Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hack turns GIMP into Photoshop Look-alike

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the reduced-learning-curves dept.

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."

5 of 749 comments (clear)

  1. Fanstistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Hello negativity by pherthyl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Sheesh! by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Sheesh! by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      I am sure you aren't trying to be rude, so I will try as well.

      Your response is at the social edge of the uppity 133t h4x0rs out there that think we should all pitch in a help, and if we don't we are a bunch of lazy leacher punks.

      I simply have no skills in programming this kind of thing what so ever. Period. And there are a ton of people that use OSS every day that would never in a million years _ever_ be able to help port anything.

      So you know what I and every other lazy bastard out there that "expect people to do this for us"? A user base that makes OSS work.

      Without a userbase, there lacks popularity, without popularity there lacks the free advertising, marketing, etc.. that drives new programmers, bug testers, quality feedback, etc.. back to the those "that can do this for us".

      Yes it's free software, and guess what? That's the only reason I use it. Call me selfish, but I'm a spokesman and advocate of OSS to the normal schmoes. I defend our rights with my speech. I encourage non-techie users to use OSS. I feel that I, and many others, that can't "do this for ourselves" add a huge aspect to the OSS community that the core programmers perhaps take for granted.

      If only people that could compile linux used it, it would absolutely pathetic community supporting by comparison to the current reality.

  4. Re:Gimp 1.2 sure, but Gimp 2.0? by masklinn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is that most people learned graphism on softwares like PSP or Photoshop, very centralized applications with a single monolithic window holding all the informations&options.

    Gimp has a nice interface in itself, but when you switch from PSP/Pshop (or to them, as uncle), the softwares are so many worlds apart UI-wise that you're plain and simply lost.

    And you therefore consider the new software (whichever it is) to be "a damn load of crap cause i can't find any of the tools/options/boxes of chocolate i'm looking for"

    In a nutshell, the interface elements people don't like in The Gimp (when they have issues with the interface) are: all of them, because they're too different from Photoshop/Paint Shop Pro's

    --
    "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler