp on Linux now for multiple years on a more or less daily basis and I am still not comfortable with the multiple windows. Sure they work more or less and using a seperate workspace/desktop helps keeping track too, but it still just an ugly hack, necessary due to the lack of proper[1] MDI. The reason is simply that Gimp has no way to communicate detailed enough with the window manager on how the windows should be handled, where they should get placed and such, so it happens far to often that windows gets placed suboptimal and need to be manually be moved around.

      With a proper MDI where the application manages the windows, and not some window manager, that knows more or less nothing about the app, the app can much more fine graded tune how windows are handled, what is attached too what, what should be stay on top of what else, what is grouped together, etc. See the dockables in Gimp2 for example, everybody likes them, but they are nothing else then the beginning of moving controll of the windows from the window manager to the app. With dockables you can attach stuff to each other an already remove a bit of the clutter. What is missing is simply a way to attach the toolbox to the image windows and attach image windows to each other, add that and you already pretty much have what people want. In additon to simply connecting them a way to split the image view ala Emacs 'C-x 2' might be good too. People could still rip they GUI into pieces if they want of course, just like with the dockables we already have today, but they could also that Gimp managing the windows, instead of making that a users task.

      If app-managed MDI work in Mozilla, Emacs, Konqueror, why shouldn't it work in Gimp?

      [1] With proper MDI I meant MDI where the app manages the windows, which doesn't require ugly Window-in-Window stuff, just a way the app can keep the windows together.

    5. Re:Whining about one window by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      I don't understand why some people hate MDI.
      You don't need to understand it. You just need to accept that people have their own personal preferences sometimes. :)
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    6. Re:Whining about one window by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      MDI != tabbed browsing

      Tabbed browsing is having one single window with tabs to switch between views.

      MDI is having multiple "fake" windows of various nature (tool palettes, document views, etc) inside one big window. The reasons why MDI sucks (and why Apple has always diaproved its use):
      1) Windows in windows are confusing.
      2) The "grey void" in that big window is a total waste of display real estate. With a multiple window app, you can actually see (and use) other programs under that app.
      3) It's not multi-head friendly. With, say, The GIMP, or any Mac OS app (no MDI on Macs), you can freely drag the various windows to different desktops.

      Interesting note: MDI was created by Microsoft (and therefore mostly seen in Windows programs), but even Microsoft has now gradually stopped using it. Look at later versions of Word: each document now has its own window (and toolbar).

    7. Re:Whining about one window by jrumney · · Score: 1
      Sure they work more or less and using a seperate workspace/desktop helps keeping track too, but it still just an ugly hack, necessary due to the lack of proper[1] MDI.

      Or rather, MDI was an ugly hack necessary due to the lack of proper Window management in Windows 3.1. Its well past its sell by date, but Microsoft just keeps on hawking it.

    8. Re:Whining about one window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tabbed browsing is having one single window with tabs to switch between views.

      In normal terminology, no. "Views" implies different views of the same thing. What tabbed browsing does is display different documents in the same window, i.e. exactly the MDI the GIMP proponents criticise.

      2) The "grey void" in that big window is a total waste of display real estate. With a multiple window app, you can actually see (and use) other programs under that app.

      Hell no. It's not a waste of space, the windows and desktop underneath are distracting when you are working on an image.

  59. Sawfish options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can also have sticky, always on top (it is done via layers) and iconify all. And many more things, it is pretty flexible. Probably just sucky defaults or hidden in a "lets simplify the interface" fury it has suffered recently (the bane of sawfish). Good luck.

    1. Re:Sawfish options by ArmorFiend · · Score: 1

      DoH! I'm actually thinking about metacity. Now i've tarnished the name of sawfish.

  60. some pathetic lunix geek wishing he had os x by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  61. The only thing GIMP needs... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
    The only thing GIMP needs to be palatable enough to be considered by Photoshop power-users is the same keyboard shortcuts.

    Otherwise, they will NOT consider using it.

    And it's the power-users that have the influence to make other people switch to/use GIMP.

    Until then, we'll keep using Photoshop.

    1. Re:The only thing GIMP needs... by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Informative

      ALL keyboard shortcuts are user-definable, and really easily. (Just mouse over the option/menu_item you want to redefine and press the keyboard shortcut you want to use for it) so making them all Photoshop-compatibile isn't a really hard work.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:The only thing GIMP needs... by cat_jesus · · Score: 1

      Can't you customize the keyboard shortcuts to make them anything you wish?

    3. Re:The only thing GIMP needs... by BigSven · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, there is a file called ps-menurc that is shipped with The GIMP. You take this file and copy it over your ~/.gimp-1.3/menurc and voila, PS keybindings.

  62. Low Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...and worth every penny.

    Seriously, I suppose software like GIMP is good for people who don't have a couple of pennies to rub together, but I won't use free software unless it's better than the commercial stuff.

    Multi-step undo, with the steps shown in a floating window? Don't know when it appeared in Photoshop, but I had that in version 6 what, 2 years ago?

    This is why Linux will never take over the desktop. Don't chase after commercial software; jump over it. I don't see any software following a track but "Me too! Meeeee tooooo!!!"

    1. Re:Low Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If "we" copy everything from a commercial copy, it's just a copy. But if "we" do something different, it's not a viable alternative. Hopeless.

      One place where Gimp jumped over Photoshop is that stupid Windows 3.11 program manager style MDI. And look how the photoshop-lovers complain that Gimp will not be useful until it is exactly like Photoshop. And thats even though apparently Adobe dropped it for the Mac version too, so Photoshop is actually catching up to the Gimp in that area.

  63. Megawumpus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the heck is a megawumpus? Is that the evil creature in the new 3D version of Hunt the Wumpus?

  64. One thing I don't get. by teamhasnoi · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Why is the tool palette a huge box rather than the double row that is basically standard in ever other app? (Granted, the double row palette is Adobe all the way)

    I don't understand why anyone would want a box covering the very thing they're working on. Is there some option to make it that way, or customize it - say 'Adobe 7' or 'Corel 4.5' profiles?

    I use Photoshop more than 10 hours a day - if Gimp wants users, it should make it easy for Photoshop users to migrate with as little adjustment as possible. Why would I want to throw my years of PS experience away? Adjustment is necessary, but not full-blown re-education.

    1. Re:One thing I don't get. by Doctor+Crumb · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you had ever used it, you would know that resizing the window rearranges the toolbox. So if you want a 2 column toolbox, make it skinnier and taller. If you want a 2 row toolbox, make it longer and shorter. It doesn't get any easier than that.

    2. Re:One thing I don't get. by jcupitt65 · · Score: 1

      Because the reviewer has resized the tool palette to look like that :-) You can resize all the dialogs any way you like.

    3. Re:One thing I don't get. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      I don't know about 2.0 but in 1.2 the icon layout was following windows dimensions. [launching gimp, trying out] Yeah. Can be easily arranged into a single or double vertical or horizontal row of icons by plain dragging the resize corner to make the window a narrow bar.
      Yeah, one plus of so hated separate resizable windows...

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    4. Re:One thing I don't get. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just noticed...

      in 1024x768 as a single vertical row of icons it forms a very nice vertical toolbar just matching the height of the screen minus taskbar.

    5. Re:One thing I don't get. by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Well, you could do that. Of course, then you'd lose the ability to use the menu that they decided to put on top of that (already barely big enough for the menu) window. Whoops!

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    6. Re:One thing I don't get. by Tiedottaja · · Score: 1

      You could try to use Photoshop for nine hours and then use GIMP for the rest of the day. Then, gradually increase the dose.

  65. Virtual Desktop! Dual Head! by Speare · · Score: 1

    Everyone and their brother are whining, WHY IS IT ALL IN TWENTY DIFFERENT WINDOWS!? Two things you might want to think about, beyond the new options for arranging and merging the dockable windows.

    I have yet to see a Linux graphical desktop that does not have multiple virtual desktops all over the place. Assign one to the GIMP, and use it for nothing else. The clutter problem is solved. If you go to another desktop, all of GIMP disappears as a unit. If you go back to the GIMP desktop, they all reappear where you left them.

    Also, if you force a parent frame to contain all these toolboxes, you can't put these toolboxes on your second monitor head. Not everyone has a second screen, but if you do, then the GIMP's free toolbox windows enables a whole different way of working. On your primary monitor: the current image. Maximize it and have nothing in your way. On your secondary monitor: tools, brushes, patterns, layers, options, info, saving, etc. Far less clutter to get in the way of your image window.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  66. Re:I see... (MDI) by dekashizl · · Score: 4, Troll
    I see they didn't go with an MDI-style interface. Having independently floating windows makes GIMP practically unuseable, unless it's the only program running... [grumble]
    I find this to be very annoying as well. If you can set up virtual desktops, then it can live in its own desktop. But most Win32 users don't have virtual desktops.

    And here's the deal: if you obnoxious Linux zealots keep responding to points like this with "d00d install linux u l00s3r" and comments about how stupid windows users are, you will continue to miss the point that Linux will survive by gaining mindshare and marketshare, and this will not happen if the majority of Win32 people (yes there are lots of them that don't love Win32, but they like to be productive) have the idea that "wow, the OSS tools on Linux are really hard to use". And that's the impression people get. I would think that if they go to the effort of building and releasing binaries on Win32, they could add some MDI support so people could actually find the product useable without burning through their ALT and TAB keys. My left hand is sore after ever GIMP session on my Win32 box, and I feel like I spend half my time minimizing/restoring windows to try to find the right ones. This is a problem, period. Many solutions, but a good one would be to support MDI, like nearly every other windows app in the world.
  67. My suggestion.... by gilesjuk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    would be to have most things accessible in one panel which can be hidden and revealed with the space bar. TV Paint was like this and you could use almost the entire screen for drawing instead of a dinky Window.

    1. Re:My suggestion.... by Pope+Raymond+Lama · · Score: 1

      As for "your suggestion", there is a fullscreen mode now.

      --
      -><- no .sig is good sig.
  68. 16-bit/float formats? by rotomonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anyone know if v2 will support floating point or 16-bit image formats? We in the CG business could use a quality non-8bit paint package and properly supporting finer bit-depth data would go a long way towards making Gimp a standard production tool.

    gimp16 looked promising, but it never went anywhere. Photoshop's 16-bit implementation is pretty weak; it can read it, but can't write it in any format other than a photoshop file and (last time I checked), it still only painted in 8-bit.

    1. Re:16-bit/float formats? by bonch · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Check out Photoshop CS.

    2. Re:16-bit/float formats? by flez · · Score: 1

      This would be huge for the digital photography crowd and something that would actually make Gimp superior to Photoshop.
      This is probably being handled through Cinepaint though.

    3. Re:16-bit/float formats? by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you looked into cinepaint?

    4. Re:16-bit/float formats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photoshop CS does have very good 16bit support. Many filters do not work yet, but brushes, and most tools work just fine =). Layers and masks too.

  69. No, no, NO! You are both incorrect... by MrPower · · Score: 1

    They should have been mebiwumpus and gibiwumpus, respectively... Let's just hope I haven't started any speculation on Wumpuses vs Wumpi... :-)

  70. Re:Please Vote For Me In 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you ass-loving hippy - if this real marine ever meets you, I will force you to rabid teabag a pitbull.

  71. Megawumpus improvements. by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wumpus: Big, heavy, VERY stinky (smells 2 rooms away), slow (rarely moves), thick-skinned (needs several arrow hits, doesn't care about bats), ravenous (eats you as soon as you enter his room) and rather stupid (moves randomly).

    So, the improvements aren't really welcome, right?

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  72. GIMP Window Management by s_wardman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There have been a few comments from people saying that they prefer a MDI interface as used by programs such as Adobe Photoshop. In other words, they want the application to manage it's own windows. Surely this is a job for your window manager?

    From what I can remember, Windomaker had the ability to deal with all the windows of an application at once. A window manager I used once allowed you to put windows into logical groups so you could perform actions on all windows in a group. Fluxbox has the option of grouping windows together and selecting them with tabs. Saving window positions is an option in a fair number of window managers.

    There may be room for improvement with many parts of the interface, but how to organise the windows is not one of them in my opinion. The GIMP developers need to concentrate on creating a decent image manipulation program, not a windowmanager.

    --
    A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.â"John Gaule
    1. Re:GIMP Window Management by cubic6 · · Score: 1
      In other words, they want the application to manage it's own windows. Surely this is a job for your window manager?
      It sure is. Unfortunately, most window managers are an all or nothing affair. Either you let them manage your windows, a la GIMP, or you do it all yourself. I think the next version of GTK should have a general method of doing subwindows. I guess the GTK developers are very against this, though. Oh well. If they won't do semi-MDI, I guess my next choice would be an interface where each image has it's own set of controls that are only shown when the image has focus.
      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
  73. That's what multiple monitors are for... by Phil+John · · Score: 1

    ...seriously. If you want to do any serious media work (audio/video/image) then you will seriously appreciate more than one monitor. I just stuck a cheap 4mb pci graphics card in my machine, hooked it up to a spare 17 inch monitor and now when I use wavelab/photoshop or whatnot I have all of the tools on the second monitor and the media I'm editing on the primary.

    --
    I am NaN
  74. Should you be ashamed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. Yes you should. In fact, many of us are already embarrased for you.

    You forgot the "me" in "Wake me when..."

  75. EXIF support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does any know whether some EXIF support has been
    introduced? For starter, it would be nice to just
    preserve EXIF information found in the file when
    the image is saved...

    1. Re:EXIF support? by sputti · · Score: 1

      yes. works fine.

  76. Re:This could finally kill my last dependence on M by ajs · · Score: 1

    Correct, and until the patents expire on CMYK handling, that's all you're going to get in free software.

  77. You're kidding, right... by bonch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everything from text layout tools (Photoshop CS uses the new InDesign text engine) to color management (Gimp's is still very poor in comparison) to widespread plug-in support by third-parties to...

    Why am I even bothering? OSS people will always think of inane reasons their OSS version is superior (i.e., the multi-monitor feature, which Photoshop also does anyway).

    1. Re:You're kidding, right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OSS people??? who the hell are they...anyway for what i do Gimp kicks the hell out of photoshop...and it is all becouse of PRICE!!

    2. Re:You're kidding, right... by orangesquid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, OSS products are, for me, far, far superior to proprietary ones, because proprietary ones simply *cannot* meet my needs! Why? No software designer or engineer could possibly think of every possible customization. Chances are, I will want something the software isn't capable of doing. With proprietary apps, you're generally stuck. Even if you have source, you probably won't be provided with all the pieces required to make alterations and re-compile and re-link.

      Not only that, but, I enjoy hacking code. I can go at my own pace, and the things I am doing are things that are useful to me. Some people say, "Time is money, and OSS isn't worth the time you waste despite the money you save," but that's not true for me, because time I spend working on developing my _own_ ideas, tweaking my _own_ system, is much better spent and much more fulfilling.

      There is the whole "why reinvent the wheel, unless you can do it better?" argument, which would make OSS seem pointless, because OSS often lacks some of the features or wide userbase of similar proprietary packages. But, I don't really like using features I don't really understand; one of the things I have never quite understood about many other people's approach to computer use is how they just click things at random until they get what they want, rather than trying to understand how it's all put together so that they can always know how to get what they want. Therefore, if there's something missing from OSS that I want, or something I want to change to be better for me, chances are I know enough to do it myself. I can't justify spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to pay someone else to do something that I could have done myself.

      Maybe I just have a big ego, but I place much higher value on time I spend re-doing what others have already done than on money I would have to spend. For me, it's really a question of: do I want to work hard, feel good about myself, and have something to be proud of? or, do I want to throw around money for no good reason, sit on my fat end-user ass and never write a lick of code, and have my computer system always feel like a hotel and never like my home?

      Of course, I do understand if, to everyone else, it's a question of: should I waste time doing tedious work I see no point in doing given that others have already done it? or, should I swallow my pride and shell out a few dollars so that I can use a product developed by experts?

      I think it all depends on the mentality of the person making a decision between proprietary and OSS, right now. In the future, if desktop OSS gets to the point where it's on par with proprietary, it may be more of a social clique issue (specialty products will always be good for proprietary markets; I understand that much!)... I think that's *really* what Linux advocates are hoping for: not that most graphic designers would flock to The GIMP, but that most casual PhotoShop users would be able to do their work just the same with a free (in both senses of the word) product.

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    3. Re:You're kidding, right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what can't you do with Photoshop's many extension mechanisms? Hacking sourcecode is nice, however in most realworld cases, having well-defined extension APIs is nicer.

    4. Re:You're kidding, right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When using windows, randomly clicking around seems to be what works best. Every time I try to understand how to do something, I just end up with a headache or depressed.

    5. Re:You're kidding, right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 of 5 of my feature requests in Photoshop made it in. So I wouldn't say they don't customize

    6. Re:You're kidding, right... by renderhead · · Score: 1
      For me, it's really a question of: do I want to work hard, feel good about myself, and have something to be proud of?


      This works for you because when you're programming, you're "working hard". For me, a graphics professional, programming is screwing around for fun and making graphics is "working hard".

      Photoshop was designed by graphics professionals for graphics professionals. Most people don't know half of what it can do. I know maybe 3/4 of what it can do, but I use almost all of that 3/4 on a regular basis.

      The GIMP was designed by programmers for...well they think it's for graphic designers, but it's really for programmers who need to do some graphic design.

      The "OSS is better because I can add my own features" argument doesn't hold up unless:
      A.) You know how to add features (I sure don't) and B.) All the features you ever need get added. I know that I need high quality text tools and solid CMYK support in the GIMP. The fact that it is OSS has not provided these things yet, and it often takes years for new features to get implemented. Photoshop is not OSS, yet they add new features with every release.

      The time between Photoshop 7.0 and 8.0 was about a year and a half. The GIMP has taken at least five years to get from version 1.0 to version 2.0. Admittedly, version increments tend to be different for OSS, but still! How much improvement has been made in the GIMP in five years compared to Photoshop?

      Okay, I'm meandering now. Back to my basic point: rather than making a strong case for OSS as viable end-user software, you're pushing it even farther into the hobbyist zone by insisting that part of the value in OSS is how rewarding it is to mess with the code.
      --
      I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.

      -RenderHead

  78. First Impressions by rjstanford · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, you can tell a lot about a product from its screenshots. So let's take a look at this one. First, I should say that I am not a graphics artist, nor do I play one on TV. I do some mild photo retouching, web art, icon design, stuff like that. I've used Photoshop and Illustrator, and currently use Paint Shop Pro (hey, its only $89 and it works).

    What's the first thing that I see? Well, we have a bunch of little windows with a terminal manager peeking through. Annyoing, but I can deal with it. Hmm - they're all showing up on the taskbar, too. More annoying, but lets move on.

    Looking at what I presume is the "new" Gimp interface, on the left, the colored icons are much easier to understand at a glance. The menus, however, leave a lot to be desired. One problem with small windows is that, unless you're using Mac style menus, you have small menu labels. Like these ones. File: fair enough. Help: likewise. Xtns: ...? Xtns? I have no idea.

    Looking at the bottom of the docked options window, I can see some buttons. I'd guess that the first one is Save, the second (greyed out) is undo/back, the third is delete (delete my ink options?) and the fourth is... erm... undo again? You've got me. Hope that they have mouseovers, but they really shouldn't have needed them.

    Looking at the "Brushes, Patterns, Gra" window. Ooh, nice title. Anyway, these seem pretty reasonable, although the weird icons at the bottom are back, and different. I guess the first one is ... no idea, actually, since I assume that the second one is new. The third is probably copy (why can't I copy a circle(11) by the way?), the fourth is delete, and the fifth is - refresh? How often do you need to refresh your brushes that it gets the bottom-right corner of the window all to itself? That's prime real estate!

    Okay, now onto the main window. Heh - they can't seem to draw their rulers correctly so that you can see the stops and read the numbers. Oh, well. Again, we have the problem of the window size - this time the menus are readable, but one of them seems to be "La" - possibly "Lay" - and who knows how many are inaccessible off to the right? Its good to know that I can cancel my picture, however - or could in some situations whenever the button is enabled.

    All in all, from a first glance (which is all many prospective users will ever give it), I'll stick with Paint Shop Pro, thankyouverymuch.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    1. Re:First Impressions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Nice. You see one screenshot and from that decide that it's not worth demoing.

      The GIMP is only $0, and it works.

      Costs you nothing to try, and nothing to buy, but your time is so valuable that one screenshot you don't like is enough to get you to shitcan the whole idea.

      But somehow, you've got spare time enough to write approximately 200 words of nit-picking screenshot analysis.

      If you had used the actual program and wished to comment on its user interface problems, I would cheer you on, for bitching about the UI is the first step on the journey to better design.

      But no, you've only seen screenshots, so your comments aren't useful to anyone. They don't enhance argument against use of the GIMP, and they don't provide anyone with useful feedback or ideas.

      Please limit your "insights" to subjects about which you have more objective knowledge than a screenshot. If you use the GIMP and then have something to say about it, then I will respect your opinion.

      Right now, you don't even have an opinion.

    2. Re:First Impressions by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Xtns: ...? Xtns? I have no idea.

      I'd imagine that that's short for "Extensions" - dropping the "e" on words that start "ex" is getting pretty popular at the moment, as annoying as it is...

    3. Re:First Impressions by robotoverflow · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to troll, but half of the things you pointed out could be fixed if you simply stretched out the windows far enough to see the text that isn't visible. You do know that you can resize those window things, right? Keeping the size of any window extremely small - yes, even a Paint Shop Pro one - will effect the usability of the application.

      If you're discounting the GIMP over something as trivial as window placement and sizing in a poorly taken screenshot then I wonder how many other good applications you're avoiding for no good reason.

      --
      % mkdir :
      % ls -dF :
      :/
    4. Re:First Impressions by dpol · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. After having used the versions leading up to GIMP 2.0, I must say that it's disheartening to read comments from user who have obviously never used the new version, who base their opinions on screenshots or, worse, the experience they had with GIMP 1.2 many years ago. Please stop wasting our time.

      I find the new interface wonderful, and an immense improvement over the old version. All in all, I have so far been extremely impressed with the new GIMP. Kudos to the developers!

      --
      -- David Polberger Computer Science major, University of Lund, Sweden
    5. Re:First Impressions by Quarters · · Score: 2, Insightful
      His point about the menus in the image windows is 100% spot on! The menu shouldn't be in the image window. Images can be any arbitrary size and there are times when you absolutely must size the window to be the exact size of the image (e.g. comparing n versions of a picture on one monitor while showing changes to a client).

      Nerfing the menu system so some, potentially needed, menu items are just chopped off if an image window is below a certain size is stupid. If they're going to do the multiple window style of interface the need a global menu bar at the top of the screen, ala Macintosh.

    6. Re:First Impressions by ArekRashan · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry, I have stuff that lives at the top of the screen already, thank you very much.

      Forcing a Macintosh UI paradigm into either KDE or Gnome environments is stupid.

      That said, it would probably be preferable if GIMP running on a MacOS system were to use a global menu bar on the top of the screen, for consistency with the rest of the interface. Please note that I know nothing about GIMP's actual behavior in MacOS, not being a Mac owner.

      PS: You can tear off the menu if you need to use an image window too small to properly display it. Then you may put it wherever you wish.

      Much Love,
      Arek

    7. Re:First Impressions by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Half? No, actually just two. First, let's look at the window title (visible in the second screenshot. "Brushes, Patterns, Gradients, Channels, Paths, Undo, Layers, Fonts, Navigation, Buffers" (there may be more). Yeah, great title. And that window is stretched out to show it, yielding more whitespace than anything else on the screen. Some improvement.

      The idea of stretching out the other windows is ... interesting. Take a look at that second screenshot again. Notice that there's more than one image window open. Now imagine that there are many open. Should all of them be stretched out to accomodate the menu? The new menu adds "Layers, Tools, Dialogs, Filters." Still no Help, and since there is a File I assume that there will also be a help... somewhere. Pity that there's no indication of more options anywhere...

      So we have two very minor problems solved - and more problems caused by the wasted real estate - and you still haven't hit on any of the other, more serious points that I made. By the way, I don't think that resizing the window would have had any effect on "Xtns" if that was something that you were responding to.

      And, since Paint Shop Pro doesn't put its menus on its subwindows, sizing them to fit their content really doesn't effect its usability as you claim that it will.

      Sorry... you fail to convince.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    8. Re:First Impressions by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 2

      I realize you probably have a day job, but you know, even armchair advice like this could be extremely helpful to the Gimp team. I don't know who they have in charge of UI, but I'm sure your points would be appreciated. I hope their coders are lurking on /.

    9. Re:First Impressions by robotoverflow · · Score: 1

      It's not that I disagree with the points you made - you're right to some degree on all of them - but I don't think they're a solid enough reason to avoid using the GIMP entirely. It's a good image manipulation tool, certainly one of the best i've used. The few interface issues don't exactly make it impossible to work with, and for the price you can't really complain if it takes a day or two to get used to them, especially after you realise that you can be just as productive with the GIMP as you normally would with PS, PSP, etc.

      --
      % mkdir :
      % ls -dF :
      :/
    10. Re:First Impressions by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      for the price you can't really complain if it takes a day or two to get used to them

      And this is where we differ. PSP cost me $89 and I was productive in it immediately. I've used PhotoShop before with similar ease. The GIMP costs me $0 and, as you say, two days worth of time. That's worth more to me than $89, by a long shot.

      -Richard

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    11. Re:First Impressions by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Not the case. First, this type of exposure is a standard way to convince users who don't want to spend two days of time playing with a product to use it. Second, if I can find so many things in a simple screenshot that just scream "usability issues," why should I assume that the article praising the product picked the worst stuff to show? Besides, it doesn't cost me nothing to try. I know that a solution that works cost me $90 (PSP) and was very intuitive to use - almost no time to learn enough to do what I wanted to do with it. I'm pretty sure from reading about it that GIMP would take me at least a couple of days to get up to the same level of familiarity, and that would still leave some of the other issues (like the ALT-TAB unfriendliness) that I noticed and that many others have talked about.

      And yes, it doesn't take much of my time to add up to $90. Like I said in the post, I'm not a graphics designer. I'm a lightweight user. I also spend most of my day job worrying about usability and technology, which doesn't help the GIMP very much in this case, I'm afraid.

      By the way, how do you feel my comments would have been different had I written them while looking at the application on my screen, rather than while looking at the application on the reviewer's screen? I guess I could have answered my question about mouseovers, but that's about all.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    12. Re:First Impressions by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      If you don't want the menu, just remove it. It's optional, as is just about everything about the interface.

      The points he made may be valid, but most of them (if not all) are already addressed. Take the app out for a spin and see.

  79. the interface, love it or hate it? by fbg111 · · Score: 1

    though the interface as a whole remains a love-it-or-hate-it thing.

    Or for those of us with a more flexible bent of mind, an indifferent thing. I use both Photoshop and GIMP b/c I want to know how to use both. In the great scheme of things, adapting yourself to different GUIs is relatively minor. I don't see what the religious-like hubbub is all about.

    --
    Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
  80. 48-bit color? by c3rb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does this version support 48-bit color (16-bit per RGB channel)? Right now I have to use Cinepaint to view and edit my 48-bit photos and I'd really rather just use the Gimp for everything.

  81. btw, RTFA by bonch · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why that? What can you do with Photoshop that you can't do with the Gimp? Gimp now has the CMYK color scheme, so the only real pro-Photoshop argument has faded...

    From the article:

    "Admittedly, the current rendition of CMYK in the GIMP is far behind that of commercial offerings, but the mere existence of CMYK in the latest version means we can look forward to improved profile selection in future versions."

    And that's just CMYK.

    1. Re:btw, RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Kerry is mega-rich, influenced by special interests, and voted for the DMCA. Why aren't we voting for Edwards again?


      Because we're voting for Bush!

  82. Re:"But it is not a Photoshop killer " by ArekRashan · · Score: 1

    Not surprising, as MS Paint has been dead, dead, dead for many years now.

  83. MacOSX version? by Espectr0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Where can i get the macosx version for (F,f)ree? Macgimp is selling it but i dont see a free download.

    Does the current gimp source compile on osx? Does it need X or it works on aqua too? Am i stuck with fink?

  84. People--Photoshop DOES do multi-monitor by bonch · · Score: 1, Informative

    You're right, Photoshop can't do multi-monitor support. Oh, wait, it can.

    1. Re:People--Photoshop DOES do multi-monitor by be-fan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If it is genuine, then great! Go Kerry for having the guts to protest a stupid war.

      However, Kerry, you're still an ass for support the most recent stupid war...

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  85. Re:I see... (MDI) by Narcissus · · Score: 1
    There are virtual window applications for Win32. I loved VirtuaWin.

    At least then you can just have GIMP in it's own window. I realise that your biggest problem is that nearly every other Windows app in the world supports MDI, so why doesn't GIMP? But then to that I would say that nearly every other window system in the world supports virtual windows, so why doesn't MS Windows? I mean if they're writing a cross platform application, why should they be restricted by that one without vitual window support?

  86. Re:I see... (MDI) by kinnell · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Linux will survive by gaining mindshare and marketshare

    Historically, Linux has survived just fine with neither.

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
  87. Uh... by bonch · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'm in favour of a constitutional amendment that insists patents are only valid on commercial products, but that free/oss software is immune from such. It's the only way to increase competition to benefit consumers.

    Uh, that would completely crush the patent system as everyone would just make free rip-offs of absolutely everything without fear of completely stealing the ideas from someone else, and nobody would be able to make money.

    1. Re:Uh... by random_static · · Score: 1
      Uh, that would completely crush the patent system

      i think that might be more a feature than a bug, actually.

    2. Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it'd be a damn shame if you could get things without paying for them.

  88. Re:Please Vote For Me In 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grammar not a strong point eh? Must be due to frustration of being wrong so often. Back to your roids then.

  89. One thing Photoshop has that The GIMP doesn't.. by graphicartist82 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    is the "Healing Brush".. That's my single favorite part of Photoshop; especially when touching up family photos from a digital camera.

  90. The original GTK app is now GTK2.0 by codemachine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is kind of funny that one of the last major applications to migrate to GTK2.0 is the application that created GTK in the first place (hence GTK - GIMP ToolKit).

    Although I guess it kind of makes sense since GTK and GIMP are pretty tightly integrated - it would be far from trivial to switch versions.

    1. Re:The original GTK app is now GTK2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're no more integrated than any other GTK using app. But the reason for the delay is that they haven't just ported Gimp1.2 to the newer tookit - they've completely re-written the interface code.

      Most apps I've noticed have simply done a straight port from the latest gtk1 code and then started adding features after an initial gtk2 release. In this case though, they've taken the opportunity to make major changes to the program internals.

  91. Just to get it out of the way now by bonch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Before everyone starts falsely claiming otherwise, Photoshop DOES do multi-monitor support. Honestly, you think Photoshop wouldn't after all these years?

    Really, I see no reason for having eight taskbar buttons open for one app. I have to devote an entire desktop to Gimp. You can argue with me how "bad" MDI is supposed to be until the cows come home. It hasn't affected the success of Photoshop, and it's what people want.

    1. Re:Just to get it out of the way now by bay43270 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Taskbar buttons and MDI have nothing to do with each other. Gimp has all those task bar buttons for a single app because they choose to (or choose not to change it). In Photoshop (at least version 7), the tool pallets are not part of the MDI interface (they are not constrained to the parent window). No one really wants a MDI. We just want a clean interface -- including the removal of all those tool pallet task bar buttons!

      BTW, Photoshop on the PC would be a lot better (IMHO) if they rid themselves of the MDI. Photoshop feels a lot less constrained on the Mac - especially on multiple monitors.

    2. Re:Just to get it out of the way now by Afrosheen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Photoshop has supported multi-monitors for as long as I can remember. I used a dual head setup on a PowerPC 9500 back in the olden tymes. Dual head support in Photoshop has more to do with the underlying OS than the program itself.

      If anyone is having issues with this on Windows, blame windows.

    3. Re:Just to get it out of the way now by toiletmonster · · Score: 1

      well its not what i want. its like a little jail on my monitor. makes me feel all constrained.

      and i would devote an entire desktop to the gimp regardless. actually i usually have one task per group of 6 desktops. i use kahakai and it uses 2 dimensional virtualness like enlightenment.

      6 desktops for coding project A
      6 desktops for coding project B
      6 desktops for mail/xmms/crap
      6 desktops for web surfing

      i've been doing this for a couple months now. not sure i'm real happy with it or not. some pluses, some minuses.

    4. Re:Just to get it out of the way now by cbreaker · · Score: 1

      I can see how you could feel that way, but I like having just one task on the taskbar. I don't need the clutter. Photoshop's interface is clean and to the point. If I minimize it, everything goes away.

      Not saying that GIMP is bad, and I've used it on occation and it works well. However, I find that Photoshop's interface is cleaner.

      I hope GIMP keeps making more improvements in the usability department, this is a good step forward.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    5. Re:Just to get it out of the way now by kevcol · · Score: 1

      I used a dual head setup on a PowerPC 9500 back in the olden tymes

      Cue five Yorkshiremen..

      "Awww.. we used to DREAM about PowerPC Macs when I was a lad.. back then, we had Photoshop 2 running on an LCII and thought we'd rule the world!"

      "An LCII? Well, you're pockets must have been lined with gold- we used a Mac Plus and felt lucky as hell when we copped a copy of b/w Mac Paint at the University bookstore for only $100 with our student discount- yes, that was the stuff dreams were made of!"

    6. Re:Just to get it out of the way now by SiChemist · · Score: 1


      Gimp has all those task bar buttons...

      I see this in many of the comments attached to this story and I don't understand it. In Linux at least, you can dock every pallet into a single window that has a single task bar button. Add the image window, and that's two. Is the problem having a separate task bar button for each image?

      Note to parent: I'm not singling you out, yours is just the first comment that brings this up.

    7. Re:Just to get it out of the way now by antiMStroll · · Score: 1
      Before everybody starts claiming otherwise, you don't have devote an entire desktop to the Gimp 2. All functions are available in pull downs, and the tabbed or individual floating pallettes are optional. User choice.

      Oops, too late.

    8. Re:Just to get it out of the way now by bay43270 · · Score: 1

      I see this in many of the comments attached to this story and I don't understand it. In Linux at least, you can dock every pallet into a single window that has a single task bar button. Add the image window, and that's two. Is the problem having a separate task bar button for each image?

      No, the problem isn't having a separate task bar button for each image... Photoshop on the Mac works this way (although on the mac, you have to click on the running Photoshop icon in the dock to see the open documents). The issue is with the tool pallets. Joining them all together minimizes the problem and is a decent work around. The ultimate issue is that (in Windows and Mac OSX, at least) tool pallets are not tasks. They aren't managed as task, and should not take up ANY space on the user's task bar. The gimp treats each toolbar as though it were just as important as an independent application (at least from the UI standpoint).

      I don't mean to make it sound like the end of the world. It's just one of many small UI annoyances that doesn't get the attention I believe it deserves.

    9. Re:Just to get it out of the way now by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1

      Gimp now has the ability to dock all those windows to one. I am running gimp 1.3.23 and I have only one window (note, you need to press enter in the URL bar since my host does not allow outside linking of images). You can select any dialog and just add it to the tab area and click the tab and there you go.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    10. Re:Just to get it out of the way now by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 1

      I'm also running Gimp 1.3.23 and cannot for the life of me work out how you did that. I'm on Linux too BTW.

      Bob

    11. Re:Just to get it out of the way now by R.Caley · · Score: 2, Informative
      I see no reason for having eight taskbar buttons open for one app.

      I see no reason for having a taskbar.

      In any case, if your system won't let you configure things like this, don't blame the GIMP people. Complain to whoever gave you that taskbar and ity's logic for what gets a button.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    12. Re:Just to get it out of the way now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone his/her own WM/DE but i have to state that GIMP + Enlightenment kinda rocks. It negates your whole argument, and frankly i don't care for a "taskbar" though in E16 i have a similair option if i want. With GIMP being spreaded on 2 virtual desktops, i kinda never have problems like you describe. Perhaps it's your monitor size as well, can't say...

    13. Re:Just to get it out of the way now by bonch · · Score: 1

      Or, that particular port of the Gimp could conform to the interface of that particular operating system. If the Gimp doesn't work with the taskbar and logic of that operating system--it is a broken port.

      That is, after all, the point of a port...

    14. Re:Just to get it out of the way now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If anyone is having issues with this on Windows, blame windows."

      It's possible to blame "Windows" as it were but it if there is an issue (and I'm not aware of one) then why can't we blame Adobe? I mean the mere mention of Macromedia and specifically the speed of particular applications on the Mac and it's always Macromedia's fault and was wondering if this ever, ever, worked the other way.

    15. Re:Just to get it out of the way now by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      Or, that particular port of the Gimp could conform to the interface of that particular operating system.

      As I understand the issue, it is not one of GIMP not conforming, but one of how a particular user things the GUI resources should be used.

      It is equally plausible to see the gimp as one `thing' which should only waste one huge chunk of screen real-estate or as a collection of interacting tools, each of which should waste a huge chunk, so it can be easily brough to the front or whatever someone thinks a task bar button is useful for.

      As I indicated, I thnk the fundamental problem is that the whole task-bar idea is designed for people who turn on their computer run one, maybe two, applications, then go away. In such a situation, eight buttons for the one app is not a problem.

      I currently have around 40-50 `things' which would probably be assigned buttons on a task bar running (precise number would depend onf preferences, probably the clock would not get a button, but the xterms and browser windows would etc). This is my normal kind of work pattern, I haven't even felt the need to use the virtual desktop facilities of the window manager for years.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
  92. Moving the Masses by felonious · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been using PS for many years and as new features are implemented I recommend PS to people but the price is prohibitive to say the least. This is where Gimp owns the competition and particularly PS. Although Gimp isn't a dupe of PS it is very, very powerful and intuitive and with the price how can it lose?

    Personally I am moving into Gimp from Photoshop as well as Openoffice from MS Office because I'm just tired of the ridiculous upgrades to keep compatibility issues in check.

    Open source is the single greatest thing to happen in a very long time. It has opened up a new horizon for me and the people I recommend software to. I am our company's "IT Guy" for our state and my top recommendations of late are Firefox, Openoffice, Gimp, and SuSe for those looking for a change. This is coming from a strictly Adobe/M$ house. I figured I could use the "$" now since I'm an open source fanboy now!

    It's pretty cool when I can move 100's of people in the direction of open source and this filters down to their families too so I am doing my part.

    --
    You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
    1. Re:Moving the Masses by kooso · · Score: 1

      I recommend PS to people but the price is prohibitive to say the least. This is where Gimp owns the competition and particularly PS

      For me The Gimp is better because it is free as in free speech, not free as in free beer. I'd pay money for a stable version of The Gimp (if I needed to).

    2. Re:Moving the Masses by felonious · · Score: 1

      Cost is definitely an incentive but I would also pay for Gimp. Hopefully OSS will take off and the average user will start to love it. If and when that happens we will see prices drop across the board.

      We will also see less people "pirating"/"warezing" software because it will be affordable and the big companies can no longer use that excuse to jack up the prices.

      So you lower the price, pirating drops, and you sell more units. To me that cancels out the loss in profit from the price drop but I'm sure the big companies will spin it into a megative instead of being a positive for all parties involved and most importantly consumers.

      Maybe if the previously mentioned does happen then the RIAA could learn from it and drop their prices....nah...I'm fucking dreaming now....

      --
      You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
    3. Re:Moving the Masses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got our entire office to switch over to FireFox and Thunderbird. Both are beautiful applications!

      Everyone at work loves the new applications. The feature they like the most is the simplicity of changing preferences. MS must love to make it complicated to change things, but FireFox and Thunderbird have a nice lefthand navigation with big, colorful icons. (options are broken down and make sense.)

      Unfortunately, the conversion from MS Office to OpenOffice didn't go as well. OpenOffice is a great application, but it's conversion of existing MS Office documents wasn't always so clean. And that really put a hurt on our Sales staff. But I'm sure it'll get better, and we'll return to trying it out again in the future.

      A funny story though, no one in the office could get a excel document to open without it crashing. We loaded it up in OpenOffice, and ta-dah! It opened right up. :)

      Josh

  93. Side by side comparison for JPEG compression. by SharpFang · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ctrl+D or image->duplicate

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Side by side comparison for JPEG compression. by guacamolefoo · · Score: 1

      A citizen of USA will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national elections

      Partly because we don't have any national elections. Even an election for president amounts to a simple election by voters in a state for electors from their state who will ultimately cast a ballot for president. There are no "national" elections in the United States. A vote in California for Kerry does not offset a vote in Texas for Bush. The largest election you can have is a state-wide election. Essentially, the race for president consists of 50 state-wide elections.

  94. Obviously a marketeer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The colorful icons and superior aesthetics of GTK2 (GIMP Toolkit) is the first difference you notice. The professionalism they convey is invaluable to the user's experience.

    No, it isn't! Just make the goddamned software work!

  95. Uh, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    To start with, the GIMP -is- MDI (multiple documents interface). All the panels are toplevel, though, which isn't the same thing. There are different sorts of MDI; you're thinking of the Childframe sort.

    Also, what you call SDI is not the 'open source way'. Advanced UIs abound in the open source world.

    Lack of MDI styles is a GTK-only thing. This limitation doesn't exist with other toolkits. I note you chose to mention only GTK apps there. Don't blame the whole of open source but just one of its tools, please. It's being worked on.

  96. Re:No, no, NO! You are both incorrect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right there - think of the rumpi it would cause ...

  97. "arent any other applications" ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ever used photoshop on a mac?

  98. Troll??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy is right. I suggested doing a piece on the GIMP on a TV show I work on. Unfortunately the producers heard the name "Gimp" and rejected it because we have a lot of young viewers. So much for mass-media OSS exposure.

  99. There is a Windows version by BurritoJ · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually there is a version of gimp for win32. Gimp for Windows It uses GTK even... There is even a nicely packaged version for those unwilling brave a .zip file here.

    These are up to Gimp 2.0 pre2.

    Cheers,
    Joe

  100. GIMP's New UI? Where? I don't see it. by Cecil · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't like the old UI? It's gone. All new.

    Hi, could I have some of that shit you're smoking?

    If by "It's gone" you mean "It's still here", then I agree with you. I'll also agree if by "All new" you meant "exactly the fucking same".

    Did you look at the screenshots? Sorry, but slightly changing the shadows and highlights on some of the controls to make it look more glossy is NOT A NEW UI. How it looks is not why some people (including myself) dislike Gimp's UI. UI stands for user interface, which is something you interact with. It's the way that we interact with the program that leaves the sour taste in our mouth.

    The problem for me is the tens of windows that get hidden underneath each other and provide no easy way to find the one you want short of shuffling through your windows like you're searching through a pile of papers on your desk. Highly inefficient and completely disruptive to the workflow process. Photoshop, Visual Studio, 3D Modelling programs, and numerous other things that need to handle the display of large volumes of disparate data all have slightly different approaches to solving these problems, but they all rely heavily on two proven methods of UI design: "expansion" and "tabbing". Most of them don't even bother to use the default Windows controls for this, but they all do it. Microsoft, on the other hand, has moved away from multi-window and MDI applications for a long time now, because they're cluttered and awkward for users. It's an analogy that isn't useful and doesn't make sense.

    GIMP would do well, in my opinion, to take a lesson from the de-facto standards. I'm all for innovating in open source rather than just following the leader, but you really have to be careful that your "innovation" is actually an improvement or at least comparable to the standard. In this case it isn't.

  101. Thoughts from a GIMP User by Dolemite_the_Wiz · · Score: 2, Informative

    I like the upgrades for the new version. However, the main place were the GIMP fails time and time again is the documentation.

    I don't know how many times I've run into broken links or people who don't work on a give part of the documentation any more.

    If the GIMP team are going to get more people to switch over, the documentation needs to be WAY more solid than it is right now.

    Dolemite
    __________________

    --
    Save the World! Use a Quote!
  102. BUT.... How do I draw...? by kevlar · · Score: 2, Funny

    How do I draw a Line, Circle or Square?

    This is a fundamental problem with Gimp that keeps it out of the hands of the main stream people. The Menu options are not simple enough for a stupid user (e.g. ME) to Open Gimp and edit an image quickly. I have to know that in order to draw a line, you select a brush and hold shift and click or some crap like that, which not only am I not going to remember, but I'm simply not going to use it!!

    The Gimp is one of the legacy OSS projects that has been around for so long, but has still not understood what it takes to bring it main stream. A more intuitive interface for stupid users, an MDI layout that doesn't confuse users (e.g. ME) and most importantly, allow the user to draw a line without having to alt-shift-control-wipe-your-ass-click action.

  103. Just call me when the MDI version is released by Saiyine · · Score: 0

    I just can't understand it!

    Lots of people (as myself) love The Gimp but can't stand the non-MDI thingie. Why is so hard for the developers to add and option for us, poor non-visionaries or the guis?

    --
    Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
  104. Re:Virtual Desktop! Dual Head! by TekPolitik · · Score: 1, Insightful
    I have yet to see a Linux graphical desktop that does not have multiple virtual desktops all over the place. Assign one to the GIMP, and use it for nothing else. The clutter problem is solved.

    Not really. I find using multiple desktops for this much clumsier than the MDI capability of Windows. In fact I tried multiple desktops in Windows years before switching to Linux and after about 6 months found the whole capability annoying. The only reason I use multiple desktops under Linux is because so many applications have been written in such a way (may windows popping up in an unstructured and independent way) that there is no viable alternative.

    I don't get this insistence that you find among Linux GUI developers that "multiple desktops" enables you to do everything that some other alternative window management strategy allows you to do. It doesn't, unless you look at it on a massively over-simplified level. Different window management strategies have different strengths and weaknesses, and some people find one strength or weakness better than others.

    But the greatest weakness is forcing a particular desktop management strategy on other people when it may well not be the best for them.

    Not that I expect anything else - the "multiple desktops roolz" camp is a fundamentalist religion, not open to rational discussion.

  105. PSE 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still haven't heard about Photoshop Elements 3 so I decided instead to buy Photoshop Elements 2. I also can't get the 2.0 Pre 2 of the Gimp to run. Eventually once I can get Gimp 2.0 run, I will have quite a bit of graphics functionality for a total of $50. For my vector drawing needs I'll just use Sodipodi since it runs fine in Windows.

  106. The problem is the toolkit. by Markos · · Score: 1

    To implement a adobe style interface, you'd need a toolkit with MDI (multiple document interface) support, or write it on your own. Support for MDI in GTK is lacking. AFAIK there is MDI support in Gnome2, but it's marked as "depracated".

  107. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You won't be missed.

  108. Who needs 600 dollars? by crawdaddy · · Score: 1

    The UI is still clunky and cluttered looking, but overall GIMP is an amazing program for the right price. It may never be a substitute for Photoshop, CAD or Illustrator, but for the weekend graphics hacker who doesn't have 600 dollars, this is a step in the right direction.

    The weekend graphics hacker who doesn't have 600 dollars probably has at least one P2P client, not to mention the latest version of Photoshop, CAD, and Illustrator fully registered.

  109. What you're used to. by kingLatency · · Score: 1
    I use gimp for a long time way before 1.0 and I've always felt it more comfortable than Photoshop. Yeah, I'm always bitcin about my 3x22" monitors and Phottoshop not being able to use it as I would like.
    Well, this just reminds us of what we already knew. A big part of "comfort" and "usability" is being used to something. I'm a big Photoshop user and to use the GIMP is like waking up in bizarro world. If I used it for a couple days or a week, I'd get used to it and become productive in it, but using it for just minutes on end, it's impossible to not compare it with what I'm used to, what I'm comfortable with: Photoshop. So I guess it's hard to judge the interface accurately and without bias.
    --
    "I've got to stop masturbating! It makes me too lazy! Stop it, Albert. Stop it." -- Albert Einstein
    1. Re:What you're used to. by justsomebody · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So I guess it's hard to judge the interface accurately and without bias

      Just a little info.

      I was intensive user of Photoshop from 2.5 up to 5.5 (in that time I even worked for graphic company). When they completely rearranged menus in 6.0, I just didn't wanted to bother, because Gimp has already overtaken my Photoshop needs. But then again I never needed CMYK (after I left that job) and Photoshop just didn't feel well with multiple monitors (3), for that kind of monitor layout MDI is a real NO GO. I even tried to switch to Apple, because Apple hasn't got MDI, but having menu on one screen was to clumsy and I trashed my Apple&Photoshop high hopes.

      But to dump about being unbiased, I still support some DTP companies so I couldn't avoid 7 and CS. And there's nothing better about them either.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  110. Photoshop's multi-monitor support by FlyingOrca · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...is buggy.

    I routinely switch between a single monitor (think notebook) and multiple monitors (think notebook with nice big monitor at work). When I'm only using the single, Photoshop often leaves certain dialogue boxes on the non-existant monitor. The effect is that the app is broken until the next time I'm at work.

    I'm pretty careful, now, about where I use and leave dialogue boxes, but it still happens. The "Reset palette locations" command works for palettes, but not for dialogue boxes. Adobe confirms that this is a known bug; I can only hope they'll fix it in the next release. Otherwise, I loooooove Photoshop. Cheers!

    --
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    1. Re:Photoshop's multi-monitor support by Xoder · · Score: 3, Informative

      Using the display option, you can switch the active screen, and pull the dialogue boxes back.

      HTH

      --
      The previous sig has been removed due to /. protecting your best interests
    2. Re:Photoshop's multi-monitor support by bonch · · Score: 1

      Interesting...is it a problem in Photoshop CS? I haven't had this problem.

    3. Re:Photoshop's multi-monitor support by FlyingOrca · · Score: 1

      Run that by me one more time slowly, because I'd really love to know how to fix this. By "display option", do you mean the display applet in the control panel, or something within Photoshop? 'Cause in the control panel, I can't access the second monitor when it's not present. Been there, tried that.

      --
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    4. Re:Photoshop's multi-monitor support by netsharc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just looked in PS7, it has an option to save workspace, does that save the pallete locations as well? If yes, you can probably define two workspaces, one for single-monitor, and one for dual-monitor..

      Otherwise, it's ugly but maybe you can just save and backup the settings from the settings directory? (in D:\Documents and Settings\%username%\Application Data\Adobe\Photoshop\7.0\Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Settings )

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    5. Re:Photoshop's multi-monitor support by Xoder · · Score: 1

      Really? You can't move the "active" box to another? I've never had a multimonitor set up myself, but I've tried moving the "monitors" about in the display window (yes, the control panel... may be under "Advanced" on the "Settings" tab).

      --
      The previous sig has been removed due to /. protecting your best interests
  111. The New UI is Nasty by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    Gimp's old UI was bad, and the new one is bad as well. You can tell it was made by developers and inspired by photoshop. It wasn't created by interface or interactive designers :/

    If the Gimp ever wants to become a legitimate piece of software that can gain recognition within the design community, it is going to need a better UI. And by "better UI" I don't mean new icons and added widgets.

    -- an annoyed designer

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  112. Re:This could finally kill my last dependence on M by jcupitt65 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Not correct. CMYK editing is not patented (it's just a 4 band image). Conversion between colour spaces is not patented (see eg. littlecms and the whole ICC thing). Maybe you're thinking of Pantone?

    The problem is limitations in the internals of gimp, which are due to be replaced when GEGL comes along (another year or so). Then gimp will have true CMYK support.

  113. Kudos to the Gimp team by ottffssent · · Score: 1

    The Gimp: It was good, it is better, it has a long way to go to be perfect.

    The Gimp team: May you continue to love your work so I can continue to love your product.

    Many thanks, and best of luck going forward.

  114. GUI?? by Axoiv · · Score: 1

    I thought there was talk about separating the GUI from the functionality entirely. That's what I would call a revolutionary GUI.

  115. My Toilet Paper Template Usage by crawdaddy · · Score: 1

    I printed out the leaked Windows NT/2K source code using that template. Now, I can violate Microsoft copyrights and crap at the same time!

  116. Lol, when Photoshop trolls come out to play. by theolein · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree 100% that the GIMP is not a Photoshop replacement but it sure as hell offers a huge amount of features, and finally, a decent GUI, for $0.

    I have just waded through about 20 +5 insightful modded posts about how bad GIMP 1.2's GUI was. Sigh, I know this is slashdot, but is even reading the editor's comment to much, even if RTFA is?

    How on earth can you say that the GIMP 2 is crap unless you've tried it. I can see this working quite well for web graphics and standard home printer stuff, and the new interface with dockable palettes and menus in the image window saving one from having to right-click all the time are fantastic.

    I don't know what pisses the PS people off more: the fact that the GIMP is finally improving or that they spent an enormous amount of money on Adobe's tools that they only use for web graphics in the end.

  117. Re:I see... (MDI) by pseudochaotic · · Score: 2, Funny

    But most Win32 users don't have virtual desktops.

    Sure they do!

    --
    And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
  118. Just one thing, please.... by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    Rotate images arbitrary values....

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    1. Re:Just one thing, please.... by dylan_- · · Score: 1
      Rotate images arbitrary values....
      Tools...Transform Tools...Rotate (or Shift+R)
      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
  119. Yes, like that. by solios · · Score: 1

    Now if only the interface dialogues weren't FREAKING HUGE. :| Side by side against Photoshop- as you can see here, the GIMP eats a MASSIVE amount of real estate.

    (yes, that's The Gimp running in MacX, which is HORRIBLY OLD, but that's not the point- the gui is the same physical size on any screen.)

    1. Re:Yes, like that. by BigSven · · Score: 1

      Go to the Preferences Dialog and select the Small theme.

  120. Re:I see... (MDI) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Er, I hate to be picky about your choice of words, but c'mon. Linux was started (late) 1991. I would date the post-mindshare era as beginning in 1999 (the year I actually heard of it).

    Now, we can argue how accurate either of these dates is, but when set against the backdrop of real history (the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, the great dynasties of Imperial China, Dick Clark) seven years of obscurity hardly merits the phrase "historical."

  121. I hope not. by solios · · Score: 1

    Dear gods. Slicing in Fireworks and Imageready is HORRIBLE. I do all of my slicing by hand with the guides in Photoshop. I got sick of the shim gifs and whatnot that both apps would jam into my graphics, making them completely unuseable in terms of, say, integrating a menu bar into a solid interface. Yes, it's more time consuming.... but considering the amount of cleanup and kicking I've had to do to imageready and fireworks HTML to get the end result useable, well..... it's ten times faster to do it the hard way. :P

  122. EKROUT EKROUT EKROUT A.V. = EKROUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  123. Finally! by Ennslaver · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally a way to get anna nicole smith back to the normal proportion!

  124. Probably fixed in CS by FlyingOrca · · Score: 1

    I'm running 7, and it was a known bug back when I checked out their site for possible solutions (they weren't offering any). This was pre-CS.

    Since it was a known bug, though, I'd think (hope?) they fixed it in CS. Cheers!

    --
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
  125. You have a point. by tehdaemon · · Score: 1

    What (or where) is the keyboard shortcut for switching tabs? I even have the tab extensions and this is one thing that I really want to have.

    --
    Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    1. Re:You have a point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ctrl+tab?

      Oh.. NM, I use Opera now..

    2. Re:You have a point. by tehdaemon · · Score: 1

      That is for switching windows in the window manager. What I want is to switch between tabs in mozilla/firebird/firefox, using the keyboard. (not just clicking on it with the mouse.

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    3. Re:You have a point. by PoprocksCk · · Score: 1

      CTRL+TAB is the shortcut for switching between tabs, and I feel that that shortcut is completely intuitive and easy to use.

    4. Re:You have a point. by tehdaemon · · Score: 1
      I stand corrected.

      Either my memory is faulty, or CTRL+TAB used to be for switching between windows in the window manager. ALT+TAB is now doing that. (GNOME 2.2) When did that change?(GNOME 1.4->2.0??)

      Thanks for the tip, I didn't try CRTL+TAB for the above reason.

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    5. Re:You have a point. by UserGoogol · · Score: 1

      Ctrl+Tab/Ctrl+Shift+Tab, at least in Windows. But Ctrl+PgUp and Ctrl+PgDn also work.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    6. Re:You have a point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your memory is faulty.

    7. Re:You have a point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ctrl + tab on Mozilla 1.6 but you can use ctrl + page up/down on all of them

  126. Well, how the hell do ya' draw a circle by son_of_asdf · · Score: 4, Informative

    When I tried to introduce my wife (graphic designer/QuarkXPress/Photoshop/Illustator ninja) to The Gimp 1.2, the first thing that happened was this:

    Where's the shape drawing tool? Whaddya mean I have to use the selection tool to draw a circle? That's stupid. Weeellllllll, let's make a little text instead. One line? I can't auto-kern? Where the hell's the preview? Ok, there we go.....dammit, maybe not. Where in the fuc.....oh, there it is. Hey, how do I select multiple layers--the damn shift key doesn't work. The hell with this...what good is this thing, anyway?

    There's a lot to be said for standardized user interface elements if you want to get the professionals on board..........

    --
    Don't Panic!
    1. Re:Well, how the hell do ya' draw a circle by prockcore · · Score: 2, Funny

      When I tried to introduce my wife (graphic designer/QuarkXPress/Photoshop/Illustator ninja) to The Gimp 1.2, the first thing that happened was this:

      Where's the shape drawing tool?


      Yup, sounds like a photoshop user. Using the wrong tool for the wrong job.

      You want a shape drawing tool, use Sodipodi.

    2. Re:Well, how the hell do ya' draw a circle by Quarters · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yup, sounds like an OSS user. Rudely suggesting the wrong program for the wrong task.

      Drawing bezier lines in Photoshop is useful for any number of bitmap editing reasons. You wouldn't do a full on vector based layout with it, it's not designd for that. But bezier shapes that can be resized without resolution loss are great for masking, selecting, using as templates, vitural frisket for airbrushing, etc...

      Since isn't a bitmap editor it wouldn't have served the poster's wife's needs at all.

    3. Re:Well, how the hell do ya' draw a circle by igloo-x · · Score: 0

      Typical.

      "Oh look. Someone who pays for their software. they mustn't know much about anything at all. Here! This is plainly better than the software you were use, and its OPEN SOURCE BAYBEE! What's that? It's missing tons of features and functionality? Nonsense! I clearly know nothing about this software but I know you're doing it wrong. Here's another sub-standard tool that apt tells me does what I think you need. Tch! These WinBlowz users! They don't have the first clue!"

    4. Re:Well, how the hell do ya' draw a circle by son_of_asdf · · Score: 1

      Yup, sounds like an OSS user. Rudely suggesting the wrong program for the wrong task.

      Rudely? Don't be an ass. An introduction does not in any way imply that I was attempting to get her to suddenly drop all of the subtle, powerful, and eminently suitable tools that she uses in the course of her design work. I was more interested in her reaction to the interface, as you would have plainly seen had you read my comment sans preconceived notions.

      Since you missed it, my point is that unless a piece of open source software does a better job of making the UI learning curve easier and begins to provide complete feature replacement, it ain't ready for prime time.

      --
      Don't Panic!
    5. Re:Well, how the hell do ya' draw a circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      my point is that unless a piece of open source software does a better job of making the UI learning curve easier and begins to provide complete feature replacement

      This has nothing to do with easy learning curves: your wife learned how to use photoshop years ago, and has been honing her skills since. Many art programs have -- I kid you not -- a course devoted to learning how to use photoshop.

      Now I'm not saying that The Gimp is as good as Photoshop -- it's not. But the fact that its nonintuitive GUI is different than Photoshop's nonintuitive GUI doesn't mean beans.

    6. Re:Well, how the hell do ya' draw a circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it does.

      If you look on most applications under Windows you will see that they are very similar in layout. This makes it easier and faster to use new programs too.

      In Linux, especially with Gimp where dialogs are placed random, it will be more difficult to quickly find and use tools and features. This is a major importance.

      There is a reason why MS and big applications invest much money to create a working user interface.

    7. Re:Well, how the hell do ya' draw a circle by swillden · · Score: 1

      In Linux, especially with Gimp where dialogs are placed random, it will be more difficult to quickly find and use tools and features. This is a major importance. There is a reason why MS and big applications invest much money to create a working user interface.

      Counterpoint: As an experienced GIMP user who was once an experienced Photoshop user, I find Photoshop extremely frustrating to use. Nothing is where it should be, I'm always having to reach up for menus rather than being able to right-click and get them, I can't tear off menus that I'm using frequently, I can't easily rebind keystrokes to different menu items on the fly, I hate the stupid MDI window taking up my whole screen and hiding the other app windows I happen to have up...

      In short, the Photoshop UI does not work effectively for me. I have no illusions that this is because of any inherent superiority of the GIMP UI... it's entirely because Photoshop doesn't work the way I'm used to working.

      And Photoshop users are going to feel the same way about the GIMP, until they figure out how to use it effectively.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:Well, how the hell do ya' draw a circle by Quarters · · Score: 1
      Um, I was replying to prockcore, who said, "Yup, sounds like a photoshop user. Using the wrong tool for the wrong job." in response to your store about your GF's experience with GiMP.

      I wasn't calling you rude, I was calling him rude (ignorant might be a better word choice) for implying that Photoshop users don't know what a vector tool is for and that they should just use some badly named, poorly produced, piece of OSS for no other reason than it's OSS.

      I wasn't slighting you or your GF. I was calling prockcore out for being an OSS zealot.

    9. Re:Well, how the hell do ya' draw a circle by son_of_asdf · · Score: 1

      DOH! Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa.

      --
      Don't Panic!
    10. Re:Well, how the hell do ya' draw a circle by Eivind · · Score: 1
      But you'd have tons of the same problems jumping from Gimp to Photoshop, I know, because I'd been using Gimp pretty regularily for atleast a couple of years the first time I tried Photoshop.

      I agree being more equal means re-training is quicker. However, I don't really see how it's avoidable unless all applications behave identically, which has it's own drawbacks. (impossibility of improvements for starters)

    11. Re:Well, how the hell do ya' draw a circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yup, sounds like a photoshop user. Using the wrong tool for the wrong job."

      Would love to hear the grounds for your objection to bezier tools in Photoshop. I use them frequently to create complex selections as well as scalable shapes for a variety of web layouts. How is that wrong? And how is it that Photoshop users are known for using the wrong tool for the wrong job? What is the right tool for the wrong job mr prickcore?

    12. Re:Well, how the hell do ya' draw a circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In short, the Photoshop UI does not work effectively for me. I have no illusions that this is because of any inherent superiority of the GIMP UI... it's entirely because Photoshop doesn't work the way I'm used to working."

      Exactly, this cannot be overstated, to each his own. Such things are incredibly relative. I use the keyboard for nearly everything in Photoshop and love the interface. Others of course, work differently.

      "And Photoshop users are going to feel the same way about the GIMP, until they figure out how to use it effectively."

      And GIMP users are gong to feel the same way about Photohop, until they figure out how to use if effectively.

  127. How can you take the product name seriously? by g_bit · · Score: 2, Insightful
    With a name like "The GIMP", how can you take this product seriously if you're a professional?

    This is one thing that has always annoyed me about certain Open Source packages. GNU - Oh, that's so clever I forgot to laugh!

    Do you think that Adobe would have sold Photoshop if they had named it "The WIMP" (Windows Image Manipulation Program) or "The APP" (Adobe Photo Program).

    I mean, "Photo IMP" or almost anything else would have been better.

    1. Re:How can you take the product name seriously? by cubic6 · · Score: 1

      Good point, actually, but coming up with a unique, marketable name is a lot harder than it seems. Lots of projects try to make a witty or cute name to try to get people to like their project, but most of them fail miserably. There are two ways you're going to be accepted with a funky name: One, you can have a huge corporate-backed advertising campaign. See .NET and Java. In this case, it actually turns into a brand name and works for you. Two, you can just be good enough that they can't ignore you. Apache before they branched out was a good example.

      The open source project name that always sticks in my head as being horrible is Double Choco Latte. It's a web based project management suite, but you'd never be able to guess based on the name. Something like that is difficult to sell to the higher-ups because it just doesn't sound professional. You can scream all you want about how the name shouldn't matter, or that they should judge based on utility alone, but that's just not the way it happens. Better would be if they'd have just called it DCL with no explanation.

      GIMP suffers from the same problem, but in the opposite way - it's acronym forms a word that's a synonym for "Cripple". Not the kind of image you want to project for a high quality software project. If I called my AI-based chess engine the "RETARD Engine To Avoid Repeated Defeat", or "RETARD", I'd probably have a tough time getting serious users unless it was *incredibly* good.

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
  128. Re:I see... (MDI) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that GIMP was made for use under UNIX desktops, right? The Windows version is a port. If you want MDI, feel free to implement it, but don't expect the main authors to care about Windows.

    Besides, Microsoft will probably add virtual desktop support at some point since it's a very handy feature (and they don't want UNIX desktops to have good features that Windows is missing).

  129. So many people complain GIMP isn't Photoshop by Azureflare · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Well, no shit! Why do you have to go on about how photoshop has tons more features? (1) Photoshop has been around longer (2) Photoshop has a hella lot more money behind it!

    Try to appreciate GIMP for what it is and give the maintainers some support instead of going on about things photoshop has that gimp doesn't.

    GIMP isn't trying to replace photoshop, and I feel people don't give it as much cred as it deserves.

  130. how to get into it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i really think that the new gimp could please me very much. but what really turns me off, that every tutorial i found on the net copes with the 1.x generation of the gimp, and not even the help entry in the gimp menu seems to work.
    so how to start learning the gimp 2.x?

  131. What a shitty bunch of comments by bogie · · Score: 1

    All I see is comment after comment of people who say they didn't like the screenshot therefore Gimp must suck. Or comments from people who used Gimp for 5 mins 2 years ago and after glancing at the screen shot say its hasn't changed enough. Get over yourselves people. Better yet just stick with your warezed version of Photoshop and don't comment. You bet your ass that the availability of warezed versions of Photoshop are a factor. Its probably the most warezed software after Windows and Office. Make every Photoshop user pay for their software and you'll see a bunch of Free software fans in no time.

    Gimp pre2.0 is the best Free general purpose image editor ever made bar none. With it you can do most of the tasks that you need to do in Photoshop all for Free. That shouldn't be taken for granted but for some reason it is. Where people get hung up is that Gimp doesn't work EXACTLY like Photochop. Let me make a point. Once you take the time to learn Gimp you'll be just as proficient with it as you are with any other piece of software. On the other hand stick some newbie down in front of Photoshop for the first time and watch their eyes glaze over. Just because Gimp has a learning curve doesn't mean its crap. Just because their is some commercial software that is easier to use out of the box doesn't mean Gimp is crap.

    I was looking forward to this thread but its apparent people are in the mood to troll and dump on Gimp. Too bad because right now the only message coming across to someone new to image editting is that anything less than a perfect Photosho clone is crap. And that's just not true.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  132. At least you read TFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose expecting you to try the new version before bashing is expecting too much.

    The "tens of windows that get hidden underneath each other" *ARE* gone. They all dock together in a tabbed window. You can have a GIMP session with two only windows open and still have access to all the bells and whistles.

    So yeah, read, test, *then* bitch. Doing it in any other order risks sounding like a moron.

    1. Re:At least you read TFA... by Cecil · · Score: 1

      While I can truly understand the need to smack down the ignorant among Slashdotters (there are so many, admittedly sometimes including myself) I don't really agree that I should've had to download the software and try it -- that is, in theory, what the "preview" was supposed to be for. If what you say is true, then the article really fails to mention that properly.

      Besides, as the article says: "The highly anticipated version 2.0 of the GIMP, due out next month..."

      I'm not willing to port the GIMP 2.0 pre-release to OS X (that's what MacGimp is for), compile it, run it, and try it out, just to comment on a Slashdot story about an article that was supposed to show me how it looks to save me that pain.

      In closing, let me say that I really look forward to the new Gimp if it has a less clutterable UI.

    2. Re:At least you read TFA... by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      Just to let you know (in case you don't check regularly) that MacGimp has 2.0pre available with free upgrade to full 2.0 on release...

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
  133. Give me Adjustmant layers please by Schlaegel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am running Gimp 2 beta and it still needs Adjustment Layers like Photoshop.

    Adjustment Layers allow adjustments to be made to all layers underneath on a separate and changeable adjustment layer.

    Don't like your first choice for "color levels", just select the layer and change it.

    Want to change the text layer that was part of an image you just "color leveled", just change the text layer.

    In Gimp these adjustments are lossy and final, in Photoshop they don't have to be.

  134. Re:I see... (MDI) by misleb · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    I find this to be very annoying as well. If you can set up virtual desktops, then it can live in its own desktop. But most Win32 users don't have virtual desktops.

    Their loss, then.

    And here's the deal: if you obnoxious Linux zealots keep responding to points like this with "d00d install linux u l00s3r" and comments about how stupid windows users are, you will continue to miss the point that Linux will survive by gaining mindshare and marketshare, and this will not happen if the majority of Win32 people (yes there are lots of them that don't love Win32, but they like to be productive) have the idea that "wow, the OSS tools on Linux are really hard to use". And that's the impression people get. I would think that if they go to the effort of building and releasing binaries on Win32, they could add some MDI support so people could actually find the product useable without burning through their ALT and TAB keys. My left hand is sore after ever GIMP session on my Win32 box, and I feel like I spend half my time minimizing/restoring windows to try to find the right ones. This is a problem, period. Many solutions, but a good one would be to support MDI, like nearly every other windows app in the world.

    Why do so many people assume that Linux based free software developers necessarily WANT to attract a broad Win32 user base? Linux already HAS mindshare and marketshare... more than anyone could ever have hoped for.. more than enough to sustain it's existence and progress. Stop thinking like a capitalist for one second. GIMP was ported to Windows mostly because it was relatively easy to do... not because they wanted to gain marketshare or mindshare.

    Furthermore, if you Win32 users want to complain that GIMP doesn't support MDI, well, fuck you. *nix users have virtual desktops by default and THAT is the target audience. Most *nux/GIMP users love the GIMP. Many even feel it is superior to Photoshop. Consider youself lucky that GIMP runs on Windows at all, you ungrateful bastard!

    -matthew

    Linux: Expect less. Get more.

    --
    "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  135. Feel the power of workspaces, grasshopper ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not Gimp's fault, that's Windows fault. The Windows taskbar is a cluttered mess... to the point people actually like XP's "grouping" feature!

    After trying Virtual desktops there's no coming back. On my desktop, I could very easily rearrange all those 7+ windows into several different workspaces, sticking them together into logical groups. Say, one for the browsers, another for the editor and the FTP client, and another for Photoshop / The Gimp. And still I could open a couple terminals, some file manager instances, a notepad for taking quick notes and an mp3 player without transforming my taskbar into a crowded aberration. What would certainly bring down the toughest Windows user with screen clutter and visual bloat is handled gracefully by workspaces.

    I could quickly change between the browsers, the editor, gimp and the other apps with a sole keystroke, reducing the all too common Alt+Tab through several windows hassle to a bare minimum (since each workspace has its own keyboard shortcut).

    Workspaces are such an efficient and wonderful feature, and I've grown so used to them, that each time I go back to Windows the UI feels terribly crippled and cumbersome.

    So going back to the GIMP, its layout is clearly aimed at users who have several workspaces available (or multiple monitors, for the rich of you... :P). You usually just keep a workspace for the gimp, and have the power to arrange its tools, images and windows the way you want. It's pretty convenient, and with the 2.0 series and the new docking capability it's really flexible and elegant. You can have all dialogs on a single tabbed window if you want to. It doesn't get better than that.

    1. Re:Feel the power of workspaces, grasshopper ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After trying Virtual desktops there's no coming back.

      I use virtual desktops all the time - to group separate tasks. The person you are responding to, and me, likes to switch between multiple apps during development. The fact that the GIMP needs to be cordoned off into its own space is a failure of the GIMP and very annoying.

      Instead of alt-tab switch to code, alt-tab switch to browser, alt-tab switch to GIMP, it's alt-tab switch to code, alt-tab switch to browser, ctrl-tab to switch to GIMP desktop, alt-tab to get to the right GIMP window.

      I could quickly change between the browsers, the editor, gimp and the other apps with a sole keystroke, reducing the all too common Alt+Tab through several windows hassle to a bare minimum

      Sorry, no. You've expanded a simple case of alt-tabbing between three windows into alt-and-ctrl-tabbing between half a dozen windows on two different desktops.

      Workspaces are such an efficient and wonderful feature, and I've grown so used to them, that each time I go back to Windows the UI feels terribly crippled and cumbersome.

      I agree. But they aren't designed, and they don't work well, as a substitute for a sane interface. When I surf the web, I don't want my toolbar in one window, my bookmarks in another, and the page itself in a third. I want them in one window. That doesn't make a web browser the much-reviled "MDI", it makes it a convenient interface.

      Every time the GIMP is mentioned, hordes of people complain about the interface. Stucking your head in the sand and shouting "It's a better way", or giving people workarounds is just plain stupid.

    2. Re:Feel the power of workspaces, grasshopper ;) by fbg111 · · Score: 1

      Do you use some 3rd party software to give Windows virtual workspaces? I just upgraded to a Radeon 9800 AiW, and it comes with ATI's Hydravision multi-desktop manager. Haven't though much about it till now, but I'll give it a try.

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    3. Re:Feel the power of workspaces, grasshopper ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not Gimp's fault, that's Windows fault.

      Wrong. Its certainly possible to have child windows or palettes that don't show up in the task bar. This sounds like a problem with GTK for Windows, which in general is a piece of crap.

  136. Re: your sig by damiam · · Score: 1

    Edwards is mega-rich, influenced by special interests, and voted for the DMCA. Why didn't we vote for Dean again?

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  137. I love the Gimp, but when will it heal by Schlaegel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When will Gimp support the awesome "healing brush" that Photoshop has?

    After discovering Photoshops new "healing brush" for touching up photographs I will never be able to go back to just the clone tool.

    The healing brush clones, makes the clone match the color characteristics of the surrounding pixels, and blends the clone with the surrounding pixels.

    A 20 minute job can be done in 3 or 4 minutes.

  138. Not PS, but impressive nonetheless. by Qbertino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ranting how crappy Gimp is compared to [fill in comercial product here] is just as unfitting as stating that Gimp is about as good as PS.

    I'm a mulimediadesinger and have worked with a wide range of tool on a professional level.
    Gimp 1.3 actually _is_ a usefull tool. It's not the tool of choice for most things, but in some scenarios it can actually deliver results were other grafics tools get in their own way with feature and algorithim bloat.
    The habit of putting every thing in it's own window made pre-1.3 Gimp absolutely unbearable for production. Unless you had Fluxbox, maybe.
    But the simple level Anti-Aliasig and some other nice features along with the one or other workaroud trick make Gimp a nice Pixeleditor to work with. Praise the Gimp team for getting the message and introducing tabs and other must-haves for GUI work.

    On top of that, - and this is one of the most notable things of this OSS project imho - as long as I can remember, Gimp has allways been an absolute breeze to install. I wish all OSS would install that way. For instance, right now I'm debugging a default Postgres/ODBC Setup and it's taken up 30 workhours allready with no end in sight...

    To me the undo stack in Gimp 2.0 looks promising, as it hints in the direction of the PS protokoll. Which, btw, proves that PS is still waaaaay ahead of any competition, be it comercial or OSS.

    Anyway, I'm looking forward to Gimp 2. Cudos to the Gimp team for their good work.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  139. Re: your sig by damiam · · Score: 1

    Oops, sorry, Edwards didn't vote for the DMCA, he wasn't a Senator at that point. I think it's fair to assume that he would have, though.

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  140. Re:I see... (MDI) by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
    Heck, I remember when I used to have to explain what Linux was. Now I spend half a dinner party having some jackoff tell me all about it.

    Of course I let them make a total ass out of themselves before I reveal that not only do I use Linux, I've used it since before Linux was cool. Alright, I'm the same evil guy who always managed to have a relative who was [fill in subject of ethnic joke]. I get a perverse pleasure in watching people squirm.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  141. MOD UP BEST SOLUTION! by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    Seriously. If you WANT an encompassing window around your environment, then do it the Unix way... with a tool that does JUST THAT.

    Xnest your gaim sessions. Xnest your open office documents. etc.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  142. No proper colour management and NO 48bit support! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Two major things are missing:

    1) proper colour management for the workflow (X, Gimp, scanning and printing).

    2) no 16bit per channel support. This indeed very important for higher end cameras, scanners and printers.

    3) no LAB or CMYK support.

    I use these daily and they are an absolute nessessity, unfortunately.

  143. Re:This could finally kill my last dependence on M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well. we need 16bit per channel support before CMYK.... Also we need colour management for both Gimp and X and printing with proofing modes etc.

  144. Re:This could finally kill my last dependence on M by ajs · · Score: 1

    I may be woefully behind the times here, but last I had heard from the mailing list was that CMYK color-space management and color-matching could be done in nieve ways that were not encumbered, but if you wanted to, for example, match the same CMYK handling that print shops will use, you were SOL.

    Feel free to correct me.

  145. Subtle gradient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I enjoy the gradient that happens between
    "GIMP isn't photoshop. Fix it." to
    "GIMP is just a photoshop clone. Why don't
    you innovate instead of copying??"

    I'm glad that GIMP is now nearer to the latter side.
    I, personally, can't wait until it makes it to the 'photoshop clone' part completely.
    I'd also like to suggest that those people who
    always insist that projects need to innovate instead
    of copying take a moment, and think, "Hey, maybe
    there is a best way of doing things. Maybe it's
    already been done. Maybe to do things the right
    way, we must travel down a path already made."

    Personally, I prefer quality to novelty.

  146. Not a troll. by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    The parent emphasizes the political incorrectness of the name "GIMP" somewhat bluntly, but the point still stands. If GIMP wants to become mainstream it should conform to acceptable naming conventions. Why do all the most popular widespread applications have such tame (and admittedly bland) titles, or at least words that are far from any slang?

  147. I agree by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    What I see as the flaw in Microsoft's MDI implementation is the potential for wasted screen space. With Mozilla, all screen space occupied by the Mozilla window is constantly used.

  148. national election. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    national election.

  149. Re:Much Needed Improvements -- THANK YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for giving me the right terms: linux wacom project ...
    still another hope for that digitizer (Thinkpad 730TE); gave up when the binary output caused gpm to segfault.
    thanks

  150. The bug I want to see fixed by Felinoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love Gimp and use it almost exclusively when on my Linux box (at home).
    But lately I've not had as much time as I'd like to work on my puter at home.
    So I use Gimp at work... when I can.

    GTK for Windows has a bug in it when dealing with digital tablets and.. yep.. I draw with a tablet. Gasp.

    Fix that single bug and Gimp will be absolutly perfict. Else I'll be using other software to draw my images and then the gimp for image editing after the fact.
    But that kinda sucks.

    --
    I don't actually exist.
  151. Re:No proper colour management and NO 48bit suppor by CoolVibe · · Score: 1

    4) the ability to draw straight lines or polygons. That's the only friggin button that I'm missing.

  152. Gimp is a great program by Adam+Wiggins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm rather shocked to see all the complaints about the Gimp here. The comments seem to be divided into two categories:

    1. I've never used it, but from the screenshots it looks scary! It sucks!

    2. I've used it, and it didn't work exactly like Photoshop. It sucks!

    As a person who has used Photoshop (and a bevy of other paint programs, all the way back to the days of DPaint) extensively, I feel the Gimp is by far the best program available for creating (pixel-based) graphics, especially in the realm of web imagery.

    I have used it to create from-scratch graphics for countless websites, including: this, this, this, and this. I have also used it to do many print items, such as this flyer. (Amazingly enough, CMYK is not really that necessary if you don't mind slight variations in the color on the final product. If you are doing serious print work, you should really be using a vector illustration program for everything but photo retouching anyhow.)

    I think perhaps the Gimp's strength is how a non-artist (ie, me) can create pretty nice looking art with it - as I believe the links above will attest. It has a number of features not found in any other paint program, such as highly configurable tablet sensitivity.

    Unfortunately, the hardest thing about using it for someone who has switched from Photoshop is that it looks _very_ similar to Photoshop, but yet it is really not very similar at all. Much like an expencied Windows user switching to KDE, they will find themselves fooled into expecting the interface to behave exactly the same way - and it doesn't. It's a different program, with a different interface.

    But those who either have the patience to un-learn their Photoshop habits, or are not burdened by them to begin with, will find the Gimp to be one of the most powerful graphics tools available today. It is also quite likely one of the most impressive and mature applications available in the realm of free software - on par with Mozilla, OpenOffice, and Evolution. I'm not sure why it doesn't get the same respect that these packages do.

  153. Corbis. by 13Echo · · Score: 1

    Corbis: Aren't you glad that Microsoft owns your history?

  154. FireWorks is Evil by Vagary · · Score: 2, Informative

    FireWorks is the most henious personification of evil the web has ever seen. It takes an expanse of pixels, puts them through a paper shredder, mixes the bits in water, and then forces you to eat the unrecognizable paste. (What else would you call a bunch of tiny image-filled table cells with no semantics that are only aligned properly in IE?) I can only hope you're not being accurate when you say it has FireWorks-esq features...

  155. Yeah, but what is the OS/OE that it's running on.. by B747SP · · Score: 1

    Seriously, what's the OS and Window manager that the screenshots are taken from. I like the look of that.

    --
    I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
  156. SodiPodi... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SodiPodi has an interface similar to the GIMP, but gives the user the option to show buttons in the task bar for every window or just one for the main app.

  157. My opinion on Gimp 2.0 Preview by Kyouryuu · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Being a long time Paint Shop Pro user, I found myself rather disappointed with the buggy version 8. I recently learned that Gimp 2.0 Preview was ported to Windows, so I gave it a try there. It's fundamentally the same as its Linux counterpart.

    Anyhow, I was very impressed with it. Admittedly, there are some things that are still rough around the edges, but this is a significant improvement over previous releases. Things I especially liked:

    - Relocation of the line stroke button that makes it easier to use Bezier curves and the like.

    - Better resizing and resampling algorithms that produce that nice, anti-aliased effect.

    - Quick, no frills approach to plugins and features.

    Things that I still think need improvement:

    - I think that rather than have a smattering of premade brushes with the option to make your own that Gimp should adopt a system like Paint Shop Pro where the menu for the paintbrush (and other relevant tools) lets you adjust the brush size, density, step, etc. in one convenient panel, rather than having to go through the effort of making an entirely new custom brush for the task. The current approach is functional, but unnecessarily clumsy.

    - Have something akin to the Browse feature in Paint Shop Pro. This feature analyzes all graphics in a directory, produces thumbnails of all of them, and displays them in a window where you can pick and choose which ones to open. It's like a pictoral file selector.

    - Implement more features that can be done with Layers, like adjusting gray channels for example and allow layers to modify layers beneath them (e.g. a Multiply layer or a Screen layer). If this ability exists, I haven't found it.

    - I'm not still not a huge fan of the MDI approach. If you have related taskbar icons cluster in Windows or Linux, it's not too bad however, and there are pros and cons to both approaches.

    But it's not at all bad. For free, it's a remarkable product. As an example, I selfishly submit this plug for my webcomic whose most current chapter was done with Gimp (true until this Sunday, unless I decide to use Gimp again): http://dragonangel.keenspace.com

    It's just that with Paint Shop Pro already costing about $60 on sale (as low as $15 for previous users), and being more substantial and feature packed than Gimp, I don't have a reason to switch to Gimp (unless PSP 9 is a similar flop), but I would certainly recommend it for the graphic artist on the cheap.

    1. Re:My opinion on Gimp 2.0 Preview by Pelam · · Score: 1
      - Have something akin to the Browse feature in Paint Shop Pro. This feature analyzes all graphics in a directory, produces thumbnails of all of them, and displays them in a window where you can pick and choose which ones to open. It's like a pictoral file selector.
      Could an external program fill this gap? (At least nautilus and gqview seem to fit the bill). Gnome people try to avoid duplication and all and would probably hate to have yet another file selector.
    2. Re:My opinion on Gimp 2.0 Preview by Kyouryuu · · Score: 1

      That seems logical. I think Gnome and KDE both do that. Windows does too, albeit clunky.

  158. Illustrator is More Important by Vagary · · Score: 1

    Too bad there still isn't a solid Illustrator replacement as I suspect more casual graphic work is done (or at least: would be easier done) with vectors. Just look at the way Adobe names them: Photoshop is for photo manipulation, Illustrator is for image creation. How much time do most people spend touching up photos compared to making little webpage widgets and stuff?

  159. informative? by xluserpetex · · Score: 1

    "Photoshop was neither designed nor marketed towards any of the markets that do pallete based art/graphic design."

    How is this imformative? Photoshop was designed for image manipulation. Illustrator was designed for actual creation.

    1. Re:informative? by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      Presumably the informative part is that Photoshop doesn't have crap for pallette tools, which is unexpected to most people. This is the second post that points out illustrator is for illustration and photoshop is for photo editing, which is pretty explicit from their names, but I should have made myself more clear that I was referring to raster art. Neither application is useful for working natively with palletted raster art, which gimp handles pretty well, and was the reason I pointed this out.

      As far as "image manipulation" features go that's about as relevant as animated gif generation is in Photoshop. it's a gimme for the (good) chance that the graphics professional nowadays also does some web work. This is good news for the Gimp user who is more web-centric, since for actual print work, cmyk export sucks.

    2. Re:informative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Neither application is useful for working natively with palletted
      > raster art, which gimp handles pretty well, and was the reason
      > I pointed this out.

      That's good to know. Although I use PhotoShop for photo manipulation, if I ever want a simple sprite editor I'll keep gimp in mind.

  160. MDI interface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    An optional MDI interface is listed as an enhancement in GIMP's bugzilla, along with a discussion of what it would take to implement. The last update was posted in January 2004.

    ID 7379

  161. the real template by Arioch_BDV · · Score: 1

    http://www.deforum.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19589

  162. chicken vs egg by Arioch_BDV · · Score: 1

    ..or i can say Qt is not flexible enough to act like GIMP event loop.

    Let as not talk of GTK as some generic tooklit. GTK is (at least at its basement) subset of GIMP.

    I'd prefer to say, it is GIMP event loop, not one of GTK :-)

    1. Re:chicken vs egg by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      :-)

      Well it's more that the two are so different that neither can act like the other, from what I've heard.

      But supposedly these days you can use something which I think is called XEmbed to embed any X app (including Gtk) into Qt. So as long as the image stuff were reasonably un-tied, it wouldn't be so bad.

      And honestly we don't necessarily need the whole app ported, just the bits which show widgets. :-)

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    2. Re:chicken vs egg by Arioch_BDV · · Score: 1

      GTK -> XEmbed -> Qt -> Xserver ?

      WHY ??? What for ?

  163. "Save Target as" must be useful by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

    I have used it to create from-scratch graphics for countless websites, including: this, this, this, and >this.

    Sorry, but that last link looks like you just ripped off images from the web. The lightbulb and book are in completely different styles, for instance. One looks like it may have originally been created in Illustrator, the second is a cropped photo. If this is what you have to resort to when you use Gimp, I'll stick with my Adobe suite, thank you.

    1. Re:"Save Target as" must be useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strawman.

  164. Free Windows alternatives to GIMP/Photoshop? by Quizo69 · · Score: 1

    OK, I for one am still using my purchased copy of Paint Shop Pro 5 (in Windows). However, I am trying to get rid of ALL my paid for apps in favour of freeware alternatives, that I can give to others on CD to use on a fresh install of Windows. I consider this the first step to weaning myself and others off Windows completely - prove that free software can be as good as or better than paid for apps.

    For the most part I have it all down - Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org - the three basic apps any user needs to be productive are all there AND are superior to their commercial equivalents. The missing piece of the puzzle is a graphics editor. I have tried GIMP on two occasions, and both times I found the lack of single interface and weird ways of doing things to be constraining, to the point where if I couldn't work it out, there wasn't much point trying to give it to my parents to work out! I held hope that on seeing the announcement of a new user interface, it would finally match (roughly) the UIs of Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro. Alas, no such luck.

    Well, now my question is this - what freeware applications do you know of that I can give to others as a graphics editing app. It doesn't need to do full CMYK etc, but I'd like it to have at least equivalent functionality to my old PSP5. Note that I'm not asking for open source necessarily. Free is good enough for now. I've tried Serif Software's "free" option but it isn't really free and I can't store it on CD because it wants a key that expires.

    So Slashdotters - Free, Windows OS graphics app, single document interface, equivalent to PSP5 or similar - does it exist?

  165. Sometimes photoshop is not worth it by dbIII · · Score: 1
    The author is asking whether GIMP is doing things that we don't see in commercial tools. I'm interested in this, too.
    It's very simple in a lot of cases. A user wants to do something trivial with images at work, and it may even be baby photos, sports related or otherwise nothing to do with what earns the company money, but they still hassle you and take up time - because you know about this computer stuff - you read slashdot after all. You can't justify buying photoshop in that situation. My answer to this is to just use the gimp - I show people how to open files and select areas (the major non-obvious bit of gimp), and that's usually enough. They see the menu titles, and very quickly they scale their images down for email and compress them and don't have to hassle me about graphics tools again - until they hear about layers.

    You can stick the gimp just about anywhere without having to worry about it. You have to plan to use photoshop. Most people could just get by with xv or imagemagik (eg. convert filename.[weird.graphics.format.extension] filename.jpg can make life a lot easier), but most people like an interactive GUI.

  166. Manual transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, here virtually all cars have manual transmission. I need the automatic transmission as much as i need the Ms Clippy!

  167. Re:This could finally kill my last dependence on M by Tiedottaja · · Score: 1

    Of course you could try using Photoshop under Wine.

  168. Gimp was always cool by Gopal.V · · Score: 1

    I have been using gimp for more than 3 years now ... and I really miss some of the features I had in FireWorks or Flash (yes, people do use flash for images as well). But that said , I think the new gimp screens look ugly ... I liked the old thick buttons and B/W buttons.

    A Good tool is just that, it does not let you do what you want , but gives you what you need :)

  169. Still no 16 bit support by dargaud · · Score: 2, Interesting
    With all the scanners and digital cameras producing 16 bit monochrome or 48 bit RGB images, there's still no graphic editor that I know of that can handle those kind of images. Limited supprt in Photoshop, no support in PSP or any other app. Allegedly Cinepaint, a variant of Gimp, does support it but just reading the bug reports is depressing.

    A true 48 bit support would be a great plus for such an app: no concurrent, great market. And if you optimize it for 64 bit AMD processors, you could potentially create the first killer app for 64 bit processors (remember, you need 64 bit registers to handle 48 bit colors simply).

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  170. I don't like icons by OPTiX_iNC · · Score: 1

    What if we liked the old gimp? I don't like the new UI, and all the little icons in the menu.

  171. Re:This could finally kill my last dependence on M by jcupitt65 · · Score: 1
    I doubt you'll see this :-( but all you need for good CMYK is the ability to edit 4 band images, something to visualise these images to RGB for display using an ICC profile, and something to show where gamut edges are. All this is patent free and unemcumbered. All the ICC and colour processing stuff is available now as open source.

    The missing part is the thing to make the ICC profiles. Adobe have their own ->CMYK profile and tuning system which gives reasonable results on most presses. But this is rather old-fashioned now (IMO) and really pre-dates 1995 and the introduction of the ICC system in pre-press. There's no need to duplicate this functionality: just ask your pre-press house to give you a profile for their system.

  172. What we really need by TheViewFromTheGround · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Okay, y'all, I know I'm ringing in on this late, and it's 6:00am without any sleep for me, so I might come off as brusque. Everybody says "I'm not a graphic designer, but..." Well, I actually am a graphic designer.

    The GIMP may, someday, be as good as Photoshop. Right now, it's not even close. Photoshop's interface is so polished and so wise, and its tools are so powerful but easily accessible, that all of these debates about the GIMP are frivolous. I've used both extensively, and for anything other than fucking around, there's no comparison.

    I will pay $600 for a program as powerful as Photoshop. But, I'd really like to have Photoshop (without the use of CrossoverOffice) run on my Linux desktop machine. I can boot into Windows or I can walk to my Win98 box to run Photoshop, but it's frustrating not to have Photoshop accessible when I'm doing other sorts of serious work.

    What I think graphic designers who want to use Linux should do is lobby Adobe to make PS available on Linux. I would pay, and I know others who would, too.

    --
    Online citizen journalism from the inner city: The View From The Ground
  173. Topics by Chardish · · Score: 1

    We have here definitive proof that "The Gimp" is never used as a story topic.

  174. He's actually a genius!! by Z-MaxX · · Score: 1
    It's green so you can do green-screen chroma keying and insert your own background!

    --
    Dr Superlove 300ml. I use my powers for awesome
  175. Cinepaint vs. Photoshop CS by rotomonkey · · Score: 1

    I was wondering what had happened to film gimp. Thanks for the tip.

    As for photoshop, we're trying to avoid it - the licensing structure is node locked, which is a pain for us since most of the fifty people who need it need it for about 3% of the time. We're also a linux-only shop for production artists, which means that the few people who really do need to use photoshop have to also run a windows emulation package.

  176. Nice. by dave1212 · · Score: 1

    It's actually fscking amazing when you think about it. Can't believe how great it's coming along!

    Looking forward to checking out the OS X preview after work this evening. here's the install page for Panther. Not too much to build.

  177. In general, there is no good general solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Developing software is more subtle than it seems. The notion that you can abstact a solution for a set of problems into general product is basically incorrect.

    When you are trying to solve a serious problem, the most important thing to have is a good team of engineers, experienced in your domain. If they are responsible and professional, they will work on solving your problem instead of trying to generalize their work into a product. In most of the commercial development environments I worked in the engineers would refuse to attack problems unless they felt the solution could be generalized. That is -- they wanted to create a _product_ rather than a solution, and deploy the product, rather than taking the more tractable approach of babysitting the users through the entire lifecycle of the program use. For this reason many things do not get done in commercial industry.

    I also worked for several years in a research and development environment in a government lab. The approach here was completely different; the development engineers were basically the users as well, and worked directly with the scientists in the use of the system. Engineering and use were the same thing, and the system could be adapted and tuned to solve the specific, intractable, problem at hand. Progress was made in this environment, much more rapidly than in the commercial environment.

    The best thing about open source software is that it is possible to treat it as a library or framework for solving specific difficult problems. The disadvantage is that the code may not be that great, and the startup time at learning the code base can be high. But the code seems to improve as the product matures -- for instance the linux kernel has become very legible. I haven't looked at GDK and GTK recently, but when I first looked at them (1997) they seemed pretty amaturish. By now they are probably useable.

  178. Re:No proper colour management and NO 48bit suppor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever tried this: http://mmmaybe.gimp.org/tutorials/Straight_Line/ ?

  179. where's the mark? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    I've read that it detects this by a cluster of yellow circles on the bill. I can't find it anywhere. Can a more Where's-Waldo-adept slashdotter give me a clue?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  180. Re:Yeah, but what is the OS/OE that it's running o by dylan_- · · Score: 1

    Looks like it might be Enlightenment (the Eterms certainly suggest that). Probably running on Linux.

    --
    Igor Presnyakov stole my hat