Slashdot Mirror
Hack turns GIMP into Photoshop Look-alike
Mr_Silver writes "One of the many complaints about the GIMP is that of its user interface and how it should be more like Photoshop. If you feel that this is true then Scott Moschella has hacked together GimpShop which turns GIMP's user interface into something more akin to Photoshop for OSX. However, if you're not running that operating system, fret not, because there is a version for Linux too."
and take it out to dinner, it's still a pig in a dress, not a girlfriend.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Now if only someone would hack it into a photoshop do-alike.
from Adobe lawyers in three, two, one....
What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
...gimp have all the features of Photoshop though? Or atleast alot of them (I wouldn't even know how to use the complex features).
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
Gimp: New and improved. I love the photoshop look and feel. Now I can enjoy the look of photoshop with the functionality of Gimp.
Linux blog http://nsajeff.com/blog
I am happy for this, but for sure, his site is gonna get the [slashdot] effect. The native GIMP interface was no good in my opinion. I pay no penny for the previledge to use it so I do not complain. I hope he's got enough bandwidth and backed up by a nicely configured Linux System.
It might be a good idea to seed a torrent for this before the 40Mb downloads crush his server.
For those who don't follow gimp development, I think this has been one of the often requested "features" for many years. Gimp developers usually say if you want it - do it yourself. Finally someone did.
The MacGIMP web site has the download link for the MacOSX disk image here.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Is GIMP Open Source? Is there a reason why such enhancements cannot be contributed back to the source?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Yeah, but too bad that The Gimp does not support 16bpp (no, CinePaint does not do what I want) and it doesn't support "Crop and Rotate" the way Photoshop does (very convenient trick to implement both in a single keystroke). These two features are what keeping me back from using Gimp for my photography.
Until that day comes, Photoshop it is.
This is really fantastic. A windows port is an obvious need.
Actually totally copying photoshop is taking things pretty far! I'd have settled for a simple normal window model for each platform. Cool though.
This WILL reduce barriers to entry very dramatically. Always was curious that GIMP put together a nice package, but made it so awakward to use.
Nice, not a joke :D
is cmyk. My boss is ready to buy 5 licenses for Adobe CS2, and I'd love to save him a few grand.
Certainly a step in the right direction, only in the sense from what the page says, it's a vast improvement in the interface over gimp. That being said, it does fall into the same trap as other OSS project like to be in, mimicking. If a developer wants his/her project to be noticed not only does it have to do what the competition does, it has to have some added value over the competition. Price isn't necessarily a good way to standout, people are more than willing to pay for something they perceive as better. It would be nice if there were more publicly done research into interface design, OSS projects would benefit greatly from it.
As a OS X user, I would also say anything that requires X11 is not a native OS X application. With no core OS X technology support (little things like colorsync, quicktime, etc), Gimp will really never take off on OS X. I personally will stick to using photoshop.
Burn Hollywood Burn
This should've been done a long time ago, it has always been a pain to work in a so unsymmetric and unclean way. At last, there's a Multiple Document Interface Window that is opaque.
If it (the PS-lookalike code) was contributed back upstream (which it doesn't have to be, but the code itself must still be available to those who download the binary in order to comply with the GPL) I do not think the GIMP developers would accept it since it then would no longer conform as it does to GNOME's Human Interface Guidelines.
... it would be even better if somebody would duplicate Painter's interface as well. The main thing that irks me about both The Gimp and Photoshop is the brush size. I like how Painter just always has a nice little bar where I can vary the brush's size and opacity -- I don't have to click my way into anything to change it, it can stay right there. Furthermore, it keeps track of my brush size/opacity for different tools. For example, I can be drawing with a really small and faint eraser, switch tools to airbrush, and suddenly go to a large, opaque brush without changing the settings on the eraser. In The Gimp, while I can control the opacity of each brush separately, I can't control the size that way, and there isn't just one pair of bars at the bottom of the screen to do it all.
Now I only need adjustment layers, and good bye, Photo$hop!
calling someone a "gimp" is an insult, in a lot of countries it usually means "idiot"
I'd be very surprised if Adobe doesn't send out a storm of DMCA notices "protecting" the patents I'm sure they've taken out on the "look and feel" of photo-shop.
They don't even want you using the term "shopped" or "photoshop" with regards to photo manipulation-- so there's zero chance that they'll turn a blind eye to this.
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
you insensitive clod!
Ha! one of the gimp developers thinks this is a fork.
I don't do a lot of graphics and what I do is simple. I have got used to OpenOffice Draw for vectors and Gimp for bitmaps. They're good enough.
What I'd really like is some kind of open source draughting program that acts like Autocad 10.
This should help the GIMP gain greater acceptance. Rather than getting a Photoshop-oriented book, and then translating the lessons into Gimpese, users can go directly. Hopefully this will encourage more people to try, use, and promote The GIMP, while producing better photos in the process.
Ob. Disclaimer: I've used the GIMP since 0.54 on SGI, and think it hit a peak of usability somewhere around 1.1. The newer features are nice, but I'm glad someone took a stand and wrote an alternative. With this interface, it's a great alternative to Elements, and will hopefully cause Free Software to be used in more environments than before.
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
I kind of miss the old gimp interface (the one without the menubar on the images). but I know most people don't agree. It felt very object oriented to me.
I'm spoiled by PS adjustment layers. That can't be too hard to program, right?
And Gimp needs colour managment. A colour managment, current implemention is an insult!
It has a lot. If you're an amatuer photographer who wants to play around with images, it'll do.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
What about us poor Windows users? There are quite a lot of us, and I'm sure you would want to educate us heathens to the benifits of open source software. Somebody please port it!
i thought you was joking till i read it at urbandictionary
1. gimp
(1) a derrogatory term for someone that is disabled or has a medicial problem that results in physical impairment.
(2) An insult implying that someone is incompetent, stupid, etc. Can also be used to imply that the person is uncool or can't/won't do what everyone else is doing.
(3) A sex slave or submissive, usually male, as popularlized by the movie Pulp Fiction.
Look at that gimp in the wheelchair
Dude, quit being a gimp and take a hit!
Bring out the gimp!
-----
Product branding never was FOSS'es strong point, you would think some nerds talk to marketing people or at least ask them for advice
Nicely done. This will definitely appeal to the photoshop users *coughs*pirates*/coughs* out there. Im hoping its ported to windows soon though. it was already ported to linux, and i dont want to have to use CoLinux to use it.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Here
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
There's a Fedora Core 2 RPM here:
:-/).
Code Mills
Good luck with anything else (the site with the source is slashdotted now
didn't adobe sue macromedia for trade dress? macromedia imitated adobe's use of panels, though macromedia countered with another suit and they both settled and cross-licensed certain aspects of each other's technology.
i'm not too sure if this project is "safe" from any lawsuits
what surprises me is, there are thousands of programmers that give up their time to spend on projects, but the community seems to lack good UI designers. can someone point out an open source related project that works similar to how Apple does their Human Interface Guidelines? i don't even see a problem if the open source community adopts similar guidelines to one put to such rigorous testing as Apple's.
hackers of the world unite!
at today's date in three, two , one......
These thingies can be the difference between +5, funny, and -1, Troll.
Looking for a hack to make PhotoShop look like The GIMP. Tearoff menus would be a nice start.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
For a tool to use.
Feel free to snag the files from me (can handle a few hundred GBs)
GIMPshop.dmg.tbz
GIMPshop-source-2.2.4.tbz
May this post be indexed by spiders, and archived for all to see as my Internet epitaph.
All I see available is a Fedora RPM...
This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
the jpgs only show menus.. thats sad.. the good thing about photoshop isnt how the menus are ordered.. its EVERYTHING ELSE..
besides.. even tho Ive argued many a time over gimps horrid workflow and interface.. copying photoshop isnt ideal either.. they should strive to make a NEW but GOOD interface.. not the GIMPerface that exists now thats like being tortured while eaten alive, dipped in acid and used as a ball to tear down buildings with all at once.
Go ahead and mod me down...I'm still stuck in another era ;)
....
In A.D. 2005
War was beginning.
Adobe: What happen ?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the GIMP.
Operator: We get signal.
Adobe: What !
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Adobe: It's You !!
GIMP: How are you gentlemen !!
GIMP: All your GUI are belong to us.
GIMP: You are on the way to destruction.
Adobe: What you say !!
GIMP: You have no chance to survive make your time.
GIMP: HA HA HA HA
Adobe: Take off every 'GimpShop' !!
Adobe: You know what you doing.
Adobe: Kill 'GimpShop'.
Adobe: For great justice.
Design rule #174:
Don't put icons in menus. If you must use icons in your application, use then in a toolbar. Never in menus. Never. Its lame. It DOESN"T look cool and it DOESN"T make your application "user firendly".
Having looked at the site, I think this could be the first of many more fools.
It's now April 1st in a large portion of the world...
And, possibly where you are too!
Yea, it threw me off too. First I went to the help, which said "Sorry, no help." Needed Google to draw a line.
Of course, the reason there is no line tool made sense right away after doing it: it lets you apply the "line" concept to whichever draw tool you like (pencil, pen, etc.). So they have an excuse, but it's a lame one. There should be a line tool regardless (defaulting to pencil, I guess), with the tricksy stuff involving the keyboard stowed safely away in a help file. Perhaps there will be soon, too?
Whatever, I'm about to embark on a dual learning adventure with GIMP and photoshop both (I'm getting into photography and so need to know photoediting, beyond the rudimentaries I currently know). Should give me a good idea on where the two actually stand in relation to each other, without all the "I could never use anything else" emotion I always see.
It's really quite amazing how negative many people are.
User: "Wah! Gimp doesn't look like photoshop!"
Dev: "Here, we recreated the photoshop interface for Gimp. You may be more comfortable with it now"
User: "Wah! Gimp doesn't act like photoshop!"
Holy shit people. The Gimp rocks, be thankful for that. Yes it doesn't have some of photoshop's features, but most people don't need those features anyway. You can't tell me most people are professional graphic artists or work in a print shop. For those people, get Photoshop, for everyone else, get the Gimp. Would you rather spend 700 bucks, or an extra 5 minutes figuring soemthing out?
Unless of course, you have no ethical problem with illegaly copying software, in which case you might as well get Photoshop for your l33t h4x0r graphics.
Excuse my ignorance, but was GTK developed for and consquently off of GIMP?
"Gimp: New and improved. I love the photoshop look and feel. Now I can enjoy the look of photoshop with the functionality of Gimp."
Just wait till people start hacking Linux to look more like Windows.
How long before app makers defend their trained installed base from competitors coaxing them to switch with "lookalike" skins, by claiming trademark/copyright infringement? Apple and Microsoft fought this out in the 1980s, with major "look & feel" lawsuits. And I believe that Lotus was prohibited from using the same familiar "hotkeys" mapped to menu items as in Excel.
Where would car drivers, or the automobile industry itself, be, if competing manufacturers were blocked from using the same dashboard user interfaces? You'd have to learn to drive an Oldsmobile, then get locked in. Switching brands would mean learning a new "platform", and the whole business would be populated by fragmented, warring factions of specialists. Sound familiar?
--
make install -not war
8 bits per channel
3 channels per pixel
= 24 bits per pixel
I'm looking at the side by side comparison in the second link, and I can't tell the difference. Which makes me wonder what the big ruckus is about.
Other than some trivial alterations in verbiage, it's nearly identical. One could argue that the Photoshop verbiage is more "usable", but not if one were objective. How is "brush tool" more usable than "paintbrush", and "type tool" more usable than "text"?
Does the Open Source community really want users so bloody stupid they can't handle these trivial differences? Do we need break trademark law and give them an Adobe logo so they don't freak and wet their pants?
If you're going to give GIMP a usable interface, the first thing you do is ignore the monstrosity that is Photoshop.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
awesome! hope this is'nt a copyright infringement *me waits for windows version to come*
bash-2.05b$ wget http://www.plasticbugs.com/blogimg/GIMPshop.dmg.tb zb z
--16:09:40-- http://www.plasticbugs.com/blogimg/GIMPshop.dmg.t
=> `GIMPshop.dmg.tbz'
Resolving www.plasticbugs.com... done.
Connecting to www.plasticbugs.com[70.84.9.74]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 43,166,835 [application/x-tar]
100%[===>] 43,166,835 1.08M/s ETA 00:00
16:10:25 (1.08 MB/s) - `GIMPshop.dmg.tbz' saved [43166835/43166835]
and they've been asked for several years already but evidently the gimp developers don't care about them enough to provide them.
I've heard rumours that the next version of CS will have *filters* in layers (meaning, you can create an 'unsharp maks' layer) which will make PS even more powerful.
Let's not even talk about the full PS, the Gimp has quite a way to go to become comparable to even Elements 3.0 in terms of functionality unfortunately.
-- the cake is a lie
It has? How?
It's been a long time since I've used an open-source tool wherein the interface didn't feel remarkably similar to a piece of commercial software that pre-dated the application I was using.
That's a problem to you? Most of us like the fact that we do not have to learn a new interface each programme we encounter.
It's really no wonder the majority of the world views OSS tools as "cheap knock-offs" of the real thing
You may (erroneously) think so -- I dispute that he "majority" of the world views it as such. Utter BS. Are you an MS astroturfer or something?
It's thievery, it's dishonest, and it should be illegal (in many cases, it already is).
I guess you want every model of car to drive significantly differently as some form of ?innovation?!?
Clutch on left in sedan, in middle on SUV, on the right on the coupé? Is that really what you want? Sounds like it, but somehow I don't think so...
I'm still waiting for a Photoshop hack that makes it look like the Gimp...
A pig in a dress is an excellent substitute.
I run a script that uses xnest to run Gimp in a its own X. The result looks much like an "MDI-like" environment, very clean, very little distraction.
didn't adobe sue macromedia for trade dress? macromedia imitated adobe's use of panels, though macromedia countered with another suit and they both settled and cross-licensed certain aspects of each other's technology.
... just like all music downloading stopped when the music industry sued all the hundreds of millions of music file sharers ... NOT!
.egg files by their {End} extensions for April 1st celebration in Fremont ...
Riiight
Well, gotta go, balancing
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Design rule #1:
Don't let dummies design the interface.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Adobe's interfaces tend to be pretty bad, actually, but they are an improvement on the GIMP's in some respects. I wonder if GimpShop really manages to incorporate the subtle things that give Photoshop an advantage, though...
Also, can we PLEASE get a name that doesn't contain the world "GIMP"? Pretty please? Pleeeease?
DNA just wants to be free...
GIMP is a beauty, and I've created more than a dozen graphics with it for my graphic blog; check them out at: http://sunandfun.blogspot.com/
I'm not a trained graphic artist, and I don't make a living in that field, but my experience with GIMP has been great, despite all the talks about its awkward UI.
Sun and Fun
What's unfortunate is that GIMPshop won't last long, and doesn't have a very promising life ahead of it. Why? Because its an open invitation for lawsuits on the basis of both its name ("-shop") and its level of imitation (or "duplication" I should say).
The sad thing is that GIMP is/was in DESPERATE need of an interface overhaul. Its got a hideous interface (with icons in the pulldown menus -- blechh) and illogical tools. IMHO if you're going to dedicate your time to something like this, better to dedicate it towards a legitimate opensourced redesign rather than a dead-end hack which is only going to invite legal annihilation.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
You're lucky, mine will only do missionary!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
In photoshop you can just right-click to bring up the brush pallete right where you're working to adjust brushes.
..but this brings up a tricky point. the ideal program would have every option that I need and use an interface that was intuitive to me, but that can vary pretty widely from person to person and job to job.
Maya has a very powerfully adaptable interface that you can change to your preference, but that can also make the learning curve even steeper. There's got to be a sweet point somewhere in between.
air and light and time and space
In their defense, they must defend against their brading becomin generic, or else they lose rights.
Example: Escalator once was a brand,
now it is a generic term.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
.... I WANT A GODDAMNED FOSS PHOTOSHOP CLONE. >:|
:P
It's the only piece of pay software I use, and it's been UNuseable for my needs since v.6 came out- and it keeps getting more bloated, slower, and less useable as time goes by. It really burns my ass that they changed a lot of the key bindings (FOR NO REASON) with v.6 and give the user NO way to actually edit a key config for themselves. Games have been doing this for years and MS Office is extensively customizeable... you'd think Adobe would get on board but NOOOOOO.
I absolutely hate Adobe The Company, and I absolutely cannot use anything that doesn't open at least ps5.5 documents- GIMP'll do it, but kill your blending modes, masks, and fonts goodbye. Guess what I use a lot of.
So I'm stuck getting humped in the ass by Adobe's PCP-laced view of What Photoshop Should Be. Programmers- picture your text editor changing keybinds and workflow with every revision, and you CAN'T CHANGE IT. You either wouldn't upgrade or you'd switch, wouldn't you?
Anyway. I want a drop-in replacement for Photoshop. I don't care if it's slightly different so long as the interface remains the same- six years of using Photoshop 5.x has given me the ability to weild the program without even thinking about it, and one of the things that frustrates artists (aside from being forced to use shitty software) is having to learn NEW software. We just want to make art. You can't expect us to learn perl or ruby or whateverthefuck GIMP script-fu uses instead of making actions, document compatability is a must (if I'm to get rid of photoshop, GIMP needs to be able to handle a few thousand photoshop files with all kinds of funky blending modes and layer effects and so forth and it needs to be able to handle it all perfectly (especially text).... and it's a long way from doing so.).
There's also the meta key thing. Using control as a meta for a longtime mac user is like trying to answer the phone with your foot- it Does Not Work. That's gotta be my biggest complaint about these so-called X windows "ports" to MacOS X - it ain't a port if it ain't localized as much as you can make it.... and OS X (and MacOS) apps use the apple key as the meta key, dammit. It's right next to the space bar- makes it real easy to hit both with the thumb, etc, etc.
I could keep going, but I just came off an Enemy Terrirory server that got swarmed by a dorm full of teamkilling assholes, so now's a good time to stop.
When is Linux going to get proper colour management?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
March 31st?
Look for someone who would rather spend a couple of grand (AUD$2000) or more on a better lens or more Compact Flash than on software. Consider this:
Computer (AMD 2400, 1GB RAM, 200GB HDD): AUD$450
19" CRT monitor: AUD$300
Linux: AUD$0
The GIMP: AUD$0
OpenOffice.org: AUD$0
TOTAL: AUD$750 vs
Computer: AUD$450
Monitor: AUD$300
Windows XP Pro OEM: AUD$240 [PLE]
PhotoShop: AUD$1399 [Adobe.au]
MS Office Basic OEM: AUD$240 [PLE]
TOTAL: AUD$2629
DELTA: AUD$1879 or 250% extra.
Note that PS is more than half of the total system cost and cashing in either MS Win XP Pro or MS Office Basic would almost equal a second screen. Cashing in both would allow a second computer sans screen. Buying a virus scanner and a few other MS Windows necessaries would drive that past AUD$2000 easily.
The basic startup choice she was facing was: shall I buy software or a second camera? At each step along the way, the choice has been things like shall I buy software or a long-distance lens? or shall I buy software or backup my work?
The short story is, if she'd had to save an extra AUD$1879 before she got started, she wouldn't have got started.
Now she's so used to The GIMP that PS feels very awkward. There's a zillion little things which are easy to do in PS and hard in The GIMP, but there are another zillion little things which are easy in The GIMP and hard in PS.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
It was EXACTLY what I have been thinking all along. The free GIMP was all good and well, but I always got frustrated because of (at the start) the bunch of floating windows it consisted of (insteead of a rigid window), and the fact that it was much less intuitive then photoshop.
I think it is wondeful that this hack is made, and it will certainly appeal to a lot of preople.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I'm new to Gimp. Can anyone tell me if Adobe Photoshop formated images can be opened and edited using Gimp?
Collision imminent! Collision imminent!
Methinks this is an April Fool's Day joke.
1. Don't you think Adobe would sue the pants off of anyone who did this?
2. For those of us used to GIMP, redoing the look and feel to be like Photoshop won't do much good.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
It might be April 1st where you are, but not in the US. Remember, CowboyNeil lives there.
OH NOES!!! IT APPEARS YUO DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR DIS HERE PIZZA! WAHT EVER ARE YOU GOING TO DO!?!?
Free Online Woodworking Resources Directory
There's nothing in the GPL that prevents the GIMP's developers from copying or building on the changes. But there might be other reasons for not adopting the changes.
The GIMP is a part of the GNU project. The GNU project began over a decade before the open source movement in order to give people an OS that respects users freedom to share and modify software.
The GIMP's license (the GNU GPL, the most popular and probably most important free software license) is listed as acceptable by the Open Source Initiative, but the GPL was written by the FSF years before the open source movement existed. The OSI merely set their terms of acceptance such that the extant GPL would comply. I don't know if this was planned, but planned or not, the open source movement has received a lot of attention for work it did not do. Not all OSI-approved licenses give users software freedom.
It's time that we recognize the relative contributions of these organizations and give free software its due by asking for free software by name.
Digital Citizen
... or lines in menus. That's what it boils down to. Sure a lot of work perhaps, but hardly a new UI or anything like that. And tied to a certain version (distributed with it in the source tarball yes). Bet the guy doesn't even know what a patch is. I also bet that it could have been done much more structually with *less* effort of the feeble kind.
Sorry to be the negative here, but this is just lukewarm air and a small amount of it as well. Or it needs a lot of care from packagers.
But having said that, The Gimp is great if you need only the features of Photoshop 4 or 5. Photoshop has come a long way since then. Anyone who compares the two as "comparable" has not spent more than a few hours with the latest releases of Photoshop. There are definitely some cool things about process and detailed editing that The Gimp doesn't even come close for.
And I suspect this will continue to be the case. I'm willing to pay $800 to get today's tools, even though tools from five years ago are available for free.
I must confess great amusement when Winky Dink got five votes in one of the local council elections a while back.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This is seems pretty much like a button relabeling/shuffling. What really erks me with gimp is every tool having it's own window. I like having a parent window with everything else being a sub window with all tools staying 'above' the opened images. And tab was always handy to hide everything but the window of the image so you could just work on the image at hand with the current tool selected without being encumbered with all the clutter of the tool/layers windows etc.
I've tried to have a somewhat similar environment with having all the gimp tools in one workspace and the image in another but it's just not the same.
And I've seen this mentioned before with stating why an MDI interface is inferior. Well, it's hard to swallow something you know you don't like after multiple attempts at getting used to it, no matter who tells you 'no what you've liked all this time, no no, that way is no good, this is the way.'
But, from what I understand, this functionality is beyond most (all?) current window managers for X.
It felt very object oriented to me.
Hmm....
Applying programming metaphors to user interfaces. You wouldn't happen to be a member of middle management, would you?
Well, considering that it was a Mac user who did this, and then a Linux user ported it, I think the question should be: why aren't Windows users bothering to port it themselves?
Don't just expect people to do this for you. Those who run Linux and OS X have no real need for Windows. It might be frustrating, but, well, tough.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Sven Neumann AKA neo is working on real Colour Management as one of the many, many plates he has in the air. Expect to see it surface before GIMP 2.4.
Arbitrary colour channel depths is something of an elephant in the room at the moment. It was supposed to be inherent in a particular supporting library, but development on that library seems ot have petered out.
The people who are actually doing stuff do have this in mind, though, and regularly get asked about it, so it will happen, even if only to stop the whining.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I hate sounding like I'm not happy with this, although I'm sure many a one will be happy with the change, because it'll make it easier for Photoshop users to switch. However, doesn't Adobe have a copyright or a patent on those kinds of UIs? Either one would be destructive to the Opensource movement in general, because if gimpshop gets busted, almost no one will try and switch to the gimp because they'll think it's just a copycat of Adobe's hard work instead of the innovative program it really is.
Also, if the Gimp developpers have gone so long astray from that interface, there's a reason, and we should ask them why and try and understand it before short-circuiting their logic and possibly unleashing a monster out of it's box.
If Adobe takes this to court, it's going to be ugly. Not only for the creator of gimpshop, but for the Gimp and Opensource hackers in general. I admire the effort, but I'm not so sure I wanted the gimp changed...
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
Why not? Apple have copyrighted their OS X interface didn't they?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
...is still a few months off, but it will read CMYK files and do CMYK separations today.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
hahahaha, forgive me if I'm lauging out loud.. What does the gimp have that Photoshop hasn't? If your answer is "a sucky interface without real aplication" you're not far off :P
Excuse my obvious ignorance, but the downloads are in a format with extension .tbz. I don't know what this is. Neither does Safari, so clicking the "download" link opens a page of garbage. If this is going to be aimed at Mac users, it needs to be packaged in a way that Mac users can use, such as plain old .zip, or a .dmg file.
...is the TOFU of window management. The only real advantage to it is familiarity.
Full Disclosure: I have loathed and despised Microsoft's idea of MDI since Windows 3.1. It's not a virtue, it's a hangover from the days when windows had trouble overlapping.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
GIMP is about to sued out the ass by Adobe...just like Microsoft killed OpenOffice I guess. Yeah. Whatever. CLONES are legal as long as they use their own code, dude. Ask anyone except SCO what GNU stands for and that will tell you why Linux is a completely legal _clone_ of proprietary UNIX operating systems. /me can't wait to see this new GIMP interface on my wonderful Gentoo :)
Photoshop Elements is $63 after rebates on Amazon as we type.
For most of the crowd, Elements will be more than enough. For photography/graphic arts/etc students who need more, there's an educational version.
If you're one of the few image editing professionals that needs the full Photoshop, you're probably making enough to justify Photoshop as a business expense.
Photoshop is one of those apps that targets the professional class. Adobe doesn't care about that 90% of the pirates who warez the software and use it once a month to airbrush themselves into Natalie Portman's publicity shot. Adobe cares about the design shops who buy the legal version and use it eight hours a day, every day. There are enough of these folks paying full price to cover the development costs, and turn a nice profit besides. Everyone else can use Elements, or the GIMP.
Lemme use an analogy here.
You've been using vim for eight years. On a Mac, which you've also been using for eight years. Vim has warts, but you know it and know how to use it. Since this is an analogy, let's assume a new version of Vim comes out every few years, and it's not all that cheap. In fact, it's getting about +100-150$ more expensive with every version.
Oh look, here's the BIG PROJECT with a deadline of FRIDAY.
And it's Tuesday afternoon.
Oh, and IT just replaced your workhorse Vim Mac with an HP/UX machine running emacs. Because they got sick of paying for Vim licenses. They didn't bother with training, 'cuz emacs users are too leet to need it or offer it. And hey, it's a graphics app... they're all the same, aren't they?
You've got a short deadline to get a lot of shit done NOW and you have enough spare change for a vim license (you've been saving nickles for a decade or so). Do you.......
A. Buy the license, get the job done NOW and lump it onto the bill to the client?
B. Lose the contract and impale yourself on the spire of Mental Anguish that is trying to learn something you've never used in your life to do something you already know how to do in another application?
There's no decision, really.
======
Yeah, the gimp is nice, but the pros aren't going to use it. Cinepaint maybe, since you're dealing with a slightly different medium... but for graphics? People will pay for something they KNOW. It takes about eight months or more of constant use before the photoshop learning curve evens out and the experience becomes more organic and less of a "having to pick the lock on the handcuffs the app puts on you" sort of thing.
So yeah, people are going to whine that it doesn't act like photoshop*. Their brains are trained for photoshop just the way your brain is trained for vim in the above example. Interface is half the battle, but it isn't the entire battle and it definitely isn't the war.
* Take any graphics designer who wears photoshop like a pair of well broken-in briefs, sit 'em down in front of GIMP, and tell 'em to do whatever it is they do. If they're mac users, they'll repeatedly stab the wrong meta key. There'll be issues with the file browser. They'll continue to expect the thing to behave like photoshop and will balk and get frustrated when large chunks of their workflow are either GONE or restructured and rerouted in such a fashion as to be something completely Different. It's like giving a soldier in the Russian army a traditional Scottish tartan, telling them the tartan is their new pants, and expecting them to know exactly what to do with it.
I use Photoshop on wine because the gimp's text tool just doesn't cut it. This is one place where there's a vast difference between Photoshop & Gimp. Most of the time when I edit graphics I'm making a menu of some sort, which means I have to stick with Photoshop, until the Gimp catches up in this area.
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
...coming, and more, but not this month.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Which is why you're currently working on your own reimplimentation rather than just pointlessly bitching about other people's efforts, right?
Right?
makes 32 bits per pixel. If you ahve 4 channels, that's only 6 bits per pixel.
Does it run under Windows?
Doesn't have proper colour management. One of the best things about Photoship is the CM, and softproofing is pretty cool really. Being able to use a proper colour management workflow with ICC profiles in Photoshop gives it a BIG advantage over the Gimp.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
So Windows users should go ahead and do it then!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Known quite a few artists. None of them wore berets, they were mostly a t-shirt and jeans crowd. Most couldn't afford to drink anything but Maxwell House. No kidding.
The people you see in front of the Starbucks dressed in fashionable black with the berets cocked on their brows are probably art dealers or self-styled critics, not artists.
You say the option is to make the switch to something completely different, except you expect it to have the same interface??
If you're tired of options changing from version to version, couldn't you just decide to NOT upgrade?
And they made unhappy a lot of old users in the name of new users, and ignored the a11y guys (see #14). This interface hack copies Photoshop and there's a comment in the blog about helping with the GIMP menu reorg. Let's hope this does not become trend: fuck your current users in the name of new users and never innovate, just be clones of something else, nevermind copies tend to be worse than originals.
Maybe GIMP should have a hints section of their help files.
WORKSFORME. Install GIMP, and by default it displays a random hint every time you start it. Click Next to see other items in the Tip of the Day list.
Why hack something to look like photoshop when you can use photoshop!?
You think that all of colour management is about Pantone? How then, may I ask, does LCMS use ICC profiles? I was not aware that these had been patented, nor had the process of doing colour-space transformations been patented. Are profile connection spaces patented? Have device profiles been patented by Pantone? I don't think so.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
It could be the case that step 1 of implementing adjustment layers is to wait until 20 years after Photoshop 5 came out.
Which patent are you referring to?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
nobody does TV work in RGB. If you're not going to work in YUV, you work in RGBA.
And GIMP can handle alpha channels just fine since the 1.x series.
No I'm working on several other Opensource projects
What's with the hostility?
My point is that if you're going to go through all the work of a skin/redesign, why make a look-alike with a high legal risk-factor?
No one was bitching.
Settle down. Have a mint.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
CMYK would be nice, but without Pantone it's still not on par.
You mean: CMYK would be nice, but without Patent it's still not on par.
Next step is to migrate icons as well, since gimp 2.0+ is themeable it's not that hard to do that. It just needs some icon extraction. That would increase eye caddy of gimp as well.
Jokes aside, if you've invested years of effort into Photoshop at work, this is a nice way to carry that deeply-ingrained UI comfort into a tool that is free in both senses of the word. I use GIMP once and a while, but the UI differences between it and Photoshop (which I must use for work) are too jarring, so I end up booting my work laptop instead.
i just downloaded this garbage, installed it according to the readme and ran it on mac os x 10.3. the application starts and then never gets any farther in loading than showing an incompletely loaded menu bar (contains only GIMPShop menu, nothing else like file or edit).
$700 Photoshop
$90 Photoshop Elements
-$90 GIMP
The GIMP gets negative dollars because the time spent learning GIMP could instead be spent using Photoshop Elements. If you've only got, say $6/hr earning potential, then GIMP is your cup of tea. If you're earning $12/hr, then Photoshop Elements is much, much, better.
GPL Deconstructed
A Wyoming Whore house. And they know the difference there. After all they do not wish to fool around with Black Bart's Girl.
Hey, I ran out of twenties, ok?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I have to wonder why GIMP would have chosen to use their own naming scheme for stuff like the 'Marquee Tools' or 'Lasso Tools'.
I mean, looking at the fellow's side-by-side toolbar listings, it seems to me that the names used by Photoshop tools are more human-readable and descriptive than the associated GIMP tools. Is GIMP attempting to preempt any possible legal action on Adobe's part?
I only hope it wasn't to be difficult to Photoshop people.
as you can see from reading the comments on the linked site or by actually attempting to run this program, it doesn't work for many people running os 10.3. various annoying workarounds are proposed, with limited success.
Why are you modding this guy a troll? If anything, I found his comments insightful and on-topic. Sure, he dissed open source, but is what he said that untrue? Many major open sourced projects derive *a lot* or were created from products that are/were not open source.
Photoshop is a great program and has unquestionably paved the way for its competitors. It is still by far the best at what it does. I would love to see the day that a free program can be as good as it.
And yet they still complain. Figures.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
The thing that i hate most about the gimp, and this may sound foolish, is that awesome little hand in photoshop. I think gimp has one but its not the same. When you press the space bar in PS you can drag the photo around, and it makes making small touchups so awesome. Is this available in gimp? the shortcut atleast, that reverts back after you let go of space? Kevin
Interesting. I've always liked not being locked into one large window, and able to move things about as I wish.
That is to say, I prefer gimp's approach.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Gimp is good for home users that want to edit photos and don't want to spend $1000 on Adobe Creative Suite.
The lack of color management in GIMP makes it simply not suitable for production in a professional environment.
By any chance will the Fedora RPM work w/ SuSE? If not, is someone working on it? (Is it easy to compile the source to get it working on SuSE?)
Sounds cool, I really like Photoshop, much more familiar with it than GIMP, and like it or not Photoshop is the standard as far as image editing apps go.
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
Please, oh please, can you give a little touch to Glade, so we stop wondering why an interface builder should have the ugliest graphic interface in the world?
The above is not meant to be trollish at all. Kudos to Glade developers; most of its ugliness is surely due to GTK, but I think some logical reconfiguration can be done to make it easier to use and much prettier.
IMHO, a big window where information pertaining to the same context can be grouped together into logical or functional blocks via layers or frames is much much much easier to manage than the same amount of information spread on a bunch of little windows scattered on the desktop. Also, a good use of tabpages as containers for different functions of the same program, instead again of many windows, keeps the screen clean and the program much more useable.
A large portion of academic journals have switched to requiring all submissions in camera-ready PDF.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Now it's been a while since I've written any code, but I seem to recall every time I compiled a program from source I had written it got smaller.
So why is the full download 40mb, and the source code download 14mb?
I personally will stick to using photoshop.
Yes, please do that; I can't imagine any advantage anybody else would have from you using Gimp on OS X. In addition, please stop complaining that other people aren't porting software to your favorite proprietary platform and window system for free and in exactly the way you personally prefer it.
There are a lot of crazy inconsistencies in Photoshop's interface that I was glad to be rid of when I dropped it.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
View the screenshots here:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/
is there a torrent available yet?
i can host one if anybody has an alternate location for the fedora build...
Get your torrents...
I wasn't trying to say that the GIMP is suitable for Prepress. The lack of a CMYK color space is the major obstacle, but the inability to handle spot inks or additional color (i.e. 5th color on a press) is another big drawback.
The GIMP is fine for playing around with RGB images. I would say that includes web graphics on professional sites. Web color management is pretty much impossible due to variation in monitor color, personal color settings on each individual monitor and gamma variation between operating systems.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
...kinda reminds me of that "Did you mean..." google feature. That thing is so handy when you're drunk. Maybe with this hack, I can spike the waterfountain at work, and just pocket the $599 instead of buying a copy of PhotoShop CS... ...maybe...
"When I am king, you will be first against the wall..."
I made some "drop-in replacement" gimp packages for debian sid (i386 and amd64). I just built this modified source using the package rules from the "real" debian gimp. Because I didn't change the name, if you install these and then apt-get upgrade in the future, they will be replaced by the stock debian packages. You can get them here:
http://cmb.phys.cwru.edu/kisner/gimpshop/
Anyway, at least it is an easy way to install and check it out.
-Ted
Who's running the "How long until Adobe sues Scott?" pool? I have $10 on a week.
The Gimp is the ONLY photo editor I know, the only one I use. To me the interface is perfectly fine and I'm sure working with Photoshop would be difficult. It just depends on what you grow up with...
Thank you- Your post made me laugh so hard I have tears in my eyes.
I would like to check out linux version. from the hook-a-brother-up dept.
Getting old fast, Shit!
and didn't learn anything worthwhile until I picked up the Gimp. I never learned photoshop. Nice effort, the interface looks fine and everything, but I don't see the need.
I can of course see where he's coming from, there was a time when Netscape 4.x sucked so bad it wasn't worth using before Mozilla got good enough for normal work so I used NeoPlanet with a Netscape Skin. I definately see where he's coming from, just not for me.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Corel Draw had a Illustrator emulation mode.
Getting old fast, Shit!
but it is clear to me that this just *needs* to be compiled against aalib, or possibly run under an aalib- based X server</a>.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
there IS a gimp port for windows, it works quite well: http://gimp.org/windows/
tasty electronic music vittles
"You would not call a horse born in a cowshed a calf." -- Duke Wellington on why he was not Irish.
Now, if only someone could fix the open and save dialogs they broke in GIMP 2.2, that would be great. Anyone?
I'd like to be able to install 2.2, but that won't happen if I have to deal with those broken dialogs.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
If I knew how to compile it for windows I'd have done, but I dont know. but dont say: learn it, because if I have to learn this i'd rather learn to use linux in expert mode please provide a download link for windows
him into believing the GIMP **IS** the "low-cost" version of Photoshoppe...., and that they've changed the interface and name. (Just be sure to write a script to change all references to "OS/FLOSS/GNU/GPL...." for his login...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I remember my frustration with the PhotoShop interface when I first started using it. It sucks!
Sure, now that I am used to it, I can get work done in it, but getting used to it was a pain in the arse! A more non-intuitive, clumsy interface just couldn't be imagined! (disclaimer here: I haven't spent any time with Gimp and I don't use PhotoShop that much anymore)
Surely they could have found a better interface to emulate! Is this just a case of "I know what I know and I don't want to learn anything new"?
I've never used photoshop, but I use The Gimp a lot. I also use Windows. The only thing I wish was that all the windows The Gimp produes would be contained in a meta window, since I do not have virtual desktops, and the ones I have tried for windows have, to put lightly, sucked. It is annoying to try to bring up what you want, and accidentally click somewhere outside a window onto the browser in the background, and you have to bring up 7 or 8 windows individually. I want it to still be like The Gimp, because that is what I am used to, but this request can't be THAT difficult, can it?
I like the GIMP. I use it for cropping, touching up, and compressing-for-email photos, and for general doodling, and while (several) years ago I used to use Photoshop for some low-grade graphic design work, I'm now much more used to the GIMP; that Photoshop is both expensive and unavailable (barring workarounds like Codeweavers' Wine) unavailable on my platform of choice probably has a lot to do with this. Playing with the GIMP is more fun than most of the built-in timewasters that Linux distros have so cruelly includeed (even kbounce).
:)
Further, I like the GIMP's interface, at least in general. I like using the right button to reach nearly any option quickly, and being able to do that from anywhere. I don't know about the Windows version of Photoshop, or any recent Mac ones, but the last version I used with OS X sill had all menu items only at the top, which (to my GIMP-adjusted self) suddenly seems archaic and inefficient.
I do have some complaints about the GIMP's interface, too -- there are lots of tasks that I don't know how to do with it, and I'm not a serious enough user to chase them down too hard; if I needed to do them badly enough, I guess I would
Bearing all of the above in mind, I really like this project -- answers lots of objectors' main objection (though no good deed goes unpunished).
However, what I'd like to see more than this fully reworked version of the GIMP is for the GIMP itself to be able to accept "personalities" (themes / styles / whatever you want to call them), so that people could say "This set of keybindings and menu orders works well for me / my style of working / my company's workflow [etc]" -- and then let people download and try them out.
A sane set of default settings (and Yes, I think the current defaults are fine and sane; YMMV) is important, but beyond that, it would be nice to be able to quickly try out other set-ups as easily as it is to switch themes in a window manager.
Just an idea --
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
this hack, that turns Gimp into money.
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
You are not an expert. Do you know anything about colour management? Those things certainly slow things down, but they are not the be all and end all of colour management. Depending on how you do things, you can just get a profile connection space, get an profile for your input device (scanner, camera, whatever), transform it into a wider colour space like CIE-LAB (etc), then on the screen apply a screen profile to see what you image looks like or if you want to print the image/document/whatever apply an output profile and spit out the data. None of these things are patented.
I suppose my original question was stupid, to be honest. Really, some type of colour management should be applied at a different level - like into GNOME or KDE in a similar way that Apple does their colour management via ColorSync. Still Adobe has their own colour management engine. They spend money on them and probably patented various things, but I see no reason why Gimp couldn't have SOMETHING. But then again, I'm not a developer. Oh, and this isn't a whinge - I'm VERY happy with Gimp and the developers should be congratulated on a mighty fine application.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I was more responding to the original poster who seemed to think it was his God given right to have a port done for Windows. My response is that people who run Windows should do the port, not people who don't even run that operating system!
C'mon already. If a Linux user said that to a person who solely compiles an OSS app in Visual C++, what sort of answer do you think they would give them? Personally, I think it's pretty good that they have stuff already.
I can't understand the argument that people who write free software (free as in beer and free as in speech) should HAVE to do a port to Windows! They don't get paid for it, they don't have a responsibility to any of you! It's a priviledge, not a right to have this stuff.
Hence my sheesh.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Many people use it to run games. You need games? That's not essential. Nobody, to be honest with you, absolutely need things like Word any more (unless it's for interoperability).
If you can name one application that doesn't have an open source equivalent I'd be suprised.
No way. Gimp 2.0 has a very clean interface. What interface elements don't you like exactly?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I agree. I find the irony of Windows users screaming for ports of Linux software quite amusing, considering that it was only a few years ago that the situation was quite different (Linux users were screaming for Windows ports of software).
Payback sucks, huh?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Photoshop isn't a DRAWING PROGRAM. It's a graphics editing program. You want to "draw a circle", use Illustrator or Freehand.
:P
You want to make a circle-shaped are of pixels....
Marquee tool -> flyout -> circle shape -> shift-drag -> paint bucket w/ color of choice (or Fill w/ foreground or background color, or Stroke ((width of choice)) or convert the selection to a path and distorty, etc, etc, etc.)
Photoshop was designed for editing photographs and other detailed image data. Using it to draw primitives is like using a flamethrower to swat a mosquito.
(but people do all the time anyway- once you've got the workflow, it's easy. It's just not the application's Primary Function.)
Photoshop isn't a Drawing Program, and it isn't a Paint Program. Microsoft Paint, Painter, Shi Painter, Open Canvas and The GIMP are Paint Programs. Illustrator, Freehand and Inkscape are Drawing Programs. Photoshop is Photoshop.
Thanks for the laughs! :)
Mod me flamebait, BUT....
:)
The G means GNU. See also Gnome, see also, I believe, HURD.
Gnome is reported to have similar problems w/r/t developers (from what I've heard- I list the linux desktop under "comedy" and follow it accordingly), and HURD.... whoboy.
Nevermind how notoriously strong-willed Stallman is.
Methinks the AC complains too loudly! The original poster was in no way berating the Gimp for its features, he was merely saying he can't use it due to it's keyboard shortcuts. Now that he knows he can change them, he should be OK.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
... the Gimp's interface is no ugly or badly designed... it's just different to what people are used to. Further, if a badly designed Photoshop interface is added to the Gimp then they will like it? Methinks they complain too loudly!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
My dad asks me if he should pirate photoshop. I told him no.... So he asks me what should he do. So I told him about GIMP. His response was why would he use inferior tools.
You get what you pay for. Your dad doesn't want to pay full price for a full-featured app, but when presented with a free option, complains that it's "inferior". There's no such thing as a free lunch.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
Believe it or not, even by BSA's numbers, piracy in the western world isn't that high. No, seriously, look at their breakdown by states in the USA, for example. You'll notice that no state exceeds some 40% and some are in the single digit range.
And bear in mind that the BSA is basically a sock-puppet that exists only to whine about piracy, and how some chinese kid pirating 3DSMax to mod a $40 game actually represents a $6000 loss for a company. (Surely _everyone_ would pay $6000, even in countries where it means 6 years' salary, to mod a $40 game, if it wasn't for piracy. Not.)
BSA's only reason to exist is to cry wolf. So they do it lots. The'll even classify the neighbour's dog as a wolf because it sorta looks like it. Or as I usually say, there's a reason there's BS in BSA.
So if even their inflated numbers don't say 100%, sorry, I don't believe the fallacy that goes "they've all pirated <insert software title>".
The fact which some people fail to understand is that a helluva lot of us actually pay for software. Or, to open that can of worms too, for music.
Why would someone in their right mind pay for commercial software instead of (A) using some free crap, or (B) pirating it?
Well, point A is easy: because often we actually don't find the free one to do the same, or have the same usability. Sometimes it's cheaper to pay for something than to spend weeks making the free version work, or learning its quirks. Time is money, and mine is pretty expensive.
Point B actually boils down to personal ethics: either you're a thief or you aren't. If you are, I don't expect you to understand why someone would prefer buying stuff if shoplifting it was easy. If you aren't, then you can understand that most people wouldn't shoplift even if shops were completely non-supervised.
It also illustrates another point: true, not everyone can afford Photoshop. So some buy Paintshop Pro instead.
The world isn't made of only extremes. In the real world there are a lot of shades of grey in between owning a Ferrari and walking to work.
The same applies or rather should apply to software too: there are (and should be more) choices between the most expensive version (even by piracy) or something free (again, sometimes "free" via piracy, as in using a SN generator on a shareware version.) Paintshop is just one such example of an in-between piece of software. Others include, for example, using Milkshape instead of 3DSMax.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Drawing a rectangle is not only not easy to figure out, but is time consuming as hell.
It seems to assume that the one who is working with Gimp is someone who is billing by the hour.
But it's not like Photoshop does not suffer at all from the same problem, I've got a hard time doing some things that were simple in Paintshop in Photoshop too.
Excellent reply. The other posters did not get the point that some people just have this mindset, and they underlined why the mindset was wrong. I knew that already, and they added nothing.
Your response, however, is great. You picked up exactly the kind of thinking that would happen if the same mindset was applied to real world situations. I wonder why this idea that why settle for less when you can pirate the best is so prevalent in the software world, but it seems like the same applies in China where the starter edition is going to have exactly the same success for exactly the same reason.
That, and you absolutely cracked me up with "Natalie Portman or bust!".
Bravo! (Moderators do your stuff)
badness 10000
gphoto2 loves Canon [12]0Ds.
Even if it hadn't, I don't know of any modern cameras that won't pretend to be a slab of digital storage. In fact, that's how I scraped the photos out of my original Sony camera when I first got one many years ago.
Welcome to the 21st century.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This is so annoying... why do people link idiots who type crap about how they're 133t h4x0rs with software theft? Where's the connection? Many people steal software, IMO, & many tiyp lik ths. But never can you assume from one that the other applies. Sure, it's prob'ly common for h4x0rs to steal their software, but the other way round isn't some forgone conclusion.
The same people who think that way will probably think that my sticking up for the intelligence of those who nick Photoshop means I do too, but if so, their prejudice is misplaced. Not to accuse anyone directly, but I really think that half the ones who go on about "l33t h3x0rs" steal it themselves, & just want to make sure everyone knows they don't.
For myself, I can only say that although the rest of the comment was great, & I totally agree with it, that ruined it. You're a dickhead.
Yar.
...money for a virus scanner, a firewall, and frequent call-outs to fix stuff which breaks at random, remove spyware which gets in despite the scanners... and so on.
Not near as bad as 9X/ME, but it's still there.
The only real reasons for wanting MS Windows these days are specific vertical market apps (e.g. PhotoShop), or games/edutainment. IPOF, PhotoShop 7 runs under WINE, too, which kind of enmootifies half of that point. I haven't tried later versions.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Sorry, should have shopped harder. It was certainly over $1300 (for a legal copy, anyway) at the time she first went looking.
For some reason, every single MS Windows guru I know is much happier installing Pro than Home. One actually prefers 2003 Server, except that the free AVG scanner won't install on it 'coz it's a "workstation only" edition. He doesn't seem to mind reinstalling AVG every few months.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Thank you for answering my original question!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
...subtle as ever. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
"A lot of them only rip or take what suits them." - how is that much different from a lot of Linux users? I don't think we can tar everyone with the same brush.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Guys,
did you even try GimpShop?
Now, I see nothing different in GimpShop (2.2.4) and gimp (2.2.3), except for the splash screen.
Well, it seems the only thing that's changed are the _menus_. It doesn't look like Photoshop at all.
So what's the point? Rename "Blend" to "Gradient Tool"? Nothing else?
That's just stupid.
Under no circumstances does any GPLed project have to accept any changes, you moron! And you moron moderators!
The GPL works the other way around: if you want to ship binaries, you must also ship the source. This means that anyone is free to fork the GIMP. However, with one notable exception, you're all too lazy.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Dev: quit'cha bitchin' 'n' get t'tha kitchin! (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...for great justice, of course. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...The CRIPPLE?
Not everyone in the world uses Yankee slang terms.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Seashore is an open source image editor for Cocoa. It features gradients, textures and anti-aliasing for both text and brush strokes. It supports multiple layers and alpha channel editing. It is based around the GIMP's technology and uses the same native file format.
Now if these two projects merge we'd be in pure esctasy. I use seashore now and it's great.
making that thing run on windows is trivial
why shouldn't there be a windows port?
software isn't an all or nothing proposition
I think the grandparent is actually trying to say:
"For the changes to go in to the main GIMP tree the lead GIMP developers would have to accept the changes which they won't because..."
How do we know you didn't The Gimp these images? (See, it doesn't roll off your tongue...)
You know it's mainstream, when the product name becomes a verb. Google it, if you don't believe me.
asd
I think you mean Corel!
o rel3/Products/Display&pfid=1047024307383
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=C
Now that Corel owns PSP, I fear 9 will be the last version. Which is a pity.
...Deluxe Paint!
Deluxe Paint rules. I'm thinking of finally getting my Amiga up and running again, just so I can use, say, PPaint (DP clone).
Anyone who knows of an open source clone of DP?
I just thought how many of us downloaded, compiled and installed (maybe even systemwide) this program without knowing anything about the author or his website. At least I have never heared anything about them before.
We are laughing about Outlook Users who open every attachment, but happily give the root password to install a "just downloaded" app...
Here's the diff for ALL platforms and ALL distros:
http://nl.lunar-linux.org/node/61
on the functionality rather than the interface. The only reason I keep Photoshop around is because no linux program supports DXT3 format, or BMP with alpha channel. The interface is fine for my (and many other's) needs. The functionality, on the other hand, still needs some work.
I have an expensive camera with removable media.
Why on earth would I care about hooking up the camera to transfer images via USB 1.1 when I can put the card into a USB 2.0 or firewire reader or a PCMCIA adapter?
This is probably the 90% solution. (read "The Unix Philosophy")
Why would I want to balance my expensive camera on a cable near my computer while transfering, increasing the chances of knocking it to the floor? I'll leave it in the bag while I bring the card over thank you. I think most photo kiosks only allow media; there's no direct USB camera connector.
Now, I have a crappy camera that doesn't have removable media. But that's a rare case and getting more rare.
There are some programs out there that let you control the camera remotely to take pictures, etc. They're getting more rare too I think.
Stewie: Look at me, I'm having sex with a pig...I've become my father!!
Release your own forked version with whatever name you want:
Write a script to automate the second part and you'll never have to use The GIMP again.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Actually GIMP should take advantage of not having gone down the "use a short" root for pixels.
If there is going to be 16 bits per channel, it should use 16-bit floats (same format as used by ILM's exr image library and newer Nvidia cards). This gives immensely more resolution near black then 16 bits, and provides high dynamic range (ie colors outside the 0-1 range) which suddenly changes "color management" from a nightmare into an almost trivial operation.
Wasting time on a non-float format other than 8 bits is counter productive. Though they didn't plan it, it may be best that GIMP works the way it does.
"camera-ready", in some contexts anyway, has come to be a generic term for "fully laid out with the proper fonts and illustrations in place and etc. and ready to be printed as is". In academic journals, this is to distinguish from previously common practice where you'd basically send in your text and your figures, and the journal's staff would do the layout.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
One hting I noticed about the photoshop style menus was that htye moved all the color/level adjustments from the layers menu to the image menu. The GIMP lets you adjust these values on a per layer basis. Does this mean that photoshop only allows those to be done on the whole image? As a GIMP user who has never used photoshop, I would find the photoshop interface confusing and backwards on this point
Just remember, that just because the dominant player does something a certan way, it does not mean that it was the best way. If the GIMP developers were to slavishly follow photoshop, then they would be doing thier users a great dis-service. Because in thring to be exacly like something else, you prevent yourself from becoming BETTER than what you imitate.
I've compiled it on my UltraSPARC running Solaris 10 using gcc 3.4.2 and GNU Make 3.80.n g :)
Screenshot is here: http://solaris.andarazoroflove.org/1112372392-0.p
Package is coming soon on my Solaris blog
I know what you're thinking. Did I forward 65,535 packets or 65,536 packets?
I've already done that once, with the vector graphics application Sodipodi (the name I chose was "Inkscape" -- heard of it?).
Of course, Sodipodi was an easier fork to sell than the GIMP, because the problems were much deeper than naming and UI issues.
I don't have the energy to do that again for the Gimp, so someone else will have to carry that particular flag... (Scott, maybe?)
[ Btw, speaking as someone who's actually done it, step 2 isn't really automatable; certainly not on an ongoing basis. You may as well fork properly like Inkscape chose to do. ]
DNA just wants to be free...
That was actually more directed to the audience than you in particular. To be honest, I wouldn't want to maintain a fork either, but did want people to know that it's certainly possible.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
(This isn't to denigrate the contributions of the other three co-founders, of course, but I was the one who started the ball rolling; I came up with the name, bought the domain, convinced the other folks to come on board, set up the project (bryce might have been the one to set up the SF project actually), and IIRC personally did much of your step #2...)
DNA just wants to be free...
...I fail to see how this does anything to solve the NHL lockout :(
I think people are aware of the possibility already; my personal experience is that there are very immense social pressures against forking that increase with the scale and relative fame of the project.
That, combined with the GIMP project leadership not being dysfunctional enough to force the issue, is the only reason the GIMP hasn't seriously forked already (aside from CinePaint [nee FilmGimp]). Scott's effort looks like the first serious rumblings, however...
DNA just wants to be free...
No, it's why I have a Windows machine and use Photoshop you clod.
:)
It's just fun to point and laugh at the FOSS fools flailing pitiously.
"Drawing a rectangle is not only not easy to figure out, but is time consuming as hell."
Select rectangle, stroke rectangle, done. It takes one step more than it should, but then again, if you want to draw rectangles, maybe you should use a tool that was intended as a drawing tool?
The GIMP website has a list of such complementary tools.
You assume I care about new users moving over.
Anyone notice the "Maple Leaf" stamp in Gimp? Looks suspiciously like something less Canadian and more Carribean...
get it here:i ndows.html
http://blog.yumdap.net/archives/20-GIMPshop-for-W
includes GTK, Gimp Deweirdifier and GTK Wimp. Size: 8MB
Unfortunately the "author" doesn't provide a diff of the changes.
Hey Sven, I found a diff of the changes -- hope it helps. I would love to see a cleaned up version of this rolled into the GIMP as an option to help Photoshop users migrate.
Keep up the good work : )
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling