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."

Comments

Gimp is no Photoshop -- a photographer

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, GIMP is open source (GPL)

The project has to accept the changes, my guess is they didn't want to have a photoshop clone interface. But that doesn't mean you cannot release a patch yourself, which is what happened here.

Wish granted

[leonbrooks]

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.

Not being rude, true.

[ta bu shi da yu]

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.