Slashdot Mirror
The Gimp from the Eyes of a Photoshop User
Eugenia writes "Many in the F/OSS community are raving about the Gimp, however pros who have actually used Photoshop think differently: This Mac professional designer goes through the steps of getting Gimp 2.0 up and running on his Mac, only to get baffled by the chaotic interface in general and its non-standard UI compared to other Mac apps, its slowness to open large files and to apply filters, the unintuitive tools that accompany it and its very visible bad quality of text and lines/shapes. That designer even bought a 'supported' version of MacGimp by an OSS-Mac company, Archei, but he never heard back for his support requests (free Gimp for Macs here). I think that's one of the best-written articles I've ever read about the reality of most open-source geek-driven projects vs their equivelant professional/proprietary ones. Personally, before I get persuaded to use Gimp again for my photography projects, I would need --in addition to the author's peeves -- full 16-bit per channel support, high-quality scanning/printing drivers with integrated GUI (a'la SilverFast), and a 'crop and rotate' feature (as seen in PS/PSE). Besides, both Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop Elements cost bellow $100 (with PS Elements getting bundled with most scanners/printers/digital cameras, albeit without the much needed 16bit support either)."
We use photoshop here at work (digital-based photography business) all day long, and a few of us have tried using GIMP for image editing. We all found it fairly awkward. I've tried using it more than everyone else and I just find the whole "right-click to do everything" approach fairly disorienting.
(donning asbestos underwear)
FYI, I am a programmer and web app designer, not a graphics artist. That being said, I feel that any GUI application with a well-designed interface should be fairly intuitive and I should be able to get up to speed in a few minutes (I learn quickly).
I tried The Gimp on Linux. I tried The Gimp in Windows (the new native version). I still cannot get it. I try Photoshop and I can be halfway productive instantly. The result suck, remember I am not a graphics designer and I cannot even write legibly let alone draw with a pencil or a mouse, but I can get around the filters, tools, etc.
My experiences with other peoples' work proves that The Gimp is capable and powerful. My experiences with my own work proves that The Gimp has a steep learning curve mostly due to its odd interface.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
On the matter of Text, use FreeType for the GIMP. It produces beautiful scaled, rotated, and angled text output.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the author here. Most applications in the OS world are obvious in the sense that they are written by Developers (apps that I work on included). That is probably one of the biggest things missing in the OS world - UI people. People who understand how to ogranize all the options / bells&whisttles / etc into something meaningful and intuitive to the average 'joe' user. While there are definitely great strides towards creating more UI friendly apps, it is still one of the gravest detriments to our community as a whole.
Carl P. Corliss
I do my image stuff with Paint Shop Pro - but I was wondering about a post effect software (like Adobe's package - like Photoshop for film). I'm pretty sure I remember reading about a film version of gimp - anyone had experience with it and know if it's any good?
In the price comparison I think she's missing one of the major points of the gimp - it's open source. I don't think many of the developers are working on it so I don't have to shell out some money for paint shop pro, they're more likley developing it because there's a gimp shaped hole in the open source comunity that needed filling.
Everything will be taken away from you.
I am Photoshop certified and use the app every day in my work. I have also enthusiastically installed and am a sometime user of GIMP (on Mac) and I've gotta say this guy is right on target.
Enthusiasm for the GIMP reminds me of Samuel Johnson's famous comments on women preaching.
Historical sexism aside, his point was that when we see something hard being done by someone unexpected, we sometimes fail to notice how poorly it's actually being done.
In the OS community, everyone gets so excited about having a "free" (as in beer) app which potentially replaces an expensive commercial app, that we get a bit carried away in our enthusiasm.
Its like the do-it-yourself TiVo's that aren't really anywhere near as convenient or feature rich as the real deal.
GIMP gives us a glimpse of the tremendous potential of Open Source software, but anyone who thinks its "as good as PS," isn't a serious Photoshop user.
"...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
Photoshop is great, but you CAN run it under Linux. It's a supported application of
Crossover Office.
I use it all the time under Linux with no problems.
One of the really cool things you can do with adjustment layers is work with an image you're turning into black and white and make it look like an honest-to-God black and white image (as opposed to merely a desaturated color image). In some ways, it's almost like taking an internal picture of your subject and adjusting the tones and hue on the fly, which can turn out some very nifty results. In GIMP, you just don't have that flexibility.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
A lot of people who think photoshop is great forget that they didn't pay for their copy BECAUSE IT IS EXPENSIVE.
You get what you pay for. It's that simple. And considering The Gimp is free it's a GREAT DEAL!
If they would be honest A LOT of home users SHOULD use the GIMP instead of using an illegal version of Photoshop.
And I almost forgot. The Obligatory link for the google impaired. :) Hinted, Kerned, and Anti-Aliased to your hearts content.. fully buzzword compliant!
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
This article re-illustrates something that serious graphic designers have been pulling their hair out in trying to tell the GIMP community for years: the GIMP - though a nice project - is completely and totally off in a little world of its own.
There are some major beefs that graphic designers and Photoshoppers have with the GIMP:
(1) The interface sucks. Nobody likes working with 16 different open windows
(2) The interface sucks. Nobody likes menus in different windows and toolbars
(3) No 16-bit/channel color support
(4) No [good] CMYK support = will never be used in prepress[1]
(5) Repeat (1) and (2)
(6) [Lack of] Speed
(7) Dependencies (GTK+, etc.)
Most importantly, I think, the GIMP community needs once again to have its teeth kicked in for its idiocy in choosing the name 'GIMP.' Yes, we here on Slashdot all know that it stands for GNU Image Manipulation Program, and we've all heard how it's "just an acronym" and not supposed to mean anything. But for reasons of political correctness, common decency, etc. the program's name will continue to be a major reason that it never sees any serious adoption.
So, GIMP developers, clean up the interface and change the product name, and your program has a decent chance of seeing the light of day in the real world.
[1] In the GIMP developer's defense, most/all of the CMYK process is patent protected.
[..] UNIX has this wonderful habit of trying to protect users from their own stupidity without recognising its own. [...]
... now it sounds rite ... Unix doesn't hide anything, and thats where the power is (and the great ability to screw up the entire system).
s/UNIX/OS-X
Yeah
Sunny Dubey
gimp
n : disability of walking due to crippling of the legs or feet
I suggest they rename it to Firehercules or Spartacus.
Sorry, Big difference between professional photoshop users and the general "I wanna edit my digital photo" public.. Surely no one in the world would argue that any current version of FREE software would compare favorably in the eyes of a photoshop professional. But there IS an arguement to be made that the GIMP is more than sufficient for the majority of everyone else's needs. One day the cost of photoshop will drive a savvy UI person to paste a PS emulator on the front of the GIMP and s/he will be endlessly praised by the rest of the OSS community... I can wait :)
Gimp 1 had a terrible interface. No bones about it. Gimp 2 however, has a decent UI. It's not super amazing, but its good enough, above average.
The problem is that these Photoshop users are used to photoshop. Any other UI no matter how slick and perfect will be worse for them. They are trained on photoshop so well that using anything else kills their efficiency. Like driving stick for the first time after driving automatic your whole life.
I'm no graphic wizard, just a programmer. And I recently got gimp 2 for windows and linux. I couldn't do fancy things right away, but its not because I couldn't find the buttons or they were in bad or hidden places. It's because I don't know anything about making graphics. If graphics people start out on the gimp instead of photoshop they will be just as good on that.
So don't try to convert people to gimp. Just get new people who are about to pirate photoshop for the first time to use gimp instead.
That's about it...
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
And I quote.."I think that's one of the best-written articles I've ever read about the reality of most open-source geek-driven projects vs their equivelant professional/proprietary ones." ... Not biased.. REALLY.
It's always humorous to me when trollers go after an opensource project that offers an excellent (albeit different) solution than a commercial closed source project. Do they ever compare apples for apples? How many free plugins/styles/scripting languages do you get with photoshop? what is the price tag again? I've used both, photoshop is better.. but Gimp is excellent and more than "good enough" for most projects (without being closed source or having a high price).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Personally those that are complaining should put their money where their mouth is.
Gimp is done by people who love to give back to the community. If you look at what has been done, it is an awesome project. If you don't like that it's not a Photoshop Killer, then pitch in and pay the salary of a couple of the GIMP programmers so they can dedicate their undivided attention to the project and I guarantee you that you'll get what you ask for.
For where this product comes from, it is great. It shouldn't be looked at as a Photoshop replacement for professionals, but as a Photoshop replacement for those of us who can't afford Photoshop.
Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth. If you don't like the product and don't want to contribute to make it better. Go buy Photoshop.
Otherwise, get your hands dirty.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Adobe hasn't just made Photoshop well, but they also have quite a few professional tools that I don't think I could live without.
Illustrator, InDesign, AfterEffects, and Acrobat(files) are other leading softwares that are essential for me (as a graphic designer). And once you get used to the way Adobe feels and organizes tools, you get accustomed to it, so much so that it becomes a pain to try to use other non-Adobe programs. This familiarity comes in handy, however, when you think to yourself, "How would I do [x] in InDesign or AfterEffects?" and the first thing you think of, it's there.
Adobe has a monopoly on my graphics editing.
I've used all four in comic artwork, and here's my option:
[b]PHOTOSHOP:[/b] A bit overkill, but it's the best for most any application. It's better on a Mac, though, than on a PC, due to interface issues.
[b]GIMP:[/b] Next best thing, I can do almost 100% of the stuff I can do in Photoshop. Speeding stuff up (like employing multiple CPU's or servers) will help, and 16-bit/channel may help photo artists.
[b]Paint Shop Pro:[/b] If it's what you got and you can't get the others, it'll do. Most of the stuff above you can do.
[b]Photoshop Elements:[/b] DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT GETTING THIS!!! BAD! BAD!! The interface is confusing for even old Photoshop users, and to think I used Photoshop *BEFORE* going with Gimp!!! EEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!
Most of the time, you (the common user) don't need something heavy-handed as Photoshop. You just need to tweak Gimp/PSP to use more memory. I have it using half of 1.5 gigs here, may push it back up to a full gig. That speeds filters up fast (when you don't have to swap!)
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
When I was primarily a Linux user, I used GIMP for many hours out of each day, tinkering with my photos, working on images for web sites, etc. It is a good tool, and it has a lot going for it. The new interface is nice, but... in so many regards, GIMP is no Photoshop. I quickly realized this after I got a Power Mac and Photoshop 7.
Even though I do not use Photoshop in any professional context, it is a phenomenal product even for my personal use. Here are the major things that keep me from using GIMP on the Mac beyond occasionally playing with it:
Don't get me wrong - GIMP is a nice program, and for the price it absolutely kicks ass. But just that handful of problems listed above will be enough to turn off serious photo/graphics folks. Hell, I'm a geek that has used Linuxy and UNIXy stuff for years, and I am seriously bothered by those issues I listed, among other nit-picky ones.
Adobe doesn't have much to worry about at the moment. But if an Aqua native version of GIMP came out and could offer similar performance on high-powered Macs, then they might have reason to start sweating.
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
I personally find that Illustrator is even more candle repellent. In terms of Vector graphics manipulation, I think it is tops.
This is the company that invented PostScript after all.
A lot of people fire back about GIMP's interface with, "But think of how friendly to multiple monitors it is!"
Never mind that Photoshop works just fine with multiple monitors! It has as far back as I can remember. I've seen five-monitor Mac setups arranged in order of the artist's graphics processes, moving from one monitor to another, going from area to dialog to area and so forth.
I get WHY people justify GIMP's interface. I just don't agree whatsoever.
GIMP = GNU Image Manipulation Program
Anyway, many linux apps' names are a play on words, so I don't see why GIMP ought to have a different name. Plus the GUI is all GIMPed up anyways. Oooo.. *slaps knee*
I'm actually pretty good with El Gimpo (though I'm a programmer like you), but the interface still boils my bum. No matter what you do, you have 700 windows open by the time you're done. If you're doing other stuff with the computer at the same time or working on a few images, you end up with a useless soup. And, if you're like me, you'll end up spending way too much time hunting through the endless right-click menus (often for the same 4 or 5 options).
Speaking of which, useless novelty crap has the same rank in the right-click hierarchy as bread and butter functions (there's probably hotkeys or some configuration crap I can do to fix this - but I'm ranting here). Beginning users are helplessly confused by the selection/anchoring setup. The Channels/Paths thing is just messed up, and I bet most users just steer clear of the whole thing and just implement what they can with layers and fudging. Lots of the subtools lack the features that would be required to make them useful, and are far too customizable in only the ways I couldn't care less about. Or are just pretty much useless novelty doodads.
Still, I use it because it's a free way to do some common picture operations (like fudging color) on my work computer.
You can't really complain too much about a free product - but you can certainly wish it had had a usable (and here I mean more than "it's possible to use") interface.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Funny, when I try this on Linux and Gimp (FC1 and 2.0.0) and (FC2t3 and 2.0.1) there's no glitches like this, fonts are just as beatiful as on in Photoshop (must be related to X11 on OSX or something).
And besides,... Gimp environment is Linux friendly not OSX friendly (Gimp behaves completely different than any other software on OSX).
To sum it all up, writer had just as awkward position as I had when I run Photoshop (tryed to use my alerady paid versions) on crossover office on Linux (something just didn't belong there). As much as I was working with Photoshop in the past (few years of intensive usage, after that I traded it for Linux and Gimp), I found my self very uncomfortable with Photoshop interface as he with Gimp.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Thank goodness I have a mac. :)
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
I agree that there are problems with the GIMP. The 'endless window' interfaces of dia, sodipodi, and the gimp will probably never catch on, for good reasons. Plus there are the other problems elaborated on above. However, as I read the review I kept thinking how weird the results were. I can only attribute it to running the Mac version. I run gentoo so maybe I'm optimized more than some but I regularily work with 100MB files with no real problems (on a PIII 450). Files that photoshop for windows takes ages to handle. Furthermore, there are preview windows all over the place... I don't know if the mac version is missing them or what but I was surprised to see that mentioned. So, I think the review is fine and it wouldn't hurt the GIMP creators to read it with an open mind probably but it seems like the article is also saying that the Mac version is slow and may be missing features... though I'm not sure why that would be.
Alot of people have animosity towards Adobe, myself included over various issues, but there is one thing that Adobe has that nobody else can hold a candle to: Photoshop.
Also Illustrator, InDesign, and a little thing called the Adobe Type Library.
Photoshop is a wonder, yes, but it's not the only horse in Adobe's barn. Hell, in my opinion it's not even the best one. InDesign 3 takes that accolade. (Optical kerning: hellooooo, nurse.)
I write in my journal
Bad analogy. The Gimp is more like that big wheel transportation device in one of the South Park episodes. You had to have something painfully rammed up you ass while driving it. And it didn't have to be that way.
It is not his job to know what open source is, he is an artist. He doesn't have to know.
All he does need to know is how to do his job: designing.
and Gimp failed on this, so whatever you say, it's useless. The guy is a pro designer, and found the Gimp inadequate. Deal with it.
The arguments here seem to me to be outstandingly one sided. I wonder how many of these people have even used the latest version of the Gimp? I worked professionally for a year and a half training people in the use of Photoshop, and I can say with confidence that its user interface is not that easy for novices. I don't think it would really be possible for any application, the Gimp included, with that many powerful and technical features. IMHO most people who complain about the UI probably only do so because it is not an exact Photoshop clone.
Most of the comments posted have also ignored some of the Gimp's strengths, such as its scripting language and plugins, which give Gimp many features that Photoshop does not offer. I can understand how a professional would have gripes with it, but I believe it to be an excellent software package, even if its UI is vastly different than Photoshop.
And write "Photoshop is immediately intuitive to the vast majority of computer users who sit down at it. The GIMP is NOT." 100 times.
The "subjective intuitivity" argument is a very valid response against people complaining "but it's not what I'm used to". But this is not what is happening here. The "subjective intuitivity" argument cannot be used as a shield to protect applications that-- rather than unfamiliar-- are simply poorly designed.
No, there is technically no such thing as a naturally intuitive interface. However, there is such a thing as a naturally unituitive interface. The Gimp is one. Just because some amount of learning is requisite in using an application like Photoshop (in that it requires a basic familiarity with the graphical computer interfaces popularized in the last 20 years) does not change the fact that the GIMP's UI blows goats.
And if you have a problem, you can't just get a tow from the nearest garage, you have to get a volunteer to do it. On his own time in whatever haphazard way he knows how.
Oh, and I almost forgot, if you complain publicly that you didn't like the Saturn, you'd get hundreds of anonymous replies from people who don't know a spark plug from a brake light, never mind not having drivers licenses telling you that it's all your fault.
Isn't that sort of reaction kinda par for the "Mac user tries anything else" course?
You're a troll, but I'll bite. The author of the article is not just some Mac user, he's Joe Gillespie, an established pro in graphic design and typography. By "established", I mean for the past 20 years or so he's been doing this kind of thing. Link 1, link 2. Nothing a little trip to google won't clear up if you're looking for credentials.
If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
I just got my latest eWeek mag and it had an enterprise case study for upgrading from MS Office 97/2000 to OpenOffice.org vs. upgrading to MS Office 2003. OOo held its own with most users.
OSS isn't always harder to use than commercial software. The Gimp has ALWAYS had its UI as a major complaint. KDE isn't harder to use than Explorer. Kopete isn't harder to use than ICQ. VNC isn't harder to use than PCAnywhere.
The Gimp is damn hard to learn and use.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
I am not familiar with MSWindows, but can't you have single windows span multiple monitors? I.E., what is to stop you from taking Photoshop's single big MDI window and expanding it to the right until it more or less fills both monitors? That would be clumsy, but hey, I consider MDI inherently clumsy anyway.
Did anyone catch the part where the reviewer said it's not worth the money to get the Gimp at $30 or $50? I doubt he/she would think it's worth the price at free, either.
The bar chart at the end should be a wake-up call to developers; the reviewer rates the 'features' at 80%, yet the 'value' is 10% and the 'must-have factor' at 1%. It doesn't matter how many features you've crammed in, if you hide it in a confusing interface and the overall product takes up more time than saves, it's just not worth bothering with.
My impression of *NIX type OS's has been that if you ask it to point a gun at you and pull the trigger, it'll do so without a second thought (cough)rm -r *(cough). He seems to have confused the "imaginary" file system that is his OS X folders, with the actual file system underneath. Funny how people see the system they're accustomed to as being "real" even after it has had reality abstracted away to another system underneath it.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
No, that is not the point. You know what I do if I want to install gimp?
apt-get install gimp
That's it. That covers installation and download. I don't need to start some nonstandard installer program or reboot my machine like on Windows (I guess on MacOS I would have to drag and drop something, as that seems to be the way Apple likes to do everything). If that's not "ready to roll" I don't know what that is.
Open source developers primarily support the platforms they work with -- mainly Linux and FreeBSD. If you use a proprietary platform like MacOS then don't whine that there are no ready-made binaries for whatever you want to do.
The point of open source (or free software) is freedom - even if you never touch the source code, you know that no single company has control over what you can or cannot do, can decide to suddenly remove certain features or add certain requirements -- if that happens, and the majority of the community doesn't agree, then the program will be forked, i.e. someone will create THE BLIMP, the truly free alternative to THE GIMP. This is what just happened with X-Window, and it could never happen if a single company had control over the source code. If you don't care about freedom, don't use open source software.
Opening MacGimp for the first time was like stepping out onto the surface of an alien planet
That's because that is exactly what you are doing. MacOS is not Linux, it has its own proprietary desktop. If you take software that was developed under completely different conditions - one key condition being that the programmer doesn't know and doesn't need to know what underlying desktop the user works with (there's that pesky freedom again) - and you thrust this software into a proprietary environment where these choices do not exist, then yes, that's like stepping on an alien planet.
Most of the complaints of the author are the result of two things:
The few complaints that are valid (chaotic menu structure, lack of previews) can only be addressed through contributing money, code, or detailed ideas. Whining about open source software is like complaining about the quality of a Wikipedia article.
So: Mac user rambles about obscure GIMP port to MacOS not being like other MacOS applications. Nothing to see here - move along.
In the long run, there is no question, what will prevail. Photoshop is 14 years old, the gimp 7 years. Photoshop 2 was already a good project and I preferred photoshop 3 for many years since it was much faster then the photoshop 4/5 hogs under the old Mac OS. Having seen Adobe pulling Premiere from the Mac platform, I would not even bet on whether Photoshop will exist on the Mac in 10 years. The sudden death of closed source projects makes me nervous. The sudden disappearance of applications like Adobe dimension or Canoma is something which should make you think. I have more faith in open source projects. The gimp steadily improves while photoshop essentially stagnated.
Yes, the Gimp has a different user interface, but this is a minor issue. What is important for me is that the application is stable, also with memory intensive tasks, that it starts up fast and I'm done quickly also with working on hundreds of files at once "gimp *.jpg" My experience is that the gimp on linux starts a multiple times faster then photoshop or the macromedia fireworks on a mac with a similar CPU. The slower Gimp OSX performance might be related to the fact that X applications still run way too slow on the Mac. But this is steadily improving.
First of all, the main problem is that you are running on a mac. Seriously, macs rock, I'm on one now, but they only run "big" X11 apps so well. First of all, running under X11 makes it slower than running natively under linux. Run it under linux and see what you think. The toolbars issue... well, that's a Linux/Windows thing, Mac users just aren't used to having menus show up in application windows. That's a reflection of what you're used to, not the fault of the app.
Having to click on buttons several times to active is also a symptom of running under X11. I have GIMP2 on my powerbook and it's *horrible* to work with because of the way that focus works in a mac so each time you click from window to window in the gimp you have to click once to give the window focus, and then again to activate the menu/tool/etc.
Tools probably aren't grouped in the best way, but they are grouped with reasonably. The selection tools, manipulation tools (rotate, scale, etc), fill tools, and drawing tools. Again, they aren't perfect, but they are definately not "thrown down".
The open dialoge is standard GTK and if you were running in GNOME under linux, would look the same as the rest of your desktop. It doesn't look like your standard open dialoge because it's GTK, not aqua!
Some of the performance issues again are no doubt due to the emulation, again, same with the font handling. Try it on a real linux computer.
Also, GIMP isn't trying to be photoshop, I don't think, it's the poor man's photoshop. Hopefully now that 2.0 is out the devs will be able to concentrate on polishing the UI, adding in some of the niceness that is in elements, etc.
I often find myself holding the space bar and trying to pan down a Web site or a list of files in Explorer, or trying to use Alt to grab a colour in Paint/Flash/whatever, or trying to use X to switch colours. :/
That's not to say that i don't have problems with Photoshop (and/or Adobe in general). One of my biggest problems with Photoshop (for Windows, at least) is that the program doesn't seem to save its settings in an INI file (or, if it does, it does it extremely poorly). So if i log out of Windows without specifically going into Photoshop and hitting the close button, or if Photoshop crashes for some reason (rare, but it has happened), or whatever -- if Photoshop isn't absolutely perfectly shut down the proper way, it resets all of its settings. It's extremely annoying.
The slow progress with Photoshop is getting a little ridiculous too. I definitely like CS, of course, and i can appreciate not adding every single little thing that comes along, but i think they could stand to add more useful features than ever-improving image browsers.
I also hate that gAMA bug Photoshop has with PNG. I know this isn't really Photoshop's fault, per se, but i wish there were a more graceful way of dealing with it within the program. Having to run pngcrush -rem gAMA in.png out.png every time i save a PNG in Photoshop is kind of annoying. :(
Also, maybe it's just the CS version, but ImageReady is a buggy piece of shit. It's usable, but i constantly have problems with it, like the screen not redrawing when i zoom in, or the options bar getting stuck in random places, or various windowing glitches. Also annoying is that fact that disabling anti-aliasing on the Magic Wand in ImageReady does not actually disable anti-aliasing. But maybe this is just my copy, heh.
"Moron" you're responding to:
'Open source' means that the source code is available at no cost to anybody that wants to download it, use it, modify it, use it to fill empty hard drives - whatever.
Eric S. Raymond's Jargon File:
"Open Source"... describe[s] software distributed in source under licenses guaranteeing anybody rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute, the code.
Can you please explain to me the difference between these two definitions?
Would you say Mr. Raymond is a "moron"? Okay, maybe you would, what about all those people who mirror the jargon file? Are they morons as well?
but that article author is entirely correct.
... well, with a fuck load of effort I got separate windows to dock into the main toolbar. In other ways it was an improvement over Gimp 1 though, with brush preview and all that. Shame that this is all stuff that DPaint had in the 80's.
I used to use Gimp an awful lot before I found Photoshop. Photoshop was bliss compared to the Gimp's UI. I then heard that Gimp 2 would fix a lot of the UI issues. However I was very disappointed when I tried Gimp 2.
I had been led to believe that this version would fix all the UI issues with the previous one.
The new text tool was so deficient that I was longing for the old text tool back. The UI was meant to be dockable
The Gimp can't be fixed. It needs a whole new front-end designed in collaboration with the users. A few prettier icons doesn't fix it.
It doesn't look like the author was out to bash an open-source program just for kicks. :-)
Why not take such reviews as constructive criticism? It's actually good for programs like gimp that professionals or people who can influence the professionals have started to pay attention to free software.
So don't take it personally, guys. It's a good sign
There's essentially two factors deciding how good an OSS project will be:
1. The total users for that tool
2. The fraction of users developing that tool.
Everybody needs a basic kernel, word processor, spreadsheet, drawing program etc. Many users, low percentage develops but still many developers.
Geeky stuff like a regex parser may have few users, but relatively many developers.
A professional class graphics tool? Few people need it, the "professional class" at least. Few geeks are really great artists, and so relatively few developers. A low-low score = bad.
The only reason Photoshop comes up more often than other software is that users need the basic features, and well - if they're first going to pirate something, they go for the top product.
Yes, if I was doing graphics professionally, I would most likely get a professional tool, just as if I was doing movie editing, audio editing, 3d modeling or just about any other job.
If that is what you do for a living, simply do the math. How much time would it save you, or how much would it increase the quality and value of your work. If it's above sales price, buy.
I don't expect a bunch of programmers to sit down and make something for me that they don't need themselves - or well if they did, it would be because I'm paying them, which is indirectly what I do when I buy software. Obvious, isn't it?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
if this was fark, the story would get an obvious tag. what would you expect of a user of a certain program, that is proficient has used it for years when he/she tries another program with a different interface and workflow?
Oh, right. Like Microsoft's "Excel." Of course, swing the other way and you have "Word." Shouldn't they have called it "Document"? And what is the "PowerPoint" thing? Sounds like an auto-targeting system for a cannon. And "Access"? Does that get me onto the Internet or something?
At least they seemed to get it right with their server products. I mean, "SQL Server" for a database seems obvious, and "Exchange" is for... well, if you don't count attracting virii, it's for exchanging things with people. "Internet Information Server" is for serving information to the Internet. Oh, yes, and of course "Windows Server" is for... um... uh... hmm....
Dammit! I never know when to shut up.
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
Optical kerning is, as I understand it, a new auto-kerning algorithm in InDesign 3. Rather than kerning based on metrics, it kerns based on actual letter-forms, producing much more pleasing results. I use optical kerning for all type above about 12 points, within reason. It is apparently quite CPU-intensive, because InDesign really slows to a crawl when you turn on optical kerning for an entire page of body type.
Between optical kerning for display type and optical margin alignment for justified body type, InDesign 3 just kicks typographic ass.
I write in my journal
Indeed. Photoshop has gotten a lot of attention, and it's payed off.
And let me just say that, as a graphics editor, I find myself using GIMP more and more. I still, easily, use PS quite a bit more than the GIMP. However, GIMP continues to pile on desirable features, and at the very least, I am compelled to save all my final works using GIMP's superior compression for JPEG, and PNG (and probably more).
Even though I love my photoshop, I hope to one day see it replaced with GIMP or another Free Software (RMS' definition) solution.
it's made by open source programers for open source users.
:) We want to be able to use ourcomputer quickly and efficiently. IE: I Hit record in photoshop, do some coomands hit stop and I can now use that macro for anything.
Honestly Graphic Designers are NOT programers. There visual people who like pretty things and easy to use GUI's - thats why Apple is a great platform for us
Theres no need for me to write a script or make sure I have some other dependency programs/file sinstalled. The Program works exactly like the other programs I use in the print industry Illustrator, Photoshop, Indesign - they all use a similar UI.
Theres no reason for a graphic designer to touch linux ever. Maybe a windows machine, always an apple, but never linux.
The makers of GIMP are open source programmers who know nothing about graphic design in the professional world. Look at the prettines of their site compared to adobe's. The GIMP could have millions of dollars of money put into it and never be as good as phhotoshop, because they don't know or understand that CODERS ARE NOT GRAPHIC DESIGNERS and vice versa.
Ave Molech Setting
Open Source software is brillliant... it's wonderful, and the beauty of collaborative invention is somethign profoundly important today in a world that seems to be committed to singular interest and personal competition as a natural form of self expression.
That said... OS projects involving the arts, need to get more artists to participate. More right brained thinking folks involved who will ultimately be using the applications. The kind of people who write code, typically want tools who's UI is consistent with the environments they use. These prople have tremendous mental muscles in those linear skills usually associated with coding and designing software. In applications whose ultimate user base will be artists, those considerations are second to having a tool which elegantly allows them to visualize, create, give birth to artistic expression. Powerful file handling features are great for somebody intending to perform batch operations on a slew of graphics files... however more photographers are looking for ways to get a clear sense of their work, and how to improve it. Most don't care what algorythms the programmer chose to operate on the graphic... they just want to see the operation quickly so they can compare this or that.
WIRED did a great article on OS last November... at OS as it's beginning to influence law and science. We need to have a fair representation of all human endeavors involved in this movement, so they can cross pollinate and create the kind of tools, resources, and infrastructure needed to grow a distinctly different kind of culture. One that is more interested in the common good, the general benefit to all, than the need to control or own one another. A shift from the an 18th century mentality to a truly third millinium mindset. I look forward to the evolution of OS... I see it as an underlying force for expressing what's best in being human.
Genda
considering The Gimp is free it's a GREAT DEAL!
Read that again. Once more. Think about what you are saying.
Consider the degree of difficulty necessary to achieve making something that is free a "great deal."
If we in the open source community are to satifsfy ourselves with having given value by creating something that doesn't have negative utlility, then its time for us to stop the madness entirely.
We must do great work with our energies, or spend the time doing something else. Imagine that Steve Jobs or the corporate slavedriver of your choice were constantly riding you to make "art rather than crap." Imagine that your livelihood depended on making it great, and that you were worthless if it weren't. Otherwise, don't bother.
Anything less, and you are a poser wannabe.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Nothing we do is a "great deal" because its free. It should be a great deal at any reasonable price, and an astonishing piece of wonder because it is free (both in terms of price and liberty).
And for the record, that reviewer paid for the software, and found it wanting at any price. It had negative utility for her, and frankly, that sucks -- notwithstanding the wonder and excellence of the effort.
Its ok to say, "hey, that's not for you, sorry it didn't work out for you." But to say, "hey, its free, what did you expect?" Sorry, it just ain't the hacker ethic.
is the lack of 16-bit per channel support. Everything else is incidental. It's meant to be an image manipulation program. Text and vector stuff isn't really within its core remit; albeit it makes some effort in that direction there are far better tools for working with text/graphics combinations or with vector graphics.
But to be able to cope adequately with scanned images it really really needs 16-bit depth support. I know filmgimp supports it but the interface on that is really clunky (yes, even by GIMP standards!) and I've never managed to get xsane working happily with it. I don't care about ELQ's proposed spiffy scanner interfaces - xsane does everything I'll ever need, though I wish some of the ranges would revert to +/-400% rather than +/-100%. lcms colour management would be nice, but for home users (ie most users) it's not a can't-live-without feature. 16 bits-per-channel support is; I know there are plans to support it in future releases via libGEGL, but progress on this seems achingly slow. There seem to be plans to polish gimp-2.0 and release a 2.2 later in the year; I'd far rather that was shelved and the developers worked on libGEGL as the basis of a new GIMP core.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
I'm not really up on the Gimps' licensing status, but assuming it's OSS, why is it that one of the complainers doesn't just build the Gimp a new GUI?
If the source is all OSS, wouldn't it just be a matter of someone just putting their skills to work, and creating a new GUI in which to house the Gimps functionality?
I'm not a Gimp user myself (I've used it, but my opinion of the GUI is the same as a lot of others: Too many open windows and right click menus), but I don't see any reason that the existing functionality of the Gimp couldn't be tied a new interface rather easily (be it a Photoshop clone, or some new and unique look).
Obviously I'm over-simplifying this a bit, but the average GUI is simply a bunch of controls which tell the backend functions what to do. How hard could something like this be if someone put their mind to it?
The Gimp is free in terms of money. It is most certainly not free in terms of things like time spent configuring and downloading it, or wasted time spent trying to get used to its interface before realizing it just can't be done. The article we are responding to notes the Gimp to be monetarily free and then gives it a "value for money" score of 10%. I would be inclined to agree.
I made a concerted effort to start using the Gimp, beginning with the assumption that anything about the interface that didn't feel right to me was merely becuase I wasn't used to it and that once I got used to its idiom I would be as efficient with it as I would be with Photoshop. This turned out not to be the case.
What I would consider an acceptably designed tool is that once you are familiar with it, it just melts away into a comfortable sort of overlay where what you find yourself thinking of is what you're doing, not thinking about how to make the tool do what you want. It turns out that the Gimp interface, with its tools which do not work in logical or naturally synergistic ways and its interface consisting entirely of totally unrelated features scattered over a huge mess of heirarchal menus that seem to have the features sorted into them in random order, was just something I cannot get into a comfortable state with, no matter how much time I spent fighting with it. In fact, it was bad enough I couldn't actually manage to complete a single attempt at an image, no matter how small, to my satisfaction. The interface just got in the way too much. I would posit that this is the Gimp's fault, not mine.
Now, given, this was Gimp 1. The new Gimp that came out a couple weeks ago, I haven't used. But to be firmly honest I see no reason why I should. These people have given me no reason to believe they can design a useable interface. Installing this software would be a mere matter of typing "sudo emerge gimp" into my Gentoo box at home before I go to bed and letting it grind for the next day and a half. However, it would require a large investment of time in terms of learning, testing and playing with the Gimp2 interface, and I simply lack any reason to believe that there will be any sort of worthwhile payoff for this cost of time. I would prefer to continue with my current situation of using imagemagick to convert formats and only being able to edit images while in a computer lab on campus. To be honest, while I am somewhat embarrased to be saying this, if I DO eventually try out Gimp2, it will be for the sole reason that once I do so I will be able to respond to Slashdot discussions about it like this one in an informed manner. The software program itself simply does not offer anything I am interested in using.
If they would be honest A LOT of home users SHOULD use the GIMP instead of using an illegal version of Photoshop.
I disagree. There are other free and inexpensive alternatives to the Gimp that perform their jobs far better. One that comes to mind is GraphicConverter, a very cheap shareware graphics app for OS X that I used for years (though I haven't used it much since the OS X switch) that while by no means professional is totally acceptable for a large variety of applications. It doesn't have as many OH SUPER LEET TEXT EFFECTS as the Gimp does but I or anyone else could sit down, immediately understand how to do what they want, and perform tasks of relative complexity without being stymied by the interface. The same is not true of the GIMP. I am not familiar with windows freeware but I would imagine a similar situation exists there.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Bob
Come on.
Most open source apps?
I agree with the assertion that GIMP has got absolutely squat on Photoshop. Honestly. That's why I see no problem in dropping the big bucks on PS. But MOST open source apps being the same? Highly doubtful.
OpenOffice handles legacy Word documents better than the "latest and greatest" from Microsoft. Heck, I've had compatibility problems between the equivalent versions of Word for Windows and Word for Mac that have been resolved just by opening the document up in OO.
Bash rocks cmd's socks off. If geeks do one thing exceptionally well, it's command-line tools.
Ogle vs. Any DVD player for Windows: Killer. Just learn your bloody keyboard mappings already (not that hard to find) and it's exactly the same as any given DVD player except no lock-outs, so you can skip all the bullshit previews the companies decide to force feed you with (also, you've read the FBI Warnings before, and if you haven't, you're not about to start now. Suffice it to say you saw the FBI warning, can you please skip it already?)
Like I said, GIMP definately has serious disadvantages over Photoshop. But a lot of the other tools that are out there are not as lacking. 99% of the stuff I use that's open-source is in most cases as good as and in many cases better than its proprietary counterpart. The one thing people seem to forget is that in the geek world aesthetics take a back seat to functionality. I don't mind learning curves myself so I find myself able to do a lot more with a fully open source system over a system loaded with its proprietary counterparts.
Karma: Non-Heinous
Its not like the GIMP Developers *don't want* to make a usable app, its that nobody who is bitterly complaining about how unusable the GIMP is seems to have the ability to produce a useful specification for how it *should* work.
By that I don't mean 'Rip off everything about Photoshop's UI and make the GIMP a lawsuit target', but rather start a project which provides a detailed set of interface conventions, specifications and mockups that will provide an easy way for the existing GIMP team, or a new team to put an artist-friendly face on the GIMP, and to serve as a guideline and UI spec for other atrist-friendly Open Source tools to conform to.
If the name should be changed, then suggest a new name as part of the project , instead of just saying 'The GIMP's name sucks, you should use something else'
Personally, I find GIMP 2.x quite usable, but Open Source is not about providing you a product, its about you participating in making a product.
If you don't realise that, or can't understand that, then i feel sorry for you, but you're whining is worthlesss if you can't even frame your complaints in a way that might get noticed by the GIMP developers (e.g. on the gimp-users mailing list)
Please shut up and go use photoshop.
If you don't want to help, then you really are better off paying for, or stealing a commercial product.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
For most users, Gimp 2.0 is good enough. 1.2 was horrid. If you're doing professional work, it depends. Simple web graphics, you can use Gimp. Complex 400 layer images with glass effects and all kinds of gamma corrections and transparencies? Hey, I've seen some people do it, but you might want to go invest the (was it $300 or $600?) cash in photoshop.
Once you learn to use gimp, it's powerful. It's damn good. It's not like it's got all the big, flashy features of PS though. Hey, here's an idea: stop whining about what gimp doesn't have, and hit the gnome bugzilla at http://bugs.gnome.org/ and ask for these things. 24 bit color per channel, 24 bit alpha channels (opacity), better image editing structure (tree based image editing instead of layer based), vector layers, take a look around and ask for what's not bugged on the list. If something DOES have a bug for it, reply to the bug to show that it's a popularly desired feature.
Don't go slamming OSS because it doesn't have everything you want, or doesn't blast the $500 alternatives. You have to make it better. Not by coding, as some of these big-headed programmers would like to force you to believe; but by demanding the features you need. Someone will code it if they actually care about the project.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
OK, probably a dumb question. I'm no developer. But why hasn't anyone taken the source code for Gimp, and made something with a really smooth, intuitive UI? Or taken the code over and made it a standard Cocoa app?
>Right off the bat, this isn't an entirely fair comparison, because he's using a PORT. Ports are always a little wonky, aren't they?
Not always. Photoshop is also a port. It has ports on Windows, and even the OSX version is a port over the very old 68k API. So, what's your point now?
Also, the version of Gimp that guy used was COMMERCIAL, and IF that port was "bad", then it shouldn't have being sold in the first place.
> Who's going to buy it? Photography and graphic design types. Why? Because they ALWAYS throw huge amounts of money at stuff.
Wrong. They buy it because it DOES stuff they need, not because they want to "throw" money. The Gimp simply CAN'T do some stuff they need.
>Is it worth blowing a thousand bucks and locking yourself into Mac just to have prettier buttons and menus?
Haha! You really don't get it, do you? When we are talking about the "UI" we don't talk about nice buttons and colors, we talk about FREAKING USABILITY. Something that Gimp LACKS.
>why the hell does everyone get so hell-bent for leather about comparing every single open source project with an expensive proprietary alternative
Because people use software in order to do their jobs. The fact that something is open source or not, is IRRELEVANT for 99.9% of the people. What matters is how each tool can help the user to do his/her job. The rest political philologies don't matter.
I have both Photoshop 8 or as it is called now CS and I also run the latest binary version of The Gimp under X11 on MacOS X 10.3.3.
Setting up Photoshop is a piece of cake but then getting the Gimp going was not brain surgery either. In either case, if you are going to be making money or doing a lot of work with digital images then Photoshop is the only way to go.
Photoshop has been around longer than any other graphic app of its kind so the tool set cannot be beat. While the Gimps tool set is very workable it is not even close to Photoshop in the Human Interface department. The other reason Photoshop is the hands down winner is the support of third party plug-ins making the program very extensible. The Gimp being open source should have Photoshop beat in this department but I know of no third party Gimp plug-ins. Even many shareware photo editors support Photoshop plug-ins. Until Gimp supports its own and someone starts writing them Gimp will be an also ran.
If you don't have a lot of cash and your needs are modest then the Gimp is a great program with a lot of power under the hood. If you are a power user then Photoshop is the only choice. I hope someone takes the Gimp to the next level, better tools, a better UI and plug-in support and people writing those plug-ins could make the Gimp a real contender. As it stands now compared to Photoshop the Gimp is aptly named.
But this elitist drivel is just the type of crap I've come to expect from certain quarters after 5 years of avid browsing. The reason the article drives me nuts really comes down to cost. (FYI) The submission here pretty much sums up the article except to leave out all the sarcasm and jibing.
Sure, commercial users who are able to purchase $3,000 worth of hardware without bumping up the mortgage probably 'can't understand why anyone would want to go to so much effort for so little reward'. They probably do honestly think that at $99 Photoshop Elements is 'cheap, painless and produces high quality results'.
So who cares about the unwashed personal use throng?
The cost of obtaining a great quality Digital Camera has made all the difference over the last couple of years. It's one of those cases (like digital music) of people getting a chance to take a part of their real life and combine it with their interest in computers or email or the internet or even just a penchant for electronic wizardry, at a price and personal cost that really is cheap and effortless. My point here is that personal users do matter - more each day in fact.
Whilst I know I am not a GIMP zealot I have used the WIN32 off shoot (The GIMP windows version incidentally, doesn't have to be compiled in an end user sense it comes as an installer executable). As an end user however I am relatively motivated by the general ideas and beliefs of the open source commnuity and in that domain the GIMP is the anti-candle.
Then there is the issue of breaching the User License. For all you folks who don't taint your pure selves with the concerns of warez and all that - Adobe (for as long as I can remember) has always produced software that seems to be notoriously easy to crack. So I guess, sadly, that gives users such as myself another option, that no-one ever seems to acknowledge.
Hmm.. I guess no image editor war is ever going to start here (for the time being), right? Let's be honest - it's like comparing a foot massage with a ho down in the holiest of holies. Everyone knows that.
The article mentions the problem with the help system. (I vaguely remember discovering a fix at some point.. can anyone help?) In any case look no further than here for what I consider to be a remarkable effort, all things considered. It really sums up to me why I (but more importantly GIMP developers) go to all the effort for 'so little reward'. The author of the article says in respect of the MacGIMP that he thought he'd have a look. I guess then he thought he'd wipe his MacNIKEs on the hard and thankless labour of others. Have some respect fulla...
Starting from the bottom, I'll first mention that while Acrobat is simply a reader, which many hundreds of alternatives exist for, it's primarily the .pdf files that it's based around that are so important. I'll admit pdf's aren't an exclusive Acrobat format, but they are very handy to export data to, as a universal file format. While most printer's will accept just about any files you need, the reproductions stand a chance of being wrong if opened on the wrong software. Pdf's are extremely versatile, which has led me to use them anytime I send anything to the Newspapers or Printers. So, yes Acrobat itself isn't that great, but the native file format is.
As for AfterEffects, I've seen plenty of competition, even from Premiere, as well as many apps for the Mac, not just Motion.
I agree wholeheartedly that Quark is InDesign's rival, and would go a step further to note that Quark has been the industry standard for many years, but I have never met one person who actually liked it. It's a terrible program that has far outlived its usefulness, especially since InDesign has now become the favorite of most every print designer, and kicks so much ass.
I've heard from several people I respect that they prefer Freehand to Illustrator, and I don't doubt that it is the best for them. But those people are almost always Macromedia people, the ones who publish to the web and interactive cd's more than to print. While I also use most of the Macromedia products, I still prefer Adobe for any use I can get away with, which brings me back to my original point.
Adobe has made excellent products that work with each other in an intuitive fashion, and it is extremely easy to get to know it in a way that makes you never want to use other programs, regardless of near-equal rivals.
Eh, I've never been impressed with Illustrator.
I managed a graphic design shop for a couple of years, and my formally-trained graphic artists using Illustrator couldn't even begin to keep up with this self-taught geek using Corel Draw. Just about every feature that Illustrator crows about when they first add it has already been in Draw for at least two years. Draw's print setups and dialogs *completely* blow Illustrator out of the water. Complex layouts can be done in seconds.
As for Photoshop, yeah, it's OK, but Corel's PhotoPaint is its equal. Not better, but not worse.
I never realized before, the GIMP slashdot icon is animated. Is it the only animated category icon, or are there more?
"You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
It seems that, while we're extolling the virtues of open source, we're missing one of its main virtues: open code. If we don't like the GIMP interface why are we relying solely on the GIMP team to change it? Why don't we form a team and fork a project specifically to redesign the UI to a more professional standard? I mean, why gripe about it like there is just no solution outside of the main GIMP team?
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
Which interface is more complex: Photoshop or AutoCAD? Are there other programs (not OSs) that are more complicated to operate than graphics-oriented ones? Girlfriend 2.0 doesn't count.
AutoCAD is more complex, but then again, its task is more complex. Either way, they are both complex. Girlfriend 2.0 is not nearly as complicated nor as annoying as Wife 3.0 ;-) Not to mention the extra money and resources it eats up with no apparent benefit...
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
All this article tells us is that the author is too inflexible to make an informed or useful comment. If this were to be taken seriously, all the people who have been coming up with great ideas for desktop usabilility should just hang up their keyboards and let Redmond dictate what we are supposed to like.
I'm somewhat bored of hearing about users complaining about an application's interface not being like a competitor's. Really, can't you guys accept that there are differences and that from the moment you accept them, you will actually be able to enjoy the application? Also, if you don't like the interface, why don't you contribute and improve it? If the antialiasing isn't perfect, why don't you try to fix it? Free software is not all about free beer, and I think that's a serious problem it's facing toward users (especially artistic ones). At some point, you need to understand that there is no money-hungry company behind the application and it's most likely written by programmers for their own needs. If you have specific needs, just make them clear and stop complaining. You might need to work a bit to get it, but it's a very small price to pay. Really, if you don't like an open source application and you are not ready to contribute some efforts to improve it, just buy your software, I don't want to hear anything you have to say.
Qui ne va pas à la chasse n'a pas de gibier
PHP Queb
In the early 1990's, Mac's ruled my university's computer labs. Though I used vector programs for my engineering studies, my roommate was Industrial Design major so he was always talking about the paint apps.
The hot "paint" program back then was something called "PixelPaint" and it seriously grabbed the Architecture and Industrial Design students of the day. Everyone wanted it because of it's large pallete size, gradiant fills, and razor-like precision.
One day, a program called PhotoShop showed up in the labs (legally installed by a student who forgot to delete it before s/he left). It was cool, but PixelPaint still out classed it. Every line you drew was "fuzzy". The pallete size was so big, that it was hard to select a particular color. And overall, things just seemed blurry even when printing or copy/pasting to another app.
The designer's names were in the about box and I actually saw the lead developer post to the comp.sys.mac.* usenet newsgroups so I wrote him some email to complain about this horrible little app in both it's interface and ability.
He actually responded to my critiques and spent some time explaining just how programs like "PixelPaint" could really only make good-looking "on-screen" graphics due to low colors and resolutions. His app "PhotoShop" was aiming at photographic images where razor-sharp lines looked fake. He even replied about my suggested interface improvements and told me what they had planned for the next version which was even better than what I suggested.
This really impressed me. I know that this type of interaction between commercial programmer and user doesn't exist anymore, but it was amazing the patience that he used to point out my misunderstandings (and I wasn't even a real customer at the time).
The interaction I've had with the GIMP community hasn't impressed me. I'm a little more technically savvy than some of the Mac users out there, but getting the GIMP installed and usable is a pain. The GIMP is capable of a lot of things, but its defaults really don't impress me. I feel like I really have to work to get it out of PixelPaint mode into Photoshop mode (and I'm not really knowledgeable enough to say that I get those changes right). The online communities just aren't as open or friendly to answer the questions that I've asked even if I've tried reading TFM and FAQ.
If I were tight for money, I think I'd pay my bucks for GraphicConverter (a Mac shareware app that has a similar PixelPaint feel) rather than waste the time on the GIMP.
I'm a big supporter of Open Source software, but I've thought for a while that a group of people really need to decouple the engine from the interface and produce a "better" photo manipulation software in the way that Camino (and later Firefox) successfully rebuilt alternative user experiences on the Mozilla web-browsing engine.
I've used the gimp off and on, but I always come back to the color calibration bug. PS and most of the other commercial packages offer this features, but Gimp is still out in the cold. I understand that the ICC profile system may not be "free" to implement, but it's a critical part of the commerical world of photography. I still have hope, but until that day, I need to use PS.
CLASSIFIED
Yes. All this "I would move to Linux if..." is getting really annoying. If Linux doesn't work for you, don't feel forced to use it. It's a tool that's available to you. I, for one, can't really get Windows or MacOS to work the way I like, so I don't use them. I don't post to slashdot saying "I would move to Windows if..."; why should you?
:)
Also, if you don't like The GIMP, don't use it. No gun to your head. For me, the GIMP works well enough (I don't see anything wrong with it) and hey, it's $0 and I can see the source code. For that reason (the source code) it will ALWAYS be better than photoshop. IANA
My other car is first.
Kerning is typically defined in the kerning table of a font file (truetype, opentype) by the author as being the most visually pleasing.
I can't think of many applications that kern based on metrics except where you want them to.
That said - the 'Optical Kerning' method may take a while, but I'd have to ask this : does it store the resultant kerning data for re-use ?
Does it cache at all ?
If not.. no wonder it's slow.
It should be entirely feasible, after all, to build a kerning table for all possible letter/glyph/etc. combinations in a single run, and re-use that when needed. It's not like the font morphs over time.
just my 2cts
This die-hard Harley-Davidson fan decides to install the 1.8 litre engine from junked a Honda Civic (hey, it was free!) in his Dyna Glide, only to be confused by it's chaotic array of wires and hoses, non-standard bolt pattern, difficulty matching it to his original Harley transmission, and the general slowness of his new behemoth bike.
Seriously, if you post something like this on a gearhead site, you'll get laughed off the internet. Why is the same sort of stuff can be passed off as constructive criticism when it's about open-source software? The Gimp was never meant to be a Mac app. If it works, that's a nice bonus, but please don't expect it to be neatly integrated with a platform that it only runs on because of a third-party porting effort.
0 1 - just my two bits
The thing that has me unable to switch to Photoshop is its hopelessly borked automation.
There is a scripting system for photoshop - but it is lame and incomplete.
For example layer objects in Photoshop have no size or position properties under the automation interface.
Corel by contrast has supported objects with usual properties under automation since 1995 - that's almost ten years before Photoshop and they still haven't caught up.
The argument that nobody uses scripting is lame - since it doesn't work - its a given that it won't be used - so nobody uses it - so it - the point is that its in there. Actions have been an important part of Photoshop for a lomng time - but actions are limited - they can't do referential manipulation (reduce resolution on n number of dissimilar images).
They can't be data driven.
and they support no logic whatsoever.
Pretty silly overall.
AIK
Although Photoshop may be an amazing program as far as artists are concerned, Adobe has never given me and millions of other users one crucial feature that The GIMP has had since day one: freeness!
/that/...
Additionally, Photoshop is not very script-able. The GIMP runs automated on my machines for many tasks, including automated map generation and such. I'd like to see Photoshop doing
I don't care how powerful it is, if the interface is confusing then it is not written correctly.
Burn my Karma, but frankly its attitudes like this which leave a lot of OS projects forever in the "also ran" category.
I don't care if its free.
I don't care if its open-source.
I don't care it is not Microsoft/insert-evil-of-week
I care that it is intuitive
I care that it follows standard conventions
I care that they look forward to implementing things better
I care that they look forward to adding that feature that makes product-X so great
I care that what I need to make it work is easy to find, as in linked from one place.
These professional packages did not become the dominant players by just passing themselves off as "assuming a competent user". They did their time of ass kissing to the consumer for many years to earn their reputation as the best or most used packages.
Tell people that they need to put forth more effort to get something to work like they are used to the competition working is the same as saying, don't bother, we don't care.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I don't post to slashdot saying "I would move to Windows if..."; why should you?
Because Linux is more than an OS. It is part of an ideology as well. Perhaps Open Source fits the poster's philosophy of life or maybe they just want to save some bucks. It's doubtful any of those things would apply to someone moving in the other direction (unless you're a programmer who sees Open Source as taking bread from their hungry children's mouths or something).
For me, the GIMP works well enough (I don't see anything wrong with it) and hey, it's $0 and I can see the source code. For that reason (the source code) it will ALWAYS be better than photoshop.
The key here is your first two words. Hey, if it works for you, great! I started with the GIMP and thought it was wonderful. Then I got ahold of a copy of Photoshop Elements 2.0 and all I could do was say "Wow". I was so impressed I bought a copy. I've since tried Photoshop 7.0 and been even more impressed. However I'm not impressed with the cost of entry. For that reason I'd love to have GIMP come up to speed. So, put me in the column with the parent (except that I already use Linux) in wanting certain things to work better than they do now.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
In short, the Gimp is just that; a gimp. Its UI is so unintuitive, it's a nightmare to use. I am no fan of proprietary software, but all I have to say is vive la Photoshop.
I had to chuckle reading the various comments of how intuitive or nonintuitive the UI is, because I'd always thought Photoshop's UI wasn't all that intuitive, having first used Paint Shop Pro.
I kind of forced myself to learn PS, which I'm fairly comfortable with now, (not a pro by any stretch) and to an extent, the Gimp, but I'd have to agree that da Gimp does have a strange UI, for any app.
I was slightly panicked the first time I tried to save my file by clicking on "File" in the main (?) menu but didn't see the usual fare in the drop down menu.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
OK, at the risk of being redundant here, I want to point out some pretty obvious things here.
;-)
/. fun...
- the Gimp may be free, but since it's being compared to PS so much (by users) it deserves this kind of reviews.
- there are only two useful viewpoints here: either you don't care, Gimp/PS does it for you and there's no incentive to change or you do care and then there are quite a few actions worth taking. Bitching about your choice isn't constructive.
1) GUI gripes: Since theming is such fun in Linux, I don't see why FOSS programmers and some good Linux or OS X gui designers can't work together to make Gimp acceptable on various platforms and have those themes as defaults depending on the platform.
A theme doesn't equal a good GUI but it goes a long way. This would charm many amateur users on various platforms, not only mac users are gui-anal, they however are very vocal
After all, this is hardly a new gripe. Now that there's an excellent OS X package available that installs like a charm on Panther, you'll hear more gripes than before, maybe, but still...
2) Professional gripes: IF, and that's a big if, the Gimp has professional ambitions, start working with professional designers already and find out exactly a) what results and kinds of output they desire and b) how to offer this gui-wise. Someone here remarked that indeed if the result is good enough, any gui can be learned, but it would help to make things easy from the start.
All the rest is just typical
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Ah yes, but there are certain style-guides which have been established for years by all major operating systems. They're what users are used to, and wanting to be different because the GIMP authors think they've made a better choice just isn't a good enough reason. There has to be an overwhelmingly good reason to force people to learn a new interface, and so far, nobody has come-up with that reason in a satisfactory way.
As an example, have a look at Lotus Notes.
An email/database/whateveryouwanttocallit software package that intentionally or not breaks almost every windows style-guide because the authors thought "they knew better" and programmed it "their way". And because of that, the program is widely recognised by nearly everyone who has used it as an unusable piece of crap, regardless about how anything under the hood might work.
I havn't tried GIMP, so I don't know if it falls into that category or not, but if the UI was designed to function in the same method as common Windows or Mac graphics applications (read Photoshop or PSP), I doubt people would complain. Like it or not, that's GIMP's competition and they need to recognise that they need to make it easier for people to move to their product, not harder. If that means replicating a recogniseable interface, then by all means, do it!
Before anyone flames away on me, you might want to take a moment and stop and consider what I said.
Infact, I don't at all think that Linux and Linux applications themselves are what's holding back public acceptance, I think it's programmers and designers who havn't decided on a single "everyone needs to stick to it!" GUI style guide for the operating system as a whole.
Heck, I'm to blame myself, I HATE writing GUIs with a passion, but I love coding the guts where you can have fun optimizing code. GUIs are a chore that nobody likes. Unfortunately, they're also what the user utilizes and what they evaluate your program based-on.
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Ahh yes, the eternal GIMP vs Photoshop debates.
I find these kinds of "reviews" really not so interesting. As a professional DTP IT consultant, I use most all of these tools daily: Photoshop et al..
Where I find these reviews lacking is:
Running apps in less than ideal conditions. Fink is a nice and very useful bridge to enable lots of excellent FLOSS to run, but it is not really fair to compare GIMP, Scribus, Inkscape or any other comparable Linux app when it is not run on its native platform. It would be the same having an experienced Unix/Linux tester, familiar with apps like development tools and then switching to a Mac. There are things I find incredibly frustrating when switching to a Mac too.
The reviewers overlook or miss things which show a lack of knowledge about other OS's. To me this review shows someone who has used nothing but a Mac and is clueless about other paradigms in computers.
The reviewer, in his or her ignorance completely overlooked some of the less obviously superior features of GIMP: Scripting in Python, Perl or Scheme come instantly to mind. The GIMP also has PNG support which is far better than Photoshop.
*Sigh* - It gets tiring hearing from both FLOSS bigots and Adobe fanboys who are so blind to their own zealotry.
That said, I use both and both have their strengths. Which one is better ? Neither. Both have their place and I confidently install GIMP right besides thousands of dollars of high end DTP apps including Photoshop.
GIMP 2.0 is a dramatic improvement which shows, IMO just the start of GIMP reaching a new level in image editing. The release of 2.0 will be followed by 2.2 sometime we hope, this summer. The hard under the hood work has been done, from which the GIMP team can build more functionality and refinements like substantial color management support.
The UI has been dramtically improved. There is a "small" theme for those who work on smaller monitors. Yes, there is a help system and other add-ins which extend GIMP like the freetype tool and GAP (GIMP Animation Package).
The GIMP authors and programmers are part time volunteers who do this for the joy of programming and probably a hundred other reasons... They should simply ignore this nonsense and keep on coding. Photoshop is one of the prize jewels of Adobe and is a wonderful program - but it is far from perfect.
If you really know both programs, you will learn NEITHER is better - they are different.
Optical kerning is, as I understand it, a new auto-kerning algorithm in InDesign 3. Rather than kerning based on metrics, it kerns based on actual letter-forms, producing much more pleasing results.
Optical kerning was around at least as of InDesign 2.0. In theory it is a very nice method for kerning; in practice it doesn't seem to make as big of a difference as you might think, at least with fairly typical serif and sans-serif fonts. In the print environment in which I worked, we used optical kerning for our newsprint, with our two dominant fonts being Calisto MT (serif) and Gill Sans (sans-serif); neither of those fonts suffer serious colisions with normal metric kerning, so optical kerning didn't make a night-and-day difference.
Also, optical kerning does add a modicum of additional spacing over the flow of a story or document, as in a 100 line story might end up 102-105 lines after being optically kerned (again, as of InDesign 2).
If the antialiasing isn't perfect, why don't you try to fix it?
This is the standard excuse for F/OSS software sucking. "If you don't like it, do better." How about because not all of us are computer geeks or programmers. The world is also made up of writers and artists and businessmen and firefighters and other real people. These are the people that Linux was supposed to reach as it strives to be "ready for the desktop." It's a benchmark that so much OSS doesn't meet, and so many OSS zealots can't understand. Grandma wants to type a letter on her Wal-Mart PC, she doesn't want to write a word processor. That's why she's going with Windows or Mac or whatever actually works.
The F/OSS community complains about not being accepted widely, and then thumbs their nose at the rest of the world for not being geeks like them.
World's tallest building rises in the desert
and Photoshop is but the tip of the iceberg in the world of what Linux will never be able to do natively - screw emulation...this work is already slow enough without another layer interfering
Crossover Office is built on top of Wine.
Wine = Wine Is Not an Emulator
There's no extra layer interfering. I notice no slow down while running PS on Linux.
MacGIMP approach is to minimize comparisons with Photoshop because the two pieces of software are just very different animals. As far as interface goes, once you get used to the GIMP way of doing things, Photoshop feels awkward, and since most Americans have prior experience with Photoshop, the accusation that the GIMP feels awkward seems to dominate the discussion. Outcomes of interface quality comparisons have a lot to do with what you first learned, and what you've gotten used to. So any balanced interface comparison should keep the inherent bias of familiarity in mind. Windows versus Linux-based desktops will face a similar challenge.
It wasn't mentioned which version the Web Page Design for Designers review used. Recent builds are now making use of GIMP Freetype plugin which has excellent support for anti-aliasing. For the record, Archei LLC does provide support (by a toll free number too) for anyone who purchases the MacGIMP product. Not sure how that support request slipped through the cracks, but the offer to help still stands: support@archei.com While we're on the topic, the MacGIMP forum is another alternative to getting questions answered.
Finally, even though a certain amount of disagreement will likely occur, discussions about open graphics software, especially when open and patent unencumbered file formats are promoted, are always to be encouraged. Hopefully this Slashdot article will have the net positive effect of making more people aware of the GIMP who had never heard of it before.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
It's not that easy yet; they are making headway, but the GIMP is still straggling behind somewhat in this area. They have grand plans to move to GEGL (GEneric Graphics Library) http://www.gegl.org/ , which is a graphics processing library that will apparently (among other things) make it easier to use ICM profiles and work in CMYK.
I've heard that GIMP 2.0 has CMYK support, but I've also heard that it's not quite useful enough yet. ICM profiles have been in GIMP for a while though. As far as LAB colour and stuff... haven't seen anything like that yet.
All in good time... for my fairly modest stitching, retouching, and modifying needs, GIMP works great. I'm an RGB man.
Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
I think that we all should be allowed to gripe about things like this on Slashdot because we're humans, and humans like to communicate.
Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
Put another way, no one is really 100% concerned with what the masses want, since some of the desires of the public are at cross purposes, but they will certainly want to know what the public wants so that they can emphasize those areas where their will and those of the masses coincide. These become obvious areas of strength.
Photoshop is clearly one of the killer apps of all time. It was even ported to one or two kinds of Unix (likewise, FrameMaker) due to the fact that there was no (and still is no) superior product, and at the time Unix workstations were more powerful than PCs. Those days are gone, and so there is little to no motivation to develop new versions of Photoshop for Unix systems. On the other hand, Linux market share is growing, and people are starting to demonstrate a willingness to pay for software which runs on Linux. Not just corporations mind you, but also individuals and small businesses.
So, not only is it a waste of your time to complain about people complaining about the one last thing missing from Linux, but your will actually runs counter to the companies pumping money into Linux, or put another way, the hand that's feeding you.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
you know, GIMP has delivered on its claims. However, its claims are pretty modest: it aims to be an image editing program similar to Photoshop. I think the GIMP developers are aware that it is definitely not in the same league as Photoshop yet, but, speaking literally, it is 'similar' to Photoshop: it has layers, rubber stamps, histogram functions, filters, etc.
By the way, if you have modest needs, you can make plenty of money using GIMP. It's an integral part of my graphic design business. I design simple stuff primarily for the Web, and I don't need ICMs or CMYK or any of that jazz.
Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
Never?
Linux already has a market share the size of Apples (OS wise). At some point, there will be enough graphic design folks who have migrated from the windows side that Adobe will make a linux native version of Photoshop.
I think it would be **foolish** to ask someone to wait for that day. Because it won't be soon. But that day is comming.
Linux is not going away. Windows holds 95% of the market. But only 10% of the world is using computers. China, North Korea, Brazil have all decided Linux is the way to go. If in the next 5 to 10 years, 2 out of every 3 new computer users outside of the developed western nations chose Microsoft, and the other 1 chooses Linux. We will soon be living in a world where Linux will hold 10-25% marketshare.
Unless Adobe is going out of business, I would not say "Never"
vi +
I've always tried to give GIMP an objective and open-minded whirl from time to time. For tho I don't mind paying for my legal copies of Photoshop (since it's my bread winning app) but I'd also like to do without the expense.
My workflow has changed over the years and I'll use the best tool for the job regardless of cost, maker or platform. From PC Paintbrush, Pixel Paint, Painter, PhotoPaint, Photoshop, NeoPaint, etc etc etc over the past 15 years in digital illustration.
First off, I feel that GIMP's interface is inefficent. True, if you get used to it, it's not such a big deal, shaving off seconds here and there not having to rely on the interface at all is what makes for an effective working enviroment. No windows in view, just full screen, just you and your cursor brush. Right+click contextuals should be all that is necessary.
Why? Window clutter distorts your perception of light/dark. Put a dark grey square in the middle of a very light grey flooded field and the smaller dark square looks darker than it really is and the same is true for the lighter grey field. Windows floating around give the same effect.
Being able to control everything you need via contextuals limits the time and visual distractions. It's a fickle complaint I realize, but it's these little nuances that impair the using experience. When this sort of application is pretty much all you ever use a computer for, it becomes a greater issue.
Interfaces can make or break an applications success in my opinion (however welcome it may be). PhotoPaint by Corel has had this issue, some versions of it had great interfaces, others had not. The few that were very comparable to Photoshop (tho not mimicing) and others were haphazzard and impaired my interest which sent me back to other versions or back to Photoshop.
Painter is another such example, from 7 to 8 were big improvements in terms of interface. Greatly increasing my desire to use the application and thus greater understanding of how to empower myself with the applicaiton.
I won't bother to rehash the technical limitations nor shall I embark on repeating the voices of others regarding the spirit/ethics/cost of GIMP vs *.
It all really depends on what you do with the application and how. Personally, given the choice of any appliation for photo restoration, I'd opt for Photoshop and it's healing brush. If I had to batch process a few thousand images, depending on what's ncessary I could use Photoshop or I could use GIMP. When it comes to natural illustration, it's either Painter or Photoshop.
Right tool for the job, sometimes you don't need a Cadillac to do a Chevy job. Sometimes you do...
I'll first mention that while Acrobat is simply a reader
Acrobat most certainly is NOT "simply a reader" - Acrobat Reader is only one piece of the entire Adobe Acrobat family. Acrobat is used to create PDFs, and convert other document formats to PDF. It is most likely the industry standard for PDF creation.
The article makes one point that I think many posters here have missed.
The author is prepared to pay ~$250 for PhotoShop (or perhaps ~$100 for Elements) instead of paying nothing to use GIMP. To this user, payment is not a barrier to use (and, conversely, zero upfront dollar cost and access to the source code are not suitable motivators for use).
The two common counter-arguments I hear in this thread are (1) "you can't complain if it's free" and (2) "if you don't like it, why don't you fix it". These arguments can be mounted with any open source software product.
The cost of acquisition issue shuts down both of these arguments - the busy user doesn't have time to "fix it", and they won't bother complaining. They will simply go and spend the $250 it costs to acquire a program which meets their needs.
"You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
You're seeing this because Linux users are very often telling everyone on the planet how great it is and how much Windows sucks. The more open minded Windows (and Mac) users are giving it a shot and sharing their reservations in an open community forum. Many see this as an effort to better the Linux OS.
One reason you might not see a bunch of "I would move to Windows if...." stories is probably because most people use Windows. Most by a LARGE margin according to this. Check out the "Operating Systems Used to Access Google" image.
What I find annoying is people who don't use Linux telling everyone else they should.
My Tech Posts on Twitter
and no i will not give it the honor of capital letters(gimp) that respect is earned when you make something that can deliver on it's claims.
Developer #1: "Watcha doin' today? Wanna work on improving GIMP usability?"
Developer #2: "Nope. I refuse to acknowledge the vast consensus that PS is much faster and more usable."
Developer #3 [bursting through door]: "Have you guys SEEN? An AC on Slashdot is refusing to use capital letters when referring to the GIMP!"
All: "HOLY FUCK! Let's get coding!"
(A week later, GIMP 3.0 is released to worldwide acclaim. AC contends that "gimp still suxx0rz" but after intense negotiations agrees to capitalize the M and the P.)
and I still have trouble figuring Gimp out..
1.2 is just flat out clumsy, 1.3 is a touch better and 2.0 is even more improved. But still, they are all tough to figure out. I don't use it every single day, maybe once or twice a week at most but it sure could be more user friendly.
I've seen some work that other people have created with Gimp so I know it's a powerful program that can do mind numbing stuff but I'll be damned if I can get the hang of it.
I used to use paintshop pro 6 back when I was using windows, because it was simple to understand, cheap, fast and it took care of my limited needs.
I wouldn't mind having Paintshop pro 6 run on Suse 9.x pro...
Free does not mean much to a professional who needs to get things done. Would a pro photographer use a quikimart freebe camera to shoot promo material?
Also, Photoshop *does* have a complete API in the lastest CS version (Using a JavaScript implementation--no cludgy C). I'm pretty sure it can perform all the actions avail. from the GUI. Map generation would be pretty trivial if this is the case.
I think Gimp made huge strides with the UI in Gimp 2. It now can use a permanent menu, dockable windows, and Utility Window Type Hints. The Gimp developers have done tremendous work. With all of these improvements I think UI criticism should stop.
To let it fully replace Photoshop for me it still needs higher bit color, adjustment layers, healing brush, and proportional crop.
"both companies which make money on Linux, and companies which make the software"
Neither barney the purple webdesign website nor slashdot are the right place to reach either of these groups. (sorry couldn't resist the Barney thing, that website looks like it should be seeing feminine hygene products not giving advice on web design)
"The latter group, including companies like Adobe, are interested in what Linux users want for two reasons."
A little offtopic wouldn't you think, since the parent wasn't talking about linux users, he was talking about non-linux users saying they'd use linux if it weren't for this or that.
Also because this article was written by a MacOSX user, NOT a linux user. 99% of the things he complained about were really one thing, it didn't have an OS X interface, it's designed for X11.
"So, not only is it a waste of your time to complain about people complaining about the one last thing missing from Linux, but your will actually runs counter to the companies pumping money into Linux, or put another way, the hand that's feeding you."
That hands that feed the linux community are open source developers. While some of those are being paid by corporations, for the most part they are not. Corporations having money only means so much in this crowd, after all while there are exceptions, they've managed to produce mostly crap. Look at Microsoft for instance, they've managed to produce ONLY crap and they've got more money than any of the others.
"Photoshop is clearly one of the killer apps of all time. It was even ported to one or two kinds of Unix (likewise, FrameMaker) due to the fact that there was no (and still is no) superior product, and at the time Unix workstations were more powerful than PCs. Those days are gone, and so there is little to no motivation to develop new versions of Photoshop for Unix systems. On the other hand, Linux market share is growing, and people are starting to demonstrate a willingness to pay for software which runs on Linux. Not just corporations mind you, but also individuals and small businesses."
A piece of killer app proprietary software is great for linux adoption which ultimately ends up being good for the community, since it helps yield more open source developers to work on things like gimp so it eventually can get that proprietary app out of our otherwise clean open system. A better solution of course would be for Adobe to open the photoshop sourcecode.
Since I don't see that happening, opening the Acrobat reader source would be nice. The linux version of Acrobat reader is pretty shoddy to say the least, it's ugly, unpolished, and bugridden. If Acrobat reader were opened then we could either fix it (if it was worth fixing) or get a look at it's pdf handling, since actually opening and rendering the pdf is the only thing it does in a superior way to the other dozen pdf reading linux apps. AR is faster and has better print options. I think it could be salvaged myself, open source would quickly eradicate the bugs and fix the UI.
... that there's been a bunch of these ``Experienced [application-name] user tries Linux program and doesn't like it.'' articles? Could this be a little astroturf activity? I wonder how bad the criticism would have been if they discovered that, say, the GIMP's menus were exactly like Photoshop's. (``Well, these Linux programs aren't original. They just copy other software.'') And if the Linux program is different in some way from a Windows product or some other commercial software package, well that's a negative as well. There's just no pleasing some people, eh?
Any more, I see these articles and laugh. This one, for example, could have been titled: ``Long-time Photoshop user discovers that the GIMP isn't Photoshop!''. Might have been a more accurate headline, IMHO.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I do a lot of graphics work. I've also used a large number of the true graphics programs (3d, 2d, vector, etc... not MSPaint) out there at one point or another. In addition to this, I also do freelance development from time to time. It is the user interface alone that makes or breaks the program, in my opinion. Without a good interface, it doesn't matter what the rest of the code does.
Here are my remarks on a few of the ones I've used at one time or another:
Photoshop - Easy to use interface. Provides an easy introduction for those unfamiliar with the program and provides the power necessary for advanced users.
GraphicsConverter - Another easy to use interface. Though it lacks the power photoshop has, it makes up for it in the large number of image formats it can read and write.
Paint Shop Pro - I am not overly fond of this interface. For one, I think there are far too many icons used. Drowning out interface buttons and such with icons is very irritating for a novice user as they generally have to hover the mouse and wait for the tooltip to figure out what something is. Further, it has the "too much help" syndrome that seems a standard on windows. I much prefer that the help system be delegated to something else and not be built into the program.
Poser - This is definitely a unique interface, but it still provides simplicity for novice users and control for advanced users. The largest downside is that by not using default system-provided user interface widgets, some of the details you would expect are not there whereas they would be there if the system versions were used.
Bryce - Bryce is extremely easy to use. It was my first 3d program and is still one of my favorites due to its simplicity. I have yet to find another 3d program with an object placement system that I like more than bryce's.
Blender - Not a big fan. Though it is quite powerful, the learning curve is very steep. On Macs, the interface text is quite small in some places and hard to read. The interface is also a bit clunky. Sections are not as clearly divided as I would like.
Carrara - I have not used this one for some time (and as such, newer versions may be different than what I remember), but I found it quite user-friendly when I did. All tools were placed in a context-sensible place and it had the camera system that I liked from bryce.
The Gimp - I don't like it. The user interface is extremely clunky by my standards. Consolidating a number of the windows into one and reorganizing the tools would go a long way towards helping it. There is also the fact that I am used to my nice Aqua interface and it has the drab sharp bevels and general lack of detail that is natural to most x86 OS's under default configurations.
Illustrator - I do not use this program frequently, but being from adobe, it has a very similar interface to photoshop that makes it very easy to use.
Fireworks - I'm apathetic about this one. It provides no real functionality that I cannot get in a program whose interface I like better and has more stuff I can use.
Freehand - Pretty much the same as Fireworks. I've only mostly toyed with this one as I found Illustrator more appealing.
One other feature I like about photoshop is that it is extremely easy to do image versioning. When doing web designs, I will
Use GIMP all you want - and I think most people are glad it's around - but this discussion is not really about GIMP or PS for that matter.
It's about the ability of OSS to compete well in the marketplace. And it doesn't. People devote their spare time to OSS, and people who make so much anyway they're busy 60-80 hours a week churning out hot apps are not going to have any time.
How many of the Quark/Adobe team do you think are moonlighting working on projects like GIMP?
Companies with a need for financial success will, if they're lucky, have that success, and through hard work. OSS is so different. But if OSS is to succeed, it must also be able to do this.
Quark's biggest problem has always been its shitty user interface. And now that they've farmed ALL new development out to India, it's not going to get any better. Good riddance, I say. Quark the company were complete assholes when I dealt with them, acting like their file format was something amazing we'd want to spend tens of thousands of dollars for classes on. I didn't have the heart to tell the guy that I'd already figured out everything I needed to know about the damn thing, and I just needed the rights to it. Of course, when they mentioned that we wouldn't be allowed to do ANYTHING with the files unless a copy of Quark was open on the computer, we found a different approach to the problem.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
It's another World. I just can't understand why anyone would want to go to so much effort for so little reward. It's like scaling a craggy mountainside and getting to the top to find that there's no view!
I'd say he did not give the tool a fair chance. First, he used it on the wrong platform. Then he did not use it much before giving up. There are good reasons for making and using a free photo editor / paint program.
Gimp is free software and it works best on Linux and BSD, where the developers are and have better access to the works.
What exactly did the reviewer do? All he tells us is that he opened one image, drew one line and typed one bunch of text. I doubt he spent more than a day at it. Some mountain climb there.
The reason for making the GIMP is simple, it's free, won't go away and is flexible. Anyone with an itch can program it, as the makers of Scooby-Doo did. Hopefully, they will share that work back but they don't have to. Because the Gimp is free, I know that it will never die. I'll always be able to get a copy and it will always work as well as I remembered or better. Non-free software is rented at best and has a tendency to go away. The Gimp is a combination of other free software and bits and pieces can be pulled out to use in other places, like the Image Magic project.
The Gimp is a tool. Some people have made professional use of it and have gotten superb results. What you get out of a tool is a combination of your imagination and what you put into it. A person who's not used anything would be better off learning to do things with the Gimp. There are plenty of tools to take care of what the Gimp lacks and the Gimp does what it does way better than this reviewer saw in such a brief evaluation.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Yeah, I would like to add my own experience about this. I've been using the GIMP a lot the past couple months in Fark photoshop contests. Its been working great for me. The 1.2 and less versions were pretty bad UI-wise. But the 2.0 version is so much better.
The interesting thing was that I then recently tried out Photoshop CS to see what all the fuss was about, and I could not use it. I couldn't find how to do anything! So my point of view was that Photoshop had the unusable interface, because I was used to the GIMP.
Granted, I'm not someone who does image stuff professionally, so there's a lot of things I'm gonna be unaware of that others might gripe about (as is seen in this thread).
But still... it's all about what you are used to. I can understand that when you are used to Photoshop you can't get the GIMP to work the way you want to (as the submitter and article writer), and the other way around (as I have experienced).
The Official Steve Ballmer Webpage
Actually, you can do color changes and transforms on a single layer quite easily, you're just looking in the wrong place.
:)
Rule of thumb: If you don't think photoshop can do something, then you haven't looked hard enough through the tools
This one of those rare situations where I see proprietary software in a good light. Adobe has been investing in research into graphics and color for decades. These are not trivial subjects. There is alot to know about how to get color to look right on paper or on a monitor. Researchers made it their livelyhood to understand all there is to know about images are percieved and how to get the best results.
Hats off to them. I would glady give them some money to use their excelent software. Anyone who has taken a University level Computer Science Graphics course has got to appriciate what they do.
That all being said, I am not big into photo editting or graphic design, so I use gimp because thats what there is available on my BSD box. It's alright. But it's no photoshop. I've tried some of other free image/graphic editors that were in my ports directory. They weren't very good at all.
Why does every post advocating a "get off your lazy ass and fork it" point of view get modded up? Yes, that CAN be a strength of opensource, but it is also a WEAKNESS.
Companies survive on the strength of their products--many take user feedback VERY seriously. Photoshop is such a program that has evolved over the years to the highly polished program it is.
I would go so far as to say that the "No, we're not listening to your suggestions, do it yourself" is a severe WEAKNESS in OSS, as has been reiterated by this article and the comments here, designers and users are not the same.
Not to really disagree with you about the issues you've had with your Linux, but most of those things you mention sound like configuration issues to me. I experienced a lot of the same things when I used Redhat. Once I learned a bit more about the innards of Linux I was able to resolve most of the things like that. It's simply a matter of tracking down the problems and fixing them while reading about how to do that.
/dev directory is set up and configuration files for hotplug.
Open Office: I totally agree with you on this. However I don't use it any more (have started using LaTeX exclusively.) Frankly openoffice has been horrible every time I've every tried using it. About the only thing it does better than any other Linux program is import Microsoft formats.
Hardware issues - seem to me to be distro-related. Are you using a custom kernel or some crappy precompiled monstrosity your distribtion vendor made for you? It really helps if you compile in only the support you need for the hardware you have, and do so from the official kernel source from kernel.org. I feel the official source is more trouble-free than any distribution provided kernel. Also you might want to look into things like the way your
Games - you're right about the performance. This is either the fault of the applications - a lot of games (*cough* UT2k3) were designed around Windows APIs and absolutely suck under Linux by comparison since they are basically unoptimized for OpenGL. Another possibility is that you're using an ATI card - their drivers for Linux suck and are way slower than the Windows ones. NVIDIA's drivers for Linux are a lot closer to the performance of the Windows ones.
Stability - My "desktop" Linux, running on a laptop, is FAR more stable than Windows XP, and I include applications in that. However, I don't use KDE or Gnome, so I can't vouch for the stability of those lately. Another possibility is that you have a crappy distro that mismatches applications and library versions.
Audio - I agree, it still sucks. Hopefully it'll get better when more applications support ALSA natively. We still need a standard kernel software mixer though...
Video - Works much better than under Windows for me. Mplayer supports more formats than Windows Media Player does without installing hard-to-find 3rd party video codecs into Windows. Windows Media is very easy to use for formats that have codecs on the Microsoft auto-download site, but it sucks royally to have to set up a more obscure format that isn't on the official site.
Seriously - just compile mplayer from source and all your problems with video will go away.
You seem to have taken a mostly out-dated opinion on Lotus Notes and applied it to the Gimp, which you admit to never having used.
Lotus Notes has lost most of the usability problems that people disliked about it over the last couple of major revisions. Regardless of that, I would dispute that it is "widely recognised by nearly everyone who has used it as an unusable piece of crap." On the contrary, I think the majority of people who use it for more than a couple of weeks find its interface to be quite effective.
GUI style guides are great for helping people to use an unfamiliar program, but slavishly following any guidelines can quite easily make regular usage a pain in the neck. For example, all serious Notes users quickly decide to turn off the "welcome page" layer that gives Notes a more "standard" interface for mail. It only gets in the way for power users.
The Gimp diverges from standards to give icons on the system bar for its separate dialogs, which is actually exactly what you need when working on large images that cover the entire screen.Ever tried to switch to a diffent app and go back to a Windows File Properties Dialog?
Many of the UI problems being discussed about the Gimp are referring to the previous version. The latest version is looking much nicer, and is also closer to style guidelines.
The article complains about the fact that it doesn't use the Mac guidelines, which is hardly surprising, given that it hasn't been ported to the Mac! If he wants his X11 apps to look like Mac apps, he'd need to talk to the person writing the X11 interface for the Mac.
Politas
I think you're confusing "free as in beer" with "free as in freedom". That's what I think your parent poster meant. And Photoshop is a long shot from free as in freedom (or beer, for that matter.) As an example, look at how they do things like try to stop people from editing currency images. The answer to that problem is not to try to take away the digital tools (it's inevitable that people will get them...) but rather for society to move to more secure form of currency than pieces of paper.
Also, while I don't doubt you can control all of Photoshop from Javascript, that doesn't stop me from saying that I think JavaScript sucks. I don't know what you mean by "cludgy C", but the Gimp supports more than one powerful language for scripting including Python, Guile (Scheme), and Perl. JavaScript sucks as an API compared to all of those.
I think Photoshop is a far superior application to the Gimp, too. It's definitely better as far as ease of use and clean GUI design. But I do NOT think it wins on either of the points your parent poster made (scripting and freedom).
3 things: 1) GIMP is still in dev, first step was to put into it any feature any sane (and some slighlty twisted) artist could ask for, done (I think), Speed optimization will be next surely, and subailty is the last step (you can't make a killer interface if it has no features in it yet). You have to understand that they ware A LOT of features, it took a lot of time, patience, usability is sure to come... 2) Usability wise, photoshop sucks... it IS the best there is but still it sucks, Macromedia Fireworks has a better understanding of the art of GUI design, (tho they still hasn't learned that the properties pane is a problem child). Of course it is much more complicated but it is meant to do much more than adobe anyway. 3)Whatta?... "and Photoshop is but the tip of the iceberg in the world of what Linux will never be able to do natively - screw emulation...this work is already slow enough without another layer interfering you can make a living using Photoshop...you'll go hungry using gimp" I see nothing but hate in you, why bash an entire OS? it isn't hurting you anyway, it just tries to make this a better world for everyone, not just for the rich, does this threatens you in any way?
But... the future refused to change.
It's like whinging that a desktop calculator is totally evil by comparison with Mathematica. Different product, different purpose.
Every time a thread comes up regarding the GIMP, it gets flooded by the Photoshop zealots generating more heat than light. In the original submission, Eugenia makes her own wishlist known, but I have seen no evidence that she is in any way up to making any significant use of those capabilities, and present incarnations of the GIMP are probably in fact quite sufficient.
Given that Photoshop costs hundreds of dollars, and the GIMP costs no more than the time you take to download it, any comparison is invidious.
As a bonus, just for jrockway, here is something else you might think works better than photoshop. It is pretty crappy for graphics, but you can see the source code. ;-)
In the real world, when your living is on the line, the best tool you can afford is the one you use. Whether you can see the source code or not doesn't even come into the picture. 99.999% of computer users can't do anything with the source code anyway.-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Sorry to burst your bubble here buddy, but that is a load of crap you just came out with. I use Linux 100% of the time as my desktop OS at work (big integrator). No brainer, really, given that I am the head of our Linux / OSS team and that my business card says "Linux Evangelist". We use Notes as our corporate email platform, so Notes is running pretty much all the time on my desk. Using Wine, of course.
On the rare occurance that I need to boot into my WindowsXP partition (to deal with braindead helpdesk drones, or to convert some MSProject or Visio files to a usable format) I always marvel at the fact that Notes runs twice as fast on Windows as it does on Linux. Of course, Wine = Wine is not an Emulator also translates to WinW = Wine is not Windows. To promise performance parity for Wine with Windows is plain stupid.
It is people like you making wildly inaccurate statements about stuff that make my job (convince enterprise customers to use Linux) so difficult. Being honest and open about the capabilities, strenghts and weaknesses of the platform we love so much is more likely to win people over - after all, they get enough lies and deceit from the proprietary side of the fence, don't they?
Setting unmatchable expectations to potential new users is only going to end in dissapointment. If you think that they will be so dazzled and blinded by the cool shit that is happening now that they run Linux, you are sorely mistaken.
Do all of us a favour - you and all your "Linux has no flaws - it is perfect" brigade - and get real, and set real expectations for new users. It is hard enough to fight the MS FUD, I don't need a whole set of Linux propaganda to fight through as well.
I am sure this will be modded flamebait by some kneejerk reactionary moderator, just the other reply to the parent, but what the hey......
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
"Being honest and open about the capabilities, strenghts and weaknesses of the platform we love so much is more likely to win people over - after all, they get enough lies and deceit from the proprietary side of the fence, don't they?"
What? One of the things Slashdotters complain most about Linux is the lack of marketing. Yet marketing is for a large part based on lying.
So when people are honest about Linux and it's development, Slashdotters will complain about:
- Conflicts between groups. If you tell them that companies have internal conflicts too (it's just that they don't let anybody know), they'll tell you that Linux will fail on the desktop *because* conflicts are public.
- Lack of marketing.
- Security vulnerabilities. Linux doesn't hide it's vulnerabilities. Yet more and more people are constantly nitpicking on Linux, saying "Look! Linux is more insecure than Windows!", while not even looking at the fact that Microsoft hides a lot of bugs from the public. Linux developers release information about new vulnerabilities so admins are aware of it, yet Slashdotters abuse it to claim that Linux has "failed".
Obviously being honest about this has done Linux more harm than good. Yet if we're *not* honest about it, people like you complain about lack of honesty?! Damned if you do, damned if you don't?!
"I am sure this will be modded flamebait by some kneejerk reactionary moderator, just the other reply to the parent, but what the hey......"
No it won't, I'm sure it will get modded up, like all other similar posts. Slashdot is not a pro-Linux anti-MS place! Heck, I'd even argue criticism against Linux is often overrated - it's like people mod it up even when it's not true, like it's a divine thing or something.
Linux must be one of the most hated things in existance. People do nothing more than insulting it and claiming it's defeat. People are constantly belittleling Linux developers. I'm working hard to write software to make Linux better, yet all people do is insulting me and telling me how much everything sucks?! Even the Windows community is better than the Slashdot crowd!
1. Time is on the Gimp's side. Graphics, just like text editing and operating systems, has a point where things are "good enough" -- OpenOffice.org, for example, has reached that point, which is why it is starting to slowly but surely eat into Microsoft Office. Once the Gimp reaches that point, and it will, Adobe will have a problem charging its insane prices
2.The Gimp is good enough for semi-professional use, and with this price tag, it is going to attract a lot of attention and get a lot of feedback. Feedback is the life-blood of Open Source. And there are always a lot more people who are semi-professionals than professionals.
3. Ease of use isn't everything. Mac users (for the record: I own an iBook, too) love to go on and on about how their interface is standardized, easy to use, etc. True, but if that were to translate into sales, the world would have been dominated by Macs even before OS X came along. People can and will cope -- heck, they piced MS DOS over the Mac. If Gimp can do 80 percent of what Photoshop can do for free with whatever interface, Adobe is toast.
We'll see where we are in five years.
I assume you're not comparing the 'Gimp' (what's with that juvenile name/acronym?) with Photoshop on OS X?
Photoshop acts like every other app on OSX. The Gimp is a frankenstein child of linux and windows, and not just because it's under X11. I'd say the photoshop users are *exactly* the people the Gimp designers should be listening very hard to. There is a reason people are willing to pay good money for photoshop, and a lot of that reason is the interface, which tries hard to fit in and at the same time extend the host OS. Looking at the Gimp one on OS X, it has some serious problems:
There are two file menus, one in each document window too (If they're going to use the broken 'menu in the window' idea they could at least get it right).
There doesn't appear to be any consistent ordering for the buttons in windows, and why are their buttons to perform actions anyway? Are these dialogs or palettes? The palettes are all too large and the arrangement of tools is not at all intuitive. Why the huge patterns palette is shown by default I have no idea, because it was 'cool'?
The popup menus are enormous (sometimes for stuff like 'px' which should be in the prefs anyway) and some buttons are half-hidden by the bottom right corner of windows. The default for the layers palette appears to be not to follow the selected document, and there is a little 'auto' button for choosing this option (??!?!!?!?! Shouldn't auto be, you know, automatic?).
So, in general, the interface feels like a historical accident that no one wants to clean up, and unfortunately that history is on another platform, making it appear even uglier to someone used to native OS X programs. If it was the sort of program that you just set up a few options and leave to do its thing (rendering, batch image processing etc) that'd be acceptable, but in a graphics program where you spend all day choosing options and tools, it just can't work.
If it took over the screen and imposed its own paradigm so that you forget the rest of the system (like many 3D apps) that'd be another way round it I guess, but at the moment it looks like it's trying to fit in and failing miserably.
The default install also leaves several invisible files in your user folder, so you'll have to go through and try to delete them if you choose to remove it.
This is ignoring the fact that on a default install of X11 you have to click twice on windows to actually choose a tool - though not strictly a Gimp problem, most new users would get stuck right there. If it's going to see any adoption on OS X someone needs to do a port using carbon or cocoa and throw away the horrific front end. For now I'm happy paying for photoshop. I had a quick look at the code, and boy do they have their work cut-out if they want to separate the back end from the interface. Perhaps that's why they're loath to change it?
>WinW = Wine is not Windows. To promise
>performance parity for Wine with Windows is
>plain stupid.
bzzt. Try again.
http://www.winehq.org/site/myths#slow
If you experience slow performance with Wine, and you use it only for photoshop, try the following:
-Compile with -O2 -Os
-Strip debugging messages from the build
-Strip debug info from the dlls
-Ensure you are using an accellerated X server
This will radically improve the speed of most desktop applications. Wine by default builds with lots of debug info so that apps that don't work can be debugged.
Thanks for using Wine, please remember to report any bugs and suggestions at winehq.
I haven't read the article yet, but the comments by eye-of-the-beholder sound very familiar. Of course, every professional software user has his own very unique needs. Someone needs 16-bit per channel support, others need 24-bit per channel, yet others will never be happy without 32-bit or even 64-bit support. It is, however, impossible to write a program that would satisfy every potential user. Look at the previous version of Photoshop - it is clearly missing some necessary and trivial functionality - that was added in the last version. Does that sound like a reason to blame Adobe for not doing their job the last time? But it isn't.
The only realistic way to make a software used by everyone is either to utilise monopoly tactics or to spend years on incrementally improving it with every subsequent release. There are already thousands of people whose needs are perfectly met by Gimp. With time more features will be added, interface will be improved and more and more users will be converted (because their uniqie needs will be met).
Taking a stance like the critics often do is silly. It's like refusing to play Unreal Tournament until they add a clown player model. OK, they added that, but now I need a model of Kermit the frog.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
But if "others" don't listen to people complaining, because "GIMP is already much better than PS", it will never actually be.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Yes, there are performance problems with Notes (6.5.1 at any rate) on Wine, but they are not severe. I find it perfectly usable.
Regardless, you cannot draw conclusions based on your experiences from one (1) app run under Wine to all apps. I also run Office XP on Wine and it runs just as fast as it does on Windows. The same is true of Photoshop.
They are different programs, work in different ways, and use different codepaths. It's not surprising they run at different speeds.
We warned them that they would find the GIMP odd, and that the windows version was likely to crash on them, but to say to themselves "it's free, it's free." Some will use it, others will not.
Some observations:
-- Mein Systemadminstrator hat einen großen schwarzen Moustache.
I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but [see my sig]:
....
I don't think I actually ever bothered to steal a copy of Photoshop, so for most of my uses when I was largely a Windows guy I would use Irfanview, which kicks ass if you don't have much to do, and crappy old MS-Paint.
When I finally needed to move out of kindergarten and get a "real" graphics program, I started playing with the Gimp - only because it came with a linux distro I was fooling with at the time.
Thus, the Gimp was my first exposure to "real" graphics programs.
On the Gimp, I learned how to use layers. I made my first gradient. I stopped downloading desktop pics from Spymac or wherever and started making my own. I eventually grew into a fairly solid artist. I'm considering making a huge piece and putting it in the local art show next year in the mixed media category. I think I could win.... The Gimp really has done everything I could ask of it.
When I tried my dad's Photoshop, I couldn't find my way around, because I was used to the Gimp. I thought PS was laid out badly, because I was used to the Gimp. I couldn't do much at all, I was stumbling around, spending most of my time searching for things like how to draw a straight line in PS, because I was used to the Gimp. A lot of my time was spent mumbling, "hmm... that's stupid!".
I find that the layout might matter the first little while you're using an app, but once you get used to it, all apps approach the same natural level. My friends who use WindowsMediaPlayer are as fast and efficient in it as I am in iTunes. I struggle with apps my dad zings around in, and he struggles with the ones I'm awesome in. But our effectiveness at getting our various jobs done is roughly the same.
It's like learning a language: I am *fluent* in the Gimp. I barely speak "tourist" Photoshop. And sitting at Photoshop thinking "this would be so damn simple if I was on my OWN computer using the Gimp" is frustrating. It takes me a lot longer to get things done.
The Gimp can do everything I ask of it, and when I think it can't and want to be surprised, I simply
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
- The tools are not grouped in a coherent manner
- The interface is littered with icons where none are necessary, making the application appear more complex than it is
Neither has anything to do with Photoshop--other than that Photoshop does things the better way. Both criticisms speak directly to why the GIMP puts off new users: the lack of coherent groupings makes it harder to learn and remember what each tool/function does and where to find it, and the cluttering of the interface puts off newbies by making them sort through more visual 'noise' to find whatever it is they're looking for.In both cases, the GIMP interface increases the learning curve with no corresponding benefit to power users--a lose-lose tradeoff and just plain bad design.
Beyond that, he also makes some pretty painful observations about the quality of the GIMP's output--or is he perhaps just being closed-minded about he intrinsinc beauty of misshapend letterforms?
All your post tell us is that you're either not willing to read criticsms of the GIMP or are not interested in considering them on their merits.
it's absolutely no problem using void as return value. if the compiler eats it, it simply does not hurt, allthough you know it's not correct. _FAR WORSE_ is using printf in the code. printf parses the whole dam thing for format codes, finds none and puts the thing to the console. He should have use puts in the first place and save us and him a lot of parsing. return does not hurt too !! regards from germany
This article is not a review of the GIMP from a photoshop perspective. Instead, it is a MacHat reacting to a different UI.
/is/ somewhat jarring, but also not important. A real review is not "This does not let me to jump in and use it precisely as I use another program, so it's no good!" a real review starts by LEARNING the program, and then reviewing whether or not it can get work done.
70% of the article is "Wah wah, it doesn't look like I expect, the menus are all in non-Mac places, it doesn't use native widgets, it doesn't use native dialogs, waaah!"
Admittedly some criticisms were constructive: perhaps there should be some kind of grouping to the tool icons in the tool selector. I, for one, have never liked the "icon only" approach and would welcome some labels.
The context menu in the canvas acting as your main menu thing
A review of Linux which stated "There wasn't a button labeled 'Start' anywhere!" or something would be laughed at, as this 'review' should be.
So the scripts were sub par. A valid criticism. When I've used the GIMP they've always seemed to be handy, useful things. Perhaps a mention of what scripts SHOULD have been included would help?
This person seems largely hung up on the GIMP being not-Mac and not-Photoshop. "Some features in different places" is called "disorienting". Well you know what? Different programs are different. This is not news.
The slowness criticism was good, the notes about line-jaggedness and antialiasing were good. I disagree, but that was some good reviewing.
The misrepresentation of the GIMP as an app which can either be built by hand from sources (which it is implied is too hard for an average person to do) or purchased for an outrageous amount is simply a lie. The GIMP can be had in a precompiled for for OSX from a couple of different sources.
I'll bet a GIMP pro who had never used Photoshop or OSX would be almost as annoyed and baffled if they were plunked in front of OSX, given an installer, and old "Tell us how you think this compares to the GIMP."
Real reviews concentrate on function.
I want my Cowboyneal