Slashdot Mirror
GIMP 2.6 Released
Enselic writes "The GIMP developers are proud to announce the release of GIMP 2.6. The release notes start with: 'GIMP 2.6 is an important release from a development point of view. It features changes to the user interface addressing some often received complaints, and a tentative integration of GEGL, the graph based image processing library that will eventually bring high bit-depth and non-destructive editing to GIMP.' The notes go on to say the toolbox menubar has been removed, the toolbox and docks now are utility windows, it's now possible to pan beyond the image border, the freehand select tool has been enhanced to support polygonal selections, and much more."
Man, just after I updated 2.2 to 2.4! @#@!#*!!!
One area I hope the GIMP team focuses on in the future is font rendering. I absolutely love working with GIMP, but the fonts still don't come out as nice as they do in Photoshop. I'm not graphical design savvy enough to know why, only that my fonts look like crud when compared to the smooth output of Photoshop.
Other than that, GIMP is an incredible product. Anyone doing casual graphical editing, just learning, or otherwise does not need the top-end features of Photoshop will be well-served by this package. Kudos for doing such an incredible job, guys! :-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
A question, is there CYMK color separation support already?
Sorry if this was implemented already, I havent checked on the Gimp in a while.
No sig for the moment.
I hope they'll make it more usable as in Krita.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
the Windows compile and installer is still only at 2.4.7.. A great release but it will take a couple of weeks or months before the windows people can enjoy the UI changes that will confound all the users for weeks on end until they get used to yet again a change in the UI.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now?
Yes, I know about gfig, and I know I can laboriously create paths and nonsense like that, but sometimes I just want to draw shapes simply and directly.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
It's not completely clear from the release notes: does this mean that the GIMP can now load and save images with 16 or 32 bits per colour channel, or is it still limited to 8-bit RGB despite the new GEGL engine under the hood?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Let's be honest here. I like GIMP, I generally prefer it over photoshop (for what I do). But it's not photoshop and it gets shit on for that reason. The solution: GIMP should ditch GTK/GDK and use GNUStep/Cocoa. This provides a number of advantages - free CMYK and pantone support, better font rendering, an improved UI, and direct access to artistic types. Photoshop on OS X is a dog -- the look and feel doesn't match and Adobe won't provide a 64-bit version until CS 5 (if then). An OS X native GIMP would kick it's ass.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Welcome to 1985 [wikipedia.org], GIMP developers...
Care to point us at a project you work on in your spare time so that we can mock it?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Mod p
So now with GEGL worked into GIMP, how long will it be until we see something equivalent to Photoshop's Layer Groups? Is it already in this release? (I didn't see anything about it in the release notes.) Sometimes simple projects grow in size to the point where it'd be very convenient to be able to better organize layers in groups and sub-groups. I like GIMP, and it would be much more practical for me to use it more often with this feature.
Some of us like the separated windows.
The article you linked to says: it has "box, circle or freehand lasso selection tools." The Gimp 2.4 already had box, circle, and freehand selection tools; that's old stuff. If you look at the Gimp 2.6 release notes (you don't even have to read it), you will see that a polygon selection tool is quite different.
The closest I've been able to get to this sort of functionality before has been to repeatedly add and subtract open-ended freehand regions, where the Gimp will automatically make a straight line between the end and starting points.
I just love Gimp. But why does Gimp have to separate the windows like that? Can't it have everything as a multi-document all under one window?
I thought that was the whole point of:
This enables window managers to do a much better job of managing the GIMP windows, including omitting the Toolbox and Docks from the taskbar and ensuring that the Toolbox and Docks always are above image windows.
Frankly, I liked it as it was. I hope there's an option to get back the old behavior. I often have different images in different work spaces.
Beetle B.
I just love Gimp. But why does Gimp have to separate the windows like that? Can't it have everything as a multi-document all under one window?
Because MDI interfaces are an obscenity before god, and implementing one should be a corporal offense. Let window management be handled by the window manager.
Can't we rename it to something better?
GNU Object Oriented Lightweight Image Editing Software?
Brought to you by the creator of ARSE.
You just got troll'd!
Can't it have everything as a multi-document all under one window?
Please, no! Multiple windows are great for multiple monitors and / or multiple documents being edited at once. I can't stand programs which force you into one window. If you want, you can combine all the tool docks into one, and thus have just a document window and a tool window, but please don't force us to do so!
Cheers
It's a long story, but the short version is that there's a ton of archaic, horribly outdated 8-bit legacy code gumming up the works. Until it's all replaced with 32-bit capable code, GIMP will continue to be unusable for photography beyond the party snapshot level.
You could already do a polygonal select, it's just not the tool you'd expect to use.
"Paths Tool: Create and edit paths (B)". Click point-by-point to create the polygon; don't bother closing it, it'll connect the first and last points automatically. As a bonus, you can create arcs instead of line segments if you so desire. Once you have the polygon, just hit "Selection from Path" and presto, there's your selection.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Of course it had polygonal select before, but not _in the freehand select tool_.
afaik there exists a extension or patch to do that.
Where do the Gimp developers advertise Gimp as being comparable to Photoshop? I dare to find one statement that's newer than 5 years.
Does he advertise projects he works on in his spare time as being comparable to Photoshop?
Where does GIMP advertise? And where do they claim to be comparable to Photoshop? In fact, I found
this document, which has the "Gimp Vision", part of which includes:
What GIMP is not:
* GIMP is not MS Paint or Adobe Photoshop
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Does he advertise projects he works on in his spare time as being comparable to Photoshop?
I've never seen any "advertisements" for the Gimp anywhere. I guess I haven't been paying attention.
That being said, the Gimp is comparable to Photoshop. You can compare anything to anything if you want, obviously. I myself enjoy comparing apples and oranges in my copious free time.
More importantly the Gimp is a free alternative to Photoshop, with different strengths and weaknesses. Both products seem to have a hellish learning curve, so you would be foolish to abandon Photoshop if you are already invested in it, and I suspect it'd be equally foolish to start an investment in Photoshop today when there is a free alternative available.
-1 troll? I was comparing it with a program from the 1980s which has this feature, just as a point of interest. I know it's open source so I'm just as much to blame as anyone for the lack of it; blaming 'the developers' was intended as a joke.
I don't really like X11 on my Mac...
In Photoshop CS3 you have the best of both worlds, you can undock the various elements and have them independently anywhere on the screen, or you can dock them in the main application window. That's always been the problem with the GIMP UI, those of us that don't like the default behaviour don't have the option of changing it (short of becoming a GIMP developer and forking the code, anyway). It doesn't look from the screenshots as if the old GIMP UI behaviour has really changed in the way implied anyway, but maybe I'm missing something.
Oh no... it's the future.
[note: I won't have a chance to try the new version until later tonight, so this post is based on earlier versions. This sounds fair to me, since the "MDI/SDI" debate has raged for centuries, and has, until now at least, been completely inapplicable to Gimp, which is neither]
Got it. Agreed.
Now show me ANY window manager which handles such a thing as well as, say, Photoshop's MDI for a single application.
It seems that everyone who makes this argument seems to be of the "virtual desktop" bunch (usually 1 application per desktop). ie: Those who don't actually use the primary feature of a windowed environment: Windows!
Meanwhile, GIMP tries to have it both ways, sharing arbitrary windows whose context depends on the last window selected, while (arbitrarily) putting "cross-window" features in [not a shared interface, but instead:] EVERY WINDOW.
There's MDI, there's SDI, and then there's GIMP, which has taken the worst features of both.
When I get home, I'll download the latest version, which may have actually addressed all of these complaints (the release notes tease more than any previous versions' has. I still expect it to be usability hell; but, for example, removal of the menu bar from the toolbox window sounds very promising.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Because MDI interfaces are an obscenity before god, and implementing one should be a corporal offense. Let window management be handled by the window manager.
Helloooo, tabbed interface?
This is good news for us photographers! 90% of the time, photographers only set constrast/brightness/level/curves of their photos. These tasks cause lots of color aliasing in 8bit mode, but they are just fine in 16bit mode. With Gegl support, I can use gimp for my photo flow :)
RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
Great, now I've been reading about Guybrush Threepwood for the last hour... Thanks a lot, Spatial and Wikipedia!
It's right here. Mock away.
It used to be possible (I would have been on 1.3 when I started), if I remember right, to create polygonal selections using the freehand select tool, holding down some key, and clicking points to define the corners. I've been on version 2+ long enough I've forgotten, however.
I know this is something of a surprise for people who hate the name GIMP but much of the world doesn't actually speak English (how the fuck do they manage to talk to each other? Nobody knows) and doesn't care, it means nothing. Can those prudish repressed souls who dare not speak its acronym please just use the full name and stop bothering everyone with your tedious hang ups? Thank you.
I try and try to use it as a photoshop replacement, I really do, but I am lost without it looking a lot more like Photoshop. And what's with all those top-level windows anyway? I use a multitasking OS because I multi-task. I don't want to have to minimize 7 windows when I want to minimize gimp.
I'm a smart guy. I can use image editors, but the layout and thinking of Gimp is just left of center, far enough to make me uncomfortable in it. Am I alone in this? Is Gimp not getting users because of it? Is this in turn slowing Linux adoption?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
It's typical developer thoughtlessness to use a name that most people associate with a disturbing scene in the movie Pulp Fiction for an application that supposedly wants to be taken seriously.
Not everybody has seen the movie Pulp Fiction. I for one haven't. For one thing, that movie is proprietary.
Ya. Your mostly wrong. Or at least misleading.
It's 8bit per channel with 4 channels; RGBA, which makes the code that handles that 32bits.
It's not so much the bit-i-ness of the code, it's the design of it.
Gegl, which is just now being integrated into Gimp, is capable of giving Gimp all the modern features that you get from Photoshop; and potentially more.
With GeGL you'll get all your CYMK, 8-bit RGBA, 32-bit RGBA, Floating point RGBA, HD color formats, non-destructive editing, chained undos, filter layers, blah blah blah.
People laugh. But when I taught a web class for my company last year, that name kept me from using this as the recommended graphic program of choice (used Photoshop elements instead).
Wow, I'm glad I don't work for your company. I mean, I understand where you are coming from, but it's a shame you have to pander to corporate cluelessness in such a fashion.
"Gimp" is the normal name used by seamstresses for a particular craft material since the 15th century. It's sold in stores all over the world without anyone objecting. Really, normal people just don't have any problem with the word "gimp" except possibly when it's used as a pejorative to mock cripples.
If your co-workers are likely to assume that a software program is somehow associated with a sado-masochistic scene from a director renowned for his obsession with disturbing and violent imagery, I can only conclude they are either disturbingly obsessed with sadism, masochism and ultra-violent movies, or profoundly stupid. Either way, I wouldn't want to spend 8 hours a day with them. You have my sympathy.
Only if you intend to publish on paper.
The people who publish on paper are vocal, and they have capital behind them. Does Amazon sell more books on paper or on Kindle?
Mod abuse. TheBig1's post is NOT offtopic.
As are books. Have you ever read one of them?
Are you trying to start a flame war?
You call THAT a viable alternative to Windows? It doesn't even work with my wireless card! :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Couldn't have said it better! I think the only people that complain about this are the ones using the Windows version of Photoshop... The Mac version is just about the same as the Gimp with all the "floating" windows. With Compiz Fusion and things like window grouping or expose, there is absolutely no reason you should have to restrict yourself and use an MDI.
But why are the eyeballs of Wilber (the GIMP mascot) on the /. summary rolling?! I for one don't welcome animated GIFs as /. story icons.
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
Some of us like the separated windows.
Yes, myself for one. I think it is an excellent idea to be able to leave a "family" of utilities floating there when they are to be called upon repeatedly. But it's a matter of habit and perspective: if you are used to working this way, Photoshop's approach seems unnecessarily clunky. It doesn't mean to say that one or the other is wrong.
Blah blah blah, the gimp interface is an obscenity before [i]me[/i].
I realize [i]I'm[/i] no one. But there are lots of "no ones" like me that think it's just too weird (and the Deweirdifyer doesn't quite cut it).
Normally I'm used to hearing, "patches welcome" (fat lot of good that will do with graphic artists wanting changes). But what a nice spin you've got on that.
Uhm.. Is PIMP any freer of unsavoury connotations than GIMP?
Because MDI interfaces are an obscenity before god, and implementing one should be a corporal offense. Let window management be handled by the window manager.
Helloooo, tabbed interface?
Damn you, Firefox, Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Safari, and unnumerable other applications with your ungodly tabbed interfaces! Why won't you just let the window manager do its job?
I myself enjoy comparing apples and oranges in my copious free time.
that sounds like a really boring hobby, you should try comparing apples with jet engines and oranges with elephants, it will make you a much more rounded individual who is happier about life in general.
Blazing Spiders
Actually, based on the screenshots, I suspect you can. Look at the taskbars.
Beetle B.
Even putting aside the Pulp Fiction connotation, I'm pretty sure our HR department would have a shit-fit over a program whose name also invokes a nasty derogatory term for those with leg deformities and injuries.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If they really never want to include a simple shape drawing tool, they need to add a Clippy-like popup: "It looks like you're trying to draw a shape using our back-asswards method. Let me show you the counterintuitive steps you'll need to take..."
Japanese puts the verb at the end of the sentence, after the object. For example, instead of "stroke this rectangle", it's "this rectangle stroke plz". German subordinate clauses work the same way, as does a main clause with a helping verb. GIMP just operates in Japanese word order: first you specify a rectangle, and then you fill and/or stroke it. Word processors act the same way: first you specify a run of text, and then you apply a style. So where does that leave us:
I agree, however it should be pointed out that there is a third option - have all the toolbars and pallets docked to the top/sides of the image window. This is what Krita and Paint.net both do, and new users generally find this layout to be much easier to manage. The disadvantage is that if you are editing more than one image at a time you end up wasting space with duplicate toolbars, but as long as you retain the option to undock the pallets for advanced users, then you haven't lost anything.
I don't like the name GIMP.
Is it possible to fork GIMP and change absolutely no functionality but the name? Or is this in violation of some kind of licensing or other issue?
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
You may be correct according to some ideal theory of window management. But in practice, having all those separate GIMP windows is horrible.
Here's what happens to me: I'm working on a website and I realize I need to modify some images. So I fire up Gimp and open 3 different files. I now have five new items on my task bar. (I'm at work so I'm on a Windows machine.) When I switch to my other applications and then back to the Gimp, I have to go hunting for the right set of windows. I have to guess which of the three open files I was editing last, since they are all scrunched up little boxes on the task bar. Once I find it, I have to manually bring the two main Gimp windows to the forefront.
If it were all in one window, I'd just alt-tab to the Gimp and I could instantly continue where I left off.
I don't want to take away the multi-window style for those who do prefer it. Couldn't we just have a checkbox in the settings? "Gather all Gimp interfaces into a single window." The application could look identical, it would just operate inside a big box. Everybody wins, no?
Because MDI interfaces are an obscenity before god, and implementing one should be a corporal offense. Let window management be handled by the window manager.
Or they could just rip-off other (better) applications like Paint.NET that have the best of both worlds, and which would shut up all those complainers in one fell swoop.
Why don't they? Two possibilities:
1) Either the code is such a mess of spaghetti that changing toolbar behaviors would be a total and complete bear to accomplish, and as such nobody's taken that task on
2) GIMP developers don't care about usability or pleasing users
I think it's some mix of the two, personally.
Comment of the year
(I'm at work so I'm on a Windows machine.)
And there's your problem. Windows is, ironically, terrible at managing windows.
I would suggesting getting a multi-workspace hack for your windows box, and running gimp on its own workspace. That way the taskbar remains manageable.
Historically, Gimp was fine for images intended to be viewed only on a computer screen, but shit for print, due to it using 8 bit color and not supporting CMYK. The fact that they're making strides in moving to GEGL with support for 32 bit color is a large part of what makes this an important release for the project. But it's not there yet, so for those who work in print, Photoshop is still vital.
Wonder what this will do to the CinePaint project...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
In their own words, "GIMP is our answer to the current lack of free (or at least reasonably priced) image manipulation software for GNU/Linux and UNIX in general."
It is a raster editor, which means that it performs operations directly on the pixels that make up the image, and not a vector editor. Other (proprietary) raster editors include Adobe Photoshop, Jasc Paintshop Pro and the humble Microsoft Paint. An alternative free editor is the KOffice project, Krita. Users wanting to edit photographs will certainly want a raster editor like GIMP. Graphic designers and illustrators may prefer a vector editor depending on their tastes.
If you're not trying to compete, perhaps you shouldn't mention them and critique their pricing in the official FAQ.
Care to point out why something should be exempt from criticism just because it is written and maintained by amateurs?
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
No thanks! I've no intention of installing X11 just for one application. Merely because it's "free".
Particularly with an ass-backwards interface for something as simple as drawing a circle or square.
Graphic Converter @ US$30, performs a substantial subset of Photoshop actions, uses most Photoshop plug ins/filters, including the latest incarnation of Noise Ninja (image noise reduction), AND does CYMK, too.
It also draws circles and squares.
And all without installing X11.
So, tell me again, why should should I jump through all the hoops to use GIMP on my Mac?
And 'Cuz it's free, man! Free as in beer, that's why!" is not an acceptable answer/explanation/incentive.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Are you trying to start a flame war?
You call THAT a viable alternative to Windows? It doesn't even work with my wireless card! :)
Maybe not, but it does work with smoke signals. I have a 33.6 kbps connection using just Linux and smoke signals.
Beat that, Microsoft!
Ignore this signature. By order.
Create a path..
Click "Select" menu..
"Stroke" path or similar.
It's not a drawing tool. Painting, *maybe*.
Drawing a circle with a paintbrush is different than with a pen.
Even if you hit the option to not have all the toolboxes show up in the alt-tab window (under ubuntu), then you have nothing to alt-tab to once all your documents are closed and you want to start a new one.
It's crufty and it shows. I use linux on all my machines, and despite trying my damndest to get the gimp to play nice, it simply won't.
-Bucky
For what 99% of people do with graphics, The GIMP DOES compete with Photoshop.
Or is Linux not a competitor to Windows because it doesn't do everything Windows does (even though it does many things better)?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
So fork and rename it to something decent, like 'Respectable Creator Application'
Loose lips lose spit.
What I want the most is for all the GIMP windows to focus at the same time. Having to separately click the several tool windows and document windows has to be my biggest annoyance with the GIMP.
A bunch of times I've tried to find a window manager that'll let me group several windows together into one MDI container, ideally with the toolboxes from the inner windows docked or at least floated on top. This would be superior to single-app MDI as things could be grouped by task rather than application. I've not found a single window manager that works like this. The best I could find were window managers that implement tabs at the top level, but that sucks for the toolboxes.
Maybe I'm just searching for the wrong thing. Do you have any window managers to recommend?
Man, you're lucky. Verizon said we can't get smoke signals out here yet. I'm stuck with carrier pigeons.
Well, if you are on some sort of Unix, you can enable focus follows mouse (or sloppy focus) and things just work great. I don't know about Windows - I think there are hacks which allow this, but I haven't used Windows for ages...
I do agree that without this, it is very annoying to have to click twice.
Cheers
Which is why you get a copy of the FLOSS program to share with others and ask people how much they'd charge to add the functionality you need, right? I'm hoping you're not just treating FLOSS developers as your unpaid workers, bad-mouthing their effort for not meeting your needs while giving them nothing in exchange.
With proprietary software the results are just the opposite: if I ask for features proprietary software doesn't have, I am either told the program won't do that or I don't really need to do that to begin with. Then, should I be foolish enough to get a copy of the proprietary program anyhow, I'm left with software I can't share or modify no matter my programming skill or the skill of the people I would have liked to have shared copies with. In one particular case I recall with Microsoft (I posted about it on /. years ago, but I'm not a /. subscriber so I can't point you to the specific post) I found bugs in their office software. When I contacted them they asked me for a credit card number so I could be charged just to tell them what was broken in their software.
Digital Citizen
Care to point out why something should be exempt from criticism just because it is written and maintained by amateurs?
His "criticism" was rude and not constructive - and actually not even correct.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
1) Criticism and mocking are not the same thing.
2) Amateur projects shouldn't be held to the same standards as professional ones because they receive significantly different resources as inputs, and so naturally differ quantitatively in their outputs.
The mocking post suggested that the developers were incompetent because their project was missing one random feature that some other program had years ago. An amateur project can't afford to implement every feature that a funded project does. These things require resources that simply may not be available to the amateur developer.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
That's probably more of a window manager issue, not a Gimp issue.
What GIMP is not:
* GIMP is not MS Paint or Adobe Photoshop
True, but also:
What GIMP is:
* GIMP is a high-end photo manipulation application
And this is where it fails massively right now. The high end has moved a lot higher since GIMP was released in the 90's.
I realize that Adobe can pour a lot more resources into PS than people who only have their spare time can pour into GIMP, but irrespective of underlying reasons, the result is the same: GIMP isn't high end. It just isn't.
It is a low-end, free alternative that does a lot of things very well, and that is very important. Actually, if the GIMP team just said that the GIMP is a mid-to-low end image editing application, they'd get a lot less flak.
But they say that they're high end and we're calling them on it.
Now complete the implication: how much of that capital are these people willing to spend on GIMP development (with any developers willing to hack on the GIMP, not only the first GIMP team)? And why haven't they funded CMYK GIMP code so far? The freedom of free software is not a promise that someone will do your work for you. It's a promise that you will have the freedom to do your work. This might mean spending money on development to meet your own needs.
Digital Citizen
I've got Gimp and Photoshop on my machine. Until this latest version of Gimp was released, I had the most current version of both.
I'm always grabbing Gimp for the simple photo editing I do, because I'm more familiar with it than I am with Photoshop.
What's amazing is that my daughter, who was not familiar with either application, has decided on her own to use Gimp more often for her (admittedly basic) photo editing.
Yes, I've made a cash donation to gimp.org more than once in the past several years.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Do you know whether there are any plans to 'interleave' the gimp with layers that do vector-drawing as well ? It would be so cool to be able to designate a layer for the one purpose or the other. I know that these newfangled text-layers are a step in this direction, but do you know whether they plan on going all the way ?
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
And this is where it fails massively right now.
It certainly cannot match Photoshop in features, but by your reasoning Photoshop is the only "high-end" photo manipulation app. Where is your threshold? Isn't it a bit subjective?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You should upgrade. I get 56kbps with RFC1149
GIMP is not... Adobe Photoshop
Yeah, and GNU's Not UNIX. Have you SEEN these two apps?
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y162/neotheawakening/FreeTutsPhotoshopToolbox1.jpg
http://math.hws.edu/eck/cs324/s04/lab1/gimp_toolbox.png
The marquee, lasso, magic wand, eyedropper, mgnifying glass, paint bucket, pencil, brush, eraser, airbrush, clone, blur, dodge, and smudge tools all look remarkably similar. (This was even moreso the case a few years ago before both apps got more stylized.) Some, like a rectangular marquee, are generic, others, like the paint bucket, pen, lasso, are quite specific. And even if Susan Kare made them for MacPaint in the first place, there are other differences. Look at the exact arrangement of the color-choosing items: the foreground, background, default, and switch icons and their arrangement are IDENTICAL.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
The wikipedia article was wrong. I have now fixed it. It only had Box and Polygon, no circles or freehand selection.
c++;
"apples to oranges" haha what a moron.
peaches to pears
mmmm fruit
Let window management be handled by the window manager.
I think that is the reason why some people bitch about the GIMP interface. I used to bitch about it too, when I was using the GIMP on Windows.
The problem is that the default window management in Micorsoft Windows is awful, reduced to minimze, maximize and restore. Therefore, using the GIMP there is an absolute hell.
In contrast, when using The GIMP on Linux, you have several other functions like Virtual Desktops, always on top, always on back, pin to all desktops, among others.
That is why I would suggest getting something like Dexpot or other decent window manager for Windows which provides some of such features (I use VirtuaWin, unfortunately it only provide the virtual desktops and no other functions).
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
"By default the legacy 8bit code paths are still used, but a curious user can turn on the use of GEGL for the color operations with Colors / Use GEGL." Non destructive image manipulation is what many people need for raw image processing in HDR photography! GIMP will not be a toy for adding frames to family pictures anymore. Use more GEGL and no need for photoshop, opensource rules.
.
There is really nothing I can add to this.
Sir, I wish I could mod you to infinity. That's one of OSS's biggest hurdles right now, keeping it locked out of mainstream awareness. OSS has great coders, but a real dearth of UI designers, technical writers, and basic marketing people. So you end up with coders (who think they don't need these people) designing great software that is rendered completely inaccessible by horrid UI's, poor to non-existent documentation, and stupid marketing moves (like this kind of poorly-thought-out naming).
Just look at 99% of OSS websites, done by coders who have no idea how to present their software to anyone but other coders--leading to my tip:
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
GO TO HELL FUCKWADS!
-Spatial
Be honest, tell us what you really think.
2) Amateur projects shouldn't be held to the same standards as professional ones because they receive significantly different resources as inputs, and so naturally differ quantitatively in their outputs.
Projects, amateur or not, should be held to same standards they are compared with. If, in hypothetical situation, some discussion goes to compare, say, GIMP and unnamed proprietary software the standards should be the same within the context of the discussion.
In this context, the original comparison might have been unfair, but the quoted comment was unfair as well.
Do you know whether there are any plans to 'interleave' the gimp with layers that do vector-drawing as well ? It would be so cool to be able to designate a layer for the one purpose or the other. I know that these newfangled text-layers are a step in this direction, but do you know whether they plan on going all the way ?
They better solution would be to use the upcoming Inkscape Inkcore to deal with Vectors. Whether that happens is to be seen.
I'd rather they leverage communications with Inkscape where you create a layer objects that reference, by Inscape file or within Inkscape file->specific layer of file objects that dynamically update after changes are made from Inkscape and later resynched within Gimp, manually after knowing you have those changes available. In other words, if the file objects have changed in characteristics, then upon returning to Gimp, apply a granularity by object or layer all changes, or just a general globe update all changes to file.
With a proper drawing tool, it's select and apply in a single atomic operation.
If you have separate tools for rectangular selection, rectangular stroke, and rectangular fill, then you select the verb when you select the tool. You don't have separate "bold", "italic", "larger", and "smaller" tools in a word processor, do you?
Paging Dr. Morissette. Dr. Morissette to the Irony Ward please.
I think you missed the subtle difference between comparison and criticism.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I mean seriously. It can't possibly be that hard to fork and rebrand it. I'm sure distros wouldn't mind including it in their repositories.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
...would undoubtably smell as sweet, but wouldn't make it past marketing.
I supsect that was the reason Mandrake Linux decided to forgo the name of a deadly plant for Mandriva. But does anyone use Mandriva? And what is a Mandriva anyway?
One thing the name GIMP does is it does stick in your head. If it was Photo___ or some other common name, would we even remember it? I do agree I wish it had less negative connotations. Maybe they should shorten it to IMP and make a little devil logo.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
You must be american, only an american could be misunderstanding the usage of the word "free" in relation to the other free, as in libre, alternative Krita.
The thing that causes me problems in the Gimp is that text is rasterized as soon as it's scaled or otherwise manipulated by any means other than changing the point size in the text dialog. This means that if I have a block of text that I've resized by drag handles, or if I've rescaled the image, as soon as I edit the text content it reverts to the original point size.
Has that been fixed in any recent versions?
There are no binaries for windows yet. Therefore it is basically not released. No I will not jump through a billion hoops to compile it for windows when someone else is already doing that and will most likely finish sooner then me.
Most of the time people only have one monitor. Professionals, who may well have two, use Photoshop anyway. The dual-monitored too-poor-for-photoshop crowd is too small to take their comfort into consideration.
Oh, please. You're clutching at straws.
Where exactly in what you quoted is Photoshop's price criticised? The only bit that mentions pricing is explicitly talking about software available for Linux, which does not include Photoshop.
As for "mentioning", the only mentioning in what you quoted is in the context of explaining what a raster editor is, in which context Photoshop is mentioned as one of three well-known examples, along with Microsoft Paint. GIMP does not compete with either of those products, and nothing in the FAQ implies it does.
Since Gimp 2.0 (which was released years ago), you can dock any tool dialog.
If there were any window managers that actually managed to manage GIMP's windows in a convenient way, I might even support that sentiment. Back in the real world, GIMP is hard to use with most of the popular window managers, and that is GIMP's problem, not theirs.
Special thanks to Jernej Simoni for the Windows installers.
Keep up the good work!
Ultimately what one defines as high or low end is subjective, you are right. However, if you look at what people are complaining about a couple of features do tend to crop up quite often:
* high bit depth editing (16 bit in particular)
* CMYK and color management
* Non-destructive editing, especially levels & curves. I know some packages can apply image filters non-destructively as well, but I'd not set the bar quite there.
Looking at which people complain about what, I'd say I see a lot of people who edit images for a living who complain about the above three features not existing in the GIMP, and for whom these features are vital. Not vital as in "can't do the job without them" - after all, there was a time before Photoshop, and photos were still edited back then - but vital as in "not having this feature reduces my productivity so much that I'd rather pay for Photoshop and suffer closed source software" and as in "I can't stay competitive in the market for graphic professionals without it".
So I'll go out on a limb here and define what high-end means for me like so: A package that the overwhelming majority of graphic professionals in most sectors of the business could comfortably switch to and use as their primary image editing tool.
GIMP ain't there yet. And you don't have to take my word for it - the fact is that GIMP just isn't used by graphics professionals as much as Photoshop. The target group for high-end image editing software has voted with their wallets and feet and gone to Adobe.
What GIMP has done is set a floor for image editing programs. No image editor can be sold that is worse than the GIMP. In that way, it provides a very useful service to the market. The coders at Adobe can't slack off too much, no matter the lock-in they think they have.
Care to point us at a project you work on in your spare time so that we can mock it?
If you can't stand the heat...
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
a) you pervert if you think GIMP means something rude
b) if you already know that gimp is something rude, how does using the program show anything about you that NOT using the program (because of the name) has told us?
c) A rose by any other name would smell as sweet
d) you're a very shallow person
peaches to pears
Oh, come on. Peaches and pears aren't remotely comparable. Peaches are obviously better.
Have you ever heard of a pear cobbler? Can you name and princesses named after pears? No, of course not. Because pears can suck it.
(Mod insightful, please.)
The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
Pfft.
If you're looking for insult, you'll find it ANYWHERE.
"For what 99% of people do with graphics, The GIMP DOES compete with Photoshop."
I entirely agree: for what 99% of people do with graphics, both are horrible. They're completely unusable for people who only want to go beyond MSPaint for 5 minutes every few months.
I'm not one of the 1% of people (actually that seems high) who do things with graphics for which Photoshop is the right tool, so I can't speak from personal experience. The handful of people I know in that group (profesional graphic artists), don't think the GIMP measures up. I can't tell you if they have a point or just like what they know. But arguing the GIMP is just as good for all but the obscure corner cases is silly: if you don't need those obscure corners, you don't need Photoshop anyway.
you should try comparing apples with jet engines and oranges with elephants, it will make you a much more rounded individual who is happier about life in general.
I'm stealing this for my sig!!!
So I'll go out on a limb here and define what high-end means for me like so: A package that the overwhelming majority of graphic professionals in most sectors of the business could comfortably switch to and use as their primary image editing tool.
Which is a long way of saying: Photoshop is the only high-end image editing app. :)
For what it's worth, movie professionals (who do not care about CMYK) often use Cinepaint, which is a fork of GIMP. It supports 16-bit color. So while people who need to go to a pro printer or people who need 16-bit do need something more than GIMP, it's not as if the software is unusable for professionals.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Polygonal support in the freehand select tool is a purely redundant feature in Gimp. For ages Gimp has had a competent paths tool, and you can create selections from paths.
The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
Thing is, there are a lot of us that want to do more than what MSPaint allows (besides, it's not even available on my choice of OS), but don't need the CMYK separation or any of the other stuff. I still want to tweak levels and do color adjustments, resize pictures well, scale, crop, rotate, reduce red-eye, and so on. But I don't need Photoshop for that... I can get the capability to do everything 99% of people would ever want to do with an image for free with the GIMP, instead of paying for Photoshop. Which was my point, that the GIMP does everything with images that most people would use Photoshop to do.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Speaking of huge image.. I sometime process gigapixel panoramas, and I really wish that The Gimp would fare a bit better with them. Don't get me wrong, it actually loads them and lets me edit them.. but it still works on, essentially, the entire image even when I'm only doing a bit of clone brushing in what is a tiny, tiny little piece of the image.
It's what makes me miss the concept of Macromedia XRes. It basically kept track of whatever you were doing only within the resolution and space of what you were seeing on your screen.. much like Google Maps doesn't load the entire superhighres Earth into your browser, just tiles - and tiles suited to your zoom level at that. That makes working with this sort of thing *much* faster. The only downsides are 1. it has to tile the thing up before you go to work with it and 2. if you performed any actions at levels other than 1:1, it has to 'render' those into your output resolution.. which takes a bit of time.
However, I would much prefer the machine chewing on all my actions for half an hour while I go out for lunch, than sit around waiting 10 seconds, 30 seconds, 2 minutes, between operations.. it makes me a lot less productive.
I'm stealing this for my sig!!!
OK I'm not :-( Apparently this is too long a signature for the stupid Slashdot to bear.
I just love Gimp. But why does Gimp have to separate the windows like that? Can't it have everything as a multi-document all under one window?
I thought that was the whole point of:
This enables window managers to do a much better job of managing the GIMP windows, including omitting the Toolbox and Docks from the taskbar and ensuring that the Toolbox and Docks always are above image windows.
I guess they weren't counting on retarded window-managers like Mac OS X...
"yes, really I wanted you to totally ignore my click on that window just because it wasn't focused at time. gee, thanks I'm glad you saved me from inadvertantly doing something useful with only one mouseclick!"
Multiple windows are great for multiple monitors and / or multiple documents being edited at once.
Talking of which, it would be nice if selecting 20 documents in Windows and "open with... GIMP" didn't launch 20 separate GIMP tasks (each with its own long-winded "loading plugins..." startup sequence)
I agree completely! This is one of the best features of gimp, especially when combined with windowmanager features like fluxbox' tabbing.
I say let the users choose how they want to work. This may mean implementing an alternate MDI *as an option* might be a good idea, so that people can use gimp that way if they want. Open-source software, in my mind, is about freedom of choice as well as freedom to distribute and/or modify.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
What I'm saying is that by decreeing that their driver works with the card, and it actually doesn't work with the card, that's a huge waste of my time and effort.
They could have qualified it with "as of (date) and (serial number) and (whatever) the Hauppage 150 is supported by IVTV". If that wasn't certain enough they could have thrown in "for all the boards we have been able to test". At that point their assurances would amount to well-wishing. That amount of truth might have discouraged you, and saved you a lot of time. Or it might not, and you would still be annoyed, but blaming the developers would be a less viable option.
Now consider the bigger picture: Implying that the Hauppage WinPVR in the shop may not work would discourage quite a few buyers. What if the majority of those users would have gotten a device that did work, if they weren't discouraged? Would that be a Good Thing? At a certain point, presenting a near-certainty as a certainty becomes more instrumental than covering asses. Under-selling to the extreme to keep those who got burned from having a legitimate complaint doesn't really work. If they had a bad user experience, they will likely compain anyway.
Well, you kind of agree with me here, and I agree with you here: Cinepaint is a fork of GIMP. So, standard GIMP is still out... But it proves that GIMP is close, so close. And yet so far away.
And yes, it was a very roundabout way of saying that PS is the only high-end application. Sad but true - Adobe has the market.
However, if GIMP did get 16-bit editing and all that, we're talking serious competition.
Make that ultra-serious. Adobe won't know what hit 'em.
They're rolling out the upgrades. I've recently switch from the pigeons to whistling down the phone line. It takes more concentration, but the bandwidth is immense when you try hard enough.
I don't know if you have the same binaries on Windows as *nix, but if you associate with gimp-remote.exe rather than gimp.exe, it should only open one instance. (At least that works on Unix platforms).
Cheers
All the people wanting MDI probably have one common trait, they don't know or even imagine what window management looks like, because they come from os thats ironically called windows... And i don't know about how others think but I'd say nor gnome nor kde does descent window management, of course its orders of magnitude better than windows but still. From windows managers i have seen and tried (quite many) id say fluxbox is best, it misses a feature or two I'd want but its so damn good at window management that i use it even on my new reasonably powerful machine. Of course i understand that it is not for everyones taste.
More thing i don't understand: icons on desktop. Whats up with that? I see no real good use of them or improvement in usability. Compared to fluxbox type menu.
Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death. - Major Motoko Kusanagi(Ghost in the Shell)
Please!
'Nuff said.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
Now show me ANY window manager which handles such a thing as well as, say, Photoshop's MDI for a single application.
OS X does a pretty darn good job. Its Expose, command-tab, and its global menu bars make managing applications with lots of windows pretty easy.
Coincidentally, Photoshop only uses MDI on Windows. The OS X interface is SDI. The GIMP is highly influenced by OS X's Photoshop interface.
There's only one window manager in the wild that's incapable of handling non-MDI reasonably well.
The problem is, on that particular OS alternate window managers are nearly unheard of.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Metacity works like a charm.
It basically kept track of whatever you were doing only within the resolution and space of what you were seeing on your screen.
Isn't this what TFS is on about?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I just threw out MSPaint as an example of something really low end - it does very little, but that very little is easy to do, and handles some fraction of my image manipulation needs. I too want to occasionally do stuff that it can't, primarily the sorts of things you mention.
I know both Photoshop and the GIMP are capable of everything I need, and much more. But I've tried to do the things I need in both, and in both I have pretty much utterly failed - or at the least taken an hour to figure out a 2 minute job. Either may be great for someone who uses them more than once a week, but the learning curve is just too steep for someone who wants to use it for five minutes a month.
For my image manipulation needs beyond paint, I turn to the (really fairly craptastic) program that came free with my low-end digital camera.
GIMPs learning curve means most people will never use it to "tweak levels and do color adjustments, resize pictures well, scale, crop, rotate, reduce red-eye, and so on." . It's only going to get used by people going well beyond cleaning up snapshots, so it's going to get compared to Photoshop on CMYK separation, etc.
The bit you quote doesn't critique Photoshop pricing at all. Perhaps from the author's perspective Photoshop is perfectly reasonably priced. Maybe deep down the author would happily pay for a copy Photoshop Elements for Linux and would dump the GIMP for it, but Linux PSE simply isn't available. Photoshop is not acceptable because it's not available "for GNU/Linux and UNIX in general." There are Photoshop-like raster editors available for Unix. And (last I checked, admittedly many years ago) they were insanely expensive because they targeted specialized clients like film and television; prices tended to be "Contact us for prices" and on up. (Interestingly, the GIMP has had lots of success here, via the Cinepaint fork.)
And they shouldn't even mention Photoshop? They're not saying they're equivalent to Photoshop, they're drawing examples of other raster editors to try and make it clear what they're talking about. Trying to explain what a raster editor is without mentioning the gorilla in the room would be like describing a word processor without mentioning Microsoft Word. It may not be equivalent, but it will explain things for lots of people who think they need Photoshop when they actually need a raster editor in general, in much the same way that some people think they need "The Internet" when they are actually looking for a web browser.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
I like the name GLIMPs (Graphical Layer-based Image Manipulation Program) because the name still sounds and looks a bit like GIMP, and also has a visual meaning.
Actually, it is a Gimp issue, and it's fixed in this release. Gimp now has a "no image window" which opens when you launch Gimp or close all your images, which you can alt-tab to.
Unfortunately, with the last Windows development build they still haven't managed to get Windows to hide the utility windows from the task bar. (I don't know about the final build, because the Windows version always lags by a few days, and Linux isn't my primary OS.)
The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
Paint.NET might be a good choice for you. It's much more advanced that MS Paint, actually nearer to Photoshop's abilities, but doesn't have the horrible UI that GIMP does.
The only bit that mentions pricing is explicitly talking about software available for Linux, which does not include Photoshop.
Right, and I was hesitant at first to use it. Then I found the Slashdot article how Disney helped push Wine compatibility for Photoshop. So it seems, for commercial graphics in Linux, Photoshop + Wine is actually in use.
We could exchange semantics all day (and grasp at straws, as you said), but you'd have to be pretty out there to think the GIMP and Photoshop aren't in direct competition with one another. Whether or not GIMP wants them to be is irrelevant.
For what 99% of people do with graphics, The GIMP DOES compete with Photoshop.
Just like MSPaint
It's not OSS, but Picasa is free as in beer, makes all of the things you've mentioned pretty simple, and I've found that it actually runs pretty well on old hardware.
It's available for Windows and Linux. I don't know if it's available for Mac.
I thought that this made it obvious that I wasn't running Windows. It's a neat app, but it won't work for me.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I suggest: The NERF
Could we just switch it to GnIMPh and be done?
I'm eagarly awaiting for 16bit (or float) per channel. The UFRaw process and produce result in 16bit, and then they are thrown away when passed to GIMP.
Looks like this is not here yet (I'm feeling 2.6.x will do, or 2.8 tops), but they took the all-important first step, using GLEG.
If they admit and address all the other issues too, maybe 3.0 will rock. someday..
factor 966971: 966971
They may say they're in the same category (raster editors), but they're not comparing.
signature is pants
"I just threw out MSPaint as an example of something really low end"
I thought this made it obvious I wasn't recommending MSPaint. If it helps you understand my argument, substitute KolourPaint (I've heard it's great). But it's irrelevant to my point which is:
Defending GIMP by saying the differences with Photoshop only matter to high-end users is silly, because GIMP (and Photoshop) are unsuitable for low to middle range users.
I'm sorry if this sounds, dunno, trollish or something, but your problem clearly lies in Windows' horrid window management. Ideally, Alt+Tab'ing to TheGIMP should bring back all of your GIMP-related windows in the order they were when you last Alt+Tab'ed out of them, and that's how Photoshop (and MS Word ;) works on a Mac, IIRC, and how it should work now on Linux with TheGIMP if I understand correctly, but I haven't tried it yet.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
...So, let's just start with what we have. What did this do to you? Tell me. And remember, this is for posterity so be honest. How do you feel? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes) Sorry, it's just my second favourite film. ever. Seriously though, I like how gimp is no longer cloning photoshop, but seems to be heading in it's own path. I haven't heard much of GIMP for the last couple of years, and I don't use it myself, so this seems like a large jump to me.
I tried Picassa once, quite a while ago, so apologies if this is out of date, but my impressions were:
1. It wants to own the whole way I organize and interact with my photos. I hate that.
2. More generally, if there was a familiar way to handle some interface element that fit in with how other apps and OS components did it, Picassa tried to make it more intuitive by doing something totally different. Maybe it's just a pet peeve, but any windows app that doesn't have a pull-down menu named "File" with options named "Open" and "Save"... was written by wankers who think too much of themselves, and not enough of my time.
3. But besides all that, it's not really what I want in any case. I want some simple drawing tools. I want to do what Picassa does as an editor (but not an organizer), but I also want to do what Paint does as an editor; or what it would do if it were really designed for photographs and not icons. I want to be able to pull up a snapshot, correct the slight over-exposure, crop it, and draw a dorky mustache on my brother. In one app, without more learning time than the task is worth.
I googled "Milk Plus" and I found a lot more than the old Korova moloko I was expecting! Thanks for the corroborating evidence.
Can you spare some cutter, me brothers?
Alternately, you could look at Windows' style of window management as a design decision by Microsoft. Yes, it was a poor design decision, but Gimp can't do anything about that. What Gimp can do is to make a minor change in order to improve usability within the Windows environment. Windows expects an application to group its windows together rather than depending on the window manager. Is that so hard to work around?
What would be ideal doesn't deal with reality. If I bring my laptop to Europe, I don't say "ideally I should be able to plug this into the wall socket just like I do at home," and then grin as I try to jam it into the 220V socket. I accept reality and buy an adapter.
I was completely correct in my original thought. You are a fucking idiot. Your analogy makes no sense whatsoever.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Absolutely. I think for a great number of people who occasionally have to work with images, and need to do more complex operations that MS Paint can handle, the GIMP usually has the tools to do it. Finding them can be another matter though!
I like that everything is scriptable / repeatable. For our company website, we need to make images in a set size / aspect, with rounded corners. The GIMP is brilliant for this sort of thing, because anyone who edits a page can just follow a few keystrokes in a guide and create a perfect matched image.
From this point of view, the ease of use isn't such an issue. An experienced user can write the guide, and following it to repeat effects on other images is trivial. I suspect this pattern of usage is actually pretty common for corporate use, and in my view, preferable in many ways to handing over to a graphic designer and waiting for the results.
hear hear, I'm a web developer and have just started doing my own graphic design (graphic designers are such a rip off) and I've found that I can make a website look just as snazzy with GIMP as those overcharging wankers can with Photoshop. Keep up the good work GIMP devs.
-- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
Hmm, I think if your job is working with photos or images, then learning Photoshop is probably one of the most valuable investments of time you could make.
However, if your job isn't working with photos I agree that the GIMP is likely to provide everything you want for free.
Much like I'd advise any programmer to invest time learning vim, but never any non-programmers. If you're going to spend a lot of time doing anything, it's probably a good idea to use the best tools to do it.
near's I can tell - no. The GIMP will be taking advantage of GEGL mainly for high bitdepth operations for color and, to an extent, non-destructive operations, in its current form. As I understand it, GEGL -can- do what I was referring to (through much poking about with its APIs) unless they forgot to note this entirely, I don't think The GIMP does any of that.
With every release I'm waiting for cmyk curves and I don't see them(
http://www.stealthtdi.com/NewJettaCropped.jpg http://www.drivearabia.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/2009_toyota_corolla_european_version_001.jpg Look, they both have 4 wheels (both with rubber tires), both have a front mounted engine, use front wheel drive, have a similar body shape and use near identical controls... Using your logic process it's obvious that Toyota is ripping off VW.
I think of good, old Deluxe Paint when I see the tool palettes.
Another release, another batch of new features and improvements; NOW all it needs is a new name that doesn't make IT staff cringe whilst recommending it to normal people.
How about "DirtyPirateHooker 2.6", or perhaps, "Spankings 2.6". And more suggestions?
UPDATE: The Gimp still sucks and addresses none of the issues I've mentioned.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
LIMP - Linux Image Manipulation Program MIMP - Mac Image Manipulation Program or best of all WIMP - Windows Image Manipulation Program!
I just can't be bothered.
It seems that everyone who makes this argument seems to be of the "virtual desktop" bunch (usually 1 application per desktop). ie: Those who don't actually use the primary feature of a windowed environment: Windows!
I don't use virtual desktops. Very often - and always when editing images - I have multiple windows open. Gimp, Firefox (preview), File manager, HTML editor. I've never seen anything that works better with multiple windows than Gimp.
At work I use Microsoft Windows, and one thing I really hate are MDI windows. These are basically one program that wants the entire screen by itself. If I make it smaller than the screen, there isn't room for all the crap they put inside the container window. And if I have two of these programs open, I need to switch between them, rather than moving their sub-windows into usable positions.
I want to be able to move sub-windows between sub-windows of other programs. I want to be able to change the stacking order so that the drawing is on top, firefox is partially behind (a bigger screen might be a great idea), and firefox is above the brushes window when I don't use it. I can't do either with an MDI program.
I don't like the name GIMP.
Is it possible to fork GIMP and change absolutely no functionality but the name? Or is this in violation of some kind of licensing or other issue?
It is worth noting that Firefox has gone through many name changes and Netscape early on organised things so that they could easily rebrand mozilla as Netscape (or Navigator) if they wanted to.
The GIMP has no such convenient abstractions of the name which makes the task more awkward but not impossible. They even said they would reject patches that would make rebranding easier.
I have been stopping to use GIMP almost - I use it to edit a photo and add transparency, and then I save it as PNG - THAT resulting picture/foto I import into Inkscape.org and let it trace (create a vector version of it) and then I start to edit it within Inkscape - since 0.46 it has blur effect on all forms - whenever you need to create an illustration or graphic, use Inkscape - GIMP with it's pixel focus doesn't do it. I draw a graphic ONCE and export it as PNG at ANY resolution I wish, no pixelation, NONE. It anoyed me to pain in high rest with GIMP and scale it down every time I needed and favico.png or a splash image (200x100 or so) and etc - now I have one .SVG, I create one graphic and I "clone" it with ALT+D (CTLR+D does duplicate), the clone I rescale and export as PNG - whenever I change/edit the master, all clones change, but the exporting resolution remains!
Xara LX seems to provide both, but isn't as stable/useable as Inkscape+GIMP yet.
Well since we're doing truth. Here's another. This year will not be "the year of desktop Linux". Nor will any other for those who need certain capabilities. The people OSS is trying to convince will stick with what they have (and piracy just ensures that any "but it's free" arguments go down in flames). As for "critical mass", well you all are certainly pushing that as far into the future as you can.
unless they forgot to note this entirely, I don't think The GIMP does any of that.
The way I read it was the The GIMP is adding GEGL in now so they have a base to do that kind of stuff in a subsequent release. I have no first-hand knowledge.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
that sounds like a really boring hobby, you should try comparing apples with jet engines and oranges with elephants, it will make you a much more rounded individual who is happier about life in general.
As a typical Slashdotter I was immediately wary of the pear shape implications of "rounded individual". Would there be an alternative expression that is not comparable to pear or other fruit?
Best case scenario, IMO, would be toolbox windows that didn't show in the taskbar/alt-tab order... just the actual image being edited would show. If all the open images were closed, the main toolbox would need to get a taskbar/alt-tab item, so that you could switch to it.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I could have used many alternative expressions to to relay my sentiment, but none that work on quite so many levels, so I plan to stick with my current wording.
Blazing Spiders
Amazing! They both have eraser tools – who'd a thunk? They both even look like erasers! Obviously they ripped it off MS Paint!
Oh, they both have rectangle select! It's a dashed rectangle in both of them! Wait, MS Paint had that too!
And the pencil tool! Unbelievable, MS Paint had that too! (Mysteriously, they both used artists' paintbrushes instead of the paintbrush icon that MS Paint used.)
Oh hey, you're totally right about the foreground/background colours too. They both used the same little rectangle-on-other-rectangle dealie. They obviously ripped that one off MS Paint, too.
The fingertip-smudge tool is definitely damning, though. I mean, they both used an icon of a hand with a fingertip smudging something! That's obviously a ripoff.
I hereby declare that both PhotoShop and GIMP have blatantly ripped of MS Paint, and they now owe Microsoft 20% of their net sales. Oh wait... GIMP's free, though...
It had it as a separate tool.
I like tabbed browsers, and must on those grounds disagree with you.
More thing i don't understand: icons on desktop. Whats up with that? I see no real good use of them or improvement in usability. Compared to fluxbox type menu.
What? Now don't get me wrong, I don't like a cluttered desktop. However, I do want it to have certain things that should be easily launched (I use Windows, which I'm sure you'd figure out anyway). E.g. My Computer, My Documents, Recycle Bin, Firefox, and a select few things that I'll use almost everyday – or nearly every time I use the computer if I don't use it very often. (I keep the Quick Launch even more sparsely occupied: generally just Show Desktop and Firefox; I don't like the Quick Launch because it competes with the taskbar buttons – I don't like the System Tray for the same reason)
I also generally group things to the corners and edges of the desktop. It lets me choose a background picture without having icons in the middle of it, and it keeps things organized better.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I don't think there should be a "no image window", it's entirely unnecessary. There should be one of two possibilities:
In any event, the rest of the toolbox windows should all activate (raise to top) and deactivate (minimize) simultaneously with the "main" toolbox (possibly excepting that the image being edited should stay above non-focused toolboxes until you actually focus that toolbox), and they shouldn't have taskbar/alt-tab items.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Well, that would be up to GIMP to do. The window manager doesn't handle it. I agree... as I said in another post, I think the toolboxes shouldn't have taskbar/alt-tab items, and they should raise or lower with the main toolbox. Again, though, it isn't the window manager's job to enforce that behaviour.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The reason is because an app shouldn't have all its windows activate or deactivate simultaneously. What if you have 2 or 3 spreadsheets or documents open – maybe you want to tile the windows so you can see several, but maybe you want to have all but one minimized (for the record, I hate how Office makes all your documents use the same window). The app should decide whether all its windows should activate when one of them gets focus. It's more flexible that way.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Good luck generalizing that to any window manager. They've also removed the (ungainly) menu from the toolbox, so this new window really is necessary, because you have no other way to open files.
Although I think they could do some more useful things with the "no image" window than simply making it a drop target (my list of recent files with thumbnails would be nice) it's certainly a step up.
Unfortunately, the reason the "no image" window will never be more than a drop target is because the new GUI team has a bunch of philosophical ideas about how the initial configuration of the app should "represent a clean workspace". It gets worse, the GUI team claimed that it was very important for the users to have a slider which controls the alpha of the entire app, and that it was "very important to be able to track the user's mood". The coders pretty much refused that one flat out.
The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
The window manager shouldn't be deciding whether an app's windows activate simultaneously or not. The app should decide. Since it already should know which of its windows are open, it should be trivial to capture the focus event in one window and then activate the appropriate toolboxes.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
You just haven't worked on this thing a lot. Or maybe you are programmer and it's easier to let the window manager to handle this. Or it *is* actually more sane to let the wm handle this, and it makes more sense in a semantic way.
BUT! The image processing app should have it's own space. I don't want all these pallets ending up taking space on my top level desktop. Gimp literally spams my taskbar with windows and more windows and, and! Enough! I want all of them tidy inside a "virtual" desktop. Maybe us designers have gotten used to this after 20 years or so. Corel PhotoPaint, Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro. How to put it differently, by now it's the orthodox way, much like Norton Commander, File Commander, and Midnight Commander.
"The toolbox menubar has been removed and merged with the image window menubar."
I have the image window menubar turned off and access the image menues through a right click with the mouse. Does this mean that I have to wade through crap I don't use, to access those functions I actually use. And is it clear what functions effects the image that I'm working with and which ones that is not. I've always hated that unclear and hard to use interface of PhotoShop (and I used PhotoShop a decade before I started using GIMP, so it's not a because of habit, GIMP has a much better interface).