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."

Comments

It really didn't have this?

[Spatial]

freehand select tool has been enhanced to support polygonal selections

Wow! It didn't have this before now? Welcome to 1985, GIMP developers...

Re:It really didn't have this?

[MightyYar]

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?

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod p

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Trevin]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[clone53421]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it had polygonal select before, but not _in the freehand select tool_.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[elrous0]

Does he advertise projects he works on in his spare time as being comparable to Photoshop?

Re:It really didn't have this?

[FooBarWidget]

Where do the Gimp developers advertise Gimp as being comparable to Photoshop? I dare to find one statement that's newer than 5 years.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[MightyYar]

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

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Medievalist]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Spatial]

-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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, now I've been reading about Guybrush Threepwood for the last hour... Thanks a lot, Spatial and Wikipedia!

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to point us at a project you work on in your spare time so that we can mock it?

It's right here. Mock away.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[MightyYar]

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! :)

Re:It really didn't have this?

[theeddie55]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[ShieldW0lf]

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...

Re:It really didn't have this?

[The Moof]

From the FAQ:

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[jeremyp]

Care to point out why something should be exempt from criticism just because it is written and maintained by amateurs?

Re:It really didn't have this?

[cp.tar]

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!

Re:It really didn't have this?

[PitaBred]

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)?

Re:It really didn't have this?

[s73v3r]

Man, you're lucky. Verizon said we can't get smoke signals out here yet. I'm stuck with carrier pigeons.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[MightyYar]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Surt]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[bytesex]

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 ?

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the FUCK? I Spatial (1235392) t Spatial (1235392) was joking about the developers and even compared the feature to programs in the fucking 1980s, and now I was modded flamebait? Yet the fucktards twitter and spun get modded up for saying M$ and windoze? Apparently anyone who speaks against open source (aw fuck, communist open sores just to piss you fucktarded slashdotters off) is modded down when the fucktard has a fucking temper tantrum.

HEY FUCKTARDS, NOT EVERYTHING IS A FUCKING FLAMEBAIT. IF YOU WANT A FUCKING FLAMEBAIT HERE COMES ONE, SLASHDOT NEEDS TO BE FUCKING CRASHED. SLASHDOTTERS ARE SHEEPLE AND STUPID.
FUCK YOU SLASHDOT.

There, I am now through with you stupid little fucktwads. GO TO HELL FUCKWADS!

-Spatial

Re:It really didn't have this?

[MightyYar]

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?

Re:It really didn't have this?

[mweather]

You should upgrade. I get 56kbps with RFC1149

Re:It really didn't have this?

[sootman]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[pipatron]

The wikipedia article was wrong. I have now fixed it. It only had Box and Polygon, no circles or freehand selection.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

"apples to oranges" haha what a moron.

  peaches to pears

mmmm fruit

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

GO TO HELL FUCKWADS!

-Spatial

Be honest, tell us what you really think.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[tyrione]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Surt]

I think you missed the subtle difference between comparison and criticism.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Haeleth]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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...

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Skrapion]

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.)

Re:It really didn't have this?

[2short]

"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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[temcat]

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!!!

Re:It really didn't have this?

[MightyYar]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Skrapion]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[PitaBred]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[temcat]

I'm stealing this for my sig!!!

OK I'm not :-( Apparently this is too long a signature for the stupid Slashdot to bear.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[2short]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[ChaosDiscord]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[The Moof]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

For what 99% of people do with graphics, The GIMP DOES compete with Photoshop.

Just like MSPaint

Re:It really didn't have this?

[norminator]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[PitaBred]

(besides, it's not even available on my choice of OS)

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[master5o1]

They may say they're in the same category (raster editors), but they're not comparing.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[2short]

"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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[pinchies]

...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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[2short]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[asc99c]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[asc99c]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[darthdavid]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[EvilIdler]

I think of good, old Deluxe Paint when I see the tool palettes.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[BOFHelsinki]

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?

Re:It really didn't have this?

[theeddie55]

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.

Re:It really didn't have this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:It really didn't have this?

[pbhj]

It had it as a separate tool.

fp

[Anonymous Coward]

suck my cock you closet homos!

I just got 2.4!

[AKAImBatman]

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! :-)

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

A more needed update....

SOMEONE PLEASE FORK THE PROJECT AND GIVE IT A NEW NAME!

My Point of sales machine died a few days ago, and the tech asked if I had installed anything on it. I told him that I loaded up "the gnu image manipulation program" just to avoid saying "GIMP". Can't we rename it to something better?

I suggest we use: GNU Photo & Image Manipulation Program.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[flyingfsck]

The workaround is to always work with a larger image than you need then once the font work is done, scale it smaller.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Keyper7]

If someone introduced me to something called "G-PIMP", I'm not sure I'd like to know what the G stands for...

Re:I just got 2.4!

[MightyYar]

gPimp, lol, sounds like an evil Apple product. Or a good one, depending on what side of the holy war you fight for.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely love working with GIMP...

Yeah. Ummmmmmm, between you and me...um....what are you taking? And who's your supplier?

Re:I just got 2.4!

[nine-times]

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.

Could it be the kerning? I don't use GIMP, but kerning is one of those things that can be hard to put your finger on, but make a huge difference on whether or not text looks good.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[elrous0]

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). 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. You can have the greatest application in the world, but if you name it "FUCK" you're going to be spending every subsequent Thanksgiving sitting at the kid's table.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU PIMP?

Not sure if it's an improvement.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[AKAImBatman]

Kerning is definitely part of the problem. Even with the auto-hinter on and/or forced, the text kerning is still a bit bizarre. But even then, Photoshop appears to emit smoother edges on the text. GIMP fonts often look rough around the edges, and I can't figure out why.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[krakelohm]

Better then the GOLD PIMP?

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Card Zero]

It's been done.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

I experienced the same problem with crappy looking fonts, specifically when printing. I have gotten around this by changing the ppi to 300 (the default is 72) when creating a new image. This has made a huge difference and the fonts look much better. The option is under the advanced section when you create a new image.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[AKAImBatman]

Medicated powder?

Re:I just got 2.4!

[jellomizer]

I would say just get rid of GNU in its name. Sure keep it GNU but why wast time with it. It not not like Other apps that give the name of its distribution license as part of its name. How About Graphics Manipulator, Graphics Editor... Image Shop....

Re:I just got 2.4!

[rugatero]

Rather than consider it a workaround, I do this as a matter of course. I find it makes fine detailing easier, and I can archive the high res image - that way, if I ever decide I want a larger version (and I do), I don't end up having to choose between redoing the work or relying on interpolation.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[AKAImBatman]

You know what? I think that does the trick! I never would have thought of using the DPI to increase the resolution of fonts. But if you think about the way that font renderers are implemented, it makes a lot of sense. Kudos!

Re:I just got 2.4!

[gEvil (beta)]

I haven't used GIMP in a long time, but what you describe sounds more like an issue with how it handles antialiasing. Photoshop gives you several different options for how it applies antialiasing, which you adjust depending on the character shapes and how they interact with the background imagery you're dealing with (for instance, you might use 'smooth' for small text on a dark background, or 'sharp' for a large headline). With GIMP it looks like it's just a single checkbox--on or off.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[compro01]

I'd say a good majority of GNU projects either start with a g, are acronyms that start with GNU, or start with GNU.

GNOME - GNU Object Model Environment
Gnash
GCJ - GNU Compiler for Java
GNU Classpath
GCC - GNU Compiler Collection

Re:I just got 2.4!

[gEvil (beta)]

So what do you do if you have an image at the resolution it needs to be and you want to put text on it? Do you upsample the image, apply the text, and then rescale it back down to the original resolution? Or do you create the text in a separate document at the higher resolution and then layer it onto the image (which is already at the correct resolution)? Honestly, I'm curious. There are times where you don't necessarily have the luxury of starting with a really high-res image that you can then scale down.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[drooling-dog]

Well, that's as good a criterion as any, I suppose. But if I were the person who writes the checks in your company, you'd have some serious splainin' to do...

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Thomas M Hughes]

While I'm sure there's something to this, that's not necessarily the case. LaTeX is actually quite successful in academia, despite the name. If it's the best tool for the job, people can move beyond the name.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[jellomizer]

How about non-GNU apps? Not so much. Why My theory is that most GNU Developers don't care as much about software but the license. Which is too bad and helps the stigma of poor quality GNU Software.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[oogoliegoogolie]

Gimp developers don't care what you think. People have been very vocal in requesting this product undergo a name (as well as UI!)change to something less silly, childish, and stupid since it came out in the late 90's, and they haven't done it so it ain't going to happen now. GIMP is destined to always conjure images about either: a) that disturbing dude from pulp fiction as you mentioned, or b) children who have some affliction or disability that causes them difficulty when walking.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[DrSkwid]

Just be glad you didn't want Pornview as well!

Re:I just got 2.4!

[ksd1337]

How about something that incorporates the mascot's name? It doesn't have to be an acronym, you know.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[PunkOfLinux]

Other things we could call it:

IMP (image manipulation program)
LIMP (libre image manipulation program)
RIMS (Raster Image Manipulation Software)

None of these other options are working for me...

Re:I just got 2.4!

[xaxa]

"IMP" would be fine.

(I don't know if it's regional, but in the UK "gimp" would usually be an insult, a more offensive version of "idiot". Wikipedia says it's also the term for a role in BDSM, but I think that is less well known.
  know a couple of teachers who were keen to use the GIMP in schools, but didn't because the name is just asking for trouble.)

Re:I just got 2.4!

[rubah]

I think gimp has far more connotations than just that one, like crippled people!

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Telvin_3d]

The LaTeX name hasn't hindered its adoption because it references neither extreme sexual domination or physical deformity. GIMP does both.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[elrous0]

Once I told him that the alternative was a program name "Gimp," I think he would understand.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

GLIMPSE? GNU Layered Image ManiPulationS Environment

Re:I just got 2.4!

[LWATCDR]

So call it by it's full name. Gnu Image Manipulation Program.
If you must rename the icon.
I am pretty sure that Photoshop Elements is actually called PSE or some such thing.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[amRadioHed]

You forgot c) An image editor.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[MadUndergrad]

Quick, someone call the waaahhhhhmbulance! Another poor soul who has got a rod stuck so far up his ass that he finds the acronym "GIMP" embarrassing and unconscionable!

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

You could just call it GNU Image Manipulation Program, or GNU IMP or something you know...

Re:I just got 2.4!

[street struttin']

lol, then you could say, "I just installed my G-PIMP Upgrayedd. The extra d is for a double dose of my pimping."

Fantastic.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Vu1turEMaN]

I'd recommend option a. Usually upscaling the image will show you areas where, even in a minimal-loss format, need touched up. Get a 800x600 photograph and blow it up to 1280 wide, then look at someone's face....you'll see things that you wish you didn't see looking at it at 100%. Autoscaling on photoshop for zoom is where most people bork photo editing...i always do touchups at 100-500%

Re:I just got 2.4!

[bersl2]

Solution: Instead of introducing it as "The GIMP", use its full name: "The GNU Image Manipulation Program"; it's only marginally worse than "Adobe Photoshop $FOO", where FOO is whatever subproduct in the Photoshop familiy you happen to be using.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[not already in use]

gPimp, lol, sounds like an evil Apple product.

gPimp is actually google's pimping product, which I prefer since it is far more open. iPimp is way too locked down, it'll only let you work with ho's that Apple has approved.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[michaewlewis]

sounds good to me......

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean just like the name "Wii" completely destroyed the sales of Nintendo's new game console?

What we associate with a name can be changed. Furthermore it's typical lecturer cowardice to assume that you know what most people associate a name with, and how they will react. Do you really think your audience is incapable of getting used to a name like "Gimp" and judging it from its technical merits instead (like most of the world pretty quickly got over the wee-jokes)?

Re:I just got 2.4!

[not already in use]

A couple weeks back I was talking to a good friend of mine that just finished writing his thesis, and he told me he used "la-tec" (phonetic spelling). Turns out he was referring to LaTeX. Anyone else heard this pronunciation? It was actually the first time I had heard it in a spoken reference.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

About your fonts, once you have something typed, look over in your toolbox window near the bottom where you'll find 3 checkboxes labeled, I believe, Antializing, Hinting, and Force Auto-Hinting. Mess around with combinations of those for one or two seconds and I bet you'll find your font problem is fixed. Also make sure that when you open a new blank template, you have your resolution set at least to 72ppi which is web-standard resolution. Images for merchandise are usually set at 300ppi.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[seandiggity]

One of my instructors kept calling it "the unfortunately-named GIMP" :)

Since they've already taken GNU out of the acronym, why not just go with IMP? The mascot is kinda impish anyway.

Realistically, I don't think a name change will ever happen. There should just be a fork with literally nothing changed but the name, so that people who want to deploy the software but feel the name will impede them in doing so have another option. GIMP not only has unpleasant associations, it implies that the application is "crippled" in some way.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Captain Spam]

As much as I use and love GIMP, I will say, it's a pity shame that, disturbingly often, the ones with the rods stuck that far up their asses are the ones making the policy and purchasing decisions...

Okay, most of the time it's not "zomg that is embarrassing nooooooo!". Most of the time it's "That is not Photoshop, thus it is WRONG!!!! Why are you presenting me with this non-Photoshop program? I can't even rearrange the letters to make the word 'Photoshop' out of it!". But still.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[jandrese]

To be fair, LaTeX is pronounced La-Tech. Although the image of fetish cowboys always pops in my head when I start talking about TeX and LaTeX. The biggest difference is that TeX and LaTeX are both only used by a relatively small number of professionals. The kind of people who complain about the GIMP's name wouldn't even be able to install LaTeX.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[.sig]

But does it have electrolytes? It's what artists crave!

Re:I just got 2.4!

[rugatero]

Good point - not a situation I've encountered as I don't work with text a great deal.

Of the two options you suggest, it would depend on the desired effect. I think the first would be better if I wanted the text within the image and the second option if the text was intended to be placed over the image.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[not already in use]

Exactly. So until Linux user's develop a hint of marketing sense, don't call it the year of the Linux desktop. Here's some starter tips:

• Drop the lame prefixes: k ,g , gn -- It's not clever, it's not intuitive. It's fucking stupid.
• Do not name your app a recursive acronym. Unless you're trying to get laid, because you totally will.
• Find a middle ground. I remember the last time I loaded up Ubuntu, the menu looked like this:
  • Gimp (Image Editor)
  • Totem (Video Player)
  • Pidgin (Instant Messenger)

  This basically goes to show that the Linux desktop folk know they're names are completely dissociative, so they have to spell out exactly what each one does. There is a happy medium, where a programs function can be implied by a relevant name: Winamp, Photoshop, Yahoo Messenger. Seriously, get a clue.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[dalesc]

Doesn't seem to have done Dick Cheney any harm.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Mad Merlin]

La-tech is actually the correct pronunciation of LaTeX, not lay-tex as most people probably assume initially.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think it is a new online business tool just introduced by Google.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[ProfessionalCookie]

Which reminds me, why dies Firefox still install as "Mozilla Firefox" by default?? Can we please all agree that it's a bad idea to put the Company name, year-after-release, version number and product line in the name of an program? Let's just leave the name the name.

At least GIMP has that going for it. Or am I just totally wrong?

Re:I just got 2.4!

[blincoln]

The biggest difference is that TeX and LaTeX are both only used by a relatively small number of professionals.

Er, I would argue that the biggest difference is that "latex" is a compound that many things besides fetish clothes are made out of, whereas every meaning of "gimp" is negative.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Risen888]

Definitely. Let's take our cue from the guys who named their software company after a clay hut. That sounds like professionalism there.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Dionysus]

Exactly. So until Linux user's develop a hint of marketing sense, don't call it the year of the Linux desktop

Last I checked, GIMP wasn't a Linux product. It is also for Windows, MAC, *BSD.

Drop the lame prefixes: k ,g , gn -- It's not clever, it's not intuitive. It's fucking stupid.

As soon as Apple drops the lame i prefix, and Sun drops the j prefix.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[tolan-b]

Don't be ridiculous.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[LearnToSpell]

There is a happy medium, where a programs function can be implied by a relevant name:
Winamp
[a digital current measuring program]

Photoshop
[an ecommerce program for selling Polaroids]

Yahoo Messenger
[a yodel-to-text converter for arranging bicycle deliveries].

Re:I just got 2.4!

[tolan-b]

Hate to feed the troll but...

"Drop the lame prefixes"

iPhoto, iWork, iPod, iMac, iPhone.

Prefixes are far from unique to Linux. Also, how long is it since you looked at Gnome apps? I can't of any that are "gSomething" or "gnSomething". Plenty are called "Gnome Something", but how is that different from the hundreds of "Windows Something" or 'WinSomething"? 'Winamp', 'Winzip', 'Windows messenger', 'Winrar'. Uhuh.

"This basically goes to show that the Linux desktop folk know they're names are completely dissociative, so they have to spell out exactly what each one does."

Skype, Flash, Adium, Daemon Tools. *Most* desktop apps have random names that don't mean anything, the only difference is that Ubuntu added labels to the names other people gave their apps to make it clearer.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[kae_verens]

like "FCKeditor? yeah. agreed. good product, /bad/ name.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Kingrames]

If it's spelled latex, I'll pronounce it as "latex".
Where do you work, Starbucks?

Re:I just got 2.4!

[jandrese]

Like condoms

Re:I just got 2.4!

[elrous0]

"Wii" is cute. But I'm pretty sure that, had Nintendo went with "The Nintendo Cripple Boy" or the "The Nintendo Sado-Masochistic Rapist Home Entertainment System," they would have faced some problems.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[elrous0]

That might work if, the first time my students started it up, it didn't splash "GIMP" in big letters across the screen.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[elrous0]

And I suppose you would stand up at a business meeting and tell your boss and colleagues about this great new software you came across called "COXSUXOR"?

You're an undergrad alright.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[aztracker1]

I think gPIMP sounds better than GIMP in terms of an application name..

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

So call it by it's full name. Gnu Image Manipulation Program.

I could. Or I could just say "Photoshop", or "Krita" if I want free software.

If you must rename the icon.

And modify the fucking program itself, too, I suppose, to stop it popping up a big window saying THE GIMP every time I start it?

Or I could just, you know, use something that doesn't have a childish and offensive name.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Gordonjcp]

SOMEONE PLEASE FORK THE PROJECT AND GIVE IT A NEW NAME!

Why don't you do it, then? Check out the source, run a quick find-and-replace, and then check it still builds. Easy.

What's wrong with the name, anyway?

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Tubal-Cain]

I installed 2.5 on my work machine. Yesterday.
Good thing I am the kind of person that doesn't mind updating to the latest Firefox nightlies every day.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Tubal-Cain]

You could abbreviate (that's probably not the right word) it to GNU PIMP.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've actually suggested to a crippled person that he could use this program called "GIMP". He laughed and said that'd be perfect for him (actually, it wasn't much... he really needed something more along the lines of a vector-based image/drafting program, and unfortunately AutoCAD has a high learning curve and costs a lot).

Re:I just got 2.4!

[clone53421]

I still think that name is the worst. I remember a certain incident where someone said "I'm going to go home and play with my boyfriend's Wii"... and I said "Maybe you'd like to try saying that differently."

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Tubal-Cain]

I have been having much the same problem with Debian. The ee sound is just so much more natural than eh.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[thepotoo]

Isn't the GIMP open source? Can't we just fork it? And merge future changes back into the fork? Like what we did with Firefox/Iceweasel?

Come on, this is a non-issue! Someone, please! Just call it IMP or something, anything is a better name than GIMP.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

But GNU is Not Abbreviation...

Oh wait...

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Tubal-Cain]

Not only are prefixes common, they provide a quick way to identify whether this app will use a lot of resources because it belongs to the other desktop environment. I don't use KDE or Gnome, so I favor apps that have a prefix of x.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[CallsignBaron]

That's the dumbest thing I have read this week and given current events here in the US that's saying something. The fact is GIMP is an acronym. Very early in it's development it was an acronym for "General Image Manipulation Program". Later on, by version 0.60, one of the founding developers, Peter Mattis, got tired of working with Motif (a graphical widget toolkit) and wrote gtk (gimp tool kit) and gdk (gimp drawing toolkit). The GIMP acronym was subsequently changed to "GNU Image Manipulation Program". Now I'll give away my age and say that to my generation a GIMP was someone with a limp but I do not know too many of my colleagues who picture some poor soul with mobility problems whenever they think of the GIMP. The acronym for GIMP is both relevant and descriptive. If either you or your students limited, feeble minds can not get past a scene from some disgusting movie to the point you felt the need to recommend your students spend $60+ for Adobe's basic editing option then that is your loss. No wonder people laugh when you tell them this. I laugh with them at you.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Haoie]

I use the other fork program, Gimpshop.

Unfortunately, the last time I checked [a few weeks ago], there hasn't be an update to that for a while.

Oh well, I can't complain, can I?

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Plunky]

Er, I would argue that the biggest difference is that "latex" is a compound that many things besides fetish clothes are made out of, whereas every meaning of "gimp" is negative.

GNU Image Manipulation Program

don't see any negative meanings there.. if you do, perhaps its you that is the problem?

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Tubal-Cain]

Yeah, in all classes I have taken that have taught Photoshop, I was always told to use ~300 DPI, because that's what the professional printers are gonna want. I can always bring it down to 72 DPI for the website later.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Propaganda13]

You know you could fork it yourself ala Iceweasel.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Skrapion]

Just look at your average business man. He goes to work while texting on his "Blackberry" and reading the newspaper in "Acrobat" format on his "Kindle". When he gets to work he checks in email on "Outlook" and prepares a presentation in "Powerpoint".

There's a certain amount of logic to giving your apps unique, memorable names, rather than using generic names. As contemptible as they are, Apple's iBrand manages to come up with names that are unique, memorable, and obvious. Granted, its brand power might be diluted if something like gPhoto became popular.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[steelfood]

Gimp developers don't care what you think.

I guess they don't really care if their product gets used either.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[temcat]

Where I live it's routinely pronounced with "ch" as in Scottish "Loch".

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Skrapion]

I don't get what the big deal is. Hell, when I was a kid we actually had a class in home ec where the teacher taught us how to use gimps!

Re:I just got 2.4!

[chibiace]

yes and better ui intergration.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[ConceptJunkie]

I agree: G-PIMP sounds much cooler!

"Dude, great photoshop."
"No way, man. My pix are G-PIMPed for maximum pwnage."

Re:I just got 2.4!

[ConceptJunkie]

Prefixes are far from unique to Linux.

And they're still usually lame.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[knarf]

That is a pretty silly reason to refrain from using an application. If this program fits your class but you are (easily...) offended by the name, just change it. Or, better still, get over it. A name is a name, nothing more. What is it that you are afraid of? Lawsuits? Ridicule?

Re:I just got 2.4!

[AncientPC]

Isn't it open source? If there's such a high demand, why doesn't someone just re-compile under a different name? Sort of like the Red Hat / Fedora relationship.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[JamesP]

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

You're absolutely right. Therefore, I suggest "The Gimp" changes its name to "Severed Horse Head"

Re:I just got 2.4!

[mrboyd]

doesn't seem to bother those people much. see: http://www.fcuk.com/

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

You've sank too deep into a pool of commercial advertisement pr spin appearance bs.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[seandiggity]

...I've had trouble with that name too, as far as in-office communications are concerned.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[ozbird]

So call it by it's full name. Gnu Image Manipulation Program.

What if I don't want to manipulate images of gnus?

It's called GIMP - get over it.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[LWATCDR]

Only a fool take offense when none is intended.

It is an acronym get over it people.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, GIMP wasn't a Linux product. It is also for Windows, MAC, *BSD.

It's a linux product that gets repackaged to work on the big platforms. If there's a target platform, it's linux.

As soon as Apple drops the lame i prefix, and Sun drops the j prefix.

Except that two of the three succeed at marketing, while one just hinders itself. Regardless, the GIMP is a fucking awful name, and the GIMP will never get serious attention. I say screw those childish brats. Someone, anyone, take their code away from them, rename it, add a nice feature or two for attention and watch all the contributions funnel themselves over to the big-kids project.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Arterion]

The name Pidgin actually makes a lot of sense, and fits the app perfectly. I think it's one of the most cleverly named apps. Alas, though, it required legal action for them to change it from the previous "GAIM" which was pretty GAY.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[iron-kurton]

Let's take for example the iMac, released in the 90s. This was pure marketing genius, because it:

1) Shows that **I** Mac (used as a verb).
2) Shows that the Macintosh is a "internet" computer (consider the late 90s internet gold rush - it's not uncommon for companies to call their products based on current technological or social trends)
3) Has a very catchy sound.

Every single Apple product after that simply capitalized on the iMac's success (both in product and name), especially on point #3.

Let me also point out that "iMac" is an example of a GOOD marketing name (much like iPod and iPhone), but iWork and iLife? Not so much

For fear of being labeled an Apple apologist, Winamp (maybe Winutils?) are also good examples.

Still, I hate the continuing trend towards gratuitous use of non-descriptive prefixes used in software (pick your favorite platform), g-, k-, gnu-. I get it that they may describe the platform you're running (or the license), but, chances are, you're already aware of that (or simply don't care). Very *VERY* few of those names actually roll off the tongue.

In short, these "clever" (read: nerdy, childish) names don't contribute anything to the name, and they take away from the marketing of the product.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[noshellswill]

GIMP developers can go luck fellow byteboyz in the peepee-room.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[fatphil]

Plus (c) the war injured (similar to (b))

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Draek]

GIMP is destined to always conjure images about either: a) that disturbing dude from pulp fiction as you mentioned, or b) children who have some affliction or disability that causes them difficulty when walking.

Apparently, Google disagrees. The first link that's *not* related to The GNU Image Manipulation Program is on page 3, about some "Gimp Parade" or something, then another one on page 4, but overall they're pretty rare.

But oh well, if a large car company can name their SUV after the act of masturbation and still sell 'em like hotcakes, I can't see why someone would have a problem with TheGIMP.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[treeves]

I discovered that recently when I used The GIMP (I think the "the" makes the name even worse, but there it is) to convert from one image format to another. I don't know why they made it default to 72 dpi. Bad idea I say.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

An image search gives me this as match number 9: http://mcncirce.com/gimp.html

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

the applications name is actually spelled "fsck" not "fuck".

Re:I just got 2.4!

[frup]

Check out mah Gnu Pimp?

Re:I just got 2.4!

[shiftless]

The last time I loaded Ubuntu (5 minutes ago), the menu looked more like this:

Applications
|
| ...
| Graphics
| |
| | F-Spot Photo Manager
| | GIMP Image Editor
| | gThumb Image Viewer
| | ...
|
| ...
| Sound and Video
| |
| | Audio CD Extractor
| | Movie player
| | Sound Recorder
| | ...

How much clearer can it possibly get?

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Trogre]

Perhaps he lives in Arkansas?

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Nyeerrmm]

But Apple's solution keeps the less desirable ones out. It's especially good for avoiding the viruses that can get out there when you open up the market.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[greyhueofdoubt]

>>gPimp is actually google's pimping product, which I prefer since it is far more open.

I'd use it, but it's still in beta.

-b

Re:I just got 2.4!

[mmj638]

Photoshop's antialiasing settings have special purposes.

They allow you to control the level and type of hinting vs antialiasing applied, for example. 'Smooth' has no hinting, so it maintains the letter shapes most accurately at the expense of fuzziness, whereas sharp has the most hinting applied while still having antialiasing on, which is great for on-screen text - if the font hints well (most "web" fonts or fonts designed for screen use do).

Unfortunately Photoshop still does not support sub-pixel antialiasing (eg, "Cleartype") as one of its options, which would be useful when producing graphics designed to be read on computer screens, most of which are now colour LCD screens. So even Photoshop is not perfect with font antialiasing.

Hinting is hard to do cross-platform. Microsoft owns patents on pre-hinting Truetype fonts which it has licensed to Apple, so Linux misses out. Consequently, hinting of fonts on Linux cannot benefit from the extra hinting information embedded into the font, and the font loses its ability to look as if it was designed specifically for the point size you're viewing it at. Nonetheless, Mac OS X and many Linux distros disable hinting on antialiased text, preferring the more accurate, but more fuzzy, look.

I presume that GIMP has only two settings - antialiasing on with no hinting, and antialiasing off with whatever default hinting the OS has.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not technically an X, but the Greek letter Xi. Since it's not spelled with an X, there's no great need to pronounce it as though it were.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Provocateur]

That's because in this inner circle, we all know it's pronounced with a long i, as in Gympe. iPod, iPhone, *sigh* do I need to go on?

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not that dude from Pulp Fiction. Heck, he wasn't even referred to with that name. Think Usual Suspects. Now there's a gimp. Award winning role, too.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Trogre]

I believe it's because the 'X' in LaTeX is meant to be the greek letter 'chi', and pronounced as such.

Those crazy typesetters (toc toc)

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

Excel, Quicken, Skype, Firefox, Outlook, Windows

Yeah, the non-Linux crowd have a great track record of picking good names...

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Lisandro]

As soon as Apple drops the lame i prefix, and Sun drops the j prefix.

Touché, sir! Are we really arguing about the NAME of the program, as if it had anything to do with its user acceptance? Come on, the reason people choose Photoshop is that it's an overall better app and users are very accostumed to it. Don't get me wrong though, i use Gimp a lot and it just keeps getting better and better with each release.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[skaet]

I can imagine if they just called it "IMP" people would still attach some sort of prefix based on the operating system...

WIMP? (Windows)
LIMP? (Linux)

I'm not sure which one I'd rather be =\

Re:I just got 2.4!

[LandruBek]

if it's spelled latex, I'll pronounce it as "latex"

Pronounce it any way you like. Pronounce it as "squdgeglub" if you want to. But if you plan to use your pronunciation for communication purposes, you'll do well to remember that most LaTeX users call it "lah-tec."

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously they should change their name to 'basket full of puppies'.
Either that, or Anthrax.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[zobier]

Have you used the FreeType plugin?
I often get much better results using this.

Cheers

Re:I just got 2.4!

[timothy]

There's also the plastic string stuff used to make bracelets at American (and perhaps other countries') summer camps. No disturbing imagery.

Perhaps gimp could even be made of latex.

timothy

Re:I just got 2.4!

[mjwx]

gPimp is actually google's pimping product, which I prefer since it is far more open. iPimp is way too locked down, it'll only let you work with ho's that Apple has approved.

That kind of quality control may sound like a good idea until you realise that you've spent 20% more on your ho, s/he has had a lot of cosmetic surgery done and that Steve Jobs has some strange perversions.

Cynical rant
Due to past experiences with Apple fanboys, I will point out that this is a joke and it sucks that some of you lack the sense of humour necessary for me not to have to point this out
/ cynical rant.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[mgblst]

Yeah, and just because my ho resembled Steve's ho, they said no!

Re:I just got 2.4!

[richlv]

depends on the definition of "most people".
for those who do not speak native english, this name is as good as any other. except maybe "vista", which means 'chicken' in latvian. not that anybody cares :)

Re:I just got 2.4!

[egghat]

"Drop the lame prefixes: k ,g , gn -- It's not clever, it's not intuitive. It's fucking stupid."

The one company that did have the biggest plus in market share is calling their apps iPhoto, iLife, iChat, ...

The biggest software company of all calls most of their apps MS Word, MS Office, MS Paint, ...

So I don't think this claim isn't true. But I agree with most of the the other stuff you say (acronyms are stupid an well not funny anymore).

And when you suggest to choose names like Winamp you'll always have to think about trademarks. We had a lot of open source software that had to change their names after some lawyer called them (Krita was named KIllustrator before). And OSS-programmers simply don't have the money (and time) to fight such things out. So it's easier to choose a somewhat stupid, but distinctive/unique name that gives a low risk of being sued ...

Re:I just got 2.4!

[gi.net]

Sure, and rename that damn OS "Doors"!

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way is "Wii" cuter than, say, "Spunk", or "Poopoo"? Put enough money and marketing behind a name and the general public will quickly forget any previous associations, within a particular context.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[elrous0]

"Wee" has a cute connotation, associated with children. It's what parents (in the U.S. anyway) teach their kids to say as a synonym for urination. Naming your product "The Nintendo Piiss," by contrast, would not be cute or acceptable to most people (though "Wee" and "Piss" have the same literal meaning in slang, the connotations are much different). And "Gimp" has a MUCH worse connotation than even that.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

Really much worse? I was under the impression that the meaning of "gimp" to most native English speakers would be "cripple" or possibly "sideshow circus freak" (Pulp Fiction aside). Perhaps not terribly nice, but certainly not unspeakable.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[ozphx]

If it makes you feel better, it has a lame name on Windows, Mac and BSD!

Truely GNU promotes all kinds of crossplatform faggotry. Or should that be Faggotry.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[ozphx]

And theres always Yiff - a sound library by dirty furrys.

God forbid anyone's manager ends up googling that...

Re:I just got 2.4!

[ozphx]

STFUFAG

Some Take Foolish Umbridge From Acronym Games

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not spelled with an X, it's spelled with a Chi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_(letter)

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Lobais]

Unless of course you don't live in an English speaking country, like 1-330/7000=95% of us does.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[NeoSkandranon]

That last one's a pretty far stretch.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[ConceptJunkie]

Yeah the "i" thing was clearly a good idea, but it's definitely getting long in the tooth as far as marketing concepts go.

Of course, around the time iMac came out, every third company had e- or i- as a prefix in its name. I worked for iSoft, for instance. (No, the company is long gone.)

However, GIMP is just embarrassing, and the utter disregard that the devs have that fact is real arrogance on their part. But it's open source... just fork it, add a simple feature and call it "iPhoto" or "iPaint". :-/

Re:I just got 2.4!

[argux]

What about GNU IMP. You essentially keep the same name, just change the acronym. And an Imp is not as disturbing an image as a Gimp.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Knuckles]

Why exactly is it a problem of the GIMP devs that you speak no proper English? I think the number of people who have seen the English-language version of Pulp Fiction and remember some character from it this vividly is greatly overestimated.
In fact I have, and I didn't. Is there even confirmation that the GIMP devs knew about the usage in the movie?

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell if this is serious or not, but it's not an x. It's a chi.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[clone53421]

As soon as Apple drops the lame i prefix, and Sun drops the j prefix.

But mommy... she started it!

Re:I just got 2.4!

[clone53421]

Har, har, har. But have you never heard of...

• The "Guitar Amp" [a current measuring device for electric guitars?]
• The "Body Shop" [obviously some sort of front for a human trafficking ring?]
• Ok, Yahoo! is a retarded name. I'll give you that one.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[clone53421]

Actually, they did away with "The". It's just "GIMP" now.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[pbhj]

Skype, Flash, Adium, Daemon Tools. *Most* desktop apps have random names that don't mean anything, the only difference is that Ubuntu added labels to the names other people gave their apps to make it clearer.

It's not just desktop apps, most branded products ... Nike - what's that got to do with trainers, McDonalds - how does that suggest beef-burgers, etc..

Partly it's because descriptive names can not be trademarks as they indicate type of goods rather than origin. But dammit GIMP is rediculous.

Perhaps they should rename it Gnome Open Art Tool Special Edition? But seriously they could call it "Imp" it's cool, the logo would almost still work too and the name change would be a great chance for some more publicity.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wii" is cute.

You know, I totally agree. Also, Sony should make a new gamesystem called the "Cunny". Then in another few years or so they can create a joint venture and call it "Bastard". I think the public would support this product.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as Apple drops the lame i prefix, and Sun drops the j prefix.

No one likes any of those prefixes. And why should Linux be dependent on what Apple and Sun does? Come on...

Re:I just got 2.4!

[dotancohen]

I suggest we use: GNU Photo & Image Manipulation Program.

Gnupimap? No, thank you.

I do agree that the project needs a new name. With the exception of Open Office, everytime I introduce someone to any FOSS program, I begin with excusing the lunatic names.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[dotancohen]

Hate to feed the troll but...

"Drop the lame prefixes"

iPhoto, iWork, iPod, iMac, iPhone.

iHate them.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Warbothong]

Don't forget about Microsoft's and others' habit of Win<name>.NET# as well.

And of course Google's naming scheme of suffixing everything with "BETA" :P

Re:I just got 2.4!

[clone53421]

Nah, you'd get sued by Apple. They own the letter i.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[clone53421]

95% of me lives in the same country that the other 5% lives in. And if you're speaking of the /. readership, most of them are Americans.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Lobais]

Afair Zune means hooker in Hebrew, but it doesn't make Microsoft change its name.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[ConceptJunkie]

I hear there are lawsuits against iDaho, iOwa, and iNdiana.

Re:I just got 2.4!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only natural for you, gringo!

CYMK

[Abreu]

A question, is there CYMK color separation support already?

Sorry if this was implemented already, I havent checked on the Gimp in a while.

Re:CYMK

[compro01]

I don't see it anywhere in the release notes, though the potential for CMYK support was one of the reasons for the move to GEGL.

There is a plugin called seperate+, though I'm not sure if that still works properly with the new version.

There's also a potentially useful article on this on the Arch Linux wiki.

Re:CYMK

[morgan_greywolf]

CMYK support for the GIMP - Why you might not need CMYK support in the GIMP.

Separate+ CMYK separations plugin for GIMP -- And if you really need it, get this. Very nice. Supports ICC color profiles.

Re:CYMK

[Abreu]

Thanks a lot. I'll look into it.

CMYK support is absolutely necessary for any serious attempt at desktop publishing.

Re:CYMK

[gEvil (beta)]

Don't you just love the number of times people say "You don't really need CMYK support"? For those of use who work in the professional publishing world and see our work printed on real presses, YES WE DO!

Re:CYMK

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks a lot. I'll look into it.

CMYK support is absolutely necessary for any serious attempt at desktop publishing.

Unless your desktop publishing operation goes out to a litho offset printer, I wouldn't worry about it. Most other kinds of printers only take RGB inputs, even if they use CMYK inks.

Re:CYMK

[Abreu]

By "serious attempt at desktop publishing" I definitely mean "litho offset"

Re:CYMK

[CastrTroy]

Only if you intend to publish on paper. If you want to publish on websites, or any other screen medium, then CMYK is completely useless.

Re:CYMK

[BrokenHalo]

Unless your desktop publishing operation goes out to a litho offset printer, I wouldn't worry about it. Most other kinds of printers only take RGB inputs, even if they use CMYK inks.

Indeed. It gets a bit tiring reading these posts bleating that gimp is automatically inferior to PhotoShop because it doesn't do CMYK or because the poster can't cope with the fact that the interface is different. I have a feeling that a lot of them have little idea what CMYK actually does.

The gimp developers don't actually claim the thing is a replacement for PS. It is, however, a good and useful program in its own right, and it does not cost hundreds of dollars for the licence.

As for the interface (sorry, yes, I realise this is a digression) I learned to use the gimp before I ever played with PhotoShop, so I personally find the latter harder to use as a result. That does not mean that one or the other is broken; any powerful tool has an associated learning curve, and the gimp is no exception. Even though I now have a (non-legit) copy of PS on my Mac, I usually find my first preference is towards the gimp for most purposes. But then, I have no pretensions to being a professional graphics artist.

Re:CYMK

[Hairy Heron]

Well no duh. They clearly are publishing stuff on paper if they want CMYK support.

Re:CYMK

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. It gets a bit tiring to read these posts that seem to undermine professional fields such as usability and interface design. I bet those guys get paid what they do for nothing. Why don't we let you guys handle those fields as well since you are so good at it? Oh, wait...

I rejoice on the day when the Linux community starts to actually value people with different skill sets and that there are value in other aspects than just code. GIMP is great example of this - they were told for years about usability issues and those complainers were simply shrug off till some time back they actually bothered with their own studies. And funnily enough, came to same conclusions that had been already mentioned to them.

It's not GIMP devs that I dislike per se, those guys have done well, it's the attitude in the community I hate.

Re:CYMK

[Blakey Rat]

The default response to "does open source software do X?" is "you don't really need to do X."

I've gotten that response so many times, I can't count them. "Can open source apps paste spreadsheet cells into an email?" "Is there an open source app to do Gantt charts?" (Disclaimer: these are old examples; for all I know these scenarios work perfectly now.)

The second-most common is, "oh, you must have something weird." I usually get this one when I install a driver that claims to run some model of hardware, and then my hardware still doesn't work. "Sure, IVTV says it supports Hauppauge WinPVR 150 cards, but it doesn't work." "Oh, you must have something weird, maybe Hauppauge changed their chipset."

Whatever. I don't like the whole "pass-the-buck" culture.

Re:CYMK

[Abreu]

If you read my original post carefully, you will see that I never mentioned photoshop, nor the Gimp's interface (which is fine, actually)

Re:CYMK

[morgan_greywolf]

CMYK support is not necessarily needed in GIMP, however. If your target for the images is Scribus, for example, you can take advantage of Scribus' CMYK sep support. In fact, in thise case you're better off using Scribus' CMYK support rather than any support in GIMP. You only need CMYK in GIMP if you're outputting to offset or service bureau directly from GIMP.

That's the point of the article I linked.

Re:CYMK

[Frosty Piss]

For those of use who work in the professional publishing world and see our work printed on real presses, YES WE DO!

People are still using ink on paper?

Re:CYMK

[Culture20]

"Sure, IVTV says it supports Hauppauge WinPVR 150 cards, but it doesn't work." "Oh, you must have something weird, maybe Hauppauge changed their chipset."
Whatever. I don't like the whole "pass-the-buck" culture.

So, "maybe Hauppauge changed their chipset" wasn't coupled with a request for you to run lspci and see what it said? Hardware manufacturers are notorious for making their Windows drivers forward-compatible when they know they might switch from chip-maker X to chip-maker Y. Even worse, they often make these changes and don't even revise the model number for the device.

Re:CYMK

[NeoSkandranon]

Gimp's devs in particular seem to do this a lot. "Does gimp's UI behave in a way consistent with the rest of an OS's applications?"

"Nah, you don't really need it to do that, our way is better"

Re:CYMK

[Abreu]

Desktop publishing has nothing to do with website design

Re:CYMK

[PitaBred]

Yes, but they say that because there are a bunch of people who DON'T work in the professional publishing world who think they need CMYK support for their family photos.

If you know you need CMYK, it's not even a discussion. If you THINK you need CMYK, you don't.

Re:CYMK

[Abreu]

Thank you for pointing me in the direction of Scribus.

I didn't even know it existed (I know, I know...)

Re:CYMK

[gEvil (beta)]

If you know you need CMYK, it's not even a discussion. If you THINK you need CMYK, you don't.

Oh, trust me, I'm well aware of the number of people who "think" they need something, but can't simply tell you why, or even what it is/does. My frustration comes from KNOWING that I need something, and then being told "No you don't" by people that fall into your second category. You can actually see quite a bit of that here in this very thread.

Re:CYMK

[gEvil (beta)]

I guess nothing you buy ever comes in a package, or you never get physical mail, or you don't see movie posters or billboards anywhere, or you don't read magazines or catalogs, or your coffee mug doesn't have a logo on it, or on and on and on and on....

Re:CYMK

[xant]

Nah, if they had it they'd be shouting it from the rooftops. But GEGL is there now, and I expect CMYK to follow rapidly.

Re:CYMK

[johannesg]

Don't you just love the number of times people say "You don't really need CMYK support"? For those of use who work in the professional publishing world and see our work printed on real presses, YES WE DO!

I'm not in that industry, but just to satisfy my curiosity: can you explain a bit better?

I understand about the inks and everything, but surely the translation from RGB to CMYK is a purely mechanical process (i.e. you convert from one format to another and possibly spply s bit of calibration)? So why shouldn't you do all your work in RGB, and then as a final step convert to CMYK and print?

Not intended as a flame, I'm genuinely interested in learning why it is needed, and why it seems to be so difficult to support...

Re:CYMK

[Locklin]

I used to work in tech support for a company that had proprietary software...

"pass-the-buck" culture is pervasive.

The best is when one department will "pass-the-buck" to another department within the same company.

Re:CYMK

[SnoopJeDi]

Whatever. I don't like the whole "pass-the-buck" culture.

You get what you pay for. If you can't fix it, everything else is a crapshoot. You might hit the support jackpot or you might get shrugged off by a grumpy bunch of developers.

Re:CYMK

[dh003i]

Who's passing the buck? You are getting a free ride; they aren't paid for it. They do this for a hobby. For sure, we hope that things we want will be supported.

I hope that Softgenlock will work for me with an ATI Radeon 3800 or 4800 card...but it would be pretty presumptuous of me to get pissy if it doesn't. (btw, softgenlock, the only way you can use 9 megapixel monitors with consumer-grade GPUs without tearing, is only available in Linux).

Re:CYMK

[Haeleth]

And if you really need it, get this. Very nice.

I suppose, if by "very nice" you mean "does only the very minimum essential to provide basic support for one particularly simple use case".

But this is largely irrelevant, as pretty much anyone who actually needs CMYK support already owns a professional-grade graphics program, so why would they want to use the GIMP?

Re:CYMK

[Tyr_7BE]

Just out of curiosity, does that Separate+ plugin do the job well enough? People are always constantly bitching about the lack of CMYK support, and now it seems it's here. If it does indeed do a good enough job, what other reasons are holding professional publishers back from using Gimp? Please don't say that it's harder to use than photoshop - which one is harder to use all depends on which one you're familiar with. I'm asking what kind of fundamental limitations are there that prevent publishing houses from using it?

Re:CYMK

[ip_vjl]

Is there an open source app to do Gantt charts?

OT, but since others may not know as well - there is GanttProject:
http://ganttproject.biz/

It can import MS Project files as well as use its own XML format.
I find it is a nice addition to OpenOffice.org to allow me to work with the MSOffice files of others.

Re:CYMK

[Blakey Rat]

I understand that, and that's fine.

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. It's a negative cost for me; not only do I still have a non-working card, but now I've lost tons of hours trying to debug their driver which doesn't work.

I have nothing against volunteers, I just want them to be honest with me.

Re:CYMK

[Bent Mind]

The default response to "does open source software do X?" is "you don't really need to do X."

Yes, unlike proprietary software. The default response to "does proprietary software do X?" is to be ignored, have a salesman lie to you, or be told that it doesn't and you should use feature Z instead. Feature Z being completely unrelated to what you need.

This isn't an open source problem. It's a general problem with trying to find a pre-made solution to your unique problem.

In fact, the GNU project was started because a developer was fed up with a flaky printer. The developer implemented a solution and wanted to port it to a newer printer. He was told no.

Having the source code, and being able to distribute it, is part of a solution to the problem you describe.

As for using proprietary solutions, if a pre-built proprietary solution fits your needs and you are happy with the service, use it.

I understand that many car owners exclusively use their dealership for basic maintenance (oil changes and such). This is despite the fact that local shops are cheaper and doing it yourself is even cheaper. Proprietary software is much like the car dealership, with the addition of locks to prevent you from doing it yourself.

Re:CYMK

[jimicus]

CMYK support for the GIMP - Why you might not need CMYK support in the GIMP.

If someone knows enough to know that they need CMYK support, chances are they need CMYK support.

What disease is this that has people writing dirty great long articles about how a feature is unnecessary, not particularly useful and indeed sometimes dangerous when really what they mean is "My pet product doesn't support it and I'm ashamed to admit that - so instead of admitting it I'll try and tell anyone who will listen that the feature is a bad idea in the first place!"?

The people who write these articles invariably try and sound entirely authoritative, almost always talk down to their audience and are completely unaware of how damn stupid they sound when it is widely known that a rival product supports it without significant issue.

Re:CYMK

[rawtatoor]

You are speaking about developers who created a professional grade image editing program to solve whatever problems they had, and released it to the world, for free.

It isn't a "pass-the-buck" culture on their part that is the problem, it's a "do-it-for-me-for-free" culture on your part that is the problem here.

11 years I've been using free software now and I still don't get the attitude of acting like these people owe you everything you want and OMG a pony too. I really wish you would all fuck off and go buy your 800 dollar equivalents.

FWIW I use the GIMP for all of my image processing needs, and it flat out rocks.

Re:CYMK

[supernova_hq]

don't forget "Planner". I've used that before and been VERY happy with the HTML open file format as well as multiple export abilities (image, html, etc).

Re:CYMK

[jimicus]

You said it yourself: "supply a bit of calibration".

Colour perception and printing can be fiendishly involved - there's a difference between "what is technically correct, ie. no colour cast", "what looks pleasing to the eye" and "what looks pleasing to the eye when it's printed using this slightly different process which is necessary because suddenly we're printing on dirty great billboards rather than normal-size sheets of paper".

The printing industry uses CMYK and there's no standard way to say "this is the calibration you need to apply" - therefore you either work in CMYK or you put up with whatever comes out the other end when the result comes back from the printing firm. When your job is to come up with something that's pleasing to the eye, "putting up with whatever comes back from the printing firm" is not an option.

Re:CYMK

[danieltdp]

While I agree with you in general, in this case is more like "are you sure you're one of the persons that really need X?".

It happens that many just repeat the lack of X without understanding *when* X is needed.

Re:CYMK

[coolsnowmen]

...but surely the translation from RGB to CMYK is a purely mechanical process

That is where you've assumed wrongly. There are colors in RGB display colorspace that basically don't exist in CMYK print colorspace.

The short version:
    Because things are printed in CMYK, and the colorspace is different for cmyk and rgb, it could very well print differently than it looked on your computer screen.
So if you want what you print on paper, to be the same as how it was previewed on screen, than you need to preview and work in cmyk natively.

Just a quick google
http://www.printernational.org/rgb-versus-cmyk.php

Re:CYMK

[daffmeister]

Actually, he said you _might_ not need CMYK support. And if you do, he gave a link for a plugin.

Pretty reasonable answer I think.

Re:CYMK

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who works in the professional publishing world are you ever going to use GIMP regardless of what it does and doesn't do? No. You'll continue to use commercial software.

Re:CYMK

[jonadab]

> "Can open source apps paste spreadsheet cells into an email?"

The follow-up question here is, "Supposing it does, how on earth will the recipient's email software know what to do with the resulting deformed and invalid message?"

I once came *this close* to coding up a set of hooks for Emacs to combine AUCTeX and Gnus into a mail/news client that send messages in TeX format, and can display said messages as they are intended to look, just to demonstrate the principle of message format standardization to some clown on usenet who was advocating some non-slarkish rich text format or another for newsgroup messages. ("What, can't your lame newsreader read my beautifully formatted messages? Mine can, see? [screenshot] Maybe you should get a better newsreader, one that supports TeX messages, and then you can join the modern world, haha!")

Re:CYMK

[Randle_Revar]

also KPlato

Re:CYMK

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you just love the number of times people say "You don't really need CMYK support"? For those of use who work in the professional publishing world and see our work printed on real presses, YES WE DO!

Although a hard requirement, it is a domain-specific one, and so you shouldn't be surprised when people outside your domain fail to understand why it is necessary.

Re:CYMK

[Ilgaz]

I asked about 48bit tiff support on GIMP as that toy like Photoshop Elements advertises it can support. I politely asked, very specifically without any rant or even a joke. "Is there 48bit support on GIMP yet?", some idiot who thinks he support project by sitting in #gimp and mess with newbies said "No, because you didn't code it.". I found myself ordering Photoshop Elements in 10 secs. Glad Adobe geniuses doesn't sell to my country online :)

The CYMK, previously Colour profiles, the 48bit which every home user with a good scanner has potential to use (they archive/fix family photos!) isn't the issue. It is the idiots who poisons every open source software channel acting like official part of team and treating poor users like shit. That is the problem of open source. You won't find any Adobe employee joking with your naive question.
 

Re:CYMK

[rantingkitten]

The link the guy posted acknowleges that fact. But it also points out that unless you're a professional in that industry, it really doesn't matter that much. I think the point is that too many people refuse to use GIMP because "it doesn't support CMYK like Photoshop does." They have no idea what that is, but they shy away and go back to Photoshop for that reason. For the majority of people who just want to edit images, CMYK really doesn't matter, and for the few professionals that do need it, well, GIMP clearly isn't the right tool.

Re:CYMK

[Abreu]

But this is largely irrelevant, as pretty much anyone who actually needs CMYK support already owns a professional-grade graphics program, so why would they want to use the GIMP?

Because I dream of the day I can do everything I need to do on a computer using free software?

Re:CYMK

[dbIII]

They also demand that something looks and behaves exactly like photoshop but is free. I'm sure there is a torrent you can find if you want that. Meanwhile gimp is easier to use for simpler tasks on multiple desktop systems where having 20 seperate windows open is not a big confusing deal. Back when I tried using photoshop there wasn't even an undo function (true professionals didn't need it according to the newsgroup flames - it didn't matter that I'm not a graphics professional) so gimp was a lot easier for the simple stuff I wanted to do.

Many people just want to do simple photo cropping to print on home printers or do web graphics where colour seperation doesn't matter.

Re:CYMK

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, these are the same people who would recommend a mac if a novice to computers ask a simple question like "I don't know how to open a file on my computer". I would hold their opinion as high as the size of their penises.

Re:CYMK

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Post a picture of yourself operating an actual printing press. Hell, post a paystub. Working ANYWHERE, besides, of course, for Adobe's astroturf army.

Re:CYMK

[hugzz]

Whatever. I don't like the whole "pass-the-buck" culture.

Then why dont you fix the issues that you're having rather than passing it onto someone else and then complaining when they dont fix it? ;)

Re:CYMK

[dh003i]

I understand what you're saying, but also agree with the poster below. Depending on your system, versions of libraries, even the lot number of the card, it may not work for you. But it worked for developers, and for many other people.

Re:CYMK

[ozphx]

Yeah Photoshop is "serious software". For the image manipuation I usually do (photoshopping cocks into pictures, adding LOL captions) I find that Fireworks is a lot easier to use. Mainly because its more geared towards keeping things editable as long as possible (vector graphics, text layers, effects on elements, etc).

Whenever I use PS I always find I've accidently rasterised something I want to change. Pain in the ass.

Re:CYMK

[jonadab]

No, I like when the ISV passes the buck to the hardware manufacturer, who passes it on to the OS vendor, who passes it back to the ISV, who insists that they've never seen this problem in their software and it must be a hardware glitch, but the hardware manufacturer, after coming out to have a look at it, assures us that the hardware is working correctly and it must be an operating system problem, but the OS vendor tells us that it's a third-party software issue and we should contact the software vendor. Yeah, that little setup gets the problem solved *real* fast.

Re:CYMK

[clone53421]

Perhaps – oh, I don't know – as a TABLE element? Most e-mail clients should already support that.

Re:CYMK

[clone53421]

That is where you've assumed wrongly. There are colors in RGB display colorspace that basically don't exist in CMYK print colorspace.

The short version:

    Because things are printed in CMYK, and the colorspace is different for cmyk and rgb, it could very well print differently than it looked on your computer screen.
So if you want what you print on paper, to be the same as how it was previewed on screen, than you need to preview and work in cmyk natively.

The full colourspace of visible light contains colours that can't be printed with either RGB or CMYK. If we can somehow expect our digital camera to accurately reproduce a natural scene using the RGB colourspace, and we can also accurately represent the same scene using CMYK printing, why can't we find a way to accurately represent an RGB image using the CMYK colourspace?

Re:CYMK

[coolsnowmen]

accurately

I am not an expert. But no one replied and the thread is probably stale so here are my thoughts.

RGB cameras don't focus on physical accuracy anymore. They try to store an image that matches what we see (has to do with how we see green light).

You can destructively map rgb to cmyk, but that is not a competitive option to working in the same space you want to print in.

If there are colors in the rgb space that don't exist in cmyk, then they can't be represented accurately. It is not a question of algorithms, it is a physical impossibility.

(just a guess) I think this is why pantone inks exists. To broaden the possible rgb->cmyk mapable color palette.

Asking a printer to work in RGB and print to CMYK, would be like asking a sound producer to work with 44.1 khz mp3s but listen to 36khz oggs. Would you want your Wilhelm scream to have transformation artifacts in it?

Re:CYMK

[jonadab]

> Perhaps - oh, I don't know - as a TABLE element? Most e-mail clients should already support that.

For every email client you name that supports HTML messages, I'll name one that doesn't. But in any event, HTML table cells don't do the things a spreadsheet's cells do (e.g., calculation), so you couldn't actually implement the requested feature based on that, anyway.

Re:CYMK

[clone53421]

For every email client you name that supports HTML messages, I'll name one that doesn't.

But... why?

HTML table cells don't do the things a spreadsheet's cells do (e.g., calculation)

No, and they don't if you paste them into Word, either. It's still better than it looking like weird indented garbage.

Re:CYMK

[jonadab]

> > For every email client you name that supports HTML messages, I'll name one that doesn't.
> But... why?

A lot of reasons. Because it's completely unnecessary. Because there are grave security concerns. Because 99.999% of all HTML mail is spam anyway. Because people who really want to write web pages can always do exactly that and put them up on the web. But mostly because it's one of at least three competing non-standard rich text formats for email, none of which is necessary, and none of which has ever reached a level of usage that would make it a priority feature for most mail clients. There's always something else more important to implement, such as unicode support, spam filtering, anti-phishing features, encrypting and signing, and so on and so forth.

Actually, the mailreader I use theoretically has support for HTML mail (because, on principle, Gnus has _every_ feature, including the kitchen sink; for instance, it can also decode morse code), and I don't even have its HTML mail support enabled, for several of the above-listed reasons, the most important being, HTML is not a standard format for email. HTML is a standard format for the world wide web. Plain text is the standard format for email message bodies. (HTML, like any other format, could be sent as an attachment, but that's another matter.)

Re:CYMK

[jonadab]

> > HTML table cells don't do the things a spreadsheet's cells do (e.g., calculation)
> No, and they don't if you paste them into Word, either.

Well, I haven't used a recent version of Word, but that *used* to work, back in the days of Windows 3.1. It was called OLE, and after pasting the spreadsheet cells into the word processing document, if you changed some of the numbers, the formulas would recalculate just like you'd expect. The equivalent functionality works in OpenOffice.org today (pasting Calc cells into Writer). I have doubts about the usefulness of this feature, but it is possible because all the applications in the office suite are all present on the computer. That is to say, it only ever worked in Word if the computer you were opening the document on also had Excel installed. If you took the Word document to a computer that only had Word (not all of Office), it wouldn't work. So for email that would be a complete non-starter even if it were technically possible to embed an OLE object in an email message (which it's not anyhow) because you have no way to know what computer the recipient will open the message on nor what software it will have installed.

Re:CYMK

[clone53421]

A lot of reasons. Because it's completely unnecessary. Because there are grave security concerns. Because 99.999% of all HTML mail is spam anyway. Because people who really want to write web pages can always do exactly that and put them up on the web.

I'm pretty sure that every e-mail I send in GMail is sent in the HTML format.

But mostly because it's one of at least three competing non-standard rich text formats for email, none of which is necessary, and none of which has ever reached a level of usage that would make it a priority feature for most mail clients.

Three? What are the other two? Also, maybe the OSS user-base doesn't think HTML mail is a priority feature (although you yourself said your client does actually have the feature), but Lotus Notes, Outlook [Express], and every web-based e-mail I've seen all have no trouble sending and receiving HTML messages.

(HTML, like any other format, could be sent as an attachment, but that's another matter.)

HTML is sent as an attachment. HTML-capable mail readers cleverly disguise this fact.

Re:CYMK

[clone53421]

after pasting the spreadsheet cells into the word processing document, if you changed some of the numbers, the formulas would recalculate just like you'd expect.

E-mails aren't supposed to be "active" anyway. You get it, you read it, you don't change anything.

Actually, there's a reason OLE didn't really catch on... the e-mail composer isn't supposed to take on the abilities of Excel just because you pasted a grid of values in. If you need to change something, you have to change the original spreadsheet and re-paste it into the e-mail.

(For that matter, if you truly needed the calculation functionality, it'd be trivial to implement the formulas with JavaScript on a normal HTML page hosted on your server. The e-mail would have to link to that.)

Re:CYMK

[jonadab]

> I'm pretty sure that every e-mail I send in GMail is sent in the HTML format.

I regularly receive email that was sent from GMail accounts, and it's plain text. (Umm, it's vaguely possible that it's actually multipart/alternative and I haven't noticed.)

> What are the other two?

text/enriched and text/ms-rtf, IIRC. Also note that all HTML mail support is not created equal.

> Also, maybe the OSS user-base doesn't think HTML mail is a priority feature
> (although you yourself said your client does actually have the feature)

As I said, Gnus has every feature, whether it's a priority or not. It can also decode morse code. How many people do you know who send messages in *that* format, eh? It can run on a dumb terminal with no graphics capability (and can do syntax coloring if the terminal has color), but if it's running in a graphical environment it can display images inline. It supports Face and X-Face headers. It does folding, adaptive scoring, grouping-symbol-matching, per-folder customization of all outgoing header fields, up to and including calculating them on the fly for each message with user-defined functions. Where most mail clients only support POP3, IMAP, and maybe one other method of message retrieval, Gnus supports something like a dozen different ways to get new mail, including kibozing. If you look up "creeping featurism" in the dictionary, there's a picture of Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen.

So the fact that Gnus supports something really doesn't mean it is widely accepted.

(Note that I'm not saying the feature creep in Gnus is a bad thing. It is the mailreader I've chosen to use myself, after all. I wouldn't recommend it to most end-users, though.)

> HTML is sent as an attachment. HTML-capable mail readers cleverly disguise this fact.

Umm, I think you are confused about what the word "attachment" means. It does not just mean "any MIME part", or the body of a regular old plain text email would be an attachment too, if you sent an attachment along with it.

Re:CYMK

[jonadab]

> E-mails aren't supposed to be "active" anyway. You get it, you read it, you don't change
> anything. Actually, there's a reason OLE didn't really catch on... the e-mail composer
> isn't supposed to take on the abilities of Excel

Exactly.

But have a look at the message I was originally responding to, umm, here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=982019&cid=25220767

The author of that message seemed to be implying that open-source developers were just being unnecessarily difficult and inappropriately user-hostile when they said "you don't need it to do that" in response to a request for exactly this feature.

Feature requests *do* have to be vetted (or triaged, or whatever you want to call it) for practicality.

Re:CYMK

[clone53421]

Umm, I think you are confused about what the word "attachment" means. It does not just mean "any MIME part", or the body of a regular old plain text email would be an attachment too, if you sent an attachment along with it.

I'd have to look at the details again to refresh my memory, and I don't have them with me. But as I recall in a multipart MIME message the only difference is the "attachment" or "inline" status of the MIME-part. There's a "backup" version in plain text for mail readers that don't understand multipart MIME – that's the message; there's a MIME-part which your mail reader looks at and says, hmm, this says to display it inline.

For comparison: you can also embed images in an HTML e-mail (not just linked to a www URL, but actually embedded). Your mail reader will also cleverly disguise this fact: the image will display in the HTML message where it's referred to by the IMG SRC. However, in this case, your mail reader will flag the message as having an attachment. The way I look at it, an HTML message isn't really any different from an embedded image in the message; they're both attachments that are intelligently presented by the mail reader to hide the technical details from the user.

Re:CYMK

[clone53421]

Ok, we can agree there. The "actively calculate changes in spreadsheet cells" feature doesn't need to be part of my mail reader. However, I'd still say "it'd be a good feature if I was able to paste part of a spreadsheet into a message as a TABLE element".

People can't claim I don't need that, because (1) people will want to do that, (2) pasting into rich text should "work", i.e. it should LOOK approximately the same even if it doesn't have all the capabilities of the original data, (3) the TABLE element already exists and is the obvious spreadsheet-like HTML element to implement this, and (4) although you could probably create a table manually and enter (or paste) the values into the cells one by one, that's simply not practical.

Re:CYMK

[jonadab]

You can actually send inline images with a plain-text messages too, and they'll be displayed inline if the user's mailreader supports that. Software that doesn't support that (e.g., text-based clients) will generally treat it as an attachment.

But MIME has no provision for spreadsheet cells.

Re:CYMK

[jonadab]

> However, I'd still say "it'd be a good feature if I was able to paste part
> of a spreadsheet into a message as a TABLE element".

But a range of spreadsheet cells *isn't* a TABLE element, unless your spreadsheet program puts it on the clipboard that way, which is, in a word, unlikely.

> pasting into rich text should "work", i.e. it should LOOK approximately the
> same even if it doesn't have all the capabilities of the original data

In the general case, there's no mechanism whereby an application that you paste something into can know what the stuff you are pasting looked like visually in the original application it came from. Copying and pasting has never EVER worked that way, with any software on any platform, unless the content in question was an image. Otherwise, if the visual appearance is what you want, the usual way to get that is to take a screenshot.

I believe Windows Vista even comes with a nifty utility for taking quick screenshots of arbitrary rectangular areas of the screen, so you don't even have to break out an image editor for cropping. Gnome used to have a feature like that in 1.x, but, sadly, I'm pretty sure that was done away for version 2.0 by the same Extremist Anti-Features Jihad that took away floating panels and always-on-top panels, among other things. (I'd still be using Gnome 1.x, but it's not really compatible with current versions of other things. Any application you wanted to install would complain that your version of some library or another is too old, and the old version of Gnome won't work with the newer library versions. I'm thinking of switching to KDE, but it doesn't have panel drawers, which are a real must-have for me.)

Re:CYMK

[clone53421]

MIME has no provision for spreadsheet cells

Well, you'd have to send it as type application/octet-stream with a known file extension – same as any other format that MIME doesn't explicitly support.

But if all you want to do is paste some data, it should be sent in table format as text/html.

Re:CYMK

[clone53421]

But a range of spreadsheet cells *isn't* a TABLE element, unless your spreadsheet program puts it on the clipboard that way, which is, in a word, unlikely.

The Windows clipboard already knows what format the content has. It shouldn't be a big deal.

For example, if I select a range of cells in Excel (and for the sake of argument let's suppose some of them are formulas) and copy them, I can paste the results into Notepad and it automatically converts it to tab-delimited text – my formulas are gone. If I paste the same thing into Excel, the formulas are preserved. If, rather, I copy tab-delimited text in Notepad and paste it into Excel, it automatically fills the appropriate number of spreadsheet cells to fit the size of the tab-delimited data (and if I type what looks like an Excel formula in the plain text, Excel automatically assumes it's a formula). In other words, the "spreadsheet cells" data object has some sort of "toString()" method.

Now if I paste the cells into Word, it shows up as a Word table. That means the spreadsheet data obviously also has some sort of a "toRichText()" method. If I paste the spreadsheet cells into Outlook Express, it shows up as – are you ready for this – an HTML table. So there's apparently a "toHTML()" method as well. It's not too much to ask the open-source applications to do the same thing.

Re:CYMK

[jonadab]

> The Windows clipboard already knows what format the content has. It shouldn't be a big deal.

The clipboard doesn't know the format in the sense of being able to interpret or convert it. It only knows what the program that placed the information there told it. Programs that put information on the clipboard can send that information in more than one format, and they often do. A word processing program, for instance, will commonly send information to the clipboard in its own format, in a more basic richtext format, and as plain text. (Some word processors, such as OpenOffice.org Writer, also send it as HTML.)

The receiving program can't just ask for the information in any format it wants. It can only choose between the available options. (If the program supports more than one of the available options, it may offer a Paste Special option so the user can choose. This is useful, for instance, when you are copying information into a word processing document but you *don't* want the original formatting; you can paste the plain-text version, assuming the information is available that way, which is generally the case because practically everything supports plain text.) What format options are available for pasting is up to the program that puts the information *onto* the clipboard. The only way you're going to get HTML off the clipboard is if the program that copies the information onto the clipboard sends it as HTML.

> For example, if I select a range of cells in Excel [...] and copy them, I can paste the results
> into Notepad and it automatically converts it to tab-delimited text - my formulas are gone.

Yes, but Notepad didn't do the conversion, and the Windows clipboard didn't do the conversion. Excel did the conversion when you copied the information. This is possible because Excel knows its own format, and it also understands tab-delimited text.

> In other words, the "spreadsheet cells" data object has some sort of "toString()" method.

An interesting notion, but the stuff in the clipboard is not active in that way. It's just data, though it may be available in multiple formats.

> If I paste the spreadsheet cells into Outlook Express, it shows up as an HTML table.

If so, then that means Excel put it there that way. (I was not specifically aware that Excel put its data onto the clipboard in HTML format, though I guess it's not very surprising. The last time I used Excel very much, it was running on Windows 3.1, so you expect some new features.)

I still don't consider HTML email to be legitimate in a general internet context. Maybe in a corporate intranet environment where you know what software the recipient is using and the recipient knows that the sender necessarily isn't malicious because all messages originate within the company.

Re:CYMK

[clone53421]

The clipboard doesn't know the format in the sense of being able to interpret or convert it. It only knows what the program that placed the information there told it. Programs that put information on the clipboard can send that information in more than one format, and they often do. A word processing program, for instance, will commonly send information to the clipboard in its own format, in a more basic richtext format, and as plain text.

True enough.

What format options are available for pasting is up to the program that puts the information *onto* the clipboard. The only way you're going to get HTML off the clipboard is if the program that copies the information onto the clipboard sends it as HTML.

Kind of. There's also the possibility that the receiving program recognizes one of the available formats and says "Actually, that format is better than the other ones, but I'll need to convert it to something else first." (In fact, that's typically the case – and the "paste special" doesn't merely list the available types, it also lists the types known to the receiving program as "I can convert X to Y".)

An interesting notion, but the stuff in the clipboard is not active in that way. It's just data, though it may be available in multiple formats.

What I meant was that at some point it did. The source program might put the data on the clipboard in multiple types, but at some point it went through that function. It's not really a major point. A better point would be that either the source or destination program can convert the data as they access the clipboard.

If so, then that means Excel put it there that way. (I was not specifically aware that Excel put its data onto the clipboard in HTML format, though I guess it's not very surprising. The last time I used Excel very much, it was running on Windows 3.1, so you expect some new features.)

More likely it put them in as a more basic richtext format, as you said before, and the richtext format was the "preferred" input data types used by Outlook when I pasted it – i.e. Outlook did the conversion. Anyway, there's no reason why other software can't do the same thing.

Re:CYMK

[Nicolay77]

And why should they care about the reason some people need CMYK, as long as there exists a group with that legitimaly need?

If I think I need CMYK, and I don't, I don't see how that's THEIR F!@#$ng problem.

Perspective adjust

[VincenzoRomano]

I hope they'll make it more usable as in Krita.

Windows version still lagging.

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:Windows version still lagging.

[imbaczek]

you're not looking deep enough. see here. not quite 2.6.0, but close enough.

Re:Windows version still lagging.

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2.6.0 installer for Windows is basically ready. It just needs a little more testing and should become available in a day or two.

Re:Windows version still lagging.

[Ostracus]

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.

At least they didn't put in a ribbon. ;0

Re:Windows version still lagging.

[whatUrunning.com]

I'm looking forward to it, I just rebuilt my primary PC and have held back on installing GIMP hoping the new version would be released soon.

You can say what image editor you are using at: http://www.whaturunning.com/The-Best-Image-Photo-Editing-Software.htm

Re:Windows version still lagging.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a flying fuck about windoze lusers?

Re:Windows version still lagging.

[PitaBred]

Wish there was a "-1 spam" mod available...

Re:Windows version still lagging.

[Vitriolix]

the build is already up, just not on their website yet:

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=121075&package_id=250052

Re:Windows version still lagging.

[i.of.the.storm]

I see it on the sourceforge project page. I've been doing this for a while because they usually update their Windows links a bit later than the others. But they're usually up fairly promptly.

Re:Windows version still lagging.

[Anonymous Coward]

A day or two? It's already on SF: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=121075&package_id=250052

Re:Windows version still lagging.

[treeves]

It's *there now. I just got it.

*Link to GIMP for Windows on http://www.gimp.org/downloads/

Re:Windows version still lagging.

[Fizzl]

Can I use it to upgrade from 2.4.7, or do I need to uninstall first?

Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Richard W.M. Jones]

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.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[marsu_k]

Make an oval / rectangular selection, stroke with the desired width. Wasn't so laborious now was it? But for a more drawing oriented program check out Krita. There should be a Windows port soon as well.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[mrchaotica]

Then you want Inkscape instead.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Richard W.M. Jones]

Then you want Inkscape instead.

No really I want GIMP to be able to do this.

Example: Take a family photograph and circle somebody. Or add a cartoon speech bubble.

These things should be single step operations from the main control pane.

Rich.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Anonymous Coward]

They are simple, you are the reason why you can't do it. Everyone else manages it just fine.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[mrrudge]

It would be nice if it had a drop down of the names of all the people in the photograph too, maybe it could get their favourite ring colour from facebook ?

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[elrous0]

A missing feature is still a missing feature, no matter the workaround. If someone was selling a car with no seatbelts, I wouldn't buy it just because someone pointed out I could make my own easily enough.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[JackassJedi]

No, what I want instead is a GIMP/Inkscape hybrid ;)

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[replicant108]

Make an oval / rectangular selection, stroke with the desired width. Wasn't so laborious now was it?

Drawing with the selection tool may not be laborious, but it is obscure and counter-intuitive.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Rod Beauvex]

This train of thought here is exactly what's wrong with Linux and the OSS world in general. If it's already doable, no matter how hard and /or obscure the method, than that's just good enough,no reason to improve.

Until this attitude is corrected, OSS will continue to go nowhere.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[qwertphobia]

This train of thought here is exactly what's wrong with Microsoft and the Win32 world in general. If it's already doable, no matter how easy and /or efficient the method, than it's just not good enough, it's gotta be tinkered with just to charge the users for the next upgrade.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, if I had but a penny for every thing that is exactly what's wrong with Linux and the OSS world in general!

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent sums it up perfectly. Until OSS gets this through it's thick collective skull, they'll never have more than 1% of the market in something like this field. GIMP is, quite simply, a PITA to use. It needn't be, but it is. THAT'S why people still pay for Photoshop.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[marsu_k]

Drawing with the selection tool may not be laborious, but it is obscure and counter-intuitive.

Perhaps - I guess I've used Gimp for so long that it doesn't seem counter-intuitive, but YMMV. However, given how many tools already exist in the toolbox, I'll gladly draw this way as opposed to having a few (not so essential, IMHO) icons more there.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[clone53421]

Making your own seatbelts would be more akin to creating a new plug-in for GIMP. What GP suggested is merely a 2-step process to accomplish what could be done in 1... the tools are already provided, you just have to use them.

Why create entirely different "line", "rectangle", "polygon", and "ellipse" tools when "stroke selection" and "stroke path" do all of those — and more? For example, "rounded rectangle": rectangle select, grow selection by radius, stroke selection.

Plus, the time you save by creating a "rectangle" tool isn't that significant because it won't be used very often. The 2-step workaround is fast enough that it's not worth the trouble.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Waffle Iron]

Make an oval / rectangular selection, stroke with the desired width. Wasn't so laborious now was it?

The problem I have is that I already vaguely know that's how you're supposed to draw shapes in Gimp. However, I probably need to do that less than once per year, so I've usually forgotten the details each time I try it. Now I'm stuck poking around until I relearn the exact procedure.

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..."

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Enselic]

Why are you listening to him? He is a random person on the internet.

The train of thought rather usually goes like this: "It is already doable but rather awkward to use. I don't need this feature very often though, and I have more interesting/important things to work on."

The GIMP developers would of course not reject a patch that implemented this in a nice way.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Rod Beauvex]

Ever think that maybe some of this stuff just might be right? Ever think that maybe these criticisms aren't something people have pulled out of their asses, but are rather genuine complaints based on their experiances? I can deal with a learning curve. I cannot accept a sharp, jagged peak.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[clone53421]

Funny that you should say that, because when you were looking for the "rectangle" tool, I bet your first assumption was that the "box-looking thingy" was the tool you wanted. Well, it was; you just didn't realize "stroke selection" was the tool to get you from point A ("I have a rectangular selection, now what?") to point B ("black rectangle outline").

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Rod Beauvex]

Using Microsoft's failures to justify OSS' shortcomings is like using Bill Clinton's blowjob to excuse Bush's fuck-ups.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, just use the oval or rectangular selection tool.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Anonymous Coward]

This is sad. I've been using Gimp for a long time and never knew about using stroke to outline a selection. I've always selected an area, filled it, shrunk the selection and cut out the area I didn't need.

Always did the job I needed it to, but could've been easier. I thank you for saving time in the future.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not an MSPaint, mmm'kay?

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[clone53421]

No really I want GIMP to be able to do this.

It can.

Example: Take a family photograph and circle somebody. Or add a cartoon speech bubble.

Circle somebody: Ellipse select tool, select an oval. Stroke selection. Choose a line style, you're done.

Cartoon speech bubble: Ellipse selection, shift-lasso select the arrow (if you can't draw a straight enough line, convert to a path, edit the path to put an arrow in, then convert back to a selection). Fill with background colour using the paint tool (fill whole selection). Stroke selection, choose line style. Put the words in it with the text tool. If you're doing that a lot, make a generic text balloon and save it, then insert it as a layer when you need one.

These things should be single step operations from the main control pane.

Why? What's wrong with a 2-step operation? It's still relatively quick considering how often people want to do what you described (not very often; heck, the people who just want to do that generally get by with MS Paint).

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[grumbel]

Why create entirely different "line", "rectangle", "polygon", and "ellipse" tools when "stroke selection" and "stroke path" do all of those -- and more?

For one reason because they don't. Stroking a selection gives a rather ugly circles compared to a real circle tools, since to much information gets lost along the way. And of course also usability, lack of proper circle tools has been an issue for a decade and yet it is still not fixed and still continues to be an issue and the issue won't go away by pretending its not there. Name a good reason why Gimp shouldn't have a set of geometry tools. I frankly can't think of one. If somebody worries that the toolbox is getting crammed, just add a way to remove tools from it.

All that aside, there is also a larger issue with the lack of those tools, namely that tools can't be plug-ins, so any new tool has to be done directly in Gimp and can't be supplied as an add-on. If they could be this issue would have already been fixed long ago.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[tepples]

If someone was selling a car with no seatbelts, I wouldn't buy it just because someone pointed out I could make my own easily enough.

Some cars have their lap belt and shoulder belt on separate controls, just as GIMP has creating a selection and stroking it on separate controls. I just bind Stroke to Ctrl+slash (right next to Fill with Foreground Color, which is Ctrl+comma, and Fill with Background Color, which is Ctrl+period), and it becomes second nature.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[AliasMarlowe]

Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now?

It's a two-step process, but not too arduous:
1. Create a selection of any kind (oval, rectangle, freeform, whatever), then replace it with its border,
2. Fill selection with chosen color & degree of transparency.
The "replace selection with border" operation might not be obvious at first, but it soon becomes second nature. The keyboard shortcut for it in Gimp 2.4 is alt-s r.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Toonol]

Everybody else doesn't manage it just fine. I used GIMP for months before I figured that out. And I, just like the GP, am relatively intelligent and computer literate.

It's not a complicated process, and it even makes a bit of sense, looking at it in hind-sight. But it is not intuitive. When practically every new user of a program has the same issue, the user may not be the problem. Maybe the process is fine, but it needs to be told to the user more clearly.

I use GIMP nearly every day, and really like it. I'm a fan. I'm glad to see improvements.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[mcrbids]

You're looking for a drawing program, not an image editor.

However, you can draw your circle:

1) Select an oval.

2) Right-click, go to Select -> Border, enter pixels of select width.

3) Use the paint bucket, click on the border.

To turn it into a cartoon saying, paint-bucket white after step 1, then add step 4: use Text Tool to enter some text.

Is that so hard? I mean, what Gimp is not is that Kodak "photo editor" crapware that comes with your $99 digital camera, that makes dumb stuff easy and powerful stuff impossible.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Draek]

Example: Take a family photograph and circle somebody. Or add a cartoon speech bubble.

These things should be single step operations from the main control pane.

...of Inkscape, as should be obvious given the relative complexity of a "cartoon speech bubble", and the obvious problems that'll occur when you try to resize it if you did it in a raster editor.

Photoshop needs to have everything and the kitchen sink, because Adobe can't expect normal people to pay more than $700 for their image editing needs. F/OSS has no such obligation, and is therefore free to follow UNIX's philosophy of "do one thing, and one thing well", and *drawing* is the domain of Inkscape and Xara.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[ardcomics]

I.E. http://anotherrandomday.com/ [shameless plug] BUT the talk about ugly circles is spot on. I have used G.I.M.P. for years but it still holds a personal record for being the only graphics app that forced me to google "how to draw a straight line"

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Zosden]

That is probably the funnest thing I have ever heard. Mod parent up!!!

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[excelsior_gr]

Just *import* your photo in Inkscape (copying and pasting won't work)! Then you can draw on it anything you wish!

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Fallingcow]

Yeah, I mostly use the Gimp to cut up images for website layouts, but on the rare occasion that I have to do something like, oh, draw a line, I usually have to do a Google search to figure out WTF to do.

I've got at least 5x as much experience with The Gimp as with Photoshop at this point, and until recently I hadn't used Photoshop for several years. I had to install PS a few weeks ago after discovering that The Gimp was losing drop shadows that our graphic designer was sending to me in .ps files. Holy shit, I'd forgotten how much better it is. Even with my not having used it in a long time, and having way, way more experience with The Gimp, PS is still easier to use. Part of it's that it is simply more intuitive, but it doesn't hurt that I don't have spend half my time fighting with the damned UI, juggling windows around.

I, for one, can't wait for something better to knock The Gimp off its throne as THE open source image editor. I'll throw a party the day that happens.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[michaewlewis]

exactly... obscure and counter-intuitive. It should be one task, not two.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[klaun]

Photoshop needs to have everything and the kitchen sink, because Adobe can't expect normal people to pay more than $700 for their image editing needs. F/OSS has no such obligation, and is therefore free to follow UNIX's philosophy of "do one thing, and one thing well", and *drawing* is the domain of Inkscape and Xara.

Hmmm... there is also a Unix philosophy of all input and output being a text stream and programs being designed as 'filters'. Why doesn't GIMP stick to that? Maybe because blind adherence to some dogmatic philosophy isn't always the wisest choice?

Just a thought...

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Richard W.M. Jones]

Cartoon speech bubble: Ellipse selection, shift-lasso select the arrow (if you can't draw a straight enough line, convert to a path, edit the path to put an arrow in, then convert back to a selection). Fill with background colour using the paint tool (fill whole selection). Stroke selection, choose line style. Put the words in it with the text tool. If you're doing that a lot, make a generic text balloon and save it, then insert it as a layer when you need one.

I'm seriously waiting for someone to mod this +1 funny ...

Rich.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[mbeware]

It's not because it's one more click than the Rectangle tool that people wants it. It's because it's not as visible to the new user. It increase the learning curve.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[MMC Monster]

How about an arrow?

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[carlmenezes]

I agree with you, to a point. However, I think its a tad hard on them. I think they're well aware of the things that users want changed, but that there are priorities. All we really need to do is increase adoption. Because it is open source, this would increase the speed that issues get addressed. It will also increase the speed of evolution of the software (this is one place where OSS has an edge over the commercial world - we do not need to time releases with trade shows, for example).

I think they're doing an amazing job. What I really would like to see is some form of unity as far as a native file format is concerned - if most of the popular OSS image editors used one native format (say XCF - could be anything). This would mean that all of a sudden there is so much more you can do with one file and OSS image manipulation as a task becomes that much easier because there is a program for everyone. Kinda what is happening to the OSS Office world right now.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[freddy_dreddy]

Wasn't so laborious now was it?

Yes it is.

That's why we have computers and software: Software is supposed to adapt to the wishes of the user, not the other way around.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Risen888]

There's nothing obscure about it. A poster above gave a very simple 2-step process that I had no trouble following along with even though I've never done it before. So no, it's just that you like to talk shit.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[carlmenezes]

Keep groaning. Here's the truth : No matter what you say, you will always be curious about whats new with each new release. You can help fix what you don't like, or you can wait (and optionally groan). If you don't help, respect the fact that the people who are helping have their priorities and that they might not agree with yours. In addtion, remember that typically, growth and usability of OSS software accelarates once it reaches critical mass. If you want to be a PITA, go ahead. Just know that nobody is going to listen to you until they feel like.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[clone53421]

Try a non-antialiased ellipse stroked with Pencil, Circle (01).

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[clone53421]

"how to draw a straight line"

Path, make a straight line, stroke path. Not all that hard once you get the whole notion of paths and selections into your head (and the ability to stroke paths and selections).

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[clone53421]

Actually, I forgot: the pencil tool makes straight lines. Click, move, shift-click.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, the GIMP team doesn't do workflows.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[ardcomics]

Erm, select the drawing tool, click while holding down Shift. Stretch and release. :)

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[mrchaotica]

No really I want GIMP to be able to do this.

Example: Take a family photograph and circle somebody. Or add a cartoon speech bubble.

Nope, you still want Inkscape. Take the cartoon speech bubble example: how do you decide how big you want it to be? The answer is "big enough to fit the text I want inside," of course! And the easiest way to do that is if the speech bubble is a vector object, so that it can just expand as you type text (also inherently vectors) into it. And the program suited to working with vectors is Inkscape, not GIMP.

All you have to do is import your bitmap into Inkscape, which is easy to do, and go from there.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[mrchaotica]

Hmmm... there is also a Unix philosophy of all input and output being a text stream and programs being designed as 'filters'. Why doesn't GIMP stick to that?

Gimp does do that! You can run it in batch mode from the command-line, and you can write your own filters in either LISP ("Script-Fu") or Python ("Python-Fu"). Of course, depending on what you want to do you may also want to consider ImageMagick, which doesn't have a GUI mode at all.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[mrchaotica]

You sure you don't just want a better workflow between GIMP and Inkscape, but allowing them to remain separate programs?

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[diqmay]

Confucius says; man on bottom is...

ah fuck it.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[hullabalucination]

Example: Take a family photograph and circle somebody. Or add a cartoon speech bubble.

You can do that easily in Inkscape. Just import your photo into Inkscape, size it as you wish, scribble all over it using the vector shape tools, then export another bitmap out of Inkscape (PNG is the default). The bonus is that your vector shapes (circles, speech bubbles) are separate objects that don't directly interact with your bitmap (which itself is only linked into the Inkscape file), so you can't as easily destroy your only copy of that Pulitzer Prize-winning digital photo in Inkscape as you could in a bitmap editor like Photoshop or the GIMP. I do this kind of stuff all the time (professionally), and while I'll certainly do it from time to time in the GIMP, the results are generally much more satisfactory in Inkscape, with the added benefit that if you don't like that cartoon bubble's outline thickness or color, etc, you can more easily change it in Inkscape. Sometimes, the best bitmap editor is a vector program.

* * * * *

"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." —Groucho Marx

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[clone53421]

Yup. Remembered that about 4 minutes after I posted. ;)

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Ant P.]

Name a good reason why Gimp shouldn't have a set of geometry tools.

Because people who need that type of drawing are smart enough to use Inkscape instead?

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Anonymous Coward]

This train of thought here is exactly what's wrong with Linux and the OSS world in general. If it's already doable, no matter how hard and /or obscure the method, than that's just good enough,no reason to improve.

Until this attitude is corrected, OSS will continue to go nowhere.

How did this get marked as insightful? It's a two-step process! How simple is that!? Until someone comes up with a UI that has infinite visual real-estate while still maintaining usability, you aren't going to get your 'Draw_Baby_Jesus_Holding_Some_Cheetos" (or whatever your pet desired tool is) as point-n-click option on the main toolbar.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[dextromulous]

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.

Now that you mention it, it seems like it should be relatively easy to create a plug-in to draw shapes exactly how you are requesting. All you would have to do is automatically combine the two steps required right now.

On second thought, you may just be thinking of it backwards. When you draw a shape in another program (say MS Paint,) the steps required are:
- Pick the shape's properties (color, line width, etc.)
- Draw the shape

In the GIMP, the steps are reversed:
- Draw the shape
- Pick the shape's properties (color, line width, etc.)

I suppose the second step in the GIMP method is more involved than the first step in the MS Paint method, but it does provide more options as well.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[legirons]

Example: Take a family photograph
and circle somebody. Or add a cartoon speech bubble.

Someone has already mentioned you can select a circle and stroke it to get the line. I'll add that you can also take the border of your circle ("select, border" I think) and fill that. To make it look nicer, you can even feather the selection before you fill so that it fades-in nicely with the background. Unlike stroke, this lets you use patterns and gradients and stuff.

The other common way of highlighting someone in a photo is with your circular selection, invert it (to select everything other than your circle) and darken it, so the highlighted portion stands-out as brighter than the rest of the picture. Again, this works best if you feather the selection so it blends nicely.

Don't forget when doing stuff like darken, that "tools, colour, curves" is way easier to use and more flexible than the various slider-bar dialogs - just drag the graph to adjust gamma, and you can see if you're saturating anything out (or choose to do so if you want blank sky etc. behind people).

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[legirons]

No, what I want instead is a GIMP/Inkscape hybrid ;)

Like the most excellent Macromedia Fireworks? Being able to edit vector-shapes and see immediately what they look like in bitmap space was so useful - if there were anything free which could do that it would be awesum!

Perhaps it could be an Inkscape plugin, so you view the vector image at certain bitmap resolution? When you zoom-in it would show you the pixels of your destination image instead of staying in infintely-scaleable SVG mode.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[gknoy]

1) Make a text layer in GIMP. Write your text, arrange it how you like.
2) Make a layer under it in which you put your speech bubble.

The need for vector graphics, esp for a one-off thing where you're making "This is the doodad -->" labels, is overrated.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[SnEptUne]

I agree. Drawing is what inkscape does well, photo raster image editing is what GIMP does well, there is no point in reinventing everything inkscape has in GIMP.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[serviscope_minor]

Software is supposed to adapt to the wishes of the user

You misunderstand. Software does what the programmer commands it to, no more, no less. Perhaps you are after a programmer who adapts to the wishes of the user? You can get yourself one, but unfortunately, they are not cheap.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Anonymous Coward]

Drawing circles in gimp

Gee, that was a tough one.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Skrapion]

Except Gimp is primarily an image manipulation program, not a drawing program. As an image manipulation program, ellipse select is a far more useful tool than ellipse drawing. Having two different ellipse tools would just be confusing.

On the other hand, in a program like Inkscape (which is a drawing program) the ellipse tool really is for drawing ellipses. They don't even have an ellipse selection tool.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Skrapion]

You, sir, need to discover the "edit->stroke selection" tool, or paths dialog.

Using the selection border tool is kind of awkward and inflexible for this task.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Skrapion]

A less awkward and more flexible solution is to use the "edit->stroke selection" tool, or the paths dialog if you need more control.

These methods also have the nice side effect of making people less likely to respond with the phrase "Well, that was ass backward!"

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[QuantumG]

The current developers don't. Maybe you should fork the project and become a hero to everyone who also wants that.

And don't give me the but I can't code whine. There's clearly plenty of people out there who can code and who agree with you, form a team and get it done.

Or did you really mean that you just want to whine.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding drawing a circle:

GIMP doesn't have shape-drawing tools, but it does have shape selection tools. So the trick is to make a circular selection, then turn that into a line.

The ellipse selection tool, of course, can make a circle, but it's hard, just dragging it out, to make it a perfect circle with width and height the same. But pressing the shift key while you drag will constrain the ellipse selection to be exactly circular.

Can you honestly say that's acceptable?

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Anonymous Coward]

Whooosh!

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Sebastien_Bailard]

"Why do you need a shift key? To type capital letters, press capslock, type the letter(s) you need, and press caps lock again. And for !@#$%^&*()_+ and so on, you can select them through this menu." While we're discussing missing features, I want an oilpaint brush, a pastel brush, and so on, like Corel Painter X. (Built in, not a filter.)

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[jcupitt65]

I think those circles must have been made with rather an old gimp. 2.4 at least has a proper stroke path that doesn't use a brush and makes lovely circles. Stroking with a brush is still there, but it's not the default.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you need a shift key? To type capital letters, press capslock, type the letter(s) you need, and press caps lock again. And for !@#$%^&*()_+ and so on, you can select them through this menu.

Send that bug report to the creators of Windows Calculator. See if they reply with "you want Word/Wordpad/Notepad" instead, just like people here are responding with "You want inkscape instead".

Use the right tool for the job.

(I believe Gimp does import the speech bubble drawn in Inkscape).

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[clone53421]

There's a bit of a difference between "something hundreds of thousands of people will need to do with an application on a daily basis" and "something that a few people will occasionally need to do and would be better done with a different application".

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[grumbel]

Yes, those pictures are a little old, however even with current Gimp I am unable to do a perfect circle, they look a little better then before, but there are still way to many pixels in the wrong places.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[mrchaotica]

Whooosh yourself! I know damn well when I'm being obtuse; I do it on purpose!

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[clone53421]

Wasn't so laborious now was it?

Yes it is.

No, it isn't. It takes all of 5 seconds. Furthermore, my "stroke selection" tool doesn't just make rectangles; it can outline whatever I want it to. All I have to do is create the appropriate selection and then outline it.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[pbhj]

How about if someone was giving away a free motorbike and pointed out that if you wanted seatbelts that a car might be better and that you could get a free one from a guy he knows.

Drawing geometric shapes, IMO, is not the [central] domain of a raster editor. If you want to draw shapes Inkscape is fast becoming a great vector editor (other apps like sk1 [ http://sk1project.org/ ] and XaraLX are quite nice too). I know there are plenty of reasons why you'd want to draw simple shapes ...

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[pbhj]

Why do you want to draw rasterised circles, if you want smooth circles use a vector graphics app.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[clone53421]

I think you mean the Alt-PrtScrn plugin.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[clone53421]

Merry Christmas.

(define (script-fu-outline image drawable)
        (gimp-image-undo-group-start image)

        (let* (
                (width (car (gimp-drawable-width drawable)))
                (height (car (gimp-drawable-height drawable)))
                (outline-layer (car (gimp-layer-new image width height RGBA-IMAGE "outline" 100 0)))
                (selection (car (gimp-selection-save image)))
                    )

                (gimp-image-add-layer image outline-layer -1)
                (gimp-selection-none image)
                (gimp-edit-clear outline-layer)

                (gimp-selection-load selection)

                (gimp-selection-translate image -1 0)
                (gimp-edit-fill outline-layer FOREGROUND-FILL)

                (gimp-selection-translate image 2 0)
                (gimp-edit-fill outline-layer FOREGROUND-FILL)

                (gimp-selection-translate image -1 -1)
                (gimp-edit-fill outline-layer FOREGROUND-FILL)

                (gimp-selection-translate image 0 2)
                (gimp-edit-fill outline-layer FOREGROUND-FILL)

                (gimp-selection-translate image 0 -1)
                (gimp-edit-clear outline-layer)

                (gimp-image-remove-channel image selection)
        )

        (gimp-image-undo-group-end image)
        (gimp-displays-flush)
)

(script-fu-register "script-fu-outline"
        _"_Outline..."
        _"Outline the current selection with the FG colour"
        ""
        ""
        ""
        "RGB* GRAY*"
        SF-IMAGE "Image" 0
        SF-DRAWABLE "Drawable" 0
)

(script-fu-menu-register "script-fu-outline"
        "/Select/Modify")

Save it as %programfiles%/gimp-2.0/share/gimp/2.0/scripts/outline.scm (or wherever that folder is located on your install)... if you're already running GIMP, you'll have to Filters>Script-Fu>Refresh Scripts (in 2.6; Script-Fu is on the toolbox window in 2.4). It'll put a "Outline..." option in the Select menu. Sharp selections make sharp 1px outlines. Anti-aliased selections make anti-aliased 1px outlines. Feathered selections make wide fuzzy outlines, as you might expect. In any case the outline is drawn on a new layer in the foreground colour and is filled with transparency.

New instructions for drawing a "paintbrush-like" 1px circle: Select circle tool. Turn off anti-aliasing. Draw circle. Select>Outline.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[freddy_dreddy]

Hmm, you know, I'm just going to stop trying. Gimp devs clearly have no intention to listen to user feedback.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[freddy_dreddy]

Perhaps you are after a programmer who adapts to the wishes of the user? You can get yourself one, but unfortunately, they are not cheap.

Warning: I'm trolling here

Isn't that one of the main point of FOSS: getting the software tax down ? People who program for Gimp are by definition people who cater for a larger audience, i.e. don't just program for themselves. Did you just acknowledge that Gimp programmers have no interest in user feedback?

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[clone53421]

I'm a user. I'm not a GIMP dev. I like it the way it is. It's much more flexible than your way would be.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[freddy_dreddy]

Surely, it's not one or the other, pretty much all professional photo manipulation offers both possibilities.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[Nicolay77]

My question is, are paths and selections antialiased in the Gimp ?

Can I choose between aliased/anti-aliased ?

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now

[clone53421]

Can I choose between aliased/anti-aliased ?

Yes. When drawing selections, there's a checkbox that makes the selection anti-aliased or non-anti-aliased (sharp). Paths are vector shapes, so anti-aliasing is irrelevant; selections from paths are anti-aliased (but any anti-aliased selection can be made non-anti-aliased with Select>Sharpen).

Still no high colour depth?

[Ed Avis]

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?

Re:Still no high colour depth?

[Beetle B.]

I suspect the answer is "No", because they say that a lot of the code still depends on 8 bit code. But I guess the implication was "They're getting there".

There really isn't much here to warrant a major release (at least for the end user). I thought they had declared that the next major release would have full GEGL integration. Maybe I'm wrong.

Re:Still no high colour depth?

[Anonymous Coward]

8-bit RGB being 24-bit colour AKA true colour, 16,777,216 colours, while the human eye is "popularly believed to be capable of discriminating among as many as ten million colours" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_bit_colour]

Re:Still no high colour depth?

[Xabraxas]

There really isn't much here to warrant a major release (at least for the end user). I thought they had declared that the next major release would have full GEGL integration. Maybe I'm wrong.

I don't remember there ever being plans to have complete GEGL integration by 2.6. In fact I don't think that is scheduled until version 3.0.

The future of GIMP

[larry bagina]

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.

Re:The future of GIMP

[ColdWetDog]

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).

Just what are you running on? A Newton? PS CS2 / CS3 is / are quite happy with any recent Mac this side of a mini. And PS for Windows isn't exactly snappy on anything but a reasonably fast, memory stuffed PC. As for the 64 bit version, you're just blowing smoke. It's a 10-20% speed increase, at best, on gigabyte sized images. If you do these routinely, well then, go get Vista. I often do 3 - 4 gigabyte panoramas. Even on an 8GB Mac Pro they take a while (10-15 minutes to stitch). 64 bit would shave a minute or two off that? W00t!

Even manipulating multi gigabyte images on the 'ol 32 bit platform is pretty snappy. 64 bits will be nice, I'll take it when it comes, but I'm not crying about it.

If you think PS on OS X is a dog, either you don't know your breeds or you don't know how to set up a Photoshop capable machine.

Re:The future of GIMP

[aurb]

Ditch GTK? That's kinda funny, because GTK was created as the toolkit for GIMP (GTK stands for The GIMP Toolkit) :-)

Re:The future of GIMP

[Ragzouken]

He called it a dog. He was saying it was ugly, not slow.

Re:The future of GIMP

[jellomizer]

It is not photoshop... However if anyone wants to use photoshop in Linux they tell them use the Gimp, it is just as good... Which is bad advice. My output with Photoshop is much higher then with the GIMP, it may be just me and how I approach problems but in general I can get much more done and look a lot better with photoshop vs. the GIMP. It is not that GIMP is photoshop or the developers are trying to make it like Photoshop, However it given as a replacement where it isn't.
Photoshop is only a dog when dealing with HUGE Images.

Re:The future of GIMP

[Draek]

The solution: GIMP should ditch GTK/GDK and use GNUStep/Cocoa. This provides a number of advantages - free CMYK and pantone support,

Wow, GNUStep has pantone support?

better font rendering,

How? from what I've seen, GTK's font rendering is as good as X's itself, same as GNUStep. Care to mention any difference?

an improved UI,

You can improve an UI solely by porting an app to a different toolkit? and one that's designed around UI conventions that don't apply to any other desktop in existence?

and direct access to artistic types.

Artists use GNUStep?

An OS X native GIMP would kick it's ass.

Ohh, that explains it, you want TheGIMP to switch from being a multiplatform application to one designed around an OS that's neither Free nor dominant in the desktop market. Sorry, not gonna happen.

Re:The future of GIMP

[paulbd]

It would cool if Photoshop made the same move too, eh? Its not written with Cocoa either, which is giving Adobe a few headaches now that Carbon has been even more officially deprecated than it used to be. Seriously, you simply don't seem to understand what is involved in switching an program that it totally rooted in its GUI from one GUI toolkit to another. People say this as though its a simple recoding. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even porting from one version of a toolkit to another can be traumatic, let alone porting between two different 'kits. Much more optimistic is the fact that the GTK/Quartz port gets better every week, allowing the GIMP guys to offer a "native" (non-X11 based) build with very few code changes.

Re:The future of GIMP

[elysiana]

Close.... GIMP ToolKit. (Okay, so that's an anal-retentive reply, sorry)

Re:The future of GIMP

[Anonymous Coward]

So? I really don't care either way, but just because GTK was created for GIMP doesn't make it suck less.

Re:The future of GIMP

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Pixelmator on OSX. ItÂs not open source, nor itÂs free, but it does the job, and it's very well designe, at least in my opinion.

Re:The future of GIMP

[aurb]

Are you one of those Grammar Nazis I keep hearing about? I'm so excited! (by the way, this link says it's Toolkit).

Re:The future of GIMP

[Anonymous Coward]

And? That was what, 15 years ago? It was created at a time when the alternative would be something like Motif.

GTK has moved far beyond being the GIMP's UI toolkit. There's no real connection between the two any more.

Hell, GNUStep itself evolved out of a graphical program that doesn't use it any more. (Instead it uses Qt, a choice made to support more OSes.)

GTK+ sucks. The only UI toolkit I've ever used that sucks more is using the Windows GUI toolkit directly. For the most part, there's no reason why you'd do that, though, as there are a ton of libraries that make using Windows GUI elements a snap. Not so for GTK+.

It also helps that the Windows GUI is *documented*, something GTK+ should consider trying. Yeah, sure, link me to the Doxygen generated crap. It's full of wholes and just plain confusing.

But enough of that, the point remains, just because GTK was originally created for GIMP doesn't mean GIMP should remain stuck in the past. If GTK is preventing the GIMP from improving, they should ditch it and use a superior toolkit.

Re:The future of GIMP

[JerkyBoy]

Fair enough, but wxWidgets will get the job done.

Re:The future of GIMP

[elysiana]

Just being silly because of their use of recursive acronyms. GNU amuses me!

Re:The future of GIMP

[Anonymous Coward]

... GIMP made GTK.

Frankly, I have a feeling that GIMP developers don't really care about other platforms that much, heh.

Re:The future of GIMP

[maxume]

wxWidgets uses GTK+ for drawing on linux.

Re:The future of GIMP

[MMC Monster]

Naw... Just tell them to use Photoshop under wine.

Re:The future of GIMP

[bill_mcgonigle]

and one that's designed around UI conventions that don't apply to any other desktop in existence?

That by itself isn't a problem. We can measure that certain UI paradigms allow for faster use and sometimes have names (e.g. Fitt's Law) to describe why.

There's also the trade-off between usefulness and learning - the Dock getting dumbed down in OSX is a good example of that. And popularity isn't a certain indidator, e.g. Windows, which is really popular despite users always maximizing all their apps to deal with UI problems (now we're back to Fitt's Law).

Re:The future of GIMP

[markdavis]

Oh, like the developers are going to change GIMP to be a MacOS-only program???? I don't think so. Remember, GTK was essentially invented for the purpose of creating the GIMP.

Re:The future of GIMP

[Skrapion]

Especially since Google pumped some funding into the Wine project to ensure that Photoshop was supported.

I like Gimp, but if somebody is busy learning the ropes with Linux, throwing them into Gimp when they already have so much experience with Photoshop probably isn't wise.

Re:The future of GIMP

[LionMage]

Oh, like the developers are going to change GIMP to be a MacOS-only program????

Who said that? He said dump GTK and replace it with GNUStep or Cocoa. You do realize that GNUStep replicates the major functional bits of the Cocoa API for OS X, right? And that GNUStep exists on Windows and Linux, right? So he's not saying make GIMP a Mac-only program. That's just ridiculous. Way to misrepresent someone else's argument!

Of course, there are other legitimate issues with what the GP said, and others have already raised those issues.

Re:The future of GIMP

[dbIII]

Personally I'd tell them to get a Mac instead if they need the entire graphic design pile of stuff. If they don't gimp works well and ImageMagik handles batch processing and conversion well. Can photoshop even run on a machine with 8 CPUs and 16GB of RAM? Something like that handles resizing of very large numbers of large images very well.

Re:The future of GIMP

[markdavis]

I stand corrected. GNUStep *is* available for other platforms, I had assumed it was dead. However I have never seen a GNUstep application in my 20+ years of using various *ix.

Re:The future of GIMP

[Anonymous Coward]

              The solution: GIMP should ditch GTK/GDK and use GNUStep/Cocoa.

As being a GNUstep (not GNUStep :) developer doing imaging software myself,
I don't see any benefit of doing that. And no,
Switching to GNUstep doesn't give you Pantone support. CMYK with lcms et al may be, but that doesn't prevent GIMP or GEGL to do the same. GNUstep is for quickly developing some applications, I don't see any benefit of porting a very usable application like GIMP or Krita. Don't waste your time!

Re:The future of GIMP

[Anonymous Coward]

GNUstep isn't dead, far from it. People are actively developing it by daily basis, building desktop environments around it, and GNUstep is still an easier and faster alternative to develop some applications than GTK+. But I am no way supporting the idea of ditching GTK+. That's pretty silly.

Re:The future of GIMP

[Anonymous Coward]

Bonus points for being wrong, though. :-)

Re:The future of GIMP

[ozphx]

If its hard to change to a new GUI toolkit then thats a symptom of bad application design. Which is common.

Re:The future of GIMP

[paulbd]

You don't know what you're talking about. For a small application, that might be true. For GIMP (or Photoshop), its not true. Why do you think Adobe have never ported Photoshop to Cocoa, 7 years after Apple announced that Carbon was going away? I've ported my own application (about 75k lines of GUI code, and the same again in non-GUI code, with complete separation between them) between two versions of the same toolkit, and that was bad enough. We frequently get people suggesting we do a Qt port or a Cocoa version, and its just laughable. Subtle changes in the semantics of many the widgets, fundamental differences in the way canvas/scene-graph designs can be implemented, even the basics of threads & event processing can be fundamentally different. You can't search&replace tens of thousands of code to do this - it all has to done line by line by hand.

Re:The future of GIMP

[ozphx]

Thats why the MVC pattern was invented. If your IToolboxView has more than a "ToolClicked" event and exposing more than couple a "ChangeActiveTool"/"SetToolEnable" methods, then you are doing it wrong. If your toolkit has threading demands then (say for Windows.Forms, your view implementation is responsible for marshalling all that crap onto the UI thread (InvokeRequired/Invoke).

If you have a 50/50 split between GUI and non-GUI code then you really have to start thinking about seperation of concerns.

I agree that in real life people can never be bothered putting decent abstraction in - its not like I even expect to move the app I'm working in from .net winforms. Still, some parts are done with an MVC pattern as different clients are going to want to do things like.. say select a machine in their own stupid way.

Re:The future of GIMP

[paulbd]

I think you're out of your depth. My application's design is totally based on MVC. If you think that you can write a modern large GUI application with widgets that expose just "i was clicked", then I'd suggest that you've either gotten lucky or haven't done it. My app is cross-platform (Linux, OS X and Windows), and the non-GUI engine can be controlled via the GUI, network control, or MIDI (independently or all at once). It runs 8 or 9 threads concurrently. Porting it to a new toolkit would take 1-3 man years of work. I can say this with confidence because the port between a major version switch of the same toolkit took about 1 man year. http://ardour.org/ just in case you care to take a look.

Re:The future of GIMP

[ozphx]

I don't have the time to go trawling thru SVN, but yes, controlling your core engine from the GUI/MIDI is a one level of abstraction.

As a brief example of what I am talking about, a use case where you do something like.. uh... lets you simplisticly edit a filter envelope and preview should probably not be just one concrete form talking to your core services. Your view implementation is going to be basically exposing the curve, changed event, and apply/cancel actions. This view is all thats dependant on your UI toolkit choice. The filter envelope editor controller then mediates between the interface to your view and the core services where appropriate.

Like I said though, its rare anyone starts out with this pattern (I'm not accusing you of being a noob here). The inital implementation ends up with a couple of classes and an interface for each component... and to be honest, it looks completely retarded when you aren't expecting to change toolkits in a hurry.

I can see I was a little harsh on the 50/50 metric, it does seem like you are doing a fair slab of your own rendering, and that often takes far too much code :(

Re:The future of GIMP

[paulbd]

the example you give is pretty typical of the kind of stuff i hear from people who haven't been confronted by real world demands.

lets change your example just a little bit. instead of a filter curve, its a crossfade curve. same basic idea - user manipulates a graphical representation, signals "changed" and good stuff happens.

and then the users say "we want to see the waveform changing shape as we modify the curve". all of a sudden, the view is representing two distinct models, which are entirely orthogonal to each other in the core. hmm, ok, so the view(s) have to be mid-level GUI object, rather than a widget, something that can be composited together with other views. and so now, your entire view architecture has to be tied into whatever scene graph API you're using, which are much less "standardized" than widget toolkits. or you construct a crazy compound view object for every combination of "show me the model(s)" requirement that you have.

but lets take another example that skips that problem. many modern GUIs use some kind of treeview/listview widget for many different purposes. its ubiquitous on windows, pretty common on linux, and reasonably visible on OS X. go take a look at the APIs for the widgets used for this with different toolkits. even though they share some basic concepts, in many important ways they are very different. when we ported Ardour from GTK1 to GTK2, we had devote an entire month to getting just the treeview stuff working - first understanding the new GTK2 treeview (which is much more MVC than the old one), then figuring out how to do stuff with it. the moment you want to do more than select items in the treeview and maybe do DnD with them, you have to get pretty deeply into the "internal" event handling model of the widget in order to get things done (and sometimes, what you want to do cannot be done because of the internal implementation of the widget). This kind of thing causes a massive drag on porting, and there's really no way around it when you want a GUI with all the bells and whistles attached.

Re:The future of GIMP

[ozphx]

As a bit of background, I mainly work in industrial automation in the bulk handling area. The UI requirements are often completely different per site.. so we are pretty much forced to use a fairly strict MVC pattern if I want to keep using the same core for multiple clients.

I agree that in some instances it can be a bit of a drag. The treeview example is a good one. Ideally, your model should be 'correct' - so your choice of widgets in the view isn't going to influence your design of the model (including control interfaces). Of course this does lead to horrible shim code when you hit an impedance mismatch, and is a big pain-point for the MVC pattern - espeically when you can't forsee ever having to port.

As for live preview, it suggests that you do in fact have two models. You have the current state of your "desk", with all the filters, etc, and then a duplicate model for preview, with changes being commited down to the current model by the controller when an edit is confirmed. The UI then displays the "preview model" (or a combination of both).

Instinctively I think people would be adverse to considering the "live preview" as part of the model - but its definitely information the view has to display. Sure, a lot of functionality would only be concerned with the "current" model, especially things like "export to a bog standard wav" etc.

I've had to integrate a fair few different widget toolkits in one application - including things like Piccolo and a java-based graph layout library (yfiles), and yes, those things are absolute bitches to fit into the MVC pattern. Yfiles in particular causes you to duplicate a portion of the model into its own representation (would it hurt them to take an IAmADamnGraphNode interface?). The good news is that when we switch Piccolo over to WPF we are only going to have to touch a couple of files.

*shrug* I'm not trying to convince you to chuck your entire codebase of quite an impressive looking product - but I am pretty confident that full MVC would have been possible in your scenario (with the usual up-front investment).

I just love Gimp

[ilovesymbian]

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?

Oh, and I noticed that images created with Gimp have a smaller size than Adobe Photoshop.

Re:I just love Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us like the separated windows.

Re:I just love Gimp

[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?

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[Glytch]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[TheBig1]

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

Re:I just love Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

afaik there exists a extension or patch to do that.

Re:I just love Gimp

[Tx]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[Lord Bitman]

[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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:I just love Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod abuse. TheBig1's post is NOT offtopic.

Re:I just love Gimp

[chammy]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[BrokenHalo]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[jdgeorge]

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?

Re:I just love Gimp

[Beetle B.]

Actually, based on the screenshots, I suspect you can. Look at the taskbars.

Re:I just love Gimp

[CopaceticOpus]

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?

Re:I just love Gimp

[Blakey Rat]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

(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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[bucky0]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[i_liek_turtles]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[TheBig1]

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

Re:I just love Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

That's probably more of a window manager issue, not a Gimp issue.

Re:I just love Gimp

[xtracto]

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).

Re:I just love Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[FooBarWidget]

Since Gimp 2.0 (which was released years ago), you can dock any tool dialog.

Re:I just love Gimp

[Haeleth]

Let window management be handled by the window manager.

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[legirons]

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!"

Re:I just love Gimp

[legirons]

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)

Re:I just love Gimp

[sparcnut]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[TheBig1]

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

Re:I just love Gimp

[morphles]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[KiloByte]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

Metacity works like a charm.

Re:I just love Gimp

[Skrapion]

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.)

Re:I just love Gimp

[Draek]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[CopaceticOpus]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[Lord Bitman]

UPDATE: The Gimp still sucks and addresses none of the issues I've mentioned.

Re:I just love Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[clone53421]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[vldmr_krn]

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.

I like tabbed browsers, and must on those grounds disagree with you.

Re:I just love Gimp

[clone53421]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[clone53421]

I don't think there should be a "no image window", it's entirely unnecessary. There should be one of two possibilities:

• The "main" toolbox should always have a taskbar/alt-tab item. If so, it needs to have a distinct icon from the documents you're editing – which it would, since the documents' icons are miniature representations of the picture they contain.
• The toolbox should have a taskbar/alt-tab item only when no documents are open.

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[clone53421]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[clone53421]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[Skrapion]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[clone53421]

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.

Re:I just love Gimp

[Walter Carver]

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.

GEGL

[blindd0t]

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.

Re:GEGL

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really missing this, not so much for my own projects but because the company I work at use PSDs for almost everything - for good reason, and I don't need to work at that level - but sometimes it's nice to extract some stuff for presentations and other things. I CAN do it in Gimp, but the fact there are no layer groups botches the process pretty badly.

As for layer groups in themselves, I've always seen them as a pretty crappy solution to the problem, one I hope that GEGL can deal much better with - namely by doing "chains" of edits and layers where things can be swapped and moved and tried efficiently, unlike the horrible monster that is Layer Copy Copy Copy FINAL Copy in PS. :) (Yep, Photoshop has the better solution today, that doesn't mean it was ever really good). Non-destructive graph editing For The Win.

Re:GEGL

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

It's not in this release, but it is mentioned in the FAQ as a feature that is now easier to develop with GEGL in place.

I'm a UI designer and have wanted to switch to GIMP for years, but without layer groups using it for even simple web designs is a very unattractive option for me. Now that I've also grown accustomed to reusable Smart Objects, I'm not sure if GIMP will ever catch up enough to be a productive option for me.

GOOLIES

[4D6963]

Can't we rename it to something better?

GNU Object Oriented Lightweight Image Editing Software?

Brought to you by the creator of ARSE.

It's still essentially 8-bit.

[Glytch]

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.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[Beetle B.]

Until it's all replaced with 32-bit capable code, GIMP will continue to be unusable for photography beyond the party snapshot level.

It's fairly rair that 16 bits per channel will make the difference.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[jockm]

I would be sympthetic to that statement, except that they have had 8 years to get their house in order:

GEGL was originally conceived as a GIMP core replacement in 2000, but only in 2006 did it reach a stage where the external API is started to stabilize and its capabilities work well.

So the fact that GEGL took 6 years to write and useable blows me away, but it underscores the point that the GIMP team had nearly a decade to get ready and still aren't there yet.

As a photographer there is no way I could even consider GIMP until it supports >8BPP color depth. In the mean time the tools that photographers use (SC3, Aperature, Lightroom, Lightzone) have all adopted non-destructive editing. So when GIMP fully supports higher color depths, it is still going to feel like Photoshop 6 (ok maybe 7).

I would love it if there were a open alternative, but GIMP isn't even going to be in the running for at least a few more years (if ever). I think this is one of those cases where someone needs to look at this with fresh eyes, start a new project from scratch that is based on the expectations of two years from now and actually try and take some lead

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[fabs64]

The vast majority of DSLR's only have 12 bits per channel in raw mode to begin with, and certainly only 8 bits in jpeg. Get a grip.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[photomonkey]

Actually, that's not necessarily the case.

I am a professional commercial photographer and editorial photojournalist. Sure, CS3 is still my editor of choice, but the GIMP is moving ever-closer to being a viable option.

There is not a single application I can think of where someone working as a photojournalist would ever need more than what the GIMP offers.

File submission standard for newsprint is still 10 inches on the long axis @ 200 ppi. Files are then compressed to clock in at betweek 650kb-900kb. sRGB colorspace and 8 bits-per-pixel are more than enough. Pre-press does the CYMK conversion and Web crop, usually.

The level of editing (painting) done to editorial photos is minimal by standard ethical practice; and so really the tool need only be able to crop, resample, dust spot and adjust the exposure.

In fact, for funzies, I just did a complete start-to-finish editorial shoot post in GIMP 2.4. The EXIF/XMP/IPTC stuff hurts bad (please, please, please, please FIX THIS), but the actual post went fine.

Making stuff screen-ready can easily be accomplished in the GIMP as well.

I don't have a whole lot of experience with making multimedia presentations (audio slideshows, etc.) for Web and screen display in the GIMP/Linux, so I'll leave that alone for now.

On the commercial, every-photo-is-a-painting side, the GIMP might be a bit of a hindrance. The more advanced layering, color conversions, spot toning, etc. typically deployed in, say, advertising post is probably more than can be reasonably handled by the GIMP.

Admittedly, some of that sentiment may come from my being a lot more comfortable in Photoshop than GIMP.

Generally speaking, some of the resizing plugins and effects plugins that we have come to count on are not available for GIMP, and even if the same thing can be accomplished with a different set of tools, we're disinclined to learn them.

Keep in mind that more than half the professional photographers out there are self-employed, and the time required to learn a new toolset can be killer.

The GIMP has come a long way since I first started playing with Linux about 10 years ago.

It even plays fairly nicely with RAW files from my cameras.

Today, I have it (under Hardy Heron) installed on my non-production workstation, and have no doubt that in years to come, it may very well become a full-fledged alternative to Photoshop.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the final precision that matters, it is the accumulation of rounding errors while working with the image that makes 16-bit useful.

Certainly, I doubt anyone can see any difference between an 8-bit and a 16-bit image. I even doubt most monitors can display color with 16 bit precision!

But if you do a couple of adjustments of an area with a smooth gradient - like the sky - in 8-bit then you end up with banding where in 16-bit mode you don't.

Anyway, that's why high bit depth is important.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[strags]

The difference between 8-bit and 12-bit when working with DSLRs is actually pretty significant. You can pull a surprising amount of detail out of underexposed regions with 4096 shades that would otherwise be lost with 256.

Rounding errors (generally banding artifacts) will also be much quicker to appear with lower bit depths. If you're going to support 16 bits per channel, one may as well go all the way and support higher bit-depths too.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you waiting for? Mod parent up as Insightful.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking idiot know nothing about image editing. I'll tip you on the way image processing work by telling you to do a little experiement :

fill a black and white gradient inside a 8 bits jpeg file.
Play with the level and curves to the extreme.
Then, fill a black and white gradient inside a 8 bits jpeg file and save it to the native photoshop format and convert to 16 bits. Now, no new data is added to the gradient itself but when you work with the destructive tools you can push the limits higher before the gradient gets mushy mushy.

Now, ask yourself what does it do to any picture that has a pattern like the sky when you are working on its levels.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's not entirely relevant. When editing photos, and changing any level of brightness, you're stretching those original 8 or 12 bits out across the colour space of the image editor. If you only have 8 bits/channel to work in, you WILL lose tones simply by the act of changing brightness in an image, let alone any other colour changes. You end up compressing similar tones into exactly the same colour, or expanding out tones that were next to one another to be two or three colours apart. If the editing space bpp is larger than the original however (like 16bpp for editing 8bpp images), you don't lose like that.

For example, take an image with 3 bits per greyscale pixel. The image consists of 8 greys from pure black to white, and 6 greys in between.

You edit it in an image editor that only has the same 3 bits per pixel in its edit space, an you change the brightest white in your image to a mid grey and all other colours are adjusted to suit...

All of a sudden, your picture is made of only the 4 darkest greys - from black to mid grey.

If you were editing your 3bits per pixel image in an 8 bit (256 grey) space, you could perform this edit and still have your 8 shades of grey from black to mid grey. Edit space should be larger than source space while editing, always, unless you're just fucking around with resizing and cropping, and never touch colour/brightness.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[freddy_dreddy]

You don't own a DSLR, do you ?

As someone who's wearing down his third I can tell you 8 bits is a joke, even printers show the difference with stepping gradients on a low contrast area.

Stop telling me that I don't need that and start providing what I do need.

A photo-processing tool that chops 33%? I don't think so.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[freddy_dreddy]

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.

It's a long story, but the short version is no

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[Animaether]

I think that what GP is getting at is that...
- Unless you're shooting RAW (DNG, 16-bit TIFF, EXR or whatever your camera supports there), you're not going to get those 12 bits anyway.
- Not too long ago, Photoshop didn't do 16bpc itself.. and it still doesn't on a ton of commands. That never stopped anybody from processing photos in the past, why should it now? Clearly it's nice if you -can- work in 16bit, but it's not going to stop hundreds of thousands of people from working with photographs for the sole reason that 16bit is unavailable.

In short, GP's parent poster acts a bit like an audiophile, claiming that every non-goldplated-connector is completely useless for listening to music the moment goldplated-connectors became available.

Oh, and I'm a graphics professional - I work with 32bpc imagery all the time as sometimes that's what you need to run film footage through extensive colorgrading processes without incurring losses.. so yes, I know very *very* well what the advantages are.. and I certainly agree that Ol' Gimpo needs at least 16bpc, but preferable 32bpc, workflow. ( Cursed lack of support for Cinepaint. )

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[domatic]

That post:

1. Was reasonable
2. Factual
3. Real-World
4. Concerned the GIMP

I'm checking out my window for winged porcine creatures now.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[Trogre]

That is not the issue. I don't have the time or energy to go into it now, so I'll repost what I wrote in 2005:

This is 99% true for image VIEWING programs.
However for image MANIPULATION programs (like the GIMP) it's a very different story.

Say for example you have a photograph that is underexposed such that the brightest pixel is 25% gray. For the sake of argument let's deal with a grayscale image (or just one channel of an RGB image).

On a histogram all the 'bars' for this underexposed picture will be bunched up the left side, occupying the first 25% of the graph. If you want to fix it, you would normally spread out the histogram so that the bars span the whole graph (ie whites appear white instead of 25% gray). Since our shades were originally bunched up we only have a quarter of the possible number of shades available to us. Now if you only have 8 bits per channel there will only be 255/4=64 possible shades of gray in your picture, and banding effects will be very apparent. This will be apparent in the histogram since there will be distinct gaps between each bar.

Try it again with 16 bits per channel, hey let's do even 12 bits per channel. Our total number of gray shades is now 2^12=4096. Divide that by 4=1024 shades to spread out. You can downsample that to 256 shades and still get a full 24-bpp image with no banding. The histogram will now be a continuous solid shape with no gaps (unless any were present in the original image).

(This all applies to colour-correction too as much as simple lightness adjustment)

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[Skrapion]

GEGL was on hiatus for much of that 6 years; they simply had different priorities. And that's a good thing, because six years ago Gimp didn't even have a drop-down menu -- you had to use the context menu to get to any of the stuff you would expect in such a menu.

As an amateur photographer, I'm really happy to see that somebody took up the mantle of GEGL. Here's hoping that eventually I can manipulate HDR images in Gimp.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[Ed Avis]

I'm motivated exactly by getting DSLR pictures with 12 bits per channel. Sometimes a picture is a bit underexposed or overexposed and you need to adjust the levels. If you chop to 8 bits first then a lot of detail in the sky or in shadows, which would be salvageable with a high-colour-depth processing tool, is lost.

By all means convert to 8 bits per channel and JPEG format *after* you've finished processing.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[fabs64]

GIMP isn't a RAW conversion tool, surely your curves are applied before you're anywhere near it? You might want to look at your process.

I'm merely pointing out that it's not the insane dealbreaker the GP and some other posts make it out to be, it'd be nice, and they're working on it. But in the meantime unless you're doing a shit ton of photo *editing* (not processing) on photos that started with a rather compressed histogram, you're not going to see the amazing difference you think.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[Ed Avis]

GIMP isn't a RAW conversion tool, surely your curves are applied before you're anywhere near it?

Exactly, I can't really use the GIMP for this task. If it had high bit depth support then it would be suitable, but currently it's not. Even though the final output might use only 8 bits per channel.

In the meantime the choice seems to be Cinepaint (which does the right thing but is very old and Spartan) or Krita, or messing around with pnmtools on the command line.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[fabs64]

Personally I find the UFRAW plugin for gimp to be the best solution, apply your curves and process the raw, then do editing, rather than trying to do both at once. But maybe I'm just stuck in my own rigid process.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am a professional commercial photographer and editorial photojournalist."

Know of any $200 (plus/minus) 10.00 MP point and shoots that have accurate color rendition, good low light, and do macro photography?

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[Ed Avis]

Thanks for the suggestion, I will try UFRAW.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[RedBear]

The vast majority of DSLR's only have 12 bits per channel in raw mode to begin with, and certainly only 8 bits in jpeg. Get a grip.

Dear ignorant person (and everyone who reads your post and thinks you have a point):

First off, some cameras now have 14-bit data coming from the sensor and within a few years I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing the really high-end cameras with 16-bit color depth in their RAW files, straight from the sensor.

But, much more importantly, if you edit images in 8-bit mode you will be throwing away a ton of color information because the difference between one color and the next are too small. The color "slices" that the image is composed of are too few. If you are not extremely careful you end up with problems like posterization, i.e. a consolidation of the range of colors into a smaller range of colors.

This is most often seen in areas like blue sky where you'll see an obvious line between different shades of blue, which looks simply awful and is totally unacceptable to anyone who cares about their images looking good, not just professional photographers. It can also happen quite easily with skin tones of course. You need the ultra-fine gradation of color in skin tones in order for the image to look natural.

If you however convert that 8-bit image into a 16-bit image and do all your editing in 16-bit mode you can, somewhat magically, do a ton of mucking about with levels, curves, white balance and so forth without visibly damaging the image. When all the editing is complete you can then convert it back to 8-bit and it still looks just as good.

What I'm trying to explain as clearly as possible is that you DO NOT need to start with a 16-bit image in order to get a benefit from having a 16-bit color editing mode in your image editor. It is total misinformation and ignorance to argue that nobody needs 16-bit editing just because the JPEG coming from your camera only has 8-bit color or the RAW image only has 12 or 14-bit color. Image editing is by nature destructive but it is much less destructive when you're working with a color palette that is thousands of times larger.

Of course it goes without saying that the 32-bit color space is an even better place to work because it's thousands of times larger than even the 16-bit color space. You can edit and re-edit an image hundreds of times without introducing any visible damage. But 16-bit will usually suffice.

So, get a grip yourself. On some real knowledge. The higher color depths are not just fluff, they are actually useful in the real world for a large number of people.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[clone53421]

You end up compressing similar tones into exactly the same colour, or expanding out tones that were next to one another to be two or three colours apart. If the editing space bpp is larger than the original however (like 16bpp for editing 8bpp images), you don't lose like that.

Correction: you do. There are just a lot more tones, and the eye can't even visually distinguish very similar tones from one another, so you think you didn't lose tones. You still have a heckuva lot more tones than 8bit, but you did lose some.

Re:It's still essentially 8-bit.

[cbellh47]

The astronomy images I create with my CCD camera are all 16 bit per color channel. Its why I prefer Photoshop and the Fits liberator plugin. Its a mandatory prerequisite from my point of view to deal with bit images.

No Mac-native build?

[Gundamdriver]

I don't really like X11 on my Mac...

Re:No Mac-native build?

[bot24]

There is a trick where you can get GIMP on Mac OS without using X11, but last I checked you needed to compile it using MacPorts and there were some issues with letters typed in text boxes being interpreted as hot keys.

16bit depth support, yeah!

[davFr]

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 :)

Re:16bit depth support, yeah!

[Skrapion]

Well, maybe in the next version. This release only has foundational support for GEGL.

Re:16bit depth support, yeah!

[Xabraxas]

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 :)

If all you are doing is setting contrast/brightness/level/curves there are already a few RAW conversion programs for Linux that do all of that. Rawstudio is a light, fast RAW converter that does this quite easily.

Gimp, the love that dare not speak its acronym

[julian67]

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.

Re:Gimp, the love that dare not speak its acronym

[Bent Mind]

Though I understand that many of these have been proven Urban Legends by snopes.com, here are a few other products that had marketing problems in foreign lands: Chevy Nova Awards

But does it look like Photoshop yet?

[scorp1us]

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?

Re:But does it look like Photoshop yet?

[SMOKEING]

MDI is there for a reason.

By way of analogy: Guess what Alt+Tab does in Linux? It attempts an expansion of previously entered tokens in your terminal session history. Now, you open an xterm window and press Alt+Tab: what to expect? Let window manager handle it and switch windows? Or pass it to xterm to let it handle it privately for history expansion, or whatever it ever did since times immemorial?

I won't openly ostracize either resolution to this conflict; but one really has to acknowledge this conflict exists, and it is rather down to one's preferences. If you discovered what Alt+Tab does in Windows -- fine, but that's far from being obvious and "most intuitive".

Same applies to MDI, which works in perfect harmony if you disable raising windows on click (it's a hint :)

Re:But does it look like Photoshop yet?

[Atriqus]

Am I alone in this? Is Gimp not getting users because of it? Is this in turn slowing Linux adoption?

1. No, I'm sure there's other PS people out there who don't like it.
2. Gimp has plenty of users: invalid premise in question
3. No, Gimp has little to no affect on linux adoption

Gimp is not intended to be a PS clone, nor cater to PS users. The devs feel the current layout suits the application just fine. They don't have customers or shareholders to answer to, so their word on the matter is final. If someone tries it out and doesn't like the interface and/or doesn't want to learn a new one, they can simply look for other options. Best of all, they didn't have to drop $130 - $1780 to find out they weren't going to like using it before moving on.

Re:But does it look like Photoshop yet?

[Max_W]

I use GIMP to handle 300 - 500 photos a week. You will start realize the advantages of GIMP after first 20 000 of photos.

Re:But does it look like Photoshop yet?

[argent]

Guess what Alt+Tab does in Linux? It attempts an expansion of previously entered tokens in your terminal session history.

Never done that for me. I guess I'm not using the same shell as you.

I don't know what you're going on about MDI for, though. Gimp doesn't shove all your windows inside a big common window containing all your documents, or is there some other expansion of "MDI" than "Multiple Document Interface" that I'm not aware of?

Re:But does it look like Photoshop yet?

[SMOKEING]

That particular keystroke (and others) in fact comes from libreadline, which is used extensively in terminal apps, including bash.

More to the point: Conflicting claims on Alt+Tab are repeated here in the way and manner GIMP windows should be presented. Windows folks won't tolerate anything other than MDI here, traditional (like Word) or Tabbed (like in Excel). Linux folks (at least myself) just don't regard that way as the one and only.

And the argument, on the part of GIMP developers, might be that yes, do handle each image window individually, and if there's a clutter of those on the desktop, then... do as many clicks on Iconify icons. Or, how about switching workspaces?

But the truth is, GTK+ doesn't support MDI, AFAIK. Qt does.

Re:But does it look like Photoshop yet?

[argent]

Windows folks won't tolerate anything other than MDI here

You're still using MDI in a way I don't recognize or understand.

Re:But does it look like Photoshop yet?

[SMOKEING]

Well, I'm actually happy without any MDI (except in the form of tabbed browsing in Firefox :) and don't seem to feel in the least discriminated or constrained, for that matter.

But again, GTK+ has no facilities to do MDI -- at all.

Re:But does it look like Photoshop yet?

[doti]

1. The obvious solution is to use the virtual workspaces, that virtually every Unix window manager provides, and any decent one will have a hot-key similar to Alt-Tab to switch between them.

Apart from dealing with multi-window programs like GIMP, virtual desktops are great to separate the windows according to your work-flow. Just like some people do with multiple monitors. I, for one, find it easier to press a hot-key than to turn my neck around. And it's cheaper and greener too.

2. There are some tabbed window managers around (I use Fluxbox) that allows you to group windows, with a differentiated hot-key (like Windows Ctrl-Tab or Ctrl-F6 for MDI) to switch between the tabs.

Re:But does it look like Photoshop yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not the only one. The GIMP interface turns off MOST users.

rant:
But don't plan on this ever being fixed. Developers, especially linux developers, are generally out of touch with the average user and in many cases, don't care.

I worked product support in college 20 years ago and took 30 calls a day for 9 months from average users. The was the most valuable experience I have had in my software development career. Over the years it has become clear to me that software developers do not think like typical users. They are much, much smarter. Many went to universities and have technical degrees. They work all day with smart people. They socialize with smart people. They may have married smart people. Unfortunately, this gives then an unrealistic view of the world. They assume everyone thinks like they do and they write software accordingly. Unfortunately, especially for project leaders, there is a tendency towards arrogance and that leads them to indignantly reject suggestions that they redesign an interface to match the expectations of the typical user.

Re:But does it look like Photoshop yet?

[LionMage]

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.

Is there a particular reason you felt compelled to inject an apparent political pejorative into a non-political discussion of GIMP? I'm really amazed you got a pass from everyone else on this; a decade ago, this would not have been the case. I mean, there are so many other ways you could have expressed your displeasure with the UI that would have been far more germane and technically useful to a discussion about software, but you picked "left of center." That's about as non-descriptive as you can get in this context, but it clearly seems intended as a pejorative.

That said... Speaking as a person who used to make a living writing image format conversion software and developing other graphics software applications, but who is not a "graphics professional" in the sense that I don't use Photoshop or similar software for my daily work, I can say that GIMP seemed fairly non-intuitive when I tried it for some simply image editing tasks. Keep in mind that I used GIMP around 2001-2002, and I haven't really played with it much since, maybe only 2 or 3 times at less than an hour each time.

I had no preconceived notions of how GIMP's UI should look because I'm not a Photoshop jockey with years invested in automated workflows and the like, but I worked enough with graphics tools and with designing special-purpose graphics apps that I had a pretty good idea going into it of what I wanted to accomplish... and I had no clue how to accomplish what I intuitively knew I needed to do. Short of writing a one-off application to do the raster operations I needed to perform (not practical in this case), I was stuck with GIMP in the environment that I was in.

The end result of my tinkering wasn't very satisfactory, and eventually I wound up using GraphicConverter on an iBook I brought to the client's site to re-do everything that I tried in GIMP. Yeah, GC is a pretty weak app compared to Photoshop, and even compared to GIMP, but it's surprisingly functional, and most of the tools I need are easy to find. (Some are buried pretty deep, admittedly, so it's not a perfect tool by any stretch either.)

I think ultimately the problem that I have with GIMP, and with many Open Source apps in general, is that few people with human factors experience work on the UI -- and even when someone who does have the requisite usability background steps in, there's no guarantee that their work will not get undone later by some well-meaning contributor. Now, in the years since I last seriously used GIMP, it's possible that the UI has improved dramatically, and maybe some of this is due to the presence of contributors who have a clue about GUI design. I just haven't seen it.

Re:But does it look like Photoshop yet?

[Intrinsic]

Thats great, the average joe will be glad to hear that he can manipulate 20,000+ of his family photos with one click of his mouse.

all I know is, GIMP is not an image editing program that I would use for day to day us., IM sure it has its uses in a production envoirnment, but it sucks ass when it comes to making basic changes to photos.

I go with the lesser of the gimped image editing programs.

I haven't seen Pulp Fiction, you insensitive clod!

[tepples]

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.

when GEGL Integration is complete.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:when GEGL Integration is complete.

[Ed Avis]

By convention when you say '8-bit' these days you mean eight bits per channel. Nobody would interpret it as meaning the GIMP has a 256 colour palette.

GEGL is great news but I still think it's a shame that Cinepaint had to fork all those years ago. They did all the hard work of cleaning up the legacy 8-bit code, although there was a lot less of it back then.

Your workplace is scary!

[Medievalist]

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.

Re:Your workplace is scary!

[elrous0]

Yeah, and "faggot" has also been used as an English term for a log for centuries. That doesn't mean I'm going to advocate for a software program named that to a bunch of middle-aged business people.

Re:Your workplace is scary!

[kitgerrits]

You should have seen the shit-fit a colleague threw when I remarked on the picture of her hairy pussy(cat).

Re:Your workplace is scary!

[chibiace]

nothing like a nice glass of milk plus to start the evening.

Re:Your workplace is scary!

[eggz128]

I suggest you never take those business people to a UK supermarket either. They might have a heart attack when confronted with the frozen food section.

Re:Your workplace is scary!

[Medievalist]

Yeah, and "faggot" has also been used as an English term for a log for centuries. That doesn't mean I'm going to advocate for a software program named that to a bunch of middle-aged business people.

You forgot to add, a bunch of middle-aged business people who are surprisingly well informed about sadomasochistic sex scenes in ultraviolent movies.

Seriously, the scene you previously referred to is not a mainstream business cultural reference point. If everybody at your workplace instantly references Pulp Fiction when you say "gimp" that's not comparable to them referencing homophobia when you say "faggot". It means you are dealing with some individuals who are quite a bit more out of the beaten path than the people who named the Gimp. Those guys were college students in 1995 when they named the program, so it's conceivable that they actually named the program after Tarentino's violent porno, but for a businessman to still be thinking about it twelve years later is unusual, and for it to be taboo for an entire office is deeply weird.

To expand on your example, a faggot can be a stick or a cigarette, and is in common use for those meanings in some places. The US business world is of course not one of those places due to the history of acceptable homophobia in the male-dominated US workforce. Similarly, you should probably say "hot dog" instead of "weiner" in a schoolyard. The problem's not the word, it's the infantile environment.

I talk to people pretty much every day who use gimp for decorative purposes. Nobody bats an eye if you use the term. If your workplace has issues with the word "gimp", your workplace is fscked up. Seriously, despite my being marked "Troll" for saying so. I can and do refer to the Gimp in front of a class and it's never occurred to me to feel uncomfortable about it. Probably every word in the English language has at some time been used to reference something somebody found objectionable; can we not use the software "swing" because of the Stanford White sex scandal? Can we no longer use the term "dominant" to describe highly weighted genes? Must we refrain from building "suspension" bridges?

I can't come up with any more, because honestly I don't know very much about the BDSM subculture.

Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that ;) ... but it's not something people reference in any workplace I've been comfortable in.

I'm not going to argue with you about it, though, I haven't anything more to add and it appears I will just be modded down anyway. I've got no objection to people using photoshop, I've got no objection to people watching twisted movies, I've got no axe to grind, and I'm sure you're a better judge of what's acceptable in your office than I am.

Re:Your workplace is scary!

[Provocateur]

Well, around here we use the term "fag", and only use the word "faggot" in response to queries: "Oh it's a short name for faggot"

The queries e.g. "Fag? What does that mean?", oddly enough, come from a bunch of middle-aged business people, but I suspect they wanted to go for the cheap laugh by baiting me with it. And they get me, every time.

Re:Your workplace is scary!

[NeoSkandranon]

gimp is hardly a word in everyday usage for most people; it's not that unusual to form an association like that when there's no other experiences to dissipate it.

Re:Your workplace is scary!

[pbhj]

Presumably it's OK then to call a program "Fuck!" because it could derive from an old dutch word for "hit" and not the homonym that is widely used as a swear/curse word.

Try asking your boss if it's OK to install some software called "Fuck!" and see how far you get.

Re:Your workplace is scary!

[Medievalist]

Are you being purposely obtuse or did you not read my posts?

Everybody has the same thought in mind when they hear the word "fuck". It's unambiguous and a cultural reference point for English speakers.

Normal people don't have a problem with the word "gimp", and normal people do not consider it in the same category as "fuck". You can theorize all you want, but them's the facts, brother. I talk about the Gimp all the time and no-one has ever flinched or giggled even once, because I don't work with people who have scary obsessions with obscure BD/SM terminology.

Of course, there aren't many "normal" people on slashdot... that's what makes it interesting!

Re:Your workplace is scary!

[Medievalist]

gimp is hardly a word in everyday usage for most people; it's not that unusual to form an association like that when there's no other experiences to dissipate it.

I suppose you are right, although I've heard the word all my life.

What's unusual is to project such an association on others, perhaps?

Paper vs. Kindle

[tepples]

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?

Re:I haven't seen Pulp Fiction, you insensitive cl

[Toonol]

As are books. Have you ever read one of them?

Mod me offtopic

[gzipped_tar]

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.

Re:Mod me offtopic

[amRadioHed]

Thanks for sharing. Try as I might I can't imagine why anyone would complain about a nearly imperceptible two frame animation in an icon when there is a huge ad banner right above it.

Re:Mod me offtopic

[T-Ranger]

Well, that image has been animated as such for as long as there has been a Gimp icon on Slashdot. With your million+ UID, it has been here longer then you have. I'm sure it doesn't welcome you.

Re:Mod me offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, you make an excellent point. Web pages should never ever move at all, EVER. Even to the point of a two-frame animation best classified as an Easter Egg. Web pages are called "web pages" because they are supposed to be directly analogous to pages of paper, and those don't move, do they?

In fact, I think we should do away with all motion on computers. My screen should be formatted fresh daily to get new articles on the things I read. Furthermore, scrollbars. What the hell? What part of "non-moving" do you idiots not understand?? We should do away with scrollbars immediately as well so we can finally purge ourselves of the scum of dynamic content.

Aaaaand there, just turned off scrollbars. And... hey, wait, now I can't see your anal-retentive comment anymore. Huh. I WAS being sarcastic, but it turns out this IS better after all!

Re:Mod me offtopic

[Ant P.]

They were going to convert it to an animated PNG but they couldn't find any image editing software that could handle such an obscure and useless format~

Re:I just got 2.4!: names

[SMOKEING]

Uhm.. Is PIMP any freer of unsavoury connotations than GIMP?

Re:I haven't seen Pulp Fiction, you insensitive cl

[elrous0]

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.

"Desu desu desu desu" -- Suiseiseki

[tepples]

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:

• Japanese: OV desu
• German: OV desu
• Word processors: OV desu
• GIMP: OV desu

Re:"Desu desu desu desu" -- Suiseiseki

[Waffle Iron]

But it shouldn't need to be two separate steps at all. With a proper drawing tool, it's select and apply in a single atomic operation. There should be no need remember or find two different commands or worry about their relative order.

Re:"Desu desu desu desu" -- Suiseiseki

[Anonymous Coward]

wait, am I on /. or 4chan?

There is another option

[pavon]

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.

Gimp fork.

[Sasayaki]

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?

Re:Gimp fork.

[not already in use]

Not at all. Look at what debian did with Firefox > Iceweasel or whatever the fuck stupid name they came up with.

Re:Gimp fork.

[supernova_hq]

You know, I keep hearing about this, but after using Ubuntu for a year now (started with Hardy), I have never, ever even SEEN the word iceweasel on my system except when I was specifically looking for it in the repositories. It may "technically" be iceweasel, but they always refer to it as "firefox".

Ubuntu basically did the oposite of what you are describing. The only reason they codenamed it differently was so they could pre-package a few ubuntu-specific extensions/settings into it.

Re:Gimp fork.

[not already in use]

You know, I keep hearing about this, but after using Ubuntu for a year now (started with Hardy), I have never, ever even SEEN the word iceweasel on my system except when I was specifically looking for it in the repositories. It may "technically" be iceweasel, but they always refer to it as "firefox".

I didn't say Ubuntu, I said Debian. Instead of writing a reply you could always google it and get the full scoop and a better understanding on the subject.

No native OS X support?

[Chris Tucker]

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.

Re:No native OS X support?

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry not every application fits your specific needs. I have a boat and a dry river bed I'm sure I'll be on my way in no time.

Theres always that one asshole that makes the comment that the codes open if you don't like it change it.

Re:No native OS X support?

[Doctor Crumb]

I would tell you that, no, you should not install the Gimp if those are your requirements. Congratulations, you're free to use whatever fits your actual needs! However, the Gimp does fit my requirements and plenty of other people's, so kindly stop bashing it and go quietly use whatever your tool of choice is instead. Thank you.

Re:No native OS X support?

[SnEptUne]

Yes. GIMP doesn't support stylesheets, grammar checks, drawing graphs, and doesn't do homework for me. Why should I use GIMP instead of spending $30 on wordperfect?

Re:No native OS X support?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point would be close to valid if GIMP was pretending to be a word processor and not an image manipulation program, but you'd still miss it.

That question again, then: Why would I use GIMP as an image manipulation program when pretty much every other one in existance is better and supports more tools and options?

I mean, GIMP asks you to go through about a billion steps just to draw a circle. What the fuck?

Re:No native OS X support?

[Chris Tucker]

Fame is so fleeting!

To go from "Insightful"(2) to "Offtopic" (0).

Truly, the league of OSS fanboys will not permit even the slightest criticism of their beloved free as in beer playthings.

A year or so ago, I did have X11 installed in Mac OS, specifically so I could use GIMP. Seriously, the developers needn't have bothered with their so-called OS X version.

It both sucked AND blew! The user interface was an abomination. I was not greatly impressed.

As I said previously, Graphic Converter, with its PS plug in compatibility blows GIMP away, tracks down the bloody remains, pisses all over the bloody remains, reloads, and blows the bloody, piss-soaked remains away. AGAIN.

I can't imagine GIMP being any better under Linux or any other OS.

Remember, boys and girls of the Penguin Patrol, anything free is worth exactly what you paid for it.

Re:No native OS X support?

[clone53421]

What the fuck, indeed. It's a 2-step process: Draw the circle, outline the circle. It's no more involved than drawing a circle in Office, unless you wanted the default fill and line style... which just happen to be "transparent" in GIMP, because there are all sorts of other things you might want to do with that circle.

Re:No native OS X support?

[clone53421]

I read that post and thought to myself... hmm,

• opinion (ok, you're entitled to your opinion)
• opinion
• opinion
• ...wait, that last paragraph is definitely flamebait. Now STFU and go away.

Re:No native OS X support?

[Chris Tucker]

Oh, did I hurt your fragile little feelings?

Go whine about it to RMS.

Your Junior Penguin Patrol badge and official membership card notwithstanding, your order to "STFU and go away" means, essentially, dick, to me.

"You've got to config it. And then you have to write some shell scripts. Update your RPMs. You have to partition your drives. And patch your kernel. Compile your binaries. Check your version dependencies. Probably do that once or twice.

It's just so easy. And so simple. I don't know why everyone doesn't run Linux."

Re:No native OS X support?

[clone53421]

Nah, look, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. "Flamebait? ok, let's see what he said." (Yeah, I read at a -1 threshold for basically that reason.) And like I said, you're totally entitled to your opinion. However "anything free is worth exactly what you paid for it" is just plain wrong, and your condescending attitude definitely merited that mod.

Oh, did I hurt your fragile little feelings?

Not at all... the "Now STFU and go away" part was more like "Ok, you're a clown. Quit wasting your time here, we aren't amused."

Ovoid selection Select Stroke

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

ReCrAp

[fyoder]

So fork and rename it to something decent, like 'Respectable Creator Application'

WANTED: MDI-capable window manager

[Nurgled]

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?

FLOSS lets you control your destiny.

[jbn-o]

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.

Re:FLOSS lets you control your destiny.

[Blakey Rat]

Paying someone to write a Gantt chart program would undoubtedly be much more expensive than just buying Microsoft Project. No efficiency gained there. I don't give a crap about the philosophy of open source, so I'd much rather just use something else and get my job done.

The Hauppauge card was more a case of the IVTV developers lying to me. Don't tell me your driver supports that model of card if it doesn't.

Re:FLOSS lets you control your destiny.

[jbn-o]

Efficiency is very vague. Your freedom and acknowledgment of getting future bugs fixed or features added isn't addressed by using a proprietary program. It's a shame you don't care about philosophical issues of software when these issues have direct effects on your ability to "get [your] job done" now and in the future.

I'm not familiar with IVTV and I don't know what they told you. But manufacturers do sometimes change chipsets on devices without changing the model number. If that happened, there's nothing anyone but Hauppage can do about this. Complaining at IVTV as you did ("Whatever...") places the blame on the wrong party. You probably feel like you wasted your time investigating this at all, but at least with FLOSS you probably didn't waste your money as well (since so much FLOSS is available gratis).

Re:FLOSS lets you control your destiny.

[stinkbomb]

Efficiency is very vague. Your freedom and acknowledgment of getting future bugs fixed or features added isn't addressed by using a proprietary program. It's a shame you don't care about philosophical issues of software when these issues have direct effects on your ability to "get [your] job done" now and in the future.

I hate to break it to you, but getting future bugs fixed or features added isn't addressed by using FOSS either. Just ask someone who want to, oh I don't know, use CMYK with Gimp.

Re:FLOSS lets you control your destiny.

[jimicus]

Paying someone to write a Gantt chart program would undoubtedly be much more expensive than just buying Microsoft Project. No efficiency gained there.

There are a couple of alternatives available now - Computer Associates opensourced their product, which is now called OpenWorkbench

The Hauppauge card was more a case of the IVTV developers lying to me. Don't tell me your driver supports that model of card if it doesn't.

It is not unknown - indeed it's quite common - to find that a manufacturer releases two totally different products which achieve the same end under the same model number.

It's quite possible that the developers weren't even aware that Hauppage had done this.

Unspent capital is a promise of nothing.

[jbn-o]

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.

Time to seriously use GIMP!

[dashesy]

"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.

Houston, I think we have a problem here.

[westlake]

Gimp developers don't care what you think.

.

There is really nothing I can add to this.

Re:Houston, I think we have a problem here.

[BrentH]

I can:

In Soviet Russia, you don't care that Gimp developers think YOU!

Re:Houston, I think we have a problem here.

[FooBarWidget]

Yes there is. You can become the developer who does care what others think, and make the difference. Or you can hire a developer and tell him to care what others think, and let him make the difference.

*Someone* has to make the difference, or nothing will change.

Mod this man to Mount Olympus!

[elrous0]

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:

• The first page of your application's webpage should explain what the software *IS* and *HOW TO USE IT*, not just provide a long list of your bug-fixes.

Re:Mod this man to Mount Olympus!

[ConceptJunkie]

The first page of your application's webpage should explain what the software *IS* and *HOW TO USE IT*, not just provide a long list of your bug-fixes.

The same could be said about a lot of /. stories:

Technology: FRXM 4.0 is out!
posted by: CmdrTaco
from the It's-Like-Christmas-Morning dept.

FRXM_Fan37 writes: FRXM 4.0 is out with a brand new Python API, and now runs on Windows as well as Linux and OSX. The community has been waiting a long time for the bugs in the 3.x version to be sorted out, and with 4.0 you can be sure that this will be the best version of FRXM ever. Art Linkletter says, "I heartily endorse this application."

I mean, how hard is it, during a long day of not editing spelling and grammar errors, is it to say:

FRXM 4.0 [a popular app for herglesnorzing your brindlefreen] is out...

Re:Mod this man to Mount Olympus!

[uniquename72]

That reminds me of this dumbass search website I heard of once that called itself "google" -- these stupid names never catch on.

Re:Mod this man to Mount Olympus!

[shiftless]

Thank God somebody sees the same thing I do. There are few things more irritating than loading up some project's web site, which consists of nothing but some poorly thought out and organized wiki, then looking high and low through the mess just trying to find ONE FUCKING CLEAR SENTENCE explaining WHAT THIS PROJECT IS AND DOES. Instead you have pages and pages of incoherent bullshit that you can't put in context, and after 15 minutes of this mess you leave in frustration.

When I am looking for software to suit a certain purpose, my first impression of that software comes from its web site. If the web site is a pile of shit that looks like it was designed by some virginal 30 y.o. geek living in his parents basement, then you can bet that the software isn't much better. If the web site is clean and well organized then I'll definitely give the software a try.

Re:Mod this man to Mount Olympus!

[Anonymous Coward]

That reminds me of this dumbass search website I heard of once that called itself "google" -- these stupid names never catch on.

Yeah, that reminds me... what the hell is a "CAMRY?" What does "Corolla" mean, or "Celica?"

Re:Mod this man to Mount Olympus!

[bh_doc]

Got a link? I've been looking for a good herglesnorzer.

Re:Mod this man to Mount Olympus!

[zobier]

It's Open Source

1. Hire UI and marketing gurus
2. Create Linux distro with polished interface and cool app names
3. ???
4. Profit

Re:Mod this man to Mount Olympus!

[Anonymous Coward]

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:

        * The first page of your application's webpage should explain what the software *IS* and *HOW TO USE IT*, not just provide a long list of your bug-fixes.

Alright, since this topic is about GIMP, let's compare its site against Photoshop:

The first thing on http://gimp.org:
GIMP is the GNU Image Manipulation Program. It is a freely distributed piece of software for such tasks as photo retouching, image composition and image authoring. It works on many operating systems, in many languages.

Now http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/:
Create powerful images with the professional standard.
The rest is either marketing self-praise, or pointing out specific improvements compared to the previous version, but no general description.

Re:Mod this man to Mount Olympus!

[clone53421]

At least we know what "Nova" means (in Spanish)...

Re:Mod this man to Mount Olympus!

[clone53421]

• The first page of your application's webpage should explain what the software *IS* and *HOW TO USE IT*, not just provide a long list of your bug-fixes.

Interesting... GIMP must be in the 1% that does. From http://gimp.org/...

GIMP is the GNU Image Manipulation Program. It is a freely distributed piece of software for such tasks as photo retouching, image composition and image authoring. It works on many operating systems, in many languages. (more...)

Re:Mod this man to Mount Olympus!

[walshy007]

Just look at 99% of OSS websites, done by coders who have no idea how to present their software to anyone but other coders

perhaps that is for good reason, they may have written the program to scratch their particular itch, and just put it out into the wild so others may benefit, to them who really cares if some noob can use it or not, for technical people finding it and using would still be easier than writing it themselves.

Bold, italic, larger, and smaller tools?

[tepples]

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?

Re:Bold, italic, larger, and smaller tools?

[Waffle Iron]

Alright, by your new definition, the Gimp currently needs *two* separate "verbs" to draw a rectangle, one for selecting rectangles and one for drawing. (And it actually needs more because you have to wade through and then dismiss a "stroke" dialog box.) What's worse, the two operations are found in totally different and unrelated parts of the GUI. That's still more work and more confusion.

Re:Bold, italic, larger, and smaller tools?

[clone53421]

That's still more work and more confusion.

No. "Stroke" isn't tied to creating rectangles. "Stroke selection" simply outlines the selection – whatever that may be. It could be a rectangle, ellipse, hell it could be your grandpa Fred or some weird amalgam of rectangles, ellipses, and freehand shapes created by unioning or intersecting with the current selection... whatever it is, "stroke selection" will outline it. Creating rectangles is easy, the rectangle select tool does that. Then you have many choices: Add or subtract selection using one of several other selection tools; fill the selection; outline the selection; apply many different effects to the selection... and so on.

It's much more efficient to have the "outline" and "fill" operations be their own tools, instead of combining them into a "rectangle+outline+fill" tool (which means you'd also need a "rectangle+outline", "rectangle+fill", and "rectangle selection" tool – look at MS Paint for instance – not to mention the elliptical outline, fill, and select tools, and the polygonal outline, fill, and select tools...).

Re:Bold, italic, larger, and smaller tools?

[Waffle Iron]

look at MS Paint for instance

Yes, look at it. You can actually figure out how to draw a frigging rectangle without having to wade through a 200 page manual (that's often not even installed by default). You know what: most of the time that's what people want to draw: Rectangles. Not boolean operations on disjoint shapes. Rectangles.

Orthogonality is a nice goal, but if it means that people have to jump through hoops and do research in manuals to do the most common trivial tasks, then it's time to add shortcuts for those tasks. You can always add a user preference to turn off any non-orthogonal menu items for those who demand a foolish consistency.

Re:Bold, italic, larger, and smaller tools?

[clone53421]

Any shape has two attributes: a fill and an outline. GIMP just requires you to apply those after the shape is drawn. It's not really that hard to figure out; I figured it out on my own, and I don't even use GIMP that much.

Jagged little pill...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish there was a "-1 spam" mod available...

--
Build your own world with easy to use 3D GIS/terrain software [3dnature.com]

Paging Dr. Morissette. Dr. Morissette to the Irony Ward please.

Re:Jagged little pill...

[PitaBred]

That's in my sig. I don't post simply to advertise my friend's company. I have no vested interest in it, unlike someone whose user name is whaturunning dot com and the entire point of their post is to say "go here to my site!" rather than actually contribute anything meaningful to the discussion.

But hey, that's just me. Maybe you paint everything with a broad black and white brush.

Why isn't there a fork like iceweasel

[pizzach]

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.

A Rose by any Other Name...

[penguin_dance]

...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.

Re:A Rose by any Other Name...

[marsu_k]

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?

Or maybe, just maybe, they changed their name because (quoting from Wikipedia): "MandrakeSoft was forced to change its name as a result of losing litigation to the Hearst Corporation over the name Mandrake" and the current form is because "In 2005, MandrakeSoft acquired the assets of Lycoris, and purchased Conectiva". One might make the bold assumption that Mandrake + Conectiva = Mandriva. A lame name, granted.

Re:A Rose by any Other Name...

[penguin_dance]

Or maybe, just maybe, they changed their name because (quoting from Wikipedia): "MandrakeSoft was forced to change its name as a result of losing litigation to the Hearst Corporation over the name Mandrake" and the current form is because "In 2005, MandrakeSoft acquired the assets of Lycoris, and purchased Conectiva".

And here I just thought they wanted to go mainstream!

Re:A Rose by any Other Name...

[BOFHelsinki]

If it was Photo___ or some other common name, would we even remember it?

Adobe has this similar program but for the life of me I can't remember what it is called.

you must be american

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What about non-destructive text manipulation?

[argent]

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?

No Binaries

[Bryansix]

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.

Re:No Binaries

[conlaw]

However, if you are running Windows XP or Vista, there's a great little program available at http://www.paint.net/ While it's not as full-featured as GIMP or Photoshop, it still does a great job of picture manipulation. And it's FREE to download and use. As to platforms other than Windows, the authors state:

We are currently not doing any work to directly support Mac OS, Linux, Mono, or any other platform. It's not that we dislike any of them, it's just that they're entirely differenet development platforms than Windows + .NET. They all have their own set of implementation intricacies, bugs, and support issues. Remember, there's only 2 (yes two) of us on this project. We only have so much time, and by focusing strictly on Windows + .NET we can make sure that the experience there is the best we can possibly make it.

Maybe some /. developers would like to volunteer to do a Linux version or two?

Re:No Binaries

[Bryansix]

Good to know. I'll give it a try.

Re:No Binaries

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

There are no binaries for windows yet. Therefore it is basically not released.

You're a fucking idiot. It's released. Just not for your platform. Suck it down & wait a day or two.

Re:No Binaries

[Bryansix]

I just took a shit in the toilet. Hence I "Released" it. It's not worth anything but if you wanna go in there and smell the remnants of it you are welcome to.

Thank you!

[Max_W]

I would like to thank the GIMP ( www.gimp.org ) creators Spencer Kimball, Peter Mattis, and the whole development team for the excellent program.

Special thanks to Jernej Simoni for the Windows installers.

Keep up the good work!

Re:Thank you!

[Anonymous Coward]

At least spell the names right while thanking, jackass.

And we are laughing at you

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Imp? YOU SATANIST!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfft.

If you're looking for insult, you'll find it ANYWHERE.

Re: Huge Images

[Animaether]

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.

When absolute truth does not help...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

MOD PARENT UP

[earlymon]

Please!

'Nuff said.

Re: Huge Images

[bill_mcgonigle]

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?

GLIMPs

[GayBliss]

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.

The name

[Anonymous Coward]

someone please fork the project and give it a new name!

I suggest: The NERF

Alternative

[dewarrn1]

Could we just switch it to GnIMPh and be done?

optimism

[doti]

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..

OK, that was weird too.

[Medievalist]

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?

I was completely correct

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I was completely correct in my original thought. You are a fucking idiot. Your analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

Re:I was completely correct

[Bryansix]

My analogy makes perfect sense and it involves feces so it is awesome!

Re:I was completely correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least it makes it harder to claim you're full of it.
But it's IMHO a crap analogy.

No go and do something serious. It could make a nice change to your life.

Re: Huge Images

[Animaether]

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.

No cmyk curves(

[michwill]

With every release I'm waiting for cmyk curves and I don't see them(

What identity crisis?

[whichpaul]

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?

Should it be renamed

[agendi]

LIMP - Linux Image Manipulation Program MIMP - Mac Image Manipulation Program or best of all WIMP - Windows Image Manipulation Program!

Fork it, I'd like to knife the ugly beast

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Use Inkscape, draw once export in many resolutions

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Any chance we can conquor the desktop now?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Huge Images

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

I have the image window menubar turned of

[Anonymous Coward]

"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).