Slashdot Mirror


A Gimp In Photoshop's Clothing

comforteagle writes "Scott Moschella, from Attack of the Show!, set out to make The Gimp a little friendlier with a simple UI make-over, creating GimpShop. Despite an outcry from some developers, users have picked it up with passion. Howard Wen has interviewed Scott about why he did this. From the interview: 'I've always thought that GIMP was just as powerful as Photoshop. My way of proving it was to make GIMP work as close to Photoshop as I possibly could, given my limited programming experience.' As more Windows/Mac users discover powerful open source applications are they bound (slashdot disc.) to make more discoveries of this kind?" Update: 09/16 18:48 GMT by Z : Some users have pointed out this is basically an update to a previous discussion we've had. Link added for the sake of completeness.

531 comments

  1. Changes overdue. by MrWiggum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love gimp but I always felt that the interface was a little strange. I am glad that somebody is looking into making using the gimp a little more user friendly. However I don't think ripping off PhotoShop is the best way to do that as I'm not super fond of the PhotoShop interface either.

    1. Re:Changes overdue. by utnow · · Score: 4, Funny

      As a fan of OSS I'm required to tell you that you should do it yourself. We're trying to make software that has millions of hidden features! User interface is for wimps (gimps?) lol

    2. Re:Changes overdue. by sabre307 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It could use a bit of an overhaul on the interface. It's not very intuitive to use. It would be nice if you could get a version of GIMP that was designed more for the idiot^H^H^H^H^Hnovice user for quick touchups, without all the extras cluttering up the interface.

      --
      My software never has bugs.
      It just develops random features.
    3. Re:Changes overdue. by bersl2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The GIMP has its own interface. If someone is throwing a PS interface onto the GIMP to prove a point about its functionality, I would hardly call that "ripping off".

    4. Re:Changes overdue. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is why I think applications should be built in stages. Using letter writing as an example. You could have the same basic framwork go from:

      Note pad -> Word pad -> Word -> Word Publishing

      Why not have the gimp frame work able to go from a basic Paint application to a full featured artisic tool. Or from a basic photo touch up with resize and redeye reduction to a full scale photo manipulation.

      Why don't OS developers see that they could not only skin the looks of the application but the features as well.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    5. Re:Changes overdue. by jgbishop · · Score: 5, Interesting

      IMO, the goal isn't to please people with a new interface, but rather to give something people are used to. I use an old version of Photoshop (5.5) fairly regularly, so I'm used to its interface. When I switched over to the Gimp recently to do some work with transparent PNG's, I had an extremely difficult time getting around. Had I known about this at the time, I would have probably used this instead.

      --
      Go, and never darken my towels again! -- Rufus
    6. Re:Changes overdue. by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 0

      I hate to be a boring whinger, but wasn't this covered on /. months ago?

      <one quick search later>

      In fact, yes it was.

      The search took less than a second, even with /.'s awful search functionality. I'm normally one of the people who tells dupe-whingers to shut up, but even I'm getting bored of it now. How hard is it to search for ["gimp photoshop" sorted by relevance] before clicking "Publish Article" (or whatever)?

      Anyway, sorry for joining the ranks of the dupe-whinging old bastards, but it was either that or haul off and smack the monitor. <:-)

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    7. Re:Changes overdue. by Otter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Calling it "GimpShop", though, is just begging for a (fully deserved) lawsuit. He might as well call it Microsoft Donald Duck Big Mac GIMP.

    8. Re:Changes overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have always been a GIMP fan myself, but the UI is one of the few that can turn me from a happy-go-lucky guy into a murderous raging hateful bastard. That and Rational Rose.

    9. Re:Changes overdue. by RealityMogul · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're used to 5.5, try just switching to Photoshop 7. They screwed up the text tool so its pointless to experiment with text color. Plus you have to open a separate window to set things like spacing. And they still didn't add a font preview in the drop-down.

      This is PS7, maybe they fixed these things in the later versions.

    10. Re:Changes overdue. by R.D.Olivaw · · Score: 1

      you were modded funny but on a serious note, what are the implication of copying the UI of a commercial application?

    11. Re:Changes overdue. by diakka · · Score: 1

      It is within the realm of possibility that Adobe would initiate legal action, but I would not argue that the lawsuit is deserved. From what I know of trademark law, the litmus test is whether or not the average joe would be confused and actually think that gimpshop is an adobe product.

      --
      -- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
    12. Re:Changes overdue. by JabberWokky · · Score: 2, Funny
      HOLY CRAP! They managed to publish a link to an interview *months in the future*?!?!?!

      How the hell did they manage that? I mean, this interview is only three days old! Mein Gott, the Slashdot editors continue to impress. Now if they can just post an interview with Linus and Gates in 2015, it would be perfect.

      Can you help out?

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    13. Re:Changes overdue. by trekstar25 · · Score: 1

      There's a font preview in CS2.

    14. Re:Changes overdue. by afd8856 · · Score: 1

      Ctrl+H, it will hide the selection. Plus, open the character panel and you can set the color there, if you have a text layer selected.

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    15. Re:Changes overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you REALLY think the guys at Broderbund are going to sue because it sounds like "PrintShop"?

    16. Re:Changes overdue. by cmstremi · · Score: 1

      It's likely that it *would* be found to be confusing. They're similar names for products that do similar things.

      Big Mac Gimp might be different because a hamburger and graphics software are very dissimilar.

    17. Re:Changes overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why wasn't Jasc or Corel ever sued over PaintShop Pro?

    18. Re:Changes overdue. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wasn't it Apple/Microsoft that had the court battle that decided look and feel were not something you could copywrite?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    19. Re:Changes overdue. by Otter · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The major precedent is the Apple versus Microsoft look 'n' feel lawsuit, which found that copying a competing interface is legal. I'm sure that Adobe's lawyers could still make Scott Moschella's life unpleasant, but he'd at least be in a strong position. The "GimpShop" name, on the other hand, is pure and simple infringement.

    20. Re:Changes overdue. by m50d · · Score: 1

      Does gtk have an equivalent for kparts, and if so, does the gimp use it? You could have an alternative "shell", with different toolbars etc. but the same "canvas" areas, like kedit/kwrite/kate, all using the same code.

      --
      I am trolling
    21. Re:Changes overdue. by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Me too, I stuck with GIMP, but I gave up on rational Rose and started using JUDE instead (which has the additional benifit of being freeware and my uni supports both). Yes I'm cheap going for the free option in both cases.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    22. Re:Changes overdue. by psocccer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I honestly don't understand why people say this is what we need to get people to use the gimp, that the awkward interface is holding it back and people need to address usability, when this doesn't even fix the #1 complaint most people have about Gimp, which is that it is not an MDI app.

      All GimpShop does is move around the menus, you still have the same floating toolbars and multiple windows like before. So basically this has the UI of the Gimp which seems to turn people off anyways, and the menu layout of PS which most people who'd use Gimp don't know anyway because PS costs too much for them (unless the got it by other means, in which case they're not going to use the Gimp anyway).

      And while I'm on the whole MDI thing, how come no one ever bothers to mention that PS on Mac is not MDI either? In fact PS on Mac looks a whole lot like the Gimp, except it has the menubar on top instead of in the image window. I find it confusing because we hear people say "Gimp sucks, it's not MDI!!" and also "Mac is best for Photoshop," and PS on Mac is not MDI so therefore it must suck? But it's the best too? I guess I don't get it, seems to me people rant just to rant.

    23. Re:Changes overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Why not have the gimp frame work able to go from a basic Paint application to a full featured artisic tool.

      Because gimp was never meant to be a basic Paint application, it is a image manipulation program and has been since the dawn of its development. That's also why you don't have the basic tools such as line in the toolbox.

    24. Re:Changes overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling it "GimpShop", though, is just begging for a (fully deserved) lawsuit. He might as well call it Microsoft Donald Duck Big Mac GIMP.

      Or for short, "Steve Ballmer".

    25. Re:Changes overdue. by AVryhof · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Odd....wonder why they haven't sued Jasc for PaintShop Pro ...

    26. Re:Changes overdue. by Anonymovs+Coward · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      Wasn't it Apple/Microsoft that had the court battle that decided look and feel were not something you could copywrite?

      I'm sure you (or your ad agency) can copywrite them.

    27. Re:Changes overdue. by geomon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "GimpShop" name, on the other hand, is pure and simple infringement.

      I hope this gets modded "Redundant" because it deserves to be, but also to point out that your argument fails because PaintShop has never been sued. Trademark enforcement requires that you defend ANY and ALL infringement of your mark or you lose it. You cannot selectively enforce your tradmarks.

      The fact that Adobe has not sued a fairly well known clone for tradmark violation puts the lie to your claim.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    28. Re:Changes overdue. by mindhaze · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Yeah, I'm confident the Paint^H^H^H^H^HPhotoShop authors are going to be pissed. :)

    29. Re:Changes overdue. by Air-conditioned+cowh · · Score: 1

      File Manager.

      GTKs new file manager jarrs with my sense of what a normal file manager should look like. I was trying to show a newbe how to use Firefox and Gimp this morning on KDE and when this ugly file manager came up I had to explain that you had to click this tiny down-arrow to get anything like a normal view of the directory tree to appear.

      This same file manager also rears it's ugly (my opionion, sorry) head on Windows with Gimp and Gimp Shop I think there will still be a major stumbling block to user acceptance.

    30. Re:Changes overdue. by Dausha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Note pad -> Word pad -> Word -> Word Publishing"

      You missed a key step:

      Notepad -> Wordpad -> Word -> vim -> perfect desktop publishing. :-)

      You may now go about your business.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    31. Re:Changes overdue. by justfoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe that would be the case if "Shop" weren't such a common word and wasn't used here in a manner relevant to it's commonly accepted meaning.

      For example, MS has a monopoly on the use of "Windows" as a name for a computer operating system. That doesn't mean that they can sue anyone who uses "Window" as part of the name of their software program.

      In this case, "Shop" can be construed to be a place where one works and "GIMPShop" is a place where one works with GIMP. If Adobe hadn't chosen such a common word as part of their tile, then this would be an issue for a lawsuit, but as it is I don't see much happening.

      --
      -- JSW
    32. Re:Changes overdue. by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because when you switch to PhotoShop or Gimp from another application on a Mac, ALL the pallette windows come with it. In Windows, every toolbar and pallette hangs there by itself and disappear behind your browser or other window, and you have to either bring them all to the front again, or hunt through them until you find the one you want. its a pain in the neck, and made me give up on Gimp on Windows at work.

      --
      May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
    33. Re:Changes overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, because we all know how universally trademarked the word "shop" is :)

    34. Re:Changes overdue. by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 2, Informative

      I should also note that MDI is an ugly, wonky kludge that was added to Windows because of Mac superiority. On a Mac, you can have an app open with NO windows, or have multiple Windows that share the Apple menu bar. MDI is an attempt to replicate this, with a dull gray background, blech!.

      --
      May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
    35. Re:Changes overdue. by wuice · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why does someone always have to be an idiot (or even a novice) in the linux world to enjoy an easier interface? It's amazing that you guys wonder why most users won't touch Linux. Even in the world of computer nerds, it seems you can't escape the machismo mentality. All other things being equal, easier should be better even if you're a guru.

      Even when I'm fully proficient with a program, I appreciate an easy, intuitive interface. It lets me get my work done quicker. It's less of a strain on my mind. I can spend those brain-hourse thinking about my next algorithm, learning more new programs, or whatever.

    36. Re:Changes overdue. by minus_273 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      then so would be paint shop pro and tons of older programs called photo shop and who can forget print shop..

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    37. Re:Changes overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Only I wouldn't call it 'strange'. I would call it Fucking Shitass Craptastic.

    38. Re:Changes overdue. by Khazunga · · Score: 1
      The beauty of the gimp interface needs one thing missing from most windows setups: Virtual desktops. You assign The Gimp to one or two virtual desktops, and you have all windows uncluttered, using the space as they should and without the kludge that is MDI.

      MDI is a kludge, a failed attempt to copy Mac behaviour. You can prove it failed by observing how MS Office is no longer MDI (somewhat).

      Add Xinerama to virtual desktops, and Gimp's interface excels. Moreover, it excels in an environment where MDI would prevent me from using the second monitor.

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    39. Re:Changes overdue. by hokeyru · · Score: 1

      How, exactly, is changing the toolbars and menus much different from skinning?

    40. Re:Changes overdue. by fandog · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that to win a trademark case you have to prove that not only is the name not sufficently different from a competitor, but that you are selling to the same audience. For example, you couldn't come along and name your own supermarket 'King Sooper' or 'Albertson', because the name would be confusing to the same group of potential customers.

      So if you have a company that sells PCI cards named 'OogaBooga' and there's a company that sells watercoolers already with that name, most likely neither of you would be able to successfully win a trademark case against one another. (Plus simply for marketing's sake you usually want a name that's different, right?)

      So short of calling your company Kod@k and trying to sell cameras & film, you're usually OK.

      In this case, (Photoshop, GimpShop) the name is different, and the argument could be made that the target audience is different as well. They're perfectly safe on trademark. (at least in the US)

    41. Re:Changes overdue. by Otter · · Score: 2, Funny
      I hope this gets modded "Redundant" because it deserves to be...

      It's after lunch on Friday, and I lack the energy for extended IANALity over this. But what I'm curious about is why the eleventy-third person to start in with "PaintShop! PaintShop!" is so indignant over my supposed redundancy...?

    42. Re:Changes overdue. by lahvak · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, for writing a letter, the path is

      NotePad -> Emacs -> Jed -> Vim

      --
      AccountKiller
    43. Re:Changes overdue. by zootm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Skinning generally refers (particularly in the past, although some apps have far more complex things now) to just changing the look of the interface, not what's actually there. He's essentially suggesting changing the whole frontend to create several apps of varying complexity with a common backend.

    44. Re:Changes overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big problem is that this is setting people to expect everything to function in exactly the same way as P$ if you try to clone its interface, users will expect filters to act in the same ways, layer effects, styles, automatic drop shadows, etc. At this point your average photo$hopper loses interest and goes back to their pirated copy of CS2. If they expect it to be different from the outset, maybe they'll stick around longer.

    45. Re:Changes overdue. by lahvak · · Score: 1

      That's a problem with windows, not gimp. I hate using gimp on windows, and I hate using photoshop on windows, too. I have no problem whatsoever with the interface of gimp on X11 nor with the interface of PS on mac.

      --
      AccountKiller
    46. Re:Changes overdue. by Transmogrify_UK · · Score: 1

      NotePad->Wordpad->Word->???->Profit!

    47. Re:Changes overdue. by yason · · Score: 1

      And I've been using Gimp since pre-1.0, I don't know how many years. Maybe 8-9? I find its interface good and efficient.

      Conversely, PhotoShop has always felt cumbersome and kludgy for me, with its numerous custom UI components that are too small to hit with the mouse, and the damn MDI windowing that stuffs everything inside the main window. (With Gimp, I can distribute my images and windows even on different virtual desktops -- beat that!) I've used PS enough to be familiar with the locations of different functions, yet I've always liked Gimp much more.

      What can I say, then -- that there's no one correct way to make an image editor? I think it would be best to give Gimp various window layouts. GTK and Glade make that possible already, with nice XML files describing the UI layout. Professional users seem to love customizable interfaces: many graphics, 3D modelling, and audio software have traditionally been highly customizable.

    48. Re:Changes overdue. by mpspedro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      seriously, maybe its time for a couple of upstarts to take things in a better direction. It worked wonders for firefox...

    49. Re:Changes overdue. by geomon · · Score: 1

      But what I'm curious about is why the eleventy-third person to start in with "PaintShop! PaintShop!" is so indignant over my supposed redundancy...?

      Actually, I was referring to my post as being "Redundant".

      Now, if you could only reply to the *content* of my message.....

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    50. Re:Changes overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to now, where the average Photoshop user loses interest in 10 seconds because none of the GIMP's interface seems to be laid out in any rational way?

    51. Re:Changes overdue. by Alkivar · · Score: 1

      thats because Jasc got bought out by Corel... they've essentially been protected by someone with a bigger wallet now.

    52. Re:Changes overdue. by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      Because when you switch to PhotoShop or Gimp from another application on a Mac, ALL the pallette windows come with it. In Windows, every toolbar and pallette hangs there by itself and disappear behind your browser or other window, and you have to either bring them all to the front again, or hunt through them until you find the one you want. its a pain in the neck, and made me give up on Gimp on Windows at work.

      Yeah, window management of Windows really sucks. Everyone seems to blame GIMP for this, but it works fine on systems withn decent window management, for which it was written. Yes the port over to windows has some issues because Windows lacks a number of basic features that are available for most other windowing systems...

      How do other windowing systems handle this? Well, they have several methods. They can do it like the Mac and automatically group application windows by application, they can do it like a lot of X11 WMs and allow multiple/virtual desktops so you can have 1 desktop per task, or you can go with the method taken by some of the fancier X11 WMs and do window groups.

      Jedidiah.

    53. Re:Changes overdue. by keraneuology · · Score: 3, Interesting
      For quick touchups I use the free programpaint.net from Washington State University. Quick, simple, some power under the hood (it does layers!) and has more features than I know how to use.

      I've downloaded GIMP... had no idea what to do with it so after a couple sessions of randomly pushing buttons left it sit to gather stray 0s and 1s that collect on my HDD much like the dust gathers on my Windows 95 MCP book.

      --
      If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
    54. Re:Changes overdue. by houghi · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it explains the differences between Open Source and Closed Source.

      Closed Source will be changed on user demand, but you can't do it yourself.
      Open Source will not be changed on user demand, unless you can do it yourself.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    55. Re:Changes overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GIMP's interface is just fine.

    56. Re:Changes overdue. by fbjon · · Score: 2

      -> ed

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    57. Re:Changes overdue. by merdark · · Score: 1

      On the Mac every program in inheirently MDI. Having all menus on the top and having the tool windows dissapear when an application is not the active one makes MDI work nicely.

      The problem with GIMP is precisely that there IS no unified menu, and that the tool windows are hard to manage and get in the way or get lost, unlike on the Mac. Make Gimp work like photoshop on mac, and you will have a winning interface.

    58. Re:Changes overdue. by stuntpope · · Score: 1

      Well, then he could take a page from Vim and rename it "Gimproved".

    59. Re:Changes overdue. by fbjon · · Score: 1
      What? GIMP has an interface??

      Seriously though, loading up it's original interface makes me go "......". I can immediately sense the high porch I'll have to climb over in order to use the thing. GIMPshop is very nice on the other hand, and with the same functionality, code, and license. Everybody wins!

      Except for one thing... the toolbars are huge.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    60. Re:Changes overdue. by Jackmn · · Score: 1

      -> teco

    61. Re:Changes overdue. by bbc · · Score: 1

      "It could use a bit of an overhaul on the interface. It's not very intuitive to use."

      Define "intuitive". I find that once you've worked with it for a couple of weeks, it is pretty intuitive.

      "It would be nice if you could get a version of GIMP that was designed more for the idiot^H^H^H^H^Hnovice user for quick touchups, without all the extras cluttering up the interface."

      Sure, and who is going to maintain that mess? If you want a simpler photo editor, build one. If you don't want to build one, buy one. There are plenty of the sort you are looking for.

    62. Re:Changes overdue. by Suppafly · · Score: 1

      Corel is hardly a bigger wallet, paintshop pro is probably one of the only profitable pieces of software they sell now.

    63. Re:Changes overdue. by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Having taken the time to learn GIMP, I feel weird when I have to go back to Photoshop. I love the GIMP's interface because I can stay focused on what I'm working on. I don't have to drag my eyes away to some other part of the screen to find a widget.

      What you're used to has a lot to do with how you deal with an interface. Innovative (or at least 'different')interfaces suck primarily because they can't read minds, which is what experience tell me you mean by "it's not intuitive."

    64. Re:Changes overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - > cat

    65. Re:Changes overdue. by KayosIII · · Score: 1

      The difference is that photoshop on Mac handles utility windows a lot more intelligently than the current stable release of gimp. The good news is that the development release is going some ways to ironing out these places where people stub their toes.... I honestly think the issue is the fact that almost everyone is taught photoshop as their first graphics application. They assume any application that does not work the way photoshop does is unintuetive... Other paint packages suffer from the same problem. I have worked with enough photoshop users to be aware of this phenominon... Having said that Gimp does have some serious usability problems. MDI or menu organisation are not them. The biggest sins are the pop up dialogs which happen with many of the tools - this is just plain evil and the lack of intelligence in the way the dock windows are handled. Fortunately Both are being worked on in 2.3 and open-usability guys are now in on the project...

    66. Re:Changes overdue. by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      It's amazing that you guys wonder why most users won't touch Linux. Even in the world of computer nerds, it seems you can't escape the machismo mentality.

      *Ahem*. Just thought I'd put in a perspective from one who Doesn't Care if nobody but him used Linux as long as he lives, as long as his favorite distros keep releasing:

      Interface, shminterface. What is an interface? Buttons to click and keys to press. I don't care what button, what key. I've used (and swear by) those Linux-hosted programs with the most notoriously non-intuitive interfaces: Emacs, Gimp, and Blender. These programs are what I consider superior, but their key-bindings and menu placement and interface are all brain-dead. And I notice that that's a common thing: the more a program can do, the more complicated it becomes. The more complicated it becomes, the harder it is to make the bindings and interface simple. Sit down and write a program yourself sometime. Everytime you add a feature, you have to re-organize the whole interface. What are you going to do? Scrap it's functionality so you don't confuse people?

      The three programs I've named all have one thing in common: They're all versatile as all get out, they each have a native scripting language so that they can be infinitely extended, they all run light in memory relative to how much they do, and they are all the first programs people complain about when it comes to difficult Linux interfaces. And I always say the same thing: You no like, use something else. I like, I use.

      I notice that the image editors in Linux like Xfig, Image Magic, Xpaint and company never draw these kinds of complaints. That isn't because "their interface is easier". It is because "they are toys compared to the Gimp, so there's less to do, so their interface is easier."

    67. Re:Changes overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -> back to notepad

    68. Re:Changes overdue. by WNight · · Score: 1

      Because he had just watched the eleventy second guy explain it to someone else and is annoyed. :)

      Seriously though, it's a problem in Slashdot. We all get stuck arguing the same point in ten parallel subthreads. We need a way of linking them back together.

      As for my take on the case (ObPoint, so to speak) I think that the "But, Paintshop" argument, combined with Adobe's recent unpopularity being fresh in their minds will keep it from getting serious. It's too hard to prosecute and they'd have to club a baby seal in PR terms.

    69. Re:Changes overdue. by arose · · Score: 1

      Xfig has an easier interface than GIMP? I think it's just that people look at it, get confused and never touch it again. While everyone complains about GIMP the interface is atleast somewhat familiar to many.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    70. Re:Changes overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, paint.net is Windows only.

    71. Re:Changes overdue. by heybo · · Score: 1

      Try reading the help files.

    72. Re:Changes overdue. by jaelle · · Score: 1

      Know what I wish? That someone would add networking capability like Open Canvas's earlier versions. There's a whole irc channel (conceptart on thundercity) that loves it with a passion, but the program itself is buggy and weak.

      --
      You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
    73. Re:Changes overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, it's been raised before enough, anti GIMP people just ignore it and carry on going, and just think, the most popular platform for photoshop is Mac OS.

      just try GIMP running on a GNOME Linux desktop, you can set the toolbox and dock windows to be ontop of the image you're working on, try getting an Ubuntu LiveCD if you want to try it out but don't have linux available to you.

      If you want an MDI gimp, you can use deweirdifyer, which is a rubbish addon which mangles GIMP into a single window, i think it's bundled with the win32 package of GimpShop.

    74. Re:Changes overdue. by 1336 · · Score: 1

      Oh good, its not just me thinking that ^_-; I'm fairly new to Linux (I use ubuntu) but one program I couldn't find a Linux replacement for was Irfanview (yes, simple little freeware Irfanview... and before anyone asks, I'd prefer to avoid using Wine, thank you though). Instead of cloning PS's interface, why not clone Irfanview's? That would be useful and they'd be far less likely to get sued ^_-

    75. Re:Changes overdue. by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      Touché

      You're right - I missed the point of the post was the interview, not the product.

      Lesson learned - I'll sit down and shut up now ;-p

      And eventually probably go back to shouting at those people who bitch about dupes all the time... <:-)

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    76. Re:Changes overdue. by bbtom · · Score: 1

      unless the got it by other means, in which case they're not going to use the Gimp anyway

      Counterpoint: Linux. No amount of copyright infringement of Photoshop affects the user interface of GIMP on Linux, except, perhaps, as a secondary effect.

      --
      catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
  2. PS by mfh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My way of proving it was to make GIMP work as close to Photoshop as I possibly could, given my limited programming experience.

    With Photoshop weighing in at over a thousand dollars Canadian, let me just say that anything that resembles it moderately, without the strange behaviour of PaintShop, is welcomed. Free too? /passes out

    It's funny because I can remember thinking about this the other day, and wondering when companies are going to start investing in the future of office systems, to help reduce their own long-term bottom line. If everyone donates $100 to the Gimp/Gimpshop project(s), just imagine the money saving that would come out of it! I would be willing to bet that if this happened, in less than five years open source would outpace Adobe in quality and reliability. The reason most people use Photoshop is for quality and reliability -- not necessarily features as you might expect. It does what I need better than anything else yet, but with some time, effort and financial backing, we'll see superior products come out of the open source community.

    Open source needs a well of cash to draw from. I suggest a foundation be made to fund open source projects better than we've seen. Apply and they bankroll your project if you've got something hot. I'd like to see that work on a large scale and I often wonder why SourceForge doesn't take that approach, in favour of small donations to each project on a case-by-case level. I'd love to apply for financing for my crazy open source ideas! It's the money factor that slows me down. I don't have time to pursue it very well because I have to pay bills.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:PS by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      I suggest a foundation be made to fund open source projects better than we've seen. Apply and they bankroll your project if you've got something hot.

      [sarcasm mode] Wow this has never been thought of before!! Genius!! [/sarcasm mode]

    2. Re:PS by Radres · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...or, just imagine what kind of quality software would come out of Adobe if everyone just gave them $100 with each release of Photoshop!!! I think that is more a question of whether Photoshop is being priced fairly.

    3. Re:PS by op12 · · Score: 1

      I often wonder why SourceForge doesn't take that approach, in favour of small donations to each project on a case-by-case level.

      I'm guessing because it would involve a lot of additional time and resources. In a pay-per-project scenario, you ideally get a distribution based on user interest anyways. It just seems like a lot more work to change the distribution of donations by a little bit.

    4. Re:PS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      With Photoshop weighing in at over a thousand dollars Canadian

      Nit: Photoshop CS2, the full version (not upgrade, not academic) is C$749, and that's at a local retail store with highball pricing.

    5. Re:PS by diamondsw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you want to truly compete with Photoshop and other programs, you have to compete on two fronts - interface and functionality. The interface has to be usable by people on the entry-level for their tasks, and it can't get in the way of pros for theirs. If you want to compete with Photoshop, you're also competing with a massive amount of functionality wrapped in a passable but very refined interface.

      The low-end is saturated with dozens of products, but especially Adobe's own Photoshop Elements (which people here like to ignore, probably because it usually costs $35 - it's easier to attack "a thousand dollars Canadian"). On the high-end, you have professionals with very exacting requirements and no time for hassles. These people live for 5-second reductions in processing time because they do it constantly. Anything that causes them to slow down even the tiniest bit will be a deal-breaker. The interface must be completely fluid.

      Most open source projects aren't necessarily strapped for cash, but rather they have little focus or centralized planning. They suffer either from feature creep and bloated interfaces that make no sense, or a dearth of features due to lack of desire to implement what other people want. Cash won't make a bit of difference if the developers don't have focus, and I don't see that kind of emphasis on quality and interface refinement in the Gimp. "Good enough" isn't good enough.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    6. Re:PS by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Most people who buy (or pirate) Photoshop would be able to get along just fine with Photoshop Elements. It's much cheaper, only $90 US, does all the Photoshop filters, has the Save For Web feature, etc. It doesn't do color seperations, so it's not as useful for print.

    7. Re:PS by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      That's long been my opinion on opensource. If everyone that uses the programs, or would if the program had x feature they need, would contribute a little sponsorship money (and a list of desired functionality) then these programs could more quickly adapt to their needs. It's investing upfront in technology so that you can save money later. We'd all be wise to do that.

      If you use an opensource program then please make an effort to contribute and get others to do likewise. $10/yr from each user would go a long way towards advancing most of these programs beyond their commercial rivals. What is that compared to the cost of buying the commercial rivals? $10 to Firefox, $10 to GIMP, $10 to OpenOffice, $10 to Gnome, $10 to XOrg, $10 to Linux, etc. Whichever programs you use. Of course these programmers should remember to distribute a portion to the programmers of libraries, command-line tools, etc that they make use of too. :) If we each donated $10 to 10 projects a year opensource would grow much faster. :)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    8. Re:PS by bbc · · Score: 1

      "Open source needs a well of cash to draw from."

      Er, no, it does not. This is how FOSS works: hacker A thinks feature X would be really nifty. Hacker A sits down and adds feature X. See, no money required.

      For all other things there is the proprietary model. This includes paying somebody to add feature Y to a FOSS program that you have got a copy of. Systems for this already exist. Sometimes these features even get folded back in the program.

    9. Re:PS by brainnolo · · Score: 1

      Photoshop Elements costs about that much and is enough for 90% of non-pro/advanced amateurs people. Adobe also did a great work because Photoshop Elements is not just a stripped down Photoshop, it also has unique features that while probably not interesting for a pro, will make home users very happy.

  3. I think it's a great idea by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 4, Informative

    The only reason I don't use the gimp is because I can't be bothered to learn a new interface. I keep hitting Photoshop's shortcut keys expecting them to work and its frustrating not knowing where all of the menu & tool bar items are.

    --
    Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
    1. Re:I think it's a great idea by JPriest · · Score: 1
      I fully agree with you, I was able to move from PhotoShop, to PaintShop, to Fireworks without having to relearn all the basics. GIMP on the other hand had a more difficult learning curve.

      PS, for the windows users out there looking for a free alternitave to GIMP, check out Paint.NET

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    2. Re:I think it's a great idea by mshiltonj · · Score: 1

      The only reason I don't use the gimp is because I can't be bothered to learn a new interface.

      How would you feel about making a change?

    3. Re:I think it's a great idea by lelol · · Score: 1

      Among the many reasons I don't use photoshop are :

      1.it's expensive & i'm not a thief
      2.I've never used anything else thanthe Gimp
      3.I don't give a sh*t what its UI looks like, as long as it does what I want !

    4. Re:I think it's a great idea by tyler_larson · · Score: 1
      The only reason I don't use the gimp is because I can't be bothered to learn a new interface.

      This is an absolutely critical issue that Gimp developers are too stubborn to recognize. They insist on creating a difficult user interface, and denying all evidence that shows what they're doing is wrong. They insist that their interface is better for various reasons--most of which are crap when it comes right down to it, due to one simple fact:

      The key is that an easy to use interface does exactly what the user expects it to do, not necessarily what's logical, connected, simple, or well-researched. And with the absolute ubiquity of photoshop in the area of graphic design, anything that departs significantly from Photoshop's interface (for whatever reason) is ipso facto difficult to use for the majority of its potential users. Plain and simple, no room for arugment. Cite whatever usability studies you want, but you're never going to get more than a marginal user base unless the majority of potential users thinks you have an easy-to-use program.

      The Gimp is the quintessential example of this issue: great program, radically different interface, and users are BUYING its competitor by the truckload rather than save hundreds of dollars and have to deal with the Gimp's interface.

      --
      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
      RFC 1925
    5. Re:I think it's a great idea by rapidweather · · Score: 1

      You really should try gimp. Running on a linux platform, it really does have some power. I use it all the time on a box with dual 200 MMX processors, and it is hard to kill. I just upgraded to Gimp 2.2 in my knoppix remaster (see screenshots). The top left screenshot shows Gimp 2.0 in action. Have not tried 2.2 in the remaster yet, have some more tweaks to make before going to press. Hope I did the right thing, I did not uninstall 2.0 first, but I'll soon know if all is well. With Gimp on a live cd , one can use any computer and do some work, upload the finished product to the server.
      For instance, the main top image (showing the building) on this site was cleaned up using Gimp. There was a bunch of old chairs on the right side of the building that were replaced with some grass and trees.

  4. Another Storm on the Horizon? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Moschella:I also thought that the guys at Adobe would soon be looking for me. I haven't heard from them... yet.

    To borrow a quote from elsewhere: "If you build it, they will come."

    One of Adobe's Lawyers (from their Barrel O' Lawyers): Your Honor, in the defendent's own words:

    to make The Gimp a little friendlier with a simple UI make-over, creating GimpShop. Despite an outcry from some developers, users have picked it up with passion. Howard Wen has interviewed Scott about why he did this. From the interview: 'I've always thought that GIMP was just as powerful as Photoshop. My way of proving it was to make GIMP work as close to Photoshop as I possibly could
    Judge: I have no recourse other than to find for the plaintiff and wreak all sorts of havoc with Open Source Development.
    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Another Storm on the Horizon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Adobe actually had some sinister intention in crushing theGimp, why on earth would they go ape shit over a fork of it? why would they not wait for the main development effort to integrate it and go for the jugular? Plus, they have do have an "in" with print houses that theGimp does not, licenced features, like Pantone color mathing. And a GIANT install base. Honestly, if every person that pirates photoshop switches to using theGimp, it will affect Adobe in no way. Adobe will give a shit when companies stop buying photoshop, and none of them are moving their ad departments over to GimpShop.

    2. Re:Another Storm on the Horizon? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I see your point and I think it's a good one.

      However, I don't think "compatible UIs" have been tested in court. Furthermore, I seriously doubt they patented their specific UI. On what grounds would a suit be filed do you suspect? I am having a hard time imagining any at this point -- a deficiency on my part, I suspect.

      Oh bring back the good ole days before patents were tied to software and "look and feel" became a trademark, a copyright and/or a patented item.

    3. Re:Another Storm on the Horizon? by kfg · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think "compatible UIs" have been tested in court.

      Apple v. Microsoft.

      KFG

    4. Re:Another Storm on the Horizon? by advocate_one · · Score: 1
      Lotus v Borland is what applies here... and it went all the way to the supreme court where they punted it leaving the appeal decision standing, neither confirmed nor denied... so currently, menu structure is NOT "copyrightable"

      III.

      Conclusion Because we hold that the Lotus menu command hierarchy is uncopyrightable subject matter, we further hold that Borland did not infringe Lotus's copyright by copying it. Accordingly, we need not consider any of Borland's affirmative defenses. The judgment of the district court is

      Reversed.
      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    5. Re:Another Storm on the Horizon? by tanguyr · · Score: 1

      On what grounds would a suit be filed do you suspect?

      On the grounds that they're already paying those legal retainers, so why the hell not? It's nice to have grounds, but money is all you need.

      --
      #!/usr/bin/english
    6. Re:Another Storm on the Horizon? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      KFG

    7. Re:Another Storm on the Horizon? by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      If Adobe actually had some sinister intention in crushing theGimp, why on earth would they go ape shit over a fork of it?

      Because they have to!

      You don't get hundreds of patents and copyrights only to let little fish go. You have to pursue all infringements or the next time you have to fight a big fish, say Microsoft coming out with the next latest and greatest, they can argue that you don't defend your intellectual property and therefore it's effectively public domain.

      Adobe does pursue anyone who apes their works.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    8. Re:Another Storm on the Horizon? by Cally · · Score: 1
      One of Adobe's Lawyers (from their Barrel O' Lawyers): Your Honor, in the defendent's own words: to make The Gimp a little friendlier with a simple UI make-over, creating GimpShop. Despite an outcry from some developers, users have picked it up with passion. Howard Wen has interviewed Scott about why he did this. From the interview: 'I've always thought that GIMP was just as powerful as Photoshop. My way of proving it was to make GIMP work as close to Photoshop as I possibly could Judge: I have no recourse other than to find for the plaintiff and wreak all sorts of havoc with Open Source Development.

      When burbling to people about the evils of teh copyright mafia (the **IAs, the DMCA / EUCD crap, all those sorts of issues), an example I pull out for people who persist in beliefs like "Companies have to be able to protect their inventions!" is "So you're saying that if laws had been right - as they are now - a century ago, there'd eb three or four makes of car in the world (the company that patented the diesel engine, vs. the firm with the rights to the petrol engine vs. the niche of wankel rotary cillender corporation... and they all have completely different controls; one would use a wheel, another would have handles attached to pulleys, the third would use a lever to point where to go... not to mention that they'd all have to have different solutions to drivign in the dark, cos there's only one inventor of the headlight!" Or that the first company (the one with petrol, a steering lever, and magnesium flares on the roof) would have crushed it's rivals and there'd be no alternative? Wow, what a compelling vision of the future of capitalism you paint!"

      It doesn't work, of course, but then I don't expect it to.

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    9. Re:Another Storm on the Horizon? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

      "If you build it, they will come." is meant for shining beacons of light.

      What you are describing is akin to a pile of horse manure: if you build it, people will come so they can slip in it and sue you.

  5. Growing up with Photoshop by Helios1182 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Having grown up, in the figurative sense, with Photoshop the interface for The Gimp has always driven me crazy. I can't imagine I'm the only one either. Maybe this will help more people make the switch.

    1. Re:Growing up with Photoshop by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Opposite is true for me. I've only ever used the Gimp for image stuff and when I try photo shop I stuble and fall and can't seem to get anything I'm tring to do done.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:Growing up with Photoshop by imroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you on Windows? You have to bare in mind that the GIMP interface was mostly designed for focus-follows-mouse, the traditional focus policy on X11. I have used The GIMP on Windows and it is a pain compared to Linux/X11 because of the different focus policies. It also helps if you have multiple virtual desktops, so you can have a seperate, clean desktop (or several) for working with The GIMP and not clutter the image windows with lots of other windows. I guess this is why people keep whinging for an MDI interface.

    3. Re:Growing up with Photoshop by psocccer · · Score: 1
      I guess this is why people keep whinging for an MDI interface.

      Which I don't understand since the Photoshop people on Mac seem perfectly happy without MDI and no one says PS on Mac sucks because of it.

    4. Re:Growing up with Photoshop by rodrigogo · · Score: 1

      focus-follows-mouse, the traditional focus policy on X11
      Eh?! The only window manager I know of that has focus-follows-mouse as default is WindowMaker (and maybe flux?), and thats hardly common - most people use KDE or Gnome. And even if its WM I see it turned off almost every time I see it used.
       
      I just don't get focus-follows-mouse. So you've moved your mouse pointer out of the way to read a document/webpage, you try to scroll down and
      BAM!-ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE!!!
       
      If its just historic then Gimp itself should move with the times, not have to be hacked by fanboys. I mean, honestly, window toolbars?! I much prefer the ribbon of Office 12.

    5. Re:Growing up with Photoshop by Helios1182 · · Score: 1

      I used PS on Windows and GIMP on Linux.

    6. Re:Growing up with Photoshop by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      On Windows the Gimp interface truly is a pain indeed ! Worst of all is the way that its Windows get jumbled up in a pile covering each other up... and if you're running other apps as well then there are so windows in the task bar that you can't even see the associated text to find which window is which.

      Even when you do activate a Window the others may be buried beneath the windows for other apps etc. etc. It really is a total pain.

      I've been trying to get into the Gimp for ages (that way I have a tool I can use on Linux & Windows... my workplace is Windows only) but I'm sorry, the current multiple forms model makes it mostly unusable for me (I can use it but it's a struggle and I always end up in a bad temper :)

      Ho hum, c'est la vie...

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    7. Re:Growing up with Photoshop by McDutchie · · Score: 1
      the Photoshop people on Mac seem perfectly happy without MDI and no one says PS on Mac sucks because of it.

      On the contrary, all Mac apps are inherently MDI. It's just MDI done right, with the menu bar always on top of the screen, and no silly main window encompassing the document windows and covering everything else up.

    8. Re:Growing up with Photoshop by imroy · · Score: 1

      The key word being traditional. You know that the X window system goes back back over twenty years? Hell, X11 just turned eighteen according to that Wikipedia page. A full ten years older than GNOME or KDE. Look back at the original X11 window managers and you'll always find focus-follows-mouse as the default, maybe even the only option. BTW, I use Sawfish with GNOME.

      I find click-to-focus is just too cumbersome. It's probably easier for new users because they more likely to move the mouse "out of the way" like you described. I actually use what's called "sloppy focus-follows-mouse". It means I can move the mouse onto the desktop (root window) and not lose *all* focus. You should use multiple virtual desktops if your desktop is getting too cluttered.

      Now, what's so great about focus-follows-mouse? The big thing is that I can do stuff without a lot of alt-tabbing or clicking on windows. I can type on any window without bringing them to the front. e.g I can have a window popup (like, say an IM message) and keep it there while I browse the web. I can cut and paste stuff without alt-tabbing or clicking on windows.

      I much prefer the ribbon of Office 12.

      Ok. I think I see where you're coming from.

    9. Re:Growing up with Photoshop by arose · · Score: 1

      You know what's so bad about focus-follows-mouse? It does things that you might not want. Imagine you have two images open in GIMP (it's even on topic!) you need something from the layer dialog, but on the way there the cursor goes trough the other image and when you are there you have the layers for the wrong dialog.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    10. Re:Growing up with Photoshop by arose · · Score: 1
      layers for the wrong dialog.
      That should be: "layers for the wrong image."
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  6. It depends.. by Bomarrow1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    On what you call friendly. I'm sure some people out there would prefer a graphics editor without a GUI.

    1. Re:It depends.. by Helios1182 · · Score: 1

      Come on, we know the the CLI is so much faster.

    2. Re:It depends.. by graveyhead · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm sure some people out there would prefer a graphics editor without a GUI.
      Well, there's always ImageMagick for that. I like to call it 'Photoshop for the command line' :)

      If you want something lower level even, there's the GD library. There are lovely GD bindings for PHP, Perl and others.

      Happy command-line drawing!
      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    3. Re:It depends.. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Exacly.

      CLI-GIMP $ resize file.jpg 1600x1200

      or

      clickity clickity scroll scroll clickity click-hold, whoops too far clickity drag scroll crap....

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:It depends.. by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      You want ImageMagick, then.

      Then again, I can't figure out the fscking syntax for convert...

      And, IM fscks up a Windows system, because it uses convert.exe to do it's dirty work. Program Files is higher in the path than WINNT\System32, it seems. So, let's say you've got a FAT partition on a Windows system with ImageMagick installed. You wish to convert this FAT partition to NTFS. MS says to type "convert C: /fs:ntfs" (IIRC). With ImageMagick installed, that doesn't work - you have to find the convert.exe from Microsoft.

    5. Re:It depends.. by bbc · · Score: 1

      "I'm sure some people out there would prefer a graphics editor without a GUI."

      I find a GUI relatively useful for apps with a canvas. Still, for graphics operations that do not require a canvas, GIMP die-hards often recommend ImageMagick.

      There's a large body of complementary apps for the GIMP.

    6. Re:It depends.. by ip_vjl · · Score: 1

      If all you are doing is resizing a picture, then yes a gui is overkill.

      You do realize that there are a whole bunch of us that actually PRODUCE work as opposed to just perform basic transformations on existing images.

      The CLI isn't so great for "bring up the highlights in the face area, and remove this reflection, and soften the focus on these elements but not these, etc."

    7. Re:It depends.. by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      some people just want another solution because they're sick of the vector/bitmap graphics

    8. Re:It depends.. by Helios1182 · · Score: 1

      I thought I had laid the sarcasm on thick enough. Image editing is one thing that even the CLI diehards should realize benifit from a GUI.

  7. GIMP on Macintosh by aardwolf64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Powerful open source applications? Have you tried doing anything in GIMP on a Macintosh? It will only run through Apple's X11.app, and it makes a 386 running Windows XP look fast. I was so disappointed by the performance I bought Photoshop Elements for Mac on eBay (it only cost me $30 though... well worth the price.)

    1. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by ArsonSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, so far I've been very unimpressed by Macintosh and OSX. If you don't run a stricly Mac app it is slow as hell. With my ubuntu desktop I can't usually tell the diffrenct betweenn remote and local apps. They are all very fast. On OSX remote apps are painfully slow.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

      My friend gave me an ubuntu live CD on Tuesday for the Power PC processor. I stuck it in my Mac, but it wouldn't boot (some kind of memory error.) I tried the PC version, and it was very sluggish on my Pentium IV 2Ghz (w/2GB of RAM.) I'll admit that probably had more to do with the fact that I was running a live CD than a real install, but that's a horrible way to give someone a first impression of your OS.

    3. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by Zemplar · · Score: 1

      I would imagine you could do this with the Ubuntu live CD as its also Debian based like Knoppix, so try to find the comparable "knoppix toram" boot argument command to load the entire CD contents to memory (for machines with 2Gb or RAM or more) for excellent performance of the OS...after the CD loads.

    4. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by imroy · · Score: 1

      I'm not too impressed with the Ubuntu live CD, but the problem wasn't with the speed of the apps. A local magazine here in Australia (APC) had it on one of their "cover DVD's" and I tried it on my dad's laptop. Choosing the "live" option at the boot menu, it appeared to go through almost the same process as the Debian installer i.e several menus selecting language, keyboard, etc. It was quite a while before we got a desktop up and could try things. Admitedly, it was a combo installation/live DVD, but we were both most unimpressed. Knoppix is still the king as far as live CD's/DVD's are concerned.

    5. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by Bastian · · Score: 1

      GIMP on the Mac has gotten a whole lot better in the past three years. Check out the gimp.app project.

    6. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Troll? I'm sorry did I speak in vain against the holy grail that is OSX. Sorry I was just recounting my experience. Your Moderation of "Troll" I belive is more of a Troll than my post.

      And it worked too.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    7. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      By "remote apps", I assume you mean X11, as Aqua does not have the networking capabilities of X11. X11 is something of a second-class citizen on OS X (as shown by the parent post), but if you want it to perform better, talk to the xorg guys - it's largely their code in there. As for native apps, performance is excellent.

      Meanwhile, where is an OpenGL-accelerated X11 and windowing system on Linux? Seriously. We've seen "tech demos" for well over a year now of wobbly windows and such; when is this going to be usable enough to make it into a distro? Not only will it help Linux in the looks department, but it will probably accelerate X11 a lot on host OS's that already have such accelerated windowing systems in place.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    8. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      as Aqua does not have the networking capabilities of X11.
      An important reason to avoid a Mac. Is there anything like X11 or rdesktop/NX that Macs support?

      As far as the comment for remote apps goes...in my experience all X11 apps suck on a Mac.

      but if you want it to perform better, talk to the xorg guys - it's largely their code in there.

      Except the generic part of x.org is already streamlined. All of the slowdown is due to drivers not providing the hooks into accelerated frameworks. Since Apple should be the one writing the driver for the X11 -> displayPDF, they are responsible for the suckage of X11 on a Mac.

      Meanwhile, where is an OpenGL-accelerated X11 and windowing system on Linux? Where is it on the Mac? AFAIK displayPDF uses 2d. The answer is -- there is a ton fo framework that needs to be placed...and support for legacy apps is quite hard.

      However, if you mean a desktop that renders vectors, similar to displayPDF, then it is already here. It is called Cairo, and gnome/gtk use it.

      Not only will it help Linux in the looks department,
      I think Macs need to graduate in the looks department a bit too. A year ago, they were still using bitmaps on the dock, and when it scales, it looks damn ugly. Where are vector icons?

      but it will probably accelerate X11 a lot on host OS's that already have such accelerated windowing systems in place
      Actually it probably will not. Especially if the driver provided is not allowing a passthrough to the accelerated features. (I do not know if it does, but judging by performance, it either does not or it sucks)

      --
      badness 10000
    9. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      Powerful open source applications? Have you tried doing anything in GIMP on a Macintosh? It will only run through Apple's X11.app, and it makes a 386 running Windows XP look fast.

      It's pretty terrible when you're trying to open large images on a Mac with very little memory (I used it on my iBook when it had 256MB and it was slow).

      Since I bumped up the memory to 640MB and The GIMP's tile cache to something like 400MB, it's a whole lot faster. It still gets bogged down when working on gigabyte-sized, many-layered panoramas but I think that's more the iBook's very slow hard disk at fault.

      As for this 'GimpShop' thing - is there any chance of something to convert Photoshop into something more usable for us GIMP users? Admittedly I've never had any problems in brief uses of Photoshop after years of absence (embarrassingly, I'm usually better with it than the actual owner of the software) but the really quaint, 'friendly' filter and tool names amuse me.

      But I'm sure that Adobe couldn't change said names to something more correct, since the millions of dribbling idiots^W^W Photoshop experts would raise a public outcry! ;-)

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    10. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by digidave · · Score: 1

      KDE's control panel has a checkbox to enable the composite manager, which is for hardware acceleration. It's buggy on some video cards, but the resulting transparency and shadows are really nice.

      xcompmgr is the Gnome equivalent. I think both will play bigger roles in the next versions of KDE and Gnome.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    11. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      All of the slowdown is due to drivers not providing the hooks into accelerated frameworks. Since Apple should be the one writing the driver for the X11 -> displayPDF, they are responsible for the suckage of X11 on a Mac.

      Interesting, considering that X11 is already 3D accelerated on Mac OS X, and still blows chunks compared to Aqua, which uses the same graphics subsystem.

      "X11 for Mac OS X takes advantage of the Mac OS X Quartz graphics system to deliver hardware-accelerated 2D and 3D graphics. Quartz provides snappy scrolling speeds for text, live drag and resize of windows, as well as no-compromise 3D animation through OpenGL Direct Rendering."

      Where is it on the Mac? AFAIK displayPDF uses 2d. The answer is -- there is a ton fo framework that needs to be placed...and support for legacy apps is quite hard.

      Quartz Extreme. Sorta "been there, done that" for three years now (and in 16MB of VRAM, not the 256MB that Vista wants).

      A year ago, they were still using bitmaps on the dock, and when it scales, it looks damn ugly. Where are vector icons?

      True, no vector icons, but saying that a bicubic interpolation scaling is "ugly" is a tad ignorant. Do you think vector graphics look great at all sizes when rendered to a bitmap display? Hell no. They'll scale up really well (but since the Dock doesn't go beyond the native icon size of 128x128 it's moot there), but they scale down as poorly as anything else on a screen.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    12. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      Interesting, considering that X11 is already 3D accelerated on Mac OS X, and still blows chunks compared to Aqua, which uses the same graphics subsystem.

      "X11 for Mac OS X takes advantage of the Mac OS X Quartz graphics system to deliver hardware-accelerated 2D and 3D graphics. Quartz provides snappy scrolling speeds for text, live drag and resize of windows, as well as no-compromise 3D animation through OpenGL Direct Rendering."

      Right. So what that means is that the 3d-stuff gets passed through to the GL engine, hence GL performance of X11 is acceptable. However, the 2d-stuff is confusing me. The main question is is their driver doing software framebuffer, which then as a whole goes into the quartz blending engine (this will suck, and is probably what is happening). Or is it doing a passthrough of individual commands into quartz. This means apple has a XAA -> Quartz, RENDER -> QUARTZ, XVIDEO -> QUARTZ, and **ALL** related drivers in place. I am not sure if they do that. If they did that, and it still sucks, then their code is doing something poorly.

      Quartz Extreme. Sorta "been there, done that" for three years now (and in 16MB of VRAM, not the 256MB that Vista wants).
      You should take a look at their compositor architecture. Note how GL sits on top of quartz, not the other way around. That means that instead of quartz rendering to GL (which what glx11 was about), GL is rendering to quartz. This is not a 3d-accelerated compositing, nor is it compositing into GL...it only can be. However, there is no video hardware that can do it perfectly and be accelerated at the same time.

      For example can you alpha blend a full screen video, and a full screen 3d game together? If your Mac can do it at full expected framerate, then I will conceed.

      Do you think vector graphics look great at all sizes when rendered to a bitmap display? Hell no.
      Vector graphics look far better at any size other than the original. This is dues to antialiasing in icon bitmaps, which when scaled looks not only ugly, but wrong.

      --
      badness 10000
    13. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      It's aliasing when you scale a bitmap down. Antialiasing corrects for aliasing. When you scale a bitmap up, it's not aliasing any more, unless you're talking about the issue of scaling an image up by something other than a multiple of the image's size. The problem of scaling a bitmap up and having it be made up of big blocks doesn't really have a name that I know of, and you correct it by just blurring your image, maybe in a smart way.

      All this antialiasing talk reminds me of people calling their desktop background a screensaver.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    14. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      I am not talking about the "antialiasing, the process", but rather "antialiasing, the result". Perhaps I should have used "blurring of an image" instead.

      The problem is that a true bitmap icon looks ragged (see Win95), so it is antialiased to look slick (OS X, XP). The problem is that the blurring as a result of antialiasing gets scaled as well, which causes worse aliasing.

      The better way would be to scale the original, not antialiased image, and then apply antialiasing to regain the slick look. But this is not doable for raster images.

      Is my terminology more correct now?
      Most people I know call the blockiness to due scaling up "pixellation".

      --
      badness 10000
    15. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Although I disagree about an antialiased scaled image looking worse than a non-antialiased one, I'm pretty much gonna have to admit I just got owned. Touché.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    16. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      Do not feel owned. I very much need to have someone bring my terminology into light. I am still not sure if the result of antialiasing is called antialiasing. So you were right to point that out.

      Although I disagree about an antialiased scaled image looking worse than a non-antialiased one
      Careful... what I am saying is that if you take the original source image, antialias it then scale it, it is going to look worse than the image that has been scaled and then antialiased. The artifacts of scaling blurs can be quite extreme...this goes tenfold for the subpixel case.

      What I am not saying though is that the image that is antialiased then scaled is going to look worse than the image that has only been scaled.

      --
      badness 10000
    17. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by heresyoftruth · · Score: 1

      Amen to that. I really really wanted to make GIMP work on my mac, but after dealing with X11 and the clunky interface on my Mac, that I tossed it. At least PS works better on my Mac.

      --
      Nothing hides evidence like a stew. -Gus Pratt
    18. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by damiam · · Score: 1
      I've been very unimpressed by Macintosh and OSX. If you don't run a stricly Mac app it is slow as hell.

      Yeah, and I've been unimpressed by PCs and Windows. If you don't run strictly PC apps they're slow as hell.

      WTF is your point?

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    19. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GIMP works just fine in all kinds of non-PC setups. Ever heard of this little company called SUN?

      The same goes for lots of other open source apps. They tend to work fine on Windows on x86, Linux on several platforms and several other UNIXes.

      When you use an Apple OS, things just suddenly start to suck. I take it from the comment you're an Apple user. As these tend to be a bit less smart, I can hardly blame you for making an ignorant statement. You just can't help being stupid.

    20. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      No, on my PC I can run solaris, AIX, SuSe, windows (through Citrix) seamlessly and fast all on my little linux PC.

      Trying to use OS X, Citrix wouldn't run seamlessly and was slow, X was a kludge obvious after thought that is slow.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    21. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by Watts+Martin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you don't want to run primarily Mac (as opposed to X11) applications on OS X, there's really no point in using OS X. This isn't meant to be a provocative statement, just fact. I'd like X11 to be in a happier state on the Mac, but this is mostly academic; the only X11 application I run is XEmacs, and that pretty rarely. (If the XEmacs Carbon port stabilizes, which will probably involve getting a somewhat less prickly maintainer, even that will go away.)

      Is there anything like X11 or rdesktop/NX that Macs support?

      Whether you like Apple's implementation or not, X11 is an awful lot like X11. :) OS X also supports VNC and, wouldn't you know it, Apple Remote Desktop, although that's not a free solution.

      Incidentally, Quartz != "DisplayPDF." It gets described that way a lot (including by Apple fans), but it's not true. I'm happy for GTK that it supports Cairo, but I suspect it's a matter of (long, torturous) debate as to whether the design philosophy behind Cairo is better, worse or just different than that behind Quartz.

      A year ago [Macs] were still using bitmaps on the dock, and when it scales, it looks damn ugly.

      Only if the icon is ugly to start with. Most of the icons on my dock are quite nice-looking.

    22. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      Whether you like Apple's implementation or not, X11 is an awful lot like X11.
      There is X11 and then there is X11. Users of cygwin know what I mean. If X11 does not support modern extensions, it is not useful. I have no clue where Apple's X11 stands.

      Apple Remote Desktop -- wondering if it is an API forwarding or framebuffer forwarding. I am looking for an API forwarding solution.

      Quartz != "DisplayPDF."
      I am not of the Mac world, so I did confuse the two. Sorry...

      However, I do not understand what the philosophy of Cairo is, and why should it cause a long debate. AFAIK Cairo is essentially the same as Quartz -- a compositing and vector graphics accelaration system.

      Only if the icon is ugly to start with. Most of the icons on my dock are quite nice-looking.
      In general I agree...Except I have seen icons that have text in them, and that becomes a complete mess when it scales.

      --
      badness 10000
    23. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      You should take a look at their compositor architecture. Note how GL sits on top of quartz, not the other way around. That means that instead of quartz rendering to GL (which what glx11 was about), GL is rendering to quartz. This is not a 3d-accelerated compositing, nor is it compositing into GL...it only can be. However, there is no video hardware that can do it perfectly and be accelerated at the same time.

      That's exactly what it does. All of the "windows" on the desktop are turned into textures and mapped onto flat rectangles; the final compositing, translucency, etc is all done in GL on the video card.

      For example can you alpha blend a full screen video, and a full screen 3d game together? If your Mac can do it at full expected framerate, then I will conceed.

      Yeah, you can. There were many reports of multiple DVD's playing, 3D renders running, all with multiple levels of transparent terminal windows on top of the whole mess. Ran without a hitch on Quartz Extreme (obviously, as you add more and more on, you'll need more than the base 16MB of video memory, but I haven't heard of anything stressing on a 32MB or better card). Even on my lowly iBook with a mobility GPU and 32MB of VRAM I can have as many translucent windows and such as I like and toss it on top of rendered 3D or other intense graphical content (movies, etc) - nothing blinks.

      I cant find the screen shots at the moment, but here's a huge chunk of technical info on the current generation of Quartz Extreme from Ars Technica.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    24. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      I cant find the screen shots at the moment

      Well, still no screen shot, but a bunch of more readable information. One things especially to note is CGDisplayUsesOpenGLAcceleration.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    25. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      OK, I read it. Seems that the whole meaning of the Extreme in Quartz Extreme is the opengl backend.

      So in that sense you definitely won that argument, although I will make a point that compositing in GL is not necesserily any better than compositing in 2d. The reason why people are moving there is because lots of 2d operations are disappearing off the cards, and also it is easier to do 3d-effects on the rendered applications.

      However the compositing of video and 3d is a lot harder. The main problem occurs in that with fast motion, your compositor has to pull the application's hardware-accelerated output back into the compositing engine. There is a huge discussion on X11-devel on how this can be done without involving the cpu. In general this is either incredibly difficult, causes flicker, or makes compositing unavailable. Just that it can be done is not good enough. My linux box can already do this, but I have to do software video scaling. What I want to see to be satisfied is a 50% alpha video playing on top of the 50 % transparent GL game, and another video playing behind it, such that all of these things are hardware accelerated and that there is no flicker.

      Personally I do not think that these things can even be accomplished given today's hardware.

      --
      badness 10000
    26. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      I'm happy for GTK that it supports Cairo, but I suspect it's a matter of (long, torturous) debate as to whether the design philosophy behind Cairo is better, worse or just different than that behind Quartz.

      The design philosophy of Cairo is exceptionally similar to that of Quartz, and in fact Cairo can render to Quartz (well, that backend is still labelled as "experimental" but it works). What does that mean? I means that when GTK is fully ported to Cairo (so that it draws by calling Cairo functions) then porting a GTK application to MacOS X won't require any X11 or other fooling around - just have the Cairo libraries installed and GTK will work fine on OS X (and Windows as well). Which is kind of nice really.

      Jedidiah.

    27. Re:GIMP on Macintosh by Watts+Martin · · Score: 1

      I don't know the state of Apple's X11 extensions. (Honestly, I'm not sure precisely what I'd be looking for!) My point was simply that it supports X11, but acknowledging the 'state of the art' on the Mac tends to be Apple's own GUI.

      I suspect Apple Remote Desktop is a framebuffer forwarding solution, although I've heard pretty good things about its performance. The client-server model is one theoretical strength X11 has always had compared to, well, just about anything else, although in practice I'm not sure how much of an advantage it truly is for most people. Oddly enough, a project I'm on at work is expressly about using X11 remote desktops, the server on Linux and the desktop Windows; users have an option of using the Windows NX client and connecting directly to the Linux server, or using Citrix to connect to a Windows machine on the same LAN as the Linux server and then using Reflection X to hop from that to the Linux box. The usability surveys we've done so far don't show either one of those methods with a clear advantage over the other. (Which surprises us--several users insist the Citrix solution is more usable, which is quite the opposite of what we'd expect!)

      According to a reply below, Cairo is closer to Quartz than I'd imagined it is. Which is good, as I think being able to port GTK apps directly to Aqua would be spiffy.

  8. Linux! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if only they did that to Linux...

  9. The gimp is better BECAUSE of the interface by theJML · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, I admit, when I first started using the gimp I had just come over from Photoshop, so it was a little wierd. The UI was, in short, different. But I've been using it more and more in recent times, and as I've gotten into it, I find it to be much more intuitive than Photoshop's interface. At least for me. I like the shortcuts, I like the right clicking menus, I like the multiple windows, etc... Everytime I go back to Photoshop (because I'm forced to, not because I want to) I find more reasons to like the gimp.

    --
    -=JML=-
    1. Re:The gimp is better BECAUSE of the interface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am an Anonymous Coward! Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha!

  10. I have yet to try this, but am planning on it by GecKo213 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've only used the GIMP on occasion because it was a bit awkward. I was used to the photoshop-esque look and feel. As soon as I heard about this I uninstalled photoshop (to remove all temptation) and am going to install the GIMP with this tonight. I'm excited to try it out.

    --
    Generation Trance: What generation are you?
    1. Re:I have yet to try this, but am planning on it by afd8856 · · Score: 1

      give up on your pirated copy of photoshop just like that?

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    2. Re:I have yet to try this, but am planning on it by GecKo213 · · Score: 1

      OH no no no. I have that still, it's just no longer occupying space on my hard drive. I still have it on CD. If GIMP works out well though I'd not need Photoshop again.

      --
      Generation Trance: What generation are you?
  11. Gimp Vs Photoshop by LithiumX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Gimp is a powerful tool, and has a wealth of features (in many respects overshadowing Photoshop itself).

    But, it has a clunky interface (at least to my eyes), and requires more work to perform many tasks. The win32 versions I've used have always been buggy (I have to save often, and have lost countless hours of work due to Gimp crashes). And it is loaded with a number of features I wish it didn't waste my navigation with (like that cute little image-stamper tool).

    I think one strength of Gimp is it's freedom to experiment with interfaces, so in that light I'd rather the core version didn't try to emulate Photoshop... rather concentrating on trying to be something different and potentially better.

    But aside from that, the changes I see this guy putting out are making me pitch a tent.

    --
    Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
    1. Re:Gimp Vs Photoshop by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      in many respects overshadowing Photoshop itself

      I'd be curious to know which aspects are better than Photoshop.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:Gimp Vs Photoshop by LithiumX · · Score: 1

      A good place to start would be many of it's filters and effects. Some of those filters are available for Photoshop as well, but require some hunting and some extra capital.

      Gimp has features that make it comparable to Illustrator in some respects, as opposed to just Photoshop comparisons.

      Now, if Adobe combined Photoshop and Illustrator...

      --
      Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
    3. Re:Gimp Vs Photoshop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think its ability to crash nearly every 15 minutes of use is probably the best thing it ever added to the mix.

      I also enjoy how many of the toolboxes have close buttons that resemble the actual close buttons of most UIs, and one of them closes the whole app.

      Also the wealth of not-that-attractive filters, as well as the number of broken filters that exist gives it a dramatic edge over the competition.

      Seriously though... the Gimp is a nifty piece of software, but it is being vastly overrated on this board. It has the potential to be great, but programmers without direction from experienced graphic designers (not all, but some) generally don't create the greatest of apps for other designers.

      Give it some time though. Eventually it will be just as aggravating (and as well as powerful) as Adobe's flagship product is.

    4. Re:Gimp Vs Photoshop by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      Gimp has skew/stretch distor thing that is pretty nice. It renders a grid in real time over the layer so you can see what it will look like. I don't know, photoshop probably does the same thing but I can't find it.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    5. Re:Gimp Vs Photoshop by corrosive_nf · · Score: 0

      In reference to the frequent crashes where you lost hours of work, frequent usage of crt-s is suggested.

    6. Re:Gimp Vs Photoshop by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      Gimp has skew/stretch distor thing that is pretty nice. It renders a grid in real time over the layer so you can see what it will look like.

      That's changed a bit - it'll now do real-time distortions of the image itself!

      I think Photoshop has something similar, but stupidly hidden^W^W very usefully placed in the 'Crop' tool or something like that...

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    7. Re:Gimp Vs Photoshop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, its stupidly hinder away under Edit -> Free Transform.

    8. Re:Gimp Vs Photoshop by badasscat · · Score: 1

      A good place to start would be many of it's filters and effects. Some of those filters are available for Photoshop as well, but require some hunting and some extra capital.

      What filters and effects specifically? Adobe only includes the ones that are actually necessary, and a subset of "creative" filters that people seem to still use even though they shouldn't. These are mainly leftovers from as long as 10 years ago.

      A lot of people would be happy if Adobe would dump most of their stock filters altogether. People rely on these way too much. There are only a few that are actually useful and leaving the other ones in there only encourages people to be lazy and/or to try to be more "creative" than they actually are.

      Gimp has features that make it comparable to Illustrator in some respects, as opposed to just Photoshop comparisons.

      Now, if Adobe combined Photoshop and Illustrator...


      This makes no sense whatsoever. Photoshop is a raster editor, Illustrator is a vector editor. The Gimp does vector illustrations? That's news to me (it may be the case these days, it's just news to me if it is).

      There is no real logical way to combine raster and vector editors; they require two totally different sets of tools.

      Maybe you meant Photoshop and ImageReady? That would make more sense, and I agree that these two should be combined.

      The Gimp is never going to get anywhere against Photoshop though, good UI or not, until it supports 16 bit images. It is utterly useless for a lot of people without that. I don't mean it's not as good as Photoshop, I mean if you have 16 bit images, it's useless. Basically rules it out right there for professional use.

  12. Re:PS FROM GRANDPA by most_unique_name · · Score: 3, Funny

    Free too? /passes out

    I'd figure someone as old as you (uid 56!!) would know that it's "/me passes out"...

  13. Forever playing catch up? by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't get it, why does it seem so many alt-os projects are forever trying to emulate the look and feel of a Windows environment?

    Linspire, KDE, GIMP, and others, if you spent the time improving, not cloning, your application, perhaps you'd get more users.

    I mean really, if your app is going to look, feel, and function, like a Windows one, why should I use yours??

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:Forever playing catch up? by DustyShadow · · Score: 2, Informative

      I mean really, if your app is going to look, feel, and function, like a Windows one, why should I use yours??

      Cause it's free?

    2. Re:Forever playing catch up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the same reason all the keyboard manufacturers are forever trying to emulate the QWERTY layout. The best user interface is one that behaves the way the user expects it to.

    3. Re:Forever playing catch up? by Mr_Tricorder · · Score: 1

      The reason why is so that people who are used to Windows won't be totally lost and frustrated whenever they are trying to learn a new environment. I just switched from Windows to Linux a few weeks ago, and I probably wouldn't have made the switch without starting out on Xandros, one of the most Windows-like distros out there. Personally, I think KDE is much better than the Windows desktop, and it's familiar enough that I don't have any problems using it. If you don't like using apps and environments that remind you of Windows, then you don't have to. That's the great thing about Linux and this new GimpShop thing, isn't it? You can choose your environment, which is more than what Windows and Photoshop has to offer.

    4. Re:Forever playing catch up? by cerelib · · Score: 1

      It is basically a question of your approach and which camp you are in. One camp is attempting to draw people to OSS by making it as familiar as possible. The other camp wants to draw users by providing something new, novel, innovative that wins users on merit. Both are good, and both complement eachother. People may not be as afraid to try if it looks familiar, and then once they get into OSS they see the cool new stuff people are coming up with.

    5. Re:Forever playing catch up? by iabervon · · Score: 2, Informative

      GIMP isn't a clone of anything; the developers pretty firmly do their own thing and work on improving the application. This story is actually an endorsement of this approach. The GIMP developers didn't waste any effort on chasing Photoshop, and then some random TV producer takes care of the Photoshop UI. From this example, you could guess that, if you've got any developers working on the UI, you're wasting effort; that job should be done by a user with limited programming experience. (For that matter, he was probably better situated to do the redesign than any of the developers, who aren't likely to be heavy users of Photoshop.)

      For that matter, Linspire seems to me like a bunch of non-programmers who configure Linux to match Windows. It's unlikely that they'd be helpful working on applications.

    6. Re:Forever playing catch up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean really, if your app is going to look, feel, and function, like a Windows one, why should I use yours??

      Look, feel and function are just GUI issues, mostly centered around user comfort/expectations. Windows has 9[x]% of the user base. A large portion of those users have never used anything that was not windows. They do not know why you "click file->options->save as a duck", they just know that is what they have to do to complete step 7 in their task. So, you mimic the control features, removing the fear of "something different", opening up you product to a wider potential user base.

      Hopefully you use my product for the underlying functionality/stability/cost of the software. By ensuring you can save your file "as a duck", whether useful of not, just makes your transition easier.

      Remember UI is just the makeup. Take most models of North American cars. There are basics that are consistent across most models, mostly because "It's where people expect to find them", not because the designers couldn't find a different, or better place to put them. Just because users expect certain controls to be in the same locations.

      Ever driven a Euro car? Notice how odd it feels, until you get used to the slightly different placement of the controls? Same thing. Now, if you were designing the controls of the newest Dodge sedan, would you look to GM and Ford and see where theirs are, or would you just use the Saab layout and hope the average American would choose to adapt. I'll give you a hint, most people are not fond of change. If you followed the Saab pattern, you would probably have a banner year for sales in Sweeden, but you would lose your domestic market.

      Same thing here. Just for user expectations.

    7. Re:Forever playing catch up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To convert people.

      Don't know if you're aware of the Hare Krishna movement, but their focus is usually on Christians. They pick a god "Krishna" from the polytheistic Hinduism, and offer a monotheistic version of Hinduism to monotheistic Christians. Christians, being inherently comfortable with monotheism, find this movement pretty attractive and so they join the movement.

      Like I said ... "To convert people".

    8. Re:Forever playing catch up? by m50d · · Score: 1
      I don't get it, why does it seem so many alt-os projects are forever trying to emulate the look and feel of a Windows environment?

      They're not. They're trying to get the best look and feel for the task in hand. And, believe it or not, so is windows. And, surprise surprise, the answers come up similar.

      Linspire, KDE, GIMP, and others, if you spent the time improving, not cloning, your application, perhaps you'd get more users.

      KDE is an improvement over windows - it looks 10x nicer, windows is only beginning to catch up with its customisability, drag-and-drop works better, network resources are very transparent. I could go on. Choosing to be different from windows for the sake of being different simply makes the application less usable - and the gimp is the prime example of this.

      I mean really, if your app is going to look, feel, and function, like a Windows one, why should I use yours??

      Why should you use the windows one if it functions the same? You choose the one that's better, and that's similar in many ways to others - believe it or not photoshop does a lot of things right. Making your UI different so as not to be the same as photoshop is like making a car that uses a joystick to steer so that it's different from your competitors'.

      --
      I am trolling
    9. Re:Forever playing catch up? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      The other camp wants to draw users by providing something new, novel, innovative that wins users on merit.

      No, the other camp wants to make something that does things the opposite way to Windows, simply because windows does it that way, and they're bloody-mindedly stubbon in their hatred for all things microsoft.

      (I'm not saying the GIMP people are like this, they simply copied the old X-windows UI features)

    10. Re:Forever playing catch up? by ediron2 · · Score: 1

      Lets ignore the obvious (to capitalize on Adobe's or Microsoft's research in user-interaction and UI design), and focus on something obvious but almost-alwlays neglected by primadonna developers:

      Because user-acceptance and training are the toughest barrier to adoption any new system faces.

      It always baffles me that we obsess about preserving backward-compatibility, but nobody thinks twice about how much end-user trauma it causes to rearrange, regroup and rename the control panel elements in windows).

      Geeks willingly puzzle thru the app using an 'I *know* there has to be a way to do X' mindset. Everyone else cusses a lot, then goes back what is easy and familiar.

      An analogy: imagine how unpleasant it would be if critical controls on cars varied from car to car. I mean, relocating the headlights is annoying enough, but what if each car shifted driver's position, steering, windshield and seating, and what order the pedals were in on the floor. Gas on left on Chevy's, on the right on cars made in Europe. Safety and user experience would plummet. Next, rename things throughout and use inconsistent unit schemes (speedometers in feet or miles or meters or yards or leagues per second or minute or hour, random and ambiguous words for controls, etc).

      I swear, if cars were done like OS's (with stuff shuffled around and renamed and inexplicably redesigned between brands and between versions) people would have given 'em up and gone back to walking.

      (Incidentally, that's why user-centric apps should really obsess about matching the industry leader, and why non-user-centric (server) apps like Apache are given a bit more leeway.)

    11. Re:Forever playing catch up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't get it, why does it seem so many alt-os projects are forever trying to emulate the look and feel of a Windows environment?


      Agreed. If they're going to copy someone, rather than copying someone who is already copying someone else (Windows which continually tries to emulate Apple's OS), why not directly copy the one being copied? Developers might then discover different insights into interface design than they currently do as copies of copies.
    12. Re:Forever playing catch up? by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1
      I don't get it, why does it seem so many alt-os projects are forever trying to emulate the look and feel of a Windows environment?


      IMO, consider what Windows Vista will look like and how much people/users hate change.
      This could be a boon if Photoshop CS:Vista is too radical a departure from what people know.
      They'll either stay where they're at, or move to something else (depending on features and ability).


      I mean really, if your app is going to look, feel, and function, like a Windows one, why should I use yours??


      Money? Or lack there of.
      --
      Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
    13. Re:Forever playing catch up? by Scum · · Score: 1

      Totally with you there. If you're going to copy something, copy Apple at least.

      Well, one of the Apple interface styles anyway. ;-)

    14. Re:Forever playing catch up? by benjcurry · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, I think GNOME is emulating more of a Mac feel. Better, anyway. Then again, there isn't much new under the sun.

    15. Re:Forever playing catch up? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      This is for the simple reason that any attempt to "innovate" results in people complaining that it is "hard to use" and "confusing" and "unfamiliar". These are the exact same complainers like you who will immediatly turn around and say "open source does not innovate" as soon as a clone of a Windows product is produced.

      I have no idea if the Gimp interface is any good (I have been quite confused by it, but I can't figure out PhotoShop either). But I do know that several good ideas are buried because they will "confuse" the poor Windows user. Point-to-type is one, and having clicking on windows NOT raise them is another. Both of these are seriously limiting the ability to make good user interfaces and forcing kludges like MDI and tiled layouts. You probably did not use X11 applications 10 years ago, but I did, and believe me we have lost as much innovation as we have gained from Microsoft!

    16. Re:Forever playing catch up? by cerelib · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I did leave out that camp. But I hardly call a bunch of zealots worshipping a pure gold likeness of RMS a camp. Just kidding. There are those people, but I try not to take them too seriously, like CNN. Man I am on a roll today.

    17. Re:Forever playing catch up? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      I mean really, if your app is going to look, feel, and function, like a Windows one, why should I use yours??

      You better learn the secret way to delete your post from slashdot before you are sought out and killed.

      I've been saying that the whole "free" knockoff, but not as good as Windows thing is dumb for years. I miss the days of FVWM, Afterstep (which too was a knockoff, but I've never seen the original), and other different windowing environments.

    18. Re:Forever playing catch up? by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      Not good enough. If free were the only factor in people's mind, then Linux would rule the world.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    19. Re:Forever playing catch up? by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      >>They're not. They're trying to get the best look and feel for the task in hand. And, believe it or not, so is windows. And, surprise surprise, the answers come up similar.

      I disagree, BeOS did it (the GUI) better.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    20. Re:Forever playing catch up? by grumbel · · Score: 1

      ### I don't get it, why does it seem so many alt-os projects are forever trying to emulate the look and feel of a Windows environment?

      Because its a lot easier to get contributors that way. When I write a new app its a heck of a lot easire to I say "Here look at Photoshop, something like that we will do", then to try to explain some revolutionary new concept which nobody has heard before, let alone that nobody can yet tell if it will work in the end. You might not like that, neither do I, but its the way it is.

    21. Re:Forever playing catch up? by DustyShadow · · Score: 1

      Yea I know...I was just replying to your question of why you should use it. Your statement "...if your app is going to look, feel, and function, like a Windows one, why should I use yours??" implies that they both do the same thing but the only difference is price...

    22. Re:Forever playing catch up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean really, if your app is going to look, feel, and function, like a Windows one, why should I use yours??

      Because it's free.

    23. Re:Forever playing catch up? by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Making your UI different so as not to be the same as photoshop is like making a car that uses a joystick to steer so that it's different from your competitors'.

      Actually, GIMP's interface was intentionally designed to be very similar to photoshop. Photoshop on Mac, that is. The problem is the interface for Photoshop on Windows is completely different from the original Mac one. Can you figure out why? Hint: it has everything to do with the way Windows manages (or fails to manage) windows.

      --
      AccountKiller
    24. Re:Forever playing catch up? by lahvak · · Score: 1

      An analogy: imagine how unpleasant it would be if critical controls on cars varied from car to car. I mean, relocating the headlights is annoying enough, but what if each car shifted driver's position, steering, windshield and seating, and what order the pedals were in on the floor. Gas on left on Chevy's, on the right on cars made in Europe. Safety and user experience would plummet.

      Actually, most OS's user interfaces are the same on this level, I mean things like driver position, steering, etc. All computers have keyboards that are very similar, rectangular screen. On the screen you have windows, each window has a sort of title bar, usually with buttons on it, frame, there is typically a menu bar (except sometimes the menu bar is at the top of the screen), menus work pretty much the same way, your data are in files on disk, sorted in folders or directories. The differences are more like location and lable on a cruise control button, radio, horn, maybe a shift stick etc. The problem is that user interface of a computer is much more complicated (they are used for many more purposes than cars), so the details become much more important.

      This summer I drove a 4 weel drive pickup truck with a trailer (helping a friend with bales of hay) for the first time, and I did feel somewhat like using an unfamiliar OS or application. There wasn't that much to learn, but I wasn't used to it, which made it difficult (the fact that I could have made a lot of damage with it didn't really help).

      As for the "horrible" GIMP interface, the main reason people have trouble with it seems to be the same as the reason Adobe radically changed the interface when they ported PS to windows. It's the fact that Windows (despite its name) is absolutely unable to do any real window managment at all. The design of Windows "window manager" practically didn't change since the old Windows 3.1 or whatever it was called. I mean the time when if you were very adventurous, you would have two application windows open at the same time, and maybe a dialog box. This part of Windows is what sucks the most, and long overdue for a major overhaul (another part is the stupid file system with all the drive letters and crap, but that doesn't get that much in the way as the lack of window managment).

      --
      AccountKiller
    25. Re:Forever playing catch up? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      bunch of zealots worshipping a pure gold likeness of RMS ....a pure gold likeness of RMS standing atop a Bill Gates/Lucifer combination (a'la Coventry Cathedral), with a Bruce Perens kneeling at his feet looking up in supplication as a garlanded Stallman dances round them whilst a solid silver Torvalds gazes down clad only in a wry smile from a marbled cloud.

      You'd need a lot of paper bags nearby obviously, but it'd still be better than most statuary 'art' made nowadays :-)

    26. Re:Forever playing catch up? by ediron2 · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      Am late to get home, but quick example:

      Security on a car: a lock on the door.
      Security on windows 98, 2000, xp: varies. User management controls shift which interface screen they're in, the user/group hierarchy shifts, the network config screens (and what to highlight-then-hit-properties) instructions shift steadily.

      Yeah, the keyboard screen and mouse are largely unchanged. But the above is critical, yet keeps getting shifted around. Likewise, hardware config varies. Likewise, application UI's shift steadily. Users scream about this, if you ask 'em and make the comparison to a car so they'll break their preconceptions enough to *really* analyze what computers force them to do in terms of perpetually relearning... but if you don't, most users have resigned themselves to it. They expect each new app to be an experience on a par with root canal. They expect to get hacked. They expect to be duped by spyware and trojans. And part of that is due to external factors and rapid change in the industry. But the part we control, the UI... we bust on purpose because we aren't paying attention or we want to try something new and different or it'd be extra/lame effort to focus on maintaining similarities between versions. Meanwhile, the systems are obsessively-made backward-compatible.

      How fsckin' tragic is that.

    27. Re:Forever playing catch up? by m50d · · Score: 1
      Much as I like BeOS I have to say I prefer full titlebars to tabs - it's just nice to have the position of everything predictable. Other than that, there aren't dramatic differences between the beos gui and that of windows or kde.

      Anyway, if beos-style behaviour is what you prefer you can configure kde like that. Most people are coming from windows and want windows-like behaviour. Maybe beos should be an option on the introductory wizard though.

      --
      I am trolling
    28. Re:Forever playing catch up? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Because people will whine you to death if you don't make it look exactly like the Windows equivalent.

    29. Re:Forever playing catch up? by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      Agreed, alt-apps are not direct clones of Windows ones, but to joe sixplack, he may not notice the difference.

      Allow me one small example. Mozilla's e.mail client, Thunderbird, is such a clone of Outlook Express, that when my OE work e.mail was corrupted, and I tried to use Thunderbird to get it back, it crashed on exactly the same e.mail, and in exactly the same way, that it did under Outlook Express.

      Eudora got my e.mail back, but I was saddened at how much of a clone Thunderbird was. If it's so close to Outlook Express, and apparently handles (or lack thereof) e.mail in the same way as OE, then why should I use it?

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    30. Re:Forever playing catch up? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      " If free were the only factor in people's mind, then Linux would rule the world."

      It isn't the only factor, the other factors are ease of installation, ease of updates, range of available applications, and ease of use when dealing with the GUI.

      Since the only place Linux is lacking is in the GUI dept and range of apps (gaming for me specifically), this is what is holding them back, if they can re-create the very easy to use Windows GUI then nothing would really be holding them back from competing with windows (except applications, but once you have the users the apps will come, i guess) espcially since it is free.

      I would much rather use linux for free than pay for windows, it's a no brainer, but trying to get my kids and wife to understand the linux interface in it's current form would be a nightmare, and there are hardly any games available for the platform.

      So I wait, and wait, and use linux when it is a better fit (for my game server, hosting files ala ftp, webserver, etc...)

  14. Suggestive blurb by bbc · · Score: 2, Funny

    AFAIK there was only one developer who showed he was a little dismayed. Also, GIMPShop only makes the GIMP a little friendlier to those who are used to the unfriendly interface of Photoshop.

  15. Before you say it can't compete... by ValourX · · Score: 1

    Undoubtedly someone here will bitch about how The GIMP has none of the important features that Photoshop has. So in an attempt to get some useful information out of such rants, please be specific as to what Photoshop can do that The GIMP cannot. Name individual features and capabilities.

    1. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by brother_b · · Score: 1

      All I use is GIMP, but it is missing some things PS has. Layer effects, for example, like Stroke.

    2. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The GIMP has none of the important features that Photoshop has. It can't do CMYK, it doesn't work with the millions of Photoshop plugins, an industry standard, yada yada found in google, etc

    3. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by Pionar · · Score: 1

      The point isn't that Photoshop can do things that the GIMP can't (and there are features in Photoshop that the GIMP doesn't offer, and vice versa, like batch processing and droplets), it's more that those of us who are more used to Photoshop see the GIMP's UI and are lost. I love the dockable pallets and the toolbars that Photoshop offers. They make my workflow so much less complicated.

    4. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      My one big beef about GIMP is that it insists that you anchor the layer before you can move along. Heck, in Photoshop 5, I can stack as many layers as I want, return to one that I need to tweak, and save them like that in native format in case I would like to return to the project later.

      Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. But that seems to knock it out of the competition.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    5. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfffft! C'mon. Like anyone really needs CMYK...

    6. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, for one thing, the Gimp has lousy colour support. No CMYK, no spot channels, and does it even yet colour profiles yet?

      The tools don't work as well as they should. I tried once to do some simple selections, fill them, and add some blur. Gaussian blur didn't work with partial alpha transparency correctly at all. I couldn't figure out how to do what I wanted to do.

      The Gimp does not have a usable workflow. It's hard to explain unless you're a designer, but you need to have certain tools work in a certain way to connect all the steps in making a design.

      Those are just a few complaints.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    7. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a photography company. Two words.

      Color Management.

      Give me a tool that lets me do batch color corrections on RAW files, works on an OS that has proper tools for color calibration, and gives me CMYK for when I need to do pre-press. Right now, that tool is Photoshop.

    8. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand, appreciate, and like SOME open source software - but as a graphics professional who reads slashdot every day, I have to say this community (while very intelligent) often looses touch with reality when it comes to the rest of the world (non-techies) and computer use.

      GIMP is a very ambitious project and does several things well, but to compare it to a product in development from the leading graphics company since 1987 funded with gazillions of R&D dollars is intellectually dishonest.

      GIMP doesn't work with CMYK which is the biggest drawback for anyone who works in print - but perhaps the biggest drawback for graphics professionals is the lack of interoperability with other standard apps and file formats.

      While GIMP does very well at producing 72 dpi RGB images for websites etc....that doesn't begin to scratch the surface of what photoshop is capable of.

      In my opinion, GIMP is a great app for programmers/techies who need/enjoy producing low-res graphics occasionally - but to think it actually competes with Photoshop in the marketplace is just plain silly.

    9. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by SiGiN · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Gimp(shop) on Linux, but I really tried Win32 build of Gimpshop, and my personal turnoff was rather poor text management.

      Nonintuitive antialiasing and lack of kerning - and it was photoshop for me again. Really sad tho - I'd prefer OS solution.

    10. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by schon · · Score: 1

      The GIMP has none of the important features that Photoshop has.

      OK, as you mentioned the word features, please list them.

      It can't do CMYK

      OK, that's one.

      it doesn't work with the millions of Photoshop plugins

      Sorry, but this is just saying "it's not photoshop" - which is not a feature. A feature is something a piece of software can do, not something it is.

      If you insist on claiming this is a "feature", then as Photoshop doesn't work with GIMP plugins, that means that GIMP is better than Photoshop then (by your own standard.)

      an industry standard

      Please list the RFC or standards body which has formally approved Photoshop as a standard for an industry.

      And I'll be waiting for your feature list, too.

    11. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are tons of PS plugins out there on the market, which work with all of the top graphics programs -- even those that are not from Adobe. Even IrfanView, a free Windows image viewer can use PS plugins.

      Perhaps one could even question why GIMP would even have its own plugin format when Adobe's would work?

      dom

    12. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, as you mentioned the word features, please list them.

      On top of not truly supporting CMYK (hack-arounds with TIFF layers don't cut it), here are some more.

      + Layer sets
      + Pantone color
      + Lab color
      + Color profiles (extremely important when working with printed files)
      + Direct editing of EPS files
      + Workgroup servers
      + Exporting to PDF

      And perhaps the most important "feature":

      + Print houses almost universally accept PSD files, but I've yet to see a single one that will take an XCF.

      And Photoshop is the de facto industry standard for graphic design. You can have all the RFCs and bodies you want, but people who need to get real work done on multiple mediums in professional environments look at The GIMP and understand that it's still little more than just a dream right now.

    13. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just recently bought CS2 (after using elements for a while) so my list won't for sure be exhaustive.

      = adjustment layers (this feature alone makes gimp a toy in my book)
      = healing brush/spot healing brush (use it all the time)
      = adobe bridge + adobe camera raw (and don't tell me there are other apps to do this, I know there are, but acr+bridge is amazing in CS2)
      = liquify
      = 16 and 32 bit/channel images (I do all my editing in 16 personally)
      = CYMK/LAB/... color spaces
      = color profiles (so I can soft-proof exactly what my print will look like when printed at the lab *AND* can use their profiles instead of having to limit myself to sRGB)
      = vanishing point (ok, gimmicky but it's quite useful sometimes)
      = multiple easily placeable color samplers
      = an actually good UI without 250000 extra windows: in PS I can just press 'tab' and work on the imace on an empty screen, 'tab' again and all my palettes are back where they were.
      = history brush
      = better support for my wacom tablet (although the gimp is not totally bad, it's still nowhere near as good)
      = meaningful keyboard shortcuts for everything.

      and the list goes on and on and on. I am very much pro open source, but when it comes to the Gimp the people that say that it's as good as PS strike me the same way as the people that say that their webserver written in perl in a CS class is as good as Apache.

      Sure, the gimp is fine for the 'resize the pic for the web and maybe correct some red eye' crowd, but as soon as you have to do something more involved even the humble (and cheap) PS Elements is light years ahead.

      --
      -- the cake is a lie
    14. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, you get so many zealots who cannot see the forest for the trees. The same reason that Open Office has gained so much support and usage is because it supports the current industry standard instead of trying to foist it's own 'standard' on to the industry.

      Start working on PSD support and Photoshop Plugin support then come talk to me...

    15. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GIMP has not had CYMK outputs for a long time (and if I recall correctly, it was one of the things they were adding to the next version). The GIMP (from the earliest version) has natively supported Photoshop plugins. (Just add the files, no hocus-pocus). I don't know who told you that (or was it an obvious lie that you knew about, and spewed it as flame bait?), but for the last half million years, the GIMP has worked seamlessly with Photoshop plugins (full functionality, no quirks). This includes 3rd party plugins for Photoshop too.

    16. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by arose · · Score: 1

      You can make a new layer out of a float by clicking the "New Layer" button or by right clicking on the float in the layers dialog, there should also be a keyboard shortcut (Ctrl+N?). Save in GIMPs native xcf format to keep the layers.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    17. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by arose · · Score: 1

      GIMP does batch processing, just not from the GUI. It also has dockable dialogs.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    18. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by arose · · Score: 1
      does it even yet colour profiles yet?
      Yes, via plugin. Out of the box support will be in the next stable version.
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    19. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by arose · · Score: 1
      Sure, the gimp is fine for the 'resize the pic for the web and maybe correct some red eye' crowd, but as soon as you have to do something more involved even the humble (and cheap) PS Elements is light years ahead.
      Yes, Adobe is years ahead of GIMP (not light years, unless they have developed FTL travel secretly), that is not surprising as they started earlier. But saying that all that GIMP can do is 'resize the pic for the web and maybe correct some red eye' is an insult to the developers.
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    20. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by Pionar · · Score: 1

      Ahh, and there's the rub. The people who use Photoshop and the GIMP aren't necessarily the same kind of people who develop it. Adobe realizes this, therefore no scripting is required.

      A user of imaging software (who are usually artsy types who do photography and/or design) shouldn't have to learn programming to get their software to do what they want. Scheme and Perl are not easy to learn for non-CS types. I almost pulled my hair out trying to get my coworkers (who are all designers by trade) to grasp regular expression syntax so they could use it inside Dreamweaver.

      The last time I used GIMP (2.2.0, I believe), the dockable "pallets" or dialogs were very buggy.

      Overall, while GIMP is great as free software, it's nowhere near production quality for design and photography professionals.

      A graphic artist is only as good as his tools.

    21. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by arose · · Score: 1
      Adobe realizes this, therefore no scripting is required.
      That does not change the fact that GIMP has batch processing, that means that making a GUI batch processer may be as simple as writing one script.
      Scheme and Perl are not easy to learn for non-CS types.
      Fortunately there is Python, learning enough for basic, but usefull, GIMP scripts shouldn't be too difficult. On the other hand I haven't done so yet myself.
      The last time I used GIMP (2.2.0, I believe), the dockable "pallets" or dialogs were very buggy.
      Haven't notcied any docking specific problems, not even in the 1.3 branch. Might be platform specific.
      Overall, while GIMP is great as free software, it's nowhere near production quality for design and photography professionals.
      It might not be enough for everyone, but not all professionals are alike. There should be some who simply do net require anything beyond what gimp offers, there should be some who can take advantage of the scriptability and there should be some who have very special needs and inhouse programmers who will extend GIMP to fill them.
      A graphic artist is only as good as his tools.
      A tool is only as good as the artist using it.
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    22. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'know, maybe if the developers actually listened to the people that have been saying that these things are needed (esp. proper CMYK support) before they can even begin to take the program seriously (and these are things they've been told thousands of times for well over 5 years), then maybe their poor little egos wouldn't get hurt so much when people tell them that they've made a nice little toy...Seriously, making some basic web graphics is about all that the gimp is good for at this point in time. When professionals consider PaintShopPro to be far ahead of you, then you know you've got some problems...

    23. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      Sure, the gimp is fine for the 'resize the pic for the web and maybe correct some red eye' crowd

      I think the images posted to my blog alone go beyond "resize the pic and correct some red-eye". Dozens of professional sites exist that use Gimp, POVray, and Blender in concert (that's the nice thing about open file formats!). And then remember http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/27/ 1551250&from=rss this article? Pixar switched to Linux, I suppose they don't know squat about graphics, huh?

    24. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by arose · · Score: 1

      Is PhotoShop a toy because Cinepaint is better suited for film retouching? Since when do you speak for all professionals?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    25. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 1

      is an insult to the developers.

      when the developers will actually listen to what users want (a PS-like interface, adjustment layers, CYMK, ...) instead of to themselves, my attitude towards Gimp will change.

      Every single time I brought up a Gimp shortcoming I've been told that "why don't I code it if I want it", I want a graphic program that works, I already code all day for my job and extending the Gimp is not what I'm interested in, that's why I have given several hundred $ to Adobe for CS2 (and elements 3 before that).

      You can see how the developers' minds work when they chewed out the guy that came out with the PS-like interface because it didn't fit with their vision which is "Gimp is not PS" even when that's what pretty much everybody would like.

      I respect the fact that they aren't paid for their work, and that consequently I shouldn't expect too much, that's why I decided to actually buy what I need instead of continuing to gripe about the Gimp.

      --
      -- the cake is a lie
    26. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 1

      Dozens of professional sites exist that use Gimp, POVray, and Blender in concert

      we're not talking about POVray and Blender here

      Pixar switched to Linux, I suppose they don't know squat about graphics, huh?

      I seriously doubt Pixar put linux on their Photoshop-using artists' desktops, which are for sure all using CS2 on OS/X. Please stop being a mindless fanboy and actually talk to people who use PS for a living and ask them about what they think about switching to the Gimp to see what the Gimp shortcomings are.

      If I can find out several huge shortcomings with the Gimp (and I'm not a pro at PS by any means) somebody who actually knows PS inside and out would probably be able to write a book about what the gimp is lacking.

      --
      -- the cake is a lie
    27. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by arose · · Score: 1
      There is a huge scale from 'resize the pic for the web and maybe correct some red eye' the functionality you are talking about, putting GIMP at the bottom of the scale is an insult to the developers no matter what features from the other end you are missing.
      when the developers will actually listen to what users want (a PS-like interface, adjustment layers, CYMK, ...) instead of to themselves, my attitude towards Gimp will change.
      The developers do listen to what users want and the majority of GIMP users (like me) don't want a PS-like interface. CMYK will come when the infrastructure is ready for it, GIMP developers would love to have full CMYK support, but it's a huge task and takes time. Same for adjustment layers, GEGL needs to be done first.
      Every single time I brought up a Gimp shortcoming I've been told that "why don't I code it if I want it", I want a graphic program that works, I already code all day for my job and extending the Gimp is not what I'm interested in, that's why I have given several hundred $ to Adobe for CS2 (and elements 3 before that).
      No, you want a program that works in a particular way, the GIMP works just fine, saying that it doesn't is absurd. But features just don't magicly happen someone has to code them and GIMP developers are currently working to make a stable version so that GIMP users don't complain about bugs and crushes while they work on GEGL. I will be using GIMP and wait for the new cool features and you will be using CS2 and that is fine, but that is not a reason to attack GIMP, it's developers or users.
      I respect the fact that they aren't paid for their work, and that consequently I shouldn't expect too much, that's why I decided to actually buy what I need instead of continuing to gripe about the Gimp.
      Why did you continue then?
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    28. Re:Before you say it can't compete... by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      would probably be able to write a book about what the gimp is lacking

      Nah, I can sum it up in a paragraph...Gimp is lacking the same thing in comparison to Photoshop that Bash is to DOS, Emacs and vi are to Microsoft word, Linux is to Microsoft, Linus Torvalds is to Bill Gates, yada yada yada: it isn't in your tiny little comfort zone.

      This isn't touching where I'm coming from. Look at it from my side of the fence. I love Gimp just like it is. I don't care if everybody else never uses it, as long as it's there for me. So here I am all these years having my private party, when suddenly, the whole world discovers it at once. Here come stampedes of Windows users from over the hill out of nowhere to grab my beer, sip it, declare it unfit to their tastes, so they piss in it to improve the flavor for themselves...ruining it for me. Sound like a familiar story? Why do you think geeks went off and wrote Linux in the first place? What do you think, you think we'll embrace Gimp anymore after it's been dumbed down to your level? No, we'll do like we did ten thousand times before and go make our own new toy, and be happy with it for a little while until the herd comes stampeding over the hill again.

      You want functionality that's lacking in Gimp? Have you heard of plug-ins? GTK? Script-Fu? Why do you think tools like this are provided to the end user? Where do you think software comes from? Do you think the Fairy Goddamn Godmother drops it under the freaking mistletoe?

      Write your own or keep freeloading off of those of us who *DO* write our own, while you keep bitching all the way about how rotten it all is. Just don't expect the second option to win you lots of friends.

  16. its not good enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although this does help a little bit with the 9/11 that is the GiMP interface.. but unfortunately, it doesnt really help that much. Gimp needs a MAJOR overhaul..and so does blender.. I'm sure if they were designed for humans to use them but the way opensourceworld works unfortunately most stuff gets developed until it does what the original creator intended and turns into abandonware OR its designed from a programmers point of view and not an artists.

  17. Re:Paint.net by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wow, way to pimp out your own website when you could have just direct linked to the Paint.NET Website.

  18. Corel's been doing it by casualsax3 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Anybody that's been using Corel PHOTOPaint for a while will tell you that it has an option in viewing preferences to make it look like photoshop... IDENTICAL to photoshop actually - including buttons, tool groups, and even context menus.

  19. Interface templates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It would be a great idea to implement this kind of functionality as a xml template, where non-programmers can create templates that mimic similar applications. This is not only handy for the Gimp, but also OpenOffice. On-the-fly-switching would be even better. Microsoft Word used to have a 'compatibility mode' back when WordPerfect still ruled.

    1. Re:Interface templates by Agermain · · Score: 1

      That's a brilliant idea. I'm surprised I haven't seen an implementation of it yet, honestly.

    2. Re:Interface templates by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      This really does sound like a fantastic idea.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Interface templates by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the next generation of Windows Forms applications is going to support XML and XSL designed windows forms. I believe it's called xaml, and the link for it is here: http://www.xaml.net/ Basically it should allow developers to use a photoshop-like tool to graphically design form elements, and it will produce a markup that you can use in windows applications. I suppose it would be trivial to build an application extension that let you load custom xaml on the fly in an app.

      In that sense, it wouldn't be that hard programmatically to change the look and feel of an interface. Also, it might bring windowing environment designers closer to HTML designers; since HTML is a form of XML

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
  20. Mirror by jacoplane · · Score: 1

    nyud.net mirror, mirrordot mirror. article seems to be down for me.

    1. Re:Mirror by jacoplane · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Mirror by danfreak · · Score: 1
      yeah badly needed...

      http://freshmeat.net/project-stats/import-download -stats/53427/

      /\Watch the slashdot effect!/\ From 40 hits a day to 280 and rising :)

  21. Dupe by querencia · · Score: 1, Redundant
    1. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dupe stories, stories taken from fark.com days later, and horrible editing/spelling: It can only be slashdot!

    2. Re:Dupe by Luke+Psywalker · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Not only did you not RTFA, but you did not read the summary. We all know this is old news hence the:

      Despite an outcry from some developers, users have picked it up with passion.

      It's an interview with Scott as to why he did it.

      Retard.

    3. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly can't tell if people who complain angrily about dupes are sincerely angry, or if it's intended to be somehow funny. I mean, if you actually get angry about dupes on slashdot, you must be a very very bitter person. Like, disgruntled worker with a shotgun bitter. How do you deal with day to day life? Like, say, a friend accidentally hitting you in the face when swatting at a mosquito? Surely, your disgust would be far higher than that caused by a dupe?

    4. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite as sad as the fact there's always some douchebag like you poring through the archives to find out whether or not each story's been posted or not in the past five years.

      If the best that you have to look forward to in a day is posting "Dupe" alerts, you might as well shoot yourself in the face and get it over with.

    5. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's REALLY sad is someone poring through the archives to find dupes, and then not actually checking for themselves whether it is a dupe or not. The original article that all these trolls are bringing up is basically saying "this product exists." This article is basically pointing to an interview with the creator. An interview done just a couple days ago.

      I guess what I'm trying to say is this: jb.hl.com: you failed it.

  22. Mixed feelings by Andrew+Lenahan · · Score: 1

    On one hand, it feels like something of a defeat when free software has to mimic paid software, right down to the application name itself.

    On the other hand, as a fairly heavy user of various image-manipulation and art programs, I've always felt that The Gimp's UI was a little too out there for mainstream appeal. I see attempts to improve usability as generally a good thing, as it's really the only stumbling block that still exists for many users to adopt free software. I don't think that it's possible to overestimate the value of a positive user experience.

    --
    Andrew Lenahan http://www.starblind.com/
  23. Longtime Photoshop User - Now gimp pimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've used photoshop for the last 10 years and tried Gimp a few times over that period - a new UI was always hard.
    Now I have entirely switched to Ubuntu I have gripped this Gimp and well it is ace, top hole, wunderbar. I have no complaints it is as powerful as photoshop although I would like to be able to easily record macros / batch actions - I will fool with the python scripting but well just hitting record was a pleasure.
    I hear it has CMYK issues (i.e. no support) well I don't care - if I ever do CMYK I just let my print shop sort that out.
    This project will lower the bar for Adobe slaves, I look forward to a total balkanisation of UIs ;-)

  24. Patents by infernalC · · Score: 1

    Adobe is going to have lots of fun with this. Have you not seen the spalsh screen? They probably have a patent for the letter J and the color blue... but they certainly have patents covering most of their UI. And they tell you outright what their patents are... so you have no excuse. This is pretty lame. Go write a better UI; don't copy Adobe.

    1. Re:Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Go write a better UI; don't copy Adobe.



      In my experience, creating good UIs is the one thing the open-source community doesn't do well. When a large group of designers start contributing to open software projects, this problem will evaporate. But something tells me that isn't going to happen.

  25. Great Idea! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I think it's a great idea. Two reasonably comparable programs - one interface to learn.

    Only zealots should be complaining over this - especially since you can still use the Classic GIMP Interface if you wish.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  26. It comes down to how you use it by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you use every single feature and lots of optimizations, and maybe even hack the code yourself, you might be upset at the GUI overlay.

    But, if like most people, you just want to use it and not struggle with things, it works fine.

    Kind of like how MSFT noticed a lot of people were using WordPad or NotePad because Word had too many darned features that people got lost and they only wanted to write a short note, so they stopped fighting that and stopped making the menus way way too complex.

    Most people don't use everything. I've got buttons in my car I've never pressed, for example.

    Like this one here marked "Auto Eject". Now, to the casual user you'd think it was one of those James Bond things and if you pressed it you would be ejected from the car, but I know better since they'd never let something like that in a basic sports coupe, so I'll just lean over here ... and press it ... and ... see nothing happened.

    [explosion]

    [seat ejects]

    [seat crashes in pond]

    [bubbles appear after poster drowns since he foolishly had his seatbelt on and couldn't get it off after submersion]

    .

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:It comes down to how you use it by kalpol · · Score: 1

      Because, you know, the NEXT TRACK button and ejection button are like, right next to each other.

      --
      12:50 - press return.
    2. Re:It comes down to how you use it by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Because, you know, the NEXT TRACK button and ejection button are like, right next to each other.

      Nah, NEXT TRACK just makes it change lanes.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  27. Gimp is nice, but lacks key features by mrm677 · · Score: 3, Informative

    To me, the show-stoppers for using Linux/Gimp for my photo work are the following:

        * Color management. Not aware of ICC color profiling. Can I calibrate my monitor with nVideo and ATI Linux drivers? Can Gimp load an ICC profile of my output device to proof my print?

        * Multi-processor support. Photoshop takes advantage of my dual-core machine.

        * Large files. Photoshop loads and processes 1 GB image files much faster than Gimp. With my 4x5" large-format camera and a 2400dpi film scanner, my image files are 100 megapixels.

    1. Re:Gimp is nice, but lacks key features by bbc · · Score: 4, Informative

      "To me, the show-stoppers for using Linux/Gimp for my photo work are the following:

              * Color management. Not aware of ICC color profiling. Can I calibrate my monitor with nVideo and ATI Linux drivers? Can Gimp load an ICC profile of my output device to proof my print?
      "

      It seems to me that the major show-stopper is your own laziness to find out these things. GIMP has allowed you to proof your prints using ICC profiles since version 2.0.

    2. Re:Gimp is nice, but lacks key features by mrm677 · · Score: 1

      Can I calibrate and create an ICC profile for my monitor with the video drivers for nVidia cards?

    3. Re:Gimp is nice, but lacks key features by digidave · · Score: 1

      Nvidia may need to implement that. Besides, GIMP is also a Windows program so it should work fine there.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    4. Re:Gimp is nice, but lacks key features by bbc · · Score: 1

      "Can I calibrate and create an ICC profile for my monitor with the video drivers for nVidia cards?"

      Yes, you can. There are several manufacturers that have created the software and the targets that allow you to do so. I don't have URLs at hand, but Google is your friend.

    5. Re:Gimp is nice, but lacks key features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you need calibrating hardware just like anywhere else if you want an acurate profile.

    6. Re:Gimp is nice, but lacks key features by odie_q · · Score: 1

      That's interesting. I used to do image retouching of my neg scans with Photoshop 6 on a 1.8GHz/512MB machine at work, and it was terribly slow. Then I discovered that doing it with the Gimp on my 700MHz/768MB machine at home was quite snappy. It was easily an order of magnitude faster, and I could keep several images open at once, something that would totally stop the Photoshop machine. Granted, these files weren't 1GB, but not exactly small either at around 200MB each.

      I guess it just goes to show that YMMV.

      (Disclaimer: The photoshop machine was running WinXP Pro, and the Gimp machine Linux 2.4, but that can't realistically account for the huge difference in speed I experienced)

      --
      ...ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
  28. Damn by itwerx · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately for me, since what I know about graphics design could be inserted into the eye of a gnat without causing it to blink, I'm still just as screwed as I was before. :)

    1. Re:Damn by hahiss · · Score: 1

      Ah, so this is basically the software equivalent of lubricant:

      it makes it easier for you to be screwed. . . .

      --
      "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
  29. Re:Paint.net by hritcu · · Score: 1

    Does it run on Linux?

    --
    If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
  30. new name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does this make it PIMP???

  31. Re:Windows? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    So, don't fall asleep, type "gimpshop windows" into a Google search box and go get it...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  32. your rage is misdirected by jbellis · · Score: 2, Informative

    yes, that's about gimpshop

    no, it's not about this interview

  33. Incentives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If everyone donates $100 to the Gimp/Gimpshop project(s), just imagine the money saving that would come out of it!

    What incentive would an individual have to donate $100 if everybody else is doing it? Presumably, the marginal benefit of donating would be much less than $100, and wouldn't make a difference to the success of the project.

    1. Re:Incentives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably don't vote either.

    2. Re:Incentives by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      An extra $100 is an extra few hours a developer can spend adding a feature or polishing the program. Most commonly used commercial apps could be developed for less than $500,000 of developer time and many smaller apps even for under $50,000. For a $200 (retail price) program it doesn't take many user's donating to earn back that cost. 50,000 users donating $10 each could pretty easily pay for a replacement to the $500+ PhotoShop suite.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  34. Photoshop shortcuts for gimp by cureless · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those not aware, you can change the shortcuts in gimp to whatever you want. Some people have already made the photoshop shortcuts for you. So all you have to do is download the gimp-photoshop shortcut file and you're set.

    cl

    --
    Reply . . . let's get it over with.
  35. Oh GAWD of Dupe! by boy_afraid · · Score: 0

    Jebus, please. I just got rid of this bookmark of the old story just a few minutes ago. I think we need to pray to the Gawd of Dupe to help us today.

  36. Single window mode with tabs by seguso · · Score: 1

    If someone has time to spare, please consider addressing this user interface request. There are dozens of duplicates but no one seems to have time to implement it.

  37. Today's News & Tomorrow's News by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Funny
    Today: GimpShop lookalike/workalike to Photoshop.

    Tomorrow: The return of the Look & Feel Lawsuit.

    Stay tuned.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  38. Re:Paint.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, to be fair, I do have a comparison between the Gimp and Paint.net on the site.

  39. what's "better" ? by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

    To many many many users, this interface is "better" because they're just used to it. Stupid? Yes. Just remember most people are extremely confused if you switch their windows bar to the top of the screen, they will panick and get lost. That's how it is. You can switch them to Dvorak too, it's better. The Good Thing it to have the choice between a powerfull interface and a conservative one. If this can bring TheGimp into mainstream use, this is good.

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
    1. Re:what's "better" ? by Pixelmixer · · Score: 1

      I've found that it seems a bit like the Mac OSX version of Photoshop... if GiMP was made to work more like that on a linux or windows system, i'd have to switch from PS to Gimp, just because i like the way it works so much better.

      --
      "What happend to just paying for a product without being constantly nibbled to death by Credit Card Ducks?"
    2. Re:what's "better" ? by stubear · · Score: 1

      Ummm, Photoshop is identical on MacOS and Windows. Trust me, I have a G5 at work and a Windows system at home and my versions of Photoshop are identical in look and functionality on both.

    3. Re:what's "better" ? by Pixelmixer · · Score: 1

      I agree they are the same.. BUT, its not so much the software as it is the way OSX uses windows... i like the ability to see the desktop while using photoshop.. instead of a grey square... also another difference is that photoshop windows can use the entire screen on OSX as opposed to being restricted to the application window on Windows with the grey background... and in that, it is different.. theres simply more room to use on OSX

      --
      "What happend to just paying for a product without being constantly nibbled to death by Credit Card Ducks?"
    4. Re:what's "better" ? by stubear · · Score: 1

      "I agree they are the same.. BUT, its not so much the software as it is the way OSX uses windows... i like the ability to see the desktop while using photoshop.. instead of a grey square... also another difference is that photoshop windows can use the entire screen on OSX as opposed to being restricted to the application window on Windows with the grey background... and in that, it is different.. theres simply more room to use on OSX"

      I absolutely fricking hate that "feature" of OS X. fifty times a day at least I wind up missing a partially hidden window by a pixel when I try to select it and I lose focus of the application because I clicked the background (Finder) or an open Bridge window. Personally I'd rather have the background a neutral gray though without having to set my desktop background to a flat, drab gray.

      Also, there's a near trick where you can actually change the color of the Photoshop application background in Windows without changing the color for all applications. First press F once to go into full creen mode with the toolbar. Then pick a color you want to use for your background and choose the paint bucket tool. The press shift and click on the area outside the image frame and voila.

  40. Is that... by op12 · · Score: 1

    in order of popularity?

    FTA: "For people out there who are looking to get a Photoshop-like experience without pirating or purchasing Photoshop..."

  41. I love the Gimp but by eheldreth · · Score: 1

    I only use the Gimp for any graphics work I'm doing, which is usualy limited to web design. I think it is actualy a far more powerfull tool than photoshop, however it has its problems. Instead of waisting time on the looks of the UI I think there are two or three basic things which would make the Gimp more apealing. First and formost are the crashes, I mean come on some times I only get 20 or 30 minutes of work in and it crashes. Second, and this seems to mainly be an issue for Mac Gimp users, is the fact if you try to click on anything outside your current window you first have to make the windows active. So if I want to click on the blur tool I have to click once to make the tool bar active, a second time to select the tool, a third time to make the canvas active and then I can use the tool, of course if the keyboard is handy I can always use short cuts, but... Lastly is I wish they would make a native aqua interface instead of using the X server, this is a very small gripe however.

    --
    The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
    1. Re:I love the Gimp but by pl1ght · · Score: 0

      Have you actually used gfx programs to do more than make signatures for your anime club forums or backgrounds to trade with your AIM buddies? The gimp is in no way remotely as powerful as Photoshop. While i know for a fact gimp is completely capable of doing many many things on a professional level. I would challenge you to side by side compare PS and Gimp and list what the gimp is actually more Powerful in.

    2. Re:I love the Gimp but by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      First and formost are the crashes, I mean come on some times I only get 20 or 30 minutes of work in and it crashes.

      Have you considered purchasing a new computer? ;-)

      I've had The GIMP 2.2.6 running for weeks on end on my iBook. The only things that will stop it are me quitting it for a reboot because of a system update, or Mac OS X hard-crashing*. Otherwise, it's now very solid.

      It used to be a bit crashy when using the text tool, but I haven't seen that one for a while, possibly since I upgraded to Tiger...

      (* Celestia still does that if I don't disable a lot of OpenGL features, I got a kernel panic when using the modem once, and it didn't resume when I closed the machine up while compiling a gigantic panorama in Hugin and enblend. Oops!)

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    3. Re:I love the Gimp but by eheldreth · · Score: 1

      My PowerMac is only a couple months old, but I'm not running Tiger so that could be the difference. And, I have noticed it does seem to crash when I am working with the text tool.

      --
      The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
  42. Anyone who says by noewun · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've always thought that GIMP was just as powerful as Photoshop. doesn't know WTF they're talking about.

    When the GIMP has:

    1) CMYK support;

    2) Channel math;

    3) Industry standard color engine and ICC profile support;

    4) Channel mixer;

    5) Equal control over color adjustment modes

    and a bunch of other shit, then the GIMP will be as powerful as Photoshop. Until then, it's a silly statement to make. While 50% of the people who use Photoshop can very probably do the exact same things with the GIMP, for the 50% who really push Photoshop there is no substitute. And, as you climb higher on that curve to the people who are really stretching Photoshop on a daily basis (mainly very high level retouchers/digital artists) it is quite literally the only tool for the job.

    This is one of those time I think open source cheerleading is not a good thing. Just because it's an open source digital image editing program doesn't mean it's the same thing as Adobe's flagship product.

    --
    I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    1. Re:Anyone who says by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Interesting
      When the GIMP has:...

      When Photoshop has a native way to create and save Windows .ICO (icon) files and better WMF support, it will be more useful to me.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    2. Re:Anyone who says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget deep color. Gimp is still only 8-bits/channel. That (and icc color management) is a show-stopper for serious photographic work.

      Just because people are ignorant of what these things are and why they're important does not make them less so. Anyone who says "gimp is as powerful as photoshop" has never moved past the "star-wars light saber plugin" stage.

    3. Re:Anyone who says by NatteringNabob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As soon as Photoshop runs on Linux it might be useful to me, but I'm in the bottom dwelling 50%, not a professional, so it could well be that Adobe is right and it just isn't worth the effort to port.

    4. Re:Anyone who says by jackbird · · Score: 2, Informative
      for the 50% who really push Photoshop there is no substitute.

      Which is a damn shame. Photoshop has so many hateful little ass-backwards bits (e.g. the braindead layer transparency model that hides layer alpha from the user entirely) that it's incredibly frustrating nobody's gotten it better.

      I want the GIMP (or anything else) not to reach feature parity with PS, but to surpass it so I can get my work done better and faster.

      Multiple layer masks/clipping paths.

      Filters as adjustment layers.

      nodal rather than layer-based hierarchy.

      transforms saved as effects and copyable to other layers.

      ALL functionality working in 16 bit/HDR/Float color spaces.

      reasonable handling of alpha channels.

      and the list goes on and on and on...

    5. Re:Anyone who says by noewun · · Score: 1

      If someone wanted to write a program to steal some of Adobe's thunder, and Illustrator killer would be much easier.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    6. Re:Anyone who says by Pionar · · Score: 1

      As far as the ICO issue, look into png2ico, it's a wonderful little program. Also, there are plug-ins out there that allow PS to natively save into ICO format.

      As for WMF, Photoshop is a raster editor. WMF is a vector format. If they added vector support, what would be the point of Illustrator?

    7. Re:Anyone who says by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      Too true. I suspect that the GIMP = Photoshop crowd mostly uses GIMP to do graphics for the web -- for which it is a very nice tool, aside from its interface. When it comes to the other stuff that Photoshop is designed to do, like prepress and, oh, fine photography, GIMP is roughly equivalent to Photoshop 3.0.

      That's not to say that I don't like the GIMP or that I don't hope it catches up to and surpasses Photoshop, but at the current rate of progress, Photoshop is advancing faster than the GIMP.

      That said, making the transition to a more familiar interface might attract more users, and some small fraction of those may also be developers who will be inspired to lend a hand. This can only be a good thing.

      There will, of course, be those who object to imitating the Photoshop UI, but I don't think those people really care about attracting new users. For all the blather from self-appointed UI experts, there is no such thing as an intuitive interface -- except possibly the nipple. What people mean by "intuitive" is, ultimately, "familiar". It is far better, in terms of usability, to stick to a suboptimal but universally-used interface than to produce a revolutionary interface that leaves most users scratching their heads. That isn't to say that we shouldn't be constantly improving our interfaces, but if we want to avoid frustrating the hell out of our users, we need to do it gradually.

      And if there is any Open Source GUI program out there that frustrates the hell out of me more than the GIMP, I don't know what it is. This has always struck me as a real pity because the GIMP is actually a capable graphics editor, and even if it is roughly equivalent to Photoshop 3.0, that's not such a bad thing -- Photoshop 3.0 was a pretty good program.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    8. Re:Anyone who says by mshiltonj · · Score: 1

      While 50% of the people who use Photoshop can very probably do the exact same things with the GIMP, for the 50% who really push Photoshop there is no substitute. And, as you climb higher on that curve to the people who are really stretching Photoshop on a daily basis (mainly very high level retouchers/digital artists) it is quite literally the only tool for the job.

      Wow, so you implying that fully *half* of the current Photoshop installed base has paid hundreds of dollars for a product that adequately serves their needs, when they could have use Gimp for free and accomplished the same task? Thanks!

      What is Adobe going to do when that half of their user base wakes up are starts using the free alternative? Raise prices on the other half say photoshop is the only tool for the job?

    9. Re:Anyone who says by noewun · · Score: 1
      Adobe will do nothing, because, in all likelihood, there will be no exodus. No Joe or Jane Average computer user needs a 3.8 GHz P4 or a dual 2.7 GHz G5. From helping my less tech savvy friends, your average computer needs - email, web, music, checkbook, digital photos - can easily be met with a Mac Mini or its Intel/AMD-powered equivalent. This doesn't stop people from buying the top of the line, tho.

      One of the things I do to make money is freelance tech support. It's mostly going into people's homes (with their permission and while they're home, of course. . .) and helping them with simple problems: my printer won't print, I want to share my broadband connection with two computers, install RAM/drives etc. Some of this is consulting when people upgrade their machines. One of these jobs which sticks in my mind was working with a guy who was a biomedical researcher and was upgrading his home machine. His only requirement was that the machine run the same Wintel versions of Word, Excel and Mozilla he runs in his office. With that one parameter, he had a wide range of options available to him, some under $1,000. He wasn't doing any power work with those programs, either.

      What did he buy? The absolute top of the line AMD-powered machine of the time, packed with RAM. Far, far more machine than he needs, and far more machine than he will every probably need. He ended up spending twice what he needed to, for no particular reason other than to buy the top of the line offering. I understand that he is future-proofing himself in a way, but, as he will probably replace the machine in two or three years, it was a wasted gesture.

      My point? Most purchasing decisions are not rational. People buy 150 mph sports cars they will never drive faster than 75 mph. They buy $4,000 computers when a $1,500 machine would more than handle the job. They buy $5,000 stereos for studio apartments. And they buy Photoshop when all they really need is a cheap or free program. It's just human nature.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    10. Re:Anyone who says by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Agreed, I can't wait for the day when gimp is a photoshop killer but until then its pretty unusable, unless you like having allot of hard work and dont need CMYK. For me, adjustment layers and layer effects are something i couldnt live without, which is a shame because this is an area that the gimp could really take over photoshop on and its not even there in gimp2.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    11. Re:Anyone who says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You said it, 50% of photoshop users don't need CMYK support and of the remaining 50% there may be about 25% that have a handle on basic color theory.
      1. You can fake CMYK support using layers, there's a plugin availiable
      2. Gimp does have ICC support via a plugin

      I've not used PS in a long time (v4) so I'm not sure exactly what you're describing in the remainder of the list. I think most of these are things I do fairly regularly in the GIMP when I layup my companies marketing newsletter. Incidentally the only Adobe product I've had to use in the past 2 years has been illustrator. I used it to correct a complex autotraced raster ( from inkscape ) for a vinyl cutting lathe.

      As for high end retouching, Rhythm & Hues are high end and they used cinepaint (Filmgimp) for numerous spots and features.

      This is one of those time I think open source cheerleading is not a good thing. Just because it's an open source digital image editing program doesn't mean it's the same thing as Adobe's flagship product.

      But you said it, most people don't need the features PS has that the GIMP lacks! Do you think people should pirate photoshop rather than use the GIMP? When people talk down the GIMP for not supporting feature X, that perpetuates piracy.

    12. Re:Anyone who says by jistanidiot · · Score: 1

      WTF are you talking about. The Gimp has layers and CMYK.

      To get to the layers, hit Ctrl-L. The layers dialog should appear. You add and delete layers. Have a layer mask and change the way the layers merge with each other.

      To get to CMYK, click on either the forground or background color. In the color dialoge that opens you should have four icons. A gimp, printer, circle/triangle, and brush. Click on the printer and you've got your CMYK.

      I used Photoshop for two years before I tried the Gimp and I've never looked back. I switched back in the day of 1.3 It has only improved since.

    13. Re:Anyone who says by bored · · Score: 1
      This is one of those time I think open source cheerleading is not a good thing. Just because it's an open source digital image editing program doesn't mean it's the same thing as Adobe's flagship product.

      You see this because you are a graphical editing "expert". People who are experts in other areas have similar problems with other opensource projects



      For example the linux kernel/standard libraries are like this. It works from a perspective where it pieces of functionality needed by a large group of users are there, but when you _NEED_ functionality not covered by posix (or some proprietary linux solution) your sort of left in the dark. My current problem, is how to get the WWN from a fiberchannel adapter in linux. Its basically impossible, but its really easy in windows. Even basic OS services like async IO and control over the OS caching behaviors is non existant. The fsync() system call in linux is still broken from the perspective that its only suppost to flush the file's buffer, not the whole cache.



      The list goes on, a lot of people are suckered into the myth pervalent on /. that opensource solutions can replace any commercial one. I think this myth is pervalent because the people pushing it are mostly high school and recent college graduates who are mostly clueless about state of the art commercial programs. After a few years of work they are no longer on /. because they have grown up and are two busy doing real work and having a life to waste time correcting the falsehoods common here and on similar sites.


    14. Re:Anyone who says by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Wow... WMF?! That won't be in another version, that'll be in another app.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    15. Re:Anyone who says by noewun · · Score: 1
      You can fake CMYK support using layers, there's a plugin availiable

      You do not fake anything when being paid $150/hr. Your provide an honest to God four color file( or more, if you have any necessary spots or varnishes) tagged with the proper ICC profile.

      As for high end retouching, Rhythm & Hues are high end and they used cinepaint (Filmgimp) for numerous spots and features.

      Perhaps I wasn't clear. There is a world of difference between color correcting for video and for print. Photoshop gives you access to multiple color spaces (Lab can be particularly useful), multiple forms of color correction (curves, Hue/Saturation/Brightness, Levels, etc.) of which you may need to use two or three on one image, and invaluable tools like the Channel Mixer which no other program has.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    16. Re:Anyone who says by nagora · · Score: 1
      You do not fake anything when being paid $150/hr.

      Er...isn't faking things the whole point of Photoshop?

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    17. Re:Anyone who says by damiam · · Score: 1
      You, sir, are ignorant. Being about to choose a CMYK color in the color picker means nothing; the GIMP converts those values into the RGB colorspace when you use them in an image. Look in the menus: Image > Mode. You will see RGB, Grayscale, and Indexed. CMYK is not an option.

      No one said the GIMP doesn't have layers; the grandparent said that it doesn't have layer effects, which is most certainly true.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    18. Re:Anyone who says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've had problems with vendors who don't have support staff capable of comprehending the problems I'm trying to explain to them. Your criticism of linux is unfair when so many proprietry solutions suck much worse.
      a lot of people are suckered into the myth pervalent on /. that opensource solutions can replace any commercial one.

      People who bought into fiber channel instead of trunking can't critisize others for being suckered into anything! Expensive solutions require expensive solutions, get a media converter and hand off to 10G ethernet; It's futureproof too.

      After a few years of work they are no longer on /. because they have grown up and are two busy doing real work and having a life to waste time correcting the falsehoods common here and on similar sites.

      Then what's your excuse?

    19. Re:Anyone who says by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      No, im not talking about layers im talking about adjustment layers and layer effects, gimp doesn't have these, unless you count making a plain layer, putting it over another layer and changing the blend mode and opacity to fake brightness/contrast etc. And the CMYK mixer you see is just that - a mixer, the colour information in the document is still being stored as RGB 8-bits per channel.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    20. Re:Anyone who says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You do not fake anything when being paid $150/hr. Your provide an honest to God four color file( or more, if you have any necessary spots or varnishes) tagged with the proper ICC profile.

      Now you're twisting the argument, GIMP can technically do CMYK seperation either as 4 layers or exported as 4 seperate images.

      There is a world of difference between color correcting for video and for print.

      Not really, most of R&H work ends up on film so in both cases you're working in additive color for transfer to a medium with subtractive color space.

      multiple forms of color correction (curves, Hue/Saturation/Brightness, Levels, etc.) of which you may need to use two or three on one image

      These are all availiable in the GIMP. I have to color correct source material taken under different and mixed lighting conditions every month. Our promotional materials look much better than those of our competitors who use agencies. I've seen work from agency PS operators who just alter the hue, color correction could be beyond them but it would be unfair to say their tools are at fault ;-)

    21. Re:Anyone who says by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      4) Channel mixer;

      Filters --> Colors --> Channel Mixer.

    22. Re:Anyone who says by bbc · · Score: 1

      "--You do not fake anything when being paid $150/hr. Your provide an honest to God four color file( or more, if you have any necessary spots or varnishes) tagged with the proper ICC profile.

      Now you're twisting the argument, GIMP can technically do CMYK seperation either as 4 layers or exported as 4 seperate images."

      I think the OP was talking work-flow as much as end-product. Also, GIMP does not support spot-colours, which means you'll be giving the pre-press folks or the printer more work.

      Odd, though, that all this colour management should be done this early in the process. For simple printing needs (i.e. no spot colours) I should be able to give the printer an RGB file.

      "--multiple forms of color correction (curves, Hue/Saturation/Brightness, Levels, etc.) of which you may need to use two or three on one image"

      Hey, you're making it sound the GIMP is no better than PS Elements! The GIMP does have all of these.

      What the GIMP does not support is 48 bpp, which means you cannot do many operations in a row without losing too much information.

      To me, that is the biggest problem with the GIMP. ICC and other forms of colour management is nice, but only if you want to do pre-press, which is true for probably less than 5% of all graphics professionals. But a person should be able to use a photo editor without having his photos deteriate.

    23. Re:Anyone who says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think the OP was talking work-flow as much as end-product.
      Any print facility worth using will handle seperations fine.
      GIMP does not support spot-colours, which means you'll be giving the pre-press folks or the printer more work.
      I specify spots from the pantone book, and export them as monochrome layers from GIMP.
      For simple printing needs (i.e. no spot colours) I should be able to give the printer an RGB file.
      RGB #0000ff and the other primaries don't translate to well to CMYK but once you know that, looking at closest match CMYK equivilents on an RGB monitor doesn't really buy you anything. I submit RGB files to our regular printer all the time.
      What the GIMP does not support is 48 bpp

      I though 16bit support was due in GIMP about now? There's always cinepaint, the new version sounds promising.

    24. Re:Anyone who says by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Photoshop runs under wine, although it can be difficult to get it to work.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    25. Re:Anyone who says by bbc · · Score: 1

      "I though 16bit support was due in GIMP about now?"

      Yes, for any given meaning of "now". :-)

      GIMP 1.4 (later renamed to 2.0) was going to a reorganization of the code, with a better separation of core functionality and interface. Then the GEGL library was going to replace the graphics processing functions. Except that by 2.0, GEGL wasn't nearly ready yet.

      In the meantime it had been decided that because of the many ideas for new features that had been on hold while waiting for 2.0, a version 2.2 would be brought out first that incorporated all these new features (better previews, live transformations, better dialogs, &c.).

      GEGL was going to happen in 2.4, IIRC, but that plan also seems to have been given up. A mail on the developer list from June 5, 2005, titled "The GUADEC meeting", detailing a meeting of several developers, reads:

              "We would like to get GIMP 2.4 out soon. The plan is to finish what has been started in the development branch. This should be doable over the summer. This means that 2.4 will have color management but we aren't going to try larger changes such as adding support for higher bit depths."

              "We agreed though that 8bit is not going to get us much further and that we need to pick up on GEGL again. The GEGL source tree had been abandoned for a while, the last commit dating back to March 2004. We found that in order to make further plans, we first need to get an overview on the current state of the code."

      There is also mention of reworked menus.

      It doesn't say so in the e-mail message, but the colour management Sven is referring to probably does not entail true CMYK, because that was also planned for (and put off for) GEGL.

      "There's always cinepaint, the new version sounds promising."

      Last time I checked, Cinepaint was a one man show and fairly buggy. (Granted, that was a while ago.)

    26. Re:Anyone who says by KayosIII · · Score: 1

      I think when people say as good as photoshop they mean for the people who maybe use 30% of photoshops functionality - there are a lot of them out-there... unfortunately they are same people who are easily put of by the gimps *different* interface 1) CMYK is only useful if you are outputting to a 4 colour printing system. if you print cmyk to a six colour printer you loose a lot of gamut. CMYK like most of the other features has been waiting for an engine upgrade - but so far this has kept being put back. 2) Channel Math - could you explain what this is. 3) This is not going to happen - Unless somebody with an industry standard engine is going to license their engine open source. The licensing agreement under which the gimp is released strictly prohibits using IP encumbered components in their program. Well I guess it could happen - We just have to wait for there to be an opensource industry standard colour engine. (might take some time though)... 4) AFAIK there is already one of these 5) I don't understand what you mean here

  43. it winked at me! by GreatRedShark · · Score: 1, Funny

    Am I hallucinating or did that GIMP icon on the slashdot page just twitch its eyes? creepy, that dog thing is watching me...

    Hmm... so now GIMP has a photoshop-like interface. Sounds good, because where it is right now, only a CLI could be worse.

  44. Re:I love the Gimp but - Spel Checker by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Select count(post) from slashdot.org where reduntent = False; 0 Rows Returned.

    You need a spel checker.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  45. Gimp pisses all over gnome's HIG by paulpach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The gimp pretty much pisses all over the gnome HIG. I think it is very difficult to use for newbies and/or people used to use photoshop. They seem to completelly ignore all we know about usability and human computer interfaces.

    This development and the reaction that people are having to it can be a wake up call for the gimp developers. They may realize their interface could use some work. Kind of like KDE is reacting now that GNOME is doing so well on usability. In my mind, this should benefits the gimp

    I really hope they take a constructive attitude towards this one and take a look at why people are liking this.

  46. Old news... by Fuzzle · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is old news. Everyone on OSX has moved on to using Seashore which is the GIMP is a nice slick OSX package, native Aqua/OSX windows, and overall just a better program. Check it out.

    1. Re:Old news... by }InFuZeD{ · · Score: 1

      It looks like GIMP with a different toolkit. Or for that matter, just switch to the OS-X gtk skin.

      This is a different GUI, not a different toolkit.

    2. Re:Old news... by Fuzzle · · Score: 1

      I think you need to look again. This is a native program made using the GIMP framework. It's a reworking, but its not just a different toolkit.

  47. Easy.... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Not only are the Linux alternatives free of charge, but you've got to build a "bridge" to get the HUGE established base of Windows users to cross over. The "best" products don't always win out in the marketplace. (You know, the old Betamax vs. VHS tape debate and so forth.)

    When you have people out there who spent many hundreds of dollars on training courses and the like for Photoshop, they're generally *not* going to see the value in an alternative product that has a drastically different GUI. It makes a LOT of sense to "re-engineer" the power in GIMP so the controls look and feel like the dominant product in the marketplace for the same tasks.

    For all the slamming of the Windows interface and look/feel of most popular Windows apps - I personally feel that they've done a lot of things right in that area. It's far from perfect, but these days, most of my Windows-related complaints have a lot more to do with the underlying infrastructure and it's inherent weaknesses (virus and spyware problems, tendency to have multiple, concentrated "points of failure" such as XP's WMI database or the system registry, etc.). Even Mac OS X, which looks teriffic, feels a bit "weak" to me in the area of file management. (It's very touchy about exactly where the mouse needs to be in order to start a list of files and folders scrolling up or down inside a window, for one example. Quite frustrating.)

    Perhaps copying Windows in a product like Linspire just makes more sense than trying to "re-invent the wheel" in an attempt to achieve some "holy grail" of UI elegance and efficiency?

  48. It's been a few months... by Bent+Mind · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's been a few months since I've seen this on Slashdot (please correct me if this isn't the same gimp-photoshop hack).

    Despite an outcry from some developers, users have picked it up with passion.

    As I recall, the developers were upset because of the way he went about makeing Gimp look like Photoshop. Rather than making changes to the data files that are used to create the menus, he changed to programing itself. This (going by memory) broke foreign language support. As I recall, Scott wrote the Gimp team and sent his suggestions. The Gimp team wrote back and invited him to join a discustion group. However, Scott decided to fork Gimp and make the changes himself. This of course leaves maintenance up to Scott. I hope he's up to it.

    --
    Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    1. Re:It's been a few months... by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      Agreed that this is a poor reason for a fork, but it sounds to me like he got very little assistance from the Gimp. If it's possible to do this all with data file changes, then maybe Gimp should ship with a "Photoshop profile" just like Word used to ship with "WordPerfect compatibility". If it can't be done via the data files, then we should ask why this is the case, and fix it.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
  49. GIMPShop is perfect "Killer App" for converting... by filesiteguy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hey, this has absolutely helped out!! My mother (63 years old) had been using Photoshop for about ten years under Windows. In wanting to upgrade her from XP to Linux, I decided I needed to get her used to her main app - Photoshop - or the alternative, GIMP. I had her use GIMP for awhile, but she quickly was frustrated. After seeing GIMPShop, I loaded it on for her and she's been a happy Linux camper ever since. No more virus or spyware issues for her.

  50. Re:PS FROM GRANDPA by paulpas · · Score: 2, Funny

    How do you get a +5 Off topic?

    --
    -PMP-
  51. You can change that by chadseld · · Score: 1

    defaults write com.apple.x11 wm_click_through -bool true

  52. They both suck, model after inkscape instead by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 1

    for the novice at least...

    Gimp's interface sucks because the windows are always misplaced, the tools options are all different sizes so they don't fit naturally in any group. So it's always messy, with tools in different positions on the screen, etc.

    Photoshop sucks because the floating palettes are always overtop of some part of the image you want to see and they are a pain to re-arrange. It also sucks because it basically takes over the whole screen to be usable, so you can do nothing else at the same time or have to keep switching back and forth.

    I'm posted this before on the Firefox article, but it really deserves repeating that Inkscape's UI is really, really good and is what the gimp should be modelled after, not photoshop. Editing SVG is far more complicated, but the inkscape UI is simple, takes up almost no space, and is easy to use. Maybe it wouldn't be good for serious graphic artists, but at least for new users and casual use a gimp that looked like that would be much better than either photoshop or the current gimp ui.

  53. there it is, breath it in!! by SQLz · · Score: 1

    Theres nothing like the smell of a GUI patent infringment case in the morning!

  54. Work like photoshop? And this is easier? by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    First, the only people that find Photoshop easy to work with are those that make a living using it. As a newby to PS, I find it counter intuitive and a lot of things just don't make sense for doing quick simple graphics, like for software development. I fight with the software more then being productive at it, and I don't want to spend 24x7 learning how to use it. I really thing that if you need a book to learn how to use software, the software has failed.

    When I first tried GIMP, I found that they were trying to duplicate PS whole "floating islands" approach to applications, an approach I despise. I can't stand a bunch of floating windows covering the content I am trying to create. I prefer Windows docking tool/dialog boxes. I like ONE window that contains everything else, when you resize or move the application, everything else moves with it, not remains to clutter the desktop.

    Anyways, I don't see making GIMP like PS a step in the right direction. It makes sense to appeal to the PS crowd and make it a potential alternative to the expensive CS suite of tools, but if your tring to make GIMP more mainstream and adopt newbie and amateur users, then please look more like a Corel product rather then Adobe.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  55. Moron? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wake me up when you've read the article.

  56. I could almost start using GIMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great.

  57. Not so different by kwatz · · Score: 1

    While I think it's a worthy idea, it doesn't really look all that different (yet?). There's a main window that serves mainly as a backdrop, with a only handful of menus, none of which relate to an image you're editing (for example, the contents of the File menu are: Exit). Tasks related to images are still in the image window itself, and the more general tasks are still in the toolbar window.

  58. Hey hey, it's Adobe.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spokesman: These days, everyone's talking about the Hyundai, and the Yugo. Both nice cars, if you've got $3,000 or $4,000 to throw around. But, for those of us whose name doesn't happen to be Rockefeller, finally there's some good news - a car with a sticker price of $179. That's right, $179. The name of the car?

    Adobe. The sassy new Mexican import that's made out of clay. German engineering and Mexican know-how helped create the first car to break the $200 barrier. At this price, you might not expect more than reliable transportation - but, brother, you get it! Extra features: like the custom contour seats, or the beverage-gripping dash. And the money you save isn't exactly small change!

    Jingle:
    "Hey, hey, we're Adobe!
    The little car that's made out of clay!
    We're gonna save you some money
    that you can spend in some other way!
    Hey, hey, we're Adobe!
    Hey, hey, we're Adobe!
    Adobe!"

    [ show Adobe driver get into a fender-bender. She casually steps out of the vehicle and uses her hands to mold her bumper back into its proper shape, in under six minutes! ]

    Spokesman: Adobe. You can buy a cheaper car. But I wouldn't recommend it!

    Announcer: Not approved for street use in some states. No warranty either expressed or implied. All sales final.

  59. HERETIC!! by skintigh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How dare you make OSS usable by normal people? If you do that, normal people might start using and then it will become widely used and even popular and that would be SO un-cool.

    Keep OSS like it is: by programmers who like to read 1MB man file and memorize obscure commands to use counterintuitive interfaces, for programmers who like to read 1MB man file and memorize obscure commands to use counterintuitive interfaces.

    1. Re:HERETIC!! by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and you're doing a great job of helping OSS, by trying to perpetuate the stereotype of the elitist OSS zealot. Shut the hell up.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  60. "A horrible waste of time and resources" by g_adams27 · · Score: 5, Informative
    If you want to see some of the outcry of the GIMP developers against GIMPshop, check out this thread where Scott introduced his project to the GIMP mailing list.

    Some of the reactions:

    • "[Y]ou aren't doing anyone a favor by doing this. I'd appreciate if you kept your changes for yourself."
    • "No, I won't help you. What you are up to is a horrible waste of time and resources."
    1. Re:"A horrible waste of time and resources" by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      I used GIMP over Corel PhotoPaint, but the interface logic prevented me from fully utilizing GIMP.

      After seeing this article appear on Slashdot, I installed GIMPShop, and within minutes I was as proficient with GIMP as I was with PhotoPaint.

      I'm glad the GIMP developers don't have any control over the GIMPShop mod.

    2. Re:"A horrible waste of time and resources" by Rallion · · Score: 1

      I really have to laugh at any and all 'outcry.' People like it. What's so wrong with that?

      Besides, isn't the fact that you don't always have control over what people do with your software one of the double-edged blades central to open-source software? If you don't want people messing with your programs, then don't open them up.

    3. Re:"A horrible waste of time and resources" by MadCow42 · · Score: 1

      I guess that Apple wasted a lot of time and resources putting a slick, functional user interface on top of a unix/linux kernel then. :)

      Photoshop is popular not only because it's powerful... the user interface is pretty darned good too (although not perfect).

      GimpShop isn't for everyone, sure - but grow up... if the guy is willing to put in the effort, and people like it, then what's their problem? Why work against someone doing stuff like this?

      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    4. Re:"A horrible waste of time and resources" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, now the project is forked, and what's that good for, when only a small part of some UI configuration has been changed...???

    5. Re:"A horrible waste of time and resources" by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Well, if they break internationalization to make a US version of GIMPshop, I doubt the GIMP developers care. But it does seem like a waste of time unless they are doing it the right way the first time, by not breaking internationalization, etc.

      Its great for us English reading people, but the GIMP supports a much wider audience.

    6. Re:"A horrible waste of time and resources" by hackstraw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Later on:

      Guys, how ignorant are you? GIMP ships with a menurc with PS keybindings for years, guess why? For GIMP 2.2, a lot of work has been put into making the menus configurable by means of editing XML files. What do you think we did this for? By editing the C source files (which would have been completely unnecessary) and by releasing this as a fork of GIMP, Scott created an unmaintainable mess. Thus I call his work a waste of time.

    7. Re:"A horrible waste of time and resources" by mnemonic_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Open source developers at their finest. No wonder we have Gnome's Epiphany browser (gecko based) using the same interface as Netscape 4. Most developers in the open source world just don't care about decent GUIs and (as we see) will fight to preserve their old ways, ignoring the new. Whenever they try to break from Windows or OS X knockoffs, they just create a horrible mess, like Blender or the Gimp.

    8. Re:"A horrible waste of time and resources" by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      The Developers may be upset because this guy forked GIMP -- but it might have been that he realized he was going to have to "convince" them to make the changes. Usability can be something intuitive, or it can be familiar. It seems to me, that GIMPShop might convince the GIMP developers of the merit of the interface changes.

      Or they could get all petulant and indignant. Fork me? For Me will you!!! Well, Fork YOU then! Don't expect any help with us while you go FORK YOURSELF!

      I haven't read the complaints -- but I'm sure I could think of a few. But really, it can only hurt GIMP if it is somehow better. If they wanted to prevent this fork from taking off, they could implement the changes correctly in their code and thank GIMPShop for the advice. If GIMPShop isn't somehow more useful, then it will wither and die.

      But how many people are using GIMP?

      Well, I use PhotoShop a lot. Until I see that GIMP is better, or close to as functional, I won't be using it.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    9. Re:"A horrible waste of time and resources" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical response by flat-earthers who won't get with the times and realize that an easy user interface ALWAYS means a better program.

  61. Is there a good no-install package of wingimpShop? by F_Scentura · · Score: 1

    I'd enjoy trying it out on some XP workstations, but I'd prefer a no-installer for easier removal.

    Is there a package like this?

  62. Re:It comes down to how you use it-Common Mistake by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    Most people don't use everything. I've got buttons in my car I've never pressed, for example.

    Like this one here marked "Auto Eject"...

    [explosion]

    This is a common mistake made mostly by geeks who install after-market high-end audio equipment and accidentally crosswire their CD/DVD player controls to the car's security system. As with everything in life, KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING FIRST!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  63. If its good enough for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    On one hand, it feels like something of a defeat when free software has to mimic paid software, right down to the application name itself.

    On the other hand, Microsoft is a company valued in the billions of dollars, and has made not even the slightest qualm about examining the competition's features and replicating them.

    Given Microsoft's success, it would seem that mimicking one's competitors is not really something of which to be ashamed.

  64. Want companies to adopt GIMP? by R2.0 · · Score: 2

    Then stop calling it GIMP, or especially "the gimp."

    Cutesy "recursive" names are bad enough, but using what most people would call a derisive term is inviting ridicule, and hence being dismissed by corporations.

    Call it GMP, for Graphical Manipulation Program
    Call it IMP, for Image manipulation Program
    Call it MMP for Multimedia Manipulation Program (who cares if it doesnt actually do what its name says.)

    But for God's sake, get rid of "the GIMP".

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    1. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by RLiegh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's worse than that. While I'm usually not a fan of changing things around for the sake of being PC, calling a program "The Gimp" is downright offensive. This is particularly a problem when needing to describe or advocate for the program to health professionals (particularly those in the mental health or rehabilitative fields).

      The shame of this is that those very people are working with tax payer money which would be better spent on something other than photoshop, but are going to be turned off by a name such as "The GIMP", just as they would be if it was called "The Cripple" or "The Retard"

    2. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by pthisis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's worse than that. While I'm usually not a fan of changing things around for the sake of being PC, calling a program "The Gimp" is downright offensive.

      You sound like the people calling for firing the official in DC who used the word "niggardly".

      Do you also object to the phrases "spic and span" and "a chink in the armor"?

      "gimp" means beautiful or attractive, and has meant that for far longer than it's been used as slang for the handicapped. Presumably the makers of an image manipulation program had that meaning in mind.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    3. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by moonbender · · Score: 3, Funny

      I agree, I always thought The Gimp was such a gay name.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    4. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by RLiegh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, for a couple of important reasons.

      Number one, while you can point to some obscure and -to be blunt- bizarre definition of the word, people who are decision makers are not going to think of the word you mean; they are going to think of the meaning which the word "GIMP" currently has in popular vocabulary

      Secondly, the target audience which I'm referring to are people who already endure the stigma of either mental illness, chemical dependencies or physical challenges; the word "gimp" is a direct insult to at least two of those people.

      Third, coming up with clever and obtuse rationalisations may get you trolling points on an obscure internet message board, but they do nothing to address what is a very real concern, nor do they carry any weight with people who are faced with making the decision as to how to spend tax payer money in a non profit organisation (of any sort).

    5. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by REggert · · Score: 1

      That's ridiculous. First of all, the most common definition of "gimp" is "someone who walks with a limp," whether they be permanently handicapped or just suffering from a temporary injury. It also has several completely unrelated meanings. Secondly, it's an ACRONYM, for God's sake! It stands for GNU Image Manipulation Program, which is exactly what it is.

      --

      cp /dev/zero ~/signature.txt

    6. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by jrq · · Score: 1

      "beautiful or attractive", in what language?

      --
      My UID is prime!
    7. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Did you know that dictionary.com doesn't agree with you? Look at
      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gimp
      Um, exactly WHEN did "gimp" mean "beautiful or attractive"? 500+ years ago? It was a stupid choice of a name and I have no doubt the author thinks he is sooooo coooool for coming up with it.

    8. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      None of those entries says anything about GIMP meaning beautiful or attractive in any sense. You do know its an acronym right?

      --
      Why not fork?
    9. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by RLiegh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it is not at all rediculous, on two points:

      Number one, the term, regardless of permanence, is one which puts down and degrades a person or group of persons for a physical infirmity. That is the common meaning, that is the association which will be on the mind of any decision makers who are told about this free photo-shop like program called THE CRIPPLE^W GIMP.

      Secondly, the program is commonly referred to by it's initials, and it is those initials which is what it will be judged by ("the cripple? WTF?")

      Third, it is this unwillingness to empathise and understand the point of view of the mainstream world and corporate/government users which is what will keep Free Software in the fringes, which means that collary issues (DRM, DMCA) are also kept to the side as well.

      Lastly, everyone is so caught up in seeing this as an attack on some bizarre free speech issue that they are ignoring the fact that they are arguing for a name which actively and needlessly is insulting.

      I mean, fine, have your GIMP, use it with your RETARD gui on your NIGGER OS; but don't be surprised when people object to the name and decide to use closed-source applications which do not feel an adolescent need to "stick it to the man" by choosing application names which are inherently offensive.

    10. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, it is an acronym. The program name was either formatted purposely to get comething the originator(s) thought was cute, or, when the acronym was pointed out (probably immediately on naming) to them, went, "Hehheh, Cool" and ignored it.

      If I came up with a mathematics program, and called it "Coordinated Unit Normalized Tester" and then expected colleges and corporations to adopt it, you'd laugh. Why is this different?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    11. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Since it is the authors' choice as to what to name their creation, perhaps it is the authors' choice that that the thin-skinned self-select into not using the authors' creation.

      When you don't have to worry about selling a product, you don't have to worry about catering to the lowest common denominator.

      Besides, if the demand for a politically-correct gimp is great enough, someone will come along, repackage or fully fork it with a nice inoffensive name and then sell it to those who require inoffensively software. The beauty of the GPL and all that rot.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    12. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      It is certainly their right, but when it needlessly estranges groups and organisations (who are often spending tax dollars to rehabilitate people) then it is a needless

      and expensive

      waste.

      You have the right to name your project in an offensive manner, and those people who have a larger view of interpersonal relationships and politics than "omg they want to keep me from saying stuffs oh noes" have a right to go "ok, well, I don't know what a 'gimp' is; but if the writers are such assholes as to insult handicapped people, maybe we should spend our funds on photoshop instead".

      But hey, you and your pals get to sit on IRC and feel all l33t 'cos you use THE GIMP, amirite?

    13. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that I shouldn't call my next screen blanking screensaver "The Nigger"?

    14. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Scum · · Score: 1

      How odd.

      In the UK "gimp" is generally the name given to a mask wearing S&M slave. See http://www.sextoys.co.uk/Fetish/Gimp-Mask-With-Det achable-Eye-Parts.asp

      It's even a bicycle...

      http://www.on-one.co.uk/page49.html

      Never, ever come across it as a referral to disabled people although I guess that might fit in with the S&M thing.

    15. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Benanov · · Score: 1

      GNU Image Manipulation Program Simply acronym collision, nothing more.

    16. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

      You know what. YOU'VE CONVINCED ME! I was ready to call all this controversy over the name a bunch of HOOEY, but, your argument has convince me that the name is bad and *should* be changed. Of course, I'm not the person who needs convinced, so, maybe someone should send this argument to the authors/maintainers. It's a REALLY sound argument and makes the case very well. Thanks for enlightening me. After reading this, I realize that my gut reaction was completely wrong and idiotic. Thanks.

      --
      Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    17. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by jrq · · Score: 1

      try the OED
      A lame or crippled person or leg; a limp

      --
      My UID is prime!
    18. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The GIMP = The GNU Image Manipulation Program

    19. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1

      What's offensive about the word 'cripple'? It's a perfectly good word.

    20. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      That's step 1, only 11 to go!

    21. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by borgheron · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      The word has other meanings in the English language:

      From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

          Gimp \Gimp\, a. [W. gwymp fair, neat, comely.]
                Smart; spruce; trim; nice. [Obs. or Prov. Eng.]
                [1913 Webster]

      From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

          Gimp \Gimp\, n. [OF. guimpe, guimple, a nun's wimple, F. guimpe,
                OHG. wimpal a veil G. wimpel pennon, pendant. See Wimple,
                n.]
                A narrow ornamental fabric of silk, woolen, or cotton, often
                with a metallic wire, or sometimes a coarse cord, running
                through it; -- used as trimming for dresses, furniture, etc.
                [1913 Webster]

                            Gimp nail, an upholsterer's small nail.
                [1913 Webster]

      From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

          Gimp \Gimp\, v. t.
                To notch; to indent; to jag.
                [1913 Webster]

      From WordNet (r) 2.0 :

          gimp
                    n : disability of walking due to crippling of the legs or feet
                            [syn: lameness, limping, gimpiness, gameness, claudication]

      GJC

      --
      Gregory Casamento
      ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
    22. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like the name 'RLiegh', what sort of dipshit thought that one up? Around here RLiegh is slang for someone who has sex with their mother and I demand that you change your name before I address the points you raised.

    23. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      but if the writers are such assholes as to insult handicapped people, maybe we should spend our funds on photoshop instead".

      Exactly. If being inoffensive is worth $600 per seat, that's exactly what they should do.

      But hey, you and your pals get to sit on IRC and feel all l33t 'cos you use THE GIMP, amirite?

      Kinda funny how you are indiscriminatly flaming off in all directions, making the exact same kind of offensive stereotypes as you claim to be protesting. It really undermines your argument.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    24. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      That doesn't take away from my point because, as I've already pointed out; those other meanings are unlikely to occur to the decision maker that you are making the pitch to.

      When you are dealing with corporations and with organisations who deal with a large variety of people in the public, things like this matter. Even if they know that it's the GNU Image Manipulation Program, they are not going to be percieved as approving making fun of handicapped people.

      Also, there's the matter of professionalism. The decision makers are going to look at the fact that the writers were juvenile enough to call the program THE GIMP (instead of choosing a better acronym) they must also be juvenile enough to be shoddy writers and are probably flakey when it comes to support requests.

      and thinking this, they'll remember adobe; and go right straight to them.

      Again, this is all fine and well; but it's a needless waste.

    25. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That would make sense if the program's long name was: Crafty Retrograde Improved Picture Publishing Landscape Editor. or Reliable Editor That's All Right, Dude! --- But it's a GNU Image Manipulation Program. --- If it makes it better for you, call it that or call it GNUIMP.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    26. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If being inoffensive is worth $600 per seat, that's exactly what they should do.

      and it's a needless waste, all over the insistence on sticking to a rather childish name.

      Kinda funny how you are indiscriminatly flaming off in all directions, making the exact same kind of offensive stereotypes as you claim to be protesting.

      Except that I'm directly talking to the people who I am flaming, and those people are more than capable of defending themselves.

      It really undermines your argument.
      The counter argument boils down to either "but but but it means other stuff too" which I've addressed, or "but but but we wanna call it something offensive" wich -which valid- ignores the fact that it is a choice which limits adoption.

      And ignores the fact that that limit is arbitary and unnecessary.

    27. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it could be like SATAN, the security scanning tool created by Dan Farmer and Wietse Venema in the early 90s.

      To aid those who found the name offensive, it had a script caled "repent" that changed all references (and even the logo) from SATAN to SANTA.

      I can't think of a good anagram for GIMP though. PIGM? MIPG? IMPG?

    28. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      check the OED:

      jimp (a.)

      Forms: 6 gymp, (gympt), 8-9 gimp, 8- jimp.

              1. Slender, slim, delicate, graceful, neat. (A Scotch or northern word, introduced in 19th c. into English literature.)

      1508 DUNBAR Tua Mariit Wemen 69 Gymp, iolie, and gent, richt ioyus, and gentryce, I suld at fairis be found. 1513 DOUGLAS Æneis VI. x. 45 Apon his harp.. Now with gymp fingeris doing stringis smyte. Ibid. XII. Prol. 121 Gymp gerraflouris thar royn levys vnschet. a1550 Christis Kirke Gr. iii, Of all thir madynis..Wes nane sa gympt as Gillie. 1719 LADY WARDLAW Hardy Knute I. 27 Her girdle shawed her middle gimp. 1788 BURNS 'O, were I on Parnassus' hill' ii, I see thee dancing o'er the green, Thy waist sae jimp, thy limbs sae clean. 1844 WILLIS Lady Jane II. 598 Satin waistcoat..Becoming to a youth so jimp and slim. a1845 BARHAM Ingol. Leg., Knt. & Lady xii, Then his left arm he placed Round her jimp, taper waist. 1893 Northumbld. Gloss., Gimp (g soft), thin, neat in figure.

    29. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty good idea for implementing the GIMP; I'm not sure that would help when it comes to trying to sell it to the suits? But if nothing else, it would be helpful for when someone installs it for an agency.

      as far as your idea goes; why not have the script change the name to wilbur (the name of the mascot)? it's not an anagram, but it's still associated with the program.

    30. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Oh, stop being such a pussy, pc-boy. As far as "offensive" words go this is nothing, at least to those of us with a firm grip on reality.

      The shame of this is that those very people are working with tax payer money

      What taxpayer money? Best as I can tell the Gimp was created by unpaid volunteer effort. At least, that's the story they tell in their own history, from their own website.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    31. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by yason · · Score: 1

      Since happy things are generally better welcomed by the public, perhaps we should break the acronym out to "Gay Image Manipulation Program". You know, gay has referred to merriness far longer than to a particular sexual orientation. Anyone should be able to grok that, right. Right?

      While I like the name Gimp myself, it's true that the names of various open source programs are far from "professional". It's ridiculous that some company might reject the adoption of Gimp or Gnome just because of the name, but it happens. Nerds like us like recursive acronyms and clever names that hide additional messages. (Personally, one of the names I've liked recently is "abcde" which stands for "A Better CD Encoder". Coincidentally, the geek-appeal of the name also refers to, at least for me, a better cd encoder in reality, thus giving it a nice resonance :-))

      OTOH, I don't mean the Microsoft way of naming is good either. It has the boring but all-owning tone: Word, Paint, Office. It makes almost any substantive noun sound like it was invented at Microsoft. But that kind of thinking is what the monopolistic Microsoft likes people to assimilate to, and they're good at marketing.

      I was only half kidding in the first paragraph. Good names make you smile a bit, and they make your work funnier. This probably excludes "Krusty the Klovn's ImageShop" but if you had to start an image manipulation program called "Grapes'n Apples", you might think less seriously about your work (giving room for innovation) and picture a classical setup of a bowl of fruits, making you feel you're soon going to start creating some good artwork for real.

    32. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by randomencounter · · Score: 1
      Hey, it's GPL'd. You don't like it, repackage your own "Highly Attractively Named Image Manipulation Software" based off it and have a blast.

      Just don't forget to distribute the source along with it.

      If you are correct, problem solved.
      If you are wrong, people will ignore you.

      But bitching about what someone who has gone to the trouble to actually write a complex piece of software chooses to call it is arrogant and condescending (and my GF could tell you I know all about arrogant and condescending) without purpose or effect.

      HAND.

      --
      Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
    33. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Also, there's the matter of professionalism. The decision makers are going to look at the fact that the writers were juvenile enough to call the program THE GIMP

      Its funny that you bring that up.. judging something on what it is named instead of on its functionality and quality really sounds very professional.

    34. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Secondly, the target audience which I'm referring to are people who already endure the stigma of either mental illness, chemical dependencies or physical challenges; the word "gimp" is a direct insult to at least two of those people.

      This is just pure PC nonsense. The name isn't trying to offend anyone and the program has no association with . Why does anyone that has something wrong with them get instead credibility and the ultimate sin is upsetting these peoples supposedy thin skins? The name isn't insulting to anyone. Thin skinned people (or more likely PC crusaders such as yourself) just want something to whine about.

      This is exactly PCism where everyone is afraid they might offend someone. The offendy is always right, and the person who said the "insensitive" remark is always wrong. It doesn't matter just how crazy the offendy is, because they're part of an oppressed group, and opressed people are right.

      With that said, I do think the name is stupid and only hurts the adoption of the software. But I would like to emphasize that it's peoples imaginations and prejucices at work here, not actually justifiable beliefs.

      --
      AccountKiller
    35. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Cool, then we could redesign wilbur to wear a gimp mask and walk with a limp just to ram the point home.
      Sufficiently advanced political correctness is indistinguishable from irony.
      --Erik Naggum
    36. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by bbc · · Score: 1

      "Then stop calling it GIMP, or especially "the gimp.""

      Sigh. It's bad enough that Slashdot editors post duplicate articles without trolls posting duplicate comments.

      If you want a GIMP like program with a different name, just fork it. Forking is good!

    37. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      How dare you not know the American culture's slang? Why, if it's derisive here, then no one anywhere in the world can use it. Nor can they name their dog Wilbur. In the UK, you guys also took our perfectly good derisive term "fag" and applied it to cigarettes. Man, have you people no care for the homosexual community? That whole smoking thing will probably never catch on now...

    38. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      What taxpayer money?
      The money being spent by agencies who are looking for software to use to teach mentally impaired people computer skills

      The money being spent by various non-profits looking for software to use in their programs.

      There's a larger world than 'edgy' geeks raging against the 'PC' world on thier IRC channels; it's the corporate and non-profit world; it's also a part of reality; but you'd have to leave /. and IRC to be a part of it.

    39. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

      "Want companies to adopt GIMP?"
      That sounds like an "Affirmative Action" slogan.

      OK, now that my non-PC joke is out of the way, I would like to jump in as a member of the "gimp" club, which by the way is the only "equity group" you can join in a snap.

      I do technical support for persons with disabilities.
      I do project support for development groups to have their software accessibility improved.
      I am a photographer who uses The GIMP for photo editing.
      I have participated in the International Games for the Disabled (before it became PC to call it the Paralympics, which really pissed off the "wheelies").

      Most of the people I have introduced to the Gnu Image Manipulation Program don't even blink at the acronym. They just don't think that way.
      It's the uptight AB's (able bodies) that get their shorts in a bunch, usually cutting off the oxygen supply to their brains, that really are the problem.
      Everyone else thinks they know best. We have a really strong sense oh humour, and the geek gimps are the most sardonic, sarcastic people I know.
      We like the name of the program.

      This rant ends with three words. "Get over it".

      All the Gimps on Slashdot, raise your right hand.
      (Shit, I can't do that, nevermind)

    40. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point; the point is that because of the problem, the corporate and non-profit world will ignore this part of Free Software.

      Pointing out a problem is not the same as bitching; I like the software, it would be great if I was able to introduce it to people I know in the corporate and therapeutic communities.

      But because of the title that is simply not possible.

      That is a problem; it's not a threat to the project (which has been going on for ten years now); but it is a valid concern when the subject of larger adoption comes up.

    41. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

      ..and which sadistic bastard put an "S" in the word "lisp"?

    42. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

      Know what?

      It's only an insult or derogatoty term when "YOU", and the AB crowd, use it.
      From your post, you think of these characteristics as derogatory. One may take the impression that you actually believe them to be true.
      If you're not a member of the club, or just don't get it, you can't use those terms.

    43. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

      "Its funny that you bring that up.. judging something on what it is named instead of on its functionality and quality really sounds very professional.

      Yes, and it would probably indicate an impression that "gimps" are judged on the same criteria.

    44. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

      Aw, c'mon.
      I'm working really hard in my organization to become known as "THE" gimp.

    45. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by REggert · · Score: 1

      As someone that has been limping around on a sprained ankle (with a possible minor fracture), I do not take offense to being called a gimp. In every instance when I've heard the term used, either toward me or someone else, it has been with a mixture of symphathy and bemusement. I would go on, but the inanity of this conversation isn't worth my time. Just go back to depriving circus performers of their livelihood, since that sort of thing seems to be your area of expertise.

      --

      cp /dev/zero ~/signature.txt

    46. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      I tried to check the OED. It wasn't rendering properly in Shiira (WebKit).

      --
      Why not fork?
    47. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      and it's a needless waste, all over the insistence on sticking to a rather childish name.

      No, it is a needless waste, all over the insistence on sticking to inoffensive names.

      You don't seem to have caught on to the idea that by using a politically incorrect name, that the developers are putting a cost on being politcally correct or otherwise "thin skinned" as the other post said.

      You may perceive that as a waste while they may perceive that they are doing society a benefit by making the cost of being PC for PC's sake quite explicit.

      Now I don't speak for the developers of the GIMP, they may have no social agenda at all. But if I were in their shoes, I would think such a position would be entirely rational.

    48. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by REggert · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I really can't stand people that get offended on behalf of other people they don't even know.

      On a side note, I think "Retard" would be a perfectly acceptable name for a program if it involves changing the velocity of something. You only view it as a negative term because you only think of it in a negative context.

      The C and N words are unacceptable just from common sense (and etiquette).

      --

      cp /dev/zero ~/signature.txt

    49. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      You've failed to wrap your tiny little brain around the fact that the developers of Gimp are the only folks who get any say on how it's named. Of course, since it's GPL'd you could repackage it and call it something that won't insult your fragile ego, if you like.

      As for other organizations spending money, what the fuck does this have to do with Gimp? Not a thing, at least to those of us with some slight grip on reality. Just because you use a product doesn't mean you get a 'vote' on how it's named.

      You don't have any rights here. Get over yourself and move on. If the name Gimp bothers you then don't use the damned software. It's as simple as that.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    50. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by pthisis · · Score: 1

      Number one, while you can point to some obscure and -to be blunt- bizarre definition of the word, people who are decision makers are not going to think of the word you mean; they are going to think of the meaning which the word "GIMP" currently has in popular vocabulary

      Thankfully people tend to be more rational than you, and cooler heads have historically prevailed (e.g. in the "niggardly" case I mentioned).

      Especially when the definition I'm using is not only not bizarre, but was the _only_ definition for the generation or two before ours; if you ask my mom, let alone my grandmother, she'd take it to mean that (or as a highly specialized embroidery term). And she's not 60 yet.

      And even more especially when the context of the program makes it highly likely that this definition was meant; it makes no sense to call an image manipulation program "handicapped". It makes plenty to call it "beautiful".

      Secondly, the target audience which I'm referring to are people who already endure the stigma of either mental illness, chemical dependencies or physical challenges

      Nice. Go for nonexistant rationales and bogus sympathy points. When has gimp ever applied to the mentally ill or chemically dependent? The negative slang connotations are for people who limp or B&D subs.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    51. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      A lot of replies to the parent (and those who agree with him) seem to miss the point. He's not just saying that the term "gimp" is offensive and therefore The GIMP shouldn't be named that. His main point is that we're going to have a harder time getting major organizations to use it as long as it's called "The GIMP". Whether you personally find the term "gimp" offensive in one context or another, the above bolded statement is a fact.

      It's a matter of political and economic practicality; it has nothing to do with free speech or personal freedom.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    52. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Except that I'm directly talking to the people who I am flaming, and those people are more than capable of defending themselves.

      A) Not a gimp developer and I don't see any of them in this thread. Surely you don't think I have anything to say about the name?
      B) Being a gimp doesn't mean your mind is any less acute and to presume that such people are not capable of defending themselves from the name of a piece of software is really condescending.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    53. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      Your second point is a strawman argument; I was attacked for flaming, and I pointed out that those I was flaming were more than capable of holding their own. That's the beginning and the end of the point I was making with that statement.

      As far as the point I was making about the name of the GIMP, this poster has made my point clearer than I have been able to.

      Read it, and consider it; or ignore it and then wonder why OSS isn't more widely adopted by computer users outside of the geek/techie niche.

    54. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      Oxford Universal Dictionary:

      Gimp:

      1664: 1. Silk, worsted, or cotton thread with a cord or wire running through it.

      1747: A neckerchief (worn by a nun)

      1697: To give a scalloped or indented outline to.

      1755: 1. To trim with gimp.

      see Jimp

      Jimp

      1508: Slender, slim, delicate, graceful, neat.

      The OUD has no definition that equals a physical problem.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    55. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I was attacked for flaming, and I pointed out that those I was flaming were more than capable of holding their own.

      You need to go back and read more carefully. You were attacked for flaming by using the exact same stereotyping that you claim is offensive.

      Read it, and consider it; or ignore it and then wonder why OSS isn't more widely adopted by computer users outside of the geek/techie niche.

      He, and thus apparently you too, is just another abuser of the "royal we," as if "we" want anything. If some of us want something, they are free to go and make it happen.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    56. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by bbc · · Score: 1

      "The decision makers are going to look at the fact that the writers were juvenile enough to call the program THE GIMP"

      Those decision makers of yours sound like complete retards. Why on earth would the GIMP developers want their software be used by such folk?

      Next you're going to ask for a filter in the GIMP that will make sure no bank notes can be scanned. Or one that will add a water mark in images, so that images that are critical of the government can be used to find their makers. Because that is the sort of thing that the sort of retards you are so fond of will want to have put in.

    57. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by bbc · · Score: 1

      "Third, it is this unwillingness to empathise and understand the point of view of the mainstream world and corporate/government users which is what will keep Free Software in the fringes, which means that collary issues (DRM, DMCA) are also kept to the side as well."

      Thank you for using this free software-built forum (are you using a free software web browser?) using this free software web server on the free software supported World Wide Web, which is part of the biggest phenomenon of the past fifty years, the internet, which, by the way, would have been impossible to make or run without free software, to voice your opinion that free software was, is and will always remain a fringe phenomenon. (You could have used the word freak instead of fringe, you insenstive clod!)

      Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

    58. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by randomencounter · · Score: 1
      On the contrary. I personally expect that the _name_ is not a major barrier to adoption. The vitality of the project itself is evidence of this.


      In reality, software that is good enough will get used even if it is named Festering Pustulent Boils. To people who have discovered and use The Gimp, that particular phrase evokes the software first, then any other meanings.


      Anyone who lets a little thing like a name keep them from using it deserves to pay $600/seat for PhotoShop. Their loss, not mine, nor the developers.

      --
      Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
    59. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      calling a program "The Gimp" is downright offensive.

      Well, I found your post offensive to logic! Guess it's all who's doing the judging, isn't it? Gimp stands for "GNU Image Manipulation Program".

      Keep in mind that the whole reason anybody even *cares* about Linux is that it does what it does well. If it all sucked, it wouldn't get mentioned on /.. Part of the reason Linux is popular is because the effort goes into coding good, hard programs and not into floating ten sexy names in front of a consumer-review panel so the cheesecake fluffs in marketing have a cute idea for a logo.

      PS "Gimp: the program" was around before "Gimp: the kinky character in Pulp Fiction" became popular (though the movie release predates it) - and were it not for that movie, most people wouldn't have even known what the meaning of the word "gimp" was. It's not Linux's fault if you attatch offensive connotations to an innocent word. Check the meaning of "santorum" sometime.

    60. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      It's interesting to hear that people that are disabled don't take offense at the name. I've always found it interesting that the most vocal PC crusaders are rarely the ones that are actually part of the group they're trying to "defend". I've always assumed it's just a reaction to some kind of inner guilt that comes out as being offended.

      --
      AccountKiller
    61. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Read it, and consider it; or ignore it and then wonder why OSS isn't more widely adopted by computer users outside of the geek/techie niche.
      Same as ever--they're idiots more concerned about what others think.
    62. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 1

      Actually, as a precursor to Automatic Updates, Microsoft did put out the Critical Update Notification Tool. There are a few references left on microsoft.com.

    63. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by bbtom · · Score: 1

      If the government are paying money for free software, they're even more stupid than I ever imagined. I run GIMP (and, once the torrent is done, GimpShop) on four computers in my home running Windows, Linux and OS X. Never have I ever spent any money on it - it's either been included with my Linux distro or has been available for a small download. That's because it's free software, and has no licence fees.

      "Edgy", perhaps, but economically sound. And they've got a right to get enraged if the precious "agencies [and...] the corporate and non-profit world" are spending money on Firefox or the GIMP or OpenOffice or any other free software. It's free as in beer.

      Of course, if it's a matter of the mentally impaired not being offended, it wouldn't take particularly long to open up the source code, grep for the word "GIMP" and replace it with "Happy Bunny Image Software" or whatever, then recompile a non-offensive version, even release it. It's free as in freedom, too.

      --
      catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    64. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      If the government are paying money for free software, they're even more stupid than I ever imagined.
      No, it's a question of selling government and private agencies on free software (which they can get for free) as opposed to expensive proprietary software (which they spend $ on).

      The idea is that the money being spent on photoshop, etc is money that could be saved if the GIMP wasn't named something guarenteed to raise the hackles of most people who work in the social services field.

    65. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by bbtom · · Score: 1

      Well, then, that's where the third part of my suggestion comes in to it. If it's that much of a problem, you open up the source code, grep through it, and recompile.

      You have to draw a line somewhere. Are we going to rename Firefox because it subconsciously endorses the combination of fire and foxes. Perhaps some animal rights group is going to get pissy about it? Perhaps a group of anarchists is going to get annoyed that KRuler codifies in to it's name the fact that we need to be ruled. I've got a note-taking app on my desktop called Tomboy. Surely, this name could cause problems for certain feminist or lesbian groups.

      Nobody has the right not to be offended. If it's such a big deal for this particular oppressed minority, a grep-replace-recompile could sort the problem out.

      --
      catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    66. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who has never had to make a pitch to people outside of their own particular demographic.

      We're talking about marketing this to a mainstream (non-geek) audience; it's a different ball-game with different rules.

      By the way, your firefox comparison is a wholly unrealistic reach. Gimp has definate, unqestionable negative meanings in it's common usage (here in america at least). That's been covered to death in this conversation already.

      And yes, people do have the reasonable right to not be offended, particularly when they are being asked to give up something that they use (photoshop) in favor of something which they are unsure of (gimp).

      The bad attitude works when it's you and your buds on IRC; but when you get out into the larger world you have to deal with other attiudes and sensibilities.

      OSS has two very clear choices:

      1)Remain in its' elitist niche' where they can get away with offensive names for their products and yelling "RTFM n00b" on IRC all day

      2)Reach out to the larger, mainstream product where people are not going to find derogatory program names to be 'cute' or 'clever'; find out what their reasoning is and appeal to them on their terms.

      This involves more than regexs; this involves understanding the mindset of the people you are reaching out to, it involves understanding what makes the 'suit' or the 'phb' tick and being willing to reach out to them.

      To answer your question before you ask it; why should you -when you have something you're giving away for free- reach out to them? They have no reason to reach out to you. They already have something that works (photoshop), which is a known commodity with a solid reputation, and they know they can get support (from adobe) for it.

      Again, there's no reason for the OSS crowd to leave IRC; but if they choose to, an understanding of the larger world and how people think is going to be crucial.

      And that includes understanding how a non-OSS manager is going to react when faced with the idea of adopting The CRIPPLE ^w GIMP.

    67. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by halleluja · · Score: 1
      I agree, I always thought The Gimp was such a gay name.
      Considering the most popular image content (XXX) I would deem "the Pimp" more appropriate.
    68. Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? by leshert · · Score: 1

      I hear you. I find that in general, the able-bodied bristle more over inoffensive use of offensive terms than those with handicaps. For example, one of my best friends from high school (later my college roommate) was a double amputee. He frequently referred to parking spots marked "handicapped only" as "gimp slots", and when we were going out, if he were at the back of the group, he'd say "wait for the gimp!" and such.

      Of course, if he were out in public and someone used the word to insult him, he would have taken offense. But then he would have had to take a number and get in line behind the rest of us, who would already have been beating down the offender.

      I can't make a global statement--I can't read peoples' minds--but I imagine that taking unneccessary offense originates in the offended party's own guilt and insecurity.

  65. From the makers of Happy Fun Ball? by RoverDaddy · · Score: 1
    Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

    Can The GIMP draw Happy Fun Ball [trying to stay on-topic and failing]?

    --
    RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
  66. Wonderful ! by obzidian · · Score: 0

    what a great idea... As most web developers have I'm sure, I grew up using Photoshop and find its GUI very straight forward and easy to use. Then I discovered Linux and was excited to use its open source tools. GIMP seemed powerful to me but the GUI made little sense to me and why would I bother when I could work with graphics easily and quickly in Photoshopa already. This will give me a new reason to revisit GIMP!

    --
    Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
  67. Windows Installer by H0p313ss · · Score: 2, Informative

    The hompage referenced by Freshmeat appears to have been bombarded from orbit... but there's a windows installer here: GIMPshot.exe

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  68. Scotty! by TBone · · Score: 1

    Haha...and to think, in his Sophmore year when I was his roommate in 301 Allen, he barely used the computer.

    I'm not sure if that's cause I was on it All.The.Time., or if all the chicks from downstairs and gthe guys next door used our room as the communal lounge :)

    Hey Scott, if you read these, drop me a line sometime...

    --

    This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U

  69. Gimp is not bound to please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please newbies be careful when you say you love Gimping, this can lead to trouble.
    If burly, posiibly leatherclad, moustachioed men crowd round you when you are discussing your favourite Image Editor move away if they start leering when you say "Open Source" run away.
    Honestly my User Interface was sore for weeks afterwards.
    Care must also be taken when shouting Gimp at paraplegics.

  70. Gimp better than Photoshop and no ugly EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 2.x Gimp UI is very nice. More importantly the functionality of Gimp is excellent. There is a nice set of articles about the Gimp that picks Gimp 2.x over Photshop for users that do not need the pre-press functions of Photoshop. In addition to Gimp's great UI and functionlity, Gimp is picked over Photoshop because it is open source and because it does not require product activation.

    "Photoshop has a greedy and consumer-unfriendly end-user license agreement (EULA). GIMP is free and has a very consumer-friendly license known as the General Public License (GPL). Please see the Adobe Photoshop & GIMP Licensing Note in the right-hand sidebar further down on this page. Additionally, Photoshop has a horrible and very anti-consumer Product Activation requirement. GIMP has no such crap! Please see the Adobe Product Activation Note in the sidebar further down on this page."

  71. hear hear. by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

    You know, years ago, I pointed out in another Slashdot thread that serious graphic artists will generally not consider GIMP as long as it fails to support CMYK - or, for that matter, Pantone and Lab color. Mostly, I got grumpy, "well, how do you know?" responses from people who obviously don't know or work with graphic artists. Nevertheless, I reiterate: if you get paid to do graphic design, you're probably going to have to make something that gets printed eventually. RGB sucks for this, which is why other color modes are critical.

  72. In Brasil ... by hummassa · · Score: 4, Informative

    none.
    Our "computer programs law" explicitly excludes "similarity from a preexisting program functionality" from copyright protection, and our patents law explicitly excludes computer programs, methods and algorithms, from patent protection.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:In Brasil ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our "computer programs law" explicitly excludes "similarity from a preexisting program functionality" from copyright protection, and our patents law explicitly excludes computer programs, methods and algorithms, from patent protection.

      With all the recent events regarding sw patents and copyright restrictions in EU, Brazil sounds like a great place for a developer.

  73. Just started using The GIMP... by RoverDaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    and I've already burst a few blood vessels in my skull. I know zero about Photoshop and squat about graphic design in general, but this program seems to take 'non-intuitive' to a new level. And, when I start searching online for more information, I keep running into the same attitude of 'Lump it, l4m3r' if you ask why GIMP doesn't do X the way other software does. I found one interesting Usability Study report which revealed five or six of these issues, but only made half-baked recommendations like 'make this more obvious, put a message here' instead of really changing how the UI works.

    A little recognition that users matter would go a long way. I'd be willing to try alternative skins on top of GIMP.

    --
    RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    1. Re:Just started using The GIMP... by Red+Alastor · · Score: 5, Informative
      I'd suggest the book Grokking The Gimp. You can read it online at this URL :

      http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/

      It's the best book out there to explain how Gimp works to a novice. It actually explain the image manipulation concepts and how to use them. For exemple, it will explain to you *why* a picture look bad.

      It was made for version 1.2 of The Gimp but the interface still works the same way.

      Except for bezier paths (check Gimp online help by pressing F1 when you get there) and the author tell you that intelligent scissors is broken but it works pretty well in 2.0+ versions.

      --
      Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
    2. Re:Just started using The GIMP... by water-and-sewer · · Score: 1

      Boo - frikkin- hoo. I've never ever used Photoshop. I got used to the Gimp the same way you got used to Photoshop: I learned the interface and got used to it. I can get around great in Gimp, but that's because I didn't know any better. If you hadn't learned something else first, the Gimp wouldn't feel so "different" to you. "Difference" is relative to what you already know.

      --
      If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
    3. Re:Just started using The GIMP... by anomalous+cohort · · Score: 1
      this program seems to take 'non-intuitive' to a new level

      Intuitive means Known or perceived through intuition and intuition means The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. I'm not even sure that really exists. If it does exist, then I'm pretty sure that it doesn't exist in the realm of manipulating software applications.

      People say a GUI is intuitive when they really mean that it is easy to use. For most people that means that it is similar to what they are already familiar with. Photoshop has a lot of market share and mind share. I can see why many would believe that any graphics manipulation program that works similar to how the photoshop works would be considered easy to use.

      To tell you the truth, I had no clue how to use the Gimp until I read Grokking the Gimp. The Gimp is very easy to use once you understand the concepts because the GUI is a consistent application of those concepts.

      Now, I am not a visual interface designer. It is my understanding, however, that one of the basic principles of good visual interface design is that every operation that a user could ask the computer to make at any given point in time should be able to be made visible to the user at the time that the operation is allowed. Thus the application of menus is considered to be good. There are certain operations in the Gimp that violate this principle. I think that is why the Gimp gets such a bad rep.

    4. Re:Just started using The GIMP... by shellbeach · · Score: 1

      I've never ever used Photoshop. I got used to the Gimp the same way you got used to Photoshop: I learned the interface and got used to it. I can get around great in Gimp, but that's because I didn't know any better. If you hadn't learned something else first, the Gimp wouldn't feel so "different" to you. "Difference" is relative to what you already know.

      You know, the thing that always gets missed in these flames about the Gimp's interface is the fact that Photoshop's interface is far, far less intuitive. I use Gimp most of the time, but occasionally have to delve into the murky world of Adobe, and I can't believe that they have so many supporters out there.

      Let's think about photoshop for a second:

      * Tools that only appear when you click and hold another tool, with no apparent logical grouping (I've lost count of the times I couldn't find a tool because I didn't know what button it was behind)

      * Little windows all over the place - Navigator, Tools, Palette, History, Layers ... they always seem to end up being bunted half off-screen, and that's never a good sign! (At least the gimps windows are dockable, so you can have every window docked into the tools window - try it! I find it works great)

      * MDI interface. Can I just puke now??

      Now, it could be that for most people Photoshop is intuitive ... but I've seen too many newbies trying and failing over photoshop to believe that. I think it's more that most /.ers grew up on pirated Photoshop copies before they moved to linux, and thus Photoshop was the interface they learned first.

      Let's face it - both Gimp and Photoshop were not designed for the simple user playing around with happy snaps. They're powerful graphic editing tools that have not suffered from any attempt to dumb them down. Neither of them are very intuitive, and both have a learning curve. The solution is not to make the Gimp look like Photoshop - that'll create just as many problems!

    5. Re:Just started using The GIMP... by kevcol · · Score: 1

      I got used to the Gimp the same way you got used to Photoshop

      Try re-reading that. He'd never used Photoshop before.

    6. Re:Just started using The GIMP... by schumaml · · Score: 1

      Which are the operations that violate this principle?

    7. Re:Just started using The GIMP... by anomalous+cohort · · Score: 1

      The ability to combine selections and the perfect rectangle and ellipse selection tool features require both the use of the shift and control keys and when to apply those keys before or after letting go of the mouse button. There is no GUI for doing this. You just have to know.

  74. No duotone - no dice by wumpus188 · · Score: 1

    Friendlier, not friendlier - I dont care...
    As long as there is no duotone support (and there probably never be one as it is patented) The Gimp is useless for me.. as to many people who does serious pre-print work.

  75. I Do Wonder... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I do wonder about those people saying they've removed Photoshop from their machines in order now to focus on GimpShop without backsliding.

    Would it be more accurate to say that I removed my illegal, pirated version of Photoshop now that I have GimpShop?

    Makes more sense than saying I threw away my $800 legal copy of Photoshop now that I have GimpShop for free.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:I Do Wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol Good point if I had mod points I would mod you insightful..

      People who can afford Photoshop probably actually use the features that make it worth it, as opposed to Joe Schmo OSS Zealot who downloaded it off of Kazaa and used it to do a little web design. So of course they are going to say 'oh gimp is just as good as photoshop!' -- well no shit genius, so are half of the other *FREE* art programs out there available to do that limited kind of work.

      Professionals know that Photoshop is the industry standard for many good reasons. Sorry, the argument that familiarity is the main reason people are sticking with Photoshop is complete bs with the missing features of Gimp.

  76. Apple vs Microsoft by hummassa · · Score: 1

    settled out of court, IIRC.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  77. Arrogance of Gimp, GNOME, and Gtk+ Developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article:

    > yet-to-be-realized hack. I got a reply asking me to "keep
    > your changes for yourself" and what I was up to "is a
    > horrible waste of time and resources." But when all the
    > positive response came rolling in, that

    Do not get me wrong here, but in all of my personal experience (Yes, I want to remain anonymous here.) dealing with Gimp, GNOME, and Gtk+ developers, I have found them to be arrogant and entirely self-interested pricks who could not care a damn about innovation and opinion on the part of others, especially when a patch had been written that partly conflicted with their interests. Outside of my personal views on what Gimpshop offers, I am not surprised by the negative response this guy received. It is all too common.

    Let this be a warning to the whole Gimp, GNOME, and Gtk+ development bloc so that they know that users and want-to-be contributors are sick of this arrogance. I cannot even put into words how sick I am of the doctrinarian nature of that whole group.

    Call me a troll who does not cite specific examples if you wish, but I have had so many rows with the previously mentioned developmental team that I cannot cite specific personal examples without revealing my identity.

    1. Re:Arrogance of Gimp, GNOME, and Gtk+ Developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nobody cares about your real identity, Mr.Wayne.

      AC

    2. Re:Arrogance of Gimp, GNOME, and Gtk+ Developers by ardor · · Score: 1

      Glad to see I'm not the only one who noticed this.
      Thumbs up!

      --
      This sig does not contain any SCO code.
  78. This is a great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love easy to use. While I love open source, most of the interfaces do suck. This is not a critizm of the quality of the code. The code quality is great. What I am complaining about is that all these seperate groups of people are not able to work together or don't share the vision of how things should be.

    I want to see small groups of people with a vision take the existing code and smooth it over into a cohesive unified and smoothly integrated whole. Notice that I didn't say we need _one_ desktop. This is not what we need. User Interface design is in it's infancy. To stop development now and freeze on a single design would be moronic. If we used this philosophy then car design would have stalled with the development of the development of the ultimate car, the model T. Because really, the model T is the only real model of a car that you need.

    But no, we went ahead and developed every kind of car you can imagine, complete with fins like rocket ships.

    Ideally we could have a skin layer on top of all the functionality that ultimately allows the end user to fully configure everything and everything flows into the operational/appearance mold that they are requesting. Like skins that control the appearance and behavior of all controls and interfaces.

    I'd love to see someone take open source and create a complete set of easy to use, fast to load, home applications that do 90% of what people want in an easy to use way. Sell it with a line of hardware that does 90% of what people want to do as well and that you fully support. Base computer, monitor, keyboard, mouse, scanner, digital movie camera, etc.. And be able to suck the configuration and programs and settings off their old windows 98 machine and set up their new box with all their old settings, mail, files, desktop back grounds et al.

    I'd love to see a different distribution aimed at the small business market, with 90% of what they need to do already configured when you drop in the box and turn it on. Then you just have to drop in $200 X terminals for each additional user that includes a VoIP phone as well.

    I'd love to see distributions aimed at particular niches, like graphics design, or video/animation that is set up to do 95% of those specialized tasks.

    What I want this aimed at is a new distribution model. I want a ports system that is aimed at the Linux Standards Base and you can freely choose to install any OS that supports the LSB. This way you can install your OS of choice on your hardware of choice and it all just works.

    In this model distributions just become a list of package and version numbers and a set of configuration routines that are also cross platform.

  79. My Problem With GIMP by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    My problem with GIMP is that I've never been able to find how to adjust a rectangular selection after I've made it. In PS it's easy to move the rectangle, or drag any side or corner. Where does GIMP hide this?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  80. Corporate Co-ops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If everyone donates $100 to the Gimp/Gimpshop project(s)...

    Getting Corporations to invest in co-op style ventures would be a great start:
    * Minimal expense
    * Only pay if enough others also pay
    * No surprise costs / no re-occuring costs (no licenses or maintenance fees)
    * Complete customization
    * No vendor lock-in (self support, or third party support)

    The hard part is explaining that they won't "own" the software -- even though its that very quality (the FOSS license) which would make the project so worth thier money.

  81. Re:GIMP on Macintosh; Now: Ubuntu LiveCD by UnderScan · · Score: 1

    I'll admit that probably had more to do with the fact that I was running a live CD than a real install, but that's a horrible way to give someone a first impression of your OS.

    I agree. Ubuntu LiveCD is known to be much slower than other LiveCDs. See LiveCD Boot Benchmarks: Round 1, Popular LiveCDs:
    LiveCD Desktop Time (min:sec)
    SLAX 5.0.5 KDE 1:29
    PCLinuxOS p81A KDE 2:22
    Ubuntu 5.04 Gnome 3:41
    Knoppix 3.9 KDE 2:07
    Gentoo 2005.0 BASH 1:07

    I would recommend Knoppix or Kanotix (both use KDE). There are some LiveCDs with GNOME so check distrowatch.com for more info.

  82. Re:PS FROM GRANDPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He bought his UID. Not a joke.

  83. No CMYK = useless by sakusha · · Score: 1

    You are precisely right. Gimp not only lacks CMYK ability, it lacks the ability to do ANY calibrated color workflow. This is absolutely crucial for professional markets.
    There are some people who do nothing but correct color calibrations all day long. I know because that used to be my job at a service bureau, the job is called "color separator." A color separator tends to spend half his day converting RGB files to CMYK, and the other half of the day explaining to customers why their jobs were all fucked up and did not print the way they expected because they designed in RGB and the printer used CMYK.
    Photoshop absolutely rules the professional market because it has the most comprehensive abilities for color control, it can work in and convert between different color profiles and color spaces. It would take YEARS of full-time effort from a whole crew of programmers, and extensive research with professional prepress users to come even close to providing this level of color ability. But instead, the Gimp programmers are rearranging the GUI. This is what happens when programmers are in control of the software, nobody is listening to customers in pro markets about what features they need.

    1. Re:No CMYK = useless by digidave · · Score: 1

      "But instead, the Gimp programmers are rearranging the GUI"

      The GIMP programmers aren't rearranging the UI. GIMPShop is the product of some guy who thought it would be cool to make it work like Photoshop.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    2. Re:No CMYK = useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you would also say the sky isn't blue, its indigo.

      You missed the point entirely.

    3. Re:No CMYK = useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it lacks the ability to do ANY calibrated color workflow.
      Except for the plugin and the built in support in the development version that is...
      There are some people who do nothing but correct color calibrations all day long.
      Correct color calibrations? You mean they do color correction? Then there are also people who do nothing but graphics for the web or textures all day long...
    4. Re:No CMYK = useless by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      it lacks the ability to do ANY calibrated color workflow.

      Except for the plugin and the built in support in the development version that is...

      Give it a rest.

      For years I've been hearing people say that Photoshop is overkill, that noone really needs all the features it provides, et cetera. If you're a professional, you need to be able to use a color model for print. Period. The GIMP got its start in 1995 with, according to the official GIMP home page, this Usenet thread. See those "two questions" posed by the poster? ("What kind of features should [the GIMP] have? (tools, selections, filters, etc.) What file formats should it support?") Not once in the entire remainder of the conversation does anyone use the word "print."

      It's ten years later, and the GIMP now only has "rudimentary" support for CMYK via a plugin (I can't speak for what's lurking in a development branch somewhere), and limited color management. So in other words, yes, the GIMP is a fun program which does all kinds of neat stuff and is worth looking at... if you never have to worry about printing your work in a professional capacity. In other words, if you're NOT A PROFESSIONAL GRAPHIC DESIGNER.

      Got it?
    5. Re:No CMYK = useless by sakusha · · Score: 1
      So in other words, yes, the GIMP is a fun program which does all kinds of neat stuff and is worth looking at... if you never have to worry about printing your work in a professional capacity. In other words, if you're NOT A PROFESSIONAL GRAPHIC DESIGNER.


      or, IF YOU OWN A COLOR INKJET PRINTER.

      Without more-than-rudimentary CMYK capabilities, it is impossible to produce quality color inkjet prints. All modern color inkjets are CMYK (or variants, like 6 color enhanced CMYK). Color Workflow means more than the ability to convert an RGB file to a CMYK file, it means you have control over that conversion, using variable profiles (like GCR or UCR) and the ability to manage color between devices (including the screen and printer).
      Or maybe you like your snapshot prints to come out with color shifts. That's the sort of attitude that keeps people from adopting amateurish OSS projects like Gimp, they look at the printed output and say "gee that color sucks" and they don't know why. Professionals know why. Amateurs could get pro results if the programmers knew why.
  84. Link to the Gimp developers complaints mentioned.. by Decameron81 · · Score: 1

    Here is a link to the complaints mentioned in the article. Apparently the lead developer of the Gimp didn't agree with a fork that would lead to a "terrible waste" of resources. Near the end, though, he seems to leave a door open for those changes to be contributed back to some degree.

    --
    diegoT
  85. Trying to make a Honda Civic to look like a Hummer by Sundroid · · Score: 1

    His rationale is that people who are accustomed to Photoshop user interfaces can learn GIMP faster this way. Having never seen or worked with Photoshop myself (yes, I am a rarity), I've had no problem learning how to use GIMP at all (evidence: see the graphics I've created for my website, Sun and Fun), so it is all novelty to me.

  86. gimp interface okay, needs sticky windows by radarsat1 · · Score: 1

    Generally I really don't mind the Gimp interface, and actually I use it all the time for little jobs, mostly under Linux but sometimes under Windows.

    The main thing that I would change if I ever, you know... got around to taking the time to actually try it, is I would make the tool window "stick" to the side of the active image window. Or at least have it "always on top". I find it annoying when the tool window drops behind the image I'm working on. Other than that, no complaints.

    Dunno if this kind of "sticky" behaviour is really feasible with current window managers.. I guess I'm thinking of something along the lines of a docking window, something that docks to the side of the the image window instead of being a seperate window. Hey why not even have one for each image window, make it collapsable so it doesn't always get in the way.

    1. Re:gimp interface okay, needs sticky windows by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      i suppose creating a fullscreen "workstation" mode which took over the screen would be one way to streamline GIMP nicely, as it is now the only issue i ever have is winding up with GIMP windows mixed in with other windows i have open, if GIMP either used tabbed MDI or maybea slick openGL interface it could revolutionize image work, especially if the internal UI had a way to eat other windows, so if you use a few tools with GIMP while working you could have those apps loaded and operated from inside GIMP rather than depending on the windowmanager of various OS's to do intelligent and usable things with the various GIMP toolbars. i think i just described several years worth of effort and getting funding for such a project would be tough

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  87. fireworksMX Kicks ass over gimp and Photoshop by webvida · · Score: 1

    The guy should have copied the fw UI - it is light years ahead of Photoshop. Acutally I think that was the reasoning behind adobe takeing over macromedia, plain, simple, jealousy hahahahahahahaha!

  88. Bad workflow by PromANJ · · Score: 1

    I'm an artist who paints a lot digitally. I tried to learn GIMPshop but there's too many thresholds. The interface could be slimmer, and some tools could be faster (I'm talking to YOU size 200 airbrush).
    Here's a comparison of the interfaces: PS5.5 - GIMPshop
    The load dialog crashed in the background and I don't even have everything open like in PS. GIMPshop is okay for basic image manipulation I guess; the functionality is certainly there, but the painting workflow isn't.

  89. Yes, and a swastika... by dreemernj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "gimp" means beautiful or attractive, and has meant that for far longer than it's been used as slang for the handicapped. Presumably the makers of an image manipulation program had that meaning in mind.

    Yes and a swastika is a harmless religious symbol and it has been for longer than it has been a symbol of hate. But, it doesn't get used by the general public or big business a whole lot these days because language is a part of culture and so it changes as the people and culture do.

    --
    1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
    1. Re:Yes, and a swastika... by arose · · Score: 1
      But, it doesn't get used by the general public or big business a whole lot these days because language is a part of culture and so it changes as the people and culture do.
      Yes it is, the western culture isn't the only one with a general public.
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    2. Re:Yes, and a swastika... by dreemernj · · Score: 1

      That is definately a valid point, I should have qualified my comment with a particular region or culture. My apologies.

      --
      1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
    3. Re:Yes, and a swastika... by pthisis · · Score: 1

      Yes and a swastika is a harmless religious symbol and it has been for longer than it has been a symbol of hate. But, it doesn't get used by the general public or big business a whole lot these days because language is a part of culture and so it changes as the people and culture do

      Wow, Godwin'd already.

      There's a massive diffence here.

      We're a word that has a slang meaning that people over 60 probably wouldn't even know, and where it's pretty obvious from context that the program doesn't want to call itself "crippled" or "B&D slave"--it's an image manipulation program.

      It's exactly analagous to "spic and span", which is a fine name for a product even though you won't see many people under 40 using the phrase, nor the word spic in any non-derogatory context.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
  90. Why why why was parent modded +5? by tolkienfan · · Score: 1
    The whole point of the post was to suggest that if OSS software had a similar UI to Windows software that there would be no point in using it.

    What kind of sense does that make?

    Windows was modelled after Lisa. Does everyone use Lisa, or successors?

    UI isn't the biggest reason to choose one piece of software over another.

    Ridiculous post. Worse because the point about GIMP is fails due to the fact the Photoshop-alike version is an alternative, for people who like the Photoshop UI.

    Come on mods!

  91. Unlike you, Graphic Design pros use Photoshop by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm not super fond of the PhotoShop interface either.

    The industry standard is Photoshop. You can choose to emulate the interface that everyone uses or you can choose to be locked out faster than a CBC employee.

    Note to OpenOffice/StarOffice evangelists: this is also why your apps will never be mainstream.

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:Unlike you, Graphic Design pros use Photoshop by MrWiggum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah lets mimic "industry standard" software and not innovate. That way our software is sure to be mainstream.

    2. Re:Unlike you, Graphic Design pros use Photoshop by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's why the PS's interface on Windows is exactly the same as the PS's interface on Mac...

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Unlike you, Graphic Design pros use Photoshop by kbielefe · · Score: 1
      I'm confused. Are The Gimp and OpenOffice.org merely blatant knockoffs of Photoshop and Microsoft Office? Or are they so different that they will never be accepted by the industry? Somebody had better give me a straight answer soon, or I'm going to stop relying on slashdot to make these kinds of decisions for me.

      You have described a textbook example of a paradigm. Another textbook example of a paradigm is Swiss Watches. The Swiss actually invented the quartz watch, but stuck with the industry standard mechanical watch, allowing Seiko to gain a strong foothold in the watch market that was previously monopolized by the Swiss.

      Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that Photoshop isn't a stellar application. I'm merely saying that being an industry standard is not a good enough reason to choose it. Granted I only have a small side business, but I've never had a problem using The Gimp to interact with vendors that only use Photoshop for graphic design work. If you can't think of a task you can accomplish with Photoshop and not with The Gimp, then you are a victim of peer pressure, plain and simple. And I bet you won't be switching to The Gimp no matter what anyone says, even though the interface is now practically identical.

      Not that us open source geeks really care what you run or what you say about what we run. Most of us became accustomed before high school to ignoring those who advocated what was popular in favor of what makes sense.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    4. Re:Unlike you, Graphic Design pros use Photoshop by 51mon · · Score: 1

      Neither are blatant rip offs.

      Open Office came from Star Office, which had it's own desktop interface - weird but long dead, and I assume the easlier comment must refer to that long dead interface. Since these days Open Office looks like "just another Word processor".

      I assume GIMP must have tried to copy some of the Photoshop interface, as plagarising an existing well known interface has to be the only plausible excuse for such an awful interface.

      The same thing happened to sodopi, a great application with a pig awful interface. Then someone reworked some of the magic into Inkscape, and a usable product was born.

      Then again I think with both GIMP and Inkscape you really do have to learn a bit upfront to use the applications well (as I'm sure you do with Photoshop). But the getting started is particularly painful with GIMP.

      I sat down once with a "howto do web banners in GIMP" document, and despite my lack of artistic ability was soon banging out a lot of pretty banner. But without the HOWTO I'd never even have known GIMP had features for doing that sort of thing, or what half of them meant even if I had stumbled across them in the menus.

  92. I hope that Adobe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...sues the OSS community's asses off for this kind of blatant theft. You can talk all you want, and you can claim 'open freedom' and crap like that all you want. But it's theft, plain and simple.

    I'm sick of this crap. This is peoples' livelihoods you are all screwing with. I'd like ALL of you to stop making money from your jobs and just start doing charity work, because that's 'best for everyone'.

    Yeah, right.

  93. Re:are you also Schivoed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are you kidding?

    Of COURSE the mentally retarded won't be offended by the name "The GIMP".

    They're simply too dumb to get the insult. They require the assistance of the inane to be offended.

    Leave them alone (both the GIMP developers and the gimps themselves), and let them either code or compete in the Special Olympics.

    Try watching "Mind of Mencia" for a clue.

  94. bwahahahaha by FredThompson · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that'll happen right after Broderbund sues Adobe for infringing on "Print Shop"...

  95. Re:are you also Schivoed? by RLiegh · · Score: 1

    such a witty bon mot! both the GIMP developers and the gimps! sir, your talents are truly wasted here on /.

    Fucktard; have you ever worked with people who have any kind of mental illness or retardation? I have, and they are fully capable of working in the community and leading 'normal' lives, complete with fulling jobs and hobbies (maybe even playing with photoshop, who knows?)

    But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your dismissive bon mots. Fire away, by all means.

  96. Re:are you also Schivoed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course I have.

    I'm working with you, aren't I?

    Next, I believe we'll have you doing some assembly work in a warehouse.

    Perhaps "Beers of the World" would do? I'll give you a half hour to put together the six-pack.

  97. GIMP navigation is a pain in the ass by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    I would like to use The Gimp, and I try to when I can, but the interface drives me batshit. Yes, I know that this is because I have been brainwashed into thinking like an Adobe-bot(tm), but that's what I had to work with for years.

    If the Gimp people don't care about trying to get current Photoshop users to use their app, then it really doesn't matter. However, if they want people to actually switch, they need to make the interface at least tolerable for people who have been working in a particular way for years. I'd like to use the new tools, but this isn't like The Gimp is radically new tech where you'd suck up the learning curve and get over it... it's a graphics editor. I'm not going to re-invent my workflow just to use it.

    I don't care if the layout is better for X-Windows due to focus over mouse, I don't want 5 different windows on my screen which disappear on me - never to be found again - if I click on a bigger window which overlays these little PITA utility windows. If you are going to make a Windows port, then make a port that actually is usable under Windows, or don't waste your time with it. Heck, I don't even think this setup is incredibly more efficent even under X, now that I mention it. I'm no huge fan of MDI, but there are times where it makes some sense. Or just maybe, the Gimp people can think of something better than MDI that still allows me to find these windows when I need them.

  98. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never heard of "gimp" meaning that, the only thing I heard of being called "gimp" is that plastic lanyard stuff you make friendship bracelets out of.

  99. Pansies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    C'mon, real men use vim or emacs to retouch photos.

    Wimps!

  100. Re:are you also Schivoed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting shitty trolls isn't work. But you can't be expected to understand that until you've left your mother's basement and gotten a job in the real world, can you?

  101. XUL for quick GUI development..? by mpspedro · · Score: 1

    here's an idea, why don't all the OSS projects out there convert their GUIs to use the Mozilla Foundation's XUL engine? Then the GUI would be completely customizable without so much as a recompile, and you could d/l gui's particular to whatever your favorite workflow is, and switch between them like themes. An easily changable GUI would also allow for much quicker innovation for alot of these kinds of GUI issues that irk people so much..

  102. Re:are you also Schivoed? by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    You've a point: you'd have to be pretty slow to enjoy "Mind of Mencia"...

  103. Re:are you also Schivoed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys are fun.

    I didn't think anyone would really be as flatlined as to respond to any of my crap trolling.

    Ah. My faith in the Borg has been restored.

  104. There's some merit to UI emulation, tho. by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 1

    Many of the differences in GIMP's UI don't appear to be designed to give some advantage -- they seem to take a different approach for no particular reason, and much of it seems like a kludge (to me, anyway).

    Why not follow Photoshop's lead if there's no real disadvantage to doing so?

    --
    Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
  105. That is a "tiled" interface by spitzak · · Score: 1

    Or at least I call it a "tiled" interface, I don't know what, if any, official name for this is. Certainly the vast majority of programs use this style of interface, espeically MFC ones. Modern MSWord is an obvious example, but if you assumme the attached menubar at the top of a Windows or Linux program is a toolbar (which it is) then even very old programs are tiled. All the tools are neatly placed along the edges of the windows with a rectangular area in the middle for the actual image. In some cases the tools can be moved around by dragging them, but they will "snap" to a new position so the window remains tiled and all the regions are still rectangles.

    One big confusion is a LOT of people call this "MDI" which it isn't. "MDI" means the toolbars are shared by several documents, which either tile or overlap in that center rectangular area. This is pretty much proven to be a bad idea and I believe is just a holdover from Windows3 or so where it was done as a trick to limit the need to swap in programs that were not being used just to update exposed background areas. In a "tiled" window a new document gets it's own toolbars. Modern MSWord does this by default, so does virtually every other program I have seen except IDE's.

    The big problem with "tiled" is that the tools are very constrained in what shape they will be. Often some weird things have to be done so that the information can be presented in a fixed-width and very narrow rectangle. More importantly nobody has figured out any easy way to let the user resize them and thus varible-sized displays are impossible and have to be relegated to popup modal dialog boxes. Another problem with tiled is that you usually cannot use the full screen area for your document as the program either cannot hide the toolbars or is unusable without some visible.

    The alternative, which was used by almost all X11 and Macintosh applications until Windows95 started doing tiled/MDI is "floating" tools. These are normal windows that can be moved around using the exact same mechanism as the main document, and can be resized. The big defect is that they obscure parts of your document and the user usually has to move them around to reproduce a fake tiled layout just to see it.

    Also due to a horrible bad, bad, bug in Windows and modern X11 window managers, where clicking a window raises it without any way for the program to stop it, you are unable to use the same tools for multiple documents, thus defeating a very important advantage of floating windows. I suspect a lot of Gimp's problems was that the designers were hoping this bug would be fixed, but it is getting worse every year with each new window manager.

  106. Oblig. Tarantino Quote by Withen · · Score: 1

    Zed: Bring out the Gimp.
    Maynard: But the Gimp's sleeping.
    Zed: Well, I guess you're gonna have to go wake him up now, won't you?

  107. I'm missing the point.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just thought of something.

    "Only retards use photoshop. The rest of us use The GIMP."

    HAAHAAAHAAA!

  108. hack the name by fyoder · · Score: 1

    So hack it. It's not a huge hack to replace the splash screen and all instances of "gimp" with "GNU IMP".

    --
    Loose lips lose spit.
  109. MDI Interface? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Maybe you can purchase such an interface with money you get from the ATM Machine using your PIN Number.

  110. GUI programs are badly designed. by MikeFM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately most GUI apps are poorly designed such that the front-end and back-end code are tangled together. If programmers would create the back-end as a discrete entity GUI apps would be much more flexible and stable.

    One thing I really hate is when you load a big file and the entire interface freezes while the file loads. Argh! ICQ always did that on my contact list. Horribly coded.

    There is no reason why a well designed app shouldn't be portable to different UI's ranging from text based on up. Why not have a text-based version of GIMP or OpenOffice that lets you manipulate the files using command-line commands? Functionality should not be based on the UI.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    1. Re:GUI programs are badly designed. by zootm · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree completely. Seperating the parts is critical.

    2. Re:GUI programs are badly designed. by Goaway · · Score: 1

      I can tell you're written a lot of large applications in your days, to have such a keen insight into how easy it is.

    3. Re:GUI programs are badly designed. by zootm · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Since you have too I guess you know it's really easy when the design is made ground-up for this, and really hard to impose on an existing system. :)

  111. the real inspiration... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty close. For the inspirational gimp, refer to Kevin Spacey in The Usual Suspects, which I guess Peter and Spencer thought was a cool movie.

  112. Development or Beta by itomato · · Score: 1

    Put the "innovative" interfaces in "Development" "UI Experiment" or "Whistler-type" builds.

    The GIMP interface is a nightmare. It's one you can learn to deal with, but if you want to get in there and *DO WORK*, it's best if you get the crap outta the way.

    Bad menus are Bad menus.

    Unintutive entries ruin workflow. It's not about Photoshop vs Originality, it's about usability. If you want to erect (ha ha, I said erect) some exclusive "We Like the Kludgy GIMP Interface" club and whine about the perceived whining from Semi-Professional graphics people, go ahead. You'll only be disappointed by projects like these, and people like me who will include these sorts of features in their F/OSS distributions..

  113. Re:GIMPShop is perfect "Killer App" for converting by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    Whoa, antivirus tools in GIMPShop sure sounds like bloat to me!!

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  114. Ok you don't know Gimp to well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gimp does have a text based version.

    Its the one you use for mass production of web buttons and other processing. I still have to write the macro to intergrate gimp command line with OpenOffice.

    Text based gimp is perfectly undercontrol.

    1. Re:Ok you don't know Gimp to well. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      The point being that ALL (or almost all) GUI apps should be perfectly usable from the command-line. Why, for example, isn't it easy to enter a command on the command-line to tll Firefox to open a page and print it to PDF without ever opening the GUI? That'd be a great ability since Firefox actually renders html w/ css correctly unlike most html to pdf converters. ;)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    2. Re:Ok you don't know Gimp to well. by zootm · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, you could think of Firefox as a frontend to the rendering engine Gecko — I think it'd be pretty well possible to write a system based on Gecko that does what you want :)

    3. Re:Ok you don't know Gimp to well. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Very true. I've asked for them to make a stand-alone version that could process data but I guess nobody that'd know enough about Gecko ever saw that request or saw it as important enough to bother with. It's on my list of todo projects but as big as my list is I doubt I'll get to it anytime soon. ;)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    4. Re:Ok you don't know Gimp to well. by zootm · · Score: 1

      Fair enough :)

  115. Interface does count by paulsomm · · Score: 1

    Interface does count, and the interface has to match the intended audience.

    For the core OSS audience of unix/linux geeks and programmers, the GIMP's current UI is great. All shortcuts and right clicks. For the average computer user (the type that mostly uses wordprocessing, a web browser, and IM) the GIMP UI is too complex. For them, a more Photoshop-ish interface (although I feel Photoshop could stand a lot of UI improvements) is much better.

    Personally, I'm fine with GIMP as it is, although for the two "average users" I've installed GIMP for (on Windows), they've gone and downloaded PaintShop or ACDSEE instead of learning it. I'd definitely give them this interface.

    I think GIMP would be wise to integrate this sort of UI as a "UI skin" where one got this by default, but an advanced user can choose to use the more complex UI (i.e. as a prompt on the first launch). Sort of a more elaborate version of the existing GIMP shortcut file.

    I don't use GIMP for my photography work for one reason alone and it's not UI: GIMP's RAW support is terrible (as in non-existent by default). I've downloaded and successfully installed the open source RAW component, but you can only do rudimentary adjustments with it.

  116. Arch Packages by AquaM0Nk · · Score: 1

    I'm the maintainer for the Arch Linux AUR package for this. You can find the relevent things over here: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gimpshop/gimpsho p

  117. The GIMP UI is made for Linux hover-focusing by matt+me · · Score: 1

    The GIMP UI is designed to work best with Linux-style hover-focus on the mouse. In Windows, it's frustrating, with the right focusing though, it's speedy.

  118. Re:are you also Schivoed? by Bertie · · Score: 1

    Pardon me for butting in here, but when somebody's getting all Princess Di about their righteous work with the disabled, you don't really expect to see them calling somebody a "fucktard" in the same paragraph. It has something of a detrimental effect on your credibility. Y'know?

  119. Re:are you also Schivoed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whatever you say, fucktard.

  120. It does seem like a horrible thing by xeno-cat · · Score: 1

    Read Sven's posts in the link you provided to find out why he is concerned that GIMPShop is a step backwards for the whole GIMP project. He is worried that GIMPshop will confuse the little bit of momentum GIMP proper has been recieving lately in the form of Books, tutorials, press and other contributions by hundreds of people. He wants Scott to join the team, not diffuse the focus. It's clear Scott can not properly handle the magnitude of the fork on his own and will have no choice but to create a parallel and incompatible branch if GIMP. Horrible indeed!

    From the parent link Sven says:

    "[...] Changing menus in GIMP is not something that should be taken easily. It affects the user manual, tutorials and breaks all translations. Any change here affects the work of dozens of contributors. Still, I have always encouraged people to help to improve the menus. Bill has lately asked for volunteers to form a small team that is working on a proposal for changes to the menu structure and menu labels. That is a very welcomed effort and I hope that we can incorporate these changes soon. I have asked Scott to join this effort instead of working on this on his own. What else can I do?"

    Kind Regards

    --
    "A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
  121. Mod Parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they're generally *not* going to see the value in an alternative product that has a drastically different GUI. It makes a LOT of sense to...[make]...the controls look and feel like the dominant product in the marketplace...
    Amen, Brother. Say it loud.
    In my mind, the beauty of cross-platform apps, is not having to learn a new UI every time I make a tiny change (work/home; new OS/old OS).

    [don't] "re-invent the wheel"
    Yup. My mantra.
    I look at the Mozilla Download Manager and say, "Didn't these bozos ever see GetRight?".
    If you're going to make a duplicate, don't make it WORSE than what already exists.

    gewg_

  122. Re:are you also Schivoed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have, and they are fully capable of working in the community and leading 'normal' lives, complete with fulling jobs and hobbies (maybe even playing with photoshop, who knows?)

    Well, that's good. As long as they're fulling jobs, right?

  123. Deja Vu...same ol' story: by Hosiah · · Score: 1
    (1) Large software company manufactors tricycle, sells it to public at exhorbitant price. Public buys it for years, convinced they're getting the Top Of The Line.

    (2) Customers of Large Company begin noticing that this group of hippies and commies are cranking out free Stealth Bombers. Customers salivate with desire.

    (3) Customer plops into Stealth Bomber cockpit and immediately squalls like a wet-diapered baby because the controls for the Stealth Bomber aren't the same handle-bars and pedals he had on his tricycle.

    We're going to have to go through this over *every* *single* Linux program, individually, one at a time, aren't we? I might as well put this in my sig: Stealth Bombers are more difficult to use than tricycles BECAUSE THEY CAN FLY.

    Not to keep you all in suspense a moment longer: Bash is more difficult to learn than DOS, Emacs is more difficult to use than Microsoft Word, installing Linux is more difficult than keeping Windows pre-installed, LinCity is more difficult to play than SimCity, Angband is more difficult than Rogue...pick any random Linux program. Pick the equivalent Microsoft program. THEY WORK DIFFERENTLY! Know why? BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT!!!

    1. Re:Deja Vu...same ol' story: by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      Here, lemme put it this way:

      You know how, whether in Microsoft or in Linux, you copy 'n' paste by highlighting the text to be copied, pressing Control-C, putting the cursor at the insertion point and hitting Control-V, right? Well, stop and think about it for a minute: What's So Intuitive about Control-V ??? Control-V means "paste"?

      Know why "Control-V" makes sense to you? Because you're used to it!

    2. Re:Deja Vu...same ol' story: by NewStarRising · · Score: 1

      From my experience of the GIMP vs PhotoShop debate, one of the gripes levelled at GIMP is that it does not have the functionality of PhotoShop.
      They are both trying to be Graphical Manipulation Programs, and in the case of your analogy, it is the hippies producing the tricycle to compete with the Corporate Produced Stelth Bomber.

      A tricycle and a stealth bomber are designed to work in very different arenas, and have different capabilities as they are designed to do different jobs. And in the case of your analogy, it is the hippies producing the tricycle to compete with the Corporate Produced Stealth Bomber.

      You also continuously equate "different" with "difficult". There are certainly differences betweeen different products, even in the same arena, but often the only increase in difficulty is due to familiarity (as you mention with your "install Linux" vs "continue with Windows").
      Is LinCity realy more _difficult_ to play than SimCity? A harder difficulty level, or more unmanagable controls? Or a different game?

      The whole point (As far as I can tell) of this version of GIMP is to allow people familiar with PhotoShop to use GIMP without having to learn a new, unfamiliar interface.
      As (AFAIK) PhotoShop does not run on Linux (or any Non-MS OS), this helps to fulfil the much-seen problem of people not chaning OS because of reliance upon applications.

      --
      b3 4phr41d 0f my 4bov3-4v3r4g3 c0mpu73r kn0wI3dg3!
      MadDwarf
    3. Re:Deja Vu...same ol' story: by Hosiah · · Score: 1

      *sigh*
      Yeah...yeah..yeah (glancing at watch) move along...next?

  124. I was going to mod you down.. by msimm · · Score: 1

    But then I realized you where probably being sincere. I agree that OSS development can be a little sticky at times, but Gimp or Gnome in general as an example is pretty unfair. They've made themselves pretty clear in that they are developing for themselves and not very open to the opinions from the masses. Such is their right, although I don't agree with it.

    But there are lots of examples that work the other way, KDE continues to both involve their users and (not surprisingly) improve. Projects like Mozilla have revolutionized the way we view browsers. Even this project, even while being derided, is a perfect example of how good the OSS model really can be.

    Gnome developers have seemed to remain in the old-school of OSS development.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  125. I use it. by Bwerewolf · · Score: 1

    I have never used the GIMP, I have used GIMPshop since I started messing around with GIMP so I don't know how it compares. The reason I use it is that I don't see a lot of jobs where knowledge of the GIMP is a requirement, but plenty where knowledge of Photoshop is. I used Photoshop at school the other day for the first time, and I was able to use it without too much adjustment.

    --
    -Wolf
  126. 90% of statistics made up by oo_waratah · · Score: 1

    I think you 50/50 split on these sorts of tools are totally fictious. The only way that this might be true is that 50% of the PURCHASED copies. photoshop is possibly one of the most widely pirated programs after word 4 windows.

  127. i like it by aleator · · Score: 1

    i really like this new project ... but let me explain before you interpret this wrongly:

    i'm semi-professional photographer and my need for an image processing application are not the same as for an artist in digital arts. i do not play with filters and all the cool features that are available.

    in the last ~5 years, i tried almost every software for image processing around. at university i have access to photoshop. with ms windows i used to use corel photopaint and i'm gimp user since the early days.

    an easy UI helps doing things more quickly saving you time for the creative parts of photography and image processing. on the other hand, i found out that you can get used to different UI's quickly, if you really have to use the app as an essential tool in some creative work you do at the moment. of course, if you try working for days with photopaint and then want to do the same tasks in gimp, you are lost in the first 10 minutes searching for menus where features are.

    depending on HOW you use the image processing applications, you can like/dislike it's UI or not. if you are a newbie in image processing or you were restricted to only ms windows or only mac UI's, you have some deficits and switching UI's is not easy for you. the others from you, who are faced from time to time with other widgets and UI's (qt, gtk, swing, ...) have it easier to switch.

    sooner or later, you even learn to use all this different UI's without problem switching from one to the other... like knowing to type dvorak and qwerty with same speed ;-) ... the reason lies in the plasticity of our brain and the capacity of learning - we are more intelligent than computers, right?

    of course, people may come with the argument that they hate different UI's and only like . my reply to this is easy: if you are serious with image processing, you do not spend hours playing with UI's but after using the one you have atm installed for some work you do, believe me, you will automatically learn where the features and options are hidden of this app. once you are forced to work with photoshop after working with gimp a long time, if you are just someone who wants to play with some photos taken on last holidays, you may argue about UI's and hate the one or other UI. if you want to do image processing, you do not care what UI you use if the process and result are the same.

    i really like the gimp UI, because every image has it's own menu, the widgets are gtk2 and can be teared appart. you can have separate menus in separate windows and so on...

    on the other hand, i use nip2 for tasks that are not possible with gimp. it has a completely different UI but also this UI has its advantages.

    for converting or resizing images, i would suggest all of you to use the command line, as it is much easier than any UI available (imagemagick)

    am i telling that photoshop or photopaint have a bad UI? no, not at all. their UI's are also very much usable. so what is it i want to explain here? for subject i have choosen "i like gimpshop", so that's what i want to explain.

    photoshop, photopaint and other closed source image processing apps you have to pay for to have them. if you want to use them, you have to learn their UI. paying for it, you are also motivated to get along with the UI to use also all their features. as newbie in image processing, you spent some money and now you want to get a long with it. you begin to like the UI. - you write history in your mind in this field learning this UI.

    gimp, nips2, imagemagick and others that are opensource, have the advantage, that their UI can be addapted to the person who knows how to modify them. gimpshop is exactly one such approach. the community of photoshop users who wants to use gimp has now a nice approach to have photoshop behaviour in gimp.

    i myself will probably never use gimpshop. as told, i like gimp as it i

  128. Don't be an ass... by BiOFH · · Score: 1

    OSS is not a private party for nerds. It's an answer to computing in society when confronted with poorly implemented and priced proprietary offerings. It's not a hangout for beards and ponytails. And "dumbed down"??? Well, put your geek money where your mouth is and you go write adjustment layers into the Gimp. I fucking dare you.

    We're all just peachy happy that you find the Gimp to be just to your liking. But, news flash, it wasn't written just for you or your Secret Beer Club. It was, despite a recent hysterical need by some to claim no such thing, written as a direct response to Photoshop, a program whose price put it out of the reach of most users.

    So OSS isn't for this guy or the original poster? He shouldn't expect accommodation for a good user experience and usability by the developers? (yet you then go on to talk about Script-Fu which is exactly such a thing) Well, that's the developer's goal: to make a product the end-user can use and use well.

    OSS isn't a locked room where you can hang out and talk about TOPS20 and point and laugh at the Windows users out in the snow. It's about extending the room, unlocking the door, and bringing everyone into the warm room so that we can ALL have good user experience with computing.

    To paraphrase you, 'Keep in mind that the whole reason anybody even cares about Photoshop is that it does what it does well.' And the Gimp doesn't do it quite so well [yet]. The idea is to change the latter to be like the former. Not bitch at people who want that to happen... which won't win you lots of friends either.

    --
    - I am made of meat.
    1. Re:Don't be an ass... by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      Don't be an ass...

      Congratulations. You have just shocked me with your complete and utter brass gall to say such shit.

    2. Re:Don't be an ass... by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      Now, this poster has a good head on his/her shoulders: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/0 9/18/1549249&tid=185&tid=8 Seriously, if you don't like open source then you're free to get your software somewhere else.

      Straight to the point. But never mind simple logic, you arrogant fool, and go ahead with your plan: tell me, without contributing a shred of work yourself, how you are going to convince the people doing the work who do it to please themselves and the needs of their job/task/solution to drop all that and code just to please you instead? If you want Photoshop, you know where to find it. If you want Gimp, use it. If Gimp is too limited, extend it with the plug-in system. If it just won't do, go code something else. None else but a FOOL would believe that their options were any more than that.

      On a personal note, my main regret is that we can't restrict the access to Open Source software to exclude you people who want to "write a book detailing the inadequacies of Gimp"...because shit like you isn't fucking WORTHY!

    3. Re:Don't be an ass... by BiOFH · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on making a bigger ass of yourself.

      So tell me, of voice of OSS, about all your contributions to OSS? I'm just _dying_ to hear about your latest patch. Please. we're all listening. Because it's clear you must be a major contributor judging from the personal affront you take from all the 'leeches' (although the constant references to how you were, up until [relatively] recently, a Windows user for so long would make one assume otherwise, but, alas, we surely just need to look at your record, no?)

      You must be a heavily vested contributor considering a) your desire to have the power to restrict something which has always wanted to be free (have you read ANYTHING about the history of OSS????????) and b) your writing off me and anyone else in this thread as 'unworthy' without know what they might have contributed.

      And while we're laying out personal notes -- if I'm gonna be dictated to about OSS by someone on /. , it's not gonna be from you. The original poster and I both have been at this far longer than you, sunshine, so don't you freaking dare presume to tell me what the movement is about. I was there in the day when a distro was just a tarball you got from a friend or UG and worked all week to get running on your machine.

      People espousing exclusionary attitudes, like yours, would just as soon have us stay back in those days just so you can feel like you belong to a secret club. Well, that's not what OSS is about. It's about bringing a better computing world to everyone, not just you.

      --
      - I am made of meat.
    4. Re:Don't be an ass... by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      People espousing exclusionary attitudes, like yours, would just as soon have us stay back in those days just so you can feel like you belong to a secret club. Well, that's not what OSS is about. It's about bringing a better computing world to everyone, not just you.

      Wow, what a spin 'round from the first time!

      Hey, don't get me wrong, I know I'm going full steam off the deep end on this issue. I've gone way below my usual level. And I feel justified because: I'm sick and tired of all the Linux-bashing. It would be justified if Linux was a mega-corporation holding you in economic hostage. It would be justified if the Gimp came with a big, red stamp: "GUARANTEED to meet your every graphics need, especially to satisfy your craving for a Free-Photoshop." It would be justified if you had to pay even the lordly sum of $0.01 for it.

      But isn't it free? Isn't it open source, so you can change what you don't like? Isn't it the product of somebody else's time and sweat? Doesn't the source file have the standard disclaimer in the front of it:

      BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
      ? Since you claim to have been part of Free Software since Richard Stallman got frustrated trying to fix that copier, you never took a gander at this? Or can I safely assume, based on your spitting on GNU/Linux one minute and declaring that you were there when the first kernel was hacked the next, that your whole story's full of hooey?

      Argue 'til you turn blue, I don't care. There it is from GNU itself: "We never promised you nirvana in a file. If it breaks, you get to keep both pieces."

      Now go watch TV or something. Hey, there's probably a football game on!

    5. Re:Don't be an ass... by BiOFH · · Score: 1

      "Or can I safely assume, based on your spitting on GNU/Linux one minute and declaring that you were there..."

      Spitting on GNU/Linux? What the fuck are you talking about? This is/was (and I think 'was' is where I'm heading) about the GIMP. Where did I spit on GNU/Linux? If anything I'm defending the spirit of OSS against the evil it was created to defeat: exclusion. You need to either work on your reading comprehension (since you clearly understood neither me nor the ideas espoused in the OSS movement) or have your head examined.

      Good day, grow up and piss off.

      PS - Loose ends: I don't watch football, my first Slackware install had a kernel that started with a 0, I'm quite secure in my credibility and my resume backs me up, I'm a girl and I don't have time for boys' clubs or people who can't take criticism of their projects' shortcomings.

      --
      - I am made of meat.
    6. Re:Don't be an ass... by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      Great, all this time arguing with a schizophrenic...

      OK, direct quote from the end of your last post: criticism of their projects' shortcomings.

      Which was effectively rebutted by:

      BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

      Your whole *attitude* spits on GNU, the GPL, Linux, and all that is holy. And now I know why: your knee-jerk response to the suggestion (which I indicated has no bearing to fruitition, for the simple reason that it would be immoral) that some people should be excluded (for the same reason you exclude thieves and vandals from your house) was to assume I was talking about "kick the girls out and keep it a boy's club!". Like there's *never* *been* a female geek?

      And next I suppose you're black, gay, poor, old, and an atheist; which also opens me to attack on the grounds that I'm racist, homophobic, elitist, ageist, and a religious fanatic. Thank you, this explains a lot. Whatever you were reading into my comments, you're reading one thing and seeing something else.

      No harm done. Have a nice life. And, uh, wish there was hope for you, but if you see the world through sexist-colored-glasses, then sexism will be all that you see. But try to have a nice life, anyway.

    7. Re:Don't be an ass... by BiOFH · · Score: 1

      Your ability to totally miss the point really is staggering.

      --
      - I am made of meat.
    8. Re:Don't be an ass... by Hosiah · · Score: 1

      Can't help it. Have a penis. Makes me stupid. Go plot your overthrow of the 50% of the human race with the Y chromosome. We men are evil, remember? Bugga, bugga!

  129. But the problem is still there.. by Snaller · · Score: 1

    ... it opens a ton of windows on the desktop. I thought it was the linux crowed who started to moan about how browsers should be tabbed - well that extends to everything! That's one of the reasons I've never given it more than a couple of seconds test. Sorry but you are out. So the only thing I love about the Gimp at the moment is their little mascot. He's really cute :)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  130. So am I the only one? by ThePepe · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that doesn't mind the current Gimp interface? Admittedly it was a bit strange at first but thats only because I had previously used Photoshop's interface.

  131. Thanks for the show! by Hosiah · · Score: 1
    I just couldn't miss the fact that *somebody* wasted all of their mod points modding down five random comments of mine for random reasons after you quit posting to this thread. You are to vindictive revenge for imagined, petty slights what KMart is to blue-light-specials.

    My karma dropped from "excellent" to "good" for about five hours yesterday. It's back up to "excellent" today. Ooh, that tickled, do it again! I *love* the attention!