The GIMP Gets Ready for 2.2

An anonymous contributor writes "As promised, this time it didn't take another 3 years for a new stable GIMP version to be released. 8 months after GIMP 2.0 hit the road, GIMP 2.2 is almost done. The GIMP developers released 2.2-pre2 today and unless any major problems show up, the GIMP 2.2.0 release is going to follow later this month. The GIMP Wiki has a comprehensive list of new features in GIMP 2.2 and here are some screenshots of the development version."

Comments

GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[dan dan the dna man]

I wonder if the GIMP is slightly more useable on Windows in its next incarnation? I have been raving about the GIMP to anyone who will listen, for most people I know it's a very worthy replacement for Photoshop.

However I recently set up a dual boot laptop for my gf (the only way she will boot into Linux though is to play FreeCiv ;)) and put the GIMP on XP for her. When she complained it was unusable, I didn't believe her - I've found it very intuitive under Linux. But after trying it on XP, it really does feel like a crippled version of the package I know and love - it's clunky, ugly and restrictive.

Now of course, she is using a commercial package derived from a bittorrent source, and my OSS evangelism has fallen flat on its face :/

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Saven Marek]

However I recently set up a dual boot laptop for my gf (the only way she will boot into Linux though is to play FreeCiv ;)) and put the GIMP on XP for her. When she complained it was unusable, I didn't believe her - I've found it very intuitive under Linux. But after trying it on XP, it really does feel like a crippled version of the package I know and love - it's clunky, ugly and restrictive.


She just has to get used to a different interface way of doing things. Many people already have experience useing other things, but they aren't GIMP and if you want the power it wields then of course you need to do more than pick a colour from a button and then draw in simple dots and lines.

Make her sit down with the program for a month and not use anything else, and in that time you can be sure she will eventually find it the easiest thing she is using.

Take it from me it just takes time to get to know how it works and once you use it like that it is intuitive and very powerful

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[jokumuu]

Well, for me.. I neer found the GIMP interface secially nice. I can get thins done on it, but have to struggle. I think it is because it has somehow allways been "so different" from other graphics software.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[BagOBones]

You missed the point of his post. He uses GIMP under linux and said the windows version is crippled some how, its not 100% the same.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[arose]

Windows is what's crippled. On X you use GIMP on it's own virtual desktop, on windows you have to install some tackled on add-on to do the same. Without virtual desktops GIMP can be... dificult, if you use other programms at the same time.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

If it takes a month to learn a UI, then its fucked right out of the box, period. Wise up.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Technonotice_Dom]

Not necessarily. It's often said there are two important stages of the UI in a program. There's the initial time to learn it, get used to how it operates in relation to what's being done, and there's how well it operates when you're actually used to it.

Different programs have different focuses. If I was writing a piece of photo software - the sort that's thrown in with cheap digital cameras etc, then I'd probably strive to make it very intuitive when the user first used it, based on the assumption that people buying cheap digicams aren't well versed in graphics software. That may come at the cost of making very restrictive when the user wanted to use the program in the future and expand on what they want to do.

If the software was harder to learn, then it may be that when you're more used to it, you can use it a lot more fluently after you've gotten used to it, compared to if it had been easier to grasp. It isn't hard and fast though that an easy to grasp interface is restrictive later on, or that a difficult interface is more productive after a while - but it's a rough idea of two different approaches designers can have to an interface. Needless to say, there are interfaces that are both difficult to learn, and still crap when you've got used to it.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[paulbd]

did you even read the parent post? the writer said that they loved the GIMP interface. the complaint was that the windows version seems different in some important ways.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Technonotice_Dom]

I was replying regarding interfaces generally to an AC saying:

If it takes a month to learn a UI, then its fucked right out of the box, period. Wise up.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[schumaml]

Knowing these differences would be interesting - especially since some users complain that it looks and feels like the "unix version" on each platform.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[DrSkwid]

Sorry but you are totally wrong.

If I am going to use program A for the next 5 years to do the best work ever then investing 1 month in learning the UI is a low price worth paying.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

The UI should match the target application domain, GIMP and photoshop are image manipulation programs and art programs and should be ready to use like an easel and paintbrush and not some nerdy gimicky GTK crapola UI as it is now. They want a canvas, not 34578254875348948982305724785234875 window options, think FLAT UI, think photoshop. I think adobe has it right spot on , and i think this is reflected in its popularity. Dont argue with me, argue with the amount of customers of photoshop. I think that stands behind my argument. I have shown photoshop to an 85 year old artist and he got into it right away, GIMP? Dont make me laugh. It wasnt even in the list.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[s4m7]

There are two main reasons for this instability under windows. The first is the irregular fashion in which GTK fixes and enhancements are ported to windows-- usually at least several weeks and occasionally several months behind the linux verions typically due to testing cycles. The second is in the gimp dev cycle itself in that (and this seems common to most windows ports of OSS to windows) it's always down to one or two people to do the rather labor intensive and unrewarding task of setting up the windows binaries and installer and keeping it inline with whatever random crap MS & co. is doing this week from windupdate to prevent us from using free (speech) software. (ahem in our work enviornment... hey it pays the bills, ok? I only run *n[i|u]x at home, I swear.)

Frankly, you should count yourself lucky that somebody bothers, and that you don't have to build from source to get a working version on ANY platform, but specifically windows as its installtion cruft is most annoying, and windows users tend to be less patient with the build process.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Daengbo]

I neer found
secially nice
get thins done
allways been
Aprently, u strggle wth ur kyboard, as wel.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Ralph Yarro]

did you even read the parent post? the writer said that they loved the GIMP interface. the complaint was that the windows version seems different in some important ways.

No it didn't say anything like that, for which reason I strongly suspect that you're the one who didn't read it.

I suspect that you have your settings to only read posts scored above a certain threshold. Alternatively you may have some weird threading options set up or you may just have trouble following threads.

Whatever your problem was, before telling anyone what the parent post to theirs said, click the "parent" tag so that you can find out. This goes for the moderators who considered your post "insightful" too.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[pD-brane]

I've found it very intuitive under Linux. But after trying it on XP, it really does feel like a crippled version of the package

Why didn't you install The GIMP on Linux then? She was already using Linux for FreeCiv anyway.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[s4m7]

Don't mistake my annoyance for paranoia, but I serve an IT role at a medium sized company. We have a bunch of GPL and other OSS stuff installed on our windows-centric network. When we deployed SP2 company-wide, about 30% of the OSS apps broke, and either had to be reinstalled or (in three cases) have SP2 rolled back for critical machines. not like most of it matters anyway since the machines in question are behind an honest-to-goodness, well maintained firewall, aren't used to recieve any email, and have IIS turned off by default.

mind you we did have about 3 proprietary apps break down as well.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Jugalator]

Without virtual desktops GIMP can be... dificult

Yes, that's the problem with GIMP's design when you run it on Windows.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[MobyDisk]

The issue of GIMP and multiple windows (lowercase w) comes up every time there is an article about GIMP. Initially it was blamed on GIMP being old and requiring a rewrite. Then it was a feature, designed into the GIMP. Now it is Windows fault for not having multiple desktops?!!??! Oh I forgot, if all else fails blame Microsoft.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Any software that broke after XP SP2 was written incorrectly. The disadvantage of MS doing things correct this late in the game is that sloppy programs get caught out.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[arose]

You'll find some people that complain about any kind of interface. It is a feature and Windows sucks at handling... windows. I don't remember saying anything else. If you have a problem with the way GIMP works you solve it (by buying Photoshop if all else fails), the developers are aware of the "problem" and must be much more anoyed by the "please-stick-it-all-in-a-window-because-adding-on e-more-window-will-solve-the-too-many-windows-prob lem" than I am.

The issue of GIMP and multiple windows (lowercase w) comes up every time there is an article about GIMP.
...
Oh I forgot, if all else fails blame Microsoft.

Complaining about the GIMP is good, complaining about Microsoft bad?

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[ftvcs]

> Without virtual desktops GIMP can be... dificult

You could download some plugins to make it look more like 'normal' windows programs.

http://registry.gimp.org/person?id=3891

There's 2 things missing in the windows version:
- Windows open/save dialog (blah gtk)
- 1 window for all windows (alt-tab, task-bar)

I heard in Gimp 3 it will be included by default.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[FooBarWidget]

Oh I forgot, Microsoft is never wrong, right? You can throw all the trash and crap you can find at Gimp and at open source, but not at Microsoft, right?

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[JustAnOtherCodeSerf]

And, as always... the "solution" seems to be people telling you how they work around the problem (instead of admiting it's an issue and fixing it).

Appearently we're talking to a brick wall, but let's give this one more try....

Dear GIMP Developers... This is your #1 useabilty issue. YOU may like it, but appearently everyone else HATES it. Perhaps you might consider fixing it rather than telling us (how) to "deal with it".

I would personally love to use your software. I'd love to get all my friends hooked on your software, but I can't. This single issue alone prevents all of us from adopting your otherwise wonderful application.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be true if you were likely to do the best work ever. But you aren't, so it's a moot point.

Photoshop pays for itself in the first month. The GIMP actually COSTS you money while you're wasting time trying to learn it. And don't tell me it's more productive than PS in the long run, because I've actually used BOTH programs A LOT and I would take PS any time.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Tarcastil]

I don't know about you, but I use the window manager Enlightenment. Multiple virtual desktops...the perfect environment for the GIMP.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[JamesTRexx]

Actually, I find using Gimp much more pleasing on Windows than any other program because I use a lot of other programs, and I use virtual desktops as well.
I absolutely hate having to run fullscreen when creating/editing a picture because it hides all other windows. With the Gimp I can at least keep one corner open for my messenger/command prompt/winamp/whatever I want to keep an eye on. The way it uses multiple windows is one of the reason why I started using this, and the last time I sat behind photoshop, I got really annoyed at the single window approach. Blah!
I hope they'll never change this, or at least keep it an option in future versions.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[JamesTRexx]

appearently everyone else HATES it

It's good you said appearantly, because I absolutely LOVE the interface of the Gimp.
So, to counteract, dear Gimp developers, keep it the way it is.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[arose]

No it's your #1 useabilty issue, the GIMP is fine for the rest of us.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

That can't be true. Managing windows cannot be GIMP's number one issue, or GTK's, since they are not window managers but an application and a widget library. Could you tell us why, and how is GTK supposed to solve a problem in a completely different space ?

Handling windows is the job of the Window Manager, which is Windows under Windows, and can be anything under Unices. So if you have an issue with the way your windows are handled, just report the problem to your window manager's developers.

By blaming Gimp for a problem with Windows, you're asking them to break an interface that works in a way that cannot work. You wouldn't ask your car manufacturer to fix your car because of a hole in the road, would you ?

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell must it be one way or another? Code it in as an option, for God's sake... click a little checkbox, and, upon restart, it starts in a single window. Or, better yet, at first start it asks you about whether you want it in one mode or the other (a-la-Dreamweaver) and then defaults to that, with, of course, an option to change it. That way, each person gets what they want...

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[T-Ranger]

I wonder why that is... Is MS intentionally breaking OSS software? How would they know what to break?

As a thought, Firefox uses its own installer for Windows (or possibly a third party tool). Not .MSI format. On the Linux side, I wouldnt expect that, say, Anaconda (the RH/Fedora install/upgrate system) to properly deal with packages installed using .deb's, or especiall with things installed from source. How good is the MSI format... Is it good enough that it is reasonable for MS to not spend too much time on SP installs so that they can deal with unpackaged things? Or, has MS officialy or semi-officialy told app developers that MSI should be used, and if they dont, and a SP breaks their app, sucks to be you? Pragmaticly speeking those two things are the same.

To draw an analogy, 95 and NT had different dirver systems. 98 introduced WDM (windows driver model), though still supported 95 drivers as well. At the time, the plan was that the next relase of Windows would combine NT and 9x, and that that line would use WDM exclusvly, so harware manufactures should put out wdm's now. Since this new line was a way off (and took an additional cycle for the merge to happen), many hardware manufactures diddnt put in the effort. So when the drivers diddnt work for the new release (whenever it was that they dropped support for the old system, I happily left the Windows world before then), whose fault was that? MS breaking the old drivers, or the hardware companies for not making the new drivers? As much as it pains me to admit it, I think MS was right.

Maby all the tools that produce msi files cost money. Maby OSS developers are philosophically opposed to using msi. Maby they simply dont want to play the MS game. Maby this is not the problem at all.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[bjorg]

Thanks for the input. I keep thinking about giving the GIMP a good whirl, but the short term pain doesn't seem worth it for the moment.

That said, the speed with which the new versions are being developed now bodes well.

Just the existence of the GIMP will help to keep Adobe et al from making Photoshop any more expensive or inaccessible.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Cromac]

That's a poor design choice problem with GIMP not a Windows problem. Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro and thousands of other programs manage to write MDI applications without requiring their own seperate desktop to be usable. If the developers of GIMP want to gain much market on Windows they'll need to change the design. If they don't care, then they don't need to worry about it.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps not specifically a GIMP problem but when will I be able to cut and paste images from gimp to openoffice ?

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Count yourself lucky?? "here's a shit sandwich, be glad you're getting one at all". gee, thanks.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Dwonis]

Ever used Visual Studio lately?

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I would expect it to include shocks which won't make me miserable if i DO have to drive over a road with holes.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, I always sometimes use that software. It's maybe certainly the almost most useful software package Microsoft sells.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great and all, but if they wanted to do it right they'd emulate the industry standard (Photoshop) so people could switch back and forth with ease. The GIMP interface is hardly shattering any design paradigms, or bringing anything new to the table - it just sucks. Somebody let me know when it sucks less.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[FooBarWidget]

And of course, his post will get modded up, while your post will not. Slashdot is not pro-open source - I'd say it's the opposite. You can throw all the junk you want at Gimp, and still get modded up, but if you do the same thing to Microsoft or Photoshop, nothing happens, while the people who accuse you of being an "anti-MS OSS zealot" get modded up.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[arose]

The moderators, just like the posters, are from all sides. Just check my posts for this article.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[FooBarWidget]

But the anti-open source pro-MS moderators are in much larger quantities.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Eric Pierce]

"Unusable"?

I don't know what could be so different about the Windows version. They're built from essentially the same code base and handle the same for me.

I use both the Windows version (work) and the Linux version (home) almost daily, and don't even realize I'm bouncing back and forth half the time.

Here's my slightly customized Gimp UI. Screenshot

In 2.2 you can really minimize the window clutter that plagued older versions. You'll notice I've even removed all the tool icons to give me a larger area to display layers info, etc. And with my set-up, I have just one window to deal w/besides whatever images I may have open.

And keyboard shortcuts work globally in 2.2, so you can get busy no matter which window is in focus. 2.2 is an absolute keyboard lovers dream come true.
Is it possible your girl just didn't give it enough time? Gimp is a powerhorse of a program, and it's going to take anyone a little time investment to get up to speed w/it's features.

Just my 1166kb.

E. Pierce

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[kwalker]

Dear non-GIMP-contributor,

Thank you for speaking for the rest of the world.

I for one (And checking the replies to your message, it seems I'm not alone) do not have a problem with the GIMP interface. in fact, I like it very much. I have a window on the left side for the GIMP controls, one on the right for layers, histogram, undo history, and other tools that I require then X number of windows for the graphics I'm working on. How this is more difficult to use than a single Word-style window eludes me. I've used GIMP on virtual desktops, on full-screen desktops, and even across dual monitors and it Just Works(tm). The biggest problem I have with it is on Click-To-Focus desktops that require that I click twice on icons in non-focused widgets and I fail to see how crippling the GIMP to satisfy their busted-ass UI model is going to make it better.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[JamesTRexx]

As I did say in another post, if they change it, let it be an option.
But I see so many comments that claim so forcefully claim that the other interface is the only right one that I feel forced to claim otherwise.
Zealots. *sigh*

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

But the anti-open source pro-MS moderators are in much larger quantities.

Which is why comments bashing Linux are always modded up, and comments bashing Windows are always modded down.

Oh, wait, it's the other way round, isn't it? Bang goes your nice little theory.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[HiThere]

That's an interesting assertion, and it MAY be true. But I know of no way to check it, and I don't feel like cutting MS any slack.

I never hated Microsoft before I used Windows.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[HiThere]

If you want to consider a closed source proprietary application a standard... I suppose that's your choice. I won't consider such a thing to be a standard. I won't consider anything bound about by patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc. in such a way that it's illegal for someone else to duplicate it to be a standard.

Now The Gimp could certainly be a lot more like PhotoShop without being in danger of violation of protected space, but there's no particular reason that it SHOULD. The Gimp is quite useable as it is, and I find the Photoshop interface difficult to use and understand after using The Gimp for awhile. (Well, I also use Deneba Canvas, which is a lot more similar to Photoshop, intentionally...they had a better design, but were trying to attract PhotoShop users. I don't think they succeeded. But I find them FAR superior to PhotoShop. Deneba Canvas is rather like a combination of Photoshop and Illustrator, and as it has a smooth transition between the pieces, it's superior to either, or even both together.)
OTOH, I am talking about Canvas8. I haven't ended up using Canvas9, even though I have it also installed. (In the case of Canvas9 I'm talking about the Mac version. I've dropped using MSWind.)

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[kaffiene]

"Insightfull"?

I've used Gimp on Windows for years, and I love it. If you don't like the interface, fine, but don't speak for the rest of us.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I fully agree. I ran a feasibility study at work to see what open source solutions could be used to reduce our dependence on commercial software. The GIMP looked like a perfect app, but interface was the major reason why we didn't switch to it. We still use it for some automation tasks, but no one wants to use it for any serious work.

As the parent poster said, get off you high horse and fix the damn problem. Make the default interface identical to Photoshop, and let users switch back to the other interface if they want.

No one likes spending so much money on Photoshop for an app that really hasn't changed in 10 years, but the GIMP isn't' addressing the issue.

Fan boys that have learned to cope with this crippled interface have their heads in the sand.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[flacco]

How this is more difficult to use than a single Word-style window eludes me.

i think the problem is that it requires a lot more mouse activity to keep the available display space used. you have to "painstakingly" set each windows' size (toolbox, images, etc), you end up with distracting gaps between them that show stuff underneath, and when you resize one window you have to resize its neighbors to compensate for it.

i suppose you could argue that this is the job of the window manager, but it doesn't make it any easier, and not really possible on the typical windows client.

that said, thanks to the GIMP team - i use it for all my photographic work.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Civil_Disobedient]

Dear GIMP Developers... This is your #1 useabilty issue.

Thanks for taking the inevitable pro-Gimp pile-on that resulted from saying this. I absolutely agree with you -- sub "windows" should be handled inside the application. I'm sure Adobe and Macromedia took a performance hit when they came up with code to embed these mini windows, but at least they understood that the dozens of potential dialogue windows would create organizational havoc on the task bar. Not to mention that it just looks ugly as sin.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you know, Adobe and Macromedia started out on a Mac. And on Mac, they don't use MDI, but a GIMP-like interface.

The reason they use MDI on Windows, is because of the limitations of window handling in Windows.

But, I don't know any window manager for *nix that's able to handle the windows of gimp in a decent manner. They all suck at it, and if you want it to un-suck, take a day off at work so you can configure your window manager all friggin' day.

-
Thank you all for listening.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[0racle]

What slashdot are you using?

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Bifurcati]

I find that my biggest gripe comes from having my desktop, other windows, etc, appearing around my images. It distracts me, and I sometimes click on them by accident (e.g., if I miss during a quick resize - and no, I'm not drunk at the time.)

If there were someway for GIMP to give at least a grey uniform background, that would help a lot.

Joel
http://www.illuminatingscience.org/

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Ogerman]

Dear GIMP Developers... This is your #1 useabilty issue. YOU may like it, but appearently everyone else HATES it. Perhaps you might consider fixing it rather than telling us (how) to "deal with it".

Lets be more realistic about this issue. There are usability cases for both interface designs. The best solution would be the ability to toggle Gimp between traditional multi-window and MDI. I love Gimp, but there are times when I wish it could go into MDI mode, even to not clutter my taskbar when working with a half dozens apps! In a way, this is similar to the case for tabbed browsing! Think about it: what does tabbed browsing really offer other than a separate "taskbar" within the browser to help keep your mind on task? It's a simple, seemingly pointless addition that makes a huge difference in real life usage!

On the other hand, there are cases where I much prefer the way Gimp does things now -- multi-monitor / desktop etc.

Gimp developers, please hear me out: having both interface types would be a huge boon to the project. Remember that one of the goals is to pull Windows users away from Photoshop -- and as a result, Windows eventually. Embrace and extend.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[craigtay]

Paint.NET is a much prettier Windows editing program, I suggest you download it instead!

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[craigtay]

The user interface for GIMP is really not compatible with Windows, they use different conventions! I really doubt that GIMP will look more in place on X.. I just don't see that happening.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[richlv]

i believe he was talking about bunch of separate windows that pop up in taskbar (and application switching list) for every single thing you open. although i use gimp on linux and usually work with it on a separate desktop, i still think single global window would be more convinient. and, of course, it should be an option, so that user can choose whichever he likes the best. being an ignorant ass and telling that everybody who dislikes current behavious surely will not help to increase gimp's user base. which is needed, isn't it ?

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[DrSkwid]

It's not the GIMP's interface that makes the difference, PS is just a VASTLY SUPERIOR program in every area, it's just as simple as that.

But that doesn't negate the general point that not being able to learn the interface in 5 mins is not a *necessary* requirement.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Bert64]

This is only a usability issue under windows..
Photoshop on MAC (and most other apps) work the same way as gimp under unix, photoshop under windows works differently - all the toolbars are contained within a single large background window. This is to do with the way the different interfaces are designed. Windows comes from a simple task switching environment, where you have a single foreground app taking up the whole screen which you use until you switch to another full screen app. Basically it's designed for people who can't concentrate on more than one thing at once.
Most unix window managers and the apple interface however, are designed to arrange multiple apps on the screen and with most unix window managers, to have multiple virtual screens laid out that you can flip between.. So you never need to minimise 20 windows like you would on a windows system..

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Mornelithe]

If the interface is crippled, why does Photoshop on MacOS (where it originated) still have a Gimp-like interface? Do you see people flaming Adobe for this interface every time Photoshop is brought up? No, instead Photoshop is one of MacOS's big claims to fame. Could it be that Photoshop's Windows interface is an artifact of the way that Windows handles things (taskbar and such), rather than the alternative being inherently flawed?

Perhaps Gimp on Windows would be better if it had a Photoshop on Windows UI, but things aren't the same in Linux. Using a separate desktop for the Gimp is quite easy, and provides many of the benefits of a single-window interface. The only immediate difference that comes to mind is the want of a single menu in a non-moving place, and I agree, I wish gtk would support this like KDE and MacOS does (single application menu in the top left, if you want). However, encasing every application in a big window is not a good solution to this problem.

The Gimp on Windows is closer to an afterthought than a #1 priority. The Gimp developers should be primarily concerned with making a good interface on the primary system for which it's designed, and that's Linux. It doesn't make sense to make an application primarily for Linux, but have a UI designed to work around the particular quirks of Windows or MacOS or BeOS or whatever.

Quite frankly, if anyone's on a high horse, it's you, and everyone else demanding that The Gimp developers address UI issues that only you have deemed of highest importance. If you want things 'fixed,' you'll probably either have to do it yourself, or give some monetary compensation to someone who can do it for you. Comlaining on Slashdot and throwing insults at "fan boys" won't get you anywhere, especially with a "problem" that the majority of users probably don't see as a problem. Perhaps it's you that have learned to cope with a crippled window management system that is worked around by the applications you use.

As a final question: if Photoshop hasn't changed in 10 years, why do you keep buying new versions? You could just keep using your 10 year old version without loss of value, right? Or has Photoshop actually added new features that make newer versions useful. And might those new features be more useful than a rewrite of The Gimp's GUI subsystem?

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Mornelithe]

Yeah, that's way better than:

"Give me a sandwich with prosciutto and bacon!"
"All I have is regular ham."
"Fuck you! You can only make shit sandwiches with regular ham!"

Those Gimp developers are real assholes.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[FooBarWidget]

Nope.

Microsoft-defending post:
"Oh I forgot, if all else fails blame Microsoft." - +5 Insightful
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1 30 379&cid=10880664

Bam, there goes YOUR theory.
And this is just one example.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[FooBarWidget]

Microsoft-defending post:
"Oh I forgot, if all else fails blame Microsoft." - +5 Insightful
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1 30 379&cid=10880664

And this is just one example.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

The most annoying part is that every time you click on a subwindow the drawing window loses keyboard focus and the keyboard shortcuts no longer work. And the keyboard is absolutely essential for efficient work. I understand that this is not so much an issue if you have set the focus to follow the mouse.

Are all satisfied GIMP users using follow mouse focus?

The second, unrelated, criticism is the waste of screen space that is going on in GIMP. The dialogs could be streamlined a lot more towards saving some more pixels for the canvas.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[ReelOddeeo]

if all else fails blame Microsoft

That is just not right. People should not blame Microsoft when all else fails. It is not how things should be done.


People should blame Microsoft first, and not bother trying all else.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[jasonjacks0n]

No it's your #1 useabilty issue, the GIMP is fine for the rest of us.

Well, I agree with him, and his post's got 5-Insightful, so it seems like a lot of others do too.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[arose]

It's his isue because he has the problem. AFAIK most developers use some kind of *nix (with X and multiple desktops) and do not think that Windows is a very important target. So it's not the problem for developers and most of the prime taget audience (at leat of those who knew how to use their virtual desktops). Compare that to Inkscape, where the developers think that Windows is an important platform.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Mornelithe]

Yes, brilliant job moderators.

"The Gimp is a shit sandwich" gets modded up as insightful.

My pointing out that someone is being given software for free and they instead choose to complain about it and call it a "shit sandwich" get modded as flamebait.

Nobody has to give you anything for free. The Gimp developers write their software out of their own interest, and give it away out of the goodness of their heart. So unless you want to pay them, or do the work yourself, don't complain about what you get. You don't have to eat a "shit sandwich." You can have absolutely nothing instead.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[JustAnOtherCodeSerf]

> Gimp developers, please hear me out: having both interface types would be a huge boon to the project. Remember that one of the goals is to pull Windows users away from Photoshop -- and as a result, Windows eventually. Embrace and extend.

Exactly. Something that is lost on far too many developers is the fact that usabilty is the single most important "feature" of an application.

If it wasn't a problem, you wouldn't have so much debate about it.

Re:woo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that embarrasing?

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this is the "developer" section?

Re:Why?

[kai.chan]

Because GIMP is used for developing graphics?

Re:Win32

[dan dan the dna man]

Erm.. I can't work out if you're trolling or not ;)

Clicky for Win32 goodness

Re:Win32

[ninthwave]

The windows version is in the screen shots, note it says Gimp 2.2 on Windows XP.

Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Magickcat]

Gimp seems like a really good graphics package, but I still really struggle with the fact that it opens all these seperate boxes that I have to move around. I just want them snapped into a background.

I want the good old Photoshop/Illustrator/Dreamweaver layout, without having to shuffle 4 floating tool windows about that do different stuff. I'm sure that there is a really good reason to the layout, but I just can't get beyond this unusual interface, and just switch to windows graphics packages because of it.

Even if I make the image take up my whole screen, I don't like the fact that the tool window etc can wander around and aren't fixed - like every other graphics package that I've ever used. Why oh why does it have to be different?

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Bill_Royle]

Absolutely agreed. I haven't used it in quite a while myself for that very reason - it's probably very useful for some people that multitask like mad, but for me I like to have all windows within an app nailed down to some degree.

Admittedly, though, this may have changed since the last time I used it? If such an option's been added, I'd be happy to chuck the alternative!

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[krymsin01]

I can never quite understand this argument, no matter how many times I hear it. Take out the MAIN window in photoshop, the one that serves as a dock and menu interface, and you have several floating windows. Exactly the same as the gimp.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Yorrike]

I want the good old Photoshop/Illustrator/Dreamweaver layout, without having to shuffle 4 floating tool windows about that do different stuff.

Then drag the tools you want into the tool window. You have all the tools in one window and your image in another. It's a far superior layout to that of PS.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[forgoil]

Same here, I want all the little windows inside another big window, just as in photoshop. Photoshop has a more "gimp" alike system on the mac, and it really really sucks ass bigtime. Same with apps like codewarrior. Fortunatly they gave taht one a "not one million little windows cluttering up everything" mode for windows, which made it as least useful.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Then drag the tools you want into the tool window. You have
> all the tools in one window and your image in another. It's a
> far superior layout to that of PS.

Uhhh then it's exactly the same as photoshop can be.

Same != far superior.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[BenjyD]

Doesn't the mac have a kind of "sheet of glass" model for applications? So it behaves as if each application is stuck on its own sheet of glass, stacked on the desktop, and you choose which one to bring to the front - so that clicking on any window in an app brings up all the application's windows?

That would be my ideal GIMP behaviour, anyway.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[HoneyBunchesOfGoats]

Having used both programs, it's not the toolboxes themselves that are the problem; whenever I use Photoshop, I move all the tools onto my second monitor so that there's nothing to obscure my view of the image I'm working on (so in that sense there's not much difference between Photoshop and the GIMP). What I feel gives Photoshop the edge is the refinement and consistency of the tools themselves. Having been around and receiving user feedback for so long, Photoshop's tools have been refined to the point where they are nearly as intuitive as they can be made for their specific interface, and behave fairly consistenly from one tool to the next. With the GIMP, the manner in which each tool gets used is not as refined, and it's sometimes not as clear how to make use of some of the tools.

Still, I'm very excited about this release, the GIMP seems to get better every time. I'm sure I'll play around with it a lot once it comes out.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

That still doesnt fix the many many things in the taskbar, photoshop atleast does not show those

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[mattgorle]

Absolutely, completely agreed.

Having "grown up" with Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro and Illustrator, the idea of having 4 totally separate windows for the toolbars doesn't sit well with me. I realise that their floating palettes are effectively windows, but they're different (smaller title bars, slightly different behaviour).

One thing that might help, if the single window model is impossible, could be if they "snapped" to, say, 2 pixels of the desktop edge (as they do in Photoshop) and remember their positions between sessions. This'd at least let me quickly impose order on my GIMP virtual desktop.

GIMP could be great. I'd use it all the time instead of Photoshop under VMWare (!), if I could get my head around its little annoyances.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

The gimp windows also have slightly different behavior. But it is left to your windowmanager to impose the slightly differentness.

GIMP does indeed announce to the windowmanager what kind of windows each window is, any snapping to screen boundaries, different title bar, stacking level etc. is not a GIMP task, but a wm task.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Vokbain]

Palettes work that way in Mac OS X, but regular windows no longer do. They can be stacked in any order.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[interJ]

That's just fine if you're only running Gimp. But if you have other applications running, you'll see them in the background between the gimp windows which is distracting (unless you bother to minimize them each time you switch applications).

Also, gimp clutters up the task bar, which makes it harder to switch applications, and means that when you want to switch to gimp you will have to click each of the gimp taskbar buttons instead of clicking just one.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[augustz]

Couldn't agree more.

The transition cost is significant with all the floating windows. Found it frustrating when moving back and forth.

Realize everyone who uses gimp loves this setup, but for those of us transitioning from almost any other graphics toolset it is a bit of a difficult transition.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just click the blue "e". It always downloads nice toolbars for me.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[ubernostrum]

As of Gimp 2.0, you can "dock" pretty much any window or toolbar in pretty much any other. It's pretty handy for keeping your workspace clutter-free.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[arose]

Your options:
1) Install GNU/Linux or one of the BSDs and marvel at the "wonder" of virtual desktops.
2) But Photoshop and leave us alone.
3) Get out your text editor and compiler (or get something to do it for you, the GIMP developers aren't interested right now).

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[krymsin01]

I'm going to assume that you have multiple desktops. Fairly common for a linux system, to a lesser extent in Windows even though the feature has been around for a while.

Go to a clean desktop, start gimp, do whatever you want to do. Use another desktop for running whatever else you need/want to run at the same time. Now, I know that in the window manager I use (fluxbox), tasks that are running on one desktop are not shown in the taskbar of another desktop.

With this setup (which seems intuitive to me) I don't have the problems you mentioned.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[BigSven]

If you go the GIMP preferences dialog, select the "Window Management" page and enable the "Utility window" hint for the docks and/or the toolbox, your window manager is supposed to keep the docks and the toolbox above the image windows. So you basically get exactly that behaviour.

This is not the default because we got a couple of angry bug reports when it used to be the default in the 1.3.x series. Now what's missing is an equivalent setting that works on Win32. Perhaps one of the /. readers knows more about the Win32 window API and could help to implement this in the Win32 backend of GTK+?

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[BenjyD]

You just made GIMP twice as usable for me - thanks for pointing that out. It's now like an improved version of the Photoshop behaviour. Fantastic!

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[aichpvee]

There is a reason, though it's not particularly a good one. Sort of the same reason that early version of the Visual Basic IDE and all the OSX software runs like that. And it's kind of dumb, but with a separate virtual desktop it really isn't that big of a deal, and hardly something that is really in need of changing.

Some things that do need changing about The GIMP are the filters and brush quality, which in general give very poor results compared to those in Photoshop. Also I'd really like layer styles (at least the stroke and overlay, and maybe drop shadow, the rest can pretty much go bugger themselves) and most importantly layer sets.

Working with an image that has 30 or 40 layers (which is really easy to do when texturing 3D models) is a huge PITA without the ability to sort them into sets.

As far as the interface war goes, I'm really inclined to side with GIMP now. Their brush editing panel is a lot easier to use than Photoshop's, which has tons of features but tends to get in the way unless you put it in that tabbed thing which makes it really difficult to use at all. With GIMP the panel just drops behind the editing window so you don't have to have it in the way, which works really well particularly with focus follows mouse and auto-raise, not to mention window shading.

I think it's time that the GIMP devels turn less toward new features and more toward really getting the quality behind the ones that they do have. Because Photoshop isn't advancing very quickly anymore and is past ripe for a take down. It's just a matter of someone stepping up to do it, though beating the Photoshop marketing and mindshare will always be tough.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[aichpvee]

Actually, I've found that in a lot of ways the floating windows are better than those in something like Photoshop. For instance, in Photoshop many of the windows are always on top of the image editing window, so they obscure the image even if you aren't using them. So I end up wasting a lot of time moving them, or turning them off entirely if they aren't used a lot. This is a HUGE pain though when I'm using the brush editing window while painting textures, since I adjust the settings pretty frequently.

With Gimp, particularly on Linux, this isn't a problem at all. I can completely hide all the other windows behind the main image window that I'm working on if I want. And a middle-click to the title bar will drop that window to the back so I can see the ones that were hidden. Though usually I just leave a corner sticking out and rely on my focus follows mouse and auto-raise to get at the tool panels.

Maybe it's time for all these Windows users who hate Gimp to try it the way it was meant to be used. Since it's pretty damn sweet when the operating environment doesn't suck.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[aichpvee]

That's generally pretty true of Photoshop, except their brush editing panel, which is ass-to-ass. It's got lots of nice features for customising the heck out of the brush, but it's huge and unwieldy if you're doing a lot of adjustment to the brush head.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[aichpvee]

Gimp can already do that, at least it does if you're running it in KDE. Been a long time since I ran it on anything else, except Windows. And I think we all know how well that turned out.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[mattgorle]

And for those of us not running KDE?

I'm pretty sure that Gimp 2.0 doesn't behave in this way under XFCE or Fluxbox...

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[aichpvee]

You might start? And I thought Fluxbox did have screen edge snapping at least, but maybe not. I haven't run it in a long time.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[WiseWeasel]

I am very thankful MacOS X doesn't have that kind of behavior. It's very nice to be able to mix windows from different applications without calling them all up to the forefront. If you do want to easily call up all of an app's windows, simply click on its Dock icon or command-tab until you reach that app. For most things, however, being able to call up only a single window from a particular app to the front is a godsend, especially as you work between apps, and use drag-n-drop...

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[serviscope_minor]

Gimp seems like a really good graphics package, but I still really struggle with the fact that it opens all these seperate boxes that I have to move around. I just want them snapped into a background.

Then get a better windowmanager. Seriously. That way, you will be able to get the boxes to do exactly what you want, irrespective of what the GIMP developers think is a good idea. Gimp is good at editing images and it should stay that way. Window managers are good at managing windows. Let each component do what it does best.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[MyDixieWrecked]

I'm actually amazed that gimp has the ability to drag the window tabs between windows. I could have sworn Adobe had a patent on that and Macromedia had gotten in trouble with it either with flash or freehand or something.

One thing I applaud the gimp team on, though, is the fact that it's not just a photoshop clone. They didn't try to clone every feature and place everything in the same places. They actually had support for certain things before photoshop supported it (ie- non-square pixels and better histograms).

There's just certain things that weren't up to par with photoshop last time I toyed with the gimp (they may be fixed now), but that's mouse tracking and text antialiasing.

But yeah, I agree with you, the non-standard size for every floating palette is a little bit of a pain in the ass. I wish they would just make everything more even so I could lay out the windows better. And the tool window is a bit clunky. ;)

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[mattgorle]

Or I might not.

I don't wish to offend or attack anyone, but KDE is just too heavy for my taste. I've tried various versions, starting with something pre-1 (on my 486 -- that was painfully slow), through 1.x and finally 3.[013]. It's a fine desktop enviroment, with many useful tools and applications. Just doesn't suit me.

XFCE certainly allows for screen and window edge snapping, but my (very poorly expressed) point was that having separate windows (frames?) is, IMHO, inferior to having a single window that contains subframes.

People will always differ on this though -- I had a similar discussion with someone earlier this month about the benefits of tabbed vs. untabbed browsing.

I think it comes down to the fact that I want as few frames on my screen as possible. Of course, these frames may have subframes, but I don't want every toolbar, picture and webpage to come in its own frame for precisely the same reason that I don't have 6 emacs frames open when I'm hacking around with something -- it clutters up my screen to have more than one, and it's more effort to "put it away".

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody has ever managed to explain it to me what makes Windows' MDI interface so special. IMHO it sucks.

• The gray background does not let you see your other windows, so either it's a click-fest when working with other apps, or you need a bigger monitor. Bonus point for Gimp.
• In Photoshop one can minimize all those windows together. That's a bonus for PS, but no big deal for Gimp. Just get another window manager.
• You say that you have 4 totally separate windows for the toolbar. Gimp supports snapping windows together! Palettes are different you say? That's not Gimp's fault, it's your window manager's fault.
• Windows should be able to get snapped at the desktop edge, or remember its positions? That could certainly be done in Gimp, but the window manager is the more proper place to implement it.

So, presumably you are not using the crappy window managers that come with KDE/Gnome, what is it really that makes PS stand out?

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[TrentL]

GIMP's layout is fine on Linux, where you can just put it on a separate desktop. But it's hell in Windows. I agree completely with this complaint; there are too many windows, and it doesn't feel like they're all tied together in a common program.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[polux2001]

Take a look at the (used by professianals) photoshop mac vesroin. There are separate boxes too. The reason for that is you can easyly drag them on many screens. The "good old" windows photoshop layout is not that god....just use a separate desktop and put a gray backgroud :)

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Lalakis]

There is a plugin for gimp that puts a window behind all gimp windows and make all of them behave like one. I don't know why anyone would like to do this, but you can check http://registry.gimp.org for the gimp deweirdifier plugin (something like that, registry is down at the moment and I can't check it).

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Lalakis]

Also, gimp clutters up the task bar, which makes it harder to switch applications, and means that when you want to switch to gimp you will have to click each of the gimp taskbar buttons instead of clicking just one.
Having a shitty window manager with a non functional taskbar isn't really an excuse for not using gimp. If you decide to use a better WM you will see that all gimp windows will be grouped in the taskbar.
And a hint. If you hit tab in the image window all other gimp dock windows will dissapear. Hitting tab again will put them back in place.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[grumbel]

The only problem is that you can not dock the image window, which is really the one that would be most 'dock-worthy' in the end. Docking is overall a nice add-on, but it only reduces the clutter a little bit. Still by far to many windows floating around, when it comes to brushes or palette I want to have them docked where I need them, to the window, not hidden behind half a dozens other dialogs.

Beside from that the 'floating window' issue makes some of the image-menu entries rather weird, like having a 'Quit' button per-Image, but it acts for the whole App and such.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[he-sk]

Try hitting the key in Photoshop, it hides all the floating windows. Then learn the keyboard shortcuts for the various tools. They are shown in the tooltip for a quick reminder, too.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[BigSven]

That sounds like the last time you played with GIMP it was on version 1.2. Perhaps you should try a newer version. Of course there's still lots of room for improvement (where isn't?) but the points you mentioned have been addressed.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[he-sk]

Damnit. I meant the -key. I know, should've used Preview, bla bla bla.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[juiceCake]

Professionals use Photoshop on Windows too. You can easily drag everything but the image windows away. It is a drawback for those who prefer to have the total freedom and isn't for those who don't. Simple really. I have no problems using Photoshop on either platform and adjust accordingly.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate GTK with a passion when I used linux so I'm sure as hell not going to implement anything, but you can pass this info on to whoever wants to do it:

If you're looking for being able to click on one window and have all the windows appear on top, the most trivial way to do this is to make a hidden window and make all the top level windows a child of it.

If you're looking to keep the toolbar windows always on top of the image windows, search MSDN for the WM_ACTIVATE and WM_MOUSEACTIVATE messages and the BringWindowToTop function. It should be pretty straightforward from there.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[FooBarWidget]

Unfortunately, utility windows suck in Metacity (or at least, not good enough)! If I click on the toolbox, it'll bring the utility window to front. That's good. But if I minimize the toolbox, the utility window is still visible, and there's no way to minimize it!
If I click on a document window, it will not bring the toolbox to the front. If I set the toolbox as a utility window, then I lose the ability to minimize it! If Alt+Tab to the toolbox or other utility windows, they will now bring the rest of the utility window or the document window to front!

If you know a better window manager than Metacity, which supports EHWM hints properly, please tell me. Devils Pie will not do: it doesn't help.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[sootman]

Mac OS 9 and earlier worked like that. OS X doesn't.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[fbjon]

Yes, it's pretty pretty.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[spitzak]

The equivalent of "Transient-for" windows in X is "child" windows in Win32. They literally use the parent id that normally indicates that the new window is inside another to indicate the "belongs to & keep above" type of property. A second argument to the create-window call says whether it is a real child window or a seperate one that on X would be indicated by setting the parent to the root.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[sweede]

What are you talking about? we use OSX Panther and it does that and i hate it.

We use 2 applications and always have a finder window open.

If i have safari open but have another application window above it, and i need to check on a download, i click on the download window (thats in the background) and it pulls every safari window to the front, above all of my other applications.

If i go to click on something and i miss and click the desktop, it brings all of my finder windows forward.

THE WORST is when i double click on a file in finder to open it in the application. Save and close that window, the finder window is in the background. BUT if i click in the finder window to select the next file i need to edit, it pulls a different application (Prinergy) IN FRONT OF FINDER and then usually will move some important directories around.

I hate OSX

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Coryoth]

One thing that might help, if the single window model is impossible, could be if they "snapped" to, say, 2 pixels of the desktop edge (as they do in Photoshop) and remember their positions between sessions. This'd at least let me quickly impose order on my GIMP virtual desktop.

Any decent window manager ought to do this already. I think a lot of the complaints about the GIMP are due to the fact that it tends to delegate window management (including those palettes) to the window manager (which is actually sensible) but MS Windows and Metacity both tend to suck for anythign but the most basic window management. GIMP under enlightenment with edge snapping, stacking layers, multiple desktops, and window grouping is really quite pleasant to use.

If Metacity could implement at least a few of these things (edge resistance and a basic window groups system) you would see fewer complaints. As for GIMP for MS Windows - perhaps they'll have to come up with some hack to make that work especially for windows - I don't see MS ever writing a decent window manager.

Jedidiah.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[BigSven]

I just had a look at the source and it seems that GDK for Win32 does support the optional "keep-above" setting that we added with GIMP 2.2. So it should be possible to configure the toolbox and all docks to be always above all other windows. Not sure if that's a solution for everyone but I guess some users will find this useful.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[rlk]

A click to raise option is fine -- as long as it's an option. Personally, I use a keyboard accelerator to raise windows, but with neither autoraise nor click to raise enabled (in KDE), and with mouse strictly follows focus. Yes, that does mean that I sometimes operate in partially obscured windows, but that's by choice.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[m50d]

So, presumably you are not using the crappy window managers that come with KDE/Gnome, what is it really that makes PS stand out?

No, the poster is using the crappy window manager that comes with windows, and has no choice about that, so it would be nice if their image editing program could handle it gracefully. Yes, it's the wm's fault. However, photoshop works around the wm's flaws, which is why its ui is better. And, to be useable on windows, the gimp is going to have to as well.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you Windows XP users who hate this can use the MS power tools utility Deskman to get very simple to use multiple desktops.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/pow er toys/xppowertoys.mspx

Put all the gimp windows in a separate desktop and that should go a long way to alleviating the annoyance you feel.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[BigSven]

The EWMH spec unfortunately misses a proper hint for the GIMP toolbox. As you noticed already, "utility" doesn't quite fit here.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[t35t0r]

Floating windows is something that Windows users will not understand about Gimp. If you have multiple desktops and use a desktop like XFCE all the pictures and tools can be moved from desktop to desktop (without having to move an entire MDI, or multiple document interface as is in Photoshop). This reduces clutter across desktops and allows me to look at only the pictures and work with them in relation to whatever else may be on the screen.

For example I may be editing one gimp picture, have the tools window beside it, and have some other program that is acting as a reference or guide for whatever work I'm doing.

I would much rather have the the flexibility than not have it. But I must agree that it would be better if there was a feature to change from multiple windows to single window MDI so that people can decide for themselves.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Kyouryuu]

I don't really have a problem with the multiple windows layout. Seperate windows are nice, especially with multiple desktops or monitors. What I do wish Gimp had the option for was amalgamating all of those windows under one button in the Windows taskbar. Having four or five different tabs on the Windows taskbar for essentially the same program makes things cluttered.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[AstroDrabb]

Do you know you can change the Gimp interface? I have all my windows docked into one. It is _really_ easy to do and here is a quick little page I put up just now to show you. One window Gimp. You can get a nice installer for the latest Gimp from here.

The default Gimp layout is actaully the same as the default Photoshop layout under Mac. I personally do not like the Photoshop layout under MS Windows. If I maximize the image I am working on, all the other docked tool windows are always topmost and cover parts of the image. With Gimp, I have every tool window docked into one nice main tool panel. If I need to change a tool, I just alt+tab, select the tool and then alt+tab back to the maximized image with nothing covering the image.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Cromac]

I'm sure that there is a really good reason to the layout,

Why are you sure, just giving them the benifit of the doubt? Don't forget companies like Adobe spend tens of thousands of dollars on usability, GIMP is done the way the geeks writing it want it. There's a reason why so many commerical products are easier to use out of the box than OSS.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just get another window manager.

Sure, because that's so much easier than using a decent image program.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Cromac]

You have a space in the URL http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/power toys/xppowertoys.mspx To bad it only works for XP, it won't even install on Win2003.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You have a space in the URL as well. Curiously, it is in the exact same place. Whatever could be going on? Oh yeah, Slashdot breaks up long "words." Also, if you really meant to be helpful, some people might appreciate it if the link is clickable.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

For top-level windows it's called owner, not parent. Unfortunately the API for handling this is rather confused. See this article for example. Also take a look at how gdk_window_set_transient_for is implemented on Win32. See gdk/win32/gdkwindow-win32.c.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then drag the tools you want into the tool window. You have all the tools in one window and your image in another. It's a far superior layout to that of PS.

How careless of Adobe to continue to use an obviously inferior interface long after the holy GIMP hath shown them the One True Window Layout. Why, no wonder people are leaving Photoshop in droves to use GIMP instead!

Oh, wait, there's only a few tens of thousands of GIMP users at most, while millions of graphics design professionals continue to pay thousands of dollars for Photoshop instead of using this clearly superior package that also happens to be completely free.

I wonder why?

Surely it can't have anything to do with the interface, can it?

No, that's a stupid idea! I mean, it's not like the ones who take the time to explain why they use Photoshop not GIMP ever mention the interface as their major objection to GIMP, is it?

Er... they do? All of them? Every single time the question is raised?

I know - I bet it's because Windows is so crap! If they were running GIMP on Linux, they'd be able to use virtual desktops! They'd love GIMP then!

What? You're saying that even the ones who use Linux, use... Photoshop? What, they even pay extra money for Crossover Office to make it easier to use Photoshop in Linux? But GIMP's interface is so much better! Why do they want to use Photoshop?! Why?!!!

Beats me. I'm sure it's nothing to do with the interface, though.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[MyDixieWrecked]

it's perfectly possible. I know I toyed with it at my last job, which I stopped working at 18 months ago. =)

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Bullet-Dodger]

I don't know what to say exactly. There must be something really weird with the setup you're using, because I use OS X and it doesn't work that way at all. When you click on a window, only that window comes to the front and when you click on the desktop it changes focus to the desktop, but it doesn't move any windows. Granted, I'm using Jaguar at the moment, but from what I can remember it's always worked that way. Are you using a weird beta version of OS X or something?

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not any more. As of Mac OS X you can bring up a window of an application without bringing any others to the foreground. Sometimes I miss the previous behaviour, and sometimes I find uses for the new behavior.

If you want to bring them all up front, use apple-tab switching or click on it on the dock. After getting used to this I like the new behaviour, let's me do things I couldn't do before; like switching between two active windows of two distinct applications, without obscuring them with palets.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Magickcat]

Other than when using GIMP, I'm quite happy with KDE, so although perhaps this suggestion might work for some, I myself would rather that GIMP improves.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Magickcat]

I'm running GIMP 2.0 on Suse 9.2 and KDE 3.3.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Magickcat]

Thanks AstroDrabb, I'll have a go at this.

Very much appreciated.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Magickcat]

User interface design shouldn't be rocket science when you have a great deal of user comment like GIMP seems to.I mean you can spend hundreds of thousands on HCI experts and still get terrible design - Microsoft are experts at bad HCI for example. To my mind, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that they had a good reason for their ideas because it's so different to every other graphics program that I've used. Nonetheless, I still don't like the layout myself.

GIMP and Gnome seem to have put a great deal of thought and discussion into their user interfaces - it shows to my eye. I personally don't like Gnome much and prefer KDE, but it seems like they've put in the work.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Magickcat]

I'll give it a try, thanks.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[WiseWeasel]

Something is messed up with your OSX install. I'd contact Apple about that one. It sounds really annoying, so I could understand how that would piss you off (actually, it sounds like the way Windows does things), but that's not how it's supposed to work. Maybe you should try reinstalling MacOS X, or at least creating a new user, and seeing if that account behaves the same way. Something has definitely gone awry on your computer, and I couldn't imagine what might make it behave like that, unless maybe you installed some strange interface hacks or÷åÊ_ething.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Xabraxas]

How careless of Adobe to continue to use an obviously inferior interface long after the holy GIMP hath shown them the One True Window Layout. Why, no wonder people are leaving Photoshop in droves to use GIMP instead!

Oh, wait, there's only a few tens of thousands of GIMP users at most, while millions of graphics design professionals continue to pay thousands of dollars for Photoshop instead of using this clearly superior package that also happens to be completely free.

That's odd because design professionals tend to use macs and the mac version of photoshop has free floating windows, just like the GIMP. In fact, the Windows version of Photoshop was a hack from the beginning.

I know - I bet it's because Windows is so crap!

Now you're getting it.

...GIMP's interface is so much better! Why do they want to use Photoshop?! Why?!!!

Beats me. I'm sure it's nothing to do with the interface, though.

You're right, it has little to do with the interface and more to do with features that GIMP does not yet have like CYMK color management.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[sweede]

it has done that from the very first day it was installed (about 3 months ago)

Gimp is uncomfortable

[lauPi]

Everytime I have to use it, I must frown.
Its user interface is just so uncomfortable and annoying I really cannot honour the fact that it has many professional features and is very powerful.
But it's just so painful to use!

Re:Gimp is uncomfortable

[OffTheLip]

Depends on how Gimp is used. As an amateur I was able to locate the limited features I wanted and learned to use them. Really quite simple. Obviously Gimp is much more than what I use and professional graphic art needs drive the rest of the features. I assume they are relevant to more advanced users.

Re:Gimp is uncomfortable

[mangu]

Its user interface is just so uncomfortable and annoying

I guess Gimp's name was inspired by its user interface. When newbies ask me, I tell them the Gimp can do anything one can imagine, but one just cannot imagine how.

A good starting point is Grokking the GIMP, an online that's also available in paper. There you can follow step by step how some usual image editing tasks are done.

Re:Gimp is uncomfortable

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you explain how it's UI is uncomfortable?

Really it's like all the morons repeat something they heard a long time ago. The Gimp 2.x interface isn't bad by any means. No worse than bright shiny colorful MS Windows html embedded interfaces (eg: symantec and other cheap consumer crap) that are all different and use non native UI elements so it's not obvious exactly what the user should be doing.

Some things aren't easy in the GIMP, its not a photoshop clone and whining about the UI isn't going to make it one. Just because you find an interface unweildy doesn't justify you using illicit copies of photoshop, which I gather is what most whiners are doing. What I read in the GIMP bashing threads are people who want photoshop without paying for it or expending any effort.

Re:Gimp is uncomfortable

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you explain how it ISN'T uncomfortable?

All you have to do is use it a few times and it's pretty fucking obvious.

But the newbies love it so I guess it must be great.

Re:Gimp is uncomfortable

[davids-world.com]

Well if it wasn't for that 'cheap consumer crap', Windows users would probably retreat from the internet sooner or later because of all the viruses they get.

That said, you seem to forget that something like The Gimp has thousands of functions and options, with a great deal of flexibility as to what the user can do. (An anti-virus program does only one thing.)

You'd better compare the quality of the Gimp's interface to the one found in Photoshop or its veritable replacement, Jasc PaintShop Pro. That means, you should look at consistency, adherence to operating system standards, responsiveness, and user trails, i.e. the workload a user has (number of clicks and mouse-miles) in order to execute a certain manipulation of the document.

In terms of OS standards, for example, the Mac OS X GIMP is worlds behind Adobe Photoshop.
Do I still have to click on every single tool twice in order to activate it? (Once to activate the window, once for the tool). (A global focus-follows mouse setting for X11 would bring up UI issues with all other X11 programs I use.) Is the menu bar in the 'real' menu bar on top of the screen now? Does it use the OS standard keyboard shortcuts (Apple-S, Apple-C, Apple-W etc.?)

I'd really like to use The Gimp, but the interface has been putting me off all along.

Re:Gimp is uncomfortable

[J. Random Luser]

If you want to use OSS you will learn to love pain. If it's interface you want, remember real men still use TeX at a terminal...

Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Someone clone the Photoshop interface please. Yes, OSS or not, the interface does matter.
2. Yes, color (or if you prefer, colour) management is important.
3. GTK widgets look about as good as OSX without Aqua. Yes, OSS or not, looks do matter, and our eyes will thank you for it.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[jokumuu]

The interface really matters, a friend of mine is a real GIMP evangelist, I think he has convinced everyone he knows to try it.. But.. people quickly turn to other programs, not because of the functions, but because of the usability.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[krymsin01]

I think it's a matter of preference and ability/inclination to learn a new way of doing things rahter than usability problem. Gimp does what it does just fine, and can rival PS in the hands of someone who is used to working with it. I'm not trying to say that photoshop is a crap product, far from it. I'm just saying that if you want free, open-source software to be prepared to learn a new way to do things. Either that or write some code to make it do what you want it to do and contribute it back into the project. If it's such a hassle for people to get over the fact that there is no MDI parent window or learning how to group tasks together so that all of them come up at the same time: buy photoshop.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't like the GTK+ widget defaults? Use GTK-Engines to skin them.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[arose]

1. Yes interface matters, don't break it, for those who grok it. Improvements like from 1.2 to 2.0 are the way to go.
2. If you need it right now you'll need to look elsewhere. There are many, many applications for a raster editor where colour management does not matter.
3. I love the Smooth theme, many swear by Industrial, others like the simple default. I also find Aqua too bright, the stripes bother me and the glass buttons hard to read. But if you can make a better GTK theme, by all means start up GIMP (lack of colour management shouldn't hinder you here) or Photoshop (if that's your preference) and get going.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[jokumuu]

I think you are missing the point, people willing enought to try GIMP are turned away because they do not like the interface.

Though the total sample I know of is only twelve or so the errormargin of this survey is very high at around 25% :)

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I've heard that color management should be coming soon but it'll be a few more years for colour management.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[zemoo]

Isn't the Photoshop interface patented?
If I remember correctly, Adobe and Macromedia have sparred over this in the past (Fireworks looking too much like Photoshop)

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[MMC Monster]

Just one thing needs to be done for me to take it seriously: Get a backdrop window for everything to be latched into. Yes, it's a design issue that's not going to be changed, but it's unfortunate. Besides photoshop, none of the other paint programs (or really, any other programs) have a layout like this anymore. I *like* having multiple different programs on a screen and being able to minimize and *overlap* them as I need to. Why do I have to create virtual screens just to be able to use this program?

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[grumbel]

### Yes interface matters, don't break it, for those who grok it. Improvements like from 1.2 to 2.0 are the way to go.

Those micromal improvements are NOT the way to go, that way it will take a hundred years before it starts becoming a really useable application. How about making the GUI configurable? Its not that the floating-windows stuff needs to go completle, just have a checkbox in the Preferences to switch from WiW to floating-windows and some Tip-Of-Day to inform users about it. It really should not be all that difficult, especially with docking already in place, just provide a larger managing window where the docks get a fixed place and make the image windows dockable and tabable too. This issue has really been there since day 1 and it really hasn't been getting much better at all in the last five years.

### If you need it right now you'll need to look elsewhere. There are many, many applications for a raster editor where colour management does not matter.

Sadly not so much on GNU/Linux, but yeah Windows and Mac users have plenty of alternatives.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[Miffe]

Run it in Xnest

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[afd8856]

At this moment photoshop has more features and is a lot easier to use than gimp.

One important factor that you need to consider: there are a TON of free tutorials and resources and documentation on the internet. It is a lot easier for beginers to start in the photoshop camp because of this.

As for those who use photoshop on a daily basis (I'm close to being just that) and use photoshop for graphic composition instead of just adjusting photos or simple graphics: they won't switch because photoshop has more useful features (I cannot imagine the world before Photoshop 5, when Adobe introduced the layer styles) and after you learn each shortcut to the last detail, you just won't switch for anything but something a lot better.

What's the status on film gimp? I would love to see an open source after effects replacement coming from that way.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[Khalid]

The sad fact is that 95% of people are used to MS Windows and programs running under MS Windows GUI. I have tried many times to use GIMP but have quickly given up, I am too used to the Photoshop way of doing things. Same thing for OpenOffice ! I now prefer to use OSS on the server and Windows on the desktop.

If we want to convert people to OSS we MUST offer them GUI they are used to otherwse they will screem and ask for they Windows applications back.

And yes I am an OSS biggot !!

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[arose]

Those micromal improvements are NOT the way to go, that way it will take a hundred years before it starts becoming a really useable application.

They may not be enough for you, but those of us who like and are used to the interface it's the best way: we get improvements, but don't have to relearn.

Its not that the floating-windows stuff needs to go completle, just have a checkbox in the Preferences to switch from WiW to floating-windows and some Tip-Of-Day to inform users about it.

Do it, or find someone to do it for you; the developers aren't interested.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[grumbel]

### They may not be enough for you, but those of us who like and are used to the interface it's the best way: we get improvements, but don't have to relearn.

I doubt it. I feel the pain in using the Gimp interface every time I use the Gimp, and thats after almost 6 years of regular Gimp usage. Relearning a new interface would take how long? A day to get confortable with it? Maybe a week to master it? Maybe a month to completly know it in an out? The time that is taking to relearn should be easily be made up for in very few days, after all it wouldn't be completly different or completly new, it would just mean sticking all those floating dialog boxes together in a grid, keep them in place, keep them where they are usefull (aka. not hide them behind your image window and such..) and maybe add a few more buttons say for undo/redo, for rotating, flipping stuff, rect or circle drawing, etc. Overall nothing that would take any time at all to relearn, just functionality in a better accessible place. After all some more radical change in the GUI should make the UI more accessible for everybody, keeping it as it is ensures that it is inaccessible for almost everybody.

### Do it, or find someone to do it for you; the developers aren't interested.

Yes, I know, and thats one of the things that is slowing Gimp down alot. If the developers aren't interested at all in improvements, its not really all that motivating for writing patching. As it stands now any kind of WiW patch would have quite a hard time getting accepted by the Gimp developres.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[chrisbw]

Isn't the Photoshop interface patented? If I remember correctly, Adobe and Macromedia have sparred over this in the past (Fireworks looking too much like Photoshop)

To play devil's advocate for a minute, wouldn't people in the OSS community be pissed of Adobe "stole" all the ideas out of GIMP and dropped them into their project? Would you consider it right to "steal" verbatim the interface of someone else's work?

You might night agree with the license, but you should at least honor it if you expect the same of your own license.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[FooBarWidget]

Geez stop talking as if OSS is the only thing at fault here. Have you ever heard of this thing called "limited manpower"? SOMEONE has to write all that stuff! Do you think code falls from the sky or something? You're nuts if you think they don't care about usability and looks, and you've obviously totally ignored the huge 1.2-2.0 improvements.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[FooBarWidget]

Well I've been using Gimp for 3-4 years, and I like the interface a lot. Just because YOU think it's unusable, doesn't mean everybody does! I HATE Photoshop's window-in-window interface. Alt+Tab is impossible, and to switch between image windows I have to click TWO TIMES (first the Window menu, then another menu item). Snapping windows is completely unheard of.

Besides, Photoshop on Mac behaves exactly like Gimp: floating windows. Why don't you complain about Photoshop on Mac too? Ooh, because Linux is the reincarnation of evil, right? Because Gimp is an open source progra, so it must suck, right? Because Microsoft is always right?

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[arose]

### They may not be enough for you, but those of us who like and are used to the interface it's the best way: we get improvements, but don't have to relearn.

I doubt it.

Wow, you must know me better then I do, because to my best knowlage I have liked it ever since I read "Grokking the GIMP".

I feel the pain in using the Gimp interface every time I use the Gimp, and thats after almost 6 years of regular Gimp usage. Relearning a new interface would take how long? A day to get confortable with it? Maybe a week to master it? Maybe a month to completly know it in an out?

You feel pain after six years but suggest that those who like the current interface could switch in a month?!

The time that is taking to relearn should be easily be made up for in very few days, after all it wouldn't be completly different or completly new, it would just mean sticking all those floating dialog boxes together in a grid, keep them in place, keep them where they are usefull (aka. not hide them behind your image window and such..) and maybe add a few more buttons say for undo/redo, for rotating, flipping stuff, rect or circle drawing, etc.

So an interface like that of Blender? Won't work good with GTK. And just look how many people are complaining about the interface of Blender! But if you can convince someone to port all of GIMP's functionality to the excelent, OpenGL accelerated interface of Blender I'm all for it. Get them to port Inskape also while you're at that and ask them to port the modeling tools from Wings3D. Oh and also integrate it with Emacs and Firefox and make it all scriptable in Parrot, than we can dump X and overlapping windows once and for all. But as long as we deal with traditional GUI paradigms GIMP isn't halfway bad.

If the developers aren't interested at all in improvements, its not really all that motivating for writing patching.

The developers aren't interested in fixed "problems" that don't really exist, improvements are plenty as the development for 2.2 shows.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[grumbel]

### Just because YOU think it's unusable, doesn't mean everybody does!

This issue pops up absolutly EVERY TIME gimp is mentioned somewhere, this really is not a 'just me' issue, its a issue for A LOT of people.

### Why don't you complain about Photoshop on Mac too?

Because I never used them, I use Gimp exclusivly for the last ~6 years and STILL have some major issues with the GUI, not because 'its me' but because the interface just has some major problems.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[grumbel]

### You feel pain after six years but suggest that those who like the current interface could switch in a month?!

The GUI should be configurable enough to just rip it into pieces and go back to the 'all floating around' style of things. I am NOT saying that forcing everybody into a WiW is a good thing, just saying that playing hide&seek with my dialogboxes really can't be the right way to design a userinterface.

### So an interface like that of Blender? Won't work good with GTK.

Well, then lets go and fix Gtk, just because Gtk can't do it isn't much a good excuse for not even trying it at all. After all Gtk still stands for 'GIMP Toolkit' so I guess implementing a bit of functionality that is needed by Gimp into it shouldn't be all that difficult.

### And just look how many people are complaining about the interface of Blender!

They are complaining because the Blender GUI has some major problems, but at least the Blender developers admit it and seem to improve the situation slowly, but constantly. Every new Blender release so far was full of a wealth of good new features, new Gimp releases, which happen quite less frequently haven't provided anything substantly for quite some time.

### But as long as we deal with traditional GUI paradigms GIMP isn't halfway bad.

Gimp already is pretty far away from tradinional GUI.

### The developers aren't interested in fixed "problems" that don't really exist

Well, if these problems don't exist them I am sure we want have long endless discussions about the next time when Gimp is in the news, after all we didn't have these discussions the last five years... oh wait, maybe we did.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot:

4. IMO

It's amazing how many here feel they speak for all. Photoshop users are not the Gold Standard for imaging, any more than Word users define all things print. If you don't like the gift of the Gimp, go buy something you do. The world's not here to serve you.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[arose]

Gimp already is pretty far away from tradinional GUI.

Traditional as in WIMP not MS Windows.

Well, if these problems don't exist them I am sure we want have long endless discussions about the next time when Gimp is in the news, after all we didn't have these discussions the last five years... oh wait, maybe we did.

Those aren't GIMP problems, they're your problems.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[arose]

Well, then lets go and fix Gtk, just because Gtk can't do it isn't much a good excuse for not even trying it at all.

You can't solve these problems at the toolkit level (if you want to do it right), you would have to radically change the window manager and then get everyone to change their applications to work with it.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[grumbel]

For tradinonal Windows3.11 WiW maybe, but thats really not what anybody wants. A simple managing window with a few places to dock stuff into would already be enough to fix most problems and thats really nothing that would require much rewrite, wouldn't even require to change Gtk. Galeon for example already has tabbed-windowing and toolbars that I can rip apart and away from the main-window if needed and things like that in Gimp could make quite a huge improvement.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the interface does matter. The Photoshop interface sucks, so please don't clone it. If people ask you to, then have them explain why first. If the reason is that they don't like change, just ignore them. If the reason is that they use the wrong tools (such as a window manager that doesn't manage windows), ignore them (but show them the good tools). If they have a good point, then do the change. but I bet most of the time they don't.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[drinkypoo]

I HATE Photoshop's window-in-window interface. Alt+Tab is impossible, and to switch between image windows I have to click TWO TIMES

First of all, the window-in-window interface is called MDI. I don't know what it stands for, but that's its name, at least in Windows. AmigaDOS used it as well, and for the same reasons Windows version 3 used it - screen real estate was limited at the time. Adobe probably uses it because the majority of their users for Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign are not computer types - they use a computer every day but they don't understand it. Keeping each application separate enhances the desktop metaphor.

Second of all, you can tab between MDI child windows with control-tab. I hope this helps.

And finally, the grandparent comment probably doesn't complain about photoshop on mac because the poster doesn't care about mac. That's certainly why photoshop on mac doesn't bother me. Personally I would like it if photoshop had two modes, one MDI and one not. However I find that I seldom want photoshop to be non-MDI so I guess it's not much of an issue for me. Nonetheless if you actually knew how to use windows (control-tab is the standard method for tabbing between MDI child windows) then it wouldn't be such a problem. Don't blame the tools for your lack of understanding of how to use them.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[FooBarWidget]

MDI is Multiple Document Interface. So tabs are also considered MDI. That's why I call it window-in-window, not MDI.

I know about Ctrl+Tab, but it behaves totally different from Alt+Tab: instead of switching between to windows, Ctrl+Tab only goes forward in the list. Ctrl+Tab sucks. It's just an alias for Ctrl+F6. And even with this, I STILL have to click twice to switch between document windows, because there is no task list.

"Don't blame the tools for your lack of understanding of how to use them."

If someone says the same thing about Gimp, or any open source software, people will immediately attack him for being "an open source zealot" and that "that attitude is exactly why open source usability sucks". All of those attack posts get modded up to +5 Insightful.
So blaming Photoshop is bad, while blaming Gimp for the same thing is good?

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[drinkypoo]

No, I'm just saying that Gimp is even worse in some ways and it should be improved if it wants to be "taken seriously" in business. With that said, I don't think that's the only bar to acceptance, and I don't think it has to care, because that's not required to make it a great program.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[Mornelithe]

Gimp already is pretty far away from tradinional GUI.

If that's true, then why does Photoshop on MacOS continue to have an interface very much like The Gimp (or, one could more correctly say, The Gimp has an interface much like Photoshop on MacOS)?

Also, notice that no one complains about Photoshop's interface on MacOS. Perhaps that means it's not a flaw inherent in that sort of interface at all.

There may be UI flaws in The Gimp (and quite likely in Photoshop, on both Mac and Windows), but they probably aren't best solved by wrapping everything in a big window.

Re:woo hoo

[boudie]

Do I detect jealousy?

Re:Win32

[Anonymous Coward]

I use both Gimp & Pan on WinXP, wish there're more GTK+ apps ported. Would be even better if there's a theme selector.

Copy and paste

[BenjyD]

Improved ability to copy and paste between GIMP and other applications, including OpenOffice and Abiword.

Yes! The number of times I've seen Linux newbies ask "Why can't I copy and paste from GIMP" is huge. Looks to be a great release

Very Nice

[theolein]

Bit by bit, the Photoshop fortress falls.

Re:Very Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, let GIMP take the talentless nerds out of the Photoshop userbase, the real professionals won't miss them.

Re:Very Nice

[CrackedButter]

What prey tell is wrong with Photoshop, it IS the industry standard for image manipulation for professionals and deserves to be so?

Re:Very Nice

[Nexum]

No... no, it really doesn't.

There is a need for GIMP as an application, sure, but my god there is a very long way to go, especially with the user interface, and look of the app, before Photoshop even begins to show signs of 'falling'.

I applaud all of the hard work done on the GIMP, by the many undoubtedly talented people who have given their time, but we are still four or five years away from a comfortable PS alternative, and allowing ourselves to think otherwise is totally counterproductive to actually achieving a Photoshop alternative.

Re:Very Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

this is complete nonsense.

anyway, for the crowd that gimp might appeal to, the photoshop fortress fell a long time ago. perhaps if you came out of your itsy bitsy world, you would have noticed.

not to mention that a lot of people DON'T LIKE photoshop. i've shown them the gimp, and there reaction? it's photoshop but worse.

gimp has it's niche. anyone who has used photoshop for a living (meaning not one of the gazillions of people who have dicked around with it a bit because they bought an edu copy or stole it) for a few years and tried gimp will not give up photoshop.

sure i'll use gimp in a pinch, but why should i give up my beloved photoshop?

life is too short to shoot myself in the crotch in an attempt to apply some idealogy to every single decision i make when concerning software.

that's just plain stupid.

Re:Very Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

> There is a need for GIMP as an application, sure, but my god
> there is a very long way to go, especially with the user
> interface, and look of the app, before Photoshop even begins
> to show signs of 'falling'.

Not to mention the simple (but unpopular) statement that... Gimp is just not comparable to Photoshop in features at this time.

Gimp is good, it's very good, it's got its faults and so does photoshop, but saying gimp is going to overthrow photoshop is like saying George Bush will overthrow George Michael, just because they're both Georges

Re:Very Nice

[Yorrike]

If I had the ability I would mod your post to -10^100 frustratingly redundant.

Read the manual and discover the power and wonder of virtual desktops.

GIMP IS a viable alternative to PS, but not if you're so stubborn to belive that PS is where every such application should be.

Here's a challenge, come up with one problem with GIMP that isn't the skipping record of UI complaints (which are, in my opinion, due to a mix of ignorance and stupidity) or lack of CYMK (which is a patent issue).

Re:Very Nice

[cyxxon]

Replies like these always make me wonder "why?"

Is this really want you are telling me? That I can only really use an application if I put it on a separate virtual desktop and not anywhere I want it to? This is pretty much a foot shooting by the Gimp developers, because telling other people they are too stupid to use Gimp because unlike every other app on this planet it only works well if you change your whole way to work is a sure way that this people will not use Gimp.

Gimp is a royal pita to use for everyone except those who have used it for ages. Everyone else wants a better UI. Well. I for one hope Krita will be any good when it comes out, so I am not stuck with PS.

Re:Very Nice

[tentimestwenty]

Yes, only 6 more versions until it's as good as Photoshop 8. :-) Seriously, have you used the GIMP for real production work? It's not even a close race - Photoshop kills it in just about every way. You have to remember that most pros will never switch until the competitor exceeds the standard by a good measure. There's too much invested in training, legacy files, and workflow. On the other hand, if you look at it in terms of people-who-have-zero-to-ten-dollars to spend on an image manipulation program, it's finally looking like a good deal.

Re:Very Nice

[walt-sjc]

What prey tell is wrong with Photoshop,

Price, lack of freedom...

it IS the industry standard for image manipulation for professionals and deserves to be so

Deserves to be? Why? Are you getting paid by adobe to say this or something?

Competition is good. Maybe adobe will improve their product or bring it's price point down to be a little more reasonable. If Photoshop features and function is being replaced by something that is free, the monetary value of PS will erode. Adobe will have no choice but to make PS better and WORTH paying big bucks for.

Linux is sure making MS start to run scared. If they don't continue to make windows better, it will die. MS has also seen this with Firefox and has now stated that there may be an upgrade to IE after all. Once Gimp has CMYK and CM, Photoshop's "edge" will be Very small. If PS doesn't improve and offer much more than Gimp, will it Still "deserve" to be THE standard?

For web graphics, PS offers little advantage over Gimp today.

Re:Very Nice

[cjjjer]

Hehe, how many times have we heard that from OSS advocates?

Seems like every new version of software x is going bring down the CS (Closed Source) equivalent. The problem is the CS equivalents are the ones pushing the new features and functionality that the people using them want and need out the door first and the OSS people (in general) just copy them. Now if The GIMP actually came out with new functionality that Photoshop will never employ that made a graphics artist easier. Then yes I'd say that The GIMP might take away from Photoshop, but until then your battle cry falls short on deaf ears.

Re:Very Nice

[Lalakis]

lack of CYMK (which is a patent issue).

Gimp lacks cmyk support not because of patent issues, but because of the extensive changes that need to be done in the core. Gimp was originally designed for RGB and that proves to be a problem now, but GEGL is coming to solve this and pretty much every other design issue gimp has (ex. higher bit depths and layer effects)
Some cmyk conversion algorithms have patent issues, but that's not the point at the moment...

Re:Very Nice

[BigSven]

GIMP had multiple undo levels years before Photoshop had it. Just one example out of many...

Re:Very Nice

[CrackedButter]

I don't think the price matters when you're a professional photographer, graphic designer or whatever, who needs that kind of software day in day out, infact, PS is a small price to pay compared to other equipment needed for a photographer or designer for example. There are cameras which cost $30,000 (without extras) and upwards and there is demand as well. Also Apple Computer appeals to the creative industries and they have no problem with paying for their hardware. For a photographer, a couple or even one photo will pay for the price of a Photoshop license.
These professionals are not unknown entities either, pick up any good magazine in regard to graphic design, illustration or photography and they praise Photoshop to high heaven. One reason is because it does the job, GIMP is not mentioned yet, and it doesn't need to be, not when they can use something now and not something else when its done. Maybe its your perspective on things that is lacking instead.
I mention PS being deserved of its position, yet you talk as though the only alternative is GIMP. There is cheaper software titles out there which do the job, they are even sometimes reviewed in the same magazines that don't mention GIMP! There is no monopoly here, Photoshop has succeeded through healthy competition. Why shouldn't is deserve being the industry standard?
Don't get me wrong though, I have tried GIMP (didn't like it) and I wish it well, but you are right about the effects it will have on PS, but don't cast down a well respected and favoured software title with nearly 20 years of history behind it. It shows you know little when it comes to the preferences of other people who REALLY need professional software like Photoshop and don't have the time to piss around with untried alternatives.
Its not all praise however, because I'm not paid by Adobe, and I do agree PS is lacking in areas, speed for one of them.
Linux is sure making MS start to run scared. If they don't continue to make windows better, it will die. MS has also seen this with Firefox and has now stated that there may be an upgrade to IE after all. Once Gimp has CMYK and CM, Photoshop's "edge" will be Very small. If PS doesn't improve and offer much more than Gimp, will it Still "deserve" to be THE standard?
It will take a while for windows to die, even if a lot of people hate windows, it is still around even with alternatives. Photoshop will take even forever if it does die the death you hope it to, even though its respected far more and hasn't got the monopoly hold that windows has on its users. By that rational, it should be easier to move away from PS? But its still here stronger than ever.

Re:Very Nice

[sweede]

The CMYK colorspace is useless to anyone but print professionals. Adding true CMYK support to gimp will just give the slash-crowd another thing to use in their meaningless arguments on why OSS is better than all.... well, until they actually get into the real world and see why applications like GIMP fail to win professional users.

To fully enable GIMP to succeed in the professional print envoriment, they'll need to forgo all this "freedom" OSS b.s. they use because NO ad designer or Desktop publisher will use an application that does not support PMS colors.

PMS stands for Pantone matching system and yes, is copyrighted and trademarked and you need to license it to use it.

i'm 60% positive that CMYK is also copyrighted by Pantone, but im not 100% sure.

Either way, CMYK support wont come to GIMP until they realize that to win that market they need to accept that they might have to license technologies.

Adobe IS the industry standard because it WROTE those standards. PDF, Postscript, EPS, and more

$600 for Photoshop is very very reasonable for professionals. Considering that the people who use it most work for ad-houses that get payed thousands of dollars for a single ad anyways.

Photoshop will always be above Gimp because of the PMS and CMYK colors.

Photoshop is designed for professionals. GIMP is not. end of story.

Re:Very Nice

[sweede]

"life is too short to shoot myself in the crotch in an attempt to apply some idealogy to every single decision i make when concerning software."

thats just awesome, if i had mod points and i didnt reply in this story i'd mod you +1

Re:Very Nice

[crhylove]

God damn I wish I had some mod points, this is just bullshit. The gimp rules now! I've been gimp only for 4 years, only 1 complaint: Folder memory.

Re:Very Nice

[drinkypoo]

Photoshop deserves to be the standard because it is easy to use, provided on the most important platforms, and has all the features needed in a professional image manipulation package. Not some of them, not a few of them, but all of them. If you only need to generate graphics for online use, the gimp is probably fine for anything you might need to do. If you need to generate raster graphics for the printed page, photoshop is the natural solution. What I want to know is, why do people keep bothering with PSP?

If the gimp grows up a little more, for example if it gets the necessary color management support, and maybe becomes a little easier for people to get the hang of (I haven't found it to be THAT awkward, but then I'm not afraid of my right mouse button like your average computer user) then sure, it makes sense that it should become the standard.

Re:Very Nice

[dbIII]

allowing ourselves to think otherwise is totally counterproductive to actually achieving a Photoshop alternative.

Do we really need a Photoshop workalike? If it looks just like photoshop people will expect it to behave the same way, and we'll just be playing catch up to each version instead of adding what features make sense at the time (and photoshop will always be better).

For a lot of people, it already is the photoshop alternative. Say someone asks you to install photoshop so they can resize photos of their children to print out - and it is a machine in a workplace. Do you buy a copy and try to justify the unjustifiable with accounts, install pirate software on a workplace machine, or just put the gimp on the machine? The same applies for legitimate one off things in a workplace - you are not going to get a mac, a graphic designer and some serious software for a few icons on an intranet page.

Re:Very Nice

[KeeperS]

Exactly. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that Photoshop is a moving target. Unlike, say, Internet Explorer, where there hasn't been much development in years, Adobe is always working on making Photoshop better. The GIMP might eventually be as good as today's Photoshop, but Photoshop will be even better by that point in time. The GIMP has a lot of catching up to do, and being complacent isn't the way to catch up. Ignoring or dismissing valid complaints isn't the way to catch up either.

The GIMP seems to be more of a Paint Shop Pro killer than anything. If somebody just wants to crop an image or make some simple graphics, it works fine and has an unbeatable price.

Bitching

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you all bitching about the interface? It works perfectly fine for me on linux with fluxbox; I just toss all the windows onto an empty virtual desktop. Perfectly useable and versatile too!

Stop complaining about the GIMP's interface just because your window management sucks. (This goes double for Windows users because, ironically enough, Windows' window management sucks balls.) MDI is a shitty hack, and the GIMP developers have already refused to implement it with good reason.

Re:Bitching

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to add to this, it's a cinch to dock all of the toolbars together so you only have one window with all your tools lined up + open images.

Re:Bitching

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong mindset to be in. If you're expecting everyone to use fluxbox/blackbox to have a decent ui experience with an application; then you're going in the wrong direction. A good ui would be useable regardless of the windowmanager the end user is using.

Re:Bitching

[virid]

Mod parent up!

I think the interface debate comes down to which you learned first. I began using GIMP before I'd even seen Photoshop and now, having used both, I much perfer GIMP's interface.

So to all the developers, keep up the GREAT work!!!

Re:Bitching

[Anonymous Coward]

Your wrong.

Window management is very important to creating a usable and flexible user interface in a modern multitasking enviroment.

What your saying is something like "there is no need for a mouse pointer for a good ui."

The world has moved on since 1995. It's just too bad that 95% of people don't realise this because they are stuck using a operating system with more limitations then they are aware of.

Re:Bitching

[Sunsetbeach]

Maybe better: Get yourself a dual monitor setup, and enjoy GIMP the way it is ment to be.

I haven't got Windows on my box, but every time i have to use PS on a Windows box (even with a xinerama setup), i get pretty annoyed by the gui of ps.

GIMP is superior and much more flexible.

Re:Bitching

[David_W]

The world has moved on since 1995. It's just too bad that 95% of people don't realise this because they are stuck using a operating system with more limitations then they are aware of.

Not that I don't agree with the point you are trying to make (I'd like to see more intelligent window management in Windows too), but by definition, how can "the world" have moved on if 95% of people (in "the world") are using an OS that hasn't?

As the parent poster said, this is the wrong mindset for an application. The OS dictates the interface to the application, not the other way around. It's very nice that The GIMP provides a flexible interface that advanced window managers can take advantage of. However, sometimes you have to acknowledge the constraints placed on you by your environment (i.e., Windows) and work within those constraints. Changing to an OS with better window managers is just not an option for some people (plus, if that were really the goal there would be no Windows port), and once you are limited to Windows, changing window managers is pretty much not an option either.

As some of the other posters have said, I don't want to see The GIMP get rid of the interface they have. But offering other interface variations (like MDI) via a preference could really improve the experience on other operating systems.

Re:Bitching

[Dekks]

I think peopel are all bitching because despite "Windows window management sucks balls", which may or may not be the case, Photoshop, Paintshop Pro, Photoeditor etc all seem to have a good interface despite this. Rather than saying oh its because of windows, or its dumb people not knowing how to dock the various gui elements, how about instead you just listen to the critique and say fair enough, hopefully this will be fixed soon. I use GIMP as I can't afford photoshop and its way more powerful than I need anyway, but its still fustrating that the interface just isn't intuitive like it is on PSP or PS.

Re:Bitching

[schvenk]

The "stop whining" approach is not going to help the GIMP supplant Photoshop.

Using a platform's window management to excuse any difficulties people are having with the product is not going to win over users. The platform is what the platform is, and for an app to be usable it must make the best of it. I hate MDI with a passion, but Windows has yet to produce a better answer to the Mac's global menu bar. If I were writing Photoshop for Windows I might use MDI too.

Responding to user complaints with things like "just set your windows up this way" or "just change these preferences" isn't a solution. I suspect the GIMP has lost and will continue to lose users who look at it, say "this doesn't measure up to Photoshop," and move on. The defaults cater to new users; advanced folks can customize.

I see several main UI advantages of Photoshop, comparing the Mac version (since that's what I use):
- The global menu bar works well in a graphics app, because means functions aren't somehow tied to a single window. With an open document I suppose that's not such a big deal, but even so I think it's cleaner.
- The palettes are smaller. The GIMP takes up a HUGE amount of space. I can't resize the toolbox down beyond 2 columns, and if I do that I lose most of the main app menus. The Small theme helps a little but doesn't really solve the problem. I don't think the GIMP is feasible to use at 1024x768.
- Photoshop palettes are more clearly secondary windows. They disappear when the app is in the background; they can be docked; their positions can be saved. This makes for easy window management without much effort. This type of functionality would serve the GIMP well.

Obviously there's more to developing the GIMP than cloning Photoshop. But there are distinct advantages to cloning Photoshop: People like it; it makes transitioning to the GIMP easier; and Adobe has put a lot of thought into Photoshop, so presumably there are good reasons for many aspects of its interface and feature set.

Re:Bitching

[MeNeXT]

Gimp's interface would be broken if they would revert it to the limiting interface of Photoshop on Windows.

Developers are listening. They do not wish to limit it by tying the tool bars to one window.

Re:Bitching

[m50d]

Why are you all bitching about the interface? It works perfectly fine for me on linux with fluxbox; I just toss all the windows onto an empty virtual desktop.

Good for you. However, it should also be configurable to work fine for the rest of us. Yes, we may want to use bad window managers. The program should be able to handle it gracefully.

I'm not arguing for removing the current interface. I'm not even arguing for making it non-default. But I want an option to change it to the kind of interface I like, not just the one the developers prefer.

And yes, I am willing to code it myself if that's what it takes. But I can't keep up with the development of the rest of the gimp doing it alone. There are enough people who want an alternative UI that the gimp devs should, if nothing else, start a project where people interested in implementing it can sign up and organise things.

Re:Bitching

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah you ignorant slut. That's why myself and at least a dozen other artists I know use PS instead of Gimp. At least half the crowd love Linux, but they keep their work computer as a Windows box or at least dual boot so they can run PS. Gimp may be OSS and one of your flagship products, but it has a very, very long way to go as far as UI. Just because Gimp can do many of the same image manipulations that PS can, it's not the same. You obviously are just a casual user and not someone who earns a living from it.

Re:Bitching

[cooldev]

Moreover, the argument that the window management in Windows is at fault for GIMP's cluttered UI just doesn't hold water.

GIMP's interface is cluttered on Linux with every window manager I've used. Even on its own virtual desktop it has problems. Similarly, Paint Shop Pro 7 on Windows uses MDI, but it also suffers from similar problems due to the non-docking and ill-fitting tool windows. Fortunately, Jasc listened to their customers and improved this in PSP8.

Take a look at apps like Eclipse. Do you think Eclipse would be popular among the developer community if every one of those windows was a floater -- including each source file you were trying to edit? Yuck. Of course not.

The fact that tool panels can dock together is a start, but GIMP should go all the way. On all platforms.

On the other hand, GIMP should leave some things up to the OS, such as the common File Open/Save dialog. Users become accustomed to the dialogs for their own OS, and it would be trivial for GIMP to bypass GTK and call directly into platform-specific APIs for things like this and only fall back on the GTK dialog when GIMP is compiled on an 'unknown' platform. The file dialog in Windows is so much better than the one in GTK that I can see this alone turning people away from GIMP! I suspect the same is true for users using their favorite window managers on Linux and other supported platforms.

GIMP has a lot of potential. It's a few UI hurdles away from being the best 2D bitmap application in the $0 to $200 or so range. Those hurdles are extremely high for the end user, particularly on Windows, but they should be pretty easy for the developers to resolve.

Re:Bitching

[dbIII]

"Windows window management sucks ... Photoshop, Paintshop Pro, Photoeditor etc all seem to have a good interface despite this

They effectively have their own window manager built in.

Re:Bitching

[Dekks]

I wasn't sticking up for windows, just that despite the problems they still managed to come up with a good clean interface. I understand that GIMP is Open source and primarily developed for Linux, but it really seems the windows binary/version/whatever you call it is fustrating and could be made so much better if the interface was nicer. If I was a half decent coder I'd try to make one myself but alas I suck at programming.

Re:Bitching

[dbIII]

it really seems the windows binary/version/whatever you call it is fustrating

Good point, the usual interface would not be as good if the window manager is in MS windows, which was never designed for multiple windows for the same application. That would mean a different interface for the windows port.

You're spelling it wrong, my friend ...

[danalien]

but you are pronouncing it right :-)

The thing is, the org. Gimp'rs like the UI as it is (including me) - and 'them' & myself wouldn't like it to change.

Allthough, I'm open miden (enough) to understand that others 'frown' on it. And that you're just used to a different set of mind - in contrast to 'us'. (I see nothing wrong with that, quite the opposite - a diverse culture is a good thing *IMHO*)

So, my proposal would be, to have a GIMP with a UI that can 'morph' between the too by checking for some settings in the Pref's.

So we both can have our 'way' and still get along :-)

Re:You're spelling it wrong, my friend ...

[squoozer]

Have a look at the NetBeans Java IDE. It can do exactly what you suggest. It started out like the Gimp with windows all over the place (which I dislicked at first but am getting used to) and an option to have a single window display. The last couple of releases have focused on a single window display with panels that you can click into other places (eg you can make a tabbed pane of panels to les used tools). The flexability this offers amazing.

developers.slashdot.org

[Anonymous Coward]

You will have no doubt noticed that this posted under DEVELOPERS.slashdot.org

Says something about GIMP, wouldn't you say?

Re:developers.slashdot.org

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, I think it means that the developers of gimp are about to release a new version of their software. What do you think it means?

Re:developers.slashdot.org

[Anonymous Coward]

Err...that GIMP is being actively developed?

Your point being?

More than 24bpp support

[Ace Rimmer]

Yeah, fine, nice features but I wonder why there is nearly no interest in supporting more than 8bits per color. There is a lot of digital cameras out there, I scan my photos in 48bit mode. It's pretty annoying to to the basic color adjustments in (unstable and ugly) cinepaint which I have to restart after each load/save to avoid a crash and then to continue editing the image in gimp2. If more features are added it will be even harder to make everything properly work in a greater color depth.

Another thing that I miss for a long time is 'macro recording' similar to MS Office or Photoshop actions. Why do I have to write some weird script-fu skeletons and look up for functions and their parameters? It would be much easier if I could record my actions and then to parametrize them some way...

I asked about this at mailing list but the replies were a bit vague about those topics (or even angry)...

Re:More than 24bpp support

[BigSven]

Both features you ask for are on the TODO. The GIMP developers are fully aware of the need for higher color depths. Color management is scheduled to be added in the next development cycle. Whether this also means support for 16bit per color in GIMP 2.4 remains to be seen. At some point it will definitely be added.

Macro recording needs a major redesign of the PDB but there are plans to finally address this. Nothing promised because this is entirely a volunteers' project. New features are added if and only if someone's capable and willing to put some time and effort into it.

Re:More than 24bpp support

[Anonymous Coward]

"New features are added if and only if someone's capable and willing to put some time and effort into it."

And that's the problem. That's why professionals don't use it.

Re:More than 24bpp support

[aichpvee]

It's too bad they didn't incorporate the code from CinePaint (formerly FilmGIMP) for doing HDRI images. Because it's had 32-bit colour per channel for years.

Re:More than 24bpp support

[Anonymous Coward]

Your funny.

Don't you know that the 8bit per channels already provide more color depth then what is acheivable by printed media?

Let me put it another way:
The color depth acheivable by your reflective media (for example PHOTOGRAGHS) is less then what is acheivable by 32bit color!!

When you print out your colors it's less color depth then what is acheivable by 32bit color!!

And on the computer how the hell are you going to tell the difference between 32bit and 48bit colors when all your computer is capable of displaying is 32bits?

You people bitching about lack of 48bit color depth have realy no clue what your talking about!!

That's why you get the angry responses, because people are tired of explaining this fact to people that want to pretend that they know more then they do and refuse to understand.

What realy hurts Gimp vs Photoshop is lack of CYMK support which is something you need for professional printing results. However for digital media 32bit is what you want to use.

Oh btw, it's 32bit.
8 bits red
8 bits blue
8 bits green
8 bits alpha channel

8 * 4 = 32bit.

What you want is 64bit.
16 bits red
16 bits blue
16 bits green
16 bits alpha channel.

This would be nice if you like to run many filters, it will allow you to mix colors and do transformations to greater precision and avoid lots of the little artifacts that happen when you get to happy with the filters.

What you want is CMYK for professional printing.

All you people are freaking nuts. If you think you can tell the difference your deluding yourselves.

Re:More than 24bpp support

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are mistaken. CMYK and color management are both extremely important issues that I agree must be addressed. You're on the right track WRT mixing color, etc, but they *are* important in RGB colorspace as well. Even for "digital media," 8bits/color is necessary for nonlinear filtering. Just about any digital camera out there worth a shit can take pictures in RAW mode with generally 12 bpp of dynamic range. When you capture in JPG or think about touching in current 8bpp GIMP you throw out 16x (2^4) the available information in the photo. If it doesn't sound important, consider that standard monitor gamma is 2.2 and is *highly* nonlinear. Also, normal digital photo touchup procedures involve stretching brightness and contrast. If you start out with only 8 bits and apply a nonlinear filter, it has to re-quantize already quantized levels and will look like ass.

I agree that for the *final* image, >8 bits/color is pointless. Greater bit density is for keeping posterization and quantization errors down during processing.

Re:More than 24bpp support

[zpok]

"All you people are freaking nuts. If you think you can tell the difference your deluding yourselves. "

This is really like saying that in music, CD quality recording and mastering is good enough, since virtually no-one can hear the difference between CD and mastertape.

Which is bull. Professionals do, and these are the people making good sounding mixes (dithered down to CD quality) or in the case of DTP and digital imagery, nice looking pictures...

So, to come to the point: "all you people" are not as freaking nuts as you think they are. They may have a better grasp of how to get good results instead of the nitty gritty theoretical stuff. But they are right in asking for good color depth nevertheless.

Re:More than 24bpp support

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if you noticed or not, but I did say 16 bit color is nice when your running filters.

You go on about 16bit colors being taken in RAW format from digital cameras, but you forgot that the poster was talking about scanning in photos from a scanner.

Reflected media like photographs or print media means that your not going to be able to get any benifit from 16bit color unless your a filter junkie.

Now if he was taking in RAW images at 16bit color or scanning in FILM using a professional film scanner then you can definately get some benifit from 64bit color.

Film and slides are completely different beasts. That's why cinepaint forked off of Gimp. Movie makers needed very high color depth because they are dealing with projected light and huge images. This is not something you'll ever need for 99% of what people use Photoshop and Gimp for. Even professionally. (And Cinepaint has been used in a few movies. And linux itself is very common in the movie industry, it's slowly replacing the old SGI unix boxes that were commonly used, even SGI is now a Linux company for the most part.)

Now professionals may have good benifit from 64bit colors, but you know what? CYMK is much more important.

And another thing for years people have been bitching about Gimp not having 16bpp and how Photoshop was so 7331 for having 16bpp color. Maybe it's changed in the latest versions, but Photoshop's 16bpp was never close to complete and was pretty much ass.

As long as you know what your doing you can get the professional images without ever needing beyond what Gimp provides in terms of color depth.

Now I am not saying that there is NO benifit from 16bit color, there definately is and I would love it if Gimp has it (since I am a "filter junky") but it's hardly a crippling factor that some people make it out to be.

Re:More than 24bpp support

[Ace Rimmer]

Actually I scan both film and positives. Though there is much more visible impact when working with film (film scanners have tougher job to cover the whole dynamic range) it also helps to do so for positives becouse the scanner hw is a) not that good to scan deep shadows or very light surfaces well b) the scan nearly always has shifted color -- to undo that effect you have to have greater than 8bpp depth or it is clearly visible that you manipulated the scan.

Re:More than 24bpp support

[m50d]

This is really like saying that in music, CD quality recording and mastering is good enough, since virtually no-one can hear the difference between CD and mastertape.

Yes, exactly, and that's *true*. The only reason you can ever hear the difference is the crappy mastering done because people want it to sound as loud as possible. So say bye-bye to your dynamic range, it's everything at 0db for you.

Try it some time. Get a cd of two sounds which differ by the smallest amount you can get them to on the cd - just use your favourite audio editor in 16 bit 44100hz mode, and make one sound the tiniest bit louder than the other, or the tiniest bit higher frequency. Then put them together continuously with each a random length - or rather, get a friend to do so, so you don't know where they are. Then listen to this. As hard as you like. And try and spot the transition. You won't be able to. No-one can. That's why those specs were chosen for the cd. It wasn't a question of someone saying "hmm, 44100hz sounds like enough". They tested it, and made the cd high enough quality that no one could tell the difference. That's the best record company "golden ears" they had. If you think you can tell the difference you are deluding yourself, plain and simple.

Re:More than 24bpp support

[zpok]

Let's put it another way: it makes a lot of sense to record and master from the highest hz and dither down to CD quality. And - not taking into account bad mixes - that makes a difference even non-professional audiophiles can hear. It's not about being able to spot where something has been tweaked, it's about having a preference for the better mixes and also not having fatigue when listening to music on normal volumes.

That's the analogy that works perfectly for colour space as well.

Incidentally, sad but true, for really good mastering examples in modern music, listen to a recent Madonna CD.

Re:More than 24bpp support

[darrylo]

All you people are freaking nuts. If you think you can tell the difference your deluding yourselves.

And, if you think people are asking for 16/24/32-bit support for printing (where, as you say, you can't tell the difference), you're deluding yourself.

More than 8-bit support is necessary in the image processing stage. And, since you posted as a coward, that's all I'll say. You can do your own research.

Re:More than 24bpp support

[bbc]

"This would be nice if you like to run many filters, it will allow you to mix colors and do transformations to greater precision and avoid lots of the little artifacts that happen when you get to happy with the filters."

More than nice. Why use an interactive canvas based image editor when you aren't going to do any operations on the pixel data? You might as well use ImageMagick and save yourself a lot of trouble.

Re:More than 24bpp support

[bbc]

""New features are added if and only if someone's capable and willing to put some time and effort into it."

And that's the problem. That's why professionals don't use it."

Yeah, that's why professionals will never use the internet either.

Re:More than 24bpp support

[bbc]

Support for 16bpp seems useful for 95% of the population, support for CMYK for a much smaller part.

s/open miden/open-minded/

[danalien]

*what a goofball mistake :)*

Even better...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd prefer a 3D Studio Max-type layout, where it does have a single window, but plugins etc. can drop straight into the existing ui, and look like they've been part of the design all along. This kind of system is incredibly powerful.

Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

why the windows version has the buttons switched like in Gnome? It's very irritating...

Re:Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

This is suppsoed to change with the next version of GTK+, which will make the button order configurable.

Besides that, I found the "reversed" order much more intuitive than the Win32 standard, and now keep clicking on Cancel in most other programs - is there a sane way to globally switch the button order on Win32?

Mod up!

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, these are exactly the things GIMP needs to work on right now. Mod this up.

Re:quick

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It's a perfect example of "you get what you pay for."

Tiny-fu

[lachlan76]

Not much on the new scripting engine. Is it still scheme? I'm fairly open minded as far as languages go, but scheme is the most horrifying I have ever seen.

I would like to be able to write scripts using another language, maybe using something like SWIG if it is really needed.

Re:Tiny-fu

[BigSven]

Besides Script-Fu and its successor Tiny-Fu, there's Perl, Python and Lua for you to choose from. There also used to be Java bindings and probably others but I am not sure if these have been updated for GIMP 2.x yet. Generally, all the functionality is available in a well-defined API and it is not a big deal to write a binding that allows you to write scripts/plug-ins in your favorite programming language.

Re:Tiny-fu

[arose]

Python scripting is in since 2.0 AFAIK.

Re:Tiny-fu

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I've always found Lisp and Scheme to be the most liberating of all languages. It actually lets me solve the problem as I understand it rather than forcing me into approaching it from a certain angle (C/C++ and Java are especially guilty of this).

Re:Tiny-fu

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly open minded as far as languages go, but scheme is the most horrifying I have ever seen.

No, scheme is a very clean and well designed language. That was part of the reason why scheme was created from the lisp family of languages, to have a new language where the core of the language is small and consistent (as opposed to lisp).

The problem is (was?) the SIOD interpreter which can hardly qualify as a real scheme implementation. This must be one of the reasons why many people scared away from it. It's handling of arrays and strings is just horrifying. While it is already a good step to go away from SIOD, I still don't understand why they don't use guile, which is the standard extension language for gnu-projects. It ships with every distribution, is actively developed, and comes with lots of add-ons.

Give us 16-bit color!

[puusism]

With the advent of digital cameras and inexpensive film scanners, processing of digital photographs has become the single greatest use of any image manipulation program. As a Linux user, I am using the GIMP as the primary tool for making basic adjustments to my photos. My usual workflow is as follows:

1. remove dust etc. with clone tool
2. rotate (if neccessary)
3. crop
4. levels
5. color balance, contrast adjustment (if neccessary)
6. unsharp mask

The GIMP fails to provide the tools I require in cases 2, 4, 5 and 6.

I haven't found any way to preview the rotating so that I just can rotate the canvas until I see that a line that I want to be horizontal (such as the horizont) is really horizontal. It usually takes me several tries to get a line straight.

Levels and color balance suffer from lack of 16-bit color. After basic levels or white balance restoration, the result seems pixellated. The fine tonality that was present in the original is usually gone. This becomes more evident if the picture requires more color manipulation. This is the one thing I would most like to see improved in the GIMP!

Unsharp mask tool doesn't have a preview. This means that I have to use select tool first to select an area that I wish to preview, and then do USM-undo-adjust-USM-undo-adjust cycle until I have found the right parameters. This is very much a hassle, but I actually expect USM preview to be present in the GIMP 2.2.

My message to developers is: keep up the good work! Just do not add any more of the ridiculous plug-ins and artistic filters. Keep working on digital imaging support!

Re:Give us 16-bit color!

[jay-be-em]

If you had bothered to RTFA you would have noticed that rotation preview is in 2.2.
http://developer.gimp.org/screenshots/gimp-preview -rotate.png

Re:Give us 16-bit color!

[BenjyD]

You can measure the angle between the actual horizontal and the line you want to be horizontal with the measuring tool and then rotate by this angle.

Of course, photoshop handles this better by making the previously measured angle the default in the rotation tool when you bring it up.

Re:Give us 16-bit color!

[arose]

You shouldn't complain about lack of rotate preview in this article (hint, it's in there now).

It's in the works. You might wan't to look into Cinepaint for now.

Probably there, I'm at work now and can't check.

Re:Give us 16-bit color!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the rotate option is around a long time (have you ever looked at the gimp?)

Re:Give us 16-bit color!

[dimss]

> This is very much a hassle, but I actually expect USM preview to be present in the GIMP 2.2.

There is USM preview.

Re:Give us 16-bit color!

[Gothmolly]

Rotate (if you must) and crop, before doing all the other stuff - why process the data that you're going to crop out?

Re:Give us 16-bit color!

[dbIII]

I haven't found any way to preview the rotating so that I just can rotate the canvas until I see that a line that I want to be horizontal (such as the horizont) is really horizontal. It usually takes me several tries to get a line straight.

It's a computer, use a smaller dataset and you get faster results in a matrix operation like rotation. A preview window would be nice, but since you don't have one, produce a copy of the image, scale it down a lot, rotate it until you get good results, then apply the settings to the full sized image.

The new GTK file chooser?

[wertarbyte]

Oh no, they are using the new gtk file chooser. I really liked the old one, since you could quickly traverse through your directories via keyboard. I know that I can get a textbox to input the path via some key-combination, but I really liked the old open-file-fialog.

Re:The new GTK file chooser?

[arose]

I like the new one better. In the onld one you had to either tab our mouse into the textbox, now you just press Ctrl+L. Not to forget the nice layout, bookmarks and simplyfied save dialog.

Re:The new GTK file chooser?

[BigSven]

The development version of GTK+ adds pretty nice keyboard navigation to the new file-chooser. GTK+-2.6 is supposed to be released soon so this will be on everyone's desktop soon. If you want to give it a try right now, you could use GTK+-2.5.5.

Re:The new GTK file chooser?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but would it have been *that hard* to make Ctrl-L focus an already-existing textbox, so that everyone would be happy?

Re:The new GTK file chooser?

[arose]

The dialog is cleaner this way: two textboxes in a save dialog is a bad idea.

windows gui please!

[Anonymous Coward]

my company insists on using free software, and hence as a programmer I only get the gimp. It's frustrating as hell as I'm used to photoshop, etc, and the gimp, well basically just lives up to it's name.
Give us a windows gui & copy the ps interface like all good other shareware ps clones, please!!!

Re:windows gui please!

[Queuetue]

If your company insists on using free software, then why are you running Windows?

Re:windows gui please!

[Anonymous Coward]

He never once said he was running windows. He said he wanted a windows-interface. Whether that means he wants the windows PS interface ported to Linux, or a more Windows user friendly interface ported to Windows, we don't know.

Tsk tsk on preassuming.

Re:windows gui please!

[sweede]

don't work for someone who wont give you the tools you need to do your job.

Taskbar Grouping

[BigSven]

A lot of people like to be able to select individual windows from the taskbar. If you don't, then you can configure your taskbar to group all GIMP windows together. GIMP sets the same WM_CLASS property on all it's windows (even on plug-in windows) and it has done so since GIMP 1.2. That allows the window manager and your taskbar to easily identify GIMP windows and treat them as a group. You can then minimize/maximize all GIMP windows in a single operation, move the window group to a different desktop or whatever else you want to do...

Now what would be nice if there was an equivalent window manager hint available for Win32. Perhaps there is, and all that's missing is support from the Win32 GTK+ backend?

Re:Taskbar Grouping

[drinkypoo]

Windows XP has a system to group taskbar buttons that generally gets all the windows of a given application. For example, my Firefox browser and download window get grouped, and all my thunderbird windows (list, compose, address book, etc) get grouped. It's not configurable per-application, however, it's all or nothing.

You zealots are so funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows is what's crippled.

It's GTK+ that's crippled. The Windows port of GTK is a piece of shit (pardon my language) and just plain sucks royally.

Re:You zealots are so funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows is a piece of shit (pardon my language) and just plain sucks royally. GTK doesn't seem to have these problems on other platforms afterall.

Re:You zealots are so funny

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

GTK doesn't seem to have these problems on other platforms afterall.

Unless you're used to QT, then GTK sucks on any platform...

One word comes to mind after reading your message

[Anonymous Coward]

Rationalization.

Re:quick

[arose]

I paid nothing and get a high quality raster editot for non-print work, not nothing.

Does this mean I'll be able to

[Anonymous Coward]

easily draw a straight line?

Or intuitively select a specific image from a picture and crop everything else or move that specific image to another picture?

I know these two things can be done with Gimp, but I haven't been able to figure out how to draw a line yet (without reading a book), and I have a great deal of trouble isolating images from a picture (I'm sure I'm doing it wrong/manually by erasing pixels, etc.) after trying out every option I can find in gimp, in the meantime my brother can easily do both in photoshop 4.0, and he doesn't even know what version of windows he's using, or how to access the internet without using the AOL interface (we have a persistent dsl connection).

Not meant as criticism. Just pointing out that Gimp still has usability issues because a non-technical user can easily figure out how to do things in Photoshop, and doing the same simple things in Gimp is very difficult in some cases. Working in these areas will help Gimp spread farther and faster, which is better for everyone, including Photoshop users because it will increase competitive and pricing pressure on Adobe.

Thanks to all the gimp contributors for their work to date, and I hope it continues getting better and better!

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[Anonymous Coward]

Gimp 2.2 will introduce more features, including increasingly confusing menu systems, with even more nested submenus than before! Want to find a line tool? Good luck. Want to do something else? Yeah, you're fucked again. You'll still have easy access to all of the wonderful Script-Fu commands, however, as they are the only fucking thing you will ever find in the menus on a consistent basis!

You wanted more? You get more with Gimp - The GNU Insane Menu Project!

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[flatface]

Step 1: Find your mouse. Step 2: Put your hand on your mouse. Step 3: Move your mouse across your mouse pad or desk until the cursor on your screen to where you want the line to start. Step 4: Press down the left mouse button. Let go. Step 5: Hold your shift button for the next 2 steps. Step 5: Move your cursor on your screen to where you want the line to end. Step 6: Press down the left mouse button. Let go. Step 7: Let go of the shift button.

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[flatface]

Dammit, I knew I should have previewed. Someone should tell me how to post on Slashdot.

Step 1: Find your mouse.
Step 2: Put your hand on your mouse.
Step 3: Move your mouse across your mouse pad or desk until the cursor on your screen to where you want the line to start.
Step 4: Press down the left mouse button. Let go.
Step 5: Hold your shift button for the next 2 steps.
Step 5: Move your cursor on your screen to where you want the line to end.
Step 6: Press down the left mouse button. Let go.
Step 7: Let go of the shift button.

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[CrackedButter]

Somebody should also tell me how to add to the friends, foe and enemies list as well, because I don't know how.

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[BigSven]

You could have pointed to this tutorial instead which is about as sarcastic as your reply ;)

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[flatface]

Wow, I could make a living writing documentation.

Step 1: Put your hand on the mouse.
Step 2: Move your mouse across your desk relative to the "light" image next to the person's username. If you keep it "hovered" over it for a few seconds, it should say "Alter relationship".
Step 3: I'm going to introduce a new concept now. I call it "clicking". I won't go into depth on it, but you can probably check Wikipedia for a 5 page tutorial. Here it is simply: Apply pressure to the left mouse button. Release button.
Step 4: The screen should change to one with the title "Your Relationship with" and the person you want to add to your list's name. Read this page.
Step 5: "Click" on the circular box beside where it says "Friend" or "Foe". Here's a hint: "Friend" means you like them. "Foe" means you don't. You probably learned this concept in grade school. I ate paste most of the time and I still learned how to distinguish between the two.
Step 6: "Click" on the button that says "Yup, I'm positive". Our friends at Slashdot have kindly spelled this out in terms we can clearly understand.
Step 7: You're done. You are now given a nice list of who's in your list.

HTH.

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[flatface]

Wow, it has pretty pictures and everything. Thanks.

There should be more documentation like this on the Interweb.

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[Anonymous Coward]

While your help is much thanked, I don't like the tone. Those little grey lights which lie ontop of a grey background are not that easy to spot. I have never seen them before and there is no documentation that I found which would tell me about relationships between other slashdotters. So while I do thank you, you didn't have to be a smart arse, you don't look clever.

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, not so fast here..

Step 1: Find your mouse
Yes, I think I have one.

Step 2: Put your hand on your mouse.
My left or right hand?

Step 3: Move your mouse across your mouse pad or desk until the cursor on your screen to where you want the line to start.
How do I know which side of this "mouse" should be up? Should I role this "mouse" over the pad or move it accross on one specific surface?

Step 4: Press down the left mouse button. Let go.
Let go of what? The "mouse", the button, what?

Step 5: Hold your shift button for the next 2 steps.
I searched the manual, but I cannot find anything about any "(my) shift" button.

Step 5: Move your cursor on your screen to where you want the line to end.
How?

Step 6: Press down the left mouse button. Let go.
Very confusing, I am not sure what is was I earlier I let go of.

Step 7: Let go of the shift button.
Duh, if you have one.

Sorry, but you need to slow down just a little.

Thanks.

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[ratsnapple tea]

Ugh. Thank you for illustrating exactly why people find the open source software community so intolerably obnoxious. To a user with legitimate questions and needs, a snide and condescending "tutorial" that painstakingly explains a completely unintuitive process, as if to imply it's the user's fault for not jumping through hoops, is a huge turn-off.

I know it's open source dogma to always "blame the user", but it's still unbelievable that the administrators of gimp.org thought it appropriate to post this "tutorial."

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[BenjyD]

That's official GIMP documentation? Bloody hell, that's bad. Apart from anything else, that's a pretty annoying way to draw lines.

I've used GIMP for ages and never realised you could use shift for drawing straight lines. In every other graphics application, shift means "limit drawing to 90/45 degree lines" not "draw line". Sarcastic documentation covering a point that is not easily discoverable and non-standard is not a good sign of the GIMP team's attitude to their users.

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe you should ask _why_ do they have to put such a trivial and intuitive thing on a tutorial ? ..I guess AdobePhotoshop don't do the same way !

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[zippthorne]

uh.. so how do you do 90/45 lines in gimp then?

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[BigSven]

It is of course also explained in the startup tips and in the user manual. This tutorial is a joke, in case you didn't notice that.

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[Anonymous Coward]

I found out how to do a line on my first try using GIMP. It's intuitive if you've used Photoshop or similar programs. The shift, ctrl and alt button are your friends, always. What's annoying is the fact that the grandparent poster decided to spread FUD when he coulda just taken a gander at a tutorial, which would have obviously explained everything.

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[dbIII]

Or intuitively select ...

You mean "why do I have to learn how to use two pieces of computer software". Even the nipple is not intuitive, a lot of babies need to be shown how to use it, so there is no such thing as an "intuitive" software interface. Since most people are taught how to use MS software at school that is what they mean by intuitive.

Sometimes you need to read the docs.

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to

[gotgenes]

I enjoyed it. I'd never seen that before. Thanks for the laughs.

Not just that

[Anonymous Coward]

The "bitching", as you so eloquently put it, isn't just about the MDI windows. The interface to the tools themselves also suck major ass. After all, how many levels of menus must there be under every tool? It's just one of several major drawbacks to using GIMP, X or Windows.

Re:Give us 16-bit color and Colour Management!

[Anonymous Coward]

16 bit per channel is greatly needed, but without colour management, any photgraphy editing and correction is totally useless. We need proper colour management in GIMP for it to be used as a photo-editing application. There is nothing to argue about. This is a show stopper.

Done to death

[Craig Ringer]

This dicussion has been done to death in many previous Slashdot posts, but I'm going to bite anyway.

The Photoshop interface is far from perfect, too. I have new users at work who have been exposed to both the GIMP and Photoshop 7/MacOS, and they find things confusing and difficult in both. Users tend to be able to unable to find functionalty, and tend to be unable to retrieve palettes etc when they close them. It seems to be roughtly the same for both apps.

Of course, our experienced Photoshop users are lost in the GIMP. This is unsurprising - it's new and different, after all - and if you're an experienced Photoshop user then I don't doubt you'll find the interface difficult. I use both programs quite comfortably, myself, but I seem to be in the minority.

I _hated_ the GIMP 1.x interface, but I personally think they've done so much to improve usability in 2.0 that it's on par with Photoshop - just different.

Most importantly, I'd strongly prefer different but good to the hideous mostly-similar ugly kind-of-works interface cloning approach of OpenOffice.

I wouldn't mind a Photoshop interface _option_ for the GIMP, but I think the core GIMP developers probably have much better things to do with their time. It's a good thing for the (apparently many) people who want one to think about getting together and writing. Yes, I _do_ speak from experience, having pulled out my thumb and started working on issues that really irritate me in Scribus.

As for colour management, /there/ I entirely agree with you. If you're not just doing web development, colour management matters. Perhaps even more critical for many uses is proper CMYK support (this generally ties in rather tightly to colour management support). There is primitive support now via a plug-in, but I'm not aware of any good, solid colour management / CMYK support for the GIMP yet :-( .

As for the widgets ... that's just not a GIMP problem. Gtk widgets can be changed using gtk themes and engines. Anyway, as you seem to feel the strong desire to replace the entire UI, that'd be an ideal opportunity to replace the widget set too ;-)

Re:Done to death

[Anonymous Coward]

As for colour management, /there/ I entirely agree with you. If you're not just doing web development, colour management matters. Perhaps even more critical for many uses is proper CMYK support (this generally ties in rather tightly to colour management support). There is primitive support now via a plug-in, but I'm not aware of any good, solid colour management / CMYK support for the GIMP yet :-(

Most people don't even have their monitors calibrated yet I see people asking for CMYK support all the time, 1 in 10 may know basic color theory and even fewer know why they would need it. You should quantify who needs it and why, the uninformed 'GIMP suX0rs because it has no CMYK support' needs to stop.

Re:Done to death

[sweede]

1 in 10?

I can gurantee you its more like 1 in a 1000.

Hell, maybe 1 out of 100 pressmen know basic color theory.

You use Photoshop on Windows, right?

[Craig Ringer]

I think you'd hate Photoshop on MacOS just as much. It also uses lots of floating palettes, etc.

I, on the other hand, flip out completely trying to use what I find to be a horrible MDI interface for Phoshop on Windows. I find both the GIMP and Photoshop/Mac <i>much</i> more usable than Photoshop/Windows.

On X11, GIMP's "native" environment, it's possible to control all this stuff at the window manager level (assuming your window manager is not too dumbed down to let you - grr). You can lock windows into layers, force them to be on top, make them sticky so they show on all virtual desktops, etc. It's a level of control that lets you match the MDI of Photshop/Windows if you want, or make the app work how _you_ like it.

I think a key issue is that Windows doesn't give you this control, so GIMP on Windows is quite a bit harder to use :-(

Re:You use Photoshop on Windows, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'd hate Photoshop on MacOS just as much. It also uses lots of floating palettes, etc.

I, on the other hand, flip out completely trying to use what I find to be a horrible MDI interface for Phoshop on Windows. I find both the GIMP and Photoshop/Mac much more usable than Photoshop/Windows.

You just identified the key issue here, though I don't think you realised it.

The issue is this - the Photoshop developers realised that Mac users and Windows users are used to different layouts. So they gave the Mac users a Mac layout and the Windows users a Windows layout.

The GIMP developers have selected something similar to the Mac layout, and they're forcing everyone who uses GIMP to use it. Windows users try it, hate it, and give up on GIMP. You know what? If they can't be bothered to make GIMP on Windows run like a Windows application, the GIMP developers would be well-advised not to offer a Windows version at all. They're making more enemies than friends.

Consider a different case. Consider Firefox. It runs on Windows, Linux, and MacOS, and people love it on all three platforms. Windows users who want everything in one window can get that - and tabs are a very intuitive alternative to the rightly-despised MDI system. So Firefox is popular on Windows...

Transformation preview

[BigSven]

Actually there's an easier way to correct for a misrotated image and it's in GIMP since version 1.2. The transform tools have a Corrective mode (available from the tool options). In that mode you rotate the grid so it aligns with the horizontal/vertical lines in your image and the tool will rotate the image in the other direction so that these lines become horizontal/vertical.

GIMP 2.2 adds the often requested preview for transformations but actually Corrective mode is a lot more versatile and much easier to use especially when it comes to correcting perspective distortions.

*drool*

[Doctor Crumb]

pretty much every single item listed in the changelist is going to make me a very, very happy gimper. Shortcut editing, improved copy/paste, new input controls, previews, improved cropping, ico files... It's going to be a very very nice package.

For everyone whining about it not being as "good" as photoshop, quit bitching and go use photoshop. Gimp is not a photoshop clone. It is an independent application and stands just fine on its own merits.

Re:Bitching (and moderation)

[bert.cl]

Dear moderators,

Have you read the moderator guidelines yet?(sic) I know it bugs you all the time, but the purpose of moderation is actually to create a good discussion.
I can understand why the parent gets modded insightful, the guy (an AC btw) makes some good points, put he really ought to work on his way of presenting this ideas.
So please, if you have some mod points (now or in the future) please mod posts like the parent one down.

Thanks in advance

YOU FAIL IT!

[YOU FAIL IT!]

While the Gimp was getting reading to reach 2.2, I see you were getting ready to become a FAILURE!

YOU FAIL IT!

Re:YOU FAIL IT!

[boudie]

Looks like I got last post too (woohoo)

cached "Whats new"

[flibberdi]

This is yahoo cache

Change the Toolkit?

[Slashdot Insider]

Maybe dump GTK+ for wxWidgets? I'm sure it would be a large undertaking but surely the benefits of having native looking widgets and having a version for Mac and Windows that isn't half assed like GTK+ would be worth something?

Am I the only one that thinks that GTK+ is just plain terrible outside of X?

Re:Change the Toolkit?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see the headlines: "GIMP stops using the GIMP Toolkit".

Re:Change the Toolkit?

[anarxia]

No it's not worth it. They'd have to maintain 2 different codebases for the GUI and you will still have people complaining.

I like GTK+ on Windows. With the right theme you might not even notice it's not MFC.

Re:Change the Toolkit?

[balster neb]

I highly doubt such a thing could happen. An app like the GIMP is very UI-heavy. Rewriting it with another widget set would be a huge undertaking. It would make far more sense and take far less effort to simply improve GTK+ support for non X platforms.

Also, I hope you are aware that GTK is short for GIMP ToolKit.

Re:Change the Toolkit?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://gtk-wimp.sourceforge.net/

Re:Change the Toolkit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, I hope you are aware that GTK is short for GIMP ToolKit

Sorry to be blunt, but how does that make perpetuating a years-old mistake more valid?

Re:Change the Toolkit?

[m50d]

Am I the only one that thinks that GTK+ is just plain terrible outside of X?

Yes, but you don't even need the second part. GTK+ is horrible to program with. It's a kludge that has outlived its purpose, with openmotif and gpled qt available there really is no reason for it to exist. Now I know a lot of people have done a lot of work on it, and there is lots of legacy code around, but it's really time to move on. Gtk is just fundamentally hard to use.

You can call me a troll if you like, but as a developer who has tried several toolkits, none of them was harder to use than GTK+. Like aRts, it did its job well and was good as a stopgap, but now it's time to move on.

Re:Change the Toolkit?

[Anonymous Coward]

"GTK+ is horrible to program with"? And suggesting Motif as a replacement?????

Thank you for today's humor dose...

Re:Change the Toolkit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that thinks that GTK+ is just plain terrible outside of X?

Am I the only one who thinks wxWidgets is just plain terrible in X? With all that GTK+ 1.x crap and all when the rest of the world is already using 2.x...

Re:Change the Toolkit?

[fforw]

Also, I hope you are aware that GTK is short for GIMP ToolKit

Sorry to be blunt, but how does that make perpetuating a years-old mistake more valid?

Throwing away a perfectly fine and complete implementation for a toolkit because the implementation of that toolkit is weak on one platform ( totally ignoring the new momentum from GTK#) ?

doesn't sound like a good plan..

Re:Change the Toolkit?

[Anonymous Coward]

gpled qt? so if you prefer using c++ to c, then use gtkmm, the c++ api for gtk, which follows the conventions used in the c++ stl so will be far more familiar than qt for someone who hasn't used either.

Re:Change the Toolkit?

[m50d]

I only mentioned motif because it's what the gimp was originally written in. Personally I would go for qt every time, makes programming a joy, it really does. Just try writing the same program in gtk+ and qt.

Re:Change the Toolkit?

[m50d]

if you prefer using c++ to c, then use gtkmm, the c++ api for gtk, which follows the conventions used in the c++ stl so will be far more familiar than qt for someone who hasn't used either.

I don't. I prefer C to C++, and I prefer python to either. (Side note: PyQt rules, PyGtk is fairly nice but still not as easy to use). But even without actually knowing c++ (I guess based on my knowledge of c and java) and knowing c, I still find programming Qt apps in c++ to be easier than programming gtk apps in c.

As for gtkmm, http://www.telegraph-road.org/writings/gtkmm_vs_qt .html is a good summary of the advantages of qt by someone who was actually just trying to find a toolkit to use for their c++ program, probably better than any arguments I can make here. I'll just say that, despite being "more standardised", gtk is basically harder to use. I have written programs, basic ones but still programs for things I needed to do, in both gtk and qt, and actually learnt gtk first, but I find qt to be far more intuitive.

Animated GIF

[Anonymous Writer]

Anyone notice that the eyes on the GIMP icon move? That's the first time I noticed anything animated on slashdot other than the ads.

Re:Animated GIF

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone notice that the eyes on the GIMP icon [slashdot.org] move?

This sounds really scary; are Slashdot logo's becoming self-aware? This place really gives me the creeps.

Re:Animated GIF

[guycouch]

Great. now you're going to have thousands of slashdotters staring at icons of Bill Gates to see if his eyes flash red.

Re:Animated GIF

[skajake]

Oh good, so the gimp ISNT demonically possessed.
/me runs off to install

you forgot

[michaelnz]

4. Change the name to something that can be taken seriously.

I like Gimp but I'm sorry, the name has got to go. If I'm proposing to my school to provide a piece of software on all campus computers it has to have a name that isn't this offensive.

Re:you forgot

[Anonymous Coward]

So "GNU Image Manipulation Package" is offensive now is it?

Sorry but the name michaelnz is equally offensive, you'll never be taken seriously with a name like that!

Re:you forgot

[mike2R]

I agree, I know it must have sentimental attachment for a lot of people, but it's a real factor in slowing adoption.

FOSS applications are great if you're trying to supply low-cost computers, but not if you have to explain the name to each and every customer - it's just not worth the hassle.

Re:you forgot

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is he's not a software application trying to gain users.

Re:you forgot

[m50d]

No, please don't do that. A name is just a name, and I prefer a more playful title than "image editor". I've never met anyone who's actively offended by it, even my mum. At the moment linux should still be about appealing to people who are interested in computers, and they tend to prefer a program with an interesting name. I don't want to go all corporate and mainstream quite yet.

Oh, and give me back my pimp ass newsreader!

Re:you forgot

[Anonymous Coward]

So "GNU Image Manipulation Package" is offensive now is it?

No, but "Gimp" is. In case you didn't know, it's an offensive term for a lame person (in the "cannot walk" sense, not the "OMGLOL" sense).

You wouldn't suggest releasing a software package called the "New Improved GNU Game Engine Renderer", would you? Surely even insensitive clods like you can see that it's possible to take playful naming too far? Well, Gimp is a step too far for many people.

Re:you forgot

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you assume he isn't?

Re:you forgot

[StuartFreeman]

There are numerous unoffensive definitions of the word gimp.

Re:you forgot

[davidescott]

Cripple isn't the only definition. Gimp is not only a silk, worsted, or cotton twist, but is also slang for courage. Yeah the programs name wasn't the most PC choice, but its hard to imagine it was done in spite. Besides there are other battles to fight which should be a bit easier say libpr0n in mozilla.

Re:you forgot

[timothy]

"No, but "Gimp" is. In case you didn't know, it's an offensive term for a lame person (in the "cannot walk" sense, not the "OMGLOL" sense)."

The name is the name, and it's a pretty straightforward acronym, not a strained one like some out there in the world. There's a power company in Italy (maybe it's the main one, I don't know) called PowerGenItalia; to English-speakers, this can be amusing, but it's not meant to be, and I hope if someone tries to get them to change it on that basis that they laugh him out of the room. Force breeds resistance, sometimes righteously so. If you want to blame someone for spreading the *offensive*, pejorative, un-PC sense of "gimp," blame the pompous (but skilled) filmmaker who made Pulp Fiction. Before that movie, I only ever thought of gimp as the plastic used to make little bracelets at summer camps around the country.

In fact, look at it this way: The GIMP (a cross-platform, freely distributed, volunteer-written and driven program which anyone with a computer can download and use) is giving that particular word (another) wholesome and friendly meaning, helping to drive out the naughty and unpleasant meaning by diluting its power.

"Lame" isn't exactly a currently favored word (it's about on par with "crippled," I'd speculate), though there's nothing inherently offensive it. (Still, would you ask Steven Hawking how he feels about being lame?) George Carlin said on this topic: "Crippled people are crippled. It's a perfectly honorable word. There is no shame in it. It's in the Bible: 'Jesus healed the cripples.' He didn't 'engage in rehabilitative strategies for the physically disadvantaged.'"

But I digress ...

timothy

Re:you forgot

[Just Some Guy]

If I'm proposing to my school to provide a piece of software on all campus computers it has to have a name that isn't this offensive.

It's Free Software. "sed -ri 's/GIMP/michaelnz Happy Editor/'; make; make install" to build your own package locally and there you have it.

Actually, I'm not being facetious. If this is an important issue to you, then fork your own version and distribute it. If enough people switch to your version, then you've accomplished your mission. If they don't, then you've overestimated the need for that change.

Re:you forgot

[illtud]

There's a power company in Italy (maybe it's the main one, I don't know) called PowerGenItalia;

Just FYI - that was a hoax, mainly to sucker the UK press where the original PowerGen are based. Google the word!

Re:you forgot

[michaelnz]

Yes, but note the first definition and really the only one that is in common usage. Common enough that my friends in New Zealand know the meaning and even some of my non-native speaking English speakers here in Japan know what it means. I'm getting a lot of replies to this that I should have anticipated but I didn't.
Yes, there are many definitions for the word "gimp" but only one is truly commonly used and it isn't anything you'd say to someone's face unless you knew them well.

Yes, I could create my own version of GIMP and rename it, but frankly it should come from within. Plus my reference was specifically about how to make GIMP taken seriously. If it doesn't want to be taken seriously that's fine but if it does then I, and many others, believe that the "cute" name needs to be changed.

Perhaps somebody, like the developers, could come up with a concurrent release with a more professional name, while keeping GIMP for beta testing and using GAMUT (Graphic Art Manipulation Usage Tool) for example for other releases. Or perhaps, if that's taken, then in the name of keeping linux programs named after alcohol GIN (Graphic Image Noodling), anything really would be fine. Now someone may jump in and say that gin could be offensive to alcoholics or something like that and if they're willing to drag every conversation to the lowest common denominator that's fine.

What it comes down to is that GIMP is a clever name, it's just not smart. Kinda something us geeks are stereotyped for.

GIMP user interface

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't trolled in about a year or more so here goes (don't take it personally, I'm just venting).

Gimp user interface is the most horrible mess I've ever seen. The most horrible in the history of computers. Even the Konrad Zuze's computer had a better interface than the current GIMP one.

With every release GIMP seems to innovate the worst interface in computer history, ever. Deproving (anti-improving) it with every release. I'd better pay 100x more $$$ for photoshop than to use gimp.

People who seriously recommend usage of gimp for grapics work should have their heads checked. No. I'm not talking about features. GIMP has many novel and good features that even photoshop does not. But the user interface nulls and voids anything the gimp developers try. Anything beyong "Hello world" is a world of pain. What's with the window fetish. Gross. I know some people have foot fetish and stuff like that. I can somewhat understand that. But window fetish. I guess gimp developers don't get out much. No windows in the basement? Your daddy abused the windows in your room when you were a kid?

And code wise. Using C to write such an application. Hello, this is not the 80s anymore! Is anyone listening? Use C++ with proper encapsulation and interfaces (ignore the other OOP crap if you want to). GTK+ itself is a disgrace. I think GTK+ has set the free and open source movement back 20 years technology wise. What a waste.

And lastly, the GTK+ people have bad breath. How about a mint?

Still no non-destructive editing abilities

[t_allardyce]

I looked in the feature list but i couldnt find this feature, its been aching to be in there for years and its one of the only major reasons i dont use GIMP: Non-destructive filters, i.e being able to apply a filter and then later go back and edit the parameters of that filter or take it away, much like photoshops adjustment layers and effects panel. Theres no excuse for not putting this in because it could fit in the existing structure and filters. As my final year project im writing something similar to that idea but a kind of hybrid with connectable blocks. I really wish they would put this in, they could easily do it better than photoshop and make GIMP serious competition. If they already have someone let me know?

More advanced compositing

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been planned for a long while, GEGL is the library that is planned for this in GIMP, by introducing a new low level library for all the core image processing a smoother path towards higher bitdepths will also occur.

There is no opposition between a graph of operations / connectable blocks and a layer tree.

/pippin

Re:More advanced compositing

[t_allardyce]

looks good, when can we see it? (even an unstable version would be cool). Gimp does so many things better than photoshop its a pitty this isnt in there..

Re:More advanced compositing

[Anonymous Coward]

It might be possible to hack some of these features into the current GIMP, but that might be considered counter productive, hopefully a clean implementation of these concepts is possible in the not too distant future,. remember GIMP is a volunteer project, and timeframes nearly impossible to estimate.

The things in those screenshots is a video compositor built around a testbed for the GEGL engine. That video editing application is called bauxite.

Bauxite and it's underlying libraries are available for download already (dig around). GIMP intergration will take more time since it involves major surgery. Bauxite and the librarires surrounding it can be seen as a prototype used to learn about problems before they will occur during GEGL/Gimp integration.

/pippin

Sorry (was: Re:Very Nice)

[Qbertino]

If I had the ability I would mod your post to -10^100 frustratingly redundant.
Read the manual and discover the power and wonder of virtual desktops.
GIMP IS a viable alternative to PS, but not if you're so stubborn to belive that PS is where every such application should be.

I'm sorry, but you're into serious slashdot-level bullshitting territory here. The parent post is absolute right on the relation between Gimp and PS. Gimp is a tool that is usefull and actually can be used for true professional productive work. It may at some points be a good alternative to Jasc Paint Shop Pro and Corel Photopaint. But it is no where near PS. And from what I gather from the Gimp team, at the point it doesn't even try (or claim) to be.
You people claiming Gimp were a PS killer are just being silly.
PS has tons of extremely productive features that no other grafics tool has. Even stripping everything but the PS Filters and the PS protocol would be enough to put PS at least 2 major releases ahead of Gimp. Actually, Gimps version numbers coherelate quite well to one another. PS 5.5 (which I still use) is really like at least 3 major releases ahead of the current version of Gimp. And all that has nothing to do with Gimp having the imho anoying habbit of opening a window for each litte thingy it wants to display. And I _do_ use Fluxbox when using Gimp. It's the only WM that the old Gimp interface was actually bearable with.

Re:Sorry (was: Re:Very Nice)

[antiMStroll]

This wan't your core complaint, but have you used a recent version? All those windows can be docked in a tabbed interface (just like Fluxbox) in the lower half of the Gimp main panel. Or you can choose to float some free. Nice feature.

Re:Sorry (was: Re:Very Nice)

[Ogerman]

You people claiming Gimp were a PS killer are just being silly.

Gimp is not a PS killer because it has become as full featured and refined as PS is. It is a PS killer because the majority of people using PS don't need its power and would be just as well off using Gimp at much less cost.

The timeline will perhaps look like this:
- As Gimp improves, it will gather perhaps 80-90% of the image editor market. (people who don't need PS, former warez kiddies, shareware, etc.)
- PS becomes a niche player for the high-end (people who genuinely need it)
- Gimp's popularity yields partial commercialization of development, allowing it to finish catching up to PS and begin to surpass it.
- The rest of the high-end graphics market slowly moves to Gimp as cost-benefit analyses dictate.

Timeframe? 5-10 years depending on how good the Gimp leadership is over this period. It will happen a lot sooner if Gimp can begin commercializing its development now. Yes, that means full-time developers. Open up your wallets folks: what features do you want and how soon?

Has JPEG import been fixed?

[SpinyNorman]

I'm using GIMP 2.0.5 for Windows, and my biggest complaint is that the JPEG importer can't handle eBay created (ones with the camera watermark in bottom right corner) JPEGs - it ALWAYS hangs (JPEGS from other sources are OK). I always have to use paint to convert eBay JPEGs to BMP to be able to load them into GIMP.

Re:Has JPEG import been fixed?

[BigSven]

You should update libexif then. The bug is there, not in the GIMP code.

Re:Has JPEG import been fixed?

[SpinyNorman]

This isn't a build I did myself - it's the "official" GIMP for Windows build downloaded from http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/.

I just downloaded the 2.2pre2 Windows build (+GTK update) from the same site, and it also has the same bug, although it's improved in that it lets you cancel the hung load without exiting GIMP (which is the 2.0.5 behaviour).

Would you happen to know the right person to report this to (I could also send a sample eBay JPEG that causes the hang)? I've already posted it to gug.sunsite.dk forum, but I'm not sure if that's the best place for bug reports.

Pulling in people (not just bitching about the ui)

[radio.cgt]

(I know it's been said, probably in every post above this, but..)
To do this the Gimp needs to become nicer to use for the gimp newbs, I've used photoshop for ages, before that, I used Paint Shop Pro, the change from one to the tother wasn't painless, but it was still easy enough (ie. intuitive) to find out what I wanted to do.
However, any time I've used the gimp I stop after hardly any time, almost nothing makes sense. Maybe that's an exagguration, but that's exactly how it feels.
Of course people who learnt with the Gimp find it natural, that makes sense, I'm sure if I perciviered, so would I , but it would take a lot longer that the PSP->PS switch, and what for? not much really. PS is superior to PSP in that it's industry standard, more powerful(it is, although i've not looked at psp for a while) etc etc. Where does the gimp stand? it's free, that's the only real advantage I can think of for the normal PS user. personally I think most people are better off paying out for the usability of PS.
I'm aware that the Gimp's getting better, but for real acceptance I think it needs:

To be easy to migrate to from PS/PSP.

Thats it really, at the moment, the Gimp is not. And to all the people saying you can fix the UI with a better window manager, that's useless to the masses(who you need). If you have to do something using a seperate program/utility to make the program you want to use better, it's not working like it should. Especially for a program not aimed at tech geeks. That's my 2p. Also, the name could be better.

Re:Why? -- For slicing, obviously!

[kale77in]

> Why is this in the 'developer' section?

Presumably so I can remind the developers to get their act together and add slicing functionality, like Fireworks and, later, Photoshop have done.

That's the big feature that's holding up efficient web dev with the GIMP. For an image tool to be practical, you need to be able to run off 10 or twenty adjacent (but arbitrarily arranged) sub-images in one step, from the one master file. It was the feature that originally gave Fireworks the jump on Photoshop for a year or so, and it's now a sheer necessity for web work.

You can use Python and Perl guillotining scripts based on guidelines, but for real web design with arbitrary shapes, there's just no substitute for slicing by transparent rectangular overlays.

It would probably only require a specialized layer type to be created, one which only holds rectangular objects, which can remember their individual 'save' settings and filenames.

That's a hint for developers, while we're here. :)

fu-fu

[10am-bedtime]

i skimmed the changes page and saw "tiny-fu" to replace "script-fu", or something of that nature. being a scheme programmer, i am curious what this means in the grand plan (i.e., future direction).

i also noticed that non-reliance on GTK was deemed "small". IMHO, on the contrary, that is really big news -- a cleaner architecture is easier to hack on. i'd like to install gimp w/o gtk, and use it solely from the command-line (to replace imagemagick). maybe that has been available for a long time now, but the gtk requirement has been a real turn-off.

(disclaimer: i only moved from full-time console to full-time X in 2003; use ratpoison; no mouse; slow machine; etc. etc.)

Re:quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a Look at this
to get the feeling of Gimp Power.

CMYK support

[Craig Ringer]

Press and prepress users need it, as do print designers and layout staff. Ad agencies may also need it, if they submit ads in PDF form to be embedded into the final layout as-is (and generally they do).

A designer needs to be able to see out of gamut colour (colour that can not print on their output device / colour space), so they can adjust their image not to change too much when printed in CMYK. You see, the CMYK and RGB colour spaces do not both contain the same set of colours, so some RGB colours cannot be reproduced in CMK and vice versa. Additionally, some output devices have even more restricted colour spaces, such as a litho press for newsprint.

Having someone's blue shirt come out purple in print is an unpleasant experience that's to be avoided. CMYK support and colour management both help avoid this. If the blue-now-purple shirt is a full page advertisment, you'll care about this when the advertiser comes a-knocking.

In general, most colour adjustment for print should be done in RGB (it's easier to control colour in RGB) but previewed in CMYK so you can get a better idea of how it'll print. In the GIMP as things stand, you can't really see how your work will print.

Calibrating your display is only half the story. If you don't have proper ICC profiles for your output device (printer / press), then it does you relatively little good. If you do have a properly calibrated display and suitable output device profiles, plus tools capable of previewing your work according to the output profile, then you may stand a chance of getting decent quality, accurate colour in print.

CMYK support is a pre-requisite for press colour management support. CMYK by its self is helpful, especially with an out-of-gamut warning, but only really comes into its own when combined with colour management.

I think you'll find, frankly, that the majority of people who know what CMYK _is_ will have a legitimate need for support for it. Most people neither know nor care.

Re:CMYK support

[sweede]

a +1 to my fellow printer

Re:CMYK support

[FooBarWidget]

Why do people keep pretending like Gimp is totally unusable without (pre)press features, while 95% of the world doesn't even need it?

Re:CMYK support

[Craig Ringer]

If I came across that way, I didn't mean to. When you work in prepress it's easy to write as if prepress is the only thing that matters, but that's usually not the intent.

GIMP is mostly - not totally - unusable for prepress without colour management and CMYK. That doesn't mean it's not good for other users.

I'd contend with 95% - but it really doesn't matter.

Re:CMYK support

[NeoSkandranon]

Because people keep insisting Gimp is every bit as capable as photoshop for professionals, when it is NOT, mostly for that precise reason.

Re:CMYK support

[FooBarWidget]

No they don't. You're either living in a cave or you're trolling. Only VERY few people say that Gimp is just as capable, and EVERY SINGLE of them get modded down! On the other hand, people who flame down Gimp saying it's a piece of junk ALWAYS get modded up to +5 Insightful.

Re:CMYK support

[bbc]

"people keep insisting Gimp is every bit as capable as photoshop for professionals"

Name two persons who said that.

Re:CMYK support

[Anonymous Coward]

Only VERY few people say that Gimp is just as capable, and EVERY SINGLE of them get modded down!

You've posted something along those lines dozens of times in this thread. At the time I read them, not one of your comments had been modded down, even though pretty much all but the first were redundant.

Calm down, have a beer or something. The world isn't going to end just because a lot of people don't like a program you use.

looks good

[zpok]

Or I should say, it looks a whole lot better than before. A jump from Photoshop 4 to 5.

Especially the many preview screens will make a big difference to average users.

While I still have a Photoshop around (several years old) I won't go for the Gimp, there's no incentive, but it is slowly becoming a program you can actually reccommend to people on a budget...

Yeah yeah, that sounds blasé... but I do like PSD's text tools, multiple undo's, actions and well, just about everything. It grows on you. Someone just starting could now get used to the Gimp and maybe feel lost in Photoshop? It's possible.

Re:looks good

[crhylove]

Uh, XCF has most of the features that PSD has.... There's a learning curve, but I've switched over completely to gimp and have very few complaints. My main one is that the gimp never remembers what directory I just saved to/loaded from. This is the worst, but it's my ONLY complaint!

Re:looks good

[BigSven]

If you open the file-chooser from the image you just opened, it will open with that directory preselected. Also with the new filechooser in GIMP 2.2 you can set bookmarks for your frequently used folders.

Re:Why? -- For slicing, obviously!

[Anonymous Coward]

For real web development work, you should be using CSS and you can save http overhead by sending a single image and /slicing/ it with CSS, as demonstrated here! The only thing holding back 'efficient web dev' is the dominant browser:-(

Not long and Gimp can compete with Photoshop!

[Anonymous Coward]

Photoshop 4.

And your problem with Photoshop is????

[Anonymous Coward]

Photoshop isn't Microsoft. It's been a reliable powerful application from day one. It's hardly an evil empire. Professionals swear by it for very good reasons. I personally prefer Open Office because the interface is cleaner and easier to use. I now write on it exclusively and would hate to go back to Word. Photoshop on the other hand has a clean easy to use interface and an incredibly powerful set of tools. The average user isn't even aware of half it's capibilities. It's good to see applications like Gimp coming along but it still has a long was to go before it's any challenge to Photoshop. Microsoft deserves the animosity. The Photoshop people are doing a good job and deserve respect.

Re:Grits for your Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

Word, way to troll it old skool homie.

Wanted: "How to switch from PS to GIMP"

[zalt]

I'm a webdeveloper / graphics designer and i have a great interest in operating systems as a whole too, i love trying out Linux-as-a-desktop-environment every now and then to see how far it has progressed, aswell as how far The GIMP has progressed. (I've tried it under Windows and OS X too, briefly)

I'm always struck with how much power there seems to be in there, but that i just can't utilize it.

I'm just an old dog, and somehow my brain tells me not to relearn, i know Photoshop and Illustrator so well but the treshold to learn The GIMP-way seems just too high for me. I tried applying the Photoshop keycombinations, but the fundamental window handling is too different.

Now, i realize that you just can't copy the Adobe UI design, i think Macromedia got in legal trouble for doing so. I do realize that just because something is standard it doesn't mean it's the best way to do something (i.e Windows). But.. There must be something you can do to make it easier for Photoshop users to switch to The Gimp. Right? The GIMP is not made for computer screen graphics, not print, but there's heaps of designers using Photoshop today not designing anything at all for print.

How about a switch-campaign in a smaller scale, like "How to switch to the gimp in eight easy steps".. Could be hosted at their website and first-time starting the program.

Just starting the program, realizing all your hard earned years of Photoshop experience is useless will make just about anyone eager to close down the program and re-open Photoshop.

As i said, i would love to use The GIMP.. But somehow i just won't. Strange.

Tobbe / zalt
http://www.ichigo.se/

Top Reasons I hate Gimp

[grumbel]

* ugly user interface, no matter of WiW is the way to go or not, currently I have to dig around for my palette or brush dialogs far to many times they really MUST be dockable to the image window to make Gimp painless to use. People saying that the current way is 'right' are just bloody ignorant, this issue is really poping up every time gimp is mentioned somewhere, yet still the developers failed to address it properly in the last 5 years

* lack of a proper fullscreen mode, while its there is quite limited in they way that one can scroll, dialog boxes cover the drawing area so that one constantly has to move stuff around, again proper docking to the image borders might help a lot

* lack of advanced brushes, currently all of gimps brushes are quite primitive, just the bare basics and there is no way to write new-ones as plug-ins, making it hard to actually create new ones. That said it was been tried to implement new cool stuff, but it never made its way into the Gimp:

http://www.levien.com/gimp/wetdream.html

* lack of macro recorder, my 1996 version of Corel Photopaint had already a kick-ass macro recorder, making it a joy to create scripts, you just recorde a macro, do what you want, go into the script editor add a few parameters to it, add a GUI dialog and you have a nice script in basically no time, Gimp today is still stuck with only Script-Fu and friends which are both a pain to write and debug, no macrorecorder there at all

* lack of power in the scripting, plug-ins and PDB interface lacks functions, there are a bunch of functions that are available in the GUI, but not available in the scripting, so that one has to manually build-them, making scripting even more a pain than it already is. The GUI should ideally be just a 'container' that connects scripts with each other, everything in the GUI should be available in the scripting and each part of Gimp should be modifiable via scripting/plug-ins, brushes, gui, whatever.

* tablet support, while its there it is not really that good, double-clicking is almost impossible on the Gtk components, with a tablet the clicks end up at different positions, Gtk+ seems to lack the tolerance to still register it as doubleclick, might be a Gimp, Gtk+, Xfree86 issue or whatever, however its causing quite huge throuble in Gimp (if there is some fix/hack/patch for it I would like to know)

* load/save dialog, these are really just the standard Gtk+ ones with a single thumbnail, however for a graphic application it would be quite usefull to have full thumbnail view of all images, like you get in Nautilus or any fileviewer

* very bad suport indexed images, one doesn't need them all that often these days, but still sometimes one need them and then Gimp is just a pain in the ass, a decade old version of DeluxPaint was way better at handling them

* no quick&easy way to create brushes, ie. I would like to use a layer click a 'to-brush' button and then paint with it, however thats more or less impossible todo today, I have to save the image as brush, tweak some parameters, then select it from the brush dialog, etc. cost by far to much time for an operation that should really be 'single-click', beside from that brush handling itself is quite a arkward, some brushes are resizable, some others not, while idealy all should be modifiable and it even shouldn't be that difficult to implement

* developers seem to be quite hostile against any suggestions from the outside, both on IRC and on the mailing list, other people seem to have made similar experiences so its not just me, other OSS projects seem to be quite a bit more friendly to their users

There are probally a lot of more issues I have forgotten, but well, that should be the more important ones. Last not least, yeah I know, many people will now say that its OSS so I have no f*** right to critic it and if I would like the features I should implement them myself and beside Gimp is of course doing everything right and I am the one that is just using it wrong (wondering how that can happen after 6 years of gimp usage...), but well, go start flame me now...

Re:Top Reasons I hate Gimp

[BigSven]

Let me comment on some of your points:


* load/save dialog, these are really just the standard Gtk+ ones with a single thumbnail, however for a graphic application it would be quite usefull to have full thumbnail view of all images, like you get in Nautilus or any fileviewer


Why don't you use nautilus or any other fileviewer then? The point of the GIMP UI is to allow you to use it together with other apps. So why don't you just open images from nautilus or drag them onto the GIMP toolbox? In GIMP 2.2 you can also drag them to an already opened image or into the Layers dialog.

It would be a terrible waste of time and efforts to duplicate the functionality of your favorite file browser if you can just use it with The GIMP.


* no quick&easy way to create brushes, ie. I would like to use a layer click a 'to-brush' button and then paint with it, however thats more or less impossible todo today


It is possible for a long time already by means of "Script-Fu->Selection->To Brush". Sure this isn't very intuitive and it is planned to improve this with the next version. Most of the framework that is needed to make this happen is in place already.


* developers seem to be quite hostile against any suggestions from the outside, both on IRC and on the mailing list


Look at your own posting. It is titled "Top Reasons I hate GIMP". Now do you seriously expect to get friendly response when you address volunteers in such a way? You get back what you throw at people.

Re:Top Reasons I hate Gimp

[grumbel]

### Why don't you use nautilus or any other fileviewer then?

I do most of the time, however having thumbnail for all files in the open/save dialog would still be extremly usefull. This functionallity might be good to have in the Gtk+ filedialog itself, however it wouldn't have been rocket-sience to implement it in Gimp already years ago.

### It is possible for a long time already by means of "Script-Fu->Selection->To Brush".

I know, it however fills the brush dialog with junk which I then have to manually select and delete. What I mean is functionality like provided by DeluxPaint, select a region, select paintbrush and instantly you are able to use that selected region as brush, extremly usefull sometimes and its a better of seconds to use and discard a brush, Gimps current brush handling is far more tricky to use.

### Now do you seriously expect to get friendly response when you address volunteers in such a way? You get back what you throw at people.

Guess why I have written that subject line, its not that I was being hostile against Gimp back then when I started using it, it mainly where the mailing list, IRC discussions and the lack of progress that made me feel that way.

Re:Top Reasons I hate Gimp

[dpol]

Guess why I have written that subject line, its not that I was being hostile against Gimp back then when I started using it, it mainly where the mailing list, IRC discussions and the lack of progress that made me feel that way.

I have been lurking on the developer's mailing list for a few months now, and must say that I have been extremely impressed with the GIMP developers. Sven Neumann in particular is active in most threads, and even welcomes bug reports that are already covered in Bugzilla. A lot of the developers are also active on the list for users.

While it took a few years for The GIMP to reach version 2, progress has been swift ever since (and comparing v1.2 with v2.0, I don't think that I could find anyone who wouldn't think that it was worth all the time spent perfecting the dockable user interface). v2.2 has many new useful features, and with the addition of color management in the next version, the future looks bright indeed.

Re:Top Reasons I hate Gimp

[dbIII]

currently I have to dig around for my palette or brush dialogs far too many ...
lack of a proper fullscreen mode
lack of macro recorder

These complaints, though valid, come from a single desktop background where scripting is hard to do.

Gimp was developed on a platform where people could scatter windows all over the place and work on thirty or forty images at once - it's not that hard to manage such a thing even on twm since you can iconify the things, and even easier with multiple desktops on other window managers (set the toolbox to be on all desktops and you can work on dozens of images on sixteeen desktops and your toolbox will always be there). Fullscreen mode doesn't make sense in that context - even StarOffice abandoned the idea of running in fullscreen mode a long time back. Gimp could either use the window manager or in full screen mode it effectively would be running a window manager for it's own windows inside of a single gimp window - which would require a lot of effort, give inconsistant behavior with the rest of the desktop, and probably still not look enough like photoshop to make people happy. It's a different way of doing things, but I can see good reasons for it.

Macro recording of mouse and menu movement is not an easy thing to do, expecially on multiple desktops, while scripting is a trivial thing to do on *nix platforms in comparison to the MS platforms. However, as was pointed out, some gimp plug ins are not written correctly to allow scripting.

Re:Top Reasons I hate Gimp

[grumbel]

### Fullscreen mode doesn't make sense in that context - even StarOffice abandoned the idea of running in fullscreen mode a long time back

I am not talking about everything-in-one-window fullscreen, I am talking about 'game-like' fullscreen, ie. application takes controll of the whole screen. All I want to see is the image, my mouse course and maybe the palette, no menu, toolbox or other clutter. Gimp already has such a mode (press F11), but its quite a bit limited in that it doesn't let one move the drawable area around, causing all shorts of throuble when working with larger images.

### Macro recording of mouse and menu movement is not an easy thing to do

I don't mean that kind of low-level macro recording which will screw up quite quickly and isn't much usefull since you can't add parameters to it easily. I mean high level macro recording on the function level, in CorelPhotopaint (anno 1996) I could press the 'Record' button and then see function names + arguments poping up in the record:

PaintStart 10,10
PaintContinue 34,34 ...
BlurPlugin 10,40
NewDocument ...

I could then import that as script, modify where needed and where ready to go in a matter of a minute or two.

Re:Top Reasons I hate Gimp

[dbIII]

I am not talking about everything-in-one-window fullscreen, I am talking about 'game-like' fullscreen

That is exactly what I am talking about - StarOffice could be run without a window manager (and had to be run that way if the window manager didn't support fullscreen mode) - just like a video game, no border around the edge or anything. In the end being able to resize the window, having space for kpanel/gpanel/dock at the bottom and having the ability to have different documents on different desktops won out. I think it is an improvement. From this example I think moving the gimp to fullscreen mode would be a big step backwards - but I don't know what the developers think on the issue. I like to be able to go "gimp *.jpg" in a directory and move the images of the moment and the toolbox to another desktop (or just turn them into sticky windows so they are on every desktop). Having it all in one window limits your options more.

I mean high level macro recording on the function level

In an environment where it is easy to script no-one has bothered, trapping each user command and writing it to a file would take a bit of work. Photopaint is in an environment where it is not easy to script, so there is not much in the way of alternatives to a macro recorder.

Re:Top Reasons I hate Gimp

[SimHacker]

A full screen mode like Photoshop is a perfectly reasonable request. Don't make excuses and argue with users that they really don't want what they're asking for.

3D Studio Max has scripting via MaxScript, as well as macro recording. Emacs has scripting via Lisp, and both keyboard and Lisp macro recording.

Scripting and macro recording work quite well together, thank you. It's no excuse that having one excludes the need for the other.

Again, you're trying to argue with users and tell them what they want and don't want, which is a bad way to design user interface software.

-Don

Re:Top Reasons I hate Gimp

[dbIII]

A full screen mode like Photoshop is a perfectly reasonable request. Don't make excuses and argue with users

I was outlining why I think it hasn't happened and why I think we don't really want it anyway. I am not a gimp developer, I never pretended to be as such, I am another user talking about gimp, outlining my perspective on the issue. Also macro recording of a mouse driven program with polygon area selection would not be a trivial exercise to implement, I don't have to know much about the gimp to know that.

Again, you're trying to argue with users and tell them what they want and don't want

And somewhere out of it others may realise there is more than one thing, or someone may become motivated enough to add feature X to the gimp, or an existing gimp developer may read it.

For the love of fucking god

[melted]

When can we expect 48 bit color support and color management? Is adding buttons and screwing up the UI even further the only two things GIMP developers care about?

I mean, I know the mantra, you get what you pay for, and if you don't like it - here's the code, roll your own, submit a patch. But come on. Who the fuck needs shortcut editor?

Re:For the love of fucking god

[BigBuckHunter]

Probably after they finally support CMYK.

BBH

Not an answer

[Anonymous Coward]

you posted a workaround. The original problem still exists. I use 8 desktops and it is still a problem. Whether I use a desktop strictly for the Gimp, or I end up opening other applications (like my file browser to keep files handy for use in Gimp, like Composer to try out the file after editing, like other apps that get used at the same time as Gimp). Even if you use one desktop just for the Gimp, other windows of other apps often get opened and stay opened so you can work productively with the Gimp. And this problem gets magnified on screens smaller than 19".

Another problem is gimp tool windows opening up underneath other windows.

The top poster is bringing up a problem. That's how they get addresses. Most of the gimp defenders in this /. story are jumping on the people posting problems about the app, instead of acknowledging that the poster may have a point. That's not how things get fixed.

I use gimp exclusively because I can't afford Photoshop and won't use windows. And yes, Gimp does things differently than Photoshop. Many gimp defenders are saying to take a month and learn how to use Gimp properly. Wrong. That's not how it works. Either it is intuitive, like Photoshop, or someone moves on to something else that works for them. Today, and many times in the past, I've seen gimp defenders post that Photoshop seems counter-intuitive, and Gimp seems intuitive to them. Maybe if they've been using FOSS, GNU/Linux since it was a multi-floppy download. But intuitive Gimp is not. I'm not a graphic artist, nor a graphic or artistic professional. I use the Gimp for hobby purposes such as touching up photos for amateur web sites, touching up photos for printing, creating banners, buttons, and am starting to use it for slightly more involved image creation. But I still find old versions of Photoshop (4.0, 5.0, 5.5) easier to use for many (not all) actions. I'm no expert, and haven't walked through every page of every manual and guide on Gimp, but I have quite a few downloaded, and have gone through some of the ones that are laid out like a photo-manual. A good basic one is on that site where the guy goes nuts on Microsoft every once in a while, Mozilla magazine, or something like that. But with Photoshop, I can draw a straight line, I can pick specific images out of a photo and transfer just the specific images (without adjoining images or background from the same photo) to other photos, etc. I still haven't figured out how to draw a straight line (I know its documented elsewhere), nor have I figured out how to isolate and move specific images from a photo to another photo, or crop everything else out of a photo except the specific image in the photo. In Photoshop, my brother, who doesn't know what version of windows he's using, doesn't know how to access the web on his dsl account without opening AOL (byos) and using AOL's interface, doesn't know how to upgrade an app like firefox to the newest version, doesn't know how to install and use spyware detection tools, doesn't know much at all about computers is still right at home in using Photoshop to manipulate images for posting on ebay. He can draw straight lines, isolate specific images in a photo and transfer it to another photo or crop everything else, and do other simple and not so simple things that I find difficult or impossible to do on gimp without reading manuals or taking a course. He didn't read any manuals to figure out what to do in Photoshop.

Am I slamming Gimp? No. I'm pointing out that there are usability problems in Gimp, and they won't get solved if we keep our heads in the sand about them. If the Gimp developers go on believing that there is nothing wrong with the Gimp, and the problem lies with the user, there will continue to be usability problems with the application.

I'm not a developer. I'm not a programmer. I am contributing in my own small way to a few other projects though, as an end user. I've actually paid for Free Software. I've submitted bugs with detailed ex

Re:Not an answer

[BigSven]

Thanks for your insightful remarks. While reading this, I felt I should add a comment here. Not directly in reply to what you have said but more as a response to a complaint that seems to come up frequently.

Some people seem to have the impression that the GIMP developers would believe that the GIMP user interface would be perfect and must not be changed. I wonder how that impression has come up since of course we see the problems and we listen to users reporting usability problems or suggesting enhancements. It's just that code doesn't fall from the sky and changes take time. Of course not everyone agrees with the priorities that the GIMP developers set and not everyone likes the solutions that we come up with. These are points that can and should be discussed on a technical level.

Whoever claims that the GIMP developers would be ignoring problems is quite ignorant himself. What do you think why I (and other GIMP developers) go through the hassle of reading the slashdot comments at all? Because it's a good way to get user feedback and perhaps in between all those flamebaits someone even comes up with a good idea and/or reasonable arguments.

Re:Not an answer

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just that code doesn't fall from the sky and changes take time. Of course not everyone agrees with the priorities that the GIMP developers set and not everyone likes the solutions that we come up with.

I wrote the top post. And I'm glad a developer saw it. That was why I took the time to write it. And though I'm not a developer or coder, I'm fully aware that code doesn't fall from the sky. I'm fully aware that it takes a lot of effort to make even small changes. And how tough some even minor changes are because it affects other code. I should have covered that in my top post. And I thank you for your coding efforts. And for the code you've written in the past that didn't even make it into the project. While I'm not a coder, I have friends who code and who've taken the time to explain what they do, what they don't do, and why they do things the way they do them. And why many things fail for many reasons.

One of the frustrations from an end user perspective, one who has been using FOSS including GNU/Linux for more than three years, is seeing simple things (from an end user perspective, not a coder perspective) not implemented. Drawing a straight line has been brought up before. A year ago. Two years ago. Three years ago. Probably longer. Where is it? This is one of the disconnects. You point out that Gimp developers set priorities. And I'm fully aware that in FOSS, developers code what they want to code, because in most cases they aren't getting paid to code. And even in cases where developers are getting paid, if they don't like what they are doing, very often they move on. But the disconnect, the problem, with Gimp is that the ability to simply draw a straight line, and the ability to do that easily and intuitively, is not a priority.

I was made aware what a problem the code behind OpenOffice is. Or was. During the StarOffice 5.2 period, a couple of years ago, I was educated on what a mess the code was, from a coders perspective. So that gives me an appreciation of a project that contains a lot of code. And of projects where decisions were made, and commitments were made, to go in a specific direction. And once a direction was chosen, how hard it would be to make changes that required rewriting a lot of code. And how easily things break.

It may be very difficult to make it easy and intuitive for a user to draw a straight line. But why do we have Gimp on windows? What's the goal of this end of the project? We aren't talking about MythTV, where the developers state outright, that the project simply exists for their own enjoyment, are we? Because I find it hard to believe that Gimp developers involved prior to the port to windows would want to bother with the effort to port to windows, unless they were doing this to increase the user base, and not to scratch their own itches. So unless I'm wrong, there is some history in Gimp to increase the user base. So that begs the question, where is the easy and intuitive ability to make a straight line? It's been years. Coding takes time, and code doesn't fall from the sky, but years to write this code? It's not a problem of coding, its a priority problem. Or a problem with recognizing that the problem exists to begin with.

Is it a priority problem? If not, then does the problem exist? If that isn't it either, then what? Perhaps, the attitude of, we aren't going to make it easy for windows users (like the same attitude with Quanta Plus, where they vehemently shoot down any suggestions of wysiwyg because it may attract frontpage users, god forbid, so they redefine wysiwyg to vpl, and avoid wysiwyg at all costs to keep the frontpage users away). Is that it?

I'm not stating that you're ignoring the problem. My observation was over the gimp defenders (not necessarily, and in this case due to the numbers, not likely to be the developers themselves) shooting down the usability problems outright. This isn't the first time a discussion on Gimp has come up on

Re:Not an answer

[BigSven]

Sorry, but the ability to easily draw a straight line has been there forever and more than five years ago a preview was added to make it more apparent that this is what happens when you press Shift. I have even been told that PS does it exactly this way.

If you think this is not intuitive enough, perhaps you should suggest a better way of doing it. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands, judging from the lengthy posts.

Re:Not an answer

[Anonymous Coward]

But why do we have Gimp on windows? What's the goal of this end of the project?

For the original reason, see here: http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/why.html

I'm not aware of any specific goals with GIMP on Windows - there simply are individuals who use Windows and find it worth the effort to keep GIMP and GTK+ running on it. I personally have contributed several bugfixes to GTK+ and GIMP on Windows because those bugs annoyed me and I had the time and knowledge to find and fix them.

Re:Not an answer

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pointing out that there are usability problems in Gimp, and they won't get solved if we keep our heads in the sand about them. If the Gimp developers go on believing that there is nothing wrong with the Gimp, and the problem lies with the user, there will continue to be usability problems with the application.

But the Gimp developers ARE working hard to improve the user interface!

For example, they've spent a lot of time making sure the button order in all the dialog boxes conforms to the GNOME standard. Isn't that great?

Oh, wait, that's another hugely controversial issue that regularly sparks flamewars, isn't it?

Oooh, it's even better than that - it's the complete opposite of the behavior that Windows users expect, so once again they're going against the wishes of the vast majority of computer users to implement something they claim is "better" (even though they have no evidence to back that up). Man, I really respect these Gimp developers. They really mean it when they say they don't care about popularity...

Re:Not an answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not everyone agrees with the priorities that the GIMP developers set and not everyone likes the solutions that we come up with. These are points that can and should be discussed on a technical level.

It can be discussed on a very simple level. From day one, people have complained about the multiple window interface and said that it's a deal-breaker. And it still isn't fixed. It seems to me that if end-users factor into your priorities in any way, the window issue would be top of the list.

Lots of missing stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Until it has dynamic effect layers it is not usable at all. Shame. It's just too bothersome to recreate dozens of layers because somewhere at the very beginning you want to move 2 pixels.

I will stick to my Photoshop.

Re:Win32

[schumaml]

And there it is:

http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/testing.html

BTW, it's not a different version, just the same source code compiled for win32.

Measure

[tepples]

I haven't found any way to preview the rotating so that I just can rotate the canvas until I see that a line that I want to be horizontal (such as the horizont) is really horizontal.

I typically use the "Measure" tool to find the angle of the horizon (no T) or a line of text and then feed the number into rotation. If there were no "Measure" tool I would use the grid that the rotate tool already shows.

What I'd like to see is gamma-corrected resizing that transforms the image into linear gamma, does cubic interpolation, and transforms it back into native gamma, to avoid loss of brightness on resize. I currently do this with Levels, Scale Image, Levels, but 1. it'd look better with 16 bits per channel intermediate results, and 2. it'd be nicer if it were automatic.

red-eye reduction on wish list

[pomakis]

My usual workflow is similar, but also includes red-eye reduction. I'm getting half decent at doing that in The Gimp, but it's painful multi-step process. I wish oh I wish The Gimp had a red-eye reduction tool!

Gimp shortcuts.

[xenostar]

The thing that makes GIMP unusable for me is the fact that the tool windows even if set as utility windows, in Gtk, have to be focused separately, and even with focus follows mouse, the GIMP shortcuts ARE NOT ACTIVE when the canvas is not highlighted. So you have to click or hover over the project window and then use the shortcut. That is incredibly unusable for me.

Re:Gimp shortcuts.

[BigSven]

This has been addressed in GIMP 2.2. Shortcuts work from the image windows as well as from the toolbox and all docks.

Re:Gimp shortcuts.

[dbIII]

So you have to click or hover over the project window

Perhaps you'll have a situation where you want to have more than one image window open at once, and then it will make sense that you need to let it know which image you are working on.

What window manager?

[FooBarWidget]

"You can then minimize/maximize all GIMP windows in a single operation, move the window group to a different desktop or whatever else you want to do..."

How? Which window manager do you use? I am looking for a good window manager than can do this!
- Metacity can't do this as far as I know.
- People have suggested Devils Pie (a window matcher), but nothing in it's documentation suggests that it's possible to minimize all associated windows in one click.
- Sawfish is unmaintained. Last release is from March 2003.
- Everything else does not seem to support EHWM hints properly.

Sooo, what window managers are left?

Re:What window manager?

[Coryoth]

How? Which window manager do you use? I am looking for a good window manager than can do this!

Depressing isn't it? Grouping does make lot of sense, an it can be a very powerful window management tool (see my sig for a pwer user oriented version of window groups). The question is, why is it not supported by window managers? It was. Enlightenment, Sawfish, even FVWM to some extent, had the capacity to do grouping. The newer window managers like Metacity have dropped it. While I appreciate a slimming down of the featureset, given the number of arguments I've seen about, for instance GIMP and other "I want it to be MDI" programs, it seems like it is a much needed feature.

Perhaps they simply haven't seen a good interface to it. I know that Enlightenment's hadling of window grouping was clunky - you could do it, but it wasn't something you wanted to do on a regular basis for a selection of windows on the fly. So if you're a WM developer have a read of link in my sig. You don't have to incorporate all of it (as I say, it's power user oriented) but it does provide a simple and intuitive basic interface to window groups that is worth implementing.

Jedidiah.

Re:What window manager?

[MikeBabcock]

I use Enlightenment -- I can create "window groups" and move them around together.

Also, I cam have it remember the size and location of each individual window so if I close and reopen a tool window, it comes back up where I wanted it. Otherwise, it makes reasonable assumptions about where to put it.

Very Nice-Comfort Zone.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is this really want you are telling me? That I can only really use an application if I put it on a separate virtual desktop and not anywhere I want it to? This is pretty much a foot shooting by the Gimp developers, because telling other people they are too stupid to use Gimp because unlike every other app on this planet it only works well if you change your whole way to work is a sure way that this people will not use Gimp."

The same arguments can be made for someone switching from Maya to Lightwave, or XSI.

Guess that explains why all three are failing doesn't it?

CinePaint does this

[sootman]

CinePaint, formerly Film Gimp, "...is a free open source painting and image retouching program designed to work best with 35mm film and other high resolution high dynamic range images. It is the most popular open source tool in the motion picture industry -- used in 2 Fast 2 Furious, Scooby-Doo, Harry Potter, Stuart Little and other feature films. CinePaint is used for painting of background mattes and for frame-by-frame retouching of movies. It is being extended to do film restoration. CinePaint is available for Linux, Macintosh OS X, Windows, and other popular operating systems... CinePaint Features: ... 8/16/32-bits of color per channel (up to 128-bits RGBA)"

Re:CinePaint does this

[damiam]

Umm.. The parent already mentioned cinepaint. Did you even read the comment you responded to?

Re:CinePaint does this

[sootman]

I thought I read it, but evidently I somehow missed that. Oops. Never mind.

Mandatory Off-Topic Pulp Fiction Reference

[bjtuna]

- "Bring out the gimp."
- "Gimp's sleepin'".
- "Well I guess you're gonna have to go wake him up now, won't you?"

Spoken like a true devotee

[Anonymous Coward]

2) But Photoshop and leave us alone.
3) Get out your text editor and compiler (or get something to do it for you, the GIMP developers aren't interested right now).

Atta boy, stick your fingers in your ears, stick your head in the sand and keep it there.

Re:Spoken like a true devotee

[arose]

So everyone who doesn't solve your problems is sticking his head in the sand?

Re:Spoken like a true devotee

[Anonymous Coward]

So everyone who doesn't solve your problems is sticking his head in the sand?

If you're happy with GIMP, good for you. The guy you're arguing with isn't. He probably shouldn't be whining on Slashdot, because that's not going to do any good. But your responses are equally unhelpful, and (apparently) deliberately so.

Either you're trolling, or you're feeding a troll, and neither option reflects very well on you.

Re:Spoken like a true devotee

[arose]

Just voicing my opinion, I'm not on /. to make a good image.

Gnome and KDE Taskbars Group Gimp Windows

[Brian Ristuccia]

The task bar on the KDE Panel automagically groups Gimp windows when the taskbar area becomes crowded and can be configured to always group the windows even when the taskbar is not crowded by setting "Group Similar Tasks" to "Always" under Configure -> Desktop -> Taskbar. In the version of KDE I tested (3.2.2), it was possible to minimize/maximize/reloate grouped windows with a single operation.

The Gnome (2.6.2) panel's window list area also does grouping. If the area is crowded, gimp windows are automatically grouped. If you want this behavior at all times, pick "Window Grouping: Always group windows" in the preferences dialog.

Re:Gnome and KDE Taskbars Group Gimp Windows

[Coryoth]

The task bar on the KDE Panel automagically groups Gimp windows when the taskbar area becomes crowded...The Gnome (2.6.2) panel's window list area also does grouping. If the area is crowded, gimp windows are automatically grouped. If you want this behavior at all times, pick "Window Grouping: Always group windows" in the preferences dialog.

Nice, but not what he's talking about. Try reading this, which is my proposal for a window grouping interface to get an idea of what is being discussed. I admit that my proposal tends to lean toward power users (I felt it was better to outline all the possibilities), but the basic interface concept for how to group and basic management of the groups is, I think, quite reasonable, and all WMs ought to have something along these lines available.

Jedidiah.

Re:Gnome and KDE Taskbars Group Gimp Windows

[FooBarWidget]

The thing is: I don't want taskbar grouping. I hate having to click twice to switch between document windows. I just want to be able to minimize all Gimp windows with one click, without task bar grouping.

Re:Gnome and KDE Taskbars Group Gimp Windows

[FooBarWidget]

I read your stuff before. Very interesting. I hope they'll get implemented in Metacity. Do you know the current status of window manager support for that idea?

Re:Gnome and KDE Taskbars Group Gimp Windows

[Coryoth]

I read your stuff before. Very interesting. I hope they'll get implemented in Metacity. Do you know the current status of window manager support for that idea?

There's been a small amount of buy in from small development window managers (that remain in fairly much "development/not usable yet" status, and as for the main WMs... I do know that it has been discussed at least to some extent in Enlightenment circles. I'm hoping to raise the issue more now that actual E17 development is starting. Otherwise, for now, it is mostly ignored. Hopefully it will get more discussion because I do think that even if my idea isn't implemented, some manner of grouping needs to be standard in WMs - it is simply too good and too powerful an idea to let go to waste.

I despair of it getting much Metacity buy in, due to the attitudes around that window manager, but perhaps I ought to try writing to the mailing list and see what happens.

Jedidiah.

Re:Gnome and KDE Taskbars Group Gimp Windows

[HiThere]

To me at least it's not exactly clear what you want. Perhaps you are asking for MDI windowing?

I don't want that feature, but I can understand someone else wanting it. Applications like KDevelop make it available as a choice at setup time, (and perhaps at other times?). But I'm not sure that one could be that flexible under MSWind. (I'm totally unfamiliar with their command sets.)

If I wanted ONE change in The Gimp, it would be automatically resizing pane sizes, so that rotation, e.g., wouldn't crop the rotated image without permission. (Perhaps they have that feature now...one of the screen shots seemed to imply that, though not conclusively.) OTOH, I can see the desireability of specifying a fixed panel size (from a composition standpoint, as opposed to from a programming standpoint). Even so it would be preferable if the image NOT be cropped until repositioning had happened. Sometimes I would then want to scale it until it fit. Currently this involves opening a new window that's sufficiently larger than the original, copying it over, rotating it, anchoring it, copying it, pasting it back, checking for fit and positioning, possibly scaling it to fit, and only THEN anchoring it into the working document. Unpleasant when one must do this several times.

Re:Gnome and KDE Taskbars Group Gimp Windows

[FooBarWidget]

No, I don't want window-in-window. I want things to be exactly like it is now, with one exception: if I minimize one Gimp window, then all Gimp windows should be minimized too. If I bring one Gimp window to front, then the others must be brought to front too, etc.

Bitching-Baked Beans.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The "stop whining" approach is not going to help the GIMP supplant Photoshop."

The ONLY people saying that are Windows users who don't want to purchase Photoshop.

"Responding to user complaints with things like "just set your windows up this way" or "just change these preferences" isn't a solution. I suspect the GIMP has lost and will continue to lose users who look at it, say "this doesn't measure up to Photoshop," and move on. The defaults cater to new users; advanced folks can customize."

It's as much a solution as any such advice given in Windowsland, or haven't you been to any Windows help forums recently?

Also Gimp hasn't "lost" to anyone who's never given it a fair shake to begin with. If I didn't buy the Bush's Baked Beans and bought the house brand. Does that mean that Bush's is a failure?

"Obviously there's more to developing the GIMP than cloning Photoshop. But there are distinct advantages to cloning Photoshop: People like it; it makes transitioning to the GIMP easier"

All that means is that the Gimp is now lockedstepped into PS. Is that what you want? Adobe calling all the shots because a certain group is afraid of change?

"...and Adobe has put a lot of thought into Photoshop, so presumably there are good reasons for many aspects of its interface and feature set."

Some of those decisions could be for "legacy" (read previous users didn't want to change either) reasons. Not sound UI reasons. Decisions made for "popularity" reasons aren't always sound ones.

Re:Why? -- For slicing, obviously!

[b17bmbr]

excellent point. i love gimp on linux, but can't get gimp-perl to compile right on os x, using darwin or fink. damn shame too. i do a lot of css design, but sometimes people want a freakin fancy image graphics layout. css is great for alot of things, but it can't totally replace a graphics heavy layout. but gimp was always about photos, not drawing. i actually use fireworks for most of my web graphics becasue the drawing tools are great. if gimp could get it's drawing tools up to speed, like editable paths for instance, then it would be a great tool for the web. fortunately, php and databases have renewed the editor as the tool of choice for web development. i've actually done work for clients with fireworks and vim. sure, i fire up dreamweaver, but do most coding in vim.

Re:multiple undo

[ubiquitin]

Multiple undo is a feature that has been available for about three years in the GIMP. You can even customize how many steps it will let you undo, as this is rather RAM sensitive. Some plugins won't let you undo, and the workaround there is to just revert to the last saved version.

Gimp better than Photoshop?

[robertdfeinman]

Most of the comments seem to be about interface issues. I'm wondering are there any functions that gimp has that are better than photoshop in terms of what happens to the actual image? Assuming one learns to live with the program quirks it's the result that finally counts. Certainly the lack of 16bit support is an issue for large changes in values in photographs. You can see examples in the tips section of my web site. Even so , many people maintain that the results are not meaningful since the final output is all to 8 bit devices.

Re:Gimp better than Photoshop?

[TheAwfulTruth]

"Many people" are very wrong.

Most projects involve layer upon layer of image adjustments. Each adjustment may expand, then contract the gamma over and over. When you start out at 8 bits, you posterize very quickly (Lets say by quartering the brightness), reversing the gamma later on (Lets say multiplying the brightness 4 times), you've thrown away so much data that cannot be recovered, the image instantly goes to hell.

If the data starts out in 16 bit, the entire gamma can be crammed down into the lower 8 bits (which in an 8 bit image is now completely black) then expanded back to 16 bits while reteing a lot of still useful information! Starting with 8 bit data gives you zero room for movement of gamma without image degradation.

You want to end up with at least 8 bits of meaningful data before you hit your 8 bit output device, but if 5 layers of adjustments have shrunk your 8 bit data down to 4 bits, it's going to look like hell. Start with 16 bits and 5 layers of adjustments, shrinking the meaningful data down to 12 or 10 bits, you still have PLENTY of data left for good output on an 8 bit device.

Re:Gimp better than Photoshop?

[robertdfeinman]

It's not really that bad with 8 bits. If you use adjustment layers then all the changes are applied at once and the quantization problems are minimized.
If you do what you suggest as successive changes than your are certainly correct.

I'm still wondering what benefits gimp might have over photoshop.

Transformation preview-Tailight Chasing.

[Anonymous Coward]

"GIMP 2.2 adds the often requested preview for transformations but actually Corrective mode is a lot more versatile and much easier to use especially when it comes to correcting perspective distortions."

But, but it's NOT like PS so it must be bad.

Seriously I'm showing the fallacy behind most of the arguments presented against the Gimp.

Clone the PS interface and a couple things happen:

1) Listen to accusations that the OSS authors aren't innovative (Tailight chasing)

2) Get locked into what the other guy's doing. (Adobe sneezes, we copy that. We sneeze, everyone runs to Adobe for a tissue.)

3) Open ourselves to numerous legal issues.

I really like the Gimp's interface.

[daemonc]

There, I said it.

I find it clean, intuitive, and easy to work with.

Flame on!

Re:I really like the Gimp's interface.

[kent_eh]

Actually, so do I.

I keep hearing people saying the interface is yuckky, but I don't understand the complaint. At least not without a bit more elaboration.

I like being able to have the picture I am working on take up the full screen, without some menu bar taking up some of the screen real-estate. The tool boxes are just a click (or keyboard shortcut) away. What's so hard about that?

And, FWIW, I have used PhotoShop in the past (whatever the version was that came out around the same time as Win95), and I didn't find it any more, or less intuitive than The Gimp.

Re:I really like the Gimp's interface.

[deek]

You're not the only one. I think the interface to GIMP is great! It's so much more flexible than going a Microsoft MDI approach.

If anything, I only wish that I could mark the toolbar and other utility windows as "always on top", so that I could float them over a picture window, and not have them dissapear as soon as I start working on the picture.

Mod parent up

[dpol]

This comment really deserves to be read by everyone reading this thread.

what.

[Ayanami Rei]

ever.

EXACTLY.

[Ayanami Rei]

...but actually Corrective mode is a lot more versatile and much easier to use especially when it comes to correcting perspective distortions.

You have no idea. This is (IMO) the one single, most useful feature of the GIMP.
Arbitrary inverse linear transformations.

That and quick editing of masks/alpha channels. I love being able to "paste down" grayscale right into the mask layer, or an arbitrary channel.
Mix that with the "compose images" feature...

15 degree constraint

[tepples]

In GIMP as far back as I can remember, Shift+click draws a straight line segment, and Ctrl+Shift+click draws a straight line segment constrained to 15 degree increments.

Re:Win32

[Anonymous Coward]

The Windows version sucked. I never got past its crappy window manager. It must work much better on Linux to garner as much hype as it has. The real image people use Photoshop, plain and simple.

Re:multiple undo

[zpok]

I stand (partly) corrected :)

Cheers

damn that gimp icon was freaking me out

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought I saw the eyes move in the corner of my eye

took a minute to realize I wasn't seeing shit

Re:multiple undo

[BigSven]

If there's a plug-in or script that can't be undone, that would be a bug then. Please report it.

I would also like to add that GIMP had a configurable number of undo steps years before Photoshop introduced that feature.

About configuring the number of undo levels, yes, that is possible. But I'd suggest that instead of configuring the number of levels, you set a higher limit for undo memory. Small modifications such as toggling layer visibility or small brush strokes only need a few bytes so you can easily undo hundreds of these actions.

Ignore the trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

He's trolling. Screw em. Probably a windows user up to no good. Let them stick with Photoshop. Linux is a far superior OS and if windows users can't see it, let's keep them out. The more windows users pickup Linux, the louder the whining gets. Why bend over backwards to accommodate the ignorant?

Re:Pulling in people (not just bitching about the

[RedSlash0]

> To be easy to migrate to from PS/PSP

I don't think that is the problem. GIMP just needs to improve its interface/usability. Period. Even if the GIMP had a totally different learning curve than PS and other software of the like, if the interface/usability was good, then it will naturally gain acceptance.

The #1 GIMP problem on windows...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that gigantic, ugly, permanent console windows open up if there is a problem finding a font. Freaks out the newbies every time darling, and it doesn't help with advocacy at all.

Re:The #1 GIMP problem on windows...

[BigSven]

That's been fixed a while ago at the GLib level. I am not sure if the current installer for Win32 picked up the new version already but from a developer's point of view it's fixed.

Can't wait

[MHobbit]

I can't wait until GIMP 2.2 come out, much like phpBB 2.2. What a coincidence with the version numbers...

Photoshop Plugins?

[grolschie]

Does GIMP support these? If not, why not? I do realize that many Photoshop plugins won't work under some OS's.

Re:Photoshop Plugins?

[brion]

There is an old experimental plugin that can wrap certain types of Photoshop plugins (Win32-only). Google up "gimp photoshop plugins" and you should find it. Also there is some support for Photoshop plugins built with the "filter factory", which apparently aren't actually native code DLLs (like most Photoshop plugins). Google will help you with that one as well.

Re:Photoshop Plugins?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of us have bought photoshop plugins or have downloaded them from the net. Plugins are IMO the best part of Photoshop/PaintShopPro and we need to be able to use these. To not support 3rd party Photoshop compatible plugins is an oversight. Paintshop Pro has supported these for at least as far back as version 4 - they are up to version 9 now.

Guess it's just not for you

[iamlucky13]

I would have honestly thought that anyone who could learn to use Photoshop effectively could learn to use the Gimp, as well. I went from using Microsoft Picture-It (what a worthless program) to the Gimp with just a few quick internet tutorials. I admit the interface feels a little clumsy sometimes and it doesn't have the same refinement or some of the nifty custom text features as photoshop, but I got it for several hundred dollars less (free is seldom a bad price) and it takes up several hundred megs less on my drive. It's not the editor for everyone, but it's sufficient for most. I also have not observed any of the problems others have talked about with Windows although it seems a lot of those problems occur in WinGimp. I just used the compilation linked to from the Gimp's webpage and it works like a charm.

Gimp developers afraid to try Photoshop?!

[SimHacker]

"I have even been told that Photoshop does it exactly this way." -Gimp Developer

You mean to tell me that you're a Gimp developer, but you've never used Photoshop?!?!

There's your problem right there. No wonder Gimp is so hard to use.

No user interface designer or software developer should be afraid to use a competing product. It's your responsibility to know Photoshop cold before trying to write something that competes with it. Many of the users you're trying to win over certainly do.

No wonder you're having a hard time understanding why people think Gimp is clumsy and hard to use.

-Don

Re:Gimp developers afraid to try Photoshop?!

[BigSven]

I don't even have direct access to an operating system where Photoshop would run on but I am frequently talking to Photoshop users and watch them using it and other graphics applications (including GIMP). That makes a lot more sense than me using it myself. I am a developer, I have different needs and different approaches anyway. What counts is making myself familiar with the common workflow of graphics artists.

GIMP is also not meant to be like Photoshop and we aren't trying to win PS users over. We are creating a tool that gets the job done. Some approaches of PS are worth to copy, others aren't. GIMP is not a Photoshop clone and it was never meant to be one.

Re:Gimp developers afraid to try Photoshop?!

[kwalker]

First, he probably can't shell out the $558 for Photoshop CS, and it's not like they have an R&D budget.

Second, if they know Photoshop like the back of their hand, they're going to be inclined to follow Photoshop's method of doing things, which is not the Holy Grail of UI design.

I've used Photoshop on a friend's Mac and it is remarkably like GIMP 2's interface. I only use two windows besides the graphic window when I'm using the GIMP, and they are not difficult to use once you know where things are, and that's the same issue they will have with ANY UI design.

Re:Gimp developers afraid to try Photoshop?!

[mav[LAG]]

You mean to tell me that you're a Gimp developer, but you've never used Photoshop?!?!

You're either trolling or a sharecropper or both.

There's your problem right there. No wonder Gimp is so hard to use.

I've always found it very straighforward but then I've never used Photoshop.

No user interface designer or software developer should be afraid to use a competing product.

Here's a heads-up: a large number of Gimp users and developers do not care if Gimp competes with PS or not for all sorts of reasons:

• they don't have or need Windows
  
• they are forced to use Windows at work but can't or won't spend money on additional proprietary software
  
• they don't want to ever give money to Adobe specifically
  
• Gimp suits them fine
  

Gimp will continue along just fine, competing with previous versions of itself, being written for its users by its developers with feedback from its users. It's already incorporated some good ideas from PS. If Windows users want to compare it to Photoshop then fine, but if the Win32 port comes to a screaming halt and never advances again, that won't stop it getting better on other platforms.

It's your responsibility to know Photoshop cold before trying to write something that competes with it. Many of the users you're trying to win over certainly do.

Gimp was not written as a competitor to Photoshop. And Gimp for Windows is just a port of the Linux version which may work or may not. Anyway, think of how utterly stupid your comment sounds when you replace "Photoshop" with "Linux" - or any other popular free-as-in-freedom program. Do you really think Linus bothered to "learn Windows cold" before he tried to write a competitor?

Re:Gimp developers afraid to try Photoshop?!

[SimHacker]

No, I'm not trolling, I'm very serious.

Pathetic. You're sticking your head in the sand. It's a classic example of Stallmanesque Software Fanatics cutting off their nose to spite their face.

What is your reason for wimping out about making Gimp easier to use than Photoshop? Are you actually setting your goals lower than Photoshop for a good reason? Why are you so intent on sabotaging Gimp's potential? Are you embarassed to try Photoshop yourself, and afraid to face the fact that it's much easier to use than Gimp?

Don't give me that line of crap about not having access to Windows, not being able to afford Phoshop, and being too politically correct to use a pirated copy. You're just making excuses, and not motivated enough.

If you're developing Gimp (or even evangelizing it), you have a responsibility to figure out a way to learn what Photoshop is all about. Otherwise you're working blind, trying to reinvent the wheel without properly researching the field.

Photoshop has a lot of flaws as well as successes, and you should learn from those, instead of blindly repeating the same mistakes.

-Don

Re:Gimp developers afraid to try Photoshop?!

[mav[LAG]]

Pathetic. You're sticking your head in the sand. It's a classic example of Stallmanesque Software Fanatics cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Heh - you're the one that seems to be all insecure about Photoshop and Gimp competing with each other, not me.

What is your reason for wimping out about making Gimp easier to use than Photoshop? Are you actually setting your goals lower than Photoshop for a good reason? Why are you so intent on sabotaging Gimp's potential? Are you embarassed to try Photoshop yourself, and afraid to face the fact that it's much easier to use than Gimp?

I don't doubt that Photoshop is easier to use than the Gimp. It's almost certainly been through professional usability tests. But my reasons for hacking away on the Gimp and some of its plugins are much simpler than you imagine: it's fun. That's all. No more no less. There are bonuses when people find your code useful, but they are just bonuses.

Don't give me that line of crap about not having access to Windows, not being able to afford Phoshop, and being too politically correct to use a pirated copy. You're just making excuses, and not motivated enough.

It's not a line of crap. I don't need Windows for my work. I don't want Windows for my work - it's insecure, buggy and expensive. I haven't needed it for my work for many years now. I can afford Photoshop but I have no real need for it since Gimp does me just fine. And yeah, I don't rip off software without paying what the authors ask. That's not "politically correct", it's just being honest. It comes from a culture that does respect copyrights. Or would you prefer I did get a cracked version to install on a cracked version of Windows just to check out what I've been missing?

If you're developing Gimp (or even evangelizing it), you have a responsibility to figure out a way to learn what Photoshop is all about.

Here's a clue pal: I don't have any responsibility whatsoever to anyone as to what Free Software I write in my spare time. No-one is paying me, I'm just creating stuff for fun which I'm sharing with others on very generous terms. If it's good and it works, it might get used by others and incorporated into something bigger. If not, then I still had fun and learned something. This is how Linux got going: people hacking away on stuff for fun and sharing. But in case you still don't get it, I'll say it again with added emphasis. Ready? Here we go:
Nearly all Free and Open Source Software developers DO NOT CARE whether what they do competes with some proprietary project. I am one of those developers.

Re:Gimp developers afraid to try Photoshop?!

[SimHacker]

Why does the Apache project strive to produce the best http server in the world, which successfully kicks IIS's ass, while the Gimp project is "just for fun"?

Why does the Eclipse project strive to produce the best Java development environment in the world, that successfully runs circles around the other free and commercial IDE's available, while it's taboo to compare Gimp to Photoshop?

How many of the Eclipse developers have never touched another IDE before, and refuse to look at the competitive commercial products?

Are the Apache, Eclipse and GCC developers into it just for fun, or are they into it because they hate the idea of using software that's inferior to Microsoft IIS, Sun's Java IDE, or Microsoft Visual C++?

Why is it that the Gimp developers are just into it for the fun, and are afraid to compete with Photoshop, when other open source projects have proven not only that it's possible but also extremely practical and rewarding to kick the ass proprietary products?

-Don

Step Zero: CHANGE THE NAME! "Gimp" sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

To start with, how about changing the name from "Gimp"?

How about any name better than "Gimp", such as:

Cripple, Handicapped, Limpy, Clumsy, Creepy, Lame, Hobbled, Uncoordinated, Helpless, Hamstrung, Astigmatic, Dyslexic, Flaccid, Impotent, Flatulent, Constipated, Incontinent, etc.

Surely any of those names would be a step up from "Gimp".

Damn you Pulp Fiction!

[Biomechanical]

Biomechanical sits at his desk doing a little bit of web design and decides he needs an image so he loads up GIMP.

He clicks, Start -> Programs -> GIMP -> GIMP 2, and GIMP starts loading.

Cue mental flashback...

Zed: `Bring out the gimp.'

Maynard: `But the gimp's sleeping.'

Zed: `Well I guess you'll have to go wake him up now, won't you.'

Now GIMP is loaded and Biomechanical is rubbing his nose into the thick shag carpet, a.l.a. dog in pain, trying to rub out a disturbing mental image.

BTW, I do like the movie.

Change the name?

[dbIII]

Until I saw pulp fiction the program was the only gimp I had heard of - it's geographicly restricted slang. Call it the gnu image manipulation program if the name bothers you.

I prefer GIMP's interface. [shrug]

[timothy]

"Dear GIMP Developers... This is your #1 useabilty issue. YOU may like it, but appearently everyone else HATES it."

I prefer the GIMP's way. It's true that I'm more used to the GIMP now, but I used to use PhotoShop a fair amount (not professionally, but often enough to have an opinion), and the transition to the GIMP's style was a hitch, but a quick one. I soon preferred it, and still do. My Wacom tablet came with a copy of PhotoShop LE, and I was surprised when I tried it out to note how much I missed GIMP's click-anywhere-get-a-menu approach. (Also, the annoying install and license-code entry reminded of why I prefer Free software in general, but that's another story.)

Your mileage varies, but there are lots of people (judging from personal experience as well as other comments here) who like the GIMP's interface at least as well as PhotoShop's.

"Perhaps you might consider fixing it rather than telling us (how) to "deal with it".Dear GIMP Developers... This is your #1 useabilty issue. YOU may like it, but appearently everyone else HATES it. Perhaps you might consider fixing it rather than telling us (how) to "deal with it"."

a) But they *have* told you how to deal with it; if there's a way to make PhotoShop act more like the GIMP, I am unaware of it. (Which is a perfectly likely scenario.) However, I have a workaround: I use the one I like better. To "fix" the current way, IMO, would really mean breaking it, unless an interface change was introduced such that I got to keep the old way :)

Also, note that GIMP is forkable -- it's happened at least once, with CinePaint; the developers added features they needed, and the result is a product with its own strengths and weaknesses. Someone (you?) could take the code, and modify it as they like, or pay someone else to modify it to their specs, or convince enough other people to do one of these things that the same end is reached. However, the GIMP developers quite legitmately get to decide on their own priorities wrt to aesthetics and engineering.

Re:I prefer GIMP's interface. [shrug]

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the pallettes in Photoshop are tearable, so you can partially simulate the GIMP by dragging them off the main window. I do this all the time, since I have a multiple monitor setup. All the open images are still inside the parent window though. It's actually kind of better this way, because you only have one window to navigate to for the whole application, and it's only one item when you alt-tab. Sometimes I do wish it was more like the GIMP though.

Ironically, I still HATE using the GIMP because of every window being free floating. It seems to me that the correct solution hasn't been found yet, but it's something in between the two. I've found that both apps on both types of platforms (Mac OS Photoshop is semi-Xlike) are problematic when you are using them.

Re:multiple undo

[dbIII]

Um, wasn't undo available on gimp before it was available in photoshop? My biggest complaint with photoshop back when I stopped using it and started using the gimp was the lack of undo, and the attitude that "photoshop is a professional program, and professionals save before each major operation".

Now they both have multiple undo.

Wow,, it's on the TODO list, well that settles it

[Anonymous Coward]

The stock answer for any shortcoming of an OSS app is to say "it's on the future features list."

Well, that's nice and dandy but doesn't help me NOW. I have to wait on the schedule of a bunch of volunteers. On the flipside, a commercial company is forced to implement features that users demand because their livelihood depends on it, or they die out and go broke. I know people don't like to hear this, but it is one of the shortcomings of OSS.

By Jeeves, You're right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that you mention it, why isn't an option like focus-follows-mouse application-specific in X11?

Why all the GIMP bashing?

[jiaxiang]

Why all GIMP bashing?

The typical printed opinions of the GIMP make it seem like it'll just let you rotate a picture 90 degrees and adjust brightness and contrast. (Check out the Computer Arts Magazine June 2004 article about the GIMP. It almost says only that.)

But the GIMP is so much more powerful.

I was trained on several Adobe products; I spent years of my Life using their software. Immediately after getting a working knowledge of the GIMP, I dropped every single Adobe product I had ever used - without a tear! And the transition wasn't difficult at all.

(Illustrator's duties have been switched to Sodipodi/Inkscape.)

But something to think about:

What has Adobe done for anyone in the graphic art community, the open-source community or any community?

The cost of their programs has continued to increase, not decrease, while their annual profits are in the billions - BILLIONS(!).

Adobe could afford to give away their programs to colleges and other institutions. They could even afford to pay to develop an open-source image manipulation program.

To my knowledge, they don't do any of this.

Adobe products are "industry standards" simply because there hasn't been another real (likeable) alternative with equal or greater useability.

But the GIMP is changing that. It can really be used in a professional setting that involves printed media - I use it every day.

More importantly, I can't, with a clear conscience, recommend that someone spend $600+ dollars for a single product of a billion-dollar corporation when the bulk of mankind is dirt poor and needy.

Can you?

Use part of the money you would have spent on an Adobe product and donate it to GIMP developers or other open-source projects. That's money better spent, in my opinion.

Anyways, the GIMP is much better than just a low-budget alternative. I hope that it'll grow into the standard in a type of digital revolution.

hasn't been too long...

[torrents]

i'd be willing to wait any amount of time for a new gimp ver, as opposed to having to spend thousands of dollars on ps and have to deal with all it's quirks, at the price they want for it users should at least be able to make their own custom build so it doesn't waste soooo much space and have so many redundant functions

Damn Gtk File Chooser

[coaxial]

Yes, it's good that Gtk is using the standard file chooser. The bad thing is the Gtk file chooser is massively broken. Who ever designed that doesn't have clue about user interfaces. They removed the text entry box! Apparently they thought knew better than 30 years of GUI development.

Damn them all.

Note to slashdot editors:

[wobblie]

Can you please, in the future, consider an emergency reserve of "Redundant" moderation points so that we will have enough to use when stories like this get posted? This story was a true disaster, overwhelming moderators with 537,221,400 unique posts all saying the same thing within 4 minutes and twenty-two seconds. The regular amount of mod points simply didn't cut it. Experts estimate that over one billion "redundant" points were necessary, and there were only a few dozen.

I know this shortfall of redundant points is a completely false scarcity and there is dire need for redress.

All things in due time

[javamutt]

I think all the griping about the UI is pointless at this moment. It's like beggong for a square steering wheel before your car's transmission has 2nd gear implemented.

GIMP has roadmapped 16 bit editing, CMYK, and color management. These three things are ubelievably critical to pulling over larger numbers of digital photographers. The artistic world is in pretty good shape with GIMP, the web graphics world is doing well with GIMP, and the digital photographer has no choice but to leave Linux, or purchase Bibble. Not that Bibble isn't an excellent product, but it's never healthy to have NO competition.

I also believe that GIMP's implementation of color management could be the spark that wakes up companies that produce colorimeters, and perhaps kicks off system-wide color management through X, and support for ICC profiles in CUPS. I can only dream how cool it will be...

Re:Why? -- For slicing, obviously!

[Synistar]

Slicing up images for table layouts is quickly becoming passe in the web design sphere. You can do all the manipulation you want with your original master image and CSS. Check this article for a simple example

GtkFileChooser

[tmillard]

I have found that using GtkFileChooser with most of the apps that come with Fedora Core 2 make it very hard to go to a directory. With the old file chooser, you could just type in where you wanted to go, insted of clicking away.

Update GTK

[phorm]

Perhaps GTK just needed to be updated then.

If the old GTK is outdated and crufty, being that it is the "GIMP toolkit," perhaps then demand for a better UI will lead to a better GTK?

Multiple desktops on Win XP

[behindthewall]

Microsoft has a Powertoy for this. I've only seen it for Win XP, but it might help with such complaints about the UI.

MDI = Mutiple Document Interface

[Amadodd]

And some people actually prefer it. Building a container window with custom docking, tabs, etc should not be that much of an issue. Let the user decide for himself whether he wants to use it or not. Not providing the option has proven to be a barrier to adoption. Remember that not all of us are graphics professionals with multiple desktops and screens.