Slashdot Mirror


GIMP 2.2 Splash Screen Contest Revisited

As reported here earlier, the GIMP team asked artists to submit their artwork to be used as the official splash screen for GIMP 2.2. The reaction was overwhelming. More than 666 splash screens have been submitted. You can look at the submissions in the gallery or download the movies, grab some popcorn and enjoy... Once you've seen all splashes, you may want to help the judges to pick the best splash by voting for your favorites.

382 comments

  1. 666? by Jouser · · Score: 1

    Had to use 666 huh?

    1. Re:666? by essreenim · · Score: 1

      and I could look at a grand total of zero of 666 ..
      damn /. effect- never seen so many numbers.

    2. Re:666? by jmcmunn · · Score: 1


      Yeah, here's a good idea. Slashdot posts an article all about IMAGES on the front page. That won't do anything bad to the server will it? Seriously, it'll be hours before anyone can actually go vote now...

      Any mirrors anyone? So we can at least see the images, even if we can't vote?

    3. Re:666? by calibanDNS · · Score: 3, Funny

      Someone should demand a recount, citing insufficient hardware at the voting site...

    4. Re:666? by kzinti · · Score: 1

      Any mirrors anyone?

      Well, mirrordot will get you a look at the thumbnails, but it's not a deep mirror, so you can't see more than that.

    5. Re:666? by RealityMogul · · Score: 1

      Actually, you cannot see more than the first 8 thumbnails since they are broken up into separate pages.

    6. Re:666? by essreenim · · Score: 1

      slashdot could develop a plugin which when installed creates a form of torrent server where all machines used to view the story combine their resources to make a sort of virtual server hmm interesting!

    7. Re:666? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Like Coral?

    8. Re:666? by gameboyhippo · · Score: 1

      It's just another Microsoft Tactic to point out that Linux is evil. I bet there were only 650 entries and Microsoft submitted the last 16 for kicks and grins. Little do they know that I'm having my kitty cat work on 111 more splash screens to make Linux look like the conservative OS that it is. :)

  2. More than 666? by julesh · · Score: 1

    More than... how many?

    That's weird. I mean, "more than 600" I could understand. "Nearly 700" would probably be more precise and less wordy. But more than 666? Why?

    1. Re:More than 666? by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 1

      It's funny, laugh.

      --

      This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

    2. Re:More than 666? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Revelation 12:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

    3. Re:More than 666? by Curtman · · Score: 1

      But more than 666? Why?

      Maybe at the time of submitting there was exactly 666, with more expected to arrive? The number of the beast seems apropriate for The Gimp anyway. Anyone know what Gimp is? A person who limps?

    4. Re:More than 666? by julesh · · Score: 1

      Is it? Doesn't seem it to me. :)

    5. Re:More than 666? by lazybeam · · Score: 2, Informative

      RE Gimp: Haven't you seen Pulp Fiction? ;-)

      "Bring out the Gimp!"

      --
      --
      no sig for you. come back one year.
    6. Re:More than 666? by Curtman · · Score: 1

      Haven't you seen Pulp Fiction?

      Believe it or not, no. Travolta will always be Barbarino to me, and thats the way I like it.

      Up your nose with a rubber hose.

    7. Re:More than 666? by tuffy · · Score: 5, Funny
      But more than 666? Why?

      666 clearly means the contest is readable and writable by the Gimp's owner, people in the Gimp's group and everybody.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    8. Re:More than 666? by honestmonkey · · Score: 0, Troll

      LOL.
      Well, I thought this was funny. :)

      --
      Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
    9. Re:More than 666? by denthijs · · Score: 1
      Six hundred threescore and six

      Shouldn't the number of the beast be 636 then or something? what does threescore signify?

    10. Re:More than 666? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A "score" is twenty. Hence "four score years ago" is 80 years.

    11. Re:More than 666? by devbone · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The Gimp is actually the slave of male rapists that live under a pawn shop.

      --
      Devon in Denver
    12. Re:More than 666? by cmstremi · · Score: 5, Funny
      666 clearly means the contest is readable and writable by the Gimp's owner, people in the Gimp's group and everybody.
      Shame nobody can execute it.
    13. Re:More than 666? by ghost_crab · · Score: 1

      While all the usual radioactive slashdot fallout is as entertaining as ever, the real reason "more than 666" was written that way is for the following mundane reason:

      The last page of the GimpSplash v2.2 gallery contest is hyperlinked thus:

      http://www.gimp.org/contest/gallery.cgi?display= GA LLERY&index=666 [Slashdot, unbreak my link!]

      This translates to:

      "Please do transmit to my fine browser a carefully crafted page which contains nine splash contest entries up to number 666."

      And that's it.

      And that's my tacit correction as well. It's not "more than 666 entries". It IS 666 entries. Also verifiable by visiting the voting page.

      The end.

    14. Re:More than 666? by pboulang · · Score: 1

      You have spent more time thinking about this than is healthy. I recommend you download some porn or think about how not only do Santa and Satan have the same letters in common, but have never been seen together. Coincidence?

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    15. Re:More than 666? by IvoryRing · · Score: 1

      A "score" in the context of 'how many?' is 20. If you aren't sure what units a score represents, I'm curious as to the thought process that led you to assume it ment 'ten'.

    16. Re:More than 666? by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you've got to hack root for that.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    17. Re:More than 666? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1
      Dude.... it's called the tag:
      http://www.gimp.org/contest/gallery.cgi?display=GA LLERY&index=666

      See? Right below the list of allowed HTML:
      URLs <URL:http://example.com/> will auto-link a URL
      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    18. Re:More than 666? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't think of it as a measurement unit. I thought more of it as a synonym for 'character' or 'cypher'. But mainly I didn't know What to think :)

  3. bias article? by Major_Small · · Score: 2, Funny

    More than 666 splash screens have been submitted would that be a conservative estimate?

    1. Re:bias article? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I'd like to tell you, but it did take less than 666 seconds to get the site slashdotted by more than 666 slashdot readers clicking on the less than 666 links in the summary.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:bias article? by gotgenes · · Score: 1

      More than 666 splash screens have been submitted would that be a conservative estimate?

      That depends who you ask. Some conservatives might say that it's just another one of those damn Godless liberals' estimates...

      I joke...

      --
      It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.
  4. Very subtle by Duke+Machesne · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That reference to the number of the beast. Well put.

    1. Re:Very subtle by millahtime · · Score: 1

      Maybe that is what Gimp is. The Beast to the pay-to-play competition.

  5. Just pointing out the obvious by lordsilence · · Score: 1

    Hundreds of visitors
    storming in to browse pictures sized >100kb.

    Or the simpler way of telling it:
    Slashdoted.

    1. Re:Just pointing out the obvious by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Funny

      The HTML: 150KB
      Images: around 700*around 5KB each

      So, they're trying to serve 3.5MB big webpage (plus the overhead for every transfer) to the Slashdot horde. As the latter is pretty good at knocking down about any servers, ...

      It smells like the contest will teach them that splash screens _do_ suck resources after all :p

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Just pointing out the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It smells like the contest will teach them that splash screens _do_ suck resources after all :p

      I just about nearly shat my pants!
      mod parent up!!

  6. Obsessed with evil? by Folmer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Someone seems to be obsessed with the mnumber 666.. why not say 670 or whatever number it really is, instead of "more than 666"...

    1. Re:Obsessed with evil? by Threni · · Score: 1

      Clearly it's more than 666 but fewer than 667!

    2. Re:Obsessed with evil? by Omkar · · Score: 1

      1. Submit a somewhat-niche story.
      2. Use an odd/occult number instead of a common one.
      3. Increase comment count of your story by roughly 70%.
      4. Laugh as your pawns go "666? WTF?"

      No profit, but no ???, and sweet satisfaction.

    3. Re:Obsessed with evil? by Omkar · · Score: 0

      Sorry, ddin;t notice that this was an editor post. So replace satisfaction with profit - more adviews from compulsively refreshing /.ers.

    4. Re:Obsessed with evil? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      because of fucking around with peoples heads.

      if you think a number makes something EVIL, isn't it _you_ who is obsessed with evil?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Obsessed with evil? by Brando_Calrisean · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So, so very true.

      --
      Don't call me a cowboy, and don't tell me to slow down!
    6. Re:Obsessed with evil? by sarlen · · Score: 1
      if you think a number makes something EVIL, isn't it _you_ who is obsessed with evil?

      Or you read the bible. I don't believe it myself - but if you take stock in the Christian thing the Good Book's pretty clear on the matter.

    7. Re:Obsessed with evil? by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 1

      Someone seems to be obsessed with the mnumber 666

      That would probably religious christians. To the rest of the world 666 is just a number. The only thing odd to me about the number is the precision of it while saying 'more than 666'.

      --

      This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

    8. Re:Obsessed with evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is a number (something that doesnt actually EXIST), numbers cannot be evil.

    9. Re:Obsessed with evil? by sarlen · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Your logic is infallible. But, again, The Bible is a book based around something we can't prove to exist, so I think your argument can be applied more generally.

      My point is people who believe 666 is evil aren't obsessed with evil, or stupid (as the previous post's utterly simple logic would imply) but that they're CHRISTIAN.

    10. Re:Obsessed with evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to unreligious christians?

      In any event, it's a cultural thing yes, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless to the rest of the world. I'm German, nor am I Jewish, but I have a pretty good idea of what a swastika means (let's take it's modern meaning, rather than the original). It's not just a bunch of line segments to the rest of the world. There are countless other such cases, so get off your anti-christian high horse.

    11. Re:Obsessed with evil? by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's just a number. Personally, I find it more curious that certain chipmakers *cough*intel*cough* go out of their way to avoid labeling their products with "666" in any way. (Pentium III 667 MHz, etc)

      Though, considering the number of superstitious nitwits in this country, they probably made the right decision. Can you imagine what Pat Robertson, etc. calling for an Intel boycott would do to their sales? ;)

    12. Re:Obsessed with evil? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well it could be argumented then that you are obsessed with fruitless black and white good vs. evil thinking.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    13. Re:Obsessed with evil? by eidechse · · Score: 1

      ...a swastika means (let's take it's modern meaning, rather than the original). It's not just a bunch of line segments to the rest of the world...

      Uh...so "the rest of the world" doesn't places include India, China, and Japan? You'll find swastikas on Hindu and Buddhist temples, street maps in Japan marking said Buddhist temples, and the Falun Gong doesn't seem to have a problem with the shape either. Last I checked those things are both modern and part of "the rest of the world".

    14. Re:Obsessed with evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the 667 thing was cos it was actually 666 2/3...

    15. Re:Obsessed with evil? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      actually the bible says that the beast will be marked with 666, not that all instances of 666 are evil.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  7. Evil Word Play by AsnFkr · · Score: 2, Funny

    666 submissions? The name "the gimp" in general. What are these developers up to?

    1. Re:Evil Word Play by naer_dinsul · · Score: 1

      It's obvious:

      1). Convince geeks worldwide to use "The GIMP"
      2). Summon evil demonic hordes
      3). ????
      4). Profit!

  8. 666... by mu-sly · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... the number of The GIMP? :-S

  9. Server is... by Epistax · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Farked! Wait no... slash.. uhh which thingy am I on?

    1. Re:Server is... by Epistax · · Score: 1

      sigh... Once again people need to look "redundant" up in the dictionary.

  10. Dijjer links to movies by Sanity · · Score: 2, Funny
    1. Re:Dijjer links to movies by GigsVT · · Score: 0

      OMGOMGOMG

      That server you linked to has hacked me and put all my accounts on it and has all my files! I better delete them quick before they use them for some nefarious purpose!

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Dijjer links to movies by diablobsb · · Score: 0

      please quit smocking crack

      --
      I for one, welcome our new hot grits... PROFIT!
    3. Re:Dijjer links to movies by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Before I get flamed, I know this was a joke ;-)

      That's what I thought, too, but it's simply a new trick for the HTTP dog, involving P2P. This Dijjer thing appears to run as a server, and you simply request a URL (by placing it after your personal Dijjer server's address), and it gets it from peers instead of the site. Pretty neat, if you ask me.

    4. Re:Dijjer links to movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer most cracks have smocks (or other apparel) over them. Certainly not ALL cracks...but for the general population, yes.

    5. Re:Dijjer links to movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey crust-head, 127.0.0.1 is my IP. How did you do that?

  11. Who needs splash screens anyway? by DoktorTomoe · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Splash screens suck. No, they really suck. They use ressources and are pulling down usability of the system in general when an application is loading. Some splashscreens are even always on top, rendering the system useless until the application is loaded (OpenOffice.org is my scapegoat here :). Where is multitasking here?

    Personally, I really would prefer some status indicator in the users menu or in some kind of applet (KDE already does that, blinking mouse cursors and similar), but please, PLEASE do not use splash screens.

    1. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by wine · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should vote for this one then ;)

    2. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by tunah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Splash screens are irritating, but in most cases a long delay with no splash screen is worse.

      --
      Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
    3. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by GauteL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While some splash screens are a waste of resources, a simple splash screen is not.

      If an application takes more than a few seconds to start, the simple fact is that many, many users will click on the icon again, starting two instances of the program.

      Slight visual feedback is very often not enough.

      If a splash screen is done properly, there is no reason to hate it as much. It should behave like other windows and there should be an "--no-splash" option, which Gimp already has.

    4. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Handyman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, a long delay without a splash screen is irritating as well. But there is nothing as irritating as a splash screen that is always-on-top. What were they THINKING making the OOo splash screen always-on-top? They already have a reputation for being the slowest starting office product out there, must they rub it in your face then?

    5. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by leuk_he · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      By linking the contest on the front page the editor of /. effective sabotages(slashdotted) the contest today. So you might have your "no splash screen" after all.

      If you reach the site after all just vote for something inappropiate, and it will be disabled by default in the next version.

      (my gimp 1.x takes 40 seconds to load, so a screen displaying it is doing something is effective)

    6. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by calibanDNS · · Score: 1

      So you're advocating choosing the lesser of two evils? It is possible to have a small, efficient splash screen. One with no image, just a progress indicator and a busy/wait cursor. Also, as the grandparent mentions, splash screens have no business stealing focus from something I'm actually working on (I'm talking to you Adobe!).

    7. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by calibanDNS · · Score: 3, Funny

      For those of you who can't see it because of the slashdotting, this splash screen looks like a browser dialog box and says "The connection was refused when attempting to connect to www.gimp.org". Amazingly, the artist behind it is using the same window decorations and color sheme as me!

    8. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Guillermito · · Score: 4, Informative

      OpenOffice splash screen is not always-on-top anymore. Check the latest version.

    9. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "If a splash screen is done properly, there is no reason to hate it as much."

      Yeah, but they never, ever seem to get done properly. Even if the splash screen isn't one of those obnoxious ones that insists on always being on top, it's still blocking a good portion of my desktop. The result is that I can't get to the icons of other programs that I want to also start during a time where I'm otherwise stuck twiddling my thumbs.

      On a related note, with Unreal Tournament 2004, I found a bit of a nifty workaround. The splash screen is just a bitmap stored in the Help directory. Also, the size of the splash screen isn't hardcoded into the application. So I replaced the splash screen with a white 10x10 square, which is enough to give me feedback but which doesn't get in the way of anything.

    10. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Refrag · · Score: 1

      Mac OS X bounces the icon of the loading application in the Dock until it is ready to use. It's a good indicator and isn't as annoying as it may sound.

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    11. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by renoX · · Score: 1

      > Splash screens are irritating, but in most cases a long delay with no splash screen is worse.

      Agreed, but why not use a window to "contain the splash screen" instead?

      I call this a 'splash window': it comes up immediately like a splash screen because it contains nearly nothing: a cute image like a splash screen and if possible a progress indicator.
      Unlike a splash screen, it isn't always on top: as any window, you can minimize,maximize,resize or even close it if you opened the wrong app.

      The only part which is a little difficult (depending of the toolkit) would be to replace the content of the window when the app is ready.
      Also the app must indicate when it is ready, possibly by changing the color of the icon and the color of the window for example.

    12. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Library+Spoff · · Score: 1

      I made my entry in Photoshop....

      --
      Acid House saves Souls
    13. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Kombat · · Score: 1

      It is possible to have a small, efficient splash screen. One with no image

      Are you really claiming that loading a 100 kb image from a modern hard disk produces a noticeable delay? Surely you realize that such an image could be loaded and displayed in literally microseconds. That said, I wholeheartedly agree with you about Adobe. I loathe launching Photoshop on Windows. Every couple of seconds, the splash screen steals focus back from whatever else it is I'm trying to do until Photoshop has finished loading (at least 5 - 10 seconds). It's annoying as hell.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    14. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Curtman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But there is nothing as irritating as a splash screen that is always-on-top

      I second that. They should do like the Gnome splash screen, and make it dissapear as soon as you click on it. Occasionally it hangs around until you click on it though, maybe skip that "feature". ;)

    15. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by hiroko · · Score: 1

      I can immediatley think of two good reasons for splash screens:

      1) I like them.
      2) They are good for branding/marketing purposes. (Increasingly relevant as OSS approaches Joe User.)

      Granted they shouldn't be always on top, and for those that don't like splash screens there should be a way to disable them.

      Cheers,
      Dave.

      --
      Just because you can't, doesn't mean you shouldn't.
    16. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by calibanDNS · · Score: 1

      My main complaint is the focus stealing. However, in general I don't like splash screens and appreciate software that gives me a way to disable it (like the Gimp). Of course, I wouldn't have to disable it if they'd just make it more functional. I know it doesn't take long to load and display the image for the splash screen, but I also know that that window could be used to show me something more informative, like a progress bar.

    17. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but imho splash screens need to be proper windows - that is, minimizable, draggable, windows. Not just a pretty picture. That way, I can launch the program and minimize it and then get on with my day, and go back to it when its ready.

    18. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does have a progress bar.

    19. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by calibanDNS · · Score: 1

      Not all software with a splash screen has a progress bar, and that's what I'd like to see. Many software apps just have an image that you have to stare at (and can't dismiss or get away from). Also, I'm convinced that some software vendors slowdown the startup of their applications just so that you have to stare at the splash screen longer...

    20. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by jdowland · · Score: 1

      Maybe the app would start more quickly if so many cycles weren't wasted on the damn splashscreen! :P

    21. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amazingly the artist behind it must also have a desktop that looks like shit

    22. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by hobbes75 · · Score: 1

      "If a splash screen is done properly, there is no reason to hate it as much."
      If the application is done properly there is no reason to take more than a few milliseconds to load. Most features could be loaded on-demand.

    23. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 0

      *COUGH*Mozilla*COUGH*

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    24. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by bonzoesc · · Score: 1

      It actually says "please default to --no-splash for reasonable startup times..."

    25. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by BigSven · · Score: 1

      Use gimp --no-splash then. GIMP implements the startup notification protocol (as defined on freedesktop.org) so there's really no need for the splash. It's just eye-candy and if you don't like it, feel free to turn it off.

    26. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by MoxFulder · · Score: 1
      I think that a lot of splash screens are irritating, but some are useful when they give progress information! For example:
      • Gnome/KDE splash screens tell you about what components of the desktop are being loaded. Since you can't do anything until the desktop is loaded anyway, this isn't inconvenient. And if you're unhappy with the startup time, you'll have a rough idea of what components are taking longest to load.
      • Gimp splash screen: similarly gives you information on what components take a long time to load.
      I think that these kinds of "progress bar" splash screens make sense only for large hefty apps that take a long to load, and tend to take up your whole screen when done. It would be incredibly annoying if, say, gnome-terminal had a splash screen.
    27. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Kludge · · Score: 1

      Some splashscreens are even always on top ...

      You should be able to set your window manager so this can't happen. If no, get a better window manager.

    28. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Handyman · · Score: 1

      OpenOffice splash screen is not always-on-top anymore. Check the latest version.

      Not true, unfortunately. I run 1.1.3, which is the latest version, and the splash screen is always-on-top. Yes, there's 1.1.4 RC, but as far as I'm concerned that's not the "latest version", that's the "development version".

    29. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because 30kb gifs suck up tons of ram.

    30. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by BigSven · · Score: 1

      The splash screen is just a window. Unlike other windows it has the _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_SPLASH hint set. These hints are defined in the Extended Window Manager Hints, a spec meant to unify the GNOME and KDE window manager hint conventions.

      It is up to your window manager what to do about a window that has the splash hint set. You could probably configure it to give it a window decoration and to treat it like any normal dialog window.

    31. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're discussing the GIMP splash screen. It's small. It has the standard "minimize/maximize/close" buttons around it. It has a progress bar. The application itself loads quickly enough that it's unlikely you'll get much work done before it's up and running anyways.

      The GIMP splash screen is just fine. Quit yer bellyachin'.

    32. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by bs_02_06_02 · · Score: 1

      Beg to differ. I'd rather see nothing... that way I know that there isn't time/resources wasted loading worthless splash info. Frankly, I don't care who worked on Photoshop, if I really wanted to know, I'd go to Help, About ---- and read til I was blue in the face.

      At the very most, I would settle for a "loading" with a status bar.

      --
      -- No sig for you!
    33. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by jdowland · · Score: 1

      The image once displayed isn't compressed. So a GIF filesize is irrelevant. You also have to add decompressing the GIF, drawing the X window, the progress bar (on a side note: I wonder how much thought goes into those progress bars anyway?)

    34. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Guillermito · · Score: 1

      I run OO 1.1.3 too. However, I installed it from my distro (Mandrake) CDs. They must have patched it / compiled it with non-standard options, so that's why the splash screen I see is not always-on-top.

      It's good to know the next version will behave that way out of the box, though.

    35. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If X had proper process management instead of relying on nasty hacks to try and guess when a process has finally opened a window we could just rely on the window manager or desktop environment to indicate when a process is being loaded.

    36. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by renoX · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the information, but if the splash screen is closed and a new window is popped when the app is closed, this is still a little bit annoying IMHO: this means that the user will see two windows opening.

      Whereas the "splashwindow" would contain first the splashscreen (with a progress indication if possible) and then the application when it is ready to be used.
      Of course the change of state from the splashwindow must be easy to see by the user: flashing two times and then changing the color of both the window and the icon would be a good visual cue IMHO.

    37. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Take a page from Apple's book and display "this app is starting up" feedback in a manner that does not involve a gigantic window spang in the middle of the workspace. Mac OS X's method of bouncing the app's icon in the Dock while it's starting provides fairly obvious feedback without being annoying.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    38. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Raphael · · Score: 1
      [...] the "splashwindow" would contain first the splashscreen (with a progress indication if possible) and then the application when it is ready to be used.

      This would not work well for some applications such as the GIMP: currently, the "main" GIMP window is the toolbox. It can be resized to any shape (some people prefer to have it wider or taller) and these settings can be saved and restored for the next session. Note that you can close the "tool options" tab located below the toolbox and then resize the toolbox to be only two icons wide, for example. Some people like to have a tall and narrow toolbox near the edge of their screen.

      It would be difficult to have a nice splash screen image that fits all possible shapes for the toolbox. In many cases, the image would be truncated and would lose most of its meaning.

      An intermediate solution would be to keep the same window for the splash and for the toolbox but create it initially with a size that is appropriate for the splash screen and then resize it and move it to the appropriate position for the toolbox. I think that such a solution would create more problems than it would solve.

      --
      -Raphaël
    39. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by BigSven · · Score: 1

      Uhm, GIMP does exactly that since version 2.0. It's called startup notification and has been specified by the FreeDesktop project. How exactly the startup is being visualized depends on if and how your desktop implements the startup notification spec. The splash screen is just an extra eyecandy that can be easily turned off.

    40. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Raphael · · Score: 1
      [...] that way I know that there isn't time/resources wasted loading worthless splash info

      A few days ago, I measured the time taken by various operations occuring while the GIMP starts and I posted a summary of the results to the gimp-developer mailing list. Loading and displaying the splash screen takes 7% of the total startup time. These tests were done over NFS, which makes file loading a bit slower, but the percentage of the time spent loading the splash screen is about the same when everything is loaded from a local hard disk.

      I think that spending only 7% of the time for the splash screen is reasonable, considering that it also helps you to see what takes time (e.g., loading the scripts and the tool settings). Anyway, there is the --no-splash option allowing you to skip the splash screen if you do not like it.

      --
      -Raphaël
    41. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      I don't see any min/max/close buttons, but otherwise you're right. On my laptop GIMP takes under 5 seconds to load cold and about 2 seconds if its already in cache. I guess I'm not enough of a busy person to be bothered by wasting that much time.

      OOo, on the other hand, is awful. There is a 3-4 second delay before even the splash screen is thrown up!

    42. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      You're starting a game that's expected to take over the screen... what use is making the splash screen smaller? So you can marvel at your wallpaper for 3 seconds? Are you going to try to start up some other application? Seriously.

    43. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Schreckgestalt · · Score: 1
      Occasionally it hangs around until you click on it

      Am I glad to hear I am not the only one. Although mine always stays there until I click on it.

    44. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      That's why OSX makes the icon appear in the dock (if it isn't already) and hop up and down. No splash screen needed.

    45. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Nexum · · Score: 1

      I think that is a Windows thing, the OS X version has no trouble getting out of my way.

      I find Windows to be terrible in knowing what I want it to do with windows, for example in OS X, I can click the Photoshop icon in the Dock, and have it start to load, instantly i go back to my browser to continue reading /. while it loads in the background. When PS is ready does it come and bug me? No, it waits, this is an OSX thing though, not a Adobe enhancement.

      Plus the ability to interleave windows of different applications is astoundingly useful when following tutorials.

      --

      This sig has been deprecated.
    46. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Curtman · · Score: 1

      mine always stays there until I click on it.

      Usually you can log out, and delete ~/.gnome2/session from the console and it will stop doing that.

    47. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by renoX · · Score: 1

      Agreed, I haden't thought about the GIMP with its "multiple window" setup, still it would be much better if the splash screen used would be configured to have a border: you clicked on GIMP by mistake?
      Just close the window, it will stop immediately, and if you want to hide it, you just iconify it..

    48. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by rowanxmas · · Score: 1

      maybe parent should be modded up, eh?

    49. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by tvon · · Score: 1
      FWIW,
      --no-splash
      about halves the startup time on my Pentium M 1.3ghz laptop, effectively removing the need for the splash.
    50. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Judge_Fire · · Score: 1


      Splash screens are just one way of notifying the user that an app is actually launching.

      Mac OS X nicely takes care of this by bouncing the application in the Dock while the app is starting, making irritating splash screens less necessary.

      Of course some people find that irritating, too, so it can be disabled.

      I believe it's a developer guideline in the Apple docs: avoid splash screens.

      J

    51. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "They should do like the Gnome splash screen, and make it dissapear as soon as you click on it. Occasionally it hangs around until you click on it though, maybe skip that "feature". ;)"

      Or gnu-cash, which displays so many screens when you first run it that it takes a minute to figure out which is the tip-of-the-day, which is the application, which is the splash-screen, and which are the first-time setup wizards....

      "Welcome to Konsole. Did you know that you can type text to run commands? [X] Show tips on startup"

    52. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Misagon · · Score: 1

      If an application takes more than a few seconds to start, the simple fact is that many, many users will click on the icon again, starting two instances of the program

      This would not happen if app launchers were coded right. They should test if the app is still running.
      Windows does this, as far as I know. If the app is already running, it is sent a message to open a new window.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    53. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Ice_Balrog · · Score: 1

      Which is why all WM's should have launch notification like KDE. When you launch an application, KDE does a little animation on it's icon, and then puts an item in the task bar with the app's name and a loading icon.

      --
      #include "sig.h"
    54. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by legirons · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, but they never, ever seem to get done properly. Even if the splash screen isn't one of those obnoxious ones that insists on always being on top, it's still blocking a good portion of my desktop."

      Maybe some of that "Firefox download manager" code could help, which displays messages in a 50x30 box at the corner of your screen, and doesn't attract any sort of window focus...

      Perhaps display a "$APPNAME is starting" message, which reduces in size to an even smaller progress-bar after a few seconds.

    55. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by fiftyfly · · Score: 1
      Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? (Score:4, Interesting) by Handyman (97520) Alter Relationship on Thursday December 09, @06:25AM (#11041193) (http://www.xs4all.nl/~bsamwel) Yes, a long delay without a splash screen is irritating as well. But there is nothing as irritating as a splash screen that is always-on-top. What were they THINKING making the OOo splash screen always-on-top? They already have a reputation for being the slowest starting office product out there, must they rub it in your face then?

      Oh my - OO starts in 9-11 seconds on my rather anemic system. Heaven forbid they should have taken maybe 2 more seconds than abs necessary to get things going. In case you missed it the preceding sentence was laced with enough sarcasm that it threatens imminent collapse into a biting singularity of incredible destructive power. Slower? Yes I can see that but it's certainly not slow. Oh and BTW - OO was fast enough to boot simply to spell check this post.

      --
      "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
    56. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 1
      "You're starting a game that's expected to take over the screen... what use is making the splash screen smaller?"

      UT2k4 will actually start itself up in windowed mode if it doesn't have focus when it finishes loading -- which takes it a good 20-30 seconds or so. Anyway, I'd much rather use the time to start up Teamspeak 2 or IRC rather than just sitting there watching the loading screen.

    57. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there is nothing as irritating as a splash screen that is always-on-top. What were they THINKING making the OOo splash screen always-on-top?

      Yes, burn them, nail them to the crosses. Plunder their souls. For my, my number is that of the beast. MUUUHHAAAAA

      Sorry, this whole 666 thing is really getting to me.

    58. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Handyman · · Score: 1
      Oh my - OO starts in 9-11 seconds on my rather anemic system. Heaven forbid they should have taken maybe 2 more seconds than abs necessary to get things going. In case you missed it the preceding sentence was laced with enough sarcasm that it threatens imminent collapse into a biting singularity of incredible destructive power. Slower? Yes I can see that but it's certainly not slow. Oh and BTW - OO was fast enough to boot simply to spell check this post.
      On my 1 GHz P3 it takes about 14 seconds. For comparison, abiword takes about 3 seconds to start, and when I boot into Win XP, MS Word 2003 doesn't take much more than that. Why should it take fifteen seconds to start a text editor with an empty document? There may of course be some technical reasons why it's hard, but those reasons are always a result of technical priorities when they first built the product. They probably built the application in a monolithic, hard to split up way that makes it difficult to add on-demand or delayed loading of features. That's a design decision that's hard to reverse. Look at Linux: it took them years to make that kernel as modular as it is now. But really, if fast startup and low memory footprint would have been a priority for the OOo design in the first place, then they would have managed to have startup times in the 5 second range by now. It will now take them ages longer to get to that point because it simply wasn't designed in...
    59. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by stor · · Score: 1

      What were they THINKING making the OOo splash screen always-on-top? They already have a reputation for being the slowest starting office product out there, must they rub it in your face then?

      That's why God invented virtual desktops.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    60. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Nailer · · Score: 1

      In the OpenOffice in FC3 (and prolly the one in NLD if I remember correctly) the splash screen is not always-on-top.

    61. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that pentium must be slow as ass. splash or not, my athlon 1.5 takes no time at all. without splash is identical start time.. which is nothing at all.

    62. Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? by fiftyfly · · Score: 1

      Great - you used 183 words to complain about a greivous 7 seconds of lag for a nonrepetitive task with 5 year old equipment.

      --
      "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
  12. I like this one by wine · · Score: 2, Funny
    1. Re:I like this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROLFLOFLOFLFO BUSH Teh Gimp LO>LOLLO111oneoneone+!

    2. Re:I like this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I send in 15 splash variations on the good old goats man.

  13. Online voting by eneville · · Score: 1

    I'm from the UK, pretty much every tele vision show has some form of premium rate voting hotline number to see someone get evicted from a relaity tv show or vote for them based on credit for something like singing etc.

    Why the hell do we need to vote for a splash screen? Whats wrong with just looking at the apache log and count the hits?

    What anoys me further is that all the geeky looking artwork was just that, looking geeky, without any real throught to the production quality.

    1. Re:Online voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the hell do you get of telling someone from the UK to shoot themselves in the face? Don't you know where not allowed firearms here?

    2. Re:Online voting by Sinus0idal · · Score: 1

      I'm also from the UK, but I can tell that viewing a splash screen does not mean voting for it, since you may want to look at all the submissions before voting. Think about it.

    3. Re:Online voting by jeffChuck · · Score: 1

      Looking at something doesn't mean that the viewer likes it. Think of all the traffic that was generated to the entry linked in the post above yours. We certainly don't want that to end up the winner.

      Haven't you ever said "what a terribly horrible entry, I must look closer to laugh even more."? A bad entry could get more hits than a good one.

    4. Re:Online voting by eneville · · Score: 1

      That is a very valid point, but some idiots would also vote negativly, just for spite... I think the saying goes, "there's lies, bigger lies, and then statistics".

  14. Nice ! by selderrr · · Score: 3, Funny

    I really like the default one that you see when clicking the article link : a splashscreen that looks like slashdot, but with this funy little spinning cursor.

    luvley !

  15. what really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's nice to see Gimp, a photo-processing software without color managment and without 16bit support, concentrate it's efforts on what really matters. Splash screens.

    1. Re:what really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of it as almost free marketing.

    2. Re:what really matters by GauteL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What a troll this post is. Adding a different splash screen is almost zero effort from the programmer and this kind of competition is just made for two purposes:

      1) Promote Gimp and get publicity
      2) Make the non-programming community feel involved, by letting them make a splash screen.

      What is so freaking wrong about this? 16-bit support will come eventually, but could be really hard work that none of the volunteers that make it, have gotten around to yet.

    3. Re:what really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of course all those artists who want to design a splash screen could just as easily design and code colour management routines instead.

    4. Re:what really matters by julesh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I think the reason for a contest for designing the splash screen was so that the programmers didn't have to spend their time designing one.

    5. Re:what really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if it's whipping up enthusiasm in the developer community, it is a good thing.

      How many lines of code in the Gimp have you written, whiner-baby?

    6. Re:what really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's nice to see Gimp, a photo-processing software without
      > color managment and without 16bit support, concentrate it's
      > efforts on what really matters. Splash screens.

      This is Linux, not some crapshoot OS where every app has to redo what's been done before.

      Colour management? you can set gamma via X. do it there, it's where it's MEANT to be done, then it applies to all Apps.

      16 bit support is pointless when 99.999% of all images are in 8 bit. Nothing but a few high end scanners use more than 8 bit per channel, and if you can afford one of those you can afford photoshop.

      The splash screen promotes gimp. More people will hear of it through the splash screen competition and an exploration of the examples already completed than they will with a small news release about 16 bit colour and application sourced colour mangling.

    7. Re:what really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two kinds of people relevant in this question: Programmers and graphics artists.

      The programmers are working on the code, and the graphics people are waiting for it. Now, after the 95th time they disturb the programmers just to ask "when will it be done", they get told "Oh, FFS, just go make some splash screens, so we can get some work done".

    8. Re:what really matters by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      So what? I don't need color management or 16bit support, and I couldn't care less about pre-press printing features.

    9. Re:what really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Colour management? you can set gamma via X.

      Color managment is more than setting gamma. Try getting realistic skin colors over a range of lighting situations by adjusting gamma only. Very difficult, in my experience.

      Nothing but a few high end scanners use more than 8 bit per channel, and if you can afford one of those you can afford photoshop.

      All above-average digital cameras do 12bit.

    10. Re:what really matters by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And professional users who dare pipe up about these things when discussing why GIMP is not yet better than Photoshop, and why GIMP is not ready to replace Photoshop in a professional setting, get flamed to Hell.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    11. Re:what really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since this is so important to you, why don't you submit the patches yourself to add the support. Put up or shut up.

    12. Re:what really matters by grumbel · · Score: 1

      16bit support isn't a prepress feature, its a feature that everybody who ever does a little brightness correction or blur would love. 16bit isn't usefull for the final image, but it reduces clipping artefacts that you get with 8bit color in the editng process a lot. There simply is no way to get some effects when you work with just 8bit integer.

      Look for example at http://www.debevec.org/Research/HDR/ the second image is what Gimp can give you, the fourth is what the reality looks like, the third is what Gimp would be able to do with support for higher color ranges. Quite a different, isn't it?

    13. Re:what really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying that the Gimp can't replace Photoshop in a professional setting is demonstrably false. Saying that the Gimp can't replace Photoshop in all professional settings is true.
      Beside that, the Gimp developers are fully aware of the need for 16-bit support. They know that this is needed by many professional users, and by people using decent modern digital cameras. Code is being written to support this, and development is progressing. If you want to help with this effort you can join the development mailing lists. If you aren't interested in helping, but just need a product with 16-bit support today, then go ahead and continue to use Photoshop or other programs.

    14. Re:what really matters by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
      Well of course the Gimp developers are fully aware of the need for 16-bit support. And in the future GIMP may have it. But it does not have it now, and since 16 bit is needed for just about everything besides average web, than for MOST image processing needs, GIMP will not do.

      If you want to help with this effort you can join the development mailing lists.

      A typically stupid remark. I am not a C / C++ application developer, and so will not be assisting in GIMP development. That does not mean I have no insight or right to comment on the usability of GIMP in the fields that I do know about, thank you.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    15. Re:what really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A typically stupid remark.
      And you wonder why you get flamed?
      I am not a C / C++ application developer, and so will not be assisting in GIMP development. That does not mean I have no insight or right to comment on the usability of GIMP in the fields that I do know about, thank you.
      You have not provided any insight that I can see. You admit that the issues you brought up are ones that "the Gimp developers are fully aware of." Repeatedly posting these on Slashdot is not helpful, it is childish.
    16. Re:what really matters by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

      My point, Mr. Coward , is that people who say that GIMP is ready to replace Photoshop are factually wrong.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    17. Re:what really matters by schumaml · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen that many professional designer who want (or can't?) discuss anything.

  16. HARDCORE! by mattgreen · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Woah man, you used the number 666! That makes you hardcore! Next thing you're going to tell me is the gimp is actually a cover for a super-secret organization working to create cyber demons that can overrun Earth after a portal to hell is accidently opened!

    1. Re:HARDCORE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'm someone else... but I'm going to tell you:

      The Gimp is actually a cover for a super-secret organization working to create cyber demons that can overrun Earth after a portal to hell is accidently opened...

      (or not)

    2. Re:HARDCORE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... a cover for a super-secret organization working to create cyber demons that can overrun Earth

      Linux? Linus?... I need more dope :-S

    3. Re:HARDCORE! by Kehvarl · · Score: 0

      Woah man, you used the number 666! That makes you hardcore! Next thing you're going to tell me is the gimp is actually a cover for a super-secret organization working to create cyber demons that can overrun Earth after a portal to hell is accidently opened!


      Just what are you implying here? That my minions are incompetent and can only open portals by accident?

  17. Exorcising Slashdot by Nintenfreak · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Only more irrefutable proof that demons are everywhere on the internet.

  18. Sorted results by popularity are now available. by vasqzr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorted results by popularity are now available.

    Is that a good way to do it?

    "You might as well not bother voting for your favorite, since it only has 13 votes."

    1. Re:Sorted results by popularity are now available. by YetAnotherName · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And yet, that's typically what happens to Slashdot comments: a positive moderation makes it more visible, where it gets more positive moderation.

    2. Re:Sorted results by popularity are now available. by KiloByte · · Score: 1
      No, why?

      You can cast as many votes as you want. It's something called approval voting, and it's vastly superior over the old-styled plurality voting as it can address exactly the issue you mentioned.

      Of course, there are even better voting systems like Condorcet, although they're many orders of magnitude more complex.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:Sorted results by popularity are now available. by koekepeer · · Score: 1

      LOL

      it's exactly that attitude that keeps the American two party system in place.

      mod me flamebait, or troll, or offtopic, i don't care. i'm one of them pesky conceited Europeans anyway, and i am ALWAYS right *grin*

    4. Re:Sorted results by popularity are now available. by snol · · Score: 1

      Orders of magnitude? The candidate that would beat every other candidate one on one wins. The only complicated thing is the case where there is no such candidate, which really does mean there's no single clear winner, though most other voting systems wouldn't recognize that.

    5. Re:Sorted results by popularity are now available. by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 1
      Not exactly. I've viewed this page 10minutes ago, and scrolled through it, rather carefully. Then I refreshed it again, and suddenly a new (very pretty) image was on the top, with 70 votes, while I didn't notice it at all previously (so it surely wasn't in the first 20).

      Oh, now this image has 79, too bad it's not my favorite. Voting goes on fast, there :)

      --
      #
      #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
      #
  19. What can be more cruel... by Zx-man · · Score: 1

    Just tell me `subject` than a web server flood done by unleashing a horde of geeks directly the server's CGI image-feeding script...

  20. Who is Samzempus? by sk8king · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Apparently he's posted the last 10 stories or so. Never seen the name before. Or else I never noticed.

    1. Re:Who is Samzempus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would that be "Jeff Bates" AKA "Master Bates"?

  21. Why splash screen? by stivi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Interesting contest, however, why is there a need for a splash screen? Would not it be better to change the application, so the startup sequence will be very short and the application will be immediately useable?

    What about lazy initialisation/lazy loading of modules? I doubt that for common tasks you are going to use all modules/scripts/filters whatever. I think that it would be sufficient just to load list of modules and necessary information (such as icons or descriptions...). Then load module on first use.

    Same can be used for other applications (OpenOffice?).

    I do not believe that a modular application with good design can not be changed to use lazy initialisation/lazy loading. Perhaps I am wrong...

    What do others think?

    --
    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    1. Re:Why splash screen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adobe Photoshop has a splash screen, and needs one because it takes a while to load. People aren't bitching that Photoshop isn't instant-on software, are they?

    2. Re:Why splash screen? by stivi · · Score: 1

      Because Adobe Photoshop takes long time to load, does the GIMP to copy that 'feature' too? Why not be better?

      And why users do not bitch? Because, as usual, they do not know that it should be different and take it as "it is how it should be with computers".

      What I wanted to say was that a splash screen is just a patch to a bug.

      --
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    3. Re:Why splash screen? by Kombat · · Score: 1

      Would not it be better to change the application, so the startup sequence will be very short and the application will be immediately useable?

      A very warm, fuzzy suggestion that will get you an 'A' when you provide it to your teacher. However, in the real world, any non-trivial app is going to take at least a couple of seconds to launch. So to take you up on your suggestion, they'd have to strip features from the GIMP.

      Another classic example of the sharp disparity between the academic world, and the real world.

      Lazy initialization can only buy you so much. If the underlying engine itself is non-trivial (which in the case of the GIMP, it would be), then you'll still experience a couple seconds of delay in loading. Keep in mind that users need immediate feedback, or they'll double-click the icon again. Unless you can spring up your MDI, with menus and windows initialized (even if no actual plugins are loaded) within half a second of launch, then your suggestion is impractical.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    4. Re:Why splash screen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some things take time. Computers aren't infinitely fast, you know? It would be nice if the GIMP had a shorter initialization phase, but that is not something which can be done for the next release. So the choice is between presenting 1) no splash screen, 2) an ugly splash screen or 3) a beautiful splash screen. Since option 3 takes hardly any resources away from the rest of the project, they go for it.

      Generally speaking, making programs "instant on" is a form of optimization which involves a great amount of deferred or precomputed initialization. That produces dependence problems. In-order initialization is much easier to implement and thus much less error-prone. I'd rather look at a splash screen than an error screen.

    5. Re:Why splash screen? by KiloByte · · Score: 1
      GIMP is pretty modular, this suggestion is plausible. You don't need all the plugins and even most tools to get started. The remainder can be either loaded in the background, or even better, loaded at demand (ie, never in 99% of sessions).

      If we could get a window popped up within half a second in the 80s, why would that be impossible in 2004? Of course, GTK is a monstrosity, but it's not that bad. Come on, on a 4Ghz machine you can fit really a lot in that 0.5s...

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    6. Re:Why splash screen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Even looking at all the components to fill the menus takes more time than users can go without visual feedback. The modularization *IS* what drives initialization times up. Take an OS for example: Normal (modular) boot time is much longer than simply loading the (monolithic) hibernation/suspend-to-disk image.

    7. Re:Why splash screen? by slapout · · Score: 1

      What about lazy initialisation/lazy loading of modules?

      I agree. Abode Reader on Windows takes a while to load, in part because of all the plugins it uses. Many of which I don't need if I'm just reading a document. There are programs that will modify reader so that it doesn't load all those plugs and it starts up faster.

      Why not add something like this to Gimp? Let the user choose the plugins they use most and have only those autoload. Then have the others load as needed?

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    8. Re:Why splash screen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eclipse does that sort of lazy loading of modules but it still needs a spash screen

    9. Re:Why splash screen? by arodland · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that'll work nicely. Set up the airbrush tool, get out the stylus, start painting... chug... a second or three later, the tool file is loaded and it starts actually noticing my command; meanwhile, who knows where I am or how much it missed. I think I'll live with a little load time in the beginning, with some nice art!

    10. Re:Why splash screen? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a matter of fact, they are. One of the biggest complaints about Photoshop 8 (the whole CS series, in fact) is that launch times are too long even on the fastest hardware. That wouldn't be so bad, because on a Mac the user can launch Photoshop then toggle over to some other application to keep working for the ten seconds or whatever it takes. But the giant floating splash screen gets in the way.

      So yeah, basically the Gimp guys took the thing most Photoshop users are most unhappy with and went "Pretty! Must have now!"

      --

      I write in my journal
    11. Re:Why splash screen? by BigSven · · Score: 1

      No GIMP plug-ins are loaded ever, except on very first startup where they are queried to register themselves. GIMP plug-ins also run as a seperate process. The moment you select one from the Filter menu, it is started and when it has done it's job, it quits.

      Why not make yourself familiar with the basic concepts of an application before starting to make suggestions? Did you even check how long it takes for GIMP to start up? We are talking about a couple of seconds here (perhaps five seconds on a 1GHz machine). There is some small room for improvements in the startup phase but you would have to do some serious profiling to get a significant speedup. In case you are really interested, I posted a proposal on how to improve startup time to the gimp-developer mailing-list lately. You should be able to look it up in the archives.

    12. Re:Why splash screen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eclipse is a Java application, of course it needs a splash screen. Who ever heard of a Java application loading fast?

    13. Re:Why splash screen? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      gimp, at least on windows, doesn't stick on top of other windows when loading.

      the feature has been in gimp for god knows how long.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    14. Re:Why splash screen? by grumbel · · Score: 1

      ### However, in the real world, any non-trivial app is going to take at least a couple of seconds to launch.

      Because most apps are pretty shitty written. In times where GEdit, the thing that is similar to notepad, starts a whole lot SLOWER then my Emacs, thing are really fucked up alot. These days Emacs is actually one of my fasted starting apps. Hardly any of the Gnome/KDE apps gets away with less then two or three seconds boottime, and thats on a 1GHz machine, anything beside 'instant startup' is really not much acceptable. You think complicated apps needs to have slow startup time? Look at Blender, the app that can cut videos, render pictures, edit text, paint pictures and do a heapload of other things, how long does it take to startup, I don't know because its almost instantly, less then a second.

      Startup times really seem to be an issue that nobody of the programmers cares about, but even for complicated applications there are ways to boost startup speed or at least hide it from the user. In the old days there where programms that basically saved a screenshot of the GUI and showed that to the user at startup, it was indistingushiable from the real interface, but had the advantage that it was instantly there, so while the user took a few seconds adopt to the interface (today one would move the windows into the right positions, on another workspace or whatever) the app silently loaded in the background and replaced the screenshot-gui silently. Hardly any user ever noticed that, it feld as if the app was there instantly.

    15. Re:Why splash screen? by snol · · Score: 1

      so have the tool load when it's selected and change the cursor to an hourglass or whatever while it's loading. big deal.

    16. Re:Why splash screen? by slapout · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't use GIMP. (I use Paint Shop Pro.) The reason I suggested it, was that other posts seemed to imply that GIMP loaded a lot of unnecessary stuff at startup. I apologize if I've offended anyone, especially GIMP developers. They do deserve a lot of credit for what they have accomplished.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    17. Re:Why splash screen? by Pope+Raymond+Lama · · Score: 1

      Actually, there has been a lenghty e-mail on gimp-developers list this week about this.

      Some ideas to speed up startup, by just not reading all data-files (brushes, patterns, palettes) straight.

      Some work will have to go on it on the next development cycle (and noone prompted to do so yet), and them, startup times will be enhanced -but IMO the splash screen will still be a goodie.

      Hey - it's an image manipulation program, the splash screen is kind of part of it - not like this is a splash for some e-mail app.

      --
      -><- no .sig is good sig.
  22. It's a downside to Open Source by winkydink · · Score: 2, Informative

    What drives feature development with Open source isn't market demand or anticipated market demand, it's the whims of the individuals developing it, which may or may not be related to market wants/needs.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:It's a downside to Open Source by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      And why should they? The market already has Photoshop. The Photoshop zealots are not going away any time soon. Even when Gimp has all the features Photoshop has, people will STILL whine about Photoshop being better and Gimp being nothing more than a toy. If Photoshop already exists, why bother trying to conquer the market instead of doing whatever you want to do?

    2. Re:It's a downside to Open Source by winkydink · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you've ever tried the two for serious work, but The Gimp is a looooong way from the current version of Photoshop. And, by the time they catch up, Photoshop will, in all liklihood, have advanced further.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    3. Re:It's a downside to Open Source by kitty+tape · · Score: 1

      The lack of market pressure is one of the strengths of open source. I've felt for a while that the commercialization of open source isn't a 100% good thing.

      --
      ----- "Type theory is like pretzels on crack." -- random friend
    4. Re:It's a downside to Open Source by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      I do use it for serious work. But your "serious" isn't my "serious". You need 16-bit/CMYK/etc, good for you. But 90% of the world doesn't. If you're already happily using Photoshop then why do you care about Gimp? A friend of mine was completely baffled when he saw that so many people waste their time complaining about a FREE program! Heck, it seems everybody but Slashdotters agree that complaining about free programs is a waste of time.

    5. Re:It's a downside to Open Source by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      If the Gimp were anything close to Photoshop, I'd gladly use it. As it stands now, though, I feel there's a reason it gets written off as a toy in comparison - because it is. The reason you get that type of backlash though is because so many in the Slashdot community are convinced that it's a perfect replacement for Photoshop *now*, when it's nothing of the sort.

      It's a good graphics editing program, and completely suitable for web graphics. But for photos or anything I'd actually want to print, it comes nowhere close to Photoshop right now, and it gets tiresome being told that it's the OSS "Photoshop killer".

    6. Re:It's a downside to Open Source by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "The reason you get that type of backlash though is because so many in the Slashdot community are convinced that it's a perfect replacement for Photoshop *now*"

      And where are those people? Almost every single post flames Gimp down for being a "toy" or "totally unusable". Once in a blue moon there are one or two posts saying that Gimp is just as good as Photoshop, but all of them are followed by 200 posts flaming them and Gimp down.

    7. Re:It's a downside to Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see far more people on Slashdot arguing that Gimp is a toy, or that it is not suitable for real/serious/whatever work, than those that argue that it is a "Photoshop killer" or that it is a perfect replacement for Photoshop.

    8. Re:It's a downside to Open Source by grumbel · · Score: 1

      ### And where are those people? Almost every single post flames Gimp down for being a "toy" or "totally unusable".

      Well, the FOSS community is making progress latly and getting closer to reality. Look back a few years, there was much less flaming and far more 'Gimp is Photoshop killer'-hype. Why? Because back then FOSS community was with itself, not much outsiders involved and hardly anybody even know Photoshop from day to day experience, today however people outside the FOSS community actually try to use Gimp for serious work and many of them fail and fallback to Photoshop.

    9. Re:It's a downside to Open Source by mutterc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This contains its own upside, though: only OSS can put work into features without worrying about pissing off corporate backers / interests: the best examples I can think of are Mozilla's early inclusion of pop-up blocking, and MythTV's early inclusion of commercial detection.

  23. gimp rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Only the gimp team would make a movie of splash screens. ROTF.

  24. So many by northcat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So many posts criticising the use of the number 666... Looks like noone on slashdot has a sense of humour. The only acceptable jokes are old, unoriginal, non-innovative, stereotypical ones like "netcraft confirms it" and "in korea only old people...".

    1. Re:So many by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Netcraft confirms: Slashdot humor is dying. In Korea only old people criticise the use of the number 666.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:So many by kahei · · Score: 0


      The Korea one is new, actually.

      You must not be from around here.

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    3. Re:So many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's new compared to "imagine a beowulf cluster of those", but not really new by any other standard. The 50th time a joke is repeated it's pretty old...

    4. Re:So many by julesh · · Score: 1

      You see... having a sense of humour means finding things funny when they are.

      I don't believe this is funny. The netcraft/korea/soviet russia jokes were all funny to start with. OK, so they've been regurgitated too many times (and the korean one's only been around for a week or two and is already old). But what's funny about using 666 with no context around it to make it amusing? It just comes across as odd.

    5. Re:So many by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Correction: "in korea only old people..." is a new, unoriginal, non-innovative, stereotypical slashdot joke.

    6. Re:So many by Mant · · Score: 1

      OK, explain then what is funny about using 666 in the article for us humour impeared types.

      I see plenty of stuff on Slashdotted modded up as funny that isn't the "in Soviet Russsa" and the like. The thing is they usually are actually funny, just mentioning 666 is not.

    7. Re:So many by mydigitalself · · Score: 1

      cowboy neal has a sense of humour... :^)

    8. Re:So many by ndogg · · Score: 1

      Netcraft confirms that in Korea, only old people use the number 666.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  25. chmod 666 by EntrancedX · · Score: 1, Funny

    Well, maybe they ment that Everyone can "read" and "write" GIMP's new splashscreens ? Or... maybe not

  26. So many images so few mb/s by steveyT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Youch, I think we broke that one.

    I really like Gimp however splash screens are lovely but shouldn't they be concentrating on making it an effective commercial alternative to Photoshop.

    1. Re:So many images so few mb/s by drnlm · · Score: 1
      The GIMP: a program written by coders and used by artists. The number of artists who are also coders is quite small. The number of artists who use the GIMP is quite large. This looks like a nice way for the community of users to get involved.

    2. Re:So many images so few mb/s by OzRoy · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be why...
      "the GIMP team asked artists to submit their artwork to be used as the official splash screen for GIMP 2.2."
      instead of doing it themselves?

  27. Change the Name! by thrills33ker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is just retarded. Do the GIMP developers actually want their software to gain wider acceptance? It does not need a new splash screen, it needs a NEW NAME! Imagine trying to get someone to try the GIMP:

    User: Can you get me a copy of Photoshop?
    Advocate: No, but I can give you a copy of The GIMP, its a free alternative to Photoshop, and its really good!
    User: The GIMP? What kind of a name is that? I'll get hold of Photoshop thanks!

    I mean come on, GIMP developers - we all know its a great piece of software but you have to admit that marketing matters. Look at FilmGIMP - they changed their name to CinePaint. Why? "This change will present a more professional name", it says on their site.

    The GIMP team would be much better off holding a new name contest than a splash screen contest.

    1. Re:Change the Name! by Richard_J_N · · Score: 1

      Good point. Much as I hate the whole marketing-speak tendency of re-branding, and much as I like the software, people do find the name far weirder than some of the other strangely named linux apps. Why not just change it to GnuIMP ? Then people can shorten it to GIMP, or extend it to GNU I.M.P.

    2. Re:Change the Name! by ColonBlow · · Score: 1

      I think it should be changed to PIMP. You could market the hell out of that.

      --
      free online diet tracking.
    3. Re:Change the Name! by lems1 · · Score: 1

      This is by far the best summary of why I don't even bother recommending The Gimp to anybody. I simply install it on their systems and try to disguise the name to something more "user friendly" (especially for English speaking people who have seen the movie Pulp Fiction). Yikes!

      --
      This sig can be distributed under the LGPL license
    4. Re:Change the Name! by hkb · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You have a point. From personal experience, many schools won't incorporate The Gimp into their curriculum, because the name is "intolerant" and "derogatory" of special education students.

      I think its stupid, but thats how the real world thinks.

      --
      /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
    5. Re:Change the Name! by ThosLives · · Score: 1
      I agree about names being important - but GIMP is nowhere near as bizarre as this:

      User: Can you get me a copy of Office?
      Advocate: No, but I can give you a copy of OO.o.
      User: What? Did something startle you? Why'd you say "ooh"?

      Why not just call it OpenOffice and be done with it? The 'dot org' in the name is quite goofy - and has got to break some marketing rule about syllables in a product name. And when I see "OO.o" written somewhere my response is always "what's up with this number formatting string?"

      GIMP, while not very descriptive, is unique and identifying. This serves its purpose, but the fact that "gimp" has negative connotations probably does weigh on the general public's perception.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    6. Re:Change the Name! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      L4M0R!

      Gimp is a cool name. If there are tards that can't handle even a modest amount of amusement in their lives, then let them pay for Photoshop. It won't kill them and they will have remained pure and boring, as their heart of hearts tells them to be.

    7. Re:Change the Name! by roye · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe the .org part was added because of an existing product called Open Office. However, the first few pages in a Google search only reveal hits for Openoffice.org and related sites so I would assume that .org part would not matter any longer. On Topic: The GIMP name should be changed.

    8. Re:Change the Name! by Vicsun · · Score: 1

      I just tell everyone I'll 'bring out the GIMP' =)

    9. Re:Change the Name! by Mornelithe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know what else is retarded?

      The fact that in every single story even remotely related to The Gimp, there is always at least one comment by some dude who's freaking out about the name of The Gimp, and a whole slew of posts about how The Gimp's interface is dog shit compared to the all hallowed Photoshop (ignoring the fact that The Gimp looks closer to Mac Photoshop than Windows Photoshop does, yet no one complains about Mac Photoshop's interface). And they're always modded insightful and interesting, instead of '-1: We've heard this 10,000 times already and you really have nothing new to say on the subject,' like they should be.

      --

      I've come for the woman, and your head.

    10. Re:Change the Name! by thrills33ker · · Score: 1

      I'd agree to some extent, but actually I'd say OpenOffice is an example of a good name. It's memorable, describes exactly what the product is, and doesn't sound weird. And everyone ignores the "dot org" anyway. Just like nobody says GNU/Linux.

      The GIMP, on the other hand, is an example of a name that is not just strange, but is actually doing harm to the adoption of the software. Definitely time to change it. And not to "GnuIMP" as suggested by the poster above - that's even worse!

    11. Re:Change the Name! by Finuvir · · Score: 1

      Why not just IMP? It's descriptive (if expanded) and a little cheeky, and it has a mascot just ready for it.

      --
      Why is anything anything?
    12. Re:Change the Name! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      User: Can you get me a copy of Office?
      Advocate: No, but I can give you a copy of OO.o.
      User: What? Did something startle you? Why'd you say "ooh"?

      You sir, have just set a whole new low to the term "joke" .

    13. Re:Change the Name! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Um, thats how the real world thinks - no, that is how a squeaky-wheel minority think (or more precisely, knee-jerk).


      But you are right - those types of folks are the gatekeepers for now.


      Now if you called a graphics program The Harmony of New Graphics or THONG, it would fly!

    14. Re:Change the Name! by tepples · · Score: 1

      IMP is a webmail client used by SpamCop.net.

    15. Re:Change the Name! by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      Well, they _are_ both continuing problems which have not yet been fixed.

      Photoshop's UI isn't the greatest, but the GIMP's is really assinine in places. The superficial MDI versus "controlled SDI" differences that it has with Photoshop are not the problem.

      ("controlled SDI" versus real SDI _is_ part of the problem, but that has nothing to do with Photoshop)

      Similarly, software being named "The GIMP" really really is a problem for most non-technical users (particularly in corporate environments). Right or wrong, that is the way it is, and it is really holding the application back.

      If the GIMP developers were any less cool in other respects these issues would have resulted in a fork by now. As it is there is a certain tension mounting...

      (I think I can speak from some level experience on all of these issues, having been intimately involved in the Sodipodi -> Inkscape fork.)

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    16. Re:Change the Name! by vurian · · Score: 1

      Why? Why cannot a paint application be named for an ornamental flat braid or round cord used as a trimming? I think it fits perfectly.

      http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dicti on ary&va=gimp

    17. Re:Change the Name! by Finuvir · · Score: 1

      Damn. Well how about PIMP (recursive acronym: PIMP Image Manipulation Program), LIMP, or WIMP? No. They're all terrible.

      --
      Why is anything anything?
    18. Re:Change the Name! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      You know what else is retarded? How whenever someone on Slashdot points out a weakness with an open source application and the reply is an instant, "yeah, well, the commercial application is just as bad!"

      GIMP toolbars? It's the same as Photoshop but people don't complain about it!

      Poor installers? Windows has poor installers too, you know!

      Sheesh, man, how are you ever going to make the product BETTER than Photoshop or BETTER than Windows if you always use the other product's weaknesses as a scapegoat? A problem is a problem, whether or not it exists in competing products.

    19. Re:Change the Name! by tepples · · Score: 1

      "PIMP" is taken twice, "WIMP" is windows + icons + menus + pointing device, and "LIMP" is as bad as "GIMP" if you think about what it means, especially what V,1`/\.6'R`/\ is supposed to cure.

    20. Re:Change the Name! by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      Then its a reason to speak even louder, as 10.000 times is of course not enough.

      The point is not to say "interesting" stuff, the point is to CHANGE something, as boring as it may be.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    21. Re:Change the Name! by nine-times · · Score: 1
      Well, I'll say right off that I think you're on the right track. I know it's not a popular opinion among the geek crowd, but if you want opensource software to be taken seriously, you should use professional-sounding names instead of geek-cool names.

      I've said it about The GIMP I've said it about Mozilla. I'm in IT, and I help out lots of friends/family, and I've had bosses who wouldn't take the "dinosaur browser" seriously because of the name and the icon (luckily, with all the press Firefox has gotten, people are taking "that fox internets" seriously). Can you imagine the look I got from my Mom when I asked if she wanted to try "The GIMP"?

      So, I don't know, even if the community wants to keep the geek-cool names, I don't think it would be too hard to distribute a re-branded version with professional sounding names, even if they're identical except for a few strings of text.

      That being said, it'd be easier to get people to overlook the name if the program were a little nicer to work with. I'm not trying to badmouth The GIMP, since it's come a long way and the developers should be proud, but I have to admit that I'd prefer to use Adobe Photoshop, JASC Paint Shop Pro, or Macromedia Fireworks. If The GIMP was good enough, if it were better/easier than these other editors, it wouldn't matter what it was called, people would use it.

    22. Re:Change the Name! by Mornelithe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, sorry.

      Most people who are unsatisfied with The Gimp's interface say that the correct interface is Photoshop's. Well, Photoshop originated on the Mac, so it's original, and, presumably, intended interface is more like the interface The Gimp has than the Windows interface of Photoshop.

      The Windows interface of Photoshop is, primarily, an attempt to get some of the features of the Mac (Upper-left screen menu, top screen toolbar, etc) that can't be had in a similar GUI on Windows. The only way to get those UI elements on Windows is to wrap all your smaller windows in one big window. But that's not the best way to do it.

      I don't have a problem with fixing UI problems with the Gimp. What I have a problem with is using the same UI kludge as Photoshop uses on Windows when there are better solutions out there. But people would rather the Gimp developers clone the Photoshop interface because they can't be bothered to consider that an alternative to their favorite program might be good.

      As for installers, well, several flavors of Linux have excellent package managers. Anyone who claims that 'installers suck' on Linux either hasn't tried a modern Linux distribution, or is so ingrained in the Windows way of installing software that they can't look past it to see that Linux package managers are in fact, frequently better than anything on Windows, and possibly on the Mac as well. They are good.

      There are several great Linux package managers, and there are lots of people who really do like The Gimp's interface, even more than Photoshop or anything else. So don't claim I'm trying to use other weaknesses as scapegoats. In some cases these aren't problems at all, except with the people who can't break their old habits to see something that is, in fact, good.

      --

      I've come for the woman, and your head.

    23. Re:Change the Name! by Mornelithe · · Score: 1

      Right. Maybe if a minority of users complain even louder, the developers, who don't agree with them, will decide to go their way.

      Or maybe it's time for the people who are complaining to go implement it themselves, or pay someone to do so. That will actually get change done in your favor, even though it's even more boring than pontificating about boring arguments.

      I can guarantee you that no matter how often or how loudly you complain on Slashdot about The Gimp's interface, it will not magically transform itself into a window-in-window Photoshop look alike.

      And after all the complaining that's been done, I can guarantee you that the developers know people's positions on The Gimp's interface. But maybe they don't agree that they should just clone Photoshop. Maybe they're trying to find something better. Or maybe they just plain like it the way it is now, and it's their software, and they can develop it as they wish.

      In the open source world, it's quite often put-up-or-shut-up. However, many people are quite content to do neither.

      --

      I've come for the woman, and your head.

    24. Re:Change the Name! by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1
      And you know what else is retarded? Whenever someone points out a weakness with a commercial application, people immediately start to attack open source apps!

      "GIMP toolbars? It's the same as Photoshop but people don't complain about it!
      Poor installers? Windows has poor installers too, you know!"


      Both of them are very valid arguments. People complain about open source but not about commercial apps? That just shows that they're nothing more than a bunch of whiners who are completely blind against any criticism towards non-open source apps, which means they're automatically disqualified.

      "heesh, man, how are you ever going to make the product BETTER"


      And it what way does whining about the product and mentally trying to destroy developers, who are already very busy but still invest their free time into a free application, instead of helping, make the product any better? In what way does ranting about "all developers must be BANNED from UI design" help the product?

      "if you always use the other product's weaknesses as a scapegoat?"


      Ask the Slashdotters who always attack open source whenver someone criticises commercial software.

      "A problem is a problem, whether or not it exists in competing products."


      Then be honest about it and stop pretending like the problem only exists in open source software. Until Slashdotters realize that, they will never be taken seriously.

      Newsflash: if you send a hate mail full of insults and name calling to a company, they will delete your email without reading it, no matter how valid your "criticism" is.
    25. Re:Change the Name! by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "Fixing" Gimp's interface is a matter of improving the window manager, so that it behaves more like the Mac. The end result will be a system that works better than the window-in-window hack on Win32.

    26. Re:Change the Name! by steveyT · · Score: 1

      It's open source we should fork it and just change the name (and the splash screen!)

      Then we could get it into schools and by the sounds of it various /.ers mothers could you it too!

    27. Re:Change the Name! by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      My personal beef with the GIMP's interface has more to do with the UI for accessing the various tools. I'm completely indifferent as far as MDI vs SDI goes, though I would like an option to have the Gimp create a single "taskbar" item instead of one for each toolbox window, which is a pain for someone like me that usually has many apps open while I'm working with an image. The right-click-for-everything style interface is rather annoying compared to Photoshop where everything I need is within a click or two away.

      Photoshop isn't the most intuitive interface in the world, but it's the best at what it does that I've come across. You mention the GIMP being more like Photoshop on Mac than Photoshop on Windows. Maybe in the window-management sense, but as far as actual workflow goes, the Photoshop interface is identical between Windows and Mac - right down to the keyboard shortcuts (replacing Alt/Option with Ctrl/Alt anyway :-)).

    28. Re:Change the Name! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I annoys me the most about using the GIMP on windows is its Mac-like tendency of having a separate window for everything. The problem is that whenever I want to move the window around, minimize it, restore it, etc. I have to do it three or more times (once per each window). On Linux it's not so bad because I can devote an entire desktop to the GIMP. On windows, I would actually prefer one window containing all the others as subwindows so that I can move it all at once.

    29. Re:Change the Name! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      And you know what else is retarded? Whenever someone points out a weakness with a commercial application, people immediately start to attack open source apps!

      They do? I see the opposite... if you say that IE is insecure because it has ActiveX turned on by default, you'll get 20 replies proclaiming how superior the open-source Firefox is in comparison.

      Both of them are very valid arguments. People complain about open source but not about commercial apps?

      Where in my statement did I assert that people don't complain about commercial apps? Ask anybody I work with... usually 75% of my time here is spent complaining about the flaws in Lotus Notes.

      That utterly misses my point entirely. My point is that people *defend* open-source application flaws by pointing out that they also exist in closed-source applications. They use a sort of, "well, Microsoft's product is buggy in the same way, so it's ok if my product is buggy." With that kind of attitude, it is impossible to make an open-source application that is better than its closed-source equilivant.

      That just shows that they're nothing more than a bunch of whiners who are completely blind against any criticism towards non-open source apps, which means they're automatically disqualified.

      That sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Disqualified from what?

      And it what way does whining about the product and mentally trying to destroy developers, who are already very busy but still invest their free time into a free application, instead of helping, make the product any better? In what way does ranting about "all developers must be BANNED from UI design" help the product?

      It's not whining, it's frusteration. GIMP's interface and name are agreed upon by almost every reasonable person to be highly flawed, and yet the developers refuse to do anything to improve either. Nobody is trying to "mentally destroy" anybody. The problem is that when the developers are so bull-headed that they do not listen to reasonable criticism (as these complaints were when they were first made) that OF COURSE the reaction is that people become frusterated and become more vocal about it.

      If the developers haven't done anything to help improve the UI in this amount of time, well, then maybe they SHOULD be prohibited from working with the UI. What the GIMP product needs is someone who knows marketing, and someone who knows GUI design, to work with them... but they'll never get it if they're so stubborn they don't even suggest that they WANT to change anything. Once Mozilla admitted that their interface was a problem, the improvements came really quickly.

      Ask the Slashdotters who always attack open source whenver someone criticises commercial software.

      Again, I don't see that happening.

      Then be honest about it and stop pretending like the problem only exists in open source software. Until Slashdotters realize that, they will never be taken seriously.

      Who's pretending the problem only exists in open-source software? Lotus Notes has a terrible, horrible UI and it's made by IBM corporation. Microsoft products (Office in particular) is well-known for making misguided interface decisions.

      Newsflash: if you send a hate mail full of insults and name calling to a company, they will delete your email without reading it, no matter how valid your "criticism" is.

      Duh, but what does that have to do with anything we've just discussed?

    30. Re:Change the Name! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      If there was a tool I could use to easily change how the interface works without having to learn EVERYTHING about the product, then I would do that. But as things stand, without the developers' help, such a task would be impossible... and the developers aren't willing to help, obviously, or it would already be changing.

    31. Re:Change the Name! by podperson · · Score: 1

      Aside from having a terrible name (maybe GNU needs to popularize the lowercase g as in gIMP the way Apple popularized the letter "i" -- then gIMP would be known as "gee-IMP" or "GNU IMP").

      More importantly, GIMP could also use a visit from the usability fairy. My bet is that the winning entry was actually done in Photoshop :p

    32. Re:Change the Name! by b0bby · · Score: 1

      I never really cared about the name until I was doing some stuff to a pc for a guy at work and loaded a few programs (firefox, GIMP, Adaware). He's handicapped, and gave me a really funny look when I showed him the new things, and it took a couple of minutes to explain that no, I wasn't ragging on him, that's really the name. So, I can vouch for some negative reaction from real people on this one.

    33. Re:Change the Name! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here.. let me help...

      User: Can you get me a copy of Photoshop?
      Advocate: No, but I can give you a copy of The Gnu Image Manipulation Program, its a free alternative to Photoshop, and its really good!
      User: The Gnu Image Manipulation Program? OK then.

    34. Re:Change the Name! by Nailer · · Score: 1

      a whole slew of posts about how The Gimp's interface is dog shit compared to the all hallowed Photoshop (ignoring the fact that The Gimp looks closer to Mac Photoshop than Windows Photoshop does, yet no one complains about Mac Photoshop's interface). And they're always modded insightful and interesting, instead of '-1: We've heard this 10,000 times already and you really have nothing new to say on the subject

      Maybe they're being modded up because although you might have heard Gimp users complaining, the people making the Gimp obviously haven't.

    35. Re:Change the Name! by Nurgled · · Score: 1

      One of my housemates has a book whose title is "The GIMP". Whenever we have any kind of party or social gathering without fail some newcomer will spot the book, drunkenly stagger over and ask why we have a book about a gimp.

      At first it was funny, but it's getting a little tired now.

    36. Re:Change the Name! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Retarded?
      Yes, the Gimp user interface; probably the worst collection of buttons, popup dialogs and nested menus ever created. That is the one point holding back this great app (for people like me); any pro (NOT a web graphics creator) will mention that 4 letter thing (no, not god) about colour calibration.

      A name is a just a kind of word; no meaning beyond which WE give it. Only retarted people will complain or even argue about a name. The fact that you do, that you bash others for speaking truth as they see it and your pitiful effort of being 'the wise guy' compel me to call you names.

      WE gripe about that fucking user interface, because it IS in fact the easiest thing to change (which will improve the usability). Adding CYMK support would do the same, but takes (probably) a LOT MORE work.

      So please: SHUT THE FUCK UP

    37. Re:Change the Name! by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      But I'm not talking about the Interface, but the NAME.

      Your complaints are somewhat right, except you are talking about something else than I do.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    38. Re:Change the Name! by Mornelithe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and modding them up on Slashdot will surely get the attention of the Gimp developers.

      I assure you, the Gimp developers have heard these issues. They've even been discussed in the bug database (where actual discussion with the developers goes on, unlike here, where people just whine without consequence). Just because the developers don't agree with people who think they should clone Photoshop's interface, or change the name to something else, doesn't mean they haven't heard and listened. It just means that in the developers' opinion, that segment of the (potential) users is wrong.

      Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who have learned to use The Gimp with its current interface, and don't want a kludgy window-in-window interface to placate people who can't get past the fact that The Gimp isn't Photoshop. In fact, this group is, quite likely, larger than the group who absolutely can't use it if it doesn't look exactly like Photoshop. That's why The Gimp's interface hasn't changed yet. It's not because you guys haven't yelled loud or long enough.

      Being the loudest complainer might often work in politics, but it doesn't work everywhere.

      --

      I've come for the woman, and your head.

    39. Re:Change the Name! by Nailer · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your post.

      You're assuming the people who don't like the Gimps UI merely want a Photoshop clone. Most don't - they just want it to run like any other app.

      I've never seen anything in the Gnome HIG specifying a Gimp-like interface.

    40. Re:Change the Name! by Klowner · · Score: 1

      Heck, call it Wilbur.

    41. Re:Change the Name! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us would like to see more people using Free Softare even if they are "L4M0R"

      Free Software is not about being L33T.

    42. Re:Change the Name! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If the GIMP developers were any less cool in other respects these issues would have resulted in a fork by now. As it is there is a certain tension mounting...

      To a certain extent the fork has already happened with CinePaint.
      What could have been an amicable branchm a version of the GIMP with a different focus, became a full fork because of people too immature to play nice and who would much rather bitch about the fork instead of trying to rise above it make both cooperate to make both projects better.

      Unfortunately CinePaint is firmly focussed on the movie industry and not that interested in ordinary users and has not yet taken a serious look at overhauling the user interface as Inkscape has done, but there is still time.

    43. Re:Change the Name! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add your names to the bug report.

      Please do not waste time suggesting alternative names.
      The bug report should be about making it possible and practical to change the name without needing to fork the whole project.

      http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160890

  28. Splash screens by Refrag · · Score: 1, Funny

    Splash screens are the work of Satan himself!

    --
    I have a website. It's about Macs.
  29. In other news... by pavera · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Gimp team was forced to file for bankruptcy and cease development after its main supporters decided to cause a DDoS attack on their web site by simultaneously downloading a massive number of pictures and movies from their site.

    SCO commented: "This attack is further proof that the Open Source community is largely a terrorist organization that cannot be trusted. They seem to be even as we speak cannabalizing their own allies. This behavior proves that we own linux."

  30. I really want to win.. by kid+nickng · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can I use Photoshop to draw the splashscreen?

  31. What about removing the splash screen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about removing the splash screen?
    It's not usefull and just bothers me, gimp should use startup-notification as most.

    1. Re:What about removing the splash screen? by fok · · Score: 1

      There should be choice then. Lets put an option to disable the splash screen!

      --
      \m/
    2. Re:What about removing the splash screen? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      There should be choice then. Lets put an option to disable the splash screen!

      Another one?
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:What about removing the splash screen? by gotgenes · · Score: 1

      There should be choice then. Lets put an option to disable the splash screen!

      gimp --no-splash
      or
      gimp -s
      or
      gimp -no-splash-image
      or
      gimp -S
      --
      It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.
    4. Re:What about removing the splash screen? by fok · · Score: 1

      There you go.... nothing to worry about!

      --
      \m/
  32. Because by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Coz 666 is fstr 2 type thn 7oo

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  33. Indeed, this is important by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Gimop isn;t going to be faster, or more fully featured, and will never be as user friendly as its closed source rivals.

    But when it comes to splash screens, we will see the Open Source software outclasses even the best closed source application.

    1. Re:Indeed, this is important by arodland · · Score: 1

      It's already more user-friendly, if you're into logical UI, and getting rid of the horrible window-MDI model. But considering the availability of the "Windows Gimp Deweirdifyer", at least some people prefer broken.

    2. Re:Indeed, this is important by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      if you're into logical UI, and getting rid of the horrible window-MDI model.

      This is fine for X and the Apple UI, but illogical UI design on Windows though. Inconsistency is bad. Almost every other Windows application uses MDI, so stick to what users are used to.

    3. Re:Indeed, this is important by Terrasque · · Score: 0

      What? A crash every 5 minutes?

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    4. Re:Indeed, this is important by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Clearly you have some dodgy drivers. I'vebeen using Windows as my primary OS for a couple of years now and it hasn't crashed once.

    5. Re:Indeed, this is important by Terrasque · · Score: 0

      actually, I had a dodgy partition table :-)

      But yeah, stability got much better with the winnt line (especially win2k).

      Altrough U got a few IRQ_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL BSOD's.. Usually, as you say, a driver error. But very sporadic. Can do multiple installs with the same software and hardware, even with the same drivers, and it will pop up in a few of the installations.

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    6. Re:Indeed, this is important by Terrasque · · Score: 0

      woops. s/ U / I / - amazing how much one letter can change the meaning of it :-)

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  34. gimp dot org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they should have seen this one coming and made a lighter version of their web page using 72x72 pixel thumbnails...

    1. Re:gimp dot org by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... or 37x18 pixel thumbnails.
      (No, the numbers are not arbitrary :-))

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  35. 666? There goes the evangelical support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck getting Jerry Falwell and his followers to switch to "evil open source" now.

  36. Unbelievable by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

    And that comes from crowd that usually trashes Microsoft for it's "bloatware" and ridicules Windows users who install cute/stupid add-ons and desktop themes and whatnot.

  37. A touch on the dark side... by EvilNutSack · · Score: 1

    "More than 666 splash screens have been submitted."
    Is Satan into design now?

    --
    --
    1. Re:A touch on the dark side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think splash screens are satan's work period. What a waste of time

  38. To Demonstrate the Capabilities of GIMP by michaelepley · · Score: 1
    Splash Screens seem to me to prime opportunity to demonstrate the capabilities of the application.

    Logically, then, they would be most applicable to applications such as graphical editors, games, or other graphically intense applications. Similarly, audio players (I'm thinking of WinAmp) benefit from "audio" splash screens.

    An ancillary benefit of splash screens is to identify the version, build, available plug-ins, etc. of the application. And of course, show the progress of loading the application.

    Nevertheless, it seems steps should be done to make them less annoying and more useful as applications and splash screens mature. I might suggest a list:

    • No always on top splash screens
    • Option to turn in off
    • Dynamic content (perhaps downloaded periodically)
    • Especially for editors, a "How did they do that" tutorial.
    Steps such as these might make splash screene worth the resources they consume.

  39. Wasn't this already or Slashdot? by GR1NCH · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I know I've seen this already and I don't really get my news anywhere else!

  40. Number of Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Topic first: I say take a random sample of about 23.41 pictures and then use them randomly every time the GIMP starts up, a bit like Jext.

    OT: Interestingly 666 is also the number of man and was also code for Caesar Nero. There wasn't much free speech at the time. 666 is also 3/4 of 888 which is the number of Jesus in Greek [Iesous = iota (10) + eta (8) + sigma (200) + omicron (70) + upsilon (400) + sigma (200) = 888]. Hence man cannot save himself because 8 is the number of completion in the Bible, but Jesus Christ can save all men if they choose him. Remember, John 3:17, Christ came not into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. I think there's plenty of evidence that we don't need anyone to condemn us, we can do it on our own pretty easily.

    1. Re:Number of Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [I posted the parent] Why the troll rating?! What's wrong with Jext (although I use Jedit because it's smaller, but the icons are horrible) I admit the 23.41 bit was poking fun, but that sentence was on-topic and relevant.

      The OT bit was perhaps irrelevant but the poster of the original article should know /. and expect all the 666 nonsense. At least my 666 information was not inflammatory and was proper Bible exposition. Plus I'm an anonymous coward so I'm not looking to reciprocate any flames.

  41. A GNU symbol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about having the image symbolize the free spirit of GNU software or Linux instead of some other graphic thingy.

  42. to call someone a gimp is an insult in UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    you are such a gimp = you are such an idiot/simpleton/fool

    funny how language translates, "i use gimp" will raise eyebrows in the pub if nothing else

    1. Re:to call someone a gimp is an insult in UK by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Interesting. "All my images are created by gimp" then probably isn't something which indicates high quality pictures either ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:to call someone a gimp is an insult in UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? If someone called me a gimp I'd think they were refering to a BDSM fethishist into leather, rubber and rough sex. I'm a bit odd like that though.

  43. and don't forget these by Errtu76 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    don't forget:

    - i for one welcome our overlords
    - step 1.2.3.4.profit
    - servers down due to /.'ing jokes
    - "in related news"
    - "next headline:"

    It gets boring...

  44. Wow, these suck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    99% of these are really horrible. Just because you know how to use GIMP doesn't make you an artist or a designer. As a matter of fact, I'd say the exact opposite is true: geeks use one side of their brain while artists use the other. Chances are, if you're a geek, you really suck at art and you should really just stop it. Why else was the internet butt ugly until the past couple of years? Because the graphic artists stepped up and stopped the programmers from designing.

    1. Re:Wow, these suck. by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      My guess is you where modded "troll" by some geek who thinks he is an artist! But it's really true. And, funny in a way. Sort of like people who think they can write, working on that novel in their spare time...

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  45. Splash Screen Movie by SeanEParsons · · Score: 2, Informative

    To help distribute the load, I have mirrored the full movie on my website. Please go here to view it.

    1. Re:Splash Screen Movie by merdaccia · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

      --

      *blinking cursor*

    2. Re:Splash Screen Movie by Dante · · Score: 1

      Thanks!
      There are some great images, I wonder why people get so wound up about a little bit of marketing?

      --
      "think of it as evolution in action"
  46. 666? by araemo · · Score: 0

    I guess that's slightly better than 616. (If you don't know, don't ask.)

  47. Winner's Prize by J+Mack+Daddy · · Score: 3, Funny
    What does the winner of this popularity contest get by way of reward?

    Let me guess... a free copy of The Gimp! :)

    --

    Jiggity

    1. Re:Winner's Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it.

  48. Walt Disney's Pulp Fiction by tepples · · Score: 1

    No. I skipped Pulp Fiction because when I was old enough to understand R movies, I had already learned about the problems with The Walt Disney Company, its distributor. I see "bring out the GIMP" and think only "click the icon to launch a bitmap image editor".

    1. Re:Walt Disney's Pulp Fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll send you a digital version, and then you can send QT $10 to split between cast, crew, and himself. Everyone will be happy!

  49. PIMP is taken by tepples · · Score: 1

    PIMP is taken, twice: as an older name for NSIS, and as part of the name of a Usenet UA for the GNOME desktop.

  50. AAUUGH!! Art on slashdot!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, there's enough interested Slashdot readers in the art created for GIMP to tear down the web server.

    However, it's great to see the majority of you out there representing the oversized left brains of the world. Get back to work in your terminal windows!

  51. Pulp Fiction is a Disney movie by tepples · · Score: 1

    Pulp Fiction is published by a division of The Walt Disney Company, one of the major advocates against the public domain. Do you want to associate yourself with people who immediately associate "gimp" with a Disney movie?

    1. Re:Pulp Fiction is a Disney movie by lems1 · · Score: 1

      Ah, nice read. It's sad to see that the law is not blind after all, but, nothing new here.
      About the gimp, perhaps it's because people do tend to associate with people who think like them. In my case, I love Pulp Fiction. I used to watch it over and over; and always get a good laugh out of it. One of those things.
      I guess that fighting about what company made what movie is just as futile as fighting about what OS to use in your own system. It simply will depend on the person, and how much you want to put up with. In the case of the movie industry, I hate it, but there are a few movies here and there that I see, and I even buy them, regardless of politics.
      But, we are already way offtopic ;-)

      --
      This sig can be distributed under the LGPL license
  52. Kudos to Joshua Estes for his photo but... by wazzzup · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm thinking that, while a nice picture, an upside-down phallic mushroom with mud on the end of its stem is...well let's just say there are less subliminal options presented.

  53. Re:How about NO splashscreens by JakusMinimus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What is even worse is how programs with splash screens tend to be Java, meaning this splash screen stays on top for many seconds, perhaps up to 30 seconds while the program loads.

    Eh, not really. While not attempting to deny you the fun of yanking random opinions from your ass and stating such as facts, I would have to disagree; splash screens cover the spectrum of apps out there.

    As to sucking, I generally disapprove of gratuitous splash screens but I really dig the apps that incorporate progress indicators such as naming modules being loaded or the ever-ubiquitous progress meter. Oh, and since the Gimp is a tool primarily for artistic endeavors, it would seem reasonable to show off a little work that can be done with the tool while said tool loads. I always look forward to Gimp's new splash screens.

    --

    You can be an atheist and still not want to succumb to some weird cross-over sheep disease -- AC
  54. Obligitory Simpsons/Family Guy/South Park ref by honestmonkey · · Score: 1

    I saw on the Simpsons the other night a joke about Family Guy that mentioned the South Park show where the old Koreans were the new overlords interested in profit from implementing a Beowulf cluster.

    But then I'm new around here.

    --
    Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
  55. Back by unpopular request. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I really like Gimp however splash screens are lovely but shouldn't they be concentrating on making it an effective commercial alternative to Photoshop."

    No they shouldn't As has been pointed out many, many, many, many some more, times. They aren't trying to be a "too cheap to buy photoshop" alternative. They are trying to be [drum roll] The GIMP, and that's it.

    YOU (you specifically and all your cohorts) are more than free to fork it (one of the pluses of OSS. Try doing that with Windows) and spend the rest of your natural days trying to chase the impossible dream.

    1. Re:Back by unpopular request. by steveyT · · Score: 1

      I work with a lot of web designers and they would never consider a switch to Linux because there is no sensible alternative to Photoshop. This is the gap where I, maybe mistakenly, thought the gimp was trying to fill.

      As they are a primarily Linux based project I don't see how they could be a 'too cheap to buy photoshop alternative' they don't even compete on the same platform. Should we be pertitioning adobe to supply a Linux version of Photoshop? Surely it wouldn't be too big a port from the OSX version.

      As for the remarks regarding windows and my cohorts, I don't know why you're directing them at me. I am a strong supporter of OSS which is exactly why I'd like to see the Gimp and Photoshop compete as it might attract more people to Linux.

  56. GNU Image Manipulation Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In short, GIMP. Use the full name if you want, pretty descriptive.

  57. Just replace the splash screen by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    With a bar at the top/left/right/bottom of the screen that displays the status of loading applications.
    It's enough to tell people whats going on without getting in their way.

    You could even put a few bars under the mouse pointer if you wanted something a little more in your face.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  58. Bring out the GIMP by blantonl · · Score: 1

    Bring out the GIMP. ...... the GIMP's sleeping.

    Well I guess you'll just have to wake him up now, won't you!

    Queue surfer music.

    --
    Lindsay Blanton
    RadioReference.com
    1. Re:Bring out the GIMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cue - Send notice to
      queue - an ordered group of things
      Learn english, kthx.

    2. Re:Bring out the GIMP by blantonl · · Score: 1

      There are numerous surfer music songs on the Pulp Fiction soundtrack, therefore, "Queue" was the correct word. Try Again.

      --
      Lindsay Blanton
      RadioReference.com
  59. Amazingly stupid web page design by ceenvee703 · · Score: 1

    Namely, putting all 666+ splash images ON A SINGLE PAGE! http://www.mukund.org/temp/gimp/judge/all.php

    Even if 1/10th of them were worth displaying (which they're not), that's still too many to put on a single page. And people wonder why The GIMP is still looked down upon...

    --
    "This? I can make a hat, I can make a brooch, I can make a pterodactyl..."
    1. Re:Amazingly stupid web page design by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it's overreaching to blame the design of their splash screen design contest page for any reputation problems. But there has to be a better way of running this contest.

      For example, couldn't they at least remove the ones that gratuitously court lawsuits, are totally irrelevant, divisive, or just too ugly for words?

      Seriously, thin the herd down to the top 50 or so. What's the point of even having a splash screen if looking at it makes you hesitant to open the application?

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    2. Re:Amazingly stupid web page design by grumbel · · Score: 1

      About the other ones you are perfectly right, but please not this one, its my absolute favorite =:)

  60. Intellectual Property Violations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see that a lot of these splash screens are at least inspired by the work of various famous artists.

    Wouldn't including derivates of these works with the software cause a legal liability for the distributers?

    IANAL of course.

    1. Re:Intellectual Property Violations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inspired? I wouldn't pull it past them for taking a copy righted image and just using it.

      This is one thing that gives the GPL movement a black eye, having people claim some copy righted material as their own. I am not going to dig through it, but KDE-Look.org has a few wallpapers that use copy righted images and have a GPL license slapped on them. The windows xp background is quite popular there, for an example see here.

  61. We have a winner. by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

    All I'm getting is a blank screen.

    YES! We have a winner!

    --
    Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  62. Because of C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about lazy initialisation/lazy loading of modules?

    It's a real pain to get threads and locking right in C. That's why nobody does it, and why the modules won't be loaded in the background. Languages like Java make this trivial, but the startup time for any Java GUI is slow (unless using SWT). Why somebody doesn't make these things easier in C or other compiled, linked languages is beyong me. But they don't, and that's why you don't get background loading.

    1. Re:Because of C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a real pain to get threads and locking right in C.

      What utter crap. It might seem like voodoo to the old UNIX hackers who still think of pre-emptive task scheduling as magic but getting locks right in C is a peice of piss. There are only a handful of does and don'ts to remember; always nest locks properly, never overlap locks, always lock when you're about to read or write global data. What is so hard about any of this?

    2. Re:Because of C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are languages that handle different forms of concurrency far better than C does. Java is not really one of those languages though.

  63. What about [Doing some research]? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There should be choice then. Lets put an option to disable the splash screen!"

    I got a much better idea. How about a group that even dares calling themselves GEEKS, do some research. This was mentioned last time, and the time before that, and the time before that. What do you all do, that makes it so freakin impossible for you to do some some research on the simplest of questions?

    1. Re:What about [Doing some research]? by fok · · Score: 1

      It was suposed to be a joke in the first place... nevermind ;D

      --
      \m/
    2. Re:What about [Doing some research]? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, until they fscking DO IT. Then I guess we'll just have to keep complaiing about it!

  64. Which is why by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    I'm never going to install quicktime.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  65. Splashscreens the Gimp way by brockill · · Score: 3, Funny

    In other news, following GIMP tradition, all 666 splash screens were accepted by the developers and will appear in 666 separate splash windows when GIMP is started.

  66. 16 bit is very important for two reasons. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1) Most prosumer/professional digital cameras, scanners, and frame grabbers have at least 10-bit, and sometimes 12-bit channels. These are usually cast into 16-bit values in various compatible file formats (i.e. TIFF).

    2) More importantly, it is critical that any blending or intensity mapping operations are computed (and have intermediate results stored) in 16-bit to avoid unnecessary banding and clipping. You cast down to 8-bit when exporting to an 8-bit-only file format. Otherwise it's better to keep the precision around to avoid artifacts.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:16 bit is very important for two reasons. by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. The best example of this is to compare the histograms of the same image after it's been edited in 8 bit and 16 bit modes. The 8 bit histogram will generally show clipping all over the place, the 16 bit one will generally be relatively smooth in comparison.

    2. Re:16 bit is very important for two reasons. by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I see CinePaint (aka Film Gimp) already has 8/16/32 bits per channel.

      Why not merge that code back into the main trunk?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  67. More than what? by hoggy · · Score: 1

    What is this "more than 666"? Do you mean 667? Why make such a random and meaningless statement?

    If it was 666 at the time you wrote, why not say "so far 666 have been submitted". If you wanted to just indicate a large general number, why not say "more than 650" or "almost 700".

  68. Copied comment, mod down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a near duplicate of comment http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=132130&cid=110 41084

  69. How about a SOLUTION to the problem: by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    - Force all plugins and extensions to implement an interface that self describes the modules... perhaps a special ELF segment naming the interface functions.

    - Have a script that uses ld to link a special dynamic link library made up of all the individual plugin's initialization functions. (Since the names have to be unique, it'd need to examine the ELF segments in each DLL for the requisite functions to link, and to create the initialization order, serialiazing the function names to a text file)

    - When GIMP loads, rather than scanning each plugin directly, it'd open the plugin-cache.so, then call a built-in function that reads the plugin-cache text file. It'd call each of the listed functions in turn from the plugin cache, and populate it's menus and toolbars with stubs that actually demand-load the plugins.

    You'd probably need a system-wide and ~/.gimp specific plugin-cache.so/.txt.

    The exception would be any plugins that directly render to the GIMP's UI or that require acquiring resources before the GIMP does.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:How about a SOLUTION to the problem: by BigSven · · Score: 1

      You obviously didn't even take the time to look at GIMP since that's exactly what it's doing. Plug-ins are only queried on first start. On subsequent starts, the information is read from ~/.gimp-2.2/pluginrc.

  70. Change the Name!-Identity Crisis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I've said it about The GIMP I've said it about Mozilla. I'm in IT, and I help out lots of friends/family, and I've had bosses who wouldn't take the "dinosaur browser" seriously because of the name and the icon (luckily, with all the press Firefox has gotten, people are taking "that fox internets" seriously). Can you imagine the look I got from my Mom when I asked if she wanted to try "The GIMP"?"

    [Vanity]
    "1. The quality or state of being vain; want of substance to satisfy desire; emptiness; unsubstantialness; unrealness; falsity."

    And what makes these kinds of complaints doubly ironic, is that we're always slamming businesses (PHB's, etc), and the people in them. And yet some are falling all over themselves for attention from the same. It's even affecting people's judgement as to what OSS is really about. Hint: It's NOT about producing free clones of closed source. Else Linus would have produced a clone of Windows NT, instead of what he did produce. Hell you don't even need OSS to get free stuff. Grab a cracked copy and you'll have what you all so desperately crave, and the interface and everything will be just so.

  71. All? by anaradad · · Score: 1

    Once you've seen all splashes, you may want to help the judges to pick the best splash by voting for your favorites.

    I have to look at all of them before I can vote? Really?

  72. still called The GIMP by aarku · · Score: 1

    So many splash screens to choose from, yet the program still has a name that offends many to the point of not using it only because of its name. Perhaps the project should find new priorities.

    1. Re:still called The GIMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This IS GPLed open source, right? Couldn't just about anyone fork off from the main base and call it whatever they wanted? If so many people hate the name, can't ONE of them do that? I know, forking is a big no-no, but all you'd need to do is grab the latest source tree every few weeks and "s/gimp/OpenImage/i", draw a new splash screen, and voila! I'm sure it would take off immediately, with unparallelled success.

      Or, alternatively, whine about it every time something cool happens with the GIMP and it ends up on /.

  73. Contest should have been on deviantart.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all the geeky looking artwork was just that, looking geeky

    If that... there should be some weeding out before people vote because at least 1/4 of the splashes are just some random picture somebody took with "gimp" border. Or some blurry art that hurts people's eyes to look at because they're trying to focus on it and can't.

    They should have posted the contest to deviantart.com... then they would have gotten some really awesome ones.

  74. Re:How about NO splashscreens by aichpvee · · Score: 1, Troll

    What kind of system are you running OpenOffice that it is rendering the system useless until the application is loaded? Must be something crappy.

    --
    The Farewell Tour II
  75. New name should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The logo font has a tiny descender on the g and the p, so why not just call it "OIMO". Then people in the know can make fun of those newbs calling it oimo...

  76. Back by unpopular request-Aping PS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    [BigSven]
    "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."

    Even Don Hopkins (who should know better), makes the same mistake you do.
    And yes there have been people who've petitioned Adobe for a port of PS. I'm assuming they're on our doorstep because that petition failed. Even Adobe recommends the GIMP for those requesting a port.
    "As for the remarks regarding windows and my cohorts, I don't know why you're directing them at me. I am a strong supporter of OSS which is exactly why I'd like to see the Gimp and Photoshop compete as it might attract more people to Linux."
    OSS should be judged on it's own merits. Not how closely one apes PS. People don't like being compared to others, and judged inadequate. So why should a different standard be applied to software?
  77. Movie without sound and picture by cocoa+moe · · Score: 1

    Is it just me? It seems to be encoded with DIVX, but VLC does not show a single frame of video.

    Is this a Windows-only solution?

  78. Oh yeah, screw the text file. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    But the thing about the re-link is still important; this way you only dlopen one file at startup that does everything, and you still haven't touched any of the other plugins.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  79. ... or make a transparent one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and send it in, maybe you win.

  80. AVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it sort of ridiculous that an open-source project is using a proprietary closed-source video format?

  81. Re:How about NO splashscreens by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    1) Multiple virtual desktops
    2) NOT always on top (AOT splashes suck)

    Some programs take unruly amounts of time to load (gimp being one of them, it loads ~800 plug-ins, brushes, patterns, tools, script engines, scripts. . .). Most users are stupid. "The program didn't start in 2 seconds *CLICK CLICK* *CLICK CLICK* *CLICK CLICK* WHY THE HELL ARE THERE 4 OF THEM NOW?!!!?11111113

    Splash screens are important: They represent a small portion of the program which loads quickly and shows the user that it is indeed loaded. Linux desktop environments as a courteousy flash an hourglass or a watch or bounce an icon; but they don't really track if the program is actually running or not.

    KDE, for example, will bounce the icon and show a "Starting XXX" in the taskbar for a full 30 seconds if the started program exits (ps -A shows it's not there). I've had this happen when Firefox segfaults on start-up, multiple times. If Firefox had a splash screen, I wouldn't have stared at my background for a whole minute or two waiting :)

  82. Ummm by zoloto · · Score: 1

    I think you meant daemons... right?

  83. How about all of them? by RichiP · · Score: 1

    Let's just have a /usr/share/gimp-2.2/splash/ subdirectory where gimp will choose one at random each time it's started. Give some of its arteest users some eyecandy to enjoy whenever they boot up.

    1. Re:How about all of them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will my 15 splash variations on the goatse man be included?

  84. They must love you by riqnevala · · Score: 1

    All the screens kinda sucked, but that's not an invitation to slashdot this site TOO.

    --
    love slashdot. populate it. use it. abuse it. hate it. kill it. miss it. stop following links, they only kill servers.
  85. Vote for mine by ICECommander · · Score: 1

    Done entirely in MS Paint.

    Vote for mine here.

    --
    All your Sybase are belong to us.
  86. No, they don't by orasio · · Score: 1

    Splash screens perform the job of making you think that the app takes less time to load than it does. It doesn matter how much it actually takes, because a couple more seconds doesn hurt productivity, but perceived delays are important, they are demotivational (is that a word?).
    Splash screens are good at that, and that is one of the reason why they are so common, they add to a more pleasant user experience. Of course, eclipse and gnome sttyle splashes are nicer than others, noone likes always-on-top splash screens, but that's no reason to get rid of all of them.

  87. As reported here earlier by slapout · · Score: 1

    "As reported here earlier"

    I just thought of something. If every Slashdot story was prefixed with "As reported earlier" , then (technically) we wouldn't have any more dupes!

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  88. Gimps Suit for kids.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.popdizzy.com/archives/popdizzy-desired- products-childrens-knitted-gimp-suit

    I couldn't see any splash screens that used photos from above (SFW), showing how children and gimps can work together.

  89. Launch Feedback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Launch Feedback in KDE goes a long way to alleviating any irritation. You have the notification of the program loading attached to your mouse cursor, and you can continue working on what you're doing until your program's finished loading uninterrupted.

  90. La, la, la, my boss can't hear you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the strengths of closed source is insulation of the developers from all the unecessary noise that we're witnessing with each and every GIMP article.

  91. re: the number of the GIMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Naaa... the number of the GIMP should be 777 for read/write/execure ALL.

  92. Ashamed to be a geek. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "OOo, on the other hand, is awful. There is a 3-4 second delay before even the splash screen is thrown up!"

    I think the days are long gone when GEEKS actually did any kind of research.

    [From a newsgroup]
    "try using /usr/lib/openoffice/program/spadmin to set the default printer to "generic postscrpit output" instead of to a networked printer.

    also download, install oooqs and run it on system start.

    those two things together will greatly speed it up."

    1. Re:Ashamed to be a geek. by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't want to come in the way of your wallowing in shame, but the only time I use openoffice is when someone sends me a .doc file that I need to ope so I don't want to waste resources on oooqs, and I don't have and non-local printers.

      Anyhow, if there's a splash screen, loading it should be the very first thing a program does so it should show up almost instantly, not half way through the program loading. And if openoffice is doing things like initializing printers and suck while loading, thats just terrible design.

  93. Hmmm... by MWales · · Score: 1

    Any guesses as to how many of those images were really made with Photoshop?

  94. Has to be one of the ones with... by ylikone · · Score: 1

    ... the stupid looking fox or whatever on it... otherwise people will think GIMP is some sort of insult to the mentally disabled. With the wilbur-fox thing, then at least people go "hmmm, i guess that's the gimp". Maybe they should consider changind the name. But then again, the open source movement seems to have problems with naming, as seen with phoenix->firebird->firefox. Maybe gimp will go something like gimp->handi->tard

    --
    Meh.
  95. Use them all! by pardonne · · Score: 1

    Pick one randomly at startup.
    For those who don't want splash screen enable
    gimp --nosplash

  96. Trolls by BigSven · · Score: 1

    Slashdot posters complaining about the UI are trolling, nothing else. I've even stated here on slashdot that we would accept a patch that abstracts window handling in a way that allows to implement different backends. The default backend would be the current behaviour, another backend could implement a windows-in-windows UI. Everyone who keeps claiming that the GIMP developers wouldn't care or would refuse to accept any changes is either badly misinformed or a troll. Anyone who really cares should shut and start coding.

  97. How to sink the "always-on-top" splash screen by KWTm · · Score: 1

    I recently posted a comment about OOo's infamous always-on-top splash screen.
    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130816&cid= 10920011

    Your window manager might let you get rid of the splash screen. I use KDE 3.2, which lets me drag the screen away if I hold down Alt while dragging. More recently, I learned how to sink the splash screen beneath all the other windows:

    KDE Control Center > LookNFeel > Window Behaviour > Actions > Inner Window-Title Bar & Frame > Modifier Key + Middle Mouse Button: set this to "Lower" (or "Toggle Raise and Lower")

    Now when you middle-click the splash screen while holding down the Alt key (or whatever the "Modifier" key is set to), the splash screen is covered by all the other windows. Talk about retribution! Still, it bugs me that it doesn't automatically do this.

    --
    404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
    [GPG key in journal]
  98. So much that's lousy by one-egg · · Score: 1
    I downloaded the movie and watched for quite a while, but gave up. Too many of the splash screens are just stupid. The worst offenses:
    1. Uploading minor variants on the same thing. Look, if you can't figure out which one is your best work, why expect us to make the decision for you? One guy uploaded the same picture of a pier four or five times, tinted red, blue, green, yellow. It's a loser in all of the colors.
    2. Uploading favorite photos. A picture of Patrick Stewart--with the wrong aspect ratio? What the heck does that have to do with The Gimp?

    A splash screen should be more than just a pretty picture; it should serve as a representation of what the program is about. Too many people think "Oooh, I took such a pretty photo once, this is my chance to be famous." Sorry, no.

    Some of the stuff uploaded is wonderful (I remember one that had an artist's palette...simple yet evocative). I just wish someone had the time to reduce those 666+ submissions to a small subset chosen with the following rules:

    1. No unmanipulated photographs.
    2. If multiple minor variants on the same image are uploaded, only the first (or last--I don't really care how you break the tie) will be used.
    That would be a huge public service.
  99. And the Winner is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Winner of the splash screen contest has been announced

    Read the announcement from the mailing list archives
    here or here

    Link to the Winning Splash screen image,
    "work in progress..." by Bill Luhtala