Slashdot Mirror
GIMP Dropped From Ubuntu 10.04
kai_hiwatari writes "It looks like the Ubuntu developers consider GIMP to be too powerful for a normal desktop user. They are removing it from the upcoming Ubuntu 10.04. Among the reasons cited are that the UI is too complex, it takes up room on the disc, and 'desktop users just want to edit photos and they can do that in F-Spot.''"
Too powerful for normal users, too limited for power users.
Image editing is still way behind Windows and Mac OSX, where you have Photoshop for power users and also Paint Shop Pro for less power users, but who still like a full image editing suite.
Let's be clear - it's not removed from Ubuntu, it's removed from the default install.
It's still a click away in the package manager.
Sounds sensible to me. I'd imagine the vast majority of Ubuntu users are unlikely to use the gimp.
This should more properly say "GIMP dropped from Default Ubuntu 10.04"
If GIMP were actually being dropped(i.e. the devs said "fuck it, it isn't worth packaging for our repos, users who care can get it from a third party repo or build it from source.") that would be news, and bad news for GIMP. As it is, though, Ubuntu makes it trivial to find and install programs that are in the default repositories.
why do the developers of gimp refuse to change the name? i have used gimp, i have it installed on windows, and i really like it. i think that given it is free software, it goes far and beyond what one would expect of a free program.
but surely it could benefit from a name change...what would be the downside of a name change? would some developer's egos be bruised that they bowed to outside pressure?
i dont mean to troll, but once the name changes
I have no issue with this. Gimp is more than most people need anyhow and maybe it will be a good kick in the nads to get the Gimp guys to clean it up a little more.
Photoshop is a lot more intuitive than Gimp is. I always feel like I have to jump through hoops to do the same thing in Gimp as I do in Photoshop.
And perhaps you don't know that the upcoming GIMP 2.8 will feature a "single window mode". I tested it by compiling from the git repository: it still has a LOT of rough edges (that's unreleased software for you) but it's better than the present UI in my opinion. Even if it's just removed from the live CD, I find this move from Canonical to be borderline on stupid.
A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
Nonsense. it's like removing Photoshop from the install of Windows.
Oh, wait......
You are doing it wrong.
This looks shopped.
I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few in my time.
I'll just grab GIMP using apt.
But if it's in "universe", Canonical won't sell tech support, and it'll probably lag behind in updates.
It's about as close to Photoshop as you're going to get in a free application
The more honest comparison is to Photoshop Elements, but otherwise, your point is valid.
Why is this stupid? Most users photo editing is limited to stuff like removing red-eye. A lot of users don't even do that. Not to say that GIMP isn't good, but one does have to wonder exactly why it should be in the default install or live CD. Can you explain why you think it is borderline stupid for them to pull something out most users aren't using, especially considering they are likely to use the space for a bunch of other software that more people are likely to use (why else would they give a limited room excuse)?
Why is it boarder line stupid?
2.8 is not out yet so the current version is still the one with the not so easy to use interface.
I bet that it will be on the the Add remove menu if not Synaptic so what is the problem?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
On Windows there's also my personal favorite, Paint.NET. It does WAY more than Paint, it's fast, and it's free. It ain't Photoshop, but it's all I need.
Zed: Bring out the Gimp.
Maynard: Gimp's not installed.
Zed: Well, I guess you're gonna have to go apt-get install him now, won't you?
I don't mind the gimp UI as long as it has it's own workspace. Gimp on windows or gimp on a desktop used by someone that doesn't utilize multiple workspaces is...agonizing.
Ok, so they removed GIMP. Maybe not so bad... assuming their out-of-the-install "replacement" was decent. But come on, F-Spot? What the f***? Seriously? I don't like so-called "media libraries" that ask you for a specific "working directory" and mention copying all your crap over to it *right on the first screen*. I guess the best thing about this is that it's only a _sudo apt-get install gimp_ away. Couldn't their replacement at least be a proper image EDITOR, not all-in-one manager? No way in hell I'm touching F-Spot, that's for sure.
"What is it and where is it?"
Are you sure didn't mean G Spot? :)
No, it's not moved to universe. It's still in main. It's only being removed from the install CD and the default install. Yes, it sucks that you now have to download it if you're really using it, but you also have to realize that the install CD is *extremely* packed already and it's getting very hard to find a few remaining bytes to add things that Ubuntu considers more important to the default install and experience.
It's too bad, really. I like GIMP because it shows users that unlike Windows, which comes with a bunch of widget apps at best, that Ubuntu comes with serious productivity software, equivalents of which on Windows can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars.
I guess I can see where they're coming from. I do agree that double-clicking on a picture shouldn't launch a full-fledged photo editor like GIMP, but I liked that it was easily accessible without having to do anything extra. Couldn't the same argument be made of OpenOffice.org? Are they going to replace it anytime soon with a scaled-down Wordpad equivalent? What about Compiz? Those also take up space, aren't needed for basic computer use, and could be installed with trivial effort.
Actually, for most users, I'd suggest GIMP on Windows, or for lighter-duty work, Paint.NET. I gave up on Paint Shop Pro after Jasc sold out to Corel. It's gotten more expensive and now they're playing games I hate that other mainstream commercial software is. (There's now a more expensive "Paint Shop Pro Ultimate" edition...). Too bad, too. Years ago, Paint Shop Pro was one of the first shareware programs I ever bought.
In how many editors is the red-eye-removal tool something that actually manipulates the red layer of the image rather than just being a black paint tool?
It seems stupid that Gimp is one of the few editors that will not mar your photos if you try to do red-eye removal on something like the cheek but it is true. The dang thing is a tad more complex than a "simple editor" needs to be but it at least gets the "technical details" of the process correct. The "simple tools" don't.
I've been suggesting a "granny gimp" sort of UI theme for a long time.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It's not that Gimp is too powerful for the normal desktop user, it's the fact that Gimp's user interface is way, way too confusing for anyone but those who REALLY want to learn it. I've been using Adobe and Corel paint/photoediting programs for 15 years now and, let me tell you, that knowledge does not necessarily translate to Gimp. It's like starting from scratch, and not in the "about time someone rebuilt this from the ground up" kind of way, more of the "what the hell were they thinking?" kinda way. Then again, it's open source. It's powerful software created by people who'd rather be using a command line anyway...
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
This is par for open source. We've (I) have been clamoring for this for at least 5 years now since 2004/5, and we're getting it delivered in 2010. I am happy it is coming, I am sad it took so damn long. Because I know I was not a marginal case. I refuse to use GIMP because it just isn't laid out like PS. I tried I gave up. I tried I gave up. I tried I gave up. I've seriously tried every year, but I am too ingrained with PS to "get it"
But I am glad the fan boys came around and realized *they* are the marginal users, and continuing their stance is in turn marginalizing their software. We do need a PS replacement that isn't so damn annoying. Imagine if the KOffice, OpenOffice and GNOME Office document writer apps were a white window where your typing went and each tool bar a separate window. People would hate it. PS/GIMP is no different.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
It is worse, because it's an acronym. Not only that, the acronym already exists as an unrelated word in the dictionary, so it's twice as bad. And it has some rather unflattering meanings, so that's three times worse!
Here's a far better name, took me 2 minutes to think of:
GNU Image Manipulation, or GIM, pronounced "Jim" as in "Jimmy up some lolcats in there" or "fake, that pic's been jimmed!".
Easier to pronounce, has no meaning as either GIM or "Jim" in any language I can think of, except as a name in English.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As a long time GUI critic I've never quite understood the resistance all these years towards using a single multiple document style window for graphics editing. The kind of graphics editing I do usually involves dozens of tiny images all open at the same time. In the "real world" desktop with paper and scissors it was once not uncommon for someone to use a cutting tray of some kind that could be moved and set aside without having to move or otherwise deal with dozens of individual image scraps.
Obviously not everybody works the same way, and window managers/desktops these days are better at dealing with groups of windows, but it always seemed crazy not to at least have it as an option.
I remove F-Spot, which I neither like nor use. Actually I nearly despise it due to the hard-coded directory name stupidity introduced a couple of Ubuntu versions ago (every volume with a /photos directory was deemed to be from a digital camera, even if it was a 1TB internal fixed disk). The resulting moronic behavior of the file browser was really Ubuntu's fault, but F-Spot carries the stigma.
Our raw photo processing is done with Bibble Pro and Noise Ninja, both of which sell native Linux versions. GIMP is a keeper for image editing, however, and gets quite a lot of use. Especially by my teenage daughter, who became a GIMP whiz as a pre-teen.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
One of the ways of introducing people to alternative software is to install it and have in sitting there on the menu. By removing the GIMP, they're just encouraging people to think that linux is "not ready for serious users."
For people who are used to working with photoshop, the GIMP is different - hence cumbersome. Same as for people used to MS-Office, OpenOffice is "too different", or who are used to "teh InnerNet == IE", firefox was too cumbersome.
People got over it with firefox, they're getting over it with oo, and given time, those who are sufficiently motivated to explore will get over it with the gimp.
Between the fugly colour schemes, the stupid naming schemes, the artificial restrictions on root (hey - it's MY computer, not yours), not including the toolchain for building the system by default - even on xubuntu, etc., I'm glad I stuck with opensuse.
If they want it to be so dumbed down, why don't they just pull a lindows/linspire?
Yes, it's a flame, but ubuntu sucks for development. And now it's going to suck for users who want a bit more than average / mediocre.
Oh man, I forgot about Blender. That UI makes GIMP's look like it was designed by Apple.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Yet another example of the post literate situation where everyone just wants things to be like that first of the type they see and nobody can bother to read any docs. The "weird interface" makes perfect sense with multiple virtual desktops or multiple screens, you'll see similar things creep into applications like photoshop just as things like undo crept in. Multiple workspaces are no longer just a *nix thing.
To me photoshop was the odd interface because I encountered that after gimp and CAD programs - and then got flamed a great deal when I asked where undo was. The response from several was "real professionals save frequently and will never need undo" along with a prolonged game of kick the newbie that never pretended to be anything else in the first place. The reality is just like CAD and solid modelling programs. There are too many options to make a simple interface possible thus both suck until you've used them a lot.
I look forward to the day when Canonical finally get rid of that pesky Linux thing from their default install. I mean all it does is confuse people who can't run their walmart bought software on it. Die Ubuntu die.
A distribution for those who can't find their ass with both hands.
It would still be faster to download it, Canonical says delivery takes 5-6 wks
The Windows GIMP installer is 16MB if that takes 5 hours to download it would mean it takes 9.11 days to download the full 700MB ISO.
Wow I just realized something if it take 5 hours to download 16MB that is about 7Kb/s. At that rate it take 9.11 days to download 700MB. See the relationship 700, 7, and 9.11.
It means that GWB knew about 9-11. 9-11 was perfectly executed hence the 7, the 700 club is a conservative organization so that means GWB new. Canonical fits in because Linux is a Communist system and they want to found a NWO.
PEOPLE OPEN YOUR EYES
I've found myself in a position more than once trying to explain that GIMP is a powerful image editor. But management types don't listen after I tell them the name of the software. "GIMP"'s name is the single biggest barrier to adoption of what is otherwise a fantastic image editing software. I've been using it for years to produce my (admittedly not at the Disney level) graphics - see farmdirectory.org for my latest project that includes (among a ton of other OSS) GIMP's handy work.
The latest version of Gimp had some really nice enhancements to the UI. I use GIMP almost every day. Every time I spin up the GIMP process, though, I lament the name.
As long as I can still do "sudo apt-get install gimp", who cares?
Oh, cry me a river.
Intelligent people who want to "solve the problem themselves" will do so by clicking on the install package for GIMP and be right where they'd have been if this hadn't been done. You're the one complaining like a spoiled child, which means presumably you're affiliated with the GIMP project. Meanwhile, the majority of Ubuntu users who don't care either way will go on about their business, noting that there are several MB of tools they actually find useful in the default install where GIMP had previously displaced them.
Power and efficiency do not require a craptastic user interface. That argument only comes from those who can't do UI design and don't want to admit it's a limitation in their skillset.
Your movie quotes apply to how we present ourselves, not how we present the things we make. The makers of Ubuntu are making it for users; they want it to be used, so they care what the users think - even the ones you think are idiots for not agreeing with your views on what is good software.
Meanwhile, you sound awfully bitter that GIMP isn't loved enough to keep its precious spot on the Ubuntu default install CD.
But you know what, have it your way. If you want to believe that Ubuntu is the project that will suffer as a result of caring about user experience, rather than seeing that GIMP is at this moment suffering for failing to do so, go ahead. Too bad I won't get to hear your excuses when we see this in hindsight a few years from now.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
GIM is truly outrageous. Truly, truly, truly, outrageous!
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
You are captain obvious and captain oblivious in the same post. Duh, it is an acronym. But the acronym has a negative connotation to it. I don't care if Recursive Execution To Automatically Rate Derivatives is the best, most descriptive name you have come up with. If it has a negative connotation, maybe you should come up with something better.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
Its worth noting that gimp will still be part of the default install for Ubuntu Studio. Should you require Gimp on a default install of some kind.
If there was a "Canonical's Ultimate Network Test suite", "Sun Human Interface Toolkit" or "Hulu's Interactive Television & Live Entertainment Room" all of those would be descriptive names. However, naming those products after their acronymns would be just as stupid as calling it GIMP.
I'm not familiar with the negative association you mention, but I do have a negative association with the word "Gimp": it's slang for a crippled person. Just what I need: software that hobbles along!
One thing that Linux seriously needs to get over is the need to name everything with acronyms. Mozilla didn't call their browser the Standard Link-browsing Universal Gui, because SLUG is a horrible name for a browser. And GIMP is a horrible name for... well, anything.
Then the icon is this crazed badger or something. I'm confused from the get-go.
The complete lack of marketing savvy is one thing that gives Linux the "not ready for prime time" public image. At least Ubuntu makes software that doesn't scare people.
So I've used various drawing programs for years to make crappy little graphical schematics to post online. MS Paint is all I really need, although I've used Photoshop and similar programs as well.
I heard a lot about how powerful GIMP was, and my Mac didn't come with even a basic drawing tool, so I downloaded it. Lasted... oh, maybe 2 minutes.
The issue came when I wanted to draw a line. Now, every other graphics program I've used has a "line" tool, somewhere in plain sight. Observe: ...and so on. Such was not the case for GIMP. In GIMP, you use the Shift key with other tools to draw lines. Not an inherently bad way of doing things, I guess. But here's how you have to find out about it:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Using-Paint
http://www.extropia.com/tutorials/photoshop/line_tool.html
http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Straight_Line/ (That's from the official GIMP site, mind you.)
Hey, GIMP guys. Screw you and your sarcastic screenshot telling me what the "Shift" button is. Your interface is the WEIRD one. People who use MS Paint or Photoshop or friggin' ClarisWorks - your potential customers - expect "line" to be a tool, not a key. And it's not like the key is entitled "Shift Or Draw Straight Lines In Some Linux Programs." It is NON-OBVIOUS that this would be the manner you draw lines. I don't care that I had to look up how to use a new interface, but don't act like I'm supposed to psychically fucking know ahead of time how your arbitrary interface works.
Note how both MS Paint and Photoshop are way MORE straightforward in this operation, and yet avoid sarcasm in their tutorials.
Honestly. F-spot is awful. Gthumb actually works -- you can do complicated stuff like decide which directory you want photos to be in. First thing I do with a new ubuntu install is dump f-spot, install gthumb, go through the effing rigamorole to make it the default app for that, and curse a whole bunch. For any actual image processing, it's gimp. Duh.
The gnome devs have so many stupid defaults sometimes I wonder what planet they live on. Just one example: you can't rename the desktop icons for media. It's "8GB-drive" or whatever. I have about three separate USB thumbdrives, all 8GB, and no way to name them something useful because I'm such a dumb user that would confuse me.
The only one with enough clout to kick those guys is probably Shuttleworth. So why in hell isn't he doing it?