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.

Comments

Obsessed with evil?

[Folmer]

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

Who needs splash screens anyway?

[DoktorTomoe]

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.

Re:Who needs splash screens anyway?

[tunah]

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

Re:Who needs splash screens anyway?

[GauteL]

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.

Sorted results by popularity are now available.

[vasqzr]

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."

Re:what really matters

[GauteL]

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.

So many

[northcat]

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...".

Change the Name!

[thrills33ker]

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.

Re:Change the Name!

[Mornelithe]

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.

Re:Change the Name!

[Mornelithe]

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.

Re:what really matters

[julesh]

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.

Re:Why splash screen?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Kudos to Joshua Estes for his photo but...

[wazzzup]

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.

Re:Why splash screen?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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!"

Re:It's a downside to Open Source

[mutterc]

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.