Slashdot Mirror


Gimp Hits 2.0

jf writes "Gimp 2.0 released! From gimp.org: "This release is a major event, marking the end of a three year development cycle by a group of volunteers and enthusiasts who have made this the most professional release of the GIMP ever. It is the first stable release that is officially supported not only on Unix-based operating systems, but also on Microsoft Windows and Macintosh OS X." Get it from ftp.gimp.org or from the mirror sites."

637 comments

  1. Sweet! by SillySnake · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now maybe I can figure out how to use the thing.

    1. Re:Sweet! by frs_rbl · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now maybe I can figure out how to use the thing.

      In Soviet Russia... nevermind

      --
      This is not my opinion. Actually, it's not even an opinion. And I'm nowhere to be seen near it
    2. Re:Sweet! by SillySnake · · Score: 1, Funny

      Oh yeah!? Well back in my day we didn't have Soviet Russia.. We only had.. err.. Never mind

    3. Re:Sweet! by Deusy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now maybe I can figure out how to use the thing.

      It's not difficult - you can find some good tutorials at gug.sunsite.dk.

      --

      Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary

    4. Re:Sweet! by Chilliwilli · · Score: 1

      Just checked out those tutorials.. suddenly all the nice logos and textures I see on other people's sites seem within reach. Cheers.

      --
      Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
    5. Re:Sweet! by gavinjolly · · Score: 2, Funny
      My 14 year old daughter uses it with proficiency (better than my spelling). It took here about 1 hour to understand the stucture of the commands.

      I could get her to write a simple tutorial in Open Office for you if you want. SXW or PDF?

      --

      The weathers here - Wish you were beautiful

    6. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's not difficult - you can find some good tutorials at gug.sunsite.dk.

      If it really wasnt difficult tutorials wouldn't be necessary.

      The GIMP is powerful allright and with that comes a lot of difficulty but it is certainly isn't easy.

    7. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Tutorials are necessary to get your feet wet on any sufficiently powerful technology.

      You don't just throw a person in a car and expect them to drive down the highway at a hundred and twenty MPH--and survive, do you?

      Of course, you've never bothered to look at a man page, or used the built in help for a unix command, eh? Especially when you're doing something critical?

      Likewise, Gimp is a powerful utility, and to the average person (especially the non-graphically inclined), it's about as good to them as Greek.

    8. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Gimp team are trying to attract professional users, one thing which might help is a more attractive web site.

      If you don't think they are trying to attract graphics professional, then don't read on. You won't find any of the following relevant or agreeable.

      Any graphics professional will tell you that the Gimp site is bland and inspiring. Yay for cleanliness and usability and all of that, but if you want to see what appeals to graphic designers in a web site, look at:

      http://www.k10k.net/

      http://www.designiskinky.com/index_main.html

      Even: http://www.adobe.com/

      They might not look right in Mozilla, or be optimised for Lynx (didn't check), but they inspire, and that's something which is appealing to anyone who works daily creating new ideas.

      I certainly hope that the Gimp site isn't meant to be a showcase of what can be done with the software!

    9. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my day we only had colonial Rome, and we were happy with it too! What we wouldn't have given to be allowed to say "nevermind" you insensitive clod!

    10. Re:Sweet! by pinkUZI · · Score: 1







      I could use the tutorials and the new gimp if their site wasn't so horribly /.'d.

      If someone gets through could you please post their list of mirrors?!





      --
      You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
    11. Re:Sweet! by etrnl · · Score: 1

      I got this from http://www.tech-edv.co.at/lunix/gimp.html (thanks Google... searched for "gimp mirror sites" and this was listed there as the fifth link on the page...):

      Gimp Links

      * The GIMP Homepage http://www.gimp.org/ The GIMP is the GNU Image Manipulation Program. It is a freely distributed piece of software suitable for such tasks as photo retouching, image composition and image authoring. Highly recommended

      * the Gimp.org Contest http://contest.gimp.org/ The image MUST be manipulated entirely in the GIMP.

      * Registry: View Plugins http://registry.gimp.org/ GIMP Plug-In Registry - the one-stop plug-in shop -- always up-to-date.

      * gimp.org finger http://finger.gimp.org/ Gimp announcements.

      * GIMP News http://xach.dorknet.com/gimp/news/ Latest information about GIMP.

      * Gimp Binaries http://www.tecnogi.com/marco/gimp/ compiled gimp plugins for i386.

      * Everybody loves The GIMP http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~federico/gimp/el-the-g imp.html Gradients, Plug-ins, Scripts, basic information.

      * FTP Directory: ftp://manual.gimp.org/pub/ Get the gimp manual.

      * FTP Directory: ftp://ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp/ sources, binaries, extras,... for gimp via ftp. Consider using one of the mirror sites. Choose a server next to you.

      Gimp FTP mirrors

      Choose a server next to you!

      Africa:
      #1) ftp://ftp.is.co.za/applications/gimp/

      Australia:
      #2) ftp://ftp.planetmirror.com/pub/gimp/gimp/
      #3) http://ftp.planetmirror.com/pub/gimp/gimp/
      #4) ftp://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/gimp
      #5) http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/gimp
      #6) ftp://gimp.zeta.org.au/gimp/gimp/

      Austria:
      #7) ftp://gd.tuwien.ac.at/graphics/gimp/

      Belgium:
      #8) ftp://gimp.rug.ac.be/
      #9) http://gimp.rug.ac.be/ftp/gimp/

      Croatia:
      #10) ftp://ftp.linux.hr/pub/gnome/gimp/

      Finland:
      #11) ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/sci/graphics/packages/gimp/

      France:
      #12) ftp://stef.u-picardie.fr/mirror/ftp.gimp.org/
      #13) ftp://ftp.minet.net/pub/gimp/gimp/

      Germany
      #14) ftp://infosoc.uni-koeln.de/pub/ftp.gimp.org/
      #15) ftp://ftp.tuts.net/mirror/gimp.org/gimp/
      #16) ftp://ftp.fh-heilbronn.de/mirrors/ftp.gimp.org/gim p/

      Greece
      #17) ftp://sunsite.ics.forth.gr/sunsite/pub/gimp/

      Japan
      #18) ftp://SunSITE.sut.ac.jp/pub/archives/packages/gimp /
      #19) ftp://ftp.u-aizu.ac.jp/pub/graphics/tools/gimp/
      #20) ftp://ring.aist.go.jp/pub/graphics/gimp/
      #21) ftp://ring.asahi-net.or.jp/pub/graphics/gimp/
      #22) ftp://ring.so-net.ne.jp/pub/graphics/gimp/
      #23) http://ring.aist.go.jp/pub/graphics/gimp/
      #24) http://ring.asahi-net.or.jp/pub/graphics/gimp/
      #25) http://ring.so-net.ne.jp/pub/graphics/gimp/
      #26) http://mirror.nucba.ac.jp/mirror/gimp/
      #27) ftp://mirror.nucba.ac.jp/mirror/gimp/

      Korea
      #28) ftp://ftp.kreonet.re.kr/pub/tools/X11/ftp.gimp.org /

      Norway
      #29) ftp://sunsite.uio.no/pub/gimp/

      Poland
      #30) ftp://ftp.tuniv.szczecin.pl/pub/Linux/gimp/
      #31) ftp://sunsite.icm.edu.pl/pub/graphics/gimp/

      Romania
      #32) ftp://ftp.kappa.ro/pub/mirrors/ftp.gimp.org/

      Sweden
      #33) ftp://ftp.acc.umu.se/pub/gimp/
      #34) ftp://ftp.sunet.se/pub/gnu/gimp/
      #35) http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/gnu/gimp/

      Taiwan
      #36) ftp://linux.cis.nctu.edu.tw/pub/packages/X/gimp/

      Turkey
      #37) ftp://ftp.hun.edu.tr/pub/linux/gimp/

      United Kingdom
      #38) ftp://ftp.flirble.org/pub/X/gimp/

    12. Re:Sweet! by pinkUZI · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wow! I certainly appreciate the time involved with that. I've been...ahem...annoyed with the character per line restriction recently as well. Yes, it would seem that /.'s continued efforts to stop us trolls, er.. I mean the trolls have had at least a minor negative impact on the /. atmosphere.

      But, alas, I'm incredibly off-topic and this post is sure to be modded down as it is critical of the holy of holies (/.), so I'll just push this little Karma Protect (Post Anonymously) button and voici! An invincible post that still carries my identity( pinkUZI @ ).


      ...and just to make sure this post uses the minimum number of characters per line...






      ...nah...I wouldn't be THAT evil.

      Heck, I'll even post this one without the Karma Protect button(anon posting has seemingly been disabled for my ip). Hit me with all you've got moderators!!!

      --
      You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
    13. Re:Sweet! by XChilde · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It will be more sweet if we got a professional vector graphics program. The GIMP is at least as good as Adobe Photoshop, but all the free vector drawing programs (Sodipodi, Sketch, etc) are so limited. We need a program as good as Adobe Illustrator (I know some artist use Sodipodi to create beautiful icons for Gnome or KDE. That must be painfull). Personally, I have been waiting for it since Adobe Illustrator 7 was released.

    14. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gimp site looks a hell of lot better than the sites you linked to.

    15. Re:Sweet! by idttau · · Score: 1

      i've been a fan of the GIMP since some people at the sluggy.net boards introduced it to me for their exquisite corpse game http://sluggy.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=vie wtopic&t=14786 (sorry i don't know how to make it a nifty link). it's a wonderful program, and i'm excited there's a new one out. go GIMP-makers! i wish i could make new GIMPs...

      --
      well, i'm glad.
    16. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you live in a country where I can buy your daughter as a bride?

  2. Photoshop still rocks it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    You know it's true.

    Here come the denials, anyway.

    1. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct, just as Windows still rocks it compared to OS X.

    2. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by phoenix.bam! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Photoshop is definitely much better and more mature than the Gimp, but it comes with a $600 pricetag. The Gimp starts to become more of an option when you don't have to use some of the more intensive photoshop filters. (So people actually do pay for photoshop, enough-so that Adobe had some good earnings this quarter).

      no reason to knock the gimp. It has an amazing cost to ability ratio.

    3. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by jobeus · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Yeah, it's infinite, really. Even if it sucked, the ratio would still be awesome [some value greater that 0] (usability) : 0 (cost)

    4. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Photoshop still rocks it
      > You know it's true.

      The GIMP is good value for money.
      The code is freely available.

      It depends on what exactly you are doing on whether or not Photoshop is good value for money. If your time is valuable then learning the GIMP user interface is just too expensive. The GIMP is more unlike Photoshop than almost all the commericial graphics applications. The GIMP develpers may really like the GIMP interface the way it is but if they want to reach the widest audience (I dont think they actually do) then they will have to make more of an effort to accomodate Photoshoph users.

    5. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by ospirata · · Score: 1

      Photoshop still rocks it...

      ... but can you edit your last night's girl picture while running lopster and bittorrent? VMWare doen't count.

    6. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Photoshop Elements has more affordable $99 price tag.

      The GIMP still has a very long way to go to match Photoshop Elements let alone the full Photoshop.

      The GIMP makes a whole lot of things possible,
      shame it makes it so damned awkward.

      GIMP 2.0 and still no easy to use Red-Eye removal tool, sure you can do it the hard way but you shouldn't have to which is exactly what is wrong with the GIMP.

    7. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by MooseByte · · Score: 4, Funny

      Photoshop still rocks it ... but can you edit your last night's girl picture [...]?

      No doubt to mask the pronounced adam's apple and large knuckles that didn't seem nearly as apparent when s/he approached after the third beer.

    8. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      VMWare doen't count

      does qemu ?
    9. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by myklgrant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd like to point out that for the price of Photshop (which is a very good program) you can get Photoshop+Gimp. So why put down the GIMP?

    10. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 1, Informative

      automated red-eye removal is a fart in the wind. don't be such a poon and just airbrush it in

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    11. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Polo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why is this rated -1 redundant? I think it's a valid point.

      I think photoshop elements is pretty good and it doesn't trash the gimp to compare the two.

      I have a canon scanner and it came free with photoshop elements which works on my mac. I don't know if gimp could invoke the canon scanner driver.

      By the way, don't blow $99 on photoshop element because it comes free with canon scanners like the lide-50 which I believe is $99. It might even come with cheaper scanners, but I don't know.

      It's almost as powerful as photoshop (I don't know what the differences really are), and it could complement the gimp.

      It has some interesting features for beginners... dialogs to help correct certain problems with images and so forth.

      Actually, I noticed the gimp can read .psd files, so it should be able to read in photoshop elements files. that's pretty cool.

    12. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > Actually, I noticed the gimp can read .psd files, so it should be able to read in photoshop elements files. that's pretty cool.

      I can tell you right now that the GIMP 2.0 cannot correctly open all the example PSD files that are included with Photoshope Elements 2.0 and with the sampel TIFf files you will get error message but the images will still load.

      The omission in Photoshop elements that annoys me most is that it does not support grouped layers. When someone expects you to work with Photoshop document containing 40 small layers that were actually nicely grouped into 4 categories but then you have to deal with all the individual layers agian it is really really annoying.

      The GIMP 2.0 doesn't do grouped layers either.

    13. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by bonkedproducer · · Score: 1

      Primary differences between elements 2.0 and Photoshop 7 - no CMYK support, no lasso marquees (you have the quick mask mode of PS 7 basically) - Elements has a handy tool for making panoramics that isn't included in its more expensive cousin.

      --
      Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
    14. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since most of you photoshoppers stole your copy anyway, at least you are comparing photoshop to gimp on a level playing field.

    15. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Elements has a handy tool for making panoramics that isn't included in its more expensive cousin.


      You need to get up to date. Photoshop CS has been out for a while and it does include the panorama feature.
    16. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your Script-Fu is *worst*, young grasshopper.

    17. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Mr.+Troll · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Whoop-de-doo.....just because the code is freely available doenst somehow make it "good". Chances are, if you are the type who needs a feature, you aren't the type who is willing to spend 100s of hours writing it.

      GIMP is like a hobby toy......and PS is for grown ups. There's nothing wrong with it, its just the way things are.

      --
      Kiss my shiny metal ass
    18. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, where's:

      Filters -> BeerGoggles

      ?

    19. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by HenchmenResources · · Score: 2, Interesting
      No doubt photoshop is better, for professionals, but gimp also has it's place in the professionals arsenal.

      I personaly work in a professional setting and I use Photoshop on a daily basis and Know it like the back of my hand, But I personaly prefer GIMP's effets filters to the base effect filters that come with Photoshop (currantly using PS7).

      When working in a fast paced high number of images situation though GIMP can't compete and that's when the $600.00 price tag becomes acceptable. If you don't need the features offered by Photoshop over GIMP, by all means use the GIMP, don't wast your money on something you won't use.

      --
      "Napalm is nature's toothpaste" - Chef Brian
    20. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... but can you edit your last night's girl picture...

      If she is covered in dollar your bill's then Photoshop is not an option...

    21. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, where do I get a copy of photoshop thats actually useful?

      I mean, one without the terrible Windows 3.11 Program Manager window style "MDI", and one that doesn't require me to buy a Mac.

    22. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're a moron. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just the way things are.

    23. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      photoshop don't run on Linux without WINE, which into itself is a pain in the ass.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    24. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by afd8856 · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? Have you ever used it more than 5 minutes? I don't need the stupid wallpaper distracting me or mixing colours in my view when I'm working on a piece of grafic. The MDI interface is just fine as it is. Sure, it's not standard, but it's the best suited for the job. Actually, I wish Photoshop would behave more like Program Manager and have icons for minimized windows, instead of the windows borders.

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    25. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      You know it's true.

      I don't believe that the GIMP is intended to replace Photoshop. At least not yet.

      Adobe has been in the game for a LONG time. There are so many Mac only graphics shops out there that it'll be a LONG time before the GIMP is a real threat.

      As I understand it, Photoshop's filters and color seperation are why it's still the top dog. When the GIMP's color seperation is up to snuff, that'll be a huge help. Also if (and I know it's a big IF) they can make the GIMP binary compatible with Photoshop's filters, then I think you'll see some people migrating away from Photoshop. But until that day, Adobe'e flagship product is quite safe...

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    26. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      ...after the third beer.

      Three beers? What are you doing, injecting them?

      Lightweight!

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    27. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Kevin_Peters · · Score: 1

      But Photoshop 7 runs under Crossover Office 2.1 really well, and doesn't require all the pains as wine. You can set Crossover to show the open with crossover in your rightclick menu for .exe files and it's pretty much the same as on Windows. I only have 2 complaints with the Gimp: 1. No CMYK support built in. I install from RPMS, so compiling the plugin into the source is out. Plus, I'm not real good with that. 2. The disjointed windows. One poster a little up the page made a comment about that. Why can't we have it so that if you bring one of the windows to the front they all come up, and always give the image window the focus? Ife we could have both of these taken care of, the Gimp would quickly pass Photoshop. And, by the way, I am a professional Graphic Designer, so I know what I'm talking about.

      --
      The music is all around us. I can hear it. Can you?
    28. Re:Photoshop still rocks it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The MDI interface is just fine as it is."

      Syntax Error.

  3. Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it's officially supported - where's the Windows binary then? :-?

    1. Re:Windows? by Troed · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I downloaded something with an INSTALL and .sh-files and it said something about installing lots of nice thingies to be able to compile ... ... I do that kind of stuff on my Linux machine, not on my Windows machine. Where's the nice little .zip with a setup.exe? :)

    2. Re:Windows? by houseofmore · · Score: 4, Funny

      Where's the nice little .zip with a setup.exe?

      Right beside your colouring book and lunchbox!

    3. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Right beside your colouring book and lunchbox!

      Which is why Lunix is doomed to a life of howling obscurity.

    4. Re:Windows? by timecop · · Score: 0

      I run Windows.
      Gimp on Windows looks fucking horrible.
      That, and I dislike GIMP interface, which didnt change at all, from looking at the screenshots.

      So, back to using photoshop for me.
      There's only 2 types of image work I do, a quick screenshot that I paste in mspaint and save as png, or something that will take some time, and I use photoshop for that.

    5. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And nobody who uses Linux gives a fuck whether that's the case, moron. In fact they'd probably stop using it if it did get easier.

    6. Re:Windows? by Chupa · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here are windows binaries in a nice installer. 2.0pre4 is the newest release available at the moment, but it is working fine for me right now.

    7. Re:Windows? by houseofmore · · Score: 1

      obscurity or security?

    8. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You and your 34 'leet friends will stop using Linux when MS and Phoenix say you'll stop using it, at least on PCs.

      Things might go differently if you had a broader user base to lobby against locked-down chipsets and BIOS-embedded DRM, but right now it isn't looking good.

    9. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I dislike GIMP interface, which didnt change at all

      They added a menubar

      The GIMP developers think they have done a wonderful job, they just dont get how much people hate the inteface.

    10. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you have a license, because I just reported your ass to the BSA.

    11. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      BullShit Authority?

    12. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad the BSA isn't a governemt entity and thus cannot search or pry license information from the grandparent poster. When it comes down to it, the BSA has no power, other than threatening with litigation.

    13. Re:Windows? by pmsyyz · · Score: 2, Informative

      I use the GIMP to take screenshots in Windows.

      File > Aquire > Screenshot

      Much better PNG saving options.

      --
      Phillip
    14. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's any consolation, it looks fucking horrible on Linux too. It mostly mings because of GTK+, which has got to be the fugliest piece of shit ever. And they expect artists to use it! People who actually care about the way things look! The mind boggles.
      And this release apparently uses GTK+ 2, although it doesn't seem to have helped. Some of the icons seem a bit more colourful, but it's still anyone's guess as to what they do. Oh and GTK is possibly the worst abuser of 3d relief I have ever seen.
      All in all, I don't care if it's free, you'd have to pay me to use it. And this is a flagship F/OSS project? LOL.

    15. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gimp on windows?! hey! That means I can quit using photoshop.

    16. Re:Windows? by timecop · · Score: 0

      and I use alt-printscreen (or just printscreen)
      and paste the resulting window in mspaint.

    17. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obscurity, but an astonishing number of Slashdot posters confuse that with security.

    18. Re:Windows? by 13Echo · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can just hit "Prt Scr" (Print Screen) and paste it into GIMP as a new image.

    19. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If nobody gives a flying rat's ass about your OS or breaking into it, you have indeed achieved "security through obscurity."

      Have any exploits been written for Plan9 or BeOS?

    20. Re:Windows? by houseofmore · · Score: 1

      " Obscurity, but an astonishing number of Slashdot posters confuse that with security."

      Hrm. Yes. I wonder how obscure slashdot would be if it was run on McWindows.

    21. Re:Windows? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Funny
      I use ecode tags because I'm such a fucking artist that I even care about how cool my text looks on Slashdot. Unfortunately, I'm not too bright so I'm still pasting into MSPaint on Windows to get my screenshots, instead of the Gnome Screenshot tool on Linux and saving directly to file. I secretly wish I was smart enough to learn The Gimp, but instead I'll just diss it. I also think that the way software looks is more important than what it does, so I'll keep using Photoshop for my fairly basic artwork - which takes some time, because I'm rather slow and because my Windows machine keeps crashing when I'm working on a big image.
      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    22. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, i downloaded it. it was all code. forget trying to compile all that nonsense. why not provide an executable for the people who aren't interested in hacking through the source and spending a week or two getting it to compile. why do they refuse to provide a windows executable?

    23. Re:Windows? by Bob+McCown · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I go and buy Photoshop, drop the CD in, and install it. But Im supposed to download Gimp, get this toolset and that toolset, compile it, and then copy it around?

    24. Re:Windows? by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anyone who admits to using MS Paint for screenshots is a moron. If you are trapped in the MS world, at least use the "Print Screen" key and paste into GIMP. It's a hell of a lot more useful than MS Paint. This is assuming that you don't have the money to buy Photoshop or the unscrupulous nature to pirate it. I can't waste $600 on something just for screenshots and I will NEVER pirate software. Of course, I don't need to worry about that since I use Linux.

    25. Re:Windows? by tc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And this sort of knee-jerk flame points up exactly why the OSS crowd continues to fail to 'get it' when it comes to certain classes of professional tool. (Hint: nobody in the real world gives a flying fuck what a programmer or sysadmin thinks is or isn't important in an image manipulation app.)

      Speaking as someone who has written quite a few custom tools for artists, I can tell you that when your customer is an artist, quite often it absolutely is more important how something looks than what it does.

      Now, you can either complain about how that makes no logical sense and refuse to take it on board, or you can make software that your target users will like and use. The bottom line is that if customers want something that you don't think they should want, no matter how illogical it appears to you as a programmer, then by definition they are right and you are wrong.

    26. Re:Windows? by blair1q · · Score: 0


      Thank you for supporting the adoption of Open Software by the masses.

      Or not, as the case may be.

    27. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh yeah, cause you have to run linux on x86... yup it doesnt run on annnnything else... eat cock.

    28. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they haven't made it yet. Give it a few weeks.

    29. Re:Windows? by houseofmore · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you can't figure out how to run a batch file, you probably shouldn't be running photoshop or gimp.

    30. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That remark is good for a chuckle but remember that most Windows users don't have compilers by default let alone know how to use them. So cut'em some slack.

    31. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't think that shit will be fucking cracked quicker than you can cum in your boyfriend's mouth?

    32. Re:Windows? by houseofmore · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dear no... I would never suggest a windows user compile anything!!!

      http://www.gimp.org/windows/

      "This site, www.gimp.org, only distributes the source code to the GIMP (the building blocks). You can however download executable versions from the following sites:

      Jernej Simoncic provides an installer program that automates the installation process. This is the most convenient way to install the GIMP for Windows.


      http://www2.arnes.si/~sopjsimo/gimp/

    33. Re:Windows? by tempest303 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok, that was cold, harsh, and probably just another brick in the wall to mainstream Linux adoption, due to elitism. It was also really damn funny. Have a sense of humor, people!

    34. Re:Windows? by MrPoopyPants · · Score: 2, Funny
      Which is why Lunix is doomed to a life of howling obscurity.

      Yes. So obscure that there are Linux commercials on TV, penguins all over the place, and groups all over the country dedicated to promoting Linux.

      Oh wait... you said Lunix. Never heard of that...

    35. Re:Windows? by eggsome · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look I detest stupid users as much as the next person, but come on! If you want Graphic artists to use this and make it popular you have to make it easy for them. Not because they are dumb, but because they have a different speciality to you.
      (I'd like to see you create a stylish piece of artwork in Quark/Illistrator/Photoshop, it's a real skill - that's why they get paid decent amounts of money).

      --
      If they made a movie of your life, would anybody buy a ticket?
    36. Re:Windows? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You nailed it with "I can tell you that when your customer is an artist, quite often it absolutely is more important how something looks than what it does". While I agree with the sentiment of targeting your audience with an appropriate design, they aren't my "customer" - I am.

      These artists who are moaning about The Gimp are complaining about a free app they won't invest the time to learn. If they were paying me a few hundred dollars then fine, I'll worry about it and bust a nut trying to make it aesthetically pleasing for them. But they're not, so I'll make it functional to get the job done. If it's too ugly, these graphic artists are more than welcome to whip up a screen shot or concept of what they actually want. Maybe then some clueless programming like me can provide something that has both the functionality and mad stylz to keep everyone happy. Unfortunately, most of them seem more interested in prima-donna bitchings about how nasty and un-Photoshop-like The Gimp's UI is. I've heard similar moans when faced with PhotoPaint, PaintShop Pro and Photogenics too.

      I should also point out that some of The Gimp users (and developers) are rather well respected graphic artists in their own right and produce some very nice artwork indeed, some of which lands in open source projects. The UI not withstanding.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    37. Re:Windows? by timecop · · Score: 0

      mspaint starts one fucking hell of a lot faster than gimp.

      *and* its available on every system, so in case I need to take screenshots of some default windows installation, I know mspaint will be available, and gimp WILL NOT BE.

      STFU, YHBT.

    38. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      ... Which has only gimp version 1.2.5 stable and 2.0pre4 unstable.

    39. Re:Windows? by Urkki · · Score: 1
      • Anyone who admits to using MS Paint for screenshots is a moron.

      Anyone who downloads and install GIMP just to take and print one screenshot is a moron. Even anyone (with average computer) who just starts GIMP to take and print one screenshot, then closes it, is a moron.

      (Ok, actually they're not morons, they're just slightly clueless, but since you used the word... ;-)

      Now don't get me wrong, GIMP is IMHO one of the most spectacular examples of what open source can do, truly a great piece of software. But MS Paint is actually quite a brilliant little program for some specific tasks, and comparing it to GIMP is like comparing Busybox vi to emacs. I'd go as far as to say that Paint one of the best, most useful programs MS has ever created. What ever happened to "small is beutiful"?
    40. Re:Windows? by houseofmore · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well I doubt they're going to come out with a stable one for win32.

    41. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IrfanView is better. MS Paint blows.

    42. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it takes you two weeks to get it to compile you shouldn't be allowed near a computer ever again.

    43. Re:Windows? by Frodo420024 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Well I doubt they're going to come out with a stable one for win32.

      Damn, you're right:

      The procedure entry point XML_SetDoctypeDeclHandler could not be located in the dynamic link library xmlparse.dll

      Does GIMP have a Bugzilla somewhere?

      --
      I'm in a Unix state of mind.
    44. Re:Windows? by Urkki · · Score: 1
      • IrfanView is better. MS Paint blows.

      Checked it out (google irfanview), and it looks like a good replacement for "Imaging for Windows", not for MS Paint. Looks like a good piece of software though.
    45. Re:Windows? by benjj · · Score: 1

      Oh wait... you said Lunix. Never heard of that...

      Its an operating system that, due to being targeted at the C64, is doomed to obscurity :-)

    46. Re:Windows? by TwistedSquare · · Score: 1

      Actually my experience with GIMP (1.2 or so) was that it would not treat a Print Screen-ed image on the clipboard as an image, so you couldn't paste it in. Which was a big pain.

    47. Re:Windows? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Trolling, are you from Pittsburgh?

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    48. Re:Windows? by rocjoe71 · · Score: 1
      Actually, its just not fun to use-- alot of the terms are different from Photoshop and PaintShop Pro and its really hard to make variations of the interesting graphics effects

      The quality of online tutorials are poor and rather unimaginative as opposed to PaintShop or Photoshop where I have an abundance of great ideas to learn from and change to suit my liking.

      --
      Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
    49. Re:Windows? by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      You girlfriend is too kind hearted. :-P

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    50. Re:Windows? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not a drawing program in any meaning of the word so in that respect it's not a replacement for MS Paint, but for pasting & saving screenshot (which all this supposedly is about) it probably is better.

    51. Re:Windows? by pmsyyz · · Score: 1

      Does that only give you a screenshot of the whole desktop or one application? You can choose when using GIMP to grab a screenshot.

      After I hit Print Scrn I don't see any way to paste it into GIMP. After creating a new image the Paste option is not enabled.

      --
      Phillip
    52. Re:Windows? by thebosz · · Score: 1
      Printscreen will capture the entire desktop, while ALT-Printscreen will just capture the active window.

      (At least, that's the way it's supposed to work :) )

      --
      The Kerr Divine: My wife's battle with a mysterious illness.
    53. Re:Windows? by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 1

      No. Good guess though. ;P

    54. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try irfanview(http://www.irfanview.com/). It is a freeware image utility for MS windows. It is small and very FAST. It is perfect for simple tasks. I would only use the GIMP when I need to create images.

    55. Re:Windows? by Urkki · · Score: 1
      • Well, it's not a drawing program in any meaning of the word so in that respect it's not a replacement for MS Paint, but for pasting & saving screenshot (which all this supposedly is about) it probably is better.

      Well, when it's generically said that "MS Paint blows", I think it's about more than just screenshots.

      Even when talking about screenshots, MS Paint allows one to easily add a piece of text and an arrow pointing at a feature, something I myself need quite often when I need to take a screenshot (which is not often at all).

      The point being, MS Paint is a nifty little program for a lot of purposes, and generally speaking it does not blow. It does what it does well enough, quickly and without crashing, even on older hardware. If "what it does" doesn't include what you need, it just means it's the wrong program for the purpose, not that it blows.
    56. Re:Windows? by baxissimo · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the link. Installed GTK and GIMP. Looks like it's still got a ways to go before it'll replace Photoshop. The new version of the GIMP bombs out for me with these error messages as soon as I pick up my Wacom Tablet stylus:

      (gimp-1.3.exe:2972): Gdk-WARNING **: losing last reference to undestroyed window

      (gimp-1.3.exe:2972): GLib-GObject-CRITICAL **: file gobject.c: line 1320 (g_obje
      ct_ref): assertion `object->ref_count > 0' failed

      (gimp-1.3.exe:2972): GLib-GObject-CRITICAL **: file gobject.c: line 1338 (g_obje
      ct_unref): assertion `object->ref_count > 0' failed

      (gimp-1.3.exe:2972): GLib-GObject-CRITICAL **: file gobject.c: line 1338 (g_obje
      ct_unref): assertion `object->ref_count > 0' failed


      Not to mention that the debug console pops up right from the start telling me:

      This is a development version of The GIMP.
      Debug messages may appear here.

      You can minimize this window, but don't close it.

      gimp_composite: use=yes, verbose=no
      supported by gimp_composite: +mmx +sse +sse2 -3dnow -altivec -vis


      Whatever all that means, it isn't exactly going to inspire confidence in the newbies.
    57. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a terrible point of view to take. Programmers should not just accept blindly every reccomendation for change provided to them by the artists, just as artists should not simply use the tools as they are because that is what the programmers provided. People need to learn to communicate their views to one another.
      If you do not like something about the Gimp, then you need to be able to communicate that dislike in a clear and cogent manner. Saying that it is ugly, or that it sucks, or that it is not Photoshop is not really very effective. Insulting people by saying that they do not live in the real world doesn't seem to be very effective either. Spewing negativity is a good way to get yourself ignored, or at the very least have your opinions dismissed out of hand.

    58. Re:Windows? by xveg · · Score: 2, Informative

      You need to install expat:
      http://www.jclark.com/xml/expat.html

      Download the file, and copy contents of expat/bin to /program files/GIMP-2.0/bin/

      I am gimping now!

    59. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe something has changed since 1.x? You used to be able to create a new image from the clipboard.

    60. Re:Windows? by bbc · · Score: 1
      The procedure entry point XML_SetDoctypeDeclHandler could not be located in the dynamic link library xmlparse.dll


      This looks like the problem discussed in the Usenet newsgroup comp.graphics.apps.gimp. Does that discussion help you solve your problem?

      Does GIMP have a Bugzilla somewhere?


      Yes, see http://bugzilla.gnome.org (which, for some explainable reason now points at the Gnome homepage and the lovely Jonita Prifti... ah, where was I?)
    61. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dislike GIMP interface ...

      Why, because it isn't monospaced?

    62. Re:Windows? by bbc · · Score: 1

      "After I hit Print Scrn I don't see any way to paste it into GIMP. After creating a new image the Paste option is not enabled."

      <Image>/Edit/Paste from Clipboard

      The internal GIMP clipboard is incompatible with that of the operating system, that's why.

    63. Re:Windows? by Kevin_Peters · · Score: 1

      I believe the Ernie Ball Guitar Strings Co. would disagree with you on this. The BSA raided ther shops to do an audit for Microsoft. They had 2 machines that weren't properly licensed and were shut down for a while because of it. Sterling Ball (President) told his IT dept. they had exactly 24 hours to get everything Micrsoft out of his business and they went with RedHat. Now you see, the BSA can do a LOT more than just threaten legal action.

      --
      The music is all around us. I can hear it. Can you?
  4. Excellent by Caedar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm glad that this release improves the accessability to normal enthusiasts. A person pointed me to the Gimp once about half a year ago, and I couldn't stand to use it because of the god-awful interface that I encountered. I'll definitely give it a try.

    1. Re:Excellent by DarkSarin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except that its mostly cosmetic, from my point of view.

      There are still tasks that I would like to do that are not possible in an intuitive fashion.

      For instance, I frequently draw shapes (you know, circles, squares, rectangles, etc). In Fireworks, Sodipodi, and almost every other image creation/manipulation program I have used, this is a very simple task, and very easy to figure out how to do (click on icon, click on canvas, drag mouse, release button--bingo!).

      In GIMP, I still don't know how to do this. I probably never will. Why not? Because this is a task that I use a lot, and if a program is going to make me work for that, then I don't want to use that program.

      Sorry, but the UI is not that much better (at least on the windows version).

      I will probably get flamed for saying this, and get called an idiot for not knowing how to do this, or told that that's not what the gimp is for, but I don't care--it is a tool that doesn't do what I expect--especially after seeing site's "made with gimp" logos and all their fancy stuff.

      Yeah it looks cool, but I could do all that in fireworks much faster than the time it would take me to learn how to make a square in GIMP.

      As a note-- I really like sodipodi much better. There are certain things it can't do, but in terms of fire it up and go, sodipodi wins hands down.

      that's all i've got.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    2. Re:Excellent by vandan · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've been using a pre-release version ( compiled via Gentoo's portage system ) and I'm very impressed with it indeed.

      The text tool has undergone a MAJOR overhaul and is far more powerful than in the old Gimp-1.3. When you add text, it creates a layer of it's own instead of being dumped onto the current layer, and you can go back and edit the text and font etc after you've added it. This saves me a lot of time, because I often add text, add some effects, do something else, adn then come back and think ... 'maybe I should have done *this* with the text instead'. The text tool is cool try it out.

      Also there are a lot of scripts and plugins ( at least in the Gentoo build ) that do some powerful stuff - bevelling & 3d outlining and all sorts of things.

      While the addition of the menus at the top are merely cosmetic, it will at least shut up all the users who can't get the hang of the right-click menu system.

      Win32 support is also interesting, as it means that GTK2 under Windows shouldn't be too far off. Personally, I'd LOVE to be able to write Perl / GTK2 apps that run under Windows, and it looks like I might be able to soon :)

    3. Re:Excellent by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Heheh - yup, that's been in photoshop since 5. And copying photshop is also why there's no shape draw tool. In PS, you select the shape with the selection tool then stroke the outline.

    4. Re:Excellent by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Or you draw the shape using the vector tools.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    5. Re:Excellent by zerblat · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Sodipodi is a vector-based drawing program. GIMP is a raster image manipulation program. They have different purposes and can't really be compared.

      If you really can't figure out how to draw a rectangle in the GIMP, I'm guessing you've never used Photoshop or any other similar image manipulation program. You probably want to read up a bit, there's plenty of books, online tutorials etc.

      Anyway, the answer to your question: 1. Make a selection with the desired shape. 2. Fill the selection with the desired color.

      --
      Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
    6. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Win32 support is also interesting, as it means that GTK2 under Windows shouldn't be too far off. Personally, I'd LOVE to be able to write Perl / GTK2 apps that run under Windows, and it looks like I might be able to soon :)

      GTK2 applications like Dia, Pan, Workrave, Gaim and others have been working on Windows for ages.

      The gimp was way behind on adopting GTK2

    7. Re:Excellent by DarkSarin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have used photoshop, plenty, and I know the difference between image manipulation and drawing. All that's fine and dandy, but my point is that the impression I get, as someone not in the pro graphics business, is that GIMP is supposed to be able to handle *all* your graphic (non-moving) needs for images, and this is simply not true.

      You may say that that's not what its for, and you're probably right, but the impression I had for a long time was just the opposite, and I know plenty of people who feel the same way.

      As for your instructions on how to make a shape, I can do that, sure, but it is not intuitive. In fact, I would never have figured that out, but I can draw a box in photoshop easily enough.

      I don't mind being told how to do something, but I think that one of two things need to happen: either GIMP needs to handle the drawing functions better, or progs like sodipodi need better community support.

      I mention sodipodi in particular because it is the best of the drawing progs I've seen for linux for simple stuff, but is needs a lot of work, too.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    8. Re:Excellent by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 2, Informative


      Filters--->Render---->Gfig

      Its actually in the help file - and a google turns up more help.

      Sera

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    9. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > menus at the top ... will at least shut up all the users who can't get the hang of the right-click menu system.

      blame the users!

      it isn't the GIMPs fault it is difficult to use it must be the users!

      it is that kind of bad attitude that makes people hate the GIMP and Linux too.

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

      > I really like sodipodi much better.

      have you tried Inkscape yet?
      http://inkscape.org

    11. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      my point is that the impression I get, as someone not in the pro graphics business, is that GIMP is supposed to be able to handle *all* your graphic (non-moving) needs for images, and this is simply not true.

      I'm not sure why you have the impression. I don't know if I should blame you or not. Of course it's not true. I don't know anyone who claims it is. Gimp is for photographic images, not graphic images, moving or not moving (see film-gimp).

    12. Re:Excellent by chunkwhite86 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm glad that this release improves the accessability to normal enthusiasts. A person pointed me to the Gimp once about half a year ago, and I couldn't stand to use it because of the god-awful interface that I encountered. I'll definitely give it a try.

      I think the interface is teriffic! It's so intuitive and easier for every-day use than have some omnipotent menu bar at the top of the screen.

      --
      I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
    13. Re:Excellent by chunkwhite86 · · Score: 1

      The gimp was way behind on adopting GTK2

      You sir are very ill-informed. You do know that GTK stands for Gimp Tool Kit. Because The GIMP was the only program to use it, and it was written by the author of GIMP expressly for the purpose of creating The GIMP.

      So seeing that The Gimp was the very first application to use GTK, I must conclude that you are smoking crack when you assert that the Gimp is behind in using it's own tool kit.

      Historically, Gimp has had a very long release cycle, not unlike that of the Linux kernel, but that is a seperate topic.

      --
      I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
    14. Re:Excellent by lunartech · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've been using the beta version of 2.0 for a few weeks now and I think the user interface is a vast improvement. I've used The Gimp on a regular basis previously because it's great for the majority of graphics stuff. But I used to get a bit sick of right-clicking the image to get a menu in the old version. Simply adding a menu bar above the image has made a huge difference for me, not to mention the new docking features to reduce onscreen clutter etc. Top work guys !

    15. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gnu Image Manipulation Program maybe? Image manipulation is in the name. You'd have to read through their website to realize that it's for tweaking photographic images. But aside from that, there's really no reason why it has to be so damn hard to use.

    16. Re:Excellent by JoeBuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're confusing vector programs (Sodipodi, Illustrator) with bitmap programs (GIMP, Photoshop). If you want to draw diagrams, you want one of the former, not one of the latter.

      However, the simplest way to draw a rectangle in GIMP is:

      • Choose the rectangle select tool, drag out a rectangle.
      • Using the right mouse button, execute "Stroke" from the Edit menu. This will draw a rectangle, using the current brush tool, following the selection you just made.

      To get an ellipse, use the ellipse select tool. Or use the Bezier curve tool to draw Bezier curves.

      If you want to do this a lot, you can attach the keyboard accelerator of your choice to the Stroke function (it doesn't have one by default).

    17. Re:Excellent by be-fan · · Score: 1

      The poster is right. GIMP-2 just came out today. That's the first version of Gimp with support for GTK-2, while GTK-2 has been around for years.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    18. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it could be GNU Photo Image Manipulation Program, but that would be G-PIMP and we can't have that, now can we?

    19. Re:Excellent by salmo · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      Ummm. I do it the same way in Photoshop and the Gimp. I make a nice square path, set the fill and the stroke. I'm not seeing your particular issue here. And for professional graphics (I don't mean drawing horns on pictures of your sister) it's quite flexible. It can be scripted in umpteen languages that are a lot more straightforward than actions and such. It's pretty great at photo editing and I might even say better for certain drawing tasks. Font support in Gimp 2 is finally up to my standards (ie I can now use all those True Type fonts I made and payed all kinds of money for, and they look nice).

      And Fireworks a professional image package??? Please. What profession are you speaking of? It's horrible for print design, terrible for image editing and photo manipulation, and only seems to excel at making animated GIFs. I mean I switch between Illustrator and Photoshop regularly, but Fireworks performs the jobs of both very poorly. Honestly I think I'd be better with Photoshop or the GIMP alone than Fireworks.

      And I won't claim that I'm fully a GIMP convert. Really Photoshop and Illustrator are the reasons I still have a Windows box handy. Really when it comes down to it, I use Photoshop because I use Illustrator and when Sodipodi or whatever has a decent path tool and fills out featurewise a little more, I'll probably go ahead and free myself of paying a crapload of money every couple years for a prettier version of the same thing. (I'm still holding out on the Adobe CS package or whatever its called).

    20. Re:Excellent by G-funk · · Score: 1

      As for your instructions on how to make a shape, I can do that, sure, but it is not intuitive. In fact, I would never have figured that out, but I can draw a box in photoshop easily enough.

      If you never thought to draw a box in this way, then you haven't used photoshop all that long at all. But I agree, gimp blows :) might try it again now 2.0 is out tho...

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    21. Re:Excellent by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personally, I'd LOVE to be able to write Perl / GTK2 apps that run under Windows, and it looks like I might be able to soon

      Dunno about Perl, but with PHP-GTK, I've been able to do this for over a year with PHP. Combined with the Ion Cube compiler, I've been writing cross-platform Windows/Linux/OSX programs for quite a while.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    22. Re:Excellent by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

      Is there a way to get rid of the menu at the top? I prefer right clicking to get the menu, and I don't need another menu to take up space.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    23. Re:Excellent by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      As for your instructions on how to make a shape, I can do that, sure, but it is not intuitive. In fact, I would never have figured that out, but I can draw a box in photoshop easily enough.

      Huh. I didn't even think there was a box-drawing tool in Photoshop. I don't think I've seen a raster box-drawing program since the days of SuperPaint or MacPaint, but I haven't used Photoshop since version 4 or so, so maybe Photoshop's changed.

      What I do in both Photoshop and GIMP was to create a selection with whatever outline I want (using the rectangular, circular, whatever) selection tool, and then hitting fill to create my nice rectangle or oval or whatnot.

      As some other people have pointed out, though, are you sure Photoshop/GIMP/a raster processing program is what you want? If what you're making is a simple diagram, dia is both easier and much more convenient to use, and if you want just flat vector graphics...well, there are a bunch of Open Source programs, but nothing as nice as the GIMP is for raster graphics yet, you're right there.

    24. Re:Excellent by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "For instance, I frequently draw shapes (you know, circles, squares, rectangles, etc)"

      Try creating a square or circular selection (you can use the ctrl, shift keys to do various things like making a rectangle square while you're selecting), and then paint into your mask with an airbrush or paint tool.

      Or press ctrl-k to kill (delete, whiten, or make transparent) your selected area, and then use the fill tool.

    25. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget about GFig in Gimp which allows you to create any vector based figure and apply it to your image.

      Look under Filters->Render->GFig

    26. Re:Excellent by denzombie · · Score: 1
      As for your instructions on how to make a shape, I can do that, sure, but it is not intuitive. In fact, I would never have figured that out, but I can draw a box in photoshop easily enough.

      I'm guessing you started using Photoshop after they added the shapes to the toolbar. In the earlier versions(at least as late as 3.0), the selection tool method was the only way to make a circle.

      No argument that Photoshop has more gizmos than the Gimp. I still use version 6 for graphics work, but I cannot bring my self to upgrade to CS, IMO Photoshop is becoming bloatware.

      --
      --- Evil robots don't kill people, Mad scientists kill people.
    27. Re:Excellent by cardshark2001 · · Score: 1
      As for your instructions on how to make a shape, I can do that, sure, but it is not intuitive. In fact, I would never have figured that out, but I can draw a box in photoshop easily enough.

      I agree with you. This box method probably works fine, but how in blazes do you draw a slanted line? Is it even possible?

      Would it be so hard to add some shape/line drawing tools? I end up opening microsoft paint when I want to draw a freaking line. That's pretty damn lame.

      Oh, and what if I don't know my pixel to inches ratio on my monitor? I don't want to worry about that crap, I just wanna draw some stuff.

      </rant> I do like the Gimp, but it could be easier to use.

      --
      WWJD? JWRTFA!
    28. Re:Excellent by bbc · · Score: 1

      "For instance, I frequently draw shapes (you know, circles, squares, rectangles, etc). In Fireworks, Sodipodi, and almost every other image creation/manipulation program I have used, this is a very simple task, and very easy to figure out how to do (click on icon, click on canvas, drag mouse, release button--bingo!).

      In GIMP, I still don't know how to do this. I probably never will. Why not? Because this is a task that I use a lot, and if a program is going to make me work for that, then I don't want to use that program."


      GIMP does not let you draw shapes with ease for the same reason that your MP3 player and your word processor and the latest game you bought don't: because none of them are image creation programs. If you want to draw, use Illustrator or Sodipodi or MS Paint.

      GIMP is a tool for the manipulation of bitmap photos. That's why people compare it to tools like Photoshop.

    29. Re:Excellent by bbc · · Score: 1

      Preferences/Display Windows/Appearance:

      deselect Show Menu Bar

    30. Re:Excellent by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > I frequently draw shapes (you know, circles, squares, rectangles, etc)

      This is easy in Gimp. Just use the select tool and then stroke your selection.

      The advantage of this approach is that it's very flexible. For one thing, you
      can select any brushtip you want and use that brushtip to stroke the selection,
      which gives you a lot of flexibility in terms of what the edge of the shape
      looks like. For another thing, you can use any select tool, including the
      magic wand or the bezier, which means you can make any shape you want, and
      most shapes are very easy. A simpler paint program will let you draw elipses
      and rectangles easily, but if you want a triangle or pentagon that's somewhat
      trickier, or you have to piece it together from parts. With the Gimp's way
      of doing things you can do any shape you want.

      Additionally, with the Gimp's approach you can also get fancy if you really
      want to, switching your selection to a mask, editing the mask, switching the
      mask back to a selection, using shift to do multiselect so you can do several
      regions at once, using shrink and grow to alter the shape and size of the
      selection(s), and so on and so forth.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    31. Re:Excellent by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

      Thx. I haven't used it yet. I was just wondering. I still have 1.2.5

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    32. Re:Excellent by arose · · Score: 1

      Straight Line Tutorial.

      And the dpi can be calculated easly enough, if you have a ruler.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    33. Re:Excellent by vandan · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I know of PHP-GTK. I'm waiting for the GTK2 port. GTK looks butt-ugly.

      But thanks for the reminder anyway. I'm better at PHP than Perl. Maybe I should head in that direction. I was kinda swayed away from that direction by a few friends who told me that PHP's object-orientedness ( or whatever ) wasn't as strong as Perl's. And I haven't found any decent PHP debuggers yet. But anyway, I will watch both Perl/GTK2 and PHP/GTK2.

      Wait a second ... I remember now ... All those fucking incompatible changes that force a rewrite of my code every time a new minor version comes out. And the PHP/GTK site says that the GTK2 port will be with PHP5. I assume they won't be breaking with tradition and will instead break all my previous knowledge of PHP?

  5. Gimp Hits 2.0? by KodaK · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is that on K-tel records?

    Do I get one free if I order Mr. Microphone?

    --
    --J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
    1. Re:Gimp Hits 2.0? by Chilliwilli · · Score: 1

      /me rocks out to the sounds of Gimp with his trusty air guitar.

      --
      Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
    2. Re:Gimp Hits 2.0? by Diamon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey good lookin' I'll be back to pick you up later!

    3. Re:Gimp Hits 2.0? by bechthros · · Score: 1

      No, but you do get one free when you order "Love Is"...

  6. Gentoo by jobeus · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it'll finally be unmasked in portage. I hate editing my package.mask file after every sync, just for gimp! Yay! Rejoice!

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

      You can unmaks a package so that it doesn't get masked again with a new sync. I suggest you read the fucking manual ;)

    2. Re:Gentoo by S.+Traaken · · Score: 5, Informative

      mkdir -p /etc/portage && echo '=media-gfx/gimp*' >> /etc/portage/package.unmask

      and never edit profiles/package.mask again.

    3. Re:Gentoo by jobeus · · Score: 1

      Sweet, I knew there was a way... Thanks.

    4. Re:Gentoo by voxel · · Score: 1

      Yeah... thats simple.. How much documentation and months of learning do I need to know just to make it so Gentoo will install the latest Gimp...

      What has the world come to when you have "Professional Linux Installer" on your business card?

      --
      Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
    5. Re:Gentoo by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Funny


      What has the world come to when you have "Professional Linux Installer" on your business card?


      There's a snide remark about "MCSE" to be had here, but I'm not going to touch it. :P
    6. Re:Gentoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahhh its nice to see the jerks on slashdot are out doing what they do best.

    7. Re:Gentoo by S.+Traaken · · Score: 1

      man portage

      That should just about do it.

  7. Who's unix-based? by Whosawhatsis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Last time I checked, MacOS X was at least as "Unix-Based" (darwin) as Linux, if not more...

    --
    I was offered a penny for my thoughts, so I gave my two cents... I got ripped off!
    1. Re:Who's unix-based? by jobeus · · Score: 1

      It's more of a direct decendant, perhaps, yes... But there's been a lot more integration of the GUI on top of it... So it's kind of a toss up of which is "more-unix-like"

    2. Re:Who's unix-based? by prockcore · · Score: 0, Troll

      Last time I checked, MacOS X was at least as "Unix-Based" (darwin) as Linux, if not more...

      Then why does OSX do so poorly on UnixBench?

    3. Re:Who's unix-based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because UnixBench is biased against OS X. Old timers HATE to admit that OS X is far better than any of their sucky pet projects, like BSD and Linux.

    4. Re:Who's unix-based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the toss up between which is "less-shit-like"? System 10 is the winner.

      On a side note - I'm not calling that shit "OS Ten". It's fucking Macintosh System Software 10 you bastards!

      System 10!

    5. Re:Who's unix-based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "better than any of their sucky pet projects, like BSD and Linux." ...OS X is based on bsd.

    6. Re:Who's unix-based? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Last time I checked, MacOS X was at least as "Unix-Based" (darwin) as Linux, if not more..."

      Can't the same be said about Windows since it was discovered that Microsoft implemented the TCP/IP stack straight from BSD? (ducks for cover)! :)

      So that's why Microsoft took out the Unix license from SCO*!!! :0

      *considering SCO made a statement that they believed UnixWare IP was in the BSD distributions, including OS X...

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    7. Re:Who's unix-based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      System X!!!

    8. Re:Who's unix-based? by Dahan · · Score: 1
      Can't the same be said about Windows since it was discovered that Microsoft implemented the TCP/IP stack straight from BSD? (ducks for cover)! :)

      Man, I wish they really did... if Windows did use a good stack such as the BSD one, it wouldn't have been vulnerable to crap like the ping of death and teardrop.

    9. Re:Who's unix-based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I didn't know BSD used the Mach microkernel.

    10. Re:Who's unix-based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Apple == BSD Fork

    11. Re:Who's unix-based? by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pretty sure it's Mach-based, like HURD.

    12. Re:Who's unix-based? by mattjb0010 · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pretty sure it's Mach-based, like HURD.

      Mach is just a microkernel, OS X has a BSD layer running on top of Mach, in much the same way as Linux can run on top of Mach.

    13. Re:Who's unix-based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? OS X compared to BSD is like comparing an Audi TT to a Yugo. Both are cars, sure, but which one is the pinnacle of automotive design and which one is a cheap peice of garbarge for people who cannot afford Audi?

    14. Re:Who's unix-based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know Audi was for homosexuals. I keep that in mind.

    15. Re:Who's unix-based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OSX != BSD Fork
      OSX == Mach Continuation

    16. Re:Who's unix-based? by mattjb0010 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then why does OSX do so poorly on UnixBench?

      Source? My 667MHz G4 powerbook (OS X 10.3.3) gets a higher score than my 2.4GHz P4 desktop (Redhat 7.3). And this has nothing to do with whether or not a system is Unix-based, let alone the Gimp! The parent post should be troll or OT, not interesting.

    17. Re:Who's unix-based? by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Because its based on an old version of UNIX. If you take a look at the kernel code, its *very* similar to the 4.4BSD-Lite2 that its based on.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    18. Re:Who's unix-based? by k_head · · Score: 1

      Not true. It's based on teh 5.X freebsd series.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    19. Re:Who's unix-based? by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Source? My 667MHz G4 powerbook (OS X 10.3.3) gets a higher score than my 2.4GHz P4 desktop (Redhat 7.3).

      Actually, I think it mostly has to do with the piss poor performance of the mach kernel.

      My P4 2.4 ghz with RedHat 9 gets more than double the score of my dual 1ghz G4 with Jaguar. It even beats a G5 with panther by 500 points.

      Looking at the results closely, the bottlenecks are horrible fork() performance, and extremely slow file IO.

      I bet if you put a 2.4 kernel on that P4 you'll see your unixbench score skyrocket.

    20. Re:Who's unix-based? by mattjb0010 · · Score: 1

      I bet if you put a 2.4 kernel on that P4 you'll see your unixbench score skyrocket.

      Linux n233-13 2.4.20-18.7 #1 Thu May 29 08:57:32 EDT 2003 i686 unknown

    21. Re:Who's unix-based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can Linux run on top of Mach? Linux is a kernel, Mach is a kernel.

    22. Re:Who's unix-based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BSD Fork

    23. Re:Who's unix-based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple zealot counting 5*score warning detected.

    24. Re:Who's unix-based? by /ASCII · · Score: 1

      Check out MkLinux. It is a Linux distribution that runs Linux as a layer on top of a Mach microkernel. Prett cool to do a 'top' and see linux as one of the running processes...

      --
      Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
    25. Re:Who's unix-based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's more of a virtual machine type of thing I would say. Pretty cool though. It's a good find.

    26. Re:Who's unix-based? by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Not true. Its based on 4.4BSD-Lite2. Check the OpenDarwin FAQ if you don't believe me.

      http://www.opendarwin.org/en/faq.php#lineage

      Or Apple's history of darwin page

      http://developer.apple.com/darwin/history.html

      Or download a copy of darwin and 4.4BSD-Lite2 and see for yourself!

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  8. The biggest changes... by bc90021 · · Score: 2, Redundant

    - It uses GTK2.
    - It is officially supported on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.

    Now if only I could figure out how to use it. (I have no graphics experience whatsoever. ;) )

    1. Re:The biggest changes... by Wakkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I have no graphics experience whatsoever."

      That's probably a good thing.. That way you're not stuck thinking, "hmph.. that's not how photoshop does it."

    2. Re:The biggest changes... by isabellf · · Score: 1

      Ok now, for all those analphabets who couldn't use the gimp 1.x. Try the following interesting book on the basis of Gimp. It's also good for 2.0

      http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/index.html

    3. Re:The biggest changes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or as non-zealots would put it: "That way you're not used to a decent GUI, so you'll accept anything."

    4. Re:The biggest changes... by incom · · Score: 1

      Or as non-zealots would put it: "That way you're not used to a decent GUI, so you'll accept anything."

      That certainly explains how people can stand the windows GUI.

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    5. Re:The biggest changes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably a good thing.. That way you're not stuck thinking, "hmph.. that's not how photoshop does it."

      Yes, but you'll need to refrain from ever trying Photoshop, as you'll think the Gimp will suck badly afterwards!

  9. Re:Photoshop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's correct for high-end graphic tasks. But for most work GIMP is completely useable!

  10. Fantastic! by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, I've been using the betas under both linux and windows for a month or so now, and I must say that this is a FANTASTIC improvement, which goes much deeper than just the improved UI.

    Before this I used to use photoshop for much of my work, and Gimp for areas where I either needed the software on a machine that did not warrant a photoshop license, or to deal with alpha layers properly (which photoshop is terrible for). Photoshop is great for printing based people, but has some major miss-features for computer graphics use.

    Gimp 2.0 however is much better than photoshop IMHO for many many jobs, although it is still just a bit lacking in the automation-of-tasks area.

    Congratulations and Thanks to all the people involved in this fantastic piece of software!

    1. Re:Fantastic! by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Informative
      Photoshop is great for printing based people, but has some major miss-features for computer graphics use.

      You obviously haven't used a recent version. Photoshop CS(8.0) works very nicely for computer graphics, including stuff Gimp doesn't do, like channel/layer based JPEG compression control, which is invaluable for web designers. Adobe has been improving the integration between all their apps, and I'm a big fan; I've posted about it before.

      Photoshop also supports color management through and through- GIMP never has out of the box and never will, because there's no such thing as color management under linux; it's not builtin to X, there are zero calibration devices for linux, etc. Even gamma is something of a mess under Linux.

      Last but not least, Photoshop CS includes a RAW decoder for most of the pro digital cameras and many prosumer units. It is nothing short of amazing and almost worth the price tag alone; you gain quite a bit more color depth with RAW images(depends on the camera- without getting into digital medium/large format backs, the best you can get right now is 12 bit per channel) and the plugin lets you tweak many, many parameters- with nearly instant preview. Nothing compares, even on the Macintosh or PC side...only Capture One could be considered better. dcraw is a joke...

    2. Re:Fantastic! by irokitt · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Gimp? Photoshop? Automation of tasks? Bah.

      REAL nerds use a hex editor. Using a Dvorak keyboard!

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    3. Re:Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The Gimp? Photoshop? Automation of tasks? Bah.
      >
      >REAL nerds use a hex editor. Using a Dvorak
      >keyboard!

      With the monitor turned off.

    4. Re:Fantastic! by Deusy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      [Photoshop does stuff] like channel/layer based JPEG compression control, which is invaluable for web designers.

      Um, I'm a web designer. How is that invaluable?

      I think you're eating too much of the hamburger that Adobe is feeding you with buzzwords like that.

      Gimp creates jpegs just fine. If you require ultimate fine-grained control over image creation then I'd wager:
      1. You're using too many images in your website. Learn CSS.
      2. You're wasting your time when you could be doing more productive things which would help you create your websites more quickly instead of worrying about 1k or so in a jpeg. It's ok, we have broadband (or 56k modems at the very worst).
      --

      Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary

    5. Re:Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      > Gimp 2.0 however is much better than photoshop IMHO for many many jobs

      Examples please?
      It would help to know what exactly the GIMP does better than Photoshop because people are always arguing that Photoshop is better.

    6. Re:Fantastic! by rjw57 · · Score: 1

      Gimp 2.0 however is much better than photoshop IMHO for many many jobs, although it is still just a bit lacking in the automation-of-tasks area.

      Isn't the Gimp entirely scriptable via LISP (Scipt-Fu) or Python (Python-Fu)?

      --
      Rich
    7. Re:Fantastic! by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Kids these days, you need to remember the days of wiring the serial port to your brain to commucicate with the server.

    8. Re:Fantastic! by DVega · · Score: 4, Informative
      "Photoshop also supports color management through and through- GIMP never has out of the box and never will, because there's no such thing as color management under linux; it's not builtin to X, there are zero calibration devices for linux, etc. Even gamma is something of a mess under Linux."

      You mean color managemnt like this ?

      --
      MOD THE CHILD UP!
    9. Re:Fantastic! by phreakmonkey · · Score: 1
      Photoshop is great for printing based people...

      Ummm... which base? binary based people? octal based people? freebased people? I must not be sorting my pr0n the same way you are.

      -pm

    10. Re:Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the gimp is mostly scriptable

      but it still doesn't compare to ImageMagick for certain types of commandline batch processing of images.

    11. Re:Fantastic! by Endive4Ever · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's ok, we have broadband (or 56k modems at the very worst).

      I hope you only design pages for corporate intranets, and other environments with flat, consistent bandwidth.

      Otherwise you're coming off like you don't have a clue.

      --
      ---
    12. Re:Fantastic! by shfted! · · Score: 0

      Fah! A real geek coding in hex wouldn't use a Dvorak layout keyboard -- instead, he or she would have designed and built his or her own keyboard with 0 through 9 on the home row, and A through F were WER and UIO on a QWERTY layout, as those are the fastest key positions to type. Or at least, he or she would remap the keyboard layout.

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    13. Re:Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Otherwise you're coming off like you don't have a clue.

      DING!DING!DING!
      Good call ;-)

    14. Re:Fantastic! by eyeye · · Score: 1

      Um, I'm a web designer.

      Correction..if you dont care about page sizes then you merely think you are a web designer.
      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    15. Re:Fantastic! by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1

      it is faster to have four keys, each corresponding to one of the bits of a hex digit, that are pressable at the same instant (chording, like the courtroom transcribers). in this way, w/ eight fingers on the home row, i suppose a nice clean octet could be entered per duty cycle...

    16. Re:Fantastic! by WWWWolf · · Score: 1
      Photoshop also supports color management through and through- GIMP never has out of the box and never will, because there's no such thing as color management under linux; it's not builtin to X, there are zero calibration devices for linux, etc. Even gamma is something of a mess under Linux.

      What's wrong with X11's gamma settings? Can tune gamma on all three channels, or all at once, with pure and simple command line tool.

      X11 has color management extensions. It's just that apps don't seem to care. (Sounds familiar, huh?) GIMP, however, does do CMS, via littlecms library (which is also used by other cool Linux graphics/typesetting apps like Scribus these days).

      Not sure about high-bit-depth graphics formats though, I'm a plain old-fashioned SLR & el cheapo scanner kind of photographer, digital cameras are not in my price class. Maybe Cinepaint?

    17. Re:Fantastic! by damiam · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Photoshop's automation features are much more accessable and easier to use (for example, you can record macros).

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  11. EXIF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does it handle jpg EXIF data? At least by giving
    you an option to save them when EXIF data were found
    in the loaded image... Prior to 2.0, the EXIF data
    where lost. I wonder how 2.0 behaves...

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

      Well, I looked it up, and apparently they started
      to do the Right Thing:

      http://jimmac.musichall.cz/stuff/private/gimp-2/ht ml/ch01s02.xhtml#exif

    2. Re:EXIF. by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 5, Informative
      According to page 7 of this release document,

      Data stored in EXIF tags by digital cameras are now handled in read and write mode for JPEG files.

  12. Newsforge Article by amigoro · · Score: 4, Informative
    Here is the Newsforge Article about the new GIMP that appeared a couple of weeks ago.

    The screenshots look simply awsome.

    Going to install that now.

    Moderate this comment
    Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
    Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

    --


    Nothing to see here
    1. Re:Newsforge Article by g-san · · Score: 1

      The screenshots look simply awsome.

      Sigh. Does no one understand that you shouldn't use a lossy compressor with screenshots? It causes the fuzzy noise around all the text and lines that just looks like crap.

      I expect more from a review of a graphics editing application.

    2. Re:Newsforge Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > shouldn't use a lossy compressor with screenshots

      > I expect more from a review of a graphics editing application.

      + 1 Funny your comment

      - 2 Tragic the review

    3. Re:Newsforge Article by Stevyn · · Score: 0, Troll

      Eww, it's ugly. I'm not using that. Looks way too cluttered, the drawing space is forced to be too small because of the windows. See photoshop for a real photo manipulator. And ask most graphics designers and I'm sure they'll agree.

  13. Got CMYK? by User+956 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Still no proper CMYK support? I'll keep my Photoshop.

    Thanks for Playing!

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:Got CMYK? by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And does photoshop still have broken alpha, there it tried to use a non-standard tiff layer to represent what 100% of other software places in a standardised alpha layer?

      I'll keep my Gimp thank!

      And yes, I use this professionally, very porfessionally, I produce live television graphics systems. Photoshop has the most broken alpha support of anything out there!

      Photoshop was designed for prepress use, and is broken for most other purposes.

      Gimp 2.0, which I have been using in beta for some time, does everything better than photoshop, other than CMYK support (not an issue for anyone but prepress) and automation, which is a little more clunky. It more than makes up for these things in it's fineness of control for basic functions, and speed.

    2. Re:Got CMYK? by Lalakis · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You need CMYK? CODE it or PAY someone to do it for you. Open source is not about getting stuff for free, but giving and receiving.
      How do you think you are going to help things by buying some commersial software?

    3. Re:Got CMYK? by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      Hello my new friend :) Wish I had mod points

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    4. Re:Got CMYK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Alpha was fixed a long time ago, in PS 7.0.1. The patch is free from Adobe.

      CMYK separation is patented up the wazoo. No one but Adobe can do it, as far as I can tell.

    5. Re:Got CMYK? by Lalakis · · Score: 3, Informative

      BTW, if you really need CMYK support in gimp now, you may look at http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml . It is a really nice plugin and gimp won't match its functionality for a long time (full CMYK support in gimp is planned to be complete sometime in spring 2005...).

    6. Re:Got CMYK? by stubear · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Photoshop is not broken but if you want to play the part of the drama queen, don't let me stop you. Here's a discussion about how and why Photoshop handles alphas and transparency. Here's a small hint, they're actually two seperate concepts. Chris Cox, by the way, is one of the Photoshop developers so he knows what he's talking about.

    7. Re:Got CMYK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want CMYK? Do it yourself. The Open Source community is about sharing, kinda like communism. It just won't work if everyone is too greedy. Be willing to shell out some bucks for someone to do it, or do it your DAMN self.

    8. Re:Got CMYK? by MooseByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "You need CMYK? CODE it or PAY someone to do it for you."

      But isn't that what he's doing by paying for a commerical application (Photoshop in this case)?

      "Open source is not about getting stuff for free, but giving and receiving."

      At the risk of being called flamebait, that won't do spit of good toward a true Desktop Linux end-user solution. Those of us developing software can give as well as take. But Joe End-User just wants to get their job done. Take take take. The mantra of the end-user.

      And that's exactly what desktop linux is going to have to address, heck embrace.

    9. Re:Got CMYK? by stubear · · Score: 2, Informative

      CMYK isn't patented but Pantone colors, including the Pantone to CMYK (spot to process) color conversions. GIMP will likely never do spot colors or spot to process as they would need to license them from Pantone. I haven't really looked all that closely at GIMP though (Photoshop CS user and quite happy with it) so I could be wrong.

    10. Re:Got CMYK? by norweigiantroll · · Score: 1

      Be willing to shell out some bucks for someone to do it
      I'm sure if 5 or 10 people took their $1000 for Photoshop and instead gave it to someone to implement CMYK (or some other feature) in GIMP, it would get done pretty quickly.

    11. Re:Got CMYK? by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      So long as they can deal with whatever licensing issues exist, it might be possible for someone to sell a Pantone extension to the GIMP.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    12. Re:Got CMYK? by Quarters · · Score: 1
      Photoshop was designed for prepress use, and is broken for most other purposes.

      The entire computer entertainment industry relies on Photoshop. Not for prepress use--for texture creation. It's alpha channel implimentation works just fine, thank you very much. And it has a *.dds (compressed image with or w/o alpha that is hardware decoded on any 3D card) support, something the GIMP doesn't manage (iirc).

    13. Re:Got CMYK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Free (open source to others) Software isn't about 'catering to users'. It's about cooperation between users. A side effect of this cooperation is that it tends to produce very good software, which satisfies user's needs. It you're not prepared to cooperate with others, you will always be on the edges of the Free Software movement and noone will ctually care that you want CMYK support (or whether you use the gimp).

      Cooperation can take lots of forms: reporting bugs, writing documentation, providing constructive criticism, advocacy, writing specifications, coding, and so on. Okay, you may not want to code, but if you use CMYK a lot, how about writing a clear summary why you need CMYK and sending that to a gimp mailing list? It might inspire someone else to code it. That is a useful contribution. If you're a CMYK expert wht not write a specification of what is required to get CMYK support into gimp? What about sketching out the user interface that would be required for CMYK and sending that to a gimp mailing list?

    14. Re:Got CMYK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh! I can do the interface! Get this, it's a button that says "Convert RGB to CMYK." You click it, and it does it! Great, now that that's done, where's my CMYK support? I participated damnit!

    15. Re:Got CMYK? by Swamii · · Score: 1

      I produce live television graphics systems

      Otherwise known as watching porn.

      --
      Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
    16. Re:Got CMYK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here here!

      The obnoxious condescending attitude wont convince anyone to spend their money on Open Source.

      Businesses usually need things right now, and $600 for CMYK today is better value than $600 for CMYK maybe if we feel like it sometime.
      It is unrealist to expect business to pay up in advance for features that might never be delivered, the GIMP has to win them over first, not the other way around.

    17. Re:Got CMYK? by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Adobe does that. I think they call it Photoshop. *nudge nudge, wink wink*

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    18. Re:Got CMYK? by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      Not really 'take take take.'

      It's 'acquire, use, use.' Because ordinary people use computers as pieces of equipment, they don't ponder much about what's inside.

      In fact, most people who use computers want a consistent non-changing system that's just useful, like the copying machine or the telephone.

      It's only in the mindset of the computer hobbyist and the code dabbler, who finds pleasure in messing with the guts inside, that it's a 'take take take' scenario.

      --
      ---
    19. Re:Got CMYK? by Vargasan · · Score: 1

      "At the risk of being called flamebait, that won't do spit of good toward a true Desktop Linux end-user solution. Those of us developing software can give as well as take. But Joe End-User just wants to get their job done. Take take take. The mantra of the end-user."

      How many Joe End-Users do you know that could code, let alone code well? How many could even be TAUGHT to code? Remember, many still have the virus-attachment-clickiphilia.

      --
      Putting the romance back into necromancer.
    20. Re:Got CMYK? by baywulf · · Score: 1

      IF Pantone is patented, shouldn't it expire within 17 years or so? I used to recall pantone colors existing in the mid 80s since my dad used to own a printing press company back then.

    21. Re:Got CMYK? by olafura · · Score: 1

      The new Gimp has CMYK support. Check the Print icon in colors. There will be better support soon, i think but this is enough for now. And please check before you post.

    22. Re:Got CMYK? by illuminata · · Score: 0

      You say that open source software isn't about catering to users, but yet you also say that if you don't cooperate with others you'll always be on the edges of the free software movement.

      If that's the case, don't expect the "movement" to get much bigger.

      What's the point of creating a piece of software for the public (as in not just a circle of friends) to use, then telling the very people that might want to use your software that they'll be out of the loop if they don't contribute something? And how about telling them that their opinion doesn't matter, and it's up to them to do something about it? Sounds like a pretty cold thing to do to the people that might use your software, huh?

      Creators of open source software should listen to their users and try to help provide what they need. That's how you get the userbase. That userbase allows you to brag to others about how well open source software is making waves in the desktop and business realms. That userbase allows RMS to pin another medal on his chest because of its growth (boy, do I wish that wasn't a problem). Shouldn't you at least be grateful for one of those effects?

      I believe that the suggestion of CMYK support is a contribution. That's letting the developers know that there's a feature out there that, if created, would the Gimp an option. That's an extremely valuable piece of information. Why be such a snob to tell somebody that what they want doesn't matter unless they do something about it themselves?

      There's plenty of reasons why people might not be contributing. If you want contributors to a project, better yet, if you want some sort of a movement, it would help to be more receptive to an end user's ideas (which should be considered contributions). Being a jerk doesn't do that.

      The problem with your views on software creation, the same view held by many others in the open source world, is that you believe it's a "beggars can't be choosers" situation, with the end user being the beggar and the software developer being the chooser. In reality, the software developer is the beggar and the end user is the chooser.

      --


      Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
    23. Re:Got CMYK? by Slashamatic · · Score: 1

      Pantone has been around for a long time but the colour swatches are probably copyrighted. However, the code to implement pantone and pantone conversion can't be so directly protected so it may be possible to produce a plugin that if you use, you should pay a license fee for.

    24. Re:Got CMYK? by rabidcow · · Score: 1

      At the risk of being called flamebait, that won't do spit of good toward a true Desktop Linux end-user solution. Those of us developing software can give as well as take. But Joe End-User just wants to get their job done. Take take take.

      No, the end user does have something they can give you: Linux on the desktop. You want it, they can give it to you.

      If that's not enough, why do you care? Shouldn't you then be saying "well, we could give you Desktop Linux, but what are you going to give me in return?"

    25. Re:Got CMYK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like they used to say, and now I paraphrase:

      The developers make and make and make, the world just takes and takes and takes.

    26. Re:Got CMYK? by vrai · · Score: 1
      Then Joe End-User should pay for an operating system rather than complaining about the work that many people have done for free.

      If you don't like an element of Linux you have three options:

      1. Make the change your self
      2. Ask/pay someone to make the change for you
      3. Sod off and buy an operating system that better fulfills your needs

      People who contribute nothing to Linux (in terms of money, code, documentation, proper testing, etc ...) should have no expectation of it adapting to meet their needs.

    27. Re:Got CMYK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I read the Chris Cox posts, Photoshop is broken, but it's broken because it's easier for people to understand that way.

    28. Re:Got CMYK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that discussion, but I still don't get the difference between alpha and transparency. I'd define alpha this way (monochrome for simplicity):

      If my "background" has a (non-alpha) intensity of b, and my "image with alpha" has in intensity of c with an alpha value of a, layering the "image" on the "background" results in an intensity i where:

      i = a * c + (1 - a) * b

      for alpha values between 0 and 1. Now, how does transparency work?

    29. Re:Got CMYK? by Ice_Balrog · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you had better ask those GIMP guys for all your money back. Oh, wait...

      --
      #include "sig.h"
    30. Re:Got CMYK? by neonstz · · Score: 1

      Let's use your example and swap your alpha a with transparency t. c is the original pixel and b is the background: i = c + (1-t) * b

    31. Re:Got CMYK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If that's the case, don't expect the "movement" to get much bigger.
      It doesn't have to get much bigger, it will make progress even if it stays the same size it is today.
      What's the point of creating a piece of software for the public (as in not just a circle of friends) to use, then telling the very people that might want to use your software that they'll be out of the loop if they don't contribute something?
      If you don't want to contribute anything back, then communication is just running one way. There is no loop by your own choosing.
      And how about telling them that their opinion doesn't matter, and it's up to them to do something about it?
      If they have an opinion it is up to them to at least express that opinion in a reasonable manner. I don't really consider trolling on Slashdot about how bad the the Gimp sucks and Photoshop is better because of CMYK support to be a reasonable manner of communicating your desire to have cmyk support in the gimp.
      Sounds like a pretty cold thing to do to the people that might use your software, huh?
      It is not cold at all to expect people to actually communicate their opinons and ideas to you in a way that is not belittling or derogatory.
      I believe that the suggestion of CMYK support is a contribution.
      That certainly doesn't seem like the spirit of the original post. Maybe you should read it again. Recall that it was posted to Slashdot, and not sent to the gimp developers mailing list, or entered as a feature request in the gimp bugzilla.
    32. Re:Got CMYK? by bbc · · Score: 1

      I am not sure what that button should do.

      However, there are several forms in which the GIMP either supports (very simple forms of) CMYK or is made ready to support CMYK:

      1) The colour chooser has got a CMYK mode, in which you can set the four values and black reduction (or whatever it's called--I'm running the Dutch version here).

      2) There's a Decompose colour filter (this used to be part of the Image menu, now is part of Filters/Color) that will let you split up an image into CMYK separations.

      3) Image/Display Filters provide a way to see an RGB image through 'different eyes'. I could not find a CMYK filter in there, but undoubtedly somebody could build it.

    33. Re:Got CMYK? by illuminata · · Score: 0

      I don't think that it will really matter how much progress is made in software development, especially in the desktop area, if nobody is using the software. Shunning non-contributors is only shooting yourself in the foot by scaring them off.

      As far as the poster in question goes, what he said might not be considered the normal method of making a contribution, but it certainly isn't worthless nor trolling. He was expressing his opinion. I think the troll tag is applied too easily because people don't stick to the overly-positive, smiley laden posts. I can almost guarantee that the makers of Gimp are watching this discussion to find out what people are thinking.

      --


      Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
  14. Re:PARTY TIME by jsweval · · Score: 0

    How is this setting standards?

  15. Re:PARTY TIME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now where exactly does GIMP set any standard?!

  16. Re:PARTY TIME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What standard have they set, exactly? Last time I checked, Photoshop was way ahead of the GIMP. As a side note, I use GIMP since I'm not willing to pirate Photoshop (or purchase it, I guess that's another option).

  17. mac binary... by millahtime · · Score: 3, Informative

    the mac binary gimp.app is still prerelease 3. it isn't updated yet.

    1. Re:mac binary... by millahtime · · Score: 1

      I have also found that I dont' get the prerelease 3 gimp.app running under OSX 10.3. Looks like they need to post an upsate.

  18. Free of Floating Window by ospirata · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, I will finally get to know how to use it eaither. These floating window schema was the dummiest thing ever. Well, actually now there is Sun LookingGlass... DIA could do the same,

    1. Re:Free of Floating Window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > floating window schema was the dummiest thing ever

      agreed but the difference between Dia and the GIMP is that Dia might actually get rid of the stupid interface if it had more active developers.

      The Glade interface sucks too.
      http://www.gnomedesktop.org/article.php?sid= 1705

    2. Re:Free of Floating Window by Alien_Phreak · · Score: 1

      I dunno, the floating glass from the very brief video I saw on it looked kinda interesting. At least the idea of flipping a window over and attaching a post it seems kinda kewl. At some point we will need to get away from the 2d desktops. I'm sure they'll be a bunch of f*** ups, but i'd luv to see what the end result will be. Gimp's floating windows are annoying...but at least it doesn't have that hefty 500 dollar price tag attached.

    3. Re:Free of Floating Window by Squareball · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought the same thing until I got a mac. Photoshop works exactly like the Gimp does in regards to the floating windows. After working with Photoshop like this, I have come to get used to it and don't mind it at all. But it is a bit of shock when you come from Win32 Photoshop to this crazy set of floating windows.

    4. Re:Free of Floating Window by grolschie · · Score: 1

      I use PaintshopPro 7. It has floating window thingamees too. In earlier versions I used to be able to dock them. Never figured out how with version 7, so I just kill them until I need one.

    5. Re:Free of Floating Window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      These floating window schema was the dummiest thing ever.

      It was, right up until you posted that comment.

    6. Re:Free of Floating Window by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      we'll get away from the WIMP interface, as soon as we get away from hierarchical filesystems.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    7. Re:Free of Floating Window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      <tin foil hat>THIS IS FBI CODE FOR THE ABDUCTION OF ROB MALDA! God help us!</tin foil hat>

    8. Re:Free of Floating Window by Xabraxas · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yeah, I will finally get to know how to use it eaither. These floating window schema was the dummiest thing ever.

      I disagree. I prefer it. I think the "window within a window" style that microsoft often employs is cumbersome. I want to be able to put a window anywhere on the screen that I want to put it. It's much more managable. I guess when using windows it could get confusing if you have multiple apps open, and the gimp windows are scattered around. With Linux though I keep my apps spread out over multiple virtual workspaces so it's not an issue.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    9. Re:Free of Floating Window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You Mac zealots are beginning to annoy me!

      You all sound straight out of a cheesy commercial:

      "Jimmy here thought his life wasn't worth living , until he discovered - a Mac! "

    10. Re:Free of Floating Window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oopsie, after living should be , then after Mac should be

    11. Re:Free of Floating Window by ibbey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. I prefer it. I think the "window within a window" style that microsoft often employs is cumbersome. I want to be able to put a window anywhere on the screen that I want to put it. It's much more managable. I guess when using windows it could get confusing if you have multiple apps open, and the gimp windows are scattered around. With Linux though I keep my apps spread out over multiple virtual workspaces so it's not an issue.

      This shouldn't be an issue for anyone. All they really need to do is change the app so that if any GIMP window is brought to the front, then they all are. It's a nusicance to have to manually move three (or more) seperate windows to the front everytime you want to switch apps. The Mac uses a similar windowing style, except for this key difference. On the Mac, toolbox windows are not considered first-class windows. They only get focus when their parent app is active, and then they automatically become active. If GIMP handled things this way, no one would complain. But instead, each window is managed completely indepently, so you must manually activate each window.

      Sure, you can move GIMP to a seperate desktop, but there are numerous reasons that people may not want to do so. For example, new users won't know how. In my case, I don't like switching desktops since it's considerably slower then just switching apps (at least on my system).

    12. Re:Free of Floating Window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did help us.....he abducted Malda, didn't he?

    13. Re:Free of Floating Window by robertjw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My problem with GIMP is that I lose the main toolbar window. It gets lost behind various images, layer windows, tool property windows, etc.. When I need to change tools I have to go hunting for the right window.

    14. Re:Free of Floating Window by ibbey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My problem with GIMP is that I lose the main toolbar window. It gets lost behind various images, layer windows, tool property windows, etc.. When I need to change tools I have to go hunting for the right window.

      That's exactly what I'm talking about. If they would just automatically bring that window to the front when your image window is focused, it would eliminate about 90% of the complaints that I have heard.

    15. Re:Free of Floating Window by bluGill · · Score: 1

      On my window manager that is accomplished by seting always on top. Perhaps you need to switch, or learn how to use your.

    16. Re:Free of Floating Window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought after Mac should read "and cheese"!

    17. Re:Free of Floating Window by Miserkordi · · Score: 0

      I'm not... bingo...

    18. Re:Free of Floating Window by ibbey · · Score: 1

      That's all fine and dandy if you want the window to always be on top. I don't. I want the toolbox windows to follow the app-- when the app is active, they are on top, when it's not they're not.

      Perhaps you should stop being an idiot, or just learn to read ("All they really need to do is change the app so that if any GIMP window is brought to the front, then they all are.")?

    19. Re:Free of Floating Window by kaufi · · Score: 1

      Yes, especially in multihead-environments (although very convenient for gimp/image manipulating) such a feature would come in handy. It's not everytime easy to find a specific gimp-window in a grouped taskbar.

      --

      ---
      awake and alert!
      -Penguin Mints

    20. Re:Free of Floating Window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      change the app so that if any GIMP window is brought to the front, then they all are

      This is a job for your window manager, not the application. There's nothing I hate more than applications thinking they know how to handle windows when I've already told my window manager how to... ummm... manage the freaking windows.

    21. Re:Free of Floating Window by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      Sure, you can move GIMP to a seperate desktop, but there are numerous reasons that people may not want to do so. For example, new users won't know how

      C'mon. How hard is it too click on the little box in your toolbar? Considering most newbie's would be using KDE or GNOME, that's about the only thing you have to do to switch workspaces in those environments.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    22. Re:Free of Floating Window by ibbey · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's not hard. But not everyone knows how. Those of us who do know how may not want to. I personally don't like multiple desktops. I prefer to simply switch apps with alt-tab, rather then having to remember to use ctrl-tab to switch desktops. Each user interacts with the system in their own way. A program that forces me to use multiple desktops to overcome it's shortcomings is silly.

    23. Re:Free of Floating Window by ibbey · · Score: 1

      As a follow up, just so you don't think I'm just some luser, see this editorial by Eric S. Raymond, linked in todays Slashback...

  19. Since the mirror list will be slashdotted... by Troy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is a formatting-free, cut-and-paste, hack job.

    mmmmm.....karma...

    Africa
    ftp://ftp.is.co.za/applications/gimp/
    Australia
    ftp://ftp.planetmirror.com/pub/gimp/
    http://ftp.planetmirror.com/pub/gimp/ (web access)
    ftp://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/gimp/
    http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/gimp/ (web access)
    ftp://gimp.zeta.org.au/
    Austria
    ftp://gd.tuwien.ac.at/graphics/gimp/
    Denmark
    ftp://ftp.jaquet.dk/pub/gimp/
    Finland
    ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/sci/graphics/packages/gimp/
    France
    ftp://ftp.minet.net/pub/gimp/
    http://ftp.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/pub/gimp/ (web access)
    Germany
    ftp://ftp.fh-heilbronn.de/pub/mirrors/ftp.gimp.org /
    ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/misc/grafik/gimp/
    http://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/misc/grafik/gimp/ (web access)
    Greece
    ftp://sunsite.ics.forth.gr/sunsite/pub/gimp/
    Irel and
    ftp://ftp.esat.net/mirrors/ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp/
    http://ftp.esat.net/mirrors/ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp/ (web access)
    Japan
    ftp://SunSITE.sut.ac.jp/pub/archives/packages/gimp /
    ftp://ftp.u-aizu.ac.jp/pub/graphics/tools/gimp/
    ftp://ftp.ring.gr.jp/pub/graphics/gimp/
    http://www.ring.gr.jp/pub/graphics/gimp/ (web access)
    http://mirror.nucba.ac.jp/mirror/gimp/ (web access)
    ftp://mirror.nucba.ac.jp/mirror/gimp/
    Korea
    ftp://ftp.kreonet.re.kr/pub/tools/X11/ftp.gimp.org /
    Netherlands
    ftp://gnu.kookel.org/pub/gimp/
    http://gnu.kookel.org/ftp/gimp/ (web access)
    ftp://ftp.snt.utwente.nl/pub/software/gimp/gimp/
    http://ftp.snt.utwente.nl/pub/software/gimp/gimp/ (web access)
    Norway
    ftp://sunsite.uio.no/pub/gimp/
    Poland
    ftp://ftp.tuniv.szczecin.pl/pub/Linux/gimp/
    ftp://sunsite.icm.edu.pl/pub/graphics/gimp/
    Roman ia
    ftp://ftp.kappa.ro/pub/mirrors/ftp.gimp.org/
    ftp://ftp.iasi.roedu.net/pub/mirrors/ftp.gimp.org/
    http://ftp.iasi.roedu.net/mirrors/ftp.gimp.org/ (web access)
    Russia
    ftp://ftp.sai.msu.su/pub/unix/graphics/gimp/mirror /
    http://gimp.tsuren.net/mirror/gimp/ (web access)
    Spain
    http://sunsite.rediris.es/mirror/gimp/ (web access)
    ftp://ftp.rediris.es/mirror/gimp/
    Sweden
    ftp://ftp.acc.umu.se/pub/gimp/
    ftp://ftp.sunet.se/pub/gnu/gimp/
    http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/gnu/gimp/ (web access)
    Turkey
    ftp://ftp.hun.edu.tr/pub/linux/gimp/
    United Kingdom
    ftp://ftp.flirble.org/pub/X/gimp/gimp/
    ftp://unix.hensa.ac.uk/mirrors/ftp.gimp.org/pub/gi mp/
    United States
    ftp://ftp.cs.umn.edu/pub/gimp/

    1. Re:Since the mirror list will be slashdotted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No New Zealand mirror?

      tsk, tsk

    2. Re:Since the mirror list will be slashdotted... by FrostedWheat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most of these mirrors don't have it yet, but the Australian one (Planet Mirror) and the UK one (flirble.org) have it.

    3. Re:Since the mirror list will be slashdotted... by intnsred · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the list, but as with all free software, it isn't really mirrored until it hits Debian's Unstable distribution. :-)

    4. Re:Since the mirror list will be slashdotted... by echucker · · Score: 1

      Of the web access mirrors, currently only Planetmirror in Oz actually has the released version of 2.0.

    5. Re:Since the mirror list will be slashdotted... by shdragon · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info. I already had hit 4 mirrors unsuccessfully and was starting to get agg'd about it.

      --
      "...we dont care about the economics; we just want to be able to hack great stuff."
    6. Re:Since the mirror list will be slashdotted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have I been on the internet too long when the first thing I thought off was "Which one is going to be the redirect to goatse?"

    7. Re:Since the mirror list will be slashdotted... by BigSven · · Score: 3, Informative

      This one (in Sweden) has the tarballs mirrored as well: http://ftp.acc.umu.se/pub/gimp/gimp/v2.0/

    8. Re:Since the mirror list will be slashdotted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swedish tarballs? Yikes, yucky, not gonna touch that offer thank you very much! (not don't get me started about swedish meatballs)

  20. This is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They finally introduced 16 colors and three new brush sizes!!!

    1. Re:This is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woah! Watch out, MS-Paint!

  21. Re:Photoshop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Photoshop is and will be the way to go for awhile!

    Actually, it is widely expected that with the 2.0 release, the GIMP will finally become the acknowledged leader in consumer image processing.

  22. I'll take your boos and jeers.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Along with prebuilt binaries for windows. It's "suported" but there are no binaries to be found. Have we forgotten that windows does not come with a compiler? Not only that but most windows useres have no clue how to compile software from source.

    1. Re:I'll take your boos and jeers.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This shows you just how much the GIMP developers care about their windows users.

      They really are not interested in reaching a bigger audience or beating Photoshop, they are just scratching their own itch and they are interested only in the short term. They have no big game plan for world domination shame really.

  23. What about simple drawing functionality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Is it, at last, possible to simply draw lines or arcs ? It is pretty useful, so why do they snub such functionalities ?

    1. Re:What about simple drawing functionality ? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could always draw straight lines with a minimum of trouble.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:What about simple drawing functionality ? by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "Is it, at last, possible to simply draw lines or arcs ? It is pretty useful, so why do they snub such functionalities?"

      For the same reason it dosn't serve web pages. It is not a drawing tool, it is an Image Manipulation Program. Not that I would mind if they addedd better drawing functionality.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:What about simple drawing functionality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it isn't a vector drawing program. Use dia or Xfig or something for that.

    4. Re:What about simple drawing functionality ? by prockcore · · Score: 4, Informative

      is it, at last, possible to simply draw lines or arcs ? It is pretty useful, so why do they snub such functionalities ?

      This has always been possible. To draw a line, select a paintbrush or a pencil. Click on the start of the line, shift-click on the end of the line.

      To draw a circle, use the circle selection tool, and then go to edit->stroke. To draw an arc, just draw the circle on a new layer, and erase the part you don't want.

    5. Re:What about simple drawing functionality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You've always been able to draw archs by using the path tool to make two points, bend the line and then stroke it - why does that sound so perverted?....

    6. Re:What about simple drawing functionality ? by Repugnant_Shit · · Score: 1

      I agree with your arc comments, but...
      1) The line drawing is nicer in photoshop because it gives you a better visual IMO.
      2) The circle selection/stroking method works well in Gimp 1.3/2.0, but it didn't seem to give you very good quality on =1.2

    7. Re:What about simple drawing functionality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Is it, at last, possible to simply draw lines

      No.
      The GIMP still doesnt see fit to include basic drawing tools.

      The developers continue to ignore users who keep asking for this functionality.
      The developers think that making a selecting and then choosing "Edit, Stroke" to draw along the selection out line is good enough.

      The GIMP is not a project that listens to its users, instead it gives out to them for not RTFM and finding out how to use Stroke.

    8. Re:What about simple drawing functionality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, maybe in the next version you'll have to pipe the picture through some obscure command line like "drwln -x1 54 -y1 75 -x2 67 -y2 105 -colour olive_green -thickness 3 -transparency 50"...
      *n*x... You gotta laugh.

    9. Re:What about simple drawing functionality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You could always draw straight lines with a minimum of trouble

      If it really was a 'minumum of trouble' then they would provide simple drawing tools and it would be no trouble at all

    10. Re:What about simple drawing functionality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      To draw an arc, just draw the circle on a new layer, and erase the part you don't want.

      Well THAT sounds intuitive.

      Does it also make the sound of a puking bird hitting a blackboard if the user does something wrong?

    11. Re:What about simple drawing functionality ? by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      if shift-clicking on the canvas with one of half a dozen tools isnt simple then youre mentally retarded. if you want a simpler way to draw a line use MSpaint or a pencil and a ruler.

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    12. Re:What about simple drawing functionality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GIMP still doesnt see fit to include basic drawing tools.

      Because it isn't a drawing program.

      What makes that so fucking hard to understand?

      Damn morons.

  24. Woohoo! by raindown · · Score: 1

    The 2.0 pre-release has been in Debian unstable for awhile now and then it broke so I'm stoked that this should be fixed up soon.

    I found it to be much easier to use in comparison with any of the old versions.

    1. Re:Woohoo! by Jahf · · Score: 1

      Is the pre-release for 2.0 the same as saying 1.3.x (ie, odd versions are prerelease)? If so I don't need to worry about compiling 2.0 just to see the major differences, but if not I'll start compiling :)

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    2. Re:Woohoo! by raindown · · Score: 1

      To be honest I'm not completely sure. My need for The Gimp hasn't been that strong lately, so all I really noticed was the splash screen that said Gimp 2.0pre-release or whatever.

      I think I remember seeing a gimp-1.3 binary laying around, so that leads me to believe that 2.0pre-release and 1.3 are not the same.

    3. Re:Woohoo! by xsecrets · · Score: 1

      Yes the 1.3 series in debian is the 2.0 prerelease version.

  25. I had a dream by N8F8 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I had a dream that I woke up surrounded by windows floating around before my eyes. I knew what I wanted was in one of the windows -answer just on the tip of my tongue. As each window passed by, confusing icons flashed symbols -almost helping me figure it out.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:I had a dream by mvdw · · Score: 4, Funny

      You wrote:

      I had a dream that I woke up surrounded by windows floating around before my eyes. I knew what I wanted was in one of the windows -answer just on the tip of my tongue. As each window passed by, confusing icons flashed symbols -almost helping me figure it out.

      Then your sig states:

      Real programmers don't comment! It was hard to write, It should be hard to read!

      There's some irony in there, somewhere...

    2. Re:I had a dream by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Photoshop on the Mac uses floating windows too, just like Gimp.

      Oh wait, what's that I hear? So because Photoshop on the Mac does the same thing, it's suddenly allright? No wonder people flame you zealots down.

  26. It's pretty good! by gilesjuk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I did a usability study of GIMP 1.3 running on Windows and most people who had Photoshop experience soon got the hang of it.

    Finally they've added a menu onto each project window, but it is still lacking in one way, the number of entries on the window bar. Each tool dock creates its own entry which causes clutter. It should be possible to have one entry but who knows, maybe this isn't possible with current versions of GTK? Photoshop does this by having the dock windows within a container window.

    Other minor niggles, the icons are much improved over v1.2 but I still find them a bit unclear. The knife icon for cropping resembles a brush and I don't really see how a drop of water represents Blur/Sharpen?

    While I do like the new dock and the tabs, it's unusable if you resize the toolbox window into a very narrow strip. Meaning at the resolution I run at (1152x864) it takes up around a fifth of the screen width.

    But it's much better than 1.2 anyway!!!

    1. Re:It's pretty good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds good...

      When I started using the GIMP, at first it was rather difficult to get used to doing everything with context menus. (I am not a UI expert so maybe I have the terminology wrong here...)

      A menu bar is sort of reassuring, since a quick glance at it provides at least a vague suggestion of the sort of things that could be done with it... the capabilities seem a lot less hidden. At least, that's my personal reaction.

    2. Re:It's pretty good! by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2, Funny


      I think your study may have had a flawed premise.

      I mean, after all, anyone who can figure Photoshop out can probably figure out any other program in existence.

      (Yeah, this is a backwards way of saying that I think Photoshop has always been the least intuitive program I've ever used, somehow managing to beat the various old DOS CAD/CAM software for that title.)

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    3. Re:It's pretty good! by BigSven · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try the Small theme from the GIMP preferences dialog then. You will certainly find it useful with your screen resolution.

    4. Re:It's pretty good! by pbox · · Score: 2, Informative

      I managed to cram all palettes into the main window. It is actully as intuitive as Photoshop's way of handling it, without the Duck/Undock menu entries. Just grab the palette title (might look like folder tabs if placed on top of ach other) and drop it where you want it. When you drag the last one out the window disappears. If you drop it in the middle of nothing it creates a window. Thos funny little widgets in the main winows allow you to partition the window into sections, which serve as separate drop targets. You can create new partitions and get rid of them. All simple as a pie.

      --
      Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
    5. Re:It's pretty good! by tverbeek · · Score: 1
      Each tool dock creates its own entry which causes clutter.

      I despise this aspect of the GIMP, but 2.0* looks to be better, by putting toolsets together on docks using tabs (like Adobe and Macromedia products do), rather than creating a new taskbar entity for every last one. Working with the default setup, my taskbar has: the console window {shrug}, the main GIMP, Layers/Channels..., and one item for each open image file. Which I can deal with... might even get used to it.

      * at least this is true of the Windows version, which is what I've just installed on my box here at work.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    6. Re:It's pretty good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The knife icon for cropping resembles a brush]

      Cropping?? So, there's no stabbing function?

      > and I don't really see how a drop of water represents Blur/Sharpen?

      Yeah, me, too. I mean, come on, is that hard to draw a little guy spitting?

    7. Re:It's pretty good! by coldfire · · Score: 1

      There is a plugin that takes care of the tool dock clutter. Take a look at it when there site comes back up. The zip file is called BackgroundWindow.zip, I don't remember what the name of the project is. I believe it has wierd in the name though.

    8. Re:It's pretty good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    9. Re:It's pretty good! by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Check out some of the crappy consumer-level paint programs out there. Photoshop is miles ahead in usability.

      Plus, some people just find one piece of software easier than another. I hate Paintshop Pro, but someone else might swear by it.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    10. Re:It's pretty good! by evilviper · · Score: 3, Funny
      I don't really see how a drop of water represents Blur/Sharpen?

      Good point... What would you recomend? Perhaps an icon of a few beers to represent blur?
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:It's pretty good! by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I didn't even know JSAC's Paint Shop Pro still existed until one of my friends started talking about how great it is (compared to Photoshop) a few months ago.

      So that's at least 1 person.

    12. Re:It's pretty good! by G-funk · · Score: 1

      I think Photoshop has always been the least intuitive program

      So you've never used illustrator then? Now that's the devil, Bobby Bouche!

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    13. Re:It's pretty good! by 511pf · · Score: 1

      It's still unusable, in my opinion. How about the option to do it either way?

    14. Re:It's pretty good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh my god! There are items in my taskbar, the program must be really broken!"

      Sorry, i just think that MDI advocates are crazy, and that every WM should have virtual desktops.

    15. Re:It's pretty good! by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a small grid with one half blurred?

    16. Re:It's pretty good! by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1


      A lens?

      Or some binoculars (it might take too much space though).

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    17. Re:It's pretty good! by bbc · · Score: 1

      "Check out some of the crappy consumer-level paint programs out there. Photoshop is miles ahead in usability."

      If you're trying to say that Photoshop is a much more usable photo editor than all the paint programs out there, I can follow you. After all, paint programs are trying to be paint programs and photo editors are trying to be photo editors.

      Have you ever used a real paint program for image creation?

    18. Re:It's pretty good! by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      You mean like Paintshop, Painter, and the like? Yes. The version of Painter I was using didn't have layers, so I was mostly out on it. On the rare occasions I have to draw something (usually for textures), I use Photoshop. At least for me it works better.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    19. Re:It's pretty good! by bbc · · Score: 1

      Layers are mainly useful for compositing, which is job that no imaging program (that I know of) performs exclusively. So it could indeed be argued that Paint programs could use a compositing module, as some painters will want to make collages. I still don't see how that makes Photoshop a better paint program than real paint programs.

  27. Installer for Windows by yivi · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Installer for Windows by Hal+The+Computer · · Score: 2

      Except that that is the pre-release version.

      --

      int main(void){int x=01232;while(malloc(x));return x;}
    2. Re:Installer for Windows by radja · · Score: 1

      and for me refuses to run (2.0pre4), so went back to pre2

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  28. Re:GIMP on Win32? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the same sense that the availability of vi for Windows has spurred Microsoft to port Visual Studio to Linux, yes, it should.

  29. GIMP for Win32 Install by amigoro · · Score: 1, Troll
    You can get the GIMP for Win32 Installer here

    Unfortunately, they don't have GIMP 2.0 yet :(

    Moderate this comment
    Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
    Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

    --


    Nothing to see here
    1. Re:GIMP for Win32 Install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just FYI, I metamodded the guy who gave you the "Troll" moderation, as fair, because I'm tired of morons like you that hype with this kind of misinformation. "Here, this opensource solution is exactly what you're looking for. Except, is not at all what you asked....."

  30. Missing the point of CMYK? by El · · Score: 2, Insightful

    See a need? Meet it your self. Don't wait for some mythical "someone else" to do it for you. RGB to CMYK conversion is pretty well known and shouldn't be that difficult to implement, IMHO.

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    1. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by Jeff+Reed · · Score: 1

      Great idea. After all, everyone here is a programmer capable of (and willing to) add all the features they think a product needs just to avoid paying for an equivilent commercial product.

    2. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by El · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you can't code, then go to rentacoder or simular sites and pay somebody to add the features you think you need... chances are it will still be cheaper than paying for an equivalent commercial product. What part of "It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness" are you not quite clear on?

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    3. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by Lalakis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It really isn't that easy. For CMYK to be usefull you have to implement ICC profiles and do the conversion between RGB and CMYK based on them. It's not impossible to do, but gimp needs some fairly major changes for supporting it. Call them "GEGL (http://www.gegl.org) completion" and "Intergration of gegl into gimp".

    4. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "chances are it will still be cheaper than paying for an equivalent commercial product"

      So you're saying someone could code full and decent CMYK support for the GIMP for under $1000? How much would the programmer or team of programmers make? .25/hour?

    5. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      Really? You honestly think it's more expensive to shell out $1500 to buy AE6.0 Pro, Premiere Pro, Audition, Photoshop CS and Encore than to pay a coder to fill in the gaps on the sparse free Open Source offerings to get near the same functionality? If so, why hasn't it been done already?

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    6. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1

      This would presumably involve hiring a coder, hiring some lawyers, licensing the patent to use CMYK, etc.? I do not thing this is cheaper or easier than buying the "equivalent commercial product". On which part of "why build and light a candle from scratch when I can just go to the store and buy a perfectly fine flashlight?" are you not quite clear?

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    7. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      If you can't code, then go to rentacoder or simular sites and pay somebody to add the features you think you need... chances are it will still be cheaper than paying for an equivalent commercial product.

      In many cases, it won't be. Photoshop retails for $700, which is a 40-hour man-week if the programmer accepts $17.50 per hour (for those not in the US, it's not the greatest salary). It's not likely to buy you something as significant as CMYK support for Gimp. Secondly, particular for major features, time is not free. A graphic designer customer can buy Photoshop and start working (read: billing customers) tomorrow, while trying rentacoder incurs a time penalty as well as a not insignificant risk that your hired gun doesn't shoot straight.

      IOW, in many cases it's only worthwhile if a lot of other people help you pay for development... which is, when you think about it, Adobe's business model.

    8. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by mvdw · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If so, why hasn't it been done already?

      Because of three things, essential to business:

      • Time,
      • Standardisation, and
      • Competition

      Time is important, because you can pay today and have product today with commercial software, whereas with OSS if you pay someone today, then you may or may not get the software tomorrow.

      Standardisation is important, because the average PHB doesn't want to use something that no-one else uses. Put another way, nobody ever got fired for buying photoshop.

      Competition is important because the average business doesn't want to pay for something that their competitor can then get for free.

      I've often pondered this short-sighted way of doing business, and wondered how businesses can be talked into contributing to OSS projects. The organisation I work for pays big bucks for a couple of software components for which OSS equivalents don't exist, or are not as mature as the commercial equivalents. I wonder what it would take to convince them to pony up to pay a programmer or two to generate equivalent OSS software. The problem, of course, is that they will not put their business "on hold" while the software is developed. This is a reasonable stance, but it doesn't help the OSS community any.

    9. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      So are you saying that with all the time the programmers have put into creating just the GIMP the value still does not equal $1500? My statement was not simply "why hasn't an individual/buisness thrown $1500 at the project all at once" but why hasn't the free software community, as a whole, mustered a measly $1500 worth of effort on this project yet? They apparently haven't even put in $600 worth to just match Photoshop.

      I also have to say that if $1500 is all it would cost to code, Adobe must have some insanely high profit margins.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    10. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      See a need? Meet it your self. Don't wait for some mythical "someone else" to do it for you.

      Exactly. And then please give me a copy too. :D

    11. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by mvdw · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have read your post about three times, and what you are saying makes no sense.

    12. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1


      How much would the programmer or team of programmers make? .25/hour?


      You're baiting for one of those offshore coding flames, aren't you?
    13. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Competition is important because the average business doesn't want to pay for something that their competitor can get for free

      I'm not sure if this is your point, but businesses are under no obligation to release changes they have made to open source software. Their competitors only get the changes if they release their modifications to the community, which they don't have to do if they don't want to.

    14. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by mvdw · · Score: 1

      I know this, you know this, but the average PHB with a casual reading of the GPL does not know this.

    15. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      Well, neither did your response to my initial question, but you don't see me complaining about that.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    16. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by mvdw · · Score: 1

      Let's revisit my first post, then. The reasons why most business don't contribute in a meaningful way to OSS is that they don't have the time (contributing $$$ to OSS today means a payoff tomorrow, while spend the same $$$ on commercial software gets something to use today); They have a need for standard products (due to ease of employment); and/or they don't want to contribute to OSS because they are afraid their competition will use their contributions for nothing, putting themselves at a disadvantage.

      The point is that not all companies have only one person using the software. If you have 100 users of those Adobe products, then you are paying maybe $20,000 a year for the use of them. If the only missing feature for you of the gimp is CMYK, then surely you can pay the $20k to get a programmer to do it. However, companies don't do this for the reasons cited above.

    17. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by Slashamatic · · Score: 1

      Yep its totally uneconomical for one gut, but if you have a team of graphics artists consuming Photoshop licenses and upgrades. Say 10 liceneses at around $5000 would buy a lot of coding time.

    18. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      Except I didn't ask why businesses haven't contributed to the development, only why $1500 of resources haven't been comitted to create it. Remember, the assertion I was originally responding to was directed twoards an individual complaining about lack of CMYK; "Why don't YOU pay the programmer." Thus, the $1500 threshold. (using one of Adobe's production bundles as the price point)

      I would venture to say that companies imploying 100 Photoshopers are going to be a rarity, at least in any concentration to avoid the negative affects of massive beuracracy, and those companies that do imploy that many would probably need far more than simply CMYK from Photoshop over the GIMP. But even if they did just need CMYK, the programmer is just part of the equation. You would also need to shell out money to license the applicable patents, and then you're probably now getting lawyers involved. After you've payed out $20,000 to your programmer, what happens when something breaks? If you want it to be proprietary, you can't very well just release the code to the OSS community for trouble shooting. Now you need to keep the programmer(s) permanently on your payroll. Want new functions? That's more money. And you touched on the subject before: standards. When one of your graphic designers leaves, you want his replacement to be able to start work immediately instead of having to learn your quirky application. All in all, what is the benifit to re-inventing the wheel versus just buying Photoshop and the occasional upgrades for a buisness?

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    19. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by socode · · Score: 1

      $5000 is not a lot of coding time, but might get you one man-month of a lower-tier contractor. This money doesn't include, for example, fixed costs such as a workstation, compiler, or the cost of searching, hiring, contracts etc, so you wouldn't expect to get off with paying pro-rata the same as a full-time employee.

      Do you really think that's enough?

      IOW you won't see PhotoShop-like CMYK support developed for $5,000 for much the same reason that you probably don't build your own car from parts.

    20. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by Slashamatic · · Score: 1
      I have at least three friends who have built cars from parts and in two cases they weren't kits either!

      CYMK isn't that difficult, tt really isn't, the transformations are fairly standard. It is essentially a nice little student project. The real issue as somebody else commented on is the Pantone stuff.

      Photoshop is good but in many cases it is overkill, even for a trained graphic artist. However there is a space somewhere that the GIMP could fill very well. For example a ski club that Ibelong to prepares a season guide each year - should we have a club copy of Photoshop just to get CMYK processing. Can the club afford a graphics professional? Well, no. At the moment it is a hack because we can print CMYK, but we can't easily import it.

    21. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by bbc · · Score: 1

      "I've often pondered this short-sighted way of doing business, and wondered how businesses can be talked into contributing to OSS projects."

      Probably by opening your mouth with the president of the company present, then using that open mouth to bring forward arguments for using the GIMP.

      That's why large companies in the movie industry (Disney, Sony, R&H, ILM) either use a version of the GIMP, or have contemplated doing so; if you've got a 100 people working on cleaning up frames, 1 coder to make these 100 people work more efficiently might just pay off.

      You are working from the assumption that large companies with large software needs do not care about FOSS, and that's simply a wrong assumption. SUN probably did not buy StarOffice to compete with Microsoft in the office software market, but because for a large company like SUN, it actually made more sense to pay programmers to maintain their own office software then to pay a third party for licenses. Having Gates and Balmer foam at the mouth and make a few extra bucks through licenses would just have been a nice side-effect.

    22. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      10 liceneses at around $5000 would buy a lot of coding time.

      You've ignored the time cost. Your team of ten graphic artists would be doing nothing while waiting for this feature to be completed, and most likely end up being beta testers. If the programmer screws up and you fail to deliver on a project, how much would your lost reputation cost, nevermind the project itself?

    23. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by Slashamatic · · Score: 1
      CMYK is a fairly basic feature. Once you engineer in the object and the methods it really would be quite cheap to do. This is why CMYK output was implemented so quickly. And $5K can buy a lot of programmer time in India.

      Photoshop is good but it isn't that good. I have fought with a number of prepress packages from Adobe and others, and can honestly say that they are overpriced for what they offer and away from the Mac environment they can be somewhat flakey (which you don't expect when you pay that amount).

    24. Re:Missing the point of CMYK? by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      CMYK is a fairly basic feature. Once you engineer in the object and the methods it really would be quite cheap to do. This is why CMYK output was implemented so quickly. And $5K can buy a lot of programmer time in India.

      All fine points, except you still don't address the main point in the post you were responding to. In addition to the $5K in programmer time, your team of ten graphics artists are sitting idly (and more importantly, not doing billable work) waiting for the code to be written. After that, they'll almost certainly become beta-testers of the code. You also fail to address the risks: what happens if your programmers suddenly disappear with your downpayment? What happens if they were simply incompetent, and could not finish the job?

      How much does that cost?

  31. Re:Photoshop! by gilesjuk · · Score: 4, Informative

    CinePaint (formerly known as FilmGimp) has been used in quite a few well known films and was forked from Gimp 1.x.

    Link to CinePaint

  32. isn't this what bittorrent was created for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    can anyone offer a torrent file?

    1. Re:isn't this what bittorrent was created for? by lart2150 · · Score: 5, Informative

      ya and that's why I made a torrent :-) now let's watch my tracker/web server die http://engert.us/gimp-2.0.0.tar.bz2.torrent

    2. Re:isn't this what bittorrent was created for? by Bob9113 · · Score: 2, Informative

      now let's watch my tracker/web server die http://engert.us/gimp-2.0.0.tar.bz2.torrent

      :) That was fun. Here's another one we can try to kill: http://www.pfloss.com/tmp/gimp-2.0.0.tar.bz2.torre nt

    3. Re:isn't this what bittorrent was created for? by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      OK, I admit it, I was stoned. engart.us is working fine (I couldn't connect at first and thought it was dead). I've attached two fairly large pipe clients to his torrent.

  33. Re:This sounds like a good time for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm a graphic artist and I use gimp and photoshop, along with opencanvas, illustrator and painter. They are all essential parts of my work. Gimp may not be as good as photoshop, but I use it for small effects because I like the look it achieves. It's kind of like using a ballpoint pen instead of a pencil. Sure, graphite pencils or quality brush pens are better, but the look of ballpoint can't be duplicated by anything else.

    Really though, you probably don't really understand why photoshop is better than gimp to begin with. You probably like it because of the crappy filters and effects that come with it, but those are a total joke to anyone slightly professional. Everyone who is serious uses his own custom brushes and textures, and I use photoshop the most because of the power it has over brush controls (especially with my wacom tablet). Gimp still has it's place though, and it's an important one.

    It's not just me, either. There are several other artists in my studio who use gimp all the time, too.

  34. Re:Early post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why do you think they called it the GIMP???

    go on, play with the GIMP

  35. Here, for windows by ospirata · · Score: 1, Informative

    Here is the Windows version.
    Unfortunatly only Gimp 1.2 aviable yet.

  36. ScriptFu Recorder by P145M4 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Does anybody know if it possible to 'record' ScriptFu Scripts automatically, now?

    1. Re:ScriptFu Recorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Does anybody know if it possible to 'record' ScriptFu Scripts automatically, now?

      No. This is not currently possible.

  37. Website is much improved. by Chilliwilli · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wow love the new website! If you've not seen how bad (out of date) the old one was then give it a look. The website has finally updated to reflect the quality of the software.. now if only Glade's website would do the same my two favourite apps would have made themselves presentable to others.

    --
    Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
  38. Huh? by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    What kind of random blathering is this? It sounds like something a person would say if he were tripping on acid or something.

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  39. Sweet by FrostedWheat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Now all I need is XMMS to leave the GTK+-1 dark ages and maybe I can finally get rid of the old libraries.

    Good as they are, they just look so out of place on a modern desktop.

    1. Re:Sweet by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      I don't think XMMS is being actively developed, they release a bugfix or so every blue moon.

      Someone should pick it up and whip up a GTK2 version though, if just for sanity's sake.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    2. Re:Sweet by Duty · · Score: 1

      Have you given rhythmbox a try?

    3. Re:Sweet by petabyte · · Score: 1

      Xmms2 is supposed to be GTK2 but I don't know how off aways that is.

      beep is pretty much a xmms fork that's Gtk2. Its not as refined as xmms (and there's no flac support) but I use it as my everyday multimedia player. I recommend if you build it, you use the cvs as thats way more up to date than the last release.

    4. Re:Sweet by Aliencow · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://beepmp.sourceforge.net/

    5. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Flac (and musepack, and some other plugins) are in the bmp extra plugins package. http://freshmeat.net/projects/bmp-extra-plugins

    6. Re:Sweet by trixie_czech · · Score: 1

      try beep-media-player it is a gtk2 fork of xmms.

    7. Re:Sweet by anarxia · · Score: 1
      They are busy working on xmms2. It is a complete rewrite and it is in very early stages, but it looks very interesting. It will support multiple frontends at the same time (including GTK2, text and probably more).

      The only thing it will have in common with xmms is the name.

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

      "Gtk+ 1.2 dark ages" sounds very funny to me. It's not really that different from Gtk+ 2.x. 2.x has some new features like multi-screen support, better fonts and internationalization, and the "Accessability Toolkit"... But it really isn't all that different in the end.

      I'm writing a pretty simple program that does a lot of GDK drawing. With Gtk+ 2.0 I have measured its most performance-critical areas of my program as being three times as slow as the exact same code compiled against 1.2. So for this reason alone, you can have Gtk+ 1.2 when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

    9. Re:Sweet by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      Have you given rhythmbox a try?

      I did, and just couldn't get used to it.

    10. Re:Sweet by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      Uh, sorry, it looks like the 'XMMS2' project isn't really at all related to the original XMMS, they may have swiped the code and started reworking it for GTK2, but it doesn't look like they'll ever actually release anything. The project doesn't appear to have released any files, is run by one guy, and has been listed in 'alpha-quality' for a long time now.

      Ahh, there also appears to be another XMMS2 project, hosted by the XMMS developers, that project has very little code to show right now and is plannning a 'what features do we want' meeting IN AUGUST 2004. They'lll be building a winamp3 clone, I guarantee it, it'll be overkill.

      I'm not a developer, but it can't be rocket science to port something like XMMS to GTK2, can it? I think that people are probably trying to throw in a bazillion new features (non-square windows, transparency, arbitrary button shapes/locations, etc.) and it's keeping a simple port from happening.

      I've been using XMMS since 1999, and people have been wanting a GTK2 version for at least two years. Projects like 'beep' are cool, but I think they're a bit overkill, I just want a dirt-simple winamp2 clone, but I'd like it to be built against modern libraries so I don't have to install a whole slew of libs just for my simple media player.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    11. Re:Sweet by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Projects like 'beep' are cool, but I think they're a bit overkill, I just want a dirt-simple winamp2 clone

      Methings you're a bit confused here.

      Beep basically IS the no-frills, no-overkill port of winamp2-style xmms1 to gtk2, it doesn't have a shitload of new features, and it has released a working player for quite a some time. They're almost at 1.0 point by now.

    12. Re:Sweet by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Considering that it's the one of biggest gripes shitload of people had about Linux for a looooong time, "Better fonts" is a HUGE difference all by itself. It'd warrant GTK2 even if there was nothing else.

      It's also quite a bit nicer to program with.

  40. I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything better than Photoshop...Pfftt.

    Corel and Jasc have been spouting the same tripe and neither have delivered

  41. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And so does the entire studio where I work. Our primary paint tool is a fork of Gimp as well, and we're doing feature work.

    With Gimp 2.0, the interface stops sucking, and a lot of barriers fall away.

  42. Math Nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Division by zero is *undefined*. It does not and never will yield an infinite result.

    1. Re:Math Nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on which type of math you use. The type they teach you in elementary school, or one of the types they teach you in college. If you restrict yourself to only work with "real" numbers, then yes, it is undefined.

      http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DivisionbyZero.html

  43. Gimp for Windows (version 2.0pre4) by lent · · Score: 4, Informative
    From: http://www2.arnes.si/~sopjsimo/gimp/development.ht ml
    GIMP for Windows
    FAQ | Stable version | Development version | Source code | ] Installers for GIMP for Windows Development version download

    This is the development version of The Gimp. It will open a console (MS-DOS) window when it's run to display debugging messages. Do not close this window.

    It is highly recommended to update GTK2 to the newest version before installing Gimp 2.0pre4, as some bugs have been fixed since the last release.

    Note: The Gimp binary available from this page was compiled for Pentium MMX or better CPUs.

    GTK+ 2 for Windows (version 2.2.4-20040124) 3619 kB GTK+ 2 runtime environment. This package is required by The Gimp 2.0.
    MirrorFTPHTTPProvided by ftp.arnes.si Download - Academic and research network Of Slovenia ftp.flamingtext.com Download - FlamingText --> files.akl.lt Download Download Atviras kodas Lietuvai ftp.freenet.de Download Download freenet.de --> The Gimp for Windows (version 2.0pre4) 6807 kB Gimp 2.0pre4 for Windows.
    MirrorFTPHTTPProvided by ftp.arnes.si Download - Academic and research network Of Slovenia ftp.flamingtext.com Download - FlamingText * --> files.akl.lt Download Download Atviras kodas Lietuvai ftp.freenet.de Download Download freenet.de --> Additional plug-ins for The Gimp 742 kB This package contains Gimp-FreeType (CVS 20040202) and Gimp Animation Package (1.3.25) plug-ins for Gimp 2.0pre2.
    Warning: both these plug-ins are considered unstable.
    Note: Due to a problem with the GTK+ installer, the FreeType plug-in will not work, unless you copy the file freetype-6.dll to freetype6.dll in C:\Program Files\Common Files\GTK\2.0\bin\ folder.
    MirrorFTPHTTPProvided by ftp.arnes.si Download - Academic and research network Of Slovenia -->

    If you wish to compile plug-ins for use with this Gimp version, you can get the development files here.

    Development version download This is the development v

    1. Re:Gimp for Windows (version 2.0pre4) by AgentGray · · Score: 1

      Uh...yeah...if it takes all this to install it on Windows, count me out. The amount of time it'll take me how to figure out installing it for our graphic designers would probably add up to the cost of a couple of copies of PhotoShop CS.

      Same goes for Mac too... ...of course, I could just migrate over to linux. (However, see the argument above)

      --
      "Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
  44. Congrats! by 7-Vodka · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Congratulations to everyone who made this happen. From the major developers to the guys/gals who contributed little bits. I appreciate it. It's a very useful program used intensely by some and to a lesser degree (but still important) by many more.
    Good luck on taking it to the next level.

    Thanks.

    --

    Liberty.

  45. Re:This piece of crap crashes on Windws for no rea by Scutter · · Score: 5, Funny

    This piece of crap crashes on Windows for no reason
    Tried it, blew it off. Highly unrecommended.


    Yeah, Windows has that tendency. Glad to see you've decided to switch to another OS. ;-)

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  46. Now if only sane would get updated by mark-t · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While there is a patch available for sane to make it work with gimp 2.0, it hasn't been merged into the main source tree for sane, so if you don't install packages manually by compiling from source, you _still_ can't use your scanner directly from the Gimp.

  47. Mod parent up! +5 Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is, really.

  48. Gimp is awesome!!! by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1

    This is some incredibly exciting news! I am over there, downloading this right now, as I write, in another window. First, I'm going to install it on my Linux tower, and then, I'll take it to work and put it on all those poor computers that have to execute that software from Brand "X" (er, Brand "XP").

    1. Re:Gimp is awesome!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am over there, downloading this right now, as I write, in another window.

      Another... window? Incredible! You must be running one of those newfangled Windows 3.1 machines, or even -- dare I say it? -- a Mac running MultiFinder! Oooooh!

  49. Bring out the GIMP. But the GIMP is sleeping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bring out the gimp


    Nice simpsons pic, although i was a bit nervous about following the link.
    Shame about the ebarassing name.
    Who actually admits in public "sure I use the GIMP all the time"
  50. From the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because I am a fan of free software, I prefer the use of the GIMP over commercially available alternatives.

    This is not a reason to prefer a piece of software, a reason to prefer a piece of software is that it is better at doing the things you want to do.

    For instance I prefer Eclipse over JBuilder becuase I feel it is a better piece of software. I prefer Knights of the Old Republic over Nethack, because I feel it is a better piece of software. I prefer Dali's "Sleep" over Turner's "The Scarlet Sunset" because I feel it is a better piece of art.

    In all of the above cases, price is not what is being compared, quality is.

    1. Re:From the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NETHACK 0WnZ Y0r sOu1

    2. Re:From the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are you to tell people what their preferences should be?

  51. Mac OS X IS a Unix-based operating system... by chaoskitty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is the first stable release that is officially supported not only on Unix-based operating systems, but also on Microsoft Windows and Macintosh OS X.

    That's like saying that it's supported not only on Windows, but on Windows 98. Mac OS X IS a Unix based operating system.

    1. Re:Mac OS X IS a Unix-based operating system... by fgb · · Score: 1

      Not really. Windows 2000, XP, NT & 9x have nearly identical APIs. However, Aqua & X are so different that they might as well be different operating systems. Command line tools are one thing, but GUI apps are a whole different story.

    2. Re:Mac OS X IS a Unix-based operating system... by fdobbie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, except that the GIMP runs in Mac OS X's X11 environment. This is basically XFree86, so it has exactly the same API as it does on every other platform.

    3. Re:Mac OS X IS a Unix-based operating system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is basically XFree86, so it has exactly the same API as it does on every other platform.
      But Gimp/Win32 is a native port, since starting with Gtk+-2.0, GDK can use Win32 GDI to draw.

      It can also use Linux framebuffer, and IIRC there was a BeOS port at one time.
  52. What about color calibration? by MrScience · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does it support ICC profiles? This is something that's really important to me. My old version of Adobe has a tendancy to crash when printing >100MB images, so I've resorted to tweaking in photoshop and printing in Gimp... but it'd be nice to do it all in Gimp.

    --

    You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

    1. Re:What about color calibration? by Lalakis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's coming! From a really recent post of Sven Neumann to gimp-user list:
      "GIMP 2.0 comes with a color proof display filter that uses ICC color profiles to simulate a proof on your monitor. Support for such filters is new in 2.0 and for the future it is planned to integrate display filter modules better into the workflow."

    2. Re:What about color calibration? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1, Troll

      So that's a no?

  53. Big Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    First the Windows source gets leaked, and now all of a sudden every major OSS project suddenly supports the platform.

    What a coincidence.

    1. Re:Big Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lest anyone take your joke too seriously, I should note that it has run on windows for some time now.

      Speaking of which, I have to get around to updating my copy. I mean, I still have the old version from before the Unisys patent covering GIF files expired...

  54. Mods on crack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the fuck is this a troll? If anything, it's offtopic.

  55. Obligatory comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The website's already been gimped. :(

  56. Re:Photoshop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, it is widely expected that with the 2.0 release, the GIMP will finally become the acknowledged leader in consumer image processing.


    Programs like Jasc Paint shop Pro and adobe photoshop elements still have all the mindshare.
    All the books, training manuals and many tutorials are made for photoshop.

    Photoshop is a marketable skill, put the GIMP on your CV and it will be meaningless or just plain disturbing to most employers.

    If the GIMP goes another 4 years without a stable release they haven't a hope of leading.

    It will take a whole lot more than GIMP 2.0 to beat Photoshop, GIMP 2.0 still doesn't even support CMYK properly.

    Look at how good OpenOffice is and yet it still cannot knock Microsoft Office out of the number one spot and it matches almost every feature of Microsoft Office and has excellent compatibility with the Microsoft file formats.

    Adobe Photoshop CS has gained a Thumbnail browser.

    The GIMP 2.0 has gotten rid of a Thumbnail browser (guash) with no replacement in sight. Getting rid of features will get them no where.

    Maybe GIMP 5.0 will have caught up with the functionality of Photoshop (if you have really used photoshop you'd know how feature rich it is ) but the GIMP has a long way still to go.

  57. Cinepaint is for frame by frame image correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "The 32-bit per channel color capacity of CinePaint appeals most to cinematographers and professional still photographers. However, CinePaint is a general-purpose tool useful for working on images for motion pictures, print, and the Web. CinePaint supports many file formats, conventional formats such as JPEG, PNG, TIFF, and TGA images -- and more exotic motion picture digital intermediate formats such as Cineon and OpenEXR."

    CinePaint has deep paint (32 bit per channel), for the movie industry this is a killer feature and they just cannot afford to wait for the GIMP to sort out GEGL and add it, they have work to do and they need it now.
    CinePaint also has good support for the specialised file formats that the movie industry needs and the GIMP does not yet have those features.

    CinePaint has a clear userbase and clear goals, and it knows exactly what priorities it has and if others find CinePaint useful too so much the better but it is upfront about the fact that it is not for everyone. CinePaint will be around for a very long time because it aims to do one thing well.

    The GIMP just doesnt' have that same clarity of focus and direction. Exactly who is the GIMP designed for, the benifit of its own developers it seems.

  58. re: dcraw is a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    adobe raw coverter is based upon dcraw:

    http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/

  59. the GIMP and standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Now where exactly does GIMP set any standard?!

    I too would be interested to know what standards exactly is the GIMP setting?

    Adobe have been setting standards with XMP, their Metadata system.
    The Adobe Photoshop file format may not be a true standard but it is a least a de facto standard understood by a variety of programs.

    The GIMP file format is not standardised, you could barely say it is documented (outside of the source code) and in fact developers are actively discouraged from developing their own programs that use it becuase the GIMP developers are unwilling to set it as a fixed standard.
    There are terrible problems even getting files from CinePaint to the GIMP (due to changes made by the GIMP developers themselves before CinePaint, before FilmGIMP, when it was just the Hollywood branch of the GIMP in their own CVS).

    The GIMP reluctantly follows some of the HIG but it has not helped to set any of the standards.

    Unfortunately the only standard the GIMP is setting is a bad example and a standard for bad user intefaces.

  60. Thanks! by shellbeach · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the link - I've been looking for an installer for gimp-1.3 on windows for ages! Just tried it out and it works brilliantly - the GTK-2 installer even comes with a theme that has a Windows look-and-feel (don't know if this is a good thing or not :)

    1. Re:Thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've vomited better look-and-feel than the default GTK+ theme.

  61. Linux's attractiveness... by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

    I think since a lot of GNU/Linux/GPL software is porting to Windows systems, people will eventually realize that it is coming from a good source. And in time, people might actually decide to adapt to that source, instead of waiting for the software to come to them.

    Besides, in the real world, don't you usually get more when you go for something, instead of waiting for it to come to you?

    --
    "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
    1. Re:Linux's attractiveness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm - the GIMP luring people to Linux? Scaring them away from it for all eternity more likely... the GIMP's UI is simply horrible. It used to be "scream in horror as you're being emotionally scarred for the rest of your life" abominable, but now it's improved to just plain horrible.

    2. Re:Linux's attractiveness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I so wish I had a +1 Funny Modpoint

    3. Re:Linux's attractiveness... by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, but I meant just the software in general. Open-Office, MoZilla, Apache, etc.

      People will eventually just crave more and more and will have to go to the source to get it.

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
    4. Re:Linux's attractiveness... by westlake · · Score: 1
      I think since a lot of GNU/Linux/GPL software is porting to Windows systems, people will eventually realize that it is coming from a good source.

      but first they have to get the damn things installed --- and GIMP doesn't make it easy.

    5. Re:Linux's attractiveness... by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Open-Office and MoZilla does. I think in time, everything will become easier (of course). If GIMP is going to run on Windows though, then there should be no hard way to install it. Windows is just user friendly like that.. =/

      I'll tell my friend to download it and see how easy it is to install and use. *Hugs Slackware*

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
  62. Unix-based by mah! · · Score: 0, Redundant
    officially supported not only on Unix-based operating systems, but also on Microsoft Windows and Macintosh OS X

    Mac OS X is, ahem, Unix-based, unlike that other thing you mentioned.

  63. Dispelling the myths of Gentoo Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/8009/index.ht ml

  64. Re:I still don't like the stinking interface by mvdw · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why?? MDI is the Root Of All Evil(tm). I prefer having 90 million windows - they are easy to manage with a large desktop (or, better, two monitors); and let's face it, if you're working with graphics and you don't have a large desktop with multi-monitors, you're not working with graphics, you're just playing.

  65. Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love Gimp2 and I use it weekly, but
    I wonder why I can't do any sort of splines.
    I like splines.

    Also, healing brush?
    I bet that's hard as hell to do, and possibly
    proprietary, but I wish it were there.

  66. Re:Too bad CVS is always out of date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moderate it up! He's absolutely right. You can't get 2.0 via CVS because it's only update once a day. The moron who added Offtopic should be killed.

  67. If it's anything like the Garbage CD... by gnugnugnu · · Score: 1
    If it's anything like the Garbage CD...


    it will be Garbage?

  68. Re:This sounds like a good time for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This isn't meant to be a troll or flame-bait, so forgive me if it sounds like it. The artists in your studio along with yourself probably all at least make a living at what you do because the work that is done is decent to exemplary. Without having ever seen your work, that I am aware of, I would wager that it is some good stuff since you obviously have an appreciation for the tools you work with. In my experience, people who appreciate all the tools available to them no matter what field they are in take the time to actually learn the tools that they use, and therefore do higher quality work. Kudos to you and the people you work with. Nice to see someone not being an elitist for a change about which tool or tools they think is superior to the others.

  69. Re:GIMP on Win32? by gaijin99 · · Score: 1
    I hope so, coz linux software is free and I'll never pay full price for Photoshop
    How that got modded "Insightful" I'll never know...

    For the hard of thinking: not all software on Linux is free in either sense. Certainly not all software on Linux is free in the financial sense. If Photoshop were released for Linux (quite possible, really, considering that it runs on Mac and that's Unix), I have little doubt it will cost as much as Photoshop on any other platform.

    One nice benefit of Photoshop for Linux would be that it might spur other software companies to release for Linux as well. Don't misunderstand, I like free software. I think the Gimp is great. But the availability of non-free software for Linux is a step in the right direction. Once most packages that people are used to using (Photoshop, MacroMedia Flash, Quickbooks and Quicken, etc) are available for Linux more people will be using it. As a consiquence there will be spillover benefit for the free software development. A larger OS userbase definately has its plus points.

    --
    "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
  70. Re:I still don't like the stinking interface by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, OS X does not support (heck, even have) MDI. It's interface is mostly floating windows (unless the software supports tabs). I'm not sure about Linux, as I haven't used it in years.

    They have to keep the interface somewhat uniform.

  71. Re:GIMP on Win32? by black+mariah · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    No. Gimp is a joke with a lame punchline compared to Photoshop. Photoshop users and Gimp users are two ends of completely different spectrums.

    Even if they did release it, you'd have a few thousand whiny-ass zealots bitching about how it costs so much and nobody would ever STFU and buy it.

    --
    'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  72. Re:I still don't like the stinking interface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Err, buddy, its not 90 million windows anymore, its all dockable, you can have em in 90 millioon windows or 2 windows or 1 window or whatever you want. FREEEDOM!!!!!

  73. Re:This sounds like a good time for you by shadowbearer · · Score: 3, Insightful


    I'll agree with that.

    Every time that there is a post about a gimp upgrade on slashdot, the posts degenerate into photoshop vs. gimp debates.

    Seriously, who cares? Some of us don't run windows, and every version of Photoshop after 8 or so doesn't run worth a crap in Wine; so we use what works best in Linux, which is Gimp. Windows users can use Photoshop. Sure, it's better in a lot of ways - I won't argue that - but you use the best tool you have. Personally I will never have another windows installation on my systems, for many reasons. So.... Gimp for me. It works for what I do (texture creation for 3d models).

    I'd like to see a post on /. where it didn't degenerate into the "this or that is better" arguements but where Gimp users shared their tips and tricks more.

    So much to ask?

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  74. Simple drawing tools. by gnugnugnu · · Score: 1

    > copying photshop is also why there's no shape draw tool.

    Adobe Photoshop Elements definately includes simple drawing tools.

    Adobe Photoshop CS also has simple drawing tools and Photoshop seems to have had them in earlier versions since at least Photoshop 7.

    It is long overdue for the GIMP to listen to users and add simple drawing tools. Four years was far too long to go without a stable release. The GIMP 2.0 would have made a bigger impact two years ago but it is just too little too late, but hopefully they can get their act together and GIMP 3.0 will really impress.

    If they make it possible to turn off anti-aliasing on the lines and make it easy to snap to angles (22.5 degrees) then the GIMP might just get itself artists who like doing Pixel-Art style graphics and it would make the GIMP usable for drawing small but detailed icons.

    1. Re:Simple drawing tools. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you mean like drawing lines with the pencil instead of the paintbrush? And like holding control down, when drawing a line to set the angle (although it seems to be 15 degree steps, not 22.5)

  75. web designers...siiigh. by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Informative
    Um, I'm a web designer. How is that invaluable?

    You're wasting your time when you could be doing more productive things which would help you create your websites more quickly instead of worrying about 1k or so in a jpeg

    Variable compression(controlled by a mask) allows you to crank up the compression on low detail areas and use much finer compression at important parts, such as the edges of UI elements where compression artifacts would be noticed immediately. It can yield enormous savings, much greater than 1kB, and solves the #1 problem with JPEG- it's not dynamic and does NOT handle edges well.

    Furthermore, even 1kB can have substantial cost savings for a client. If they get 1 million hits a day, they most certainly care about 1kB, because that's roughly $2-3/day in bandwidth charges. That's a thousand bucks a year, which pays for a whole lot of time for a graphics designer to squeek every last kilobyte out of an entire site's worth of images. Why do you think people install mod_gzip on servers to compress HTML? Why do you think many sites strip down the headers Apache sends in requests?

    It's ok, we have broadband (or 56k modems at the very worst).

    a)most people do NOT have broadband, b)56k modems typically get around 33.6kbps at best(22kbps is not uncommon for some folks out in the middle of nowhere), which works out to around 4.2kB/sec. If I knock 5kB off an image, you'll see it a second faster.

    1. Re:web designers...siiigh. by deKernel · · Score: 1

      You are quibbling about $2-$3 a day which translates to $600-$900 a year with my math.

      Second, you are talking about a "speedup" of 1 second for dialups. Me thinks you are wasting time.

    2. Re:web designers...siiigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think if your are getting 1E6 hits/day, your setup is significant and you'd have to be on a very tight budget to recognize that yearly savings especially if your labor to save a few bucks exceeds the savings.

      But optimizing the content is always a good option to have when you need it.

    3. Re:web designers...siiigh. by whitegold · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As another web designer, I feel I should make a point. First of all, I don't know what mask thingy compression stuff is. Except what the earlier post told me. I don't use Photoshop CS, I still use 7, and it does fine for me. I have to say, though, $2-$3 is NOT all that much money. But bear one thing in mind. That's PER IMAGE. If you have 10 images like that, that's $20 - $30 a day, which is starting to add up.

      Better compression is ALWAYS good. If you run a site that uses a lot of images (Gallery, porn site, whatever) then the cost saving in better compression could be HUGE, and if it doesn't take any longer (or much longer) to do, then it's basically free money.

      Also, on the 1 second thing... yeah, one second is not long, but once again, that's one second PER IMAGE. It all adds up.

      Oh, and just so I get to put forth my opinion. The release of any new software like Gimp is always good. I'm a Photoshop guy and have neither reason nor inclination to change, but Gimp provides particularly programmers, and low end designers a free way to achieve the simple tasks they require. Its not worth a $600 photoshop license to make buttons. Sure, it's not Photoshop, but it doesn't have to be.

    4. Re:web designers...siiigh. by repetty · · Score: 1

      I thought you made some interesting points, however, what you wrote and what people are actually doing with their web sites are two different things.

    5. Re:web designers...siiigh. by fferreres · · Score: 1

      Why jpg for something more suited to a gif? Anyway, I have go to the Microsoft site, the IBM site, and many other big sites, and they do not seem to be needing much jpg "collage" work...

      I am not saying you don't need it for other porpuses, but then again, flash is probably more suited to those kind of sites (or demos).

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    6. Re:web designers...siiigh. by Tet · · Score: 1
      Why jpg for something more suited to a gif?

      You mean PNG, not GIF. Nothing is really suited to a GIF. The sole exception is animated images for web use, and even then, that's only until MNG gains more widespread browser support.

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
    7. Re:web designers...siiigh. by jandrese · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen, variable compression is only really useful for the control and framing elements of your page (buttons, borders), not for the content. Unless your graphics are chock full of whitespace for some reason, it's not likely to save you a huge amount of bandwidth. Also, 1k transfers in about 0.15 seconds, not 1 second on a 56k modem. I'm also a bit dubious that you'll be saving 1k on each image, since the images where this technique is useful (borders, elements) tend to be very small (1k in many cases) to begin with.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    8. Re:web designers...siiigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, valid points. My thoughts however were more something like a portrait picture. The subject could be at a higher quality than the background, which would be useful.

  76. The real GIMP ... by cpu_fusion · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... is the gimp.org server at the moment. ;-)

  77. yep, it is by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    adobe raw coverter is based upon dcraw

    And that somehow makes it equal? Does it have:

    • a 3-channel histogram display?
    • nearly-live preview of the adjustments with zooming? A preview at all?
    • eyedropper measurement for color spot checking?(for example, SI uses this extensively since they know the colors of the team jerseys. It is used by many to get the white balance correct if there's a white object in the picture, etc.)
    • direct importing into Photoshop, so you don't have to save an intermediary file every time you want to re-convert an image?

    What takes me about 10-20 seconds in Photoshop's RAW plugin takes someone with dcraw about 10 minutes of endless "try these settings, save the file, check in GIMP" cycles; god forbid you should try and do any color-correction. I change any parameter, I see it 1-2 seconds later.

  78. thanks much! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [no message]

  79. Re:I still don't like the stinking interface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > its all dockable, you can have em in 90 millioon windows or 2 windows or 1 window or whatever you want

    you can only have one window if you have no documents open.
    the toolbox and floating pallettes in their dock cannot be docked or stuck to the main window.

  80. Re:This sounds like a good time for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    (I'm the parent graphic artist again)

    Any good artist knows that quality rendering is usually done with multiple tools. I haven't used "just photoshop" or "just painter" since my first year at art school. Each program has something unique to offer, even if it seems like they have the same tools. Honestly, I don't use gimp because I'm supporting some sort of movement, I use it because I like what I can achieve with it.

  81. RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's the Fedora RPM?

    1. Re:RPM? by TheABomb · · Score: 1

      ftp://ftp.gimp.org/pub/users/drc

      You'll need lcms AND liblcms to go with it (if you use rpmfind.net, get liblcms-1.11-2.i686.rpm, since the Mandrake liblcms1-1.10-1mdk.i586.rpm will conflict with the lcms package from littlecms.com)

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    2. Re:RPM? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      lcms is in Fedora Stable. No need to go for third party RPM's.

      Yum doesn't seem to find it for some reason, though, weird.

    3. Re:RPM? by TheABomb · · Score: 1
      Yum doesn't seem to find it for some reason, though, weird.

      Neither did apt, hence my earlier post. Thanks for the heads-up.

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
  82. Re:GIMP on Win32? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know; how much does Photoshop OS X depend upon Aqua's PDF-based display and other lickable goodness? Man does not code to the kernel alone (and Mach != BSD or Linux).

  83. Re:no, it is not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rawphoto.c is a joke, dcraw rocks.

  84. Physically Challenged Hits 2.0 by AvantLegion · · Score: 4, Funny
    What's that supposed to mean? Or are my content filters messing with stuff again?

  85. OSS SUCKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Installers for GIMP for Windows Stable version download You need to download and install GTK+ 1.3 before installing The Gimp 1.2. GTK+ for Windows (version 1.3.0-20030717-1) 1847 kB GTK+ 1.3 runtime environment. This package is required by The Gimp 1.2. Mirror FTP HTTP Provided by ftp.arnes.si Download - Academic and research network Of Slovenia files.akl.lt Download Download Atviras kodas Lietuvai The Gimp for Windows (version 1.2.5-20030729-1) 5994 kB Gimp 1.2.5 for Windows. Mirror FTP HTTP Provided by ftp.arnes.si Download - Academic and research network Of Slovenia files.akl.lt Download Download Atviras kodas Lietuvai LZW libraries for The Gimp (version 1.2.5) 38 kB LZW support for The Gimp. Required if you wish to save GIF files. You need license from Unisys to be able to download this plugin if you live in a country where the patent is still valid. Mirror FTP HTTP Provided by ftp.arnes.si Download - Academic and research network Of Slovenia files.akl.lt Download Download Atviras kodas Lietuvai

    you need this, that, this, and that and then you can install it. WHO HAS THE TIME FOR THIS SHIT? just give me the installer! FUCK!

    1. Re:OSS SUCKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong version, genius

  86. OSX and Fink by PeeweeJD · · Score: 1

    Fink is still showing a version 1.XXX

    Hopefully they will get it updated to 2 soon..

    1. Re:OSX and Fink by Zane+Edwards · · Score: 1

      Or you can just download a binary here: http://gimp-app.sourceforge.net/

    2. Re:OSX and Fink by Zane+Edwards · · Score: 1
  87. (NB) Great speed took about 1min to d/l by lhaeh · · Score: 1

    No body

  88. Re:Finally, PSP 2.0 quality from GIMP 2.0! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Finally, PSP 2.0 quality from GIMP 2.0!

    Did paint shop pro 2 not have a thumbnail browser either? I think you give the GIMP too much credit.

    The gimp had a thumbnail browser in 1.2 but in their infinate wisdome they got rid of it.

  89. Obligoatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We don't need no stinkin' interfaces!"

  90. Re:This piece of crap crashes on Windws for no rea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haha owned!

  91. Got Math? by LFS.Morpheus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Or, bandwidth doesn't cost that much, at least not where I will likely buy my next server.

    1,000,000 hits/day = 365,000,000 hits/year @ 1kb/ea =
    365 GB.

    I can transfer 365 GB for as little as $25.19. Alternately, this is $0.07 a day.

    So yes, you are probably wasting your time.

    --
    The space unintentionally left unblank.
    1. Re:Got Math? by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      Well, lets assume on a graphics heavy site we save 50KB just doing some simple image optimizations and squeezing the images here and there spending maybe 4 hours just optimizing the graphics. That is more like saving 50 GB per day, or 1200 dollars. I doubt you would pay 1200 dollars for the optimization.

      However, in a more real world scenario sites raking in that many hits generally save money by going to a "real" hosting solution and just paying for a pipe size with unlimited data transfer. Generally having a 1-2Mb(it) pipe with unlimited transfer is just easier to deal with than a limited amount of bandwidth. Most sites with a lot of traffic have an unlimited transfer with burstable capability to handle spikes in traffic.

      Jeremy

  92. Autowrap haiku by AllenChristopher · · Score: 1
    I'd like to point out Pressing enter at the end Is not needed here

    Enter ends paragraphs The text box will wrap for you Knowledge is power

  93. Re:GIMP on Win32? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I actually put in a <\joke> tag, to show that I was teasing, but it didn't appear in my final post. Plain text.. Should've previewed I guess...

  94. Of course, you have to set plain text by AllenChristopher · · Score: 1

    Use plain text mode or
    Formatting tags to end lines
    Else, look like a fool

  95. Re:I still don't like the stinking interface by DarKrow · · Score: 1

    Well, the new dockable interface makes the floating windows a bit saner, and easier to deal with. I prefer Photoshop's MDI, but since I'm not about to reboot to do some graphics for my website, I'll deal with the simpler new Gimp UI. It's lightyears better (looking, and operating) than Gimp 1.2

    --

    It lives up to it's name: http://www.sanspoint.com
  96. 'configure' missing by hopkid · · Score: 1

    When I ./configure I get an error, and then when I search the directory for configure, it's missing. Am I missing something?

    1. Re:'configure' missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... maybe it's ".configure" ?-)

  97. great but... by jonwil · · Score: 1

    When will someone come up with a free package that is usable for those who need to do graphics for print?

    Although I suspect the real issue here would be getting the manufacturers of big $$$ printing presses, imagesetters and other output devices to allow said software to use the conversion tables that allow you to match a given RBG screen color to the right CMYK color for their device.

    1. Re:great but... by Willard+B.+Trophy · · Score: 1

      There will be a free, usable package for repro work when quality four-colour seps are free ...

  98. Re:I still don't like the stinking interface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't like this 90 million windows crap, and it's the primary reason i refuse to use gimp! Use a freaking MDI!

    A-fucking-men, brother.

  99. Why GTK2? by evilviper · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why is everyone so excited about GTK2? It's much more memory and CPU intensive, and all the while it seems worse, not better to me (tiny default fonts, weirdness with buttons, etc).

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:Why GTK2? by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 1

      Because it's better than Tk. And Motif.

    2. Re:Why GTK2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GTK2 has more functionality than Motif; but that does not say much about it's Quality. When I compiled GTK2, I was rather disappointed about the quality of it's source packages, because I had to change a lot of things (autoconf shellscript, perl scripts, Makefiles, some source code as well) to make it work. It always depends on your point of view what you call 'better'.

    3. Re:Why GTK2? by chegosaurus · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a huge fan of the GIMP, I have to agree with this point. I really don't like GTK2 either. But, I haven't seen the fancy new file selector yet, so maybe that will help me change my mind.

      Just because someone says they don't like something it doesn't make them a troll.

    4. Re:Why GTK2? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's much worse than GTK-1, IMHO.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  100. Great Accomplishment! by firewrought · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Why all the flamewars b/t Adobe fans and Gimp fans? The news here is that the Gimp team has delivered us a significant upgrade that addresses many long-standing problems of the software (especially in terms of usability). Congratulations!! That's awesome!

    If you prefer Adobe to Gimp, that's great too... buy it and use it. Judge the tradeoffs in cost and functionality for yourself and choose the best tool for you.

    --
    -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    1. Re:Great Accomplishment! by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      Buy something if it's the best, get something for free if you don't care.

    2. Re:Great Accomplishment! by OzJeep · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I love Photoshop (in Windows! ) and I've tried previous versions of GIMP. Most likely its my tendancy to do everything the 'Photoshop-way' that I don't like GIMP. I'm going to try 2.0 tomorrow and see how it goes. Perhaps it will be one more piece of the Linux puzzle for me to find an answer to, or maybe not. Either way, without even trying the new version, I think this is a huge step in the 'right' direction of converting the PS users. Regardless of my opinion after tomorrow, cheers to the GIMP team & keep up the fantastic work!

    3. Re:Great Accomplishment! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So, I should buy Gimp because it is the best, or get a pirated copy of PhotoShop if I don't care...

      I think I'll just download Gimp instead.

  101. or even.. by rebelcool · · Score: 1

    support for something as basic as color profiles.

    --

    -

  102. Everyone loves gimp by strider_starslayer · · Score: 0, Troll

    To the humorously impaired; it's a joke, laugh

    In fact NYPD blue released a special bondage episode today to honour gimp's 2.0 release

    Taken from
    http://abc.go.com/primetime/nypdblue/
    Tuesday, March 23, 10/9c "Old Yeller" The search is on for a man who kidnaps, rapes and tortures women and locks them in a dungeon, and Medavoy becomes attracted to a much older woman (Ellen Geer) who may be addicted to sex.

    --
    -Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
  103. may I suggest... by rebelcool · · Score: 1

    if you're even into amateur printing, use QImage.

    It puts all other image printing software to shame both in flexibility and technical superiority. It's interpolator is fantastic. And of course it supports monitor and printer profiles. Cheap, too (well worth the registration fee)

    --

    -

  104. Alpha works great in Photoshop 8.0 by User+956 · · Score: 2, Troll

    You've obviously not used Photoshop 8.0 (Creative Suite). Alpha works great. It's been out for 6 months; the fact that you've not seen it casts serious doubt on your claim of being a "porfessional" that produces live television graphics systems.

    And to your comment about CMYK being only for prepress, I say this: If you plan on doing any sort of printed work (newsletter, flyers, posters, magazine graphics), GIMP is completely useless without CMYK.

    Using GIMP instead of Photoshop to do print work is like being a Carpenter, and using your fist instead of a hammer. Yeah, it's "free", and you may eventually get some nails into the piece of wood, but is it really the best use of your time and energy?

    Likewise, you could take RGB files to your Print Shop, and either be laughed out of the building, or have it end up looking like complete ass.

    Gimp 2.0 may be a milestone, but it's by no means a complete, professional-level application by any stretch.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:Alpha works great in Photoshop 8.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that hasnt stopped windows.

      that hasnt stopped photoshop either.

      its only a professional tool, when professionals use it.

      simple as that.

    2. Re:Alpha works great in Photoshop 8.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      CMYK is _only_ useful if you know the exact color of
      your Cyan Magenta Yellow and black inks,. you also need to know the exact properties of how these inks mix, and interact with the paper used. Unless you have this information, sRGB is more exact, and should be what a professional printshop should want.
      The conversion to CMYK should never be done before the stage of the process where you have this exact information, preferrably recently corrected profiles for the printer,..

    3. Re:Alpha works great in Photoshop 8.0 by nagora · · Score: 1
      Likewise, you could take RGB files to your Print Shop, and either be laughed out of the building, or have it end up looking like complete ass.

      You obviously don't do any professional presswork yourself. People do bring RGB in all the time and laughing at them or making an ass of the piece is a good way to go hungry.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    4. Re:Alpha works great in Photoshop 8.0 by das_katz_socrates · · Score: 1

      As a professional running Grand Format printers I have to agree with the above poster. Also many of the newer printers out there can handle either RGB or CMYK and if the output looks like ass it's usually because of the operator or original designer not the hardware.

      --
      This sig has no nutritional value...
    5. Re:Alpha works great in Photoshop 8.0 by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It's been out for 6 months; the fact that you've not seen it casts serious doubt on your claim of being a "porfessional" that produces live television graphics systems.

      Because real professionals have lots of time and money to spend upgrading.

      Here the real world lots of people live with older software because they are too busy to upgrade or because management refuses to pay for the upgrade. If your job is producing print media, especially photographic work, regular upgrades to PhotoShop are something you probably plan for. If your job is producing television content it's probably not so high on your list of requirements, especially if you've got something that basically works now.

      If you plan on doing any sort of printed work (newsletter, flyers, posters, magazine graphics), GIMP is completely useless without CMYK.

      Bwuhuhahahahahahahahaha. Nice elitism. It might come as a shock to you that there are people across the world doing exactly this sort of printed work who just don't worry about it. These same people are often working on cruddy monitors that have never been color calibrated to match their output devices. Yet millions of newsletters, flyers, and newspapers manage to get printed and sold despite imperfect color reproduction. Yes, large magazine and big companies have exacting color standards, but there is a huge undercurrent of small-time publications that just don't care. The bread and butter work of print shops is small runs of publications for local businesses. These local businesses don't really understand color correction and CMYK, yet they manage to get output that is good enough for their needs.

      Maybe you're in a situation where you need the power of PhotoShop, but don't forget, you are in a minority.

  105. Tutorial Videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jimmac has made some awesome GIMP2.0 tutorial videos at jimmac.musichall.cz

  106. where is dot zip file? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's in the email that says "I love you".

    Take your head out of Bill Gates' ass and you might think it's easier to breath.

  107. Answer: No by bonch · · Score: 1

    And does photoshop still have broken alpha, there it tried to use a non-standard tiff layer to represent what 100% of other software places in a standardised alpha layer?

    Answer--no.

    Congratulations for getting clueless mods on your side, though.

  108. Re:I still don't like the stinking interface by LordKazan · · Score: 1

    It appears that the wxWidgets wxMDI* classes are supported on OSX as they generally note when they're not present in one of the ports.

    --
    If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
  109. torrent for gimp 2.0.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://bt.downloadanime.org:6969/torrents/gimp-2.0 .0.tar.gz.torrent

    Enjoy! Sorry it's late, but it should be fast. Start seed is 100mbit.

    1. Re:torrent for gimp 2.0.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Errr, should be no space in the URI.

    2. Re:torrent for gimp 2.0.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you ment to do this: Gimp 2.0.0 Torrent

  110. Re:This piece of crap crashes on Windws for no rea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do die hard windows users read slashdot? Do they enjoy getting upset at the the linux geeks?

  111. Troll by bogie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So basically you have no insight here or have even used Gimp 2.0. You just felt like being a troll?

    I swear Adobe users are some of the biggest Trolls I've met on the Net. Everywhere I go where someone dares to mention an alternative, the Adobe trolls freak out and show up in massive numbers to diss anything non-Adobe. If it wasn't cmyk it would just be some other thing.

    Why can't you Photoshop snobs just accept the fact that Gimp is a decent image editor that differs from Photoshop and leave it at that. Why are you so freaking insulted that non-Adobe products are available? You have stock in Adobe or something?

    Gimp is certainly the best Free image editor available and for home users it will do anything you could possibly want, especially when it comes to digital photography.

    But then again I guess I'm just wasting my breath.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    1. Re:Troll by mav[LAG] · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. There are also some of us who will never buy Adobe products ever again because of what the company did to Dmitri Sklyarov.

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    2. Re:Troll by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      When GIMP people who have never even used Photoshop stop talking about how this version is going to be the Photoshop killer, Photoshop users will stop pointing out why that's wrong.

      Every "GIMP is gonna take over graphic design like a storm!" comment is the equivalent of Microsoft astroturfing to us. It's platform evangelism, with no basis in fact.

    3. Re:Troll by labratuk · · Score: 1

      Nicely put. I worked as a graphic designer for a while and had to use photoshop (7) all day.

      It was a complete pain in the arse, I chose to use GIMP at home because I preferred it. Massively.

      There is a strange culture of people who think photoshop is some sort of holy grail. Those people tend to be the people who haven't actually had to use it much. If they did, they would realise photoshop sucks.

      And any person who calls themselves a graphic designer and can't easily switch from photoshop to GIMP (apart from the obvious CMYK deficiencies) ain't much of a graphic designer. There is a difference between a graphic designer and and someone wot has been told which buttons ta' press to make teh perty pictures.

      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
    4. Re:Troll by Kaa · · Score: 1

      Gimp ... for home users it will do anything you could possibly want, especially when it comes to digital photography.

      Umm... No.

      Unless your idea of digital photography is to look at point-and-shoot JPG shapshots, that is.

      Specifically, Gimp lacks the following absolute necessities for decent digital photography:

      (1) Color management.

      (2) 16-bit color channels.

      (3) RAW file conversion.

      Yes, Gimp is a nice image editor, good for scripting and web graphics, and the price can't be beat. But digital photography? Sorry, not the same league...

      --

      Kaa
      Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
    5. Re:Troll by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      And which home users need color management/ICC profiles, 16-bit colors and RAW file conversions?

    6. Re:Troll by plover · · Score: 1
      Ummm ... me.

      Granted my needs in this department run towards correcting the colors from my slide scanner, and I'm using them to compensate for the problems in the original color films (dye fading, crappy cheap and/or old film, variations between Ektachrome and Kodachrome, that sort of thing.) And, I'm using the ICC color profiles that came with Vuescan (the best scanning software I've used yet) and so they're corrected before I load them up in Paint Shop Pro. And as far as my digital camera goes, I set the color balance before shooting (taking a shot of a gray card is pretty damn simple these days) and the camera itself adjusts the colors quite adequately.

      So, I'm not using color management from within the GIMP or Paint Shop Pro on the images taken directly from my digital camera, but you didn't ask that. You asked which home users need color management. My answer is anyone who cares about the images they produce, and that's not the exclusive domain of the professional photographers. The disks I'm producing are simply family photo albums on DVD for my wife's family, and will probably never be seen by more than fifty people. But they're the most important audience I can imagine, and I don't want to give them crappy images.

      --
      John
  112. It's all swell and shit, but by melted · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Where did 16-bit color modes go? 8 bit is just ain't enough for digital photography anymore.

    1. Re:It's all swell and shit, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Where did 16-bit color modes go? 8 bit is just ain't enough for digital photography anymore

      Nowhere - Gimp doesn't do 16 bit, never has. It does 24 bit color (or greyscale or indexed if you prefer).

      Why on Earth would you want to do work on photographs in 16 bit mode?

    2. Re:It's all swell and shit, but by cdyson37 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why on Earth would you want to do work on photographs in 16 bit mode?

      You've misinterpreted him. He means more than 8 bits per pixel per colour (the 24bit you talk about is 8 bits per colour per pixel, not including alpha). For instance my camera can produce pictures with 12 bits per pixel per colour = 36bits per pixel excluding the alpha channel (no, my camera cannot take photos with an alpha channel:). It is annoying that I can't use all the of the information in my photographs in gimp, and the grand-parent post makes a good point, but maybe someone will include this feature - it is apparently on the wish list. This is the one single feature that is holding gimp back in my opinion.

    3. Re:It's all swell and shit, but by Brickhead · · Score: 1

      I don't think GIMP ever supported more than 8 bits per channel. There is a version of GIMP called CinePaint that supports up to 32 bits per channel (128 bits RGBA)

  113. Re:This piece of crap crashes on Windws for no rea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's probably just Steve Ballmer. He is, after all, the most notorious A.C. on here.

  114. Re:Photoshop! by Com2Kid · · Score: 1
    • Look at how good OpenOffice is and yet it still cannot knock Microsoft Office out of the number one spot and it matches almost every feature of Microsoft Office and has excellent compatibility with the Microsoft file formats.


    Funny story, awhile back I tried to make a complete change over to Open Office. I had refused to install any MS Office related app on my (Windows) PC for some time, but finally found myself needing to do some equation editing as well as some Excel compatible work, so I figured Open Office would be the way to go.

    Long story short, loved the equation editor, and only one issue popped up.

    On three seperate computers running three different versions of Windows (ME, 2K, XP), Open Office was unable to correctly print out mathematical equations from any of them.

    After two days of trouble shooting I was forced to ditch OO and go with Word.

  115. Re:This piece of crap crashes on Windws for no rea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee, USB is just fine here! Damned if I haven't had more trouble with it in Windows than Linux.

  116. Darn, still waiting by 1davo · · Score: 1
    OW, I wonder what this Gimp is - anyone know when "the Gimp" will be released? >;-)


    Seriously this is great news as I think the Gimp is the killer app for Tux.

    Saltwater on Mars? No wonder all those probes have been failing.

  117. SCORE! by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    'nuff said.

  118. Re:Photoshop! by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
    Look at how good OpenOffice is and yet it still cannot knock Microsoft Office out of the number one spot and it matches almost every feature of Microsoft Office and has excellent compatibility with the Microsoft file formats.

    No, it doesn't match every feature, or almost. Without the functionality of Access, the database component of office, OpenOffice is severely limited for business use. The "big three" are spreadsheet, word processing, and database. By that measure, Open Office is about 66% competition, even if you give it full points for the other two (and I don't - it's pig slow compared to MS products, which is a serious usability problem.)

    Back to Access: The attempt to layer MySQL or PostgreSQL underneath a partial (no, not partial - let me say "lame", instead) GUI doesn't even fractionally approach what can be done with Access. PgAccess isn't workable either - almost every feature it has is buggy or outright broken (both the recent update and the previous version which laid fallow for all that time.)

    Mind you, I'm not saying MySQL or PostgreSQL aren't strong, but they're unusable for your typical end-user. Access is almost as accessible as a spreadsheet, yet incredibly powerful, a strength that it achieves through a synergy of no more than a mediocre underlying database engine overlaid by an incredibly powerful UI.

    When (if) the UI functionality of Access is layered over something like PostgreSQL, then we'll have something considerably better than Access. I truly look forward to the day - I'd rather not be forced to continually turn back to Access to solve user's problems in a reasonable amount of time.

    I readily take your point about other applications as long as you don't use OpenOffice as your example - there are some superb graphics editors, some with features far, far beyond anything Photoshop can do out there. For instance, Paintshop Pro's brush handling is far superior to Photoshop (if you haven't used "Tubes", you just aren't having any fun) WinImage's geometric layer modes are wicked cool, QFX is definitely worth a look, GIMP's power/cost ratio is absolutely unbeatable, and so on.

    Readers of this post should know: I write code for WinImages. I make no claim to be free of bias. :)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  119. Color management by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

    Photoshop also supports color management through and through- GIMP never has out of the box and never will, because there's no such thing as color management under linux

    Not true. Color management in Linux is in its infancy, but it's not nonexistent.

    But Color Management is the reason I won't be switching to Gimp 2 anytime soon. Frankly, ANY photo editing software is useless without CM, and I doubt that the Color Manager Plug-in for The Gimp will be revamped any time soon to work with Gimp 2.

    So until I see some serious effort to support Color Management by Gimp's developers, I'll be sticking to Photoshop and Gimp 1.2, thank you. And yes, I use both.

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
  120. Gimp Hits 2.0... by arose · · Score: 1

    ... 1.2.5 dead 0.7.5 wounded.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  121. Support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but also on Microsoft Windows and Macintosh OS X

    No support on OS X. Not unless you call X11 support. I don't. I call it LAME.

  122. My one serious use of Gimp by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 1
    For my one serious use of an image editor, Gimp came in handy because the Script-Fu that came with it turned out to be just what I needed to make a cool site. http://www.phy.nau.edu/ uses the StarBurst script-fu. Not something I would have had with Photoshop.

    But yeah, any user with really high demands on image editing would want photoshop, because it has 16-bit support, better color tools, etc.

    Python-fu sounds sweet. I love Python. First-class functions in a programming language with quick and dirty syntax.

    1. Re:My one serious use of Gimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.phy.nau.edu doesn't resolve. (DNS can't find it.)

    2. Re:My one serious use of Gimp by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 1

      my bad. www.physics.nau.edu. I would have thought that I would know.

  123. Gimp.app for OS X by ttjervaag · · Score: 2, Informative

    Efforts are also being made in providing a stable application bundle of the Gimp for OS X.

    It is still being tested, but works fine for me:
    http://gimp-app.sourceforge.net

    It requires only Apple's X11 to be installed.

  124. Gimp site down? by boffy_b · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Is this th work of th people who h4x0r'd GNOME.org, or did we just /. something big? That aside, I have been using gimp 2.0pre4 for some time(and shall go to 2.0 as soon as gimp.org is back up), it is prettier and much more sane, whilst retaining all th GIMP-a-licious goodness of 1.2.x

    --
    Windows is only $500 if your time is worthless.
    1. Re:Gimp site down? by boffy_b · · Score: 1

      Ah-ha! Of course! Being free software, there are plently of mirrors, here's one for th uk
      http://www.mirror.ac.uk/sites/ftp.gimp.org/pub/gim p/

      PS: why does /. stick spaces in URLs?

      --
      Windows is only $500 if your time is worthless.
  125. Maybe it is the subject itself that is difficult. by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm not very good with neither Photoshop or Gimp. So my views are more the kind of a beginners views.

    I found it hard to find the relevant menus in Gimp. But I also found it hard to find the relevant window to change something in Photoshop, where you have lots of opened tool windows, which most of the time don't do anything because you haven't selected anything relevant. Maybe image manipulation and drawing really requires a lot of skills to create an interface which does the easy stuff but also allows complex manipulations.

    The only program I came to terms with was IRIS Showcase, but that is mostly a vector/object program. I liked the way you could group/raise/lower parts of the graphics. It sure was quicker than dragging all those layers around in Photoshop with the mouse.

    Also what happened to Paintshop ?

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  126. Re:Photoshop! by B2382F29 · · Score: 1

    In other news, yesterday i was presented with a Powerpoint-File which MS Office refused to edit. (Fatal Error or something...)
    So after much troubleshooting i fired up OpenOffice and it worked like a charm.

    --
    Move Sig. For great justice.
  127. Sodipodi for windows is worthless by Daath · · Score: 1

    I tried sodipodi for windows a few times, and every single time it crashed and burned badly, I lost all I had done *every*single*time*. Needless to say, I'm never using that bad piece of software again.

    Haven't tried it on linux. I only run linux on my servers and my laptop, and I don't to graphics stuff on my laptop.

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
    1. Re:Sodipodi for windows is worthless by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      You're right--the windows version needs work--and a lot of it. It saves to SVG just fine, but crashes everytime I try to save to png.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
  128. Re:This piece of crap crashes on Windws for no rea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If windows was as userfriendly as Linux, we wouldn't have trouble setting it up properly.

    Too bad that you have to be an MCSE to be able to use windows, otherwise it might be a pretty good system.

  129. I just HAVE to comment on this... by Ben+Urban · · Score: 1
    You would also need to shell out money to license the applicable patents

    If it's a patent issue, it can't (legally) be put into the gimp AT ALL before the patent expires. Doing so would violate the copyright and/or the patent. This explains why it hasn't been done yet.

    --
    Every time you run "emerge", a Microsoft drone dies.
    1. Re:I just HAVE to comment on this... by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      No, it can, someone just needs to shell out LOTS of money for it, hence why the arguement that it would be cheaper to hire a programmer just doesn't work.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    2. Re:I just HAVE to comment on this... by Ben+Urban · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't about money. It's about the fact that (AFAICT) the GPL expressly forbids that sort of thing, and the gimp is licensed under the GPL.

      --
      Every time you run "emerge", a Microsoft drone dies.
    3. Re:I just HAVE to comment on this... by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      As long as your code communicates "at arms length" with the GPL program, such that they're essentially two programs,you can do this. Also, there's nothing in the GPL requiring distribution. If I modify a GPL program, I have no obligation to make it available to anyone. Since corporations are also considered to be individuals, if a company modifies a GPL program for its own internal use, the GPL could not force them to make it available (there does look to be an exception for server software). In fact, the GPL simply forbids distribution:

      7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

      Plus, are you telling me that it is impossible to wave enough greenbacks under the patent holder's nose to get them to release the code to the Open Source community? Surely capitalistic buisnesses can be bought!

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
  130. SuSE packages by riggwelter · · Score: 1

    Users of SuSE 9.0 can get pre-built packages from usr-local-bin.org.

    --
    Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
  131. Digital Photo tutorials by ahto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Could anyone recommend a good tutorial for photo touch-up using the GIMP? Everything I have found so far is for Photoshop. Being a newbie in both the photography and GIMP departments, and having never used Photoshop at all, it's quite hard to translate Photoshop advice to GIMP (it seems the terminology used by the two tools does not overlap too much).

    1. Re:Digital Photo tutorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Could anyone recommend a good tutorial for photo touch-up using the GIMP?

      Try gimpguru and the gimp.org tutorials.

    2. Re:Digital Photo tutorials by bbc · · Score: 1

      Do you have lots of free time? There are as many ways to touch up photos as there are ways to take bad photos in the first place.

      A very good book, not just for GIMP users, is Grokking the GIMP. You can download it or read it for free at the author's site or buy it in any decent bookstore. The author's site requires Javascript for some weird reason, the GIMP User Group has a scriptless version that works just as well.

  132. Question by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    I use photoshop, but only for the ability to cut things out of one photo and paste it into another, then you can do all sorts of amusing things like these guys: www.b3ta.com.
    Does the Gimp have this feature?

    1. Re:Question by boffy_b · · Score: 1

      Heck yeah! I am doing Art A-level at th moment, and I use The GIMP for everything, I switched from Corel Photo-Paint shortly before I switched from Win98 to GNU/Linux. I'v been using 2.0pre4 for a while and I love it! Can't wait to get home and d/l the release.

      Take a look at my gallery, most of those were done in part or fully in The GIMP, this one only took me 5 minutes.

      I cannot reccomend The GIMP highly enough, you will soon learn to love it.

      --
      Windows is only $500 if your time is worthless.
    2. Re:Question by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      You convinced me. I downloaded the Gimp and it looks good. The "intellegent scissors" seems to work even better than what was in Frontpage.

    3. Re:Question by boffy_b · · Score: 1

      Ahh yes, intelligent scissors...I personally use the eraser tool to make parts of layers transparent, as it has an "anti-erase" mode which is useful for tweaking edges or changing your mind about what you want cut out.
      Knowing that I have convinced someone to try out GIMP has made my day, thank you.
      What is your b3ta name? Any links to stuff you have on there or elsewheres?

      --
      Windows is only $500 if your time is worthless.
  133. Click and learn how to use gimp... by lent · · Score: 4, Informative
    OK, click and learn :-)

    Note: Number 9 below is especially cool if you have an investment in Photoshop-plugins.

    From:http://members.home.nl/m.weisbeek/gimp/

    Annoyances about The GIMP

    While The GIMP is such a powerful application, doesn't it have any drawbacks ?!? - Oh, yes, it has...

    I [Martijn Weisbeek] am writing this article just to show you some of these. I hope that it will make you're life with The GIMP more easy. This article is the result of about one year of experience with using the Windows-version of The GIMP (almost on a daily basis). Just remember that The GIMP clearly focuses on functionality (which is good) instead of user-friendlyness. Therefore some things just aren't that obvious, just until you get the hang of it... So just take your time to read through this article and you'll make yourself an immediate GIMP-crack.

    [...snip...]

    For your convenience I created a list with pointers to the items in this article:

    1. How do I edit an image ?

    2. I hate going through this rightclick-menu each time !!!

    3. Doesn't The GIMP support GIF's ?!?

    4. Lots of GIMP-functions do not seem to be available !!!

    5. But how do I know on what type of image a plugin works ?

    6. How do I make parts of the image transparent ?

    7. How do I remove the Alpha-channel (transparency-information) afterwards ?

    8. How do I change the size of my image ?

    9. Extend The GIMP's functionality with Photoshop-plugins

    [...snip...]

  134. Development version by blaksaga · · Score: 0

    I've been using the unstable versions of 2.0 for quite some time...and I must say 2.0 is absolutely awesome. I would take it over photoshop or paint shop pro and day of the week.

  135. Re:Photoshop! by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    it's pig slow compared to MS products

    Have to disagree there, I use spreadsheets a *lot* (finance geek) and find OO much faster than Excel. Is there an objective comparison/test somewhere?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  136. Wine? by Henk+Poley · · Score: 1

    You know Photoshop 6 and 7 run under Wine?

    See here: http://www.frankscorner.org/
    (links to 'tutorials' on the right side)

    According to the Wine application database Adobe Illustrator 10 also works:
    http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?appId= 20

    YMMV though...

  137. Crazy idea ! by Herkules · · Score: 2, Insightful


    If you really want try paying a GIMP developer to implement it.

    If you feel you cant aford to pay $ XXX checkout mailing lists to see if any one is also interested in this, and share the cost.

    (Just a idea... o! This is one of the good things with Free/(Open Source) software)

    --
    CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
  138. No 48 bit support !!! by dargaud · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There is still no 16 bit per channel support in Gimp. This is important if you want to do anything more than just playing with jpeg files. A (mostly dead) brach of Gimp called CinePaint supports 16 and 32 bit per channel images but it's very buggy.

    There is talk about having gimp support it in the future, but it's a big undertaking. Sorry to sound like a troll, but in the meanwhile Gimp will be little more than a toy.

    48 bit RGB is supported natively by the PNG and TIFF images formats and many RAW files created by almost every recent scanner or digital camera. It's a shame to have hardware which creates images you cannot fully use.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:No 48 bit support !!! by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sorry to sound like a troll, but in the meanwhile Gimp will be little more than a toy.

      Was PhotoShop little more than a toy in 1994? It lacked 16 bit per channel support. Apparently that made it a toy. Dispite this it was heavily used and lots of great work was done with it. Even today most PhotoShop users are not working with 48 bit per pixel images.

      Yes, 48 bpp image work is the future and the Gimp definately needs to catch up. But to suggest that it's just a toy, unsuitable for professional work makes it clear that you either don't do professional work or are oblivious to your fellow professionals. Not everyone is doing the level of work that demands 48 bpp work. Maybe you need the functionality, but not everyone does. You might as well mock Microsoft Money for being a toy in face of Peachtree Accounting. Is Microsoft Word unsuitable for real work because QuarkXPress exists?

      Whenever the Gimp advances there is a stream of "The Gimp is just a toy until it gets X" posts. Yes, the Gimp trails Photoshop in functionality. It's likely going to for the foreseeable future. But reality is that these same features are completely unused by most people. It's not surprising since people got on just fine until PhotoShop added the feature in the first place.

      To pick a popular target (Gimp's lack of color correction) a friend of mine works for a newspaper and often prepares images for publication. I was surprised when 1. she said that the Gimp was just about as easy to use as PhotoShop, and 2. She was certain no one had ever done any color calibration, so she didn't miss it in the Gimp.

    2. Re:No 48 bit support !!! by flez · · Score: 1

      No one was printing "gallery quality" photos back in '94.

      Now that we have the technology for gallery quality prints (using an Epson 2200 for example), anything less than 48 bit starts to show artifacts after a few rounds of image touch-up.

  139. The new GIMP is great by DarkDust · · Score: 2, Informative

    Especially its path tool is really, really useful.

    I'm using the 2.0pre4 version for two weeks now. I wanted to have a unique background image and my image drew me a "grim reaper tux" which I'm now coloring with the GIMP. The path tool makes this a whole lot easier, especially when deciding that some details of the form are not as I'd like them to be: you can then just throw away the layer with the outline and with the filling, tweak the path a bit and redraw the two thrown away layers in a few seconds.

    The path tool now allows you to specify which tool to use when "stroking" the path, so I used a fuzzy brush... you could even use an elliptical brush or pen here. And you can get a selection from the path, which you can even combine/intersect which other paths.

    The picture I'm working on is not completed yet but I've made preview available.

    Getting the GIMP to compile correctly is a really hard though... I'm not going to repeat that loooong list of dependencies here, but you have to watch out sometimes. I guess it was the GTK+ 2.3.5 where I had to explicitly enable XInput to get my Wacom tablet to get recognized by the GIMP, and somewhere else I had to explicitly enable Xft or something like that...

    But the new GIMP is a heavy improvement to the 1.3.x series, mainly from a GUI point of view, as the GIMP's drawing qualities where already quite good, IMHO (but then, I'm a programmer, not an artist ;-).

    1. Re:The new GIMP is great by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1

      Getting the GIMP to compile correctly is a really hard though...

      Compiling GIMP isn't bad at all...when compared to GnuCash.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
  140. gimp scripts by lemody · · Score: 1

    gimp is nice, but the scripts in the image manipulation menu just keep crashing... it's frustrating.

    --


    class he-man extends man!
  141. Re:Photoshop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets get back to access. Access sucks a**, "accessible as a spreadsheet" not my experience...

    First of all, yes it is dead easy to do some tables and a form or two to handle the tables. But when you try to do serious work beyond a few tables and a few forms, you run into trouble. You end up hiring a consultant, to do the rimjob to access to do the work requested. But if the consultant is not careful when doing the job, access ends up not working your computer... it is faithful to the guy(well usually) who did the rimjob and stays on his computer. Why? Because you don't have the right software installed or the right sp or the right... what ever.... I don't call that accessible for the end user.

  142. Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You had FIRST post and you wasted it.

  143. Rocks ? no. by theefer · · Score: 1

    Features are one thing. Freedom is another. This is not just evangelisation : Adobe has modified Photoshop so that you cannot work on bank notes. There is nothing that would prevent them from forbidding you to do other things. They control what you can do with the software, that's as simple as that.

    This is a matter of choice between features and freedom, but I'll take freedom, thank you.

    --
    theefer
  144. Mirrors of the demo videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See Gimp 2.0 in real time in these videos. Originals by jimmac.

  145. Hey Brainless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MacOSX is a BSD System, aka its more Unix than linux! ..unless the SCO claims are true...

  146. Re:Photoshop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can use OOo's dbase layer that doesn't require any 3rd party database.

  147. Re:This piece of crap crashes on Windws for no rea by igloo-x · · Score: 0

    Most of Slashdot's reads are windows users.

  148. Yeah and it crashes too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I installed the gtk+2 libraries and the 2.0pre4 binary on XP Pro SP1 and it barfed at iconv.dll. Oh, well. Back to Macromedia Fireworks.

  149. New version 2.0 by ylikone · · Score: 0

    New version 2.0 is the best Gimp yet! /got nothing

    --
    Meh.
  150. I know Her!! by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    I met her in a club down in old Soho
    Where you drink champagne and it tastes just like cherry-cola
    See-oh-el-aye cola
    She walked up to me and she asked me to dance
    I asked her her name and in a dark brown voice she said Lola
    El-oh-el-aye Lola la-la-la-la Lola

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  151. Re:This sounds like a good time for you by Speare · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see a post on /. where it didn't degenerate into the "this or that is better" arguements but where Gimp users shared their tips and tricks more.

    Here's a tutorial I wrote a couple years ago. http://www.halley.cc/ed/linux/multexp/

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  152. Re:Photoshop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PgAccess isn't workable either - almost every feature it has is buggy or outright broken

    So, they cloned access bit TOO faithfully?

  153. Framemaker by frankie_guasch · · Score: 1

    I wonder if gimp would open framemaker files, or if there is some other linux tool that would allow me to work with framemaker projects.

    1. Re:Framemaker by Nick+of+NSTime · · Score: 1

      GIMP is an image manipulation program, not a desktop publishing tool. I don't know of a Linux app that will open a Framemaker file.

  154. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  155. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  156. but......does it support my wacom? by autoshoes · · Score: 1

    I admit I haven't tried gimp in a year or two, but one of the biggest hurdles that kept me from adopting gimp was the fact that I couldn't use the pressure sensitivity of my wacom tablet with it under windows.

    I looked on the site and couldn't see anything saying that it works now. can anyone tell me if it works now? if so, i'll definitely give it a shot now.

  157. Re:Photoshop! by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
    Um, yes, pfffft. :)

    I don't need to dig. I already know. I've created numerous large Access apps (also PostgreSQL apps.) You're 100% wrong. Access allows text fields of hundreds of characters, and if that's not long enough, you can use a memo type, which allows many K per field. The forms editor and report system handles these fields too, they can be queried, etc - in short, there are no such limitations as those you refer to. Your post is nothing but misinformation.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  158. Wow! by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

    And I just finished installing GIMP 1.2 on MacOSX! (Fink 0.6.2's idea of requiring X11 SDK to recognize X11.app's existence was just plain weird...)

    Actually, just as I walked home from the university I was hoping Slashdot would have actually interesting stories today, like, GIMP 2.0's release or something like that. Wow. A pretty good coincidence... =)

    The last few 2.0pre versions have been pretty damn good, at least on Linux, and these are really a great leap forward from 1.2. Many things I always found slightly frustrating have been fixed. Even one feature I long ago wished would be incorporated is there. (Initialize a new layer mask to grayscale copy of the layer.)

    I haven't used 2.0 that much yet, but I hope they have also managed to get there the rock-like stability of 1.2 series. Well, the 2.0pres have only crashed for me once so far... =)

  159. Parent Was NOT Flamebait by LordKazan · · Score: 1

    I would really like to know who these people are you mod down the slightest criticism - not matter how well deserved.

    I was criticising the GIMP people for keeping their crappy interface model - and you call it FLAMEBAIT when I am putting forward an honest criticism? EXCUSE ME? Right now you're acting like microsoft! "He criticised us! we're always right! SILENCE HIM!"

    Fortunately when I do OSS/FS projects I LISTEN to my end users and give them what they want.

    --
    If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
  160. Re:This piece of crap crashes on Windws for no rea by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


    I posted a link to a machine I own some time back. Reading the access logs from that site at the time does not support your statement.

  161. Re:Photoshop! by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
    Look. I've done "Serious work" with Access. And lots of it. I've moved it from computer to computer (and across Windows OS types - from 98 to NT and XP) and the most I've ever had to do was drop a menu and tell it it had an object it thought it didn't. You find this out in the first 10 seconds you try to run the app, adjust one setting, and after that it works forever. Compare that to the installation time dependancy complexities that Linux software often presents the user with, and it's not much at all.

    Forms and tables: I have apps with many tables, and many forms. All kinds. Forms with subforms, vanilla forms, forms with bound script actions, forms with macros, forms that invoke external programs - it's easy to do, and more to the point, trying to do this kind of thing in Open Office is much more difficult, if even possible in the first place. PgAccess tries to get some of this handled, but it's so fragile, it typically blows out in the first few minutes of use - you can't use something like that for anything that people depend upon..

    It is not only "dead easy" to create forms and tables in Access, it is also dead easy to create queries, reports, scripted actions, macros, relationships... etc., make it all look good, and make it work smoothly together. That's Access's schtick: It's dead easy. That's my point. Linux needs a "dead easy" database system the end user can fiddle with and get somewhere significant.

    Here's where I am coming from: I have written Access apps that generate websites, manage large HTML documentation systems, manage several gigs of genealogy data (and generate genealogy websites) handled businesses from order taking to accounting to live stock interaction on e-commerce sites to stock management, not to mention a bunch of trivial Access apps that I whipped out in a few hours. None of these efforts was ever stymied by any limitations of Access.

    The point is, it should be just as easy to do this under Linux. Do it better, even. It is useful that these things were easy to accomplish under Windows, and hugely frustrating that they are not easy to accomplish under Linux.

    Look, I'm a Linux fan. I really am. On my desktop, I use Linux, not Windows. I develop for both extensively. I'm replying to you using FireFox on a Redhat 9 system. I write all manner of stuff from graphics apps to database apps to Ai, Al, and assemblers. I know what I"m talking about here, and I'm not just writing for the sake of seeing my own characters on /. This is a real lack, and as long as no one steps up to the plate and solves the problem, MS Office has a killer solution that Linux does not. You can't argue it away, and waving your hands about and trumpeting broad (and completely inaccurate) generalities like "it can't do serious work" isn't going to do anything but delay the development of an Access killer app. for Linux if people believe the disinformation you are spreading. You're doing no one any favors with this kind of thing. The same thing goes for the person who posted that "Access can't handle more than 20 characters in a text field." When people make specific, but completely bogus claims to bolster their views in situations like this, they end up harming both themselves and the community.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  162. Re:Photoshop! by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    I was actually referring to startup time; I should have been more clear. OO takes forever to start. I don't know why. Excel starts instantly ( .5 second)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  163. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  164. Re:Photoshop! by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
    I mentioned in my first response that Access has a mediocre database engine. I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that you could not use Access to manage huge data. But the fact is, most businesses don't need to manage huge data. They have a small or moderate inventory, a small or moderate number of customers, and a small or moderate number of employees. Access works fine in these situations, which - in fact - are the majority, not the minority. Home users and small businesses far outnumber the larger users.

    Case in point: My company has many thousands of customers, garnered over about 19 years (I can't be more specific here, sorry.) We've sold under 100 different products in that time. There have always been less than 50 employees. And we use Access to manage everything, and have since Access 97 came out (I created the original database app for us, so I know this for a fact.) If you ask for your registration data, we'll have it for you as fast as we can type your name. If you want your purchasing history, ditto. Everything works fine. Really. And obviously, we're not the only ones who do this.

    What this implies is not that Access is "no good", it implies that it has a solid place in user situations, even with its limitations. What I am saying is that Linux needs an office application with the featureset that Access offers (or better.) By all means, underlay it with PostgreSQL or MySQL or something similarly powerful. I would be delighted to see this. But until, and unless, this happens, Access will allow MS Office to take market share that Open Office cannot, by any means at all, take.

    Someday, we (my company, I mean) will probably run into Access's limitations, because we're active and growing. If and when we do, I'll either hop to an Access compatible Linux solution that hopefully will have appeared by that time, or I'll write something custom that overlays PostgreSQL, most likely. I have the skills, it's just a matter of having the need - which is not presently there, because Access works just fine at this point.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  165. Please learn how to use links. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please learn how to use links.
    <a href="http://www.k10k.net/">Lame site #1</a>, with subframes and a scrollbox.
    <a href="http://www.designiskinky.com/index_main.html ">Lame site #2</a>, with a scrollbox with a <i>horizontal</i> scrollbar, so you have to scroll back and forth to read <i>each line</i>.
    <a href="http://www.adobe.com/">Lame site #3</a>, with a really bland front page.
    yields:
    Lame site #1, with subframes and a scrollbox.
    Lame site #2, with a scrollbox with a horizontal scrollbar, so you have to scroll back and forth to read each line.
    Lame site #3, with a really bland front page.
    Of the three of these, only the first looks halfway interesting, and none are as good as The GIMP home page.
  166. Still no Adjustment Layers? by fake_name · · Score: 1

    I know most people who use Photoshop have no idea of how to use adjustment layers, but I use them constantly and have trouble working without them.

    Looks like I'm staying with Photoshop for now. :-(

  167. What I really need... by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 1

    ... is a "GIMP for Photoshop users" tutorial. A serious, thought through, extensive one, written by someone that is truly familiar with both. And oh, it should be totally honest too (this is *sorely* lacking). If the GIMP can't do something, or not do it as well, don't sweep it under the rug! If you know the limitations up front, you can take it into the calculation and everything is fine. To discover it in the middle of some big work...

    I've known and worked with dozens and dozens of graphics artists that have tried the GIMP, I mean, really tried it, read the docs and experiemnted... at the end of the day (or week, as it may be) they always throw it away in disgust and say it is unusable. Myself, I'm not good with graphics, but I can still easily make a decent banner in Photoshop without reading a line of docs - in GIMP, no way.

    Still, I do see people making amazing stuff with the GIMP, so I'm convinced it is us that are missing something - or at least, we don't have the time to learn that mindset that it takes the long way.

    Since I do want to use OSS whenever viable, I hope that someone can provide this shortcut. It is in your interest too! I am however, not wasting another week of valuable and expensive time without that kind of shortcut.

    Another idea that just occured to me is that a wiki with this theme would be absolutely awesome.

    I hope you can help me.

  168. Re:This sounds like a good time for you by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


    Nice and well written. Thanks, particularly for the tutorial on removing things...

    Cheers
    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  169. Re:Problem with images by Explo · · Score: 1

    Unless your idea of digital photography is to look at point-and-shoot JPG shapshots, that is.

    I'd think that this is exactly the idea that nine out of ten photographers have about it, which probably thus also form the vast majority of those people that use image processing software to edit their photos... So, is this segment somehow worthless?

    --
    Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.