GIMP Core Mostly Ported to GEGL

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GIMP Core Mostly Ported to GEGL

Posted by Unknown on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @07:55AM from the high-bit-depth-goats dept.

A longstanding task for the GIMP has been porting the core graphics code from the ancient implementation (dating back to version 1.2) to GEGL. Progress has been hampered by the amount of code relying on details of the implementation of image data: tiles are directly accessed instead of linear buffers, and changing that detail would break the entire core and all plugins. A few weeks ago, two GIMP hackers got together to do some general hacking, and inadvertedly ported the core graphics code to GEGL. They work around the mismatch between GEGL buffers and GIMP tiles by implementing a storage backend for GEGL using the legacy GIMP tiles; to their surprise things Just Worked (tm), and their code branch will become the 2.9 development series once 2.8 is released. With this, 2.10 will finally feature higher bit depth images, additional color spaces (CMYK for one), and hardware accelerated image operations. There's still work to be done: to take advantage of the new features, plugins need to be ported to access GEGL buffers instead of GIMP tiles, but the conversion work is straightforward and current plugins will continue working as well as they do now in the meantime.

312 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Inadvertently... by icebike · 2012-04-17 07:55 · Score: 5, Funny

A few weeks ago, two GIMP hackers got together to do some general hacking, and inadvertedly ported the core graphics code to GEGL.

Is it just me, or does that not pretty much sum up GIMP development since day one?
Now if these guys would just inadvertently fix the user interface, or perhaps trip and fall into a total redesign, or accidentally re-organize and re-name all the tools using bumbled into industry standard names, and serendipitously selected value scales, they might unintentionally come up with something that, purely as a side effect, resembled, ever so slightly, the principal of Least Astonishment.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
1. Re:Inadvertently... by TheModelEskimo · 2012-04-17 07:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You have a pretty low UID; when's the last time you read up on GIMP development? 2002? I think most of the items you mentioned are being addressed right now in various ways.
  
  Probably not to your satisfaction, though.
2. Re:Inadvertently... by Jeng · 2012-04-17 07:58 · Score: 2
  
  Luckily gimps tend to be accident prone.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
3. Re:Inadvertently... by BagOBones · 2012-04-17 07:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Being address and have been address are sometimes very distant things.
  
  --
  EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
4. Re:Inadvertently... by Alan+Shutko · 2012-04-17 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  Well, it's nice that after 12 years, GEGL is finally making its way into everything. Progress has been a little slower than I'd have liked....
5. Re:Inadvertently... by reub2000 · 2012-04-17 08:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The user interface wasn't the problem. It was fixed in 2.0. A lot of what was hampering the gimp was the lack of support for larger bit depths and support for non-destructive editing.
6. Re:Inadvertently... by Desler · 2012-04-17 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  So that means they'll be done in 12+ years like GEGL?
7. Re:Inadvertently... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2012-04-17 08:15 · Score: 2
  
  I think the preferred term is "graphically challenged".
8. Re:Inadvertently... by bolthole · 2012-04-17 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  yeah.
  What I personally find really messed up, is that GEGL is homed under "gimp.org" and has been for a long time.. yet it is only now being merged into gimp core... and only "accidentally" ? !!
  GIMP: Needs Moar Planning
9. Re:Inadvertently... by John+Bokma · 2012-04-17 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Unsharp Mask: Radius 5.0, Amount: 0.50. Are there actually people who use those IMO crazy defaults?
  It would've been nice if there was an option in that dialog to "use these values as default".
  Ditto for the "Save as". Why isn't there an option to set the default "Save to" directory in that dialog window? Maybe it's just me but I prefer not to save the results in the directory that has the originals.
  Working with the Gimp is in my experience a never ending pain in the ass. But that's probably partially to blame on my inexperience with it. But each time I get the impression that the motto is: easy tasks hard and hard tasks impossible.
  
  --
  
  Perl Programmer for hire
10. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:28 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  They fooled me with that a decade ago.
  Nowadays, Gimp is a living reference for how the stubborn douchiness of programmers can make a project irrelevent, when it was once promising.
11. Re:Inadvertently... by TemporalBeing · 2012-04-17 08:29 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The user interface wasn't the problem. It was fixed in 2.0. A lot of what was hampering the gimp was the lack of support for larger bit depths and support for non-destructive editing.
  Just loaded GIMP 2.6 - and I'll tell ya' it's not fixed. it's still a hairy mess to figure out. Though has been reported they are working on a new interface (one more Photoshop like); but I don't know the status or what version it was to come out in.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
12. Re:Inadvertently... by Holammer · 2012-04-17 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  I try to use GIMP, I really do. But it's so far removed from how normal software of its type works I end up feeling gimped. It's borderline maddening to work with.
13. Re:Inadvertently... by slater.jay · 2012-04-17 08:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But three things a man wishes to do but once in his lifetime come as naturally as the morning sun. This is the tao of GIMP.
14. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  Just downloaded it to check out their progress... it's the same as it was years ago. 2.6 anyway, which I'm pretty sure is the same version they were distributing back then.
  So if it has only been a few years since you last abandoned it, nothing to see here.
15. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  I thought its purpose was to serve as a warning to anyone who tried to make a project that didn't directly rip off a commercial piece of software down to the finest detail.
  Next time around on the wheel of life maybe they'll implement buttons you hold down to make other buttons appear so the adobe lusers can revel in their astonishment.
16. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Let's check the history. A couple college students write a FOSS image manipulation program for their master's degree work. They graduate and -- what do you know -- Microsoft pays them to not work on GIMP anymore.
17. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  Gives me hope for Berlin...
18. Re:Inadvertently... by Vegemeister · 2012-04-17 08:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  2.6 is the stable version. All the development happens in 2.7. The value sliders have been greatly improved, and they've got single-window mode (still kinda buggy though).
19. Re:Inadvertently... by hackula · 2012-04-17 08:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I use GIMP all the time and love it, but the multi window interface still drives me insane. I have heard for ages they are working on single window tabbed version, but I will believe it when I see it.
20. Re:Inadvertently... by Vintermann · 2012-04-17 09:11 · Score: 2
  
  When "accidents" like this can happen, that says very nice things about GEGL's architecture (and the accidental heroes, of course).
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
21. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 09:12 · Score: 0
  
  could you accidently come off sounding less like a wanker
22. Re:Inadvertently... by X0563511 · 2012-04-17 09:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What the hell is that supposed to mean?
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
23. Re:Inadvertently... by TheModelEskimo · 2012-04-17 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  > but I will believe it when I see it
  
  You sound like you've lost hope. I have just the tool for that.
24. Re:Inadvertently... by rnturn · 2012-04-17 09:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ``...accidentally re-organize and re-name all the tools using bumbled into industry standard names...''
  
  Which I assume you mean ``do things exactly like Photoshop''. That's what most people critical of the GIMP mean when they want something changed. (And, frankly, it's getting more than a little old.)
  
  --
  CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
25. Re:Inadvertently... by Patch86 · 2012-04-17 09:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There should never be a huge feature gap between stable and dev versions of software, really. I always grab stable versions because I don't want my programmes crapping out on me when I'm trying to do something important.If the stable version is 2 years old while features are being added to the dev version every day, then something's gone wrong.
  Call it a need for a more "agile" development approach. They should be picking a feature, building it, trying it out in dev, then rolling it into stable where they can move it to regular support. Rinse, repeat.
  Happens in all my favourite FOSS projects, though. Games are especially bad at it, where a million great new feature are always nearly-ready, but never quite seem to be polished enough for show time.
26. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  It means something, anything you want really, that is involing sun rise, the tao and a man's 3 wishes
27. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 09:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The original GIMP UI was a photoshop ripoff IIRC. "Too hard". The next UI was something windows-ish "too hard". Now idiots are trying to get gimp single windowed. (WTF? Lots of people have multi-monitor setups these days. And when was single window ever good since windows 3.1? )
  I have a feeling most people who can't use GIMP probably can't use Photoshop either. (I've used both, and many other bitmap/photo editors besides, and really don't get what all the hubbub is about. )
28. Re:Inadvertently... by treeves · 2012-04-17 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  2.8.0 RC1 is out, but it doesn't look too different on a cursory inspection.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
29. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  HOLY SHIT! You "just loaded GIMP 2.6" (and not the offshoots that try to look like photoshop GimPhoto and GimpShop) and after a STUNNING 3.5 minutes you couldn't find the buttons that you're familiar with in Photoshop after having spent the last 2 decades getting used to Adobe's user interface.
  
  Color me shocked with a 3rd party plug-in layer effect.
30. Re:Inadvertently... by Tapewolf · 2012-04-17 09:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Just loaded GIMP 2.6 - and I'll tell ya' it's not fixed. it's still a hairy mess to figure out. Though has been reported they are working on a new interface (one more Photoshop like); but I don't know the status or what version it was to come out in.
  2.8 does the single-window interface thing. It looks like this:
  http://tapewolf.wildernessguardians.com/gimp28-screenshot.jpg
  ...whether that's now a single window hairy mess is not something I can really comment on. Personally, I find Photoshop to be an unintuitive horror and gimp works just how I'd expect, but that's probably because I started out with Autodesk Animator and weird things like that. If I had started on Photoshop my opinion would probably be very different.
31. Re:Inadvertently... by Knuckles · 2012-04-17 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Menu File | New and menu File | Save?
  
  --
  "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
32. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  If you actually read the article under the "inadvertedly ported the core graphics code to GEGL" link, it wasn't "inadvertent". They were basically planning to verify an approach would be feasible. It was feasible enough that they just went ahead and did it. That's not "inadvertent", which implies lack of intent. That's "quicker than they initially thought they'd get it done", which is quite a different animal.
33. Re:Inadvertently... by ScislaC · 2012-04-17 10:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is a problem that we have in Inkscape as well. I would say that in general, people are excited and motivated to add new functionality. The problem is that it's not nearly as satisfying when it comes to refining and bug fixing for most devs when it's all volunteer work.
  
  --
  ART on dA
34. Re:Inadvertently... by Tapewolf · 2012-04-17 10:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  2.8.0 RC1 is out, but it doesn't look too different on a cursory inspection.
  Windows -> Single Window Mode
35. Re:Inadvertently... by nyctopterus · 2012-04-17 10:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, it really isn't. I want a piece of software with a simpler interface that Photoshop. Not much more complex and a hell of a lot more ugly. Do better than Photoshop, that's what the people want.
36. Re:Inadvertently... by KiloByte · 2012-04-17 10:17 · Score: 2
  
  GIMP's interface is a nightmare iff your window manager doesn't support virtual desktops. With those, it's a single window interface that's the unintuitive horror.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
37. Re:Inadvertently... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-04-17 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, fuck!
  What happened?
  I think I just ported Gimp.
  So. THAT'S what you're calling it, these days.
  Well, it beats "Stinky Pink Twinkie Time".
  Are you SURE?
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
38. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, I get it. You want the GIMP to look exactly like and function identically to Photoshop, because, as we all know, the Photoshop standard has been ordained by the Creator as being the *only* standard and any other way of doing things *must* never be permitted.
  That is a truly rational and sophisticated viewpoint.
  It also explains why OpenOffice *must* be a clone of Microsoft Office, and why Audacity *must* be a clone of Adobe Audition, and why ...
  Narrow-mindedness seems to rule the world.
39. Re:Inadvertently... by budgenator · 2012-04-17 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  My step-son thought the same after formal training in Photoshop, interestingly I had a copy of Photoshop Essentials installed so I had him demonstrate some routine editing tasks in PS Essentials, I then did the same thing in GIMP much faster than easier than he did in Essentials. Then for a kicker I did the same editing tasks in Essentials and again was faster and easier than the way he was taught; just learn the keyboard shortcuts and 90% of the time you will not care where they hit that stupid button.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
40. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  So.... what? The real version hasn't been touched in years, but the eternal-developers-preview version is an ever-changing playground of stuff that never, ever makes it to release?
  Compelling and rich.
  Here's to hoping that summer of code thing actually gets gimp off life support.
41. Re:Inadvertently... by JanneM · 2012-04-17 10:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It would've been nice if there was an option in that dialog to "use these values as default".
  There is, for all tools at once. In the settings you can ask to save all current settings as default. You can set up all the tools you use the way you want them, then go to settings and save it all as your normal set-up.
  
  --
  Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
42. Re:Inadvertently... by kikito · 2012-04-17 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  No, it was and still is the interface.
43. Re:Inadvertently... by serviscope_minor · 2012-04-17 10:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I use GIMP all the time and love it, but the multi window interface still drives me insane.
  The GIMP is designed to work well with quality window managers. I, for one am glad that they cater to people who understand that X11 provides the best GUI.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
44. Re:Inadvertently... by John+Bokma · 2012-04-17 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the tip! Will look into this. (But I still think it's more logic to have this per dialog, with a "reset" option as well).
  
  --
  
  Perl Programmer for hire
45. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  Don't mock the Drunken Master style of coding! It has been a noble tradition since the invention of pubs. Previously, the work products have included revolutions and art of variable quality.
46. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  Go BUY Photoshop, since that is what you want. Quit whining.
47. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  Neither of those look or feel particularly like Photoshop outside from a very primitive window structure, making your point relatively moot. Besides, this is about the GIMP, not about a fork. A fork should never have been necessary in the first place.
48. Re:Inadvertently... by Tough+Love · 2012-04-17 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  "The more I practice the luckier I get" -- Gary Player, legendary golfer
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
49. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 11:25 · Score: 0
  
  So was the purpose of this history lesson that you humiliated your step-son with a cocky attitude about how he really didn't need photoshop at all?
50. Re:Inadvertently... by flimflammer · 2012-04-17 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  There is more than just Photoshop and Gimp, you know. It's equally annoying when people try to claim everyone just wants GIMP to be a GPL'd Photoshop (I won't lie, many do, but not everyone). There are a number of image editing suites that are used professionally and they all follow very similar designs. Yes, it's true that at their heart a lot of them do in fact take their inspiration from Photoshop because they want a piece of the industry pie, but when you have the GIMP being an outsider from this general design shared between basically all professional image editing suites, you can't complain when people don't like how different it is.
  I think the GIMP has been making some good strides towards becoming more in line with what we all expect, but it still has a ways to go.
51. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  What hackula was trying to say is that he wishes GIMP's development target was something else than 40-year-old+ neckbeards.
52. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 13:18 · Score: 0
  
  To me, the _original_ multi-window interface was fine. It may not have been to everyone's preference, but it was internally consistent and therefore learnable.
  The horrible abomination they replace it with - with the fake main window is the worst of all worlds. They need to either go back to a pure multi window approach, or go all the way to a single window.
53. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 13:38 · Score: 0
  
  Are you crazy? Mozilla is doing this right now and everyone is hating them even though they're doing exactly the same shit as Google and that it had been the right thing to do all along. People here are completely stupid when it comes down to version numbers.
54. Re:Inadvertently... by treeves · 2012-04-17 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  Well, like I said - cursory inspection, so I only saw the cursor, no windows.
  Kidding aside, thanks for the info.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
55. Re:Inadvertently... by countach · 2012-04-17 14:50 · Score: 2
  
  X11 hardly provides a gui. It just provides core drawing routines.
56. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  Next time around on the wheel of life maybe they'll implement buttons you hold down to make other buttons appear so the adobe lusers can revel in their astonishment.
  This right here? That's exactly what GP AC was talking about. The stubborn, douchey attitude that all problems which users bring up are, by definition, just lusers hatin' cause you didn't write a Photoshop clone.
57. Re:Inadvertently... by Machtyn · 2012-04-17 15:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Agreed. When Microsoft can figure out an easy way to handle spanning single windows across multiple monitors, then I wouldn't mind a single application window space. But, for now, I am very pleased I can move my tools to one monitor (and any reference sources) while I work on my main image on another monitor.
58. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 16:42 · Score: 0
  
  Well, you're a fucking idiot. Look at your screenshot. Half the god damn screen is covered up with Gimp's hemorrhoid sized icons. Yup, this program is definitely for you! I'm sure you don't do anything except enlarge pictures of your tiny dick before sending it to the ladiez. Enjoy the Gimp, Pimp.
59. Re:Inadvertently... by AvitarX · 2012-04-17 17:04 · Score: 2
  
  That's barely slower than commercial software, and I don't think GIMP has any big sponsorships.
  Photoshop 13 versions 22 years
  Word 14 version in the same
  GIMP is slower, but I see 2.0 released in '04, that gives 4 versions in 8 years. 1.2 was way earlier, but the 2.x branch has been doing pretty reasonable release rates.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
60. Re:Inadvertently... by Sigg3.net · 2012-04-17 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  By industry standard you mean Photoshop.
  Photoshop is not an industry standard, it is a monopoly. Gimp is trying to change that.
  
  --
  Defining Statistics and Social Research
61. Re:Inadvertently... by Isaac+Remuant · 2012-04-17 18:04 · Score: 2
  
  And Blender *must* be a mimic of 3dStudio and Maya...
  Happy Blender, Thunderbird, LibreOffice and Gimp users everywhere disagree.
  
  --
  "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
62. Re:Inadvertently... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-04-17 18:17 · Score: 2
  
  I, for one am glad that they cater to people who understand that X11 provides the best GUI.
  It's all well and good, but how many graphics designers are among those people?
63. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 18:24 · Score: 0
  
  I have 2.8 stable version in my computer what I got few weeks ago, so I must be in future!
64. Re:Inadvertently... by jones_supa · 2012-04-17 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well played!
65. Re:Inadvertently... by Fri13 · 2012-04-17 18:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Single Window GUI (SDI) is terrible in photoshop.
  Have you ever heard about window managers? What manages windows (not Microsoft Windows) for you?
  Have you ever heard that you can attach multiple displays to your computer and that your working speed improves with it?
  I can not find the slashdot article about multi-screen efficiency but http://www.multiplemonitors.org/index.php/multiple-monitor-solution/multi-advantages says it is 20-50% overall improvement and that is what I remember from slashdot discussion of different study as well.
  At that point, you want just to have MDI = every image as own window and tools in own window. Then you can use window manager to actually manage your windows so you quickly find what you need and you can see all of them at glance, get them in full screen and tools pop-up only when needed by pressing a TAB. You can organize images to second screen or make a duplicates of images and place them to side by side to compare when you want to have a new try of something fancy without undoing everything if it isn't successful.
  Since GIMP 2.3 development branch the UI has been very powerful and logical. Much better than in Adobe Photoshop what is illogical but works for those who have born with knowledge to use it. That is one reason why Adobe went and made a Adobe Lightroom for photographers because Adobe Photoshop was designed to totally different work than for photographers. And even Adobe has said that Photoshop UI is terrible and needs tweaking as now it is "one for all" what does not fit at all for everyone, but they need "one for one, everyone gets own". And now they are coming there with customization possibilities per user needs.
  http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/11/photoshop_as_seen_through_johnny_cash.html http://slashdot.org/story/07/11/09/0226215/adobe-to-unclutter-photoshop-ui
  So go and get yourself a good window manager (like KWin) so you can get functions like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktTNcj0fAM4 and virtual desktops and so on.
66. Re:Inadvertently... by walshy007 · 2012-04-17 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  There is a solution to this.. just start out with gimp and the interface will be natural to you.
  Most photoshop users aren't professional and haven't paid for their versions of photoshop, the first time anyone complains of gimp not being like photoshop I try to ascertain if it was pirated, if so, they have no reason to bitch. If not, why should it matter to them? They already own photoshop.
  It was the same deal with people complaining about blenders old interface, to those who were used to it it was most efficient. And the results were hard to argue with.
67. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 21:16 · Score: 0
  
  Gives me hope for Berlin...
  This comment took my breath away.
68. Re:Inadvertently... by flimflammer · 2012-04-17 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  I don't really agree with that solution. It seems more like an excuse to keep things as they are rather than considering the industry as a whole. Again, I don't think GIMP needs to be GPL Photoshop, but it should bring itself more in line with professional suites as a whole if it wants to be considered a good free alternative by the masses at large. There are legitimate reasons to go from Photoshop to GIMP or to another package.
  Starting out with GIMP could be a mild mistake for those aspiring to actually get into the industry. It presents such a drastically different workflow and unnecessarily different terminology that it will make it that much more difficult to use other software out there.
  As for blender, obviously those who are used to it will be efficient with it. You can take the most cumbersome software and there will be people who wield it like a pro after enough time. The problem is it does not lend itself well to those who want to learn it, or to those who attempt to use it instead of a suite they're used to. The problem is it's unnecessarily different. When you have a big enough market for specific software, the various software tends to do more or less the same thing in a similar fashion. Making the UI distinct in name and functionality from these other solutions adds unnecessary complexity to learning. They're not "stealing" photoshop's interface if they name or do things in a similar fashion to photoshop because the way photoshop names things is pretty much industry standard terminology.
  But I digress; this is an argument that will likely go on until the end of time. It's good to know when to get out. I shall do just that.
69. Re:Inadvertently... by reub2000 · 2012-04-17 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well if it doesn't do what you need it to, then the interface is irrelevant.
70. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  2.8 is in RC, grab it and see for yourself.
71. Re:Inadvertently... by DaneM · 2012-04-18 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  Bravo, icebike; my hat is off to your wisdom and diction. :-)
  Relatedly, now that GEGL is sufficiently venerable to be included into GIMP, will we be seeing a modernized re-implementation of GEGL, soon? We have to think ahead so that future versions of GIMP will have something to build upon, you know. We wouldn't want them to fall behind. X-\
  Of course, 10 years from now, older versions of Photoshop might be released under the GPL, and then we wouldn't need GIMP. *ducks behind something*
72. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 00:43 · Score: 0
  
  That's because "GIMP" developers, like all open sores developers, are incompetent idiots who have no idea what they are doing. How many people wasted days of their lives on "GIMP" instead of just using proper software like photoshop? The open sores movement has set back software development by decades and this is just another example of how much damage these retards have caused to a generation of computer users. Luckily Apple has put all of you losers in your place.
  Think different. Think BETTER. Think !APPLE!
73. Re:Inadvertently... by slater.jay · 2012-04-18 01:10 · Score: 2
  
  In less tongue-in-cheek form: easy tasks hard, hard tasks impossible, impossible tasks inexplicably found in top-level menus.
74. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  To sum it up, GIMP is good, it's the users that are bad.
  No, freetards aren't delusional at all.
75. Re:Inadvertently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  "And, frankly, it's getting more than a little old"
  The fact the developers still dont get is getting a bit old.
  People want a photoshop interface. A few people want the crappy interface gimp has.
76. Re:Inadvertently... by X_Bones · 2012-04-18 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  At that point, you want just to have MDI = every image as own window and tools in own window.
  
  no, at that point YOU want to have all those as different windows on your screen(s). Not everyone uses virtual desktops or has access to multiple monitors, and even if they did not everyone shares the same mental model. Lots of people see no need whatsoever to have a tool palette be a top-level window (from the window manager's point of view) because they view their WM's window switcher as an APPLICATION switcher, and why the hell would they want to alt-tab to a tool palette but keep hidden the image windows it applies to?
  
  I have nothing against MDI. It obviously works fine for some people. But guess what? SDI works fine for some people too, so why shouldn't the GIMP devs give their users the ability to choose between the two modes? They are, and that's great, and I applaud them for it. What's not great is people like you condescendingly asking if other folks have never heard of multiple monitors or thinking that the stupid unwashed masses would see the light if only they'd use the proper window manager.
  
  --
  
  the coolest club on /.
77. Re:Inadvertently... by TemporalBeing · 2012-04-18 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  HOLY SHIT! You "just loaded GIMP 2.6" (and not the offshoots that try to look like photoshop GimPhoto and GimpShop) and after a STUNNING 3.5 minutes you couldn't find the buttons that you're familiar with in Photoshop after having spent the last 2 decades getting used to Adobe's user interface.
  No, I loaded GIMP 2.6 to see if it had an MDI/Single Window Mode that it. I'm not very familiar with Photoshop, but if given Photoshop I can edit photos for what I want to do without having to spend hours on end trying to figure out how the software works. I have yet to get GIMP to do any kind of basic photo editing despite hours of playing with the interface - in any GIMP version I've tried.
  
  I know GIMP is great for people that work with it every day, do all kinds of scripting, etc; but until a normal computer user (not a photo editing specialist, but Grandma & Grandpa) can do basic photo editing with GIMP, it's useless for the majority of people and will continue to have too high a learning curve to overcome the Photoshop interface issue.
  
  Honest, if it could do what I wanted easily, I wouldn't care that it had the windows interface that it does; but it can't even to the basics without hours of learning; and even GIMP's FAQs point to books on the program to help people out in those cases - so something is obviously wrong with their UI design no matter how they want to cut it.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
78. Re:Inadvertently... by TemporalBeing · 2012-04-18 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Just loaded GIMP 2.6 - and I'll tell ya' it's not fixed. it's still a hairy mess to figure out. Though has been reported they are working on a new interface (one more Photoshop like); but I don't know the status or what version it was to come out in.
  2.8 does the single-window interface thing. It looks like this:
  http://tapewolf.wildernessguardians.com/gimp28-screenshot.jpg
  ...whether that's now a single window hairy mess is not something I can really comment on. Personally, I find Photoshop to be an unintuitive horror and gimp works just how I'd expect, but that's probably because I started out with Autodesk Animator and weird things like that. If I had started on Photoshop my opinion would probably be very different.
  Thanks for the screen shot. Per a Single WIndow Interface it's not the worse; but it still comes down to how functional it is for an average user to do basic tasks. If it's anything like GIMP 2.6 in that respect, then it will still be a hairy mess, just a "single window hair mess" (as you put it) instead.
  
  Unfortunately, it seems that being able to do basic tasks easily (without having to read books or spend hours learning the software) is lost on the GIMP developers. If they solved that issue, they'd probably get a lot less flak about the learning curve, etc; because that's really what people want to get started with - something that is nearly as easy to use as MS Paint to do very basic tasks.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
79. Re:Inadvertently... by Patch86 · 2012-04-18 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Commercial software is all about selling packages. You can't sell someone a £200 piece of software more than every few years, as there's only so much money you can extract.
  There's no good reason a feature shouldn't be released (in isolation, as a minor version update) as soon as they're stable for a free piece of software. Why hold a feature in reserve for years when it's already ready for prime time?
  (This is true for software like GIMP; I accept the argument for Firefox is somewhat different. Firefox is a platform for other software (the plug-ins) almost as much as it's software in its own right. For software like that, feature stability is a lot more important. You could also argue that Firefox is a lot more complete than GIMP- Firefox can get away with a long release cycle as it's already a good piece of software, whereas GIMP is still desperately playing catch-up with the commercial competition and needs every feature it can get).
80. Re:Inadvertently... by sjames · 2012-04-18 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  You could as easily as a Gimp user say you loaded Photoshop the other day and it's still a hairy ness to figure out. Different software is different, go figure.
  As A Gimp user, I would appreciate them not changing everything to make it a clone of something I don't use.
81. Re:Inadvertently... by TemporalBeing · 2012-04-18 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  You could as easily as a Gimp user say you loaded Photoshop the other day and it's still a hairy ness to figure out. Different software is different, go figure.
  But at least in Photoshop someone can easily figure out how to do basic tasks like available in MS Paint.
  
  In GIMP, that's not even possible without hours of learning the software.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
82. Re:Inadvertently... by sjames · 2012-04-18 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, I found Gimp to be quite intuitive from the very beginning. Meanwhile, I have no idea why you expect a 747 to be as easy to operate as a go-kart.
83. Re:Inadvertently... by TemporalBeing · 2012-04-18 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, I found Gimp to be quite intuitive from the very beginning. Meanwhile, I have no idea why you expect a 747 to be as easy to operate as a go-kart.
  A pilot of a Cessna, Piper Cub, or nearly any other small plane - even a glider - could get into a 747 and easily fly it. Things will be familiar; and the procedures are basically the same. I'm not a certified pilot, but it is still true - there are some differences; but basic flight operation is the same.
  
  An operator of a go-kart could get into an F1 racer, and things are still basically the same for basic operations.
  
  The same applies to software - whether Word Processing, Graphics Editing, or using a compiler. If you are doing basic operations (e.g. copy, paste) then the functionality should be the same regardless of whether you are using Notepad, Vi, MS Word, OpenOffice, or Adobe Acrobat; or MS Paint, PhotoShop, InkScape, or GIMP. If new users to the software are not able to do the very basic tasks the software is meant to accomplish without having to spend hours learning the software then the there is something wrong in the UI design of the software. If you want to do more advanced tasks, then yes time and learning the software should be required.
  
  So, if all you want to do is land that 747 in the event of an emergency (e.g. the pilots died and you're the next best person on board), then you better be able to get in there and land the aircraft without having to learn all the advanced functionality the aircraft computers are capable of (e.g. programming the flight plan, enabling auto-pilot, etc.). Even if you've never had any experience as a pilot, you'll be able to get into a 747 and be able to easily walk through the process with someone over the radio; if you do have experience as a pilot, you won't need much help at all.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
84. Re:Inadvertently... by sjames · 2012-04-18 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  You don't get to change my analogy before you refute it. Knowing how to drive a go-kart doesn't make you ready for a 747, now does it?
  Gimp does copy/paste just fine. It looks a lot like any other copy/paste operation. Honestly, have you ever even tried Gimp?
  I didn't need a manual the first time I used Gimp, and I have yet to consult one.
85. Re:Inadvertently... by TemporalBeing · 2012-04-18 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  You don't get to change my analogy before you refute it. Knowing how to drive a go-kart doesn't make you ready for a 747, now does it?
  Except your analogy is broken. You're comparing Apples to Oranges; I'm comparing Apples to Apples. MS Paint and GIMP while they are respectively the Go-Kart vs F1 Racer or Cessna vs 747 respectively, they are in the same class of software. Notepad vs. GIMP would be equivalent to your analogy. Yes, you could use GIMP to edit text, but Notepad would be a better tool. Compare apples to apples, and I'll use your analogy AS-IS.
  
  Gimp does copy/paste just fine. It looks a lot like any other copy/paste operation. Honestly, have you ever even tried Gimp?
  I didn't need a manual the first time I used Gimp, and I have yet to consult one.
  Yes, I've tried using GIMP for various simple tasks several times over the years. Tasks I have no problem using PhotoShop or MS Paint to do. Yet, every time from basic copy/paste operations, resizing images, or similar tasks GIMP fails in making the interface obvious on what to do; even as a programmer, I end up giving up and finding some other software (IrFanView32, MS Paint, etc.) to do the job and get it done quickly. I don't want to be spending hours learning a piece of software to do some simple task that I am only going to do once in a blue moon, and when I do do that task, need it done quickly so I can go on to other things.
  
  Once GIMP can pass that kind of test, then I'll spend time learning the other features. I'd honestly rather use GIMP than PhotoShop. I'd like to be able to promote the use of GIMP over PhotoShop, but have yet to find it pass muster. The learning curve for basic operations is too high to promote it.
  
  Yes, I keep GIMP installed on my Linux PCs just to be able to try it out every now and again. I use to install it on Windows PCs I would use too for the same reason. I do tell people about it; but I have yet to run across anyone that actually uses GIMP - even in the many FLOSS meetings I attend. Everyone admits GIMP has a very steep learning curve. And as evidenced from the GIMP FAQ (e.g. http://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#Lost) they developers don't seem to care - and FYI, PhotoShop doesn't have those kinds of issues; you don't need a book to tell you how to do basic things.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
86. Re:Inadvertently... by sjames · 2012-04-18 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  It may be just me, but I don't find image->Scale Image at all hard.
  Like a go-kart and a 747 are both vehicles, Paint and Gimp are both graphics editors, but they are in an entirely different class and for entirely different target uses.
  It may be that you're trying to use the 747 to pick up a gallon of milk.
87. Re:Inadvertently... by walshy007 · 2012-04-19 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  Different products suit different needs, the same in regards to workflows. Everything being the same is actually a bad thing.
88. Re:Inadvertently... by TemporalBeing · 2012-04-19 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  It may be just me, but I don't find image->Scale Image at all hard.
  There's a lot of things that are problematic.
  
  Like a go-kart and a 747 are both vehicles, Paint and Gimp are both graphics editors, but they are in an entirely different class and for entirely different target uses.
  Your analogy is still broken. A go-kart and 747 are to vehicles as Gimp is to MS Word. Both GIMP and MS Word are software in the same sense that a go-kart and a 747 are vehicles. MS Paint and GIMP are both graphical editors in the same way that a go-kart and an F1 racer are both cars; and a Piper Cub and a 747 are both airplanes.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
89. Re:Inadvertently... by gencha · 2012-04-19 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Just so they can keep marketing their own image manipulation software: Microsoft Paint
90. Re:Inadvertently... by hobarrera · 2012-04-19 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  I really don't know why they bothered listening to window-using whiner about this "single window mode".
  Window management should be left to the Window Manager. Period. I think it brings inconsistency to the entire "desktop" paradigm, with all that "window nesting".
  To be honest, how does one LOOSE any functionality by having a multiwindow mode? Can anyone name a single virtue of single window mode? (I'm not trolling, I'm sincerely asking for one).
91. Re:Inadvertently... by hobarrera · 2012-04-19 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  This is most likely a planification issue. Maybe multiple feature are simultaneously developed in the same branch at the same time, so when a single on is ready, the brach is still unstable because of the other. Add a third feature to the equation, and you have perpetually unreleasable software.
  It's just a theory, but similar scenarios ocurr all the time in very similar ways. It's merely bad planification (and is an issue completely unassociated to code quality, etc).
92. Re:Inadvertently... by Trogre · 2012-04-19 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  You know, that sounds a lot like what happened to Leslie Lamport, of LaTeX fame (you could say he put the La in LaTeX). Now an employee of Microsoft Research, he oddly doesn't have time for LaTeX any more.
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
93. Re:Inadvertently... by Savantissimo · 2012-04-20 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Insightful?!
  I thought he was doing a parody of Comic Book Guy!
  
  --
  "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
94. Re:Inadvertently... by Daengbo · 2012-04-20 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  Well ... you know .... users immediately disable as much security on their boxes as they are able to and then click on everything they see, generally prefer Facebook and Farmville over something better, don't understand what a browser is, and confuse their word processors with their OSes. So, yeah, users are on average bad and don't know how to use their tools. Once (if) they learn a tool, they would rather live in perpetual inefficiency than relearn.
  
  --
  Put identity in the browser.
95. Re:Inadvertently... by Daengbo · 2012-04-20 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  You're right. A tool should be all things to all people. In fact, I'm not sure why anyone uses anything except Emacs.
  
  --
  Put identity in the browser.
96. Re:Inadvertently... by Daengbo · 2012-04-20 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  Don't confuse lack of familiarity with bad design.
  
  --
  Put identity in the browser.
97. Re:Inadvertently... by TemporalBeing · 2012-04-23 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Don't confuse lack of familiarity with bad design.
  I'd grant you that for things that are not very basic. However, a good design would provide for the very basics of the functionality to be easily accessible - enough that new users would be able to use the program regardless of their familiarity with it.
  
  Anything beyond the basics is a different story.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
98. Re:Inadvertently... by wrook · 2012-04-28 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  My reply to "Why isn't it all in one window" has always been, "Why should every single application implement a tiling window manager?" It's a crazy idea. If you have information that needs to be separated, it should be in separate windows. Then I can resize, reposition, restack any way that I want.
  I think where we're falling down is that many people want a semi-tiled window manager. By that I mean they want to group certain windows and have them tiled, but leave other windows floating. Then they want to be able to resize the group of tiled windows together, maximize them as a group, or minimize them as a group. And they want to be able to remember from session to session how those windows are grouped and tiled. But they don't want windows to be tiled all the time.
  None of the popular window managers has this functionality. I know there were a few several years ago that had some of those features, but I'm not aware of anything that has all of those features. I honestly don't think it's a lot of work for some enterprising person. It's kind of strange. Even though I see the utility of a tiling window manager, I like seeing my background peeking out from behind my windows. I don't think I'm alone on that front.
99. Re:Inadvertently... by wrook · 2012-04-28 21:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a photo editing specialist, but I was able to use the GIMP to do quite a lot. I didn't even use any GIMP tutorials. I used Photoshop tutorials and looked in the GIMP UI until I found things that looked similar. While there were historically a few workflow issues (especially with the text tool), I have found *nothing* in the GIMP that stops you from using it casually. Personally, I wouldn't use it for simply touching up photos (red eye reduction, color balance, etc) because there are much simpler tools for that. But, for instance, I need to create worksheets that utilize pictures from a printed textbook. The book won't lay flat in the scanner, so I usually just take a picture with my digital camera. Then I use the GIMP to stretch the images so that the pictures are square again, decolorize the pictures, mask them and create transparency where the picture is white. Also if there is a hash pattern in the picture I may need to get rid of the moire pattern. Like I said, I didn't know how to do any of this before I started and I learned using Photoshop tutorials. It was not difficult in the least, so I just can't understand where you are coming from.
100. Re:Inadvertently... by wrook · 2012-04-28 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  I already replied to you previously, but now I have a better idea what you're on about. MS Paint can't do the kinds of things that I use the GIMP for. If you want MS Paint, the GIMP is not what you are looking for. A quick google search gave me: http://pinta-project.com/
  Neither the GIMP nor Photoshop is designed with that kind of simplicity in mind. They are designed for far more sophisticated uses. I don't think you are trolling. I think you are honestly pointing out what you see as a gap in available software. But just because you personally can figure out Photoshop doesn't mean it is intuitive. I have a friend who is a graphics designer who had a terrible time learning how to use it. Software designed for complex problems is rarely ideal for simple problems.
Great! by MrEricSir · 2012-04-17 07:59 · Score: 1

Now can we pleeeaaase have a new release? Gimp 2.8 is what, 2 years behind schedule?

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
1. Re:Great! by Tapewolf · 2012-04-17 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Now can we pleeeaaase have a new release? Gimp 2.8 is what, 2 years behind schedule?
  Have you tried RC1?
2. Re:Great! by JDG1980 · 2012-04-17 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Have you tried RC1?
  Does it force a stupid command prompt window to appear at all times, like the 2.7.x betas did? Does it still have an obscene graphic as the splash screen, like the 2.7.x betas did?
3. Re:Great! by Dishevel · 2012-04-17 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Come on.
  We all know that splash screen was awesome.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
4. Re:Great! by geminidomino · 2012-04-17 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know that. I never saw it. Doesn't seem to be in the splash screen archive. :P
5. Re:Great! by Dishevel · 2012-04-17 09:12 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Here it is.
  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GIMP_2.7.3_splash.png
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
6. Re:Great! by geminidomino · 2012-04-17 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  THAT? That's what he's crying about?
  I find it's lack of obscenity... disappointing.
7. Re:Great! by geminidomino · 2012-04-17 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  *headdesk*
  Yes, Grammar Nazis, I know it's supposed to be "its" and not "it's". I started out writing "It's less obscene than I'd hoped for" but decided to rewrite for the Star Wars reference.
  Stupid Slashdot and its lack of an edit button. They'll shit ajax all over the UI but not implement "features" (rather, basic functions) that have been in place for fifteen frigging years.
8. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  I take it you are using the windows version (can't tell you about the command prompt window - but it is probably there for testing). Yes the splash screen has changed (I take it since you are complaining about it that you have no sense of humour).
9. Re:Great! by budgenator · 2012-04-17 10:42 · Score: 2
  
  OMG Teets!
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
10. Re:Great! by kikito · 2012-04-17 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  That is not a *release*. That's a *release candidate*. That's what RC mean.
11. Re:Great! by jfengel · 2012-04-17 11:01 · Score: 2
  
  Obscene, no. But it's a little creepy.
12. Re:Great! by nedlohs · 2012-04-17 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  You can see her tits!!!!
13. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  I have been looking forward to layer grouping for a while now :/
14. Re:Great! by Isaac+Remuant · 2012-04-17 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  Soon, they wanted to release for April 1st but got delayed... Soon.
  Till then, as others have said, there's the Release Candidate.
  
  --
  "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
15. Re:Great! by Trogre · 2012-04-19 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  This is a joke, right? Please tell me you're joking.
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
More details by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:02 · Score: 0

It also depends on dbus and gconf2 being installed now.
And when you compile it yourself you might be able to take advantage of HAL again.
Havoc Pennington is Jesus.
hackery by bolthole · 2012-04-17 08:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

My sentiments are somewhat similar to the poster above, although a bit less... aggravated.
This sounds like a "cool hack". Which, .. ya know.. is "cool" an all... but usually not a good idea for a major piece of software such as GIMP.
IFF what they're describing is some kind of transition phase, where it allows dual-mode backend sort of stuff, and a concrete plan of action to eventually port all existing (standard) plugins to the newer methods, and then DITCH the old way.... then great.
But otherwise, having heavily layered interface/mechanics conversion code, is a Really Really bad idea. The bigger the software, the worse idea it is. It would be better to just toss it all out and start from scratch, if this is going to be an indefinitely lived hack.
1. Re:hackery by Korin43 · 2012-04-17 08:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  GIMP 2.10’s core will be 100% ported to GEGL, and all of the legacy pixel fiddling API for plug-ins is going to be deprecated.
  I'd say read the article before assuming the authors of a major piece of software are idiots, but this is Slashdot..
2. Re:hackery by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:32 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  You haven't followed GIMP's history long have you? They are idiots...
3. Re:hackery by Translation+Error · 2012-04-17 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say read the article before assuming the authors of a major piece of software are idiots, but this is Slashdot..
  ... where a large portion of the commenters actually write software, so we know how it really works.
  
  --
  When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
4. Re:hackery by Tough+Love · 2012-04-17 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  This sounds like a "cool hack". Which, .. ya know.. is "cool" an all... but usually not a good idea for a major piece of software such as GIMP.
  Where did you get that idea?
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
5. Re:hackery by Tough+Love · 2012-04-17 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say read the article before assuming the authors of a major piece of software are idiots, but this is Slashdot..
  ... where a large portion of the commenters actually write software, so we know how it really works.
  Yeah right. Keep in mind that there are various degrees of skill, experience and ability, to put it mildly.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
There are three types of software engineer by jd · 2012-04-17 08:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Those who deliberately engineer masterpieces, those who "inadvertently" engineer masterpieces and those who write the (cough) software that causes the other two groups to act.
In this case, these accidental geniuses are responsible for work that mainstream GIMP developers had long claimed was impossible. From the looks of it, six impossible things were achieved, so said developers should round things off with a meal at Milliways.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
1. Re:There are three types of software engineer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  Damn I have to get back the infinite improbability drive from those GIMP developers.
2. Re:There are three types of software engineer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  Hmmm...six impossible things...sounds familiar...LOL! XD
  http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=alice+in+wonderland+six+impossible+things&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
  CdnYoda
3. Re:There are three types of software engineer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 18:08 · Score: 0
  
  These accidental geniuses are the gimp/gegl core developers. You know, the same people who came up with the prior estimates for porting...
Version math by LordStormes · 2012-04-17 08:07 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Why is it that so many FOSS projects (GIMP, PGAdmin, etc) don't understand basic math?
"...their code branch will become the 2.9 development series once 2.8 is released. With this, 2.10 will finally feature..."
2.10 IS NOT HIGHER THAN 2.9.
1. Re:Version math by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:09 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Welcome to "how version numbers have worked for at least twenty years". Enjoy the stay.
2. Re:Version math by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  sure it is
  2.1.0 however is not
3. Re:Version math by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  The 2.6.x linux kernel branch musta driven you mad, eh?
4. Re:Version math by robmv · 2012-04-17 08:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Versions are not decimal numbers!!!!! what number is 2.8.4?
5. Re:Version math by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  2.10 IS NOT HIGHER THAN 2.9.
  You'd be right if this were a rational number, but since this is version numbering they pretty much can do whatever they want. (Aside from the fact that MANY projects and companies use this versioning scheme)
6. Re:Version math by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  Then, 2.9.1 is a invalid version number as numbers don't have 2 decimal points!!!!
  Version numbers have always been numbers separated by dots. Not one number. They could use a hash to keep you happy, then there would be no doubt that 2#10 is after 2#9, but it's harder to read...
7. Re:Version math by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  I think you may be confusing software versioning with actual decimal numbers. There's a big difference, especially since it's entirely possible for a software version to contain multiple periods such as 2.10.13, or contain letters, hyphens, etc. It's an industry standard and not specific to FOSS projects.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Separating_sequences
8. Re:Version math by nedlohs · 2012-04-17 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, you are at a whole new level of stupid.
9. Re:Version math by arth1 · 2012-04-17 08:27 · Score: 2
  
  2.10 IS NOT HIGHER THAN 2.9.
  It's two dot ten, not two point ten.
  Yes, this is a big difference.
  It's not so confusing for those who use a language where . isn't the decimal separator. Where comma is used, 2.10 > 2.9 while 2,10 2,9
10. Re:Version math by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-04-17 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  2.10 IS NOT HIGHER THAN 2.9.
  Take your bigotry towards alternate numeric systems elsewhere, sir!
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
11. Re:Version math by sudonymous · 2012-04-17 08:37 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'd love to see the brainfuck that ensues when you're tasked with figuring out whether 192.168.0.1 comes before or after 192.168.0.10.
  I'm hoping for something on a similar level to that video that went viral of the blonde trying to figure out miles per hour.
12. Re:Version math by philip.paradis · 2012-04-17 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  Dear LordStormes,
  Please refrain from participating in any open source software development.
  Love,
  The entire open source software community
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
13. Re:Version math by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  They do,you don't understand that a period is sometimes not a decimal point, but a simple mark designating a seperation between two numbers.
  Hint: In Europe, they don't localize version numbers to use commas. ie gimp 2.8 is not localized as 2,8.
  You must not have ever seen multiple seperators either. Ever look at the linux kernel?
  http://www.kernel.org/
  Multiple decimal points don't make sense. Multiple seperations of a group of numbers do.
14. Re:Version math by SomePgmr · 2012-04-17 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Meh, they shoulda jumped to Microsoft versions.
  Gimp 2009
  Gimp 2009 (sp1)
  Gimp 2013 ..etc.
15. Re:Version math by LordStormes · 2012-04-17 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  While I'm not a fan of MS numbering, at least it's a number that keeps going up.
16. Re:Version math by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 09:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Of course, you're the same guy who expected reasonable discussion after posting, in all caps, "2.10 IS NOT HIGHER THAN 2.9" to end your post.
17. Re:Version math by LordStormes · 2012-04-17 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Emphasis.
18. Re:Version math by philip.paradis · 2012-04-17 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. Emphasis on the fact that you did not understand how version numbers work, despite your claim to the contrary after the fact. You're just making it worse now.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
19. Re:Version math by LordStormes · 2012-04-17 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Understanding, and agreeing with, are two vastly different things. I emphatically disagree with the practice. Which I can only do because I understand how it works, and find it to be a poor method.
20. Re:Version math by Tanktalus · 2012-04-17 09:43 · Score: 2
  
  Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, 2003, XP, Vista, 7, 8...
  Um, say what?
  (For the pedants, I'm sure I missed some, but I don't think that any I've missed will actually make that list "[keep] going up")
21. Re:Version math by Chris+Burke · 2012-04-17 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Which I can only do because I understand how it works
  I don't think you can say "2.10 is not more than 2.9!" only if you understand that this fact is irrelevant. In fact I think it's much more likely that someone would say something like that if they didn't understand.
  That aside: It's a notation. It's a useful one. One that shouldn't bother an experienced programmer used to thinking in abstract concepts and arbitrary semantic interfaces for more than the second it takes to understand it.
  Fundamental.Major.Minor version numbers convey useful information even to end users as each separate number represents a degree of change to be expected. But you can't equate this with the significant digit of a decimal number because then you run out of significant digits. Changing from 2.9 to 3.0 simply because you ran out of digits is the poor practice. Changing from 2.90 to 2.91 when you added significant new functionality is similarly a poor practice.
  Arguing that something that looks kinda like a decimal number must be a decimal number is just silly. We don't do math on version numbers.
  Other than that though it is a great point.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
22. Re:Version math by budgenator · 2012-04-17 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  2.10 IS NOT HIGHER THAN 2.9.
  It's higher than 2.09
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
23. Re:Version math by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 13:31 · Score: 0
  
  I think you mean Exchange 2000, Exchange 2003, Exchange 2007, Exchange 2010... Or Word 2003, Word 2007, Word 2010... Or Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2003 R2, Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2008 R2. No need to shit your pants, burst in flames, forgo all logic and foam at the mouth just because Microsoft is mentioned in a comment. They've been tackling the version issue.
24. Re:Version math by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-04-17 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  Those aren't versions, they're product names. Some of them just happen to be more or less random numbers.
  The corresponding version numbers are: 3.1, 4.0, 4.1, 4.9, 5.0, 5.2, 5.1 (32-bit XP - it preceded 2003, and so had a lower number; 64-bit XP was 5.2, however), 6.0, 6.1, 6.2.
25. Re:Version math by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-04-17 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  If you're going to write a number like a decimal, it should be a decimal.
  
  Did you ever see a date written as 17.05.1957 ?
  Or time written as 13.45 ?
  Or an IP address?
  Not every point is decimal, even if it's located between two numbers.
26. Re:Version math by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 19:54 · Score: 0
  
  It is a defacto industry convention. Heck, it might even be enshrined as an ANSI or SAE standard at this point.
  Here's the thing about conventions: it does not much matter whether you agree or emphatically disagree with them. What matters is whether you comply with them. And in the FOSS industries if you want to argue about them then you will be regarded as an impediment to meaningful work. You might be tolerated for a time in the hope that you will come to your senses, but you will wear out your welcome.
  It is all about community, and getting along together to make things better, and to make better things. Those who want to argue over the conventions that foster global communication / cooperation perhaps should stay within the walled gardens of Microsoft, Apple, or other "ecosystems", and not venture into the greater world.
  Posting anonymously as I think I spent a couple of mod points on this thread.
27. Re:Version math by LordStormes · 2012-04-18 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  What makes it frustrating is that some developers DO use decimal notation because they're actually using decimal version numbers, and so if you're not familiar with the release cycle of a program, it can sometimes take a minute to figure out if they're on decimal numbers (2.9 > 2.10) or on separators (2.10 > 2.9). Things like IP addresses and dates are consistently written in that way - you don't sometimes do math on the octets and other times not. Thus, not confusing. It's the inconsistency that bothers me.
28. Re:Version math by LordStormes · 2012-04-18 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Issue is, it's not a convention. Half the apps out there do 2.9 > 2.10, and half the apps don't. So unless you go back and read the version history for an app, you can't be sure which format it's using. It's the inconsistency I don't like, more than the practice itself. If every app out there did 2.9 2.10, you could get used to it. If it's, "Well, which way is this one set up?" then that's unclear.
Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by TheModelEskimo · 2012-04-17 08:10 · Score: 5, Funny

"How do I draw a circle? I CAN'T DRAW A CIRCLE WITH IT YET AFTER LIKE 30 YEARS" --lowuserid1997

"Does it still suck at CMYK...because where I work we are focusing *so hard* on CMYK right now, it'd be ridiculous for GIMP not to support that" --a_complete_liar

"I noticed that the interface is still a series of 'windows'...my granddaughter's IPAD allows her to paint the entire mona lisa with her pinky finger, never even showing a single window. WHAT HAPPENED TO OPEN SOURCE???" --300baud

"Anybody know of an alternative to GIMP that lets you publish to ebook formats like Kindle? I need to be able to import a 1200 page scientific text, and I want to have drop shadows on the letters and a parchment background. Also something that exports to iBooks would be great but I can't pay any money for this, and I don't want to have to work for an hour to make it all just work." --cluelessphd
1. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  I love GIMP and I thought his comment was hilarious. I'd moderate it up if I had points.
2. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sure you do love being a gimp. What do your sexual proclivities have to do with this?
3. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know if this is funny or sad.
4. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by jellomizer · 2012-04-17 08:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem is not Features, but finding them.
  This is what I often do in photo shop.
  Take Basic Shape, Rotate it, Apply Color, Apply a Texture, Bevel, and Apply Shadow, Create a new layer and repeat.
  I can do this stuff easier in HTML5 then in GIMP.
  It isn't that this cannot be done in GIMP but it doesn't make it easy to do so.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
5. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  "Anybody know of an alternative to GIMP that lets you publish to ebook formats like Kindle?
  I'm sure some asshole has come up with a cryptic perl one-liner to accomplish just that task.
6. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by John+Bokma · 2012-04-17 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  Yup, I don't get it, for example, why rotating a photo to get the horizon straight is not just a matter of drawing a straight line over horizon, and have GIMP figure out how to rotate the photo to get it straight. Instead one has to tweak in a preview window. I use the top of another window (from a different program) to check if it's straight... Yes, I guess there are better ways to do this, using a grid in Gimp itself, but this is easier and faster to me....
  I use Gimp mostly for: cropping a photo (4:3 selection), resizing it, and sharpening it. And each time it amazes me how many steps are required to achieve this... Might very well be my inexperience with Gimp, though.
  
  --
  
  Perl Programmer for hire
7. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit. Photoshop is Photoshop and GIMP is GIMP.
  People that buy Photoshop generally don't care about GIMP.
  Those that criticise GIMP for not being 100% a Photoshop clone are also those that pirate Photoshop in any case. Fuck them.
  GIMP is as powerful as Photoshop, and just like every complex piece of software out there you need to learn how to use it. People learn how to use Autocad, they learn how to Blender etc... Why would they not be able to learn how to use GIMP ? You think Adobe has the definitive manual on GUI development ? Photoshop's interface on Os X is shit. But since its Photoshop you don't see people complaining.
  Hypocrisy all around its all I see.
8. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  Gimp's kryptonite, since forever, has been it's insistence on doing everything in the worst possible way. Everything is tucked away in such a way as to make it as unintuitive as possible.
  If anyone still cared, I'm sure you can go find the root of this in an archaic mailing list archive somewhere. No doubt it'll be someone "important" insisting that "we're not trying to be photoshop, even if it means we have to do things wrong!"
9. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  Yup, I don't get it, for example, why rotating a photo to get the horizon straight is not just a matter of drawing a straight line over horizon, and have GIMP figure out how to rotate the photo to get it straight. Instead one has to tweak in a preview window. I use the top of another window (from a different program) to check if it's straight... Yes, I guess there are better ways to do this, using a grid in Gimp itself, but this is easier and faster to me....
  I could be wrong, but that sounds almost trivial to write up with script-fu (gimp's scheme interface), based on what little I've done with it in the past. IANAGA (graphic artist), but in general I prefer functionality like that left out of the main program (not because that one feature is too much, but because there's a million and one little features like that, and they add up), and written in LISP (or whatever) instead. Bundling a bunch of utilities, including that one, makes good sense, and the fact they don't have it that way either is a valid criticism, but it looks like you should be able to fix it yourself.
10. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by maxwell+demon · 2012-04-17 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  I can do this stuff easier in HTML5 then in GIMP.
  Doing it in HTML5 first makes it easier to do in GIMP afterward? :-)
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
11. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:54 · Score: 0
  
  Gimp is a decorative embroidery thread, fish gut, a word that means vigor, and a somewhat pejorative word for a cripple.
  Did I miss a joke somewhere? Is there some sort of concerted effort underway to pejorate the word with a sexual meaning, like that new Santorum definition?
12. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by Desler · 2012-04-17 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  You're welcome. And it's not anything new.
13. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  http://registry.gimp.org/node/22910
  I would like to point out - that there are other (open-source) programs that are much better suited to doing simple operations on with large numbers of photos, I use Digikam, I would also give Darktable a look in. The Gimp is more suited to more time consuming tasks like Image restoration, dust busting, Composing images from multiple photographic elements.
14. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  Inkscape my friend, Inkscape. Raster image editing is always my last resort.
15. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  What do you consider a 'trivial operation'?
16. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  AAARRRGGHHHH
  It is "THAN" NOT "THEN"
  eg. "I can do this stuff easier in HTML5 THAN in GIMP".
  Or, "I clearly know more about software THAN spelling and grammar".
  This stupid "then" usage appears to be blighting all the web page comments I see on the Internet.
17. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  At least it's an error that appears to have more reasoning behind it than shit like "an hotel" or "an hardware solution", which even people on TV say. Or, "I brought a new computer", or countless other examples of stupidity.
18. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by lavagolemking · 2012-04-17 21:19 · Score: 1
  "How do I draw a circle? I CAN'T DRAW A CIRCLE WITH IT YET AFTER LIKE 30 YEARS" --lowuserid1997
  I see this one asked all the time. First draw your circle in the ellipse selection tool. To make it a perfect circle, just hold shift while selecting, or check the "Fixed" (aspect ratio) option box in the toolbox.
  
  For a hollow circle, go to Edit --> Stroke Selection. Then pick your line width, color, etc.
  For a solid circle, go to Edit --> Fill with BG Color, Fill with FG Color, or Fill with Pattern, depending on what you're trying to do.
  Also works with paths (vectors), text, rectangles (with rounded corners), and arbitrary freehand/contiguous/cut-out selections.
19. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by jellomizer · 2012-04-18 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  The British Accent 'as a tenancy to drop the "H" sound in their words. As illustrated in the My Fair Lady.
  "In 'artford, 'ediford, and 'ampture. 'erricanes 'ardly hever 'appen"
  Because the accent drops the H sound most words sound like they start with a vowel. Thus makes language more natural to ad the an to the sentence.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
20. Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-19 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  The word "gimp" is used descriptively. (I notice that it IS listed in the Wikipedia disambiguation page, but it is not actually listed as a possible meaning of the word "gimp". It's under "See also", which is why I didn't notice it originally.)
  I guess that makes about as much sense as giving a sexual connotation to the word Hitachi since they happen to make a product which is frequently used in sexual activities.
Accidental by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:12 · Score: 1

The summary makes it sound like these guys just started bashing their heads on the keyboard and out popped functional code. It's kinda funny when you think about it.
1. Re:Accidental by VisceralLogic · 2012-04-17 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  The summary makes it sound like these guys just started bashing their heads on the keyboard and out popped functional code. It's kinda funny when you think about it.
  Actually, that's how a lot of functional code looks. ;)
  
  --
  Stop! Dremel time!
So is time to wake up the GIMP yet? or not? by NeroTransmitter · 2012-04-17 08:18 · Score: 0

I'm also sick of the pedofilish canine looking icon, let's get a leather bondage hood in there...

--
^ Probably Sarcasm...
GIMP More Costly? by pacc · 2012-04-17 08:20 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I thought it was open source.
If slashdot headlines continue to be this confusing I will have to start reading the summary.
CMYK by wjcofkc · 2012-04-17 08:23 · Score: 1

Pardon me while I go all giggly school girl. I've been waiting for this since the 90's: OMG! LIKE FINALLY!

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
1. Re:CMYK by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  So in a few years no one will give a crap about CMYK in any case.
  You obviously never buy packaged goods. BTW your local super market is full of CMYK.
2. Re:CMYK by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  So in a few years no one will give a crap about CMYK in any case.
  You obviously never buy packaged goods. BTW your local super market is full of CMYK.
  You're being purposely obtuse. Of course in certain fields you will still need CMYK.
  But I somehow doubt that 90% of the people criticising GIMP for its lack of CMYK support are working in the packaged goods graphics industry. They woudl be better served using something like Corel Draw, Inkscape, etc...
3. Re:CMYK by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  Product packaging, billboards, flyers, theater/ play bills, tshirts, product decals, etc.....EVERYTHING uses CMYK. That will die when Pantone dies.
  More examples, right off my desk: coke can, aspirin bottle design, coasters, decals for my smartphone battery, decals for pens, labels for my dvds...oh, and books.
4. Re:CMYK by spitzak · 2012-04-17 16:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Use of CMYK inks does not mean that RGB images cannot be printed. I think you will find that a vast amount of those images you are thinking about were never anything other than RGB before they were converted by a printer driver to CMYK.
  CMYK is vaguely useful for exact control of a known output device. It is useless if you plan to print on more than one type of printer, or if your printer does not accept raw control of the CMYK guns (most every non-professional device will not print raw CMYK, doing things like turning on the black 100% will turn the others off). Modern software has floating point so mismatched gamuts are no longer a problem.
You're a "hacker" if... by ibsteve2u · 2012-04-17 08:23 · Score: 2

A few weeks ago, two GIMP hackers got together to do some general hacking, and inadvertedly ported the core graphics code to GEGL.

You're a "hacker" if you start playing with something in an effort to make it better and you not only succeed in a reasonable amount of time but do it for free. But if you have three meetings per week, the project drags on and on and on, the bill escalates ever closer to the stratosphere, and the project never does work?

Then you are a professional consultant.

--
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
1. Re:You're a "hacker" if... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  If you can't fix the problem there is good money to be made in prolonging it.
While we're all accidental... by amaupin · 2012-04-17 08:34 · Score: 0

Perhaps they could accidentally rename the program to something that isn't offensive...
1. Re:While we're all accidental... by Tumbleweed · 2012-04-17 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps they could accidentally rename the program to something that isn't offensive...
  GIMA. Graphics Image Manipulation Application
2. Re:While we're all accidental... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  How about PRICK?
3. Re:While we're all accidental... by Vegemeister · 2012-04-17 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  I find you name ninnies to be far more offensive than calling a piece of software 'The Gimp'. Oh no, people enjoy BDSM in the privacy of their own homes. WHATEVER SHALL WE DO?!
4. Re:While we're all accidental... by wonkey_monkey · 2012-04-17 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'm looking forward to the Very Accelerated version they promise.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
5. Re:While we're all accidental... by Patch86 · 2012-04-17 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  "Gimp" is a derogatory term for disabled people. The BDSM thing is an offshoot of that, i.e. "that guy in a fetish suit is like a spastic cripple, har har har".
  It's not exactly the nicest name for a piece of mainstream software.
6. Re:While we're all accidental... by mark-t · 2012-04-17 10:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Most people who are educated enough to read and write also have enough experience with their language to cope with the existence of homonyms, and not be compelled to associate a term only to one particular thing when the context is obviously referring to something else that only happens to share the same spelling.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
7. Re:While we're all accidental... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  That's not a homonym. A homonym is a word that is spelled differently and has a different meaning.
8. Re:While we're all accidental... by mark-t · 2012-04-17 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  You might want to double check that
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
9. Re:While we're all accidental... by snowgirl · 2012-04-17 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  In linguistics, a homonym is, in the strict sense, one of a group of words that share the same spelling and the same pronunciation but have different meanings.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
10. Re:While we're all accidental... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 12:10 · Score: 0
  
  You've obviously never heard of marketing, where your product name is nice enough that people are actually willing to say it in public.
11. Re:While we're all accidental... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 12:53 · Score: 0
  
  Only an issue for people who have difficulty with the notion that different words can have the same spelling and pronunciation.
  Do such people also think that anybody named 'Mike' should usually resemble a microphone?
  GIMP is a simple word. It shares spelling with another, arguably politically incorrect word.
  There are other words in a similar position... context is more than enough to distinguish them.
  For example, when one talks about chinks in armor, do they automatically think one is using a disparaging term for a particular racial group? Again, context is more than adequate to distinguish real meaning for anybody who can profess to have the intelligence to be literate. In practice, I think that the only people who have a problem with the word "GIMP" as a name for the software are people who like to see imaginary problems where there really aren't any.
12. Re:While we're all accidental... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  Some people just hate things for the love of hating. Trying to rationalise with them is futile. GIMP is as good a name as any other. Remember kids, english is but one language on earth, and not even the dominant one in terms of native speakers.
13. Re:While we're all accidental... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 13:41 · Score: 0
  
  "Gimp" is a derogatory term for disabled people. The BDSM thing is an offshoot of that, i.e. "that guy in a fetish suit is like a spastic cripple, har har har".
  It's not exactly the nicest name for a piece of mainstream software.
  Cripples needs to get over themselves.
  
  And they need to start parking in the first AVAILABLE spot like the rest of us. Be it in the front of the lot or in the back.
14. Re:While we're all accidental... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 13:44 · Score: 0
  
  GIMP is a simple word. It shares spelling with another, arguably politically incorrect word.
  
  I'm sure you wouldn't be saying that if it was named The NIGGER instead. Although issue would be exactly the same.
15. Re:While we're all accidental... by spitzak · 2012-04-17 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  It is absolutely amazing that there is a Slashdot poster who actually knows that "gimp" means "disabled".
  There seems to be an incredible number of people who think the word was invented by the film "Pulp Fiction". Pretty depressing, actually.
16. Re:While we're all accidental... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 17:31 · Score: 0
  
  Great so now we will get dictionaries that keep only one acception per word.
  Context is fucking important, calling someone a gimp is different from using a software called GIMP.
17. Re:While we're all accidental... by Patch86 · 2012-04-17 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they are, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. If the acronym was "SHIT", people wouldn't like to say it because of the obvious misunderstanding. It wouldn't matter if the similarity were coincidental.
  Christ, I still giggle that MS called one of their poorest OS's "WinCE". That isn't rude, and it certainly wasn't intentional, but it's still an unfortunate name for them to have picked. People should think homonyms, innuendo and word play through when they're naming things.
18. Re:While we're all accidental... by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · 2012-04-19 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Christ, I still giggle that MS called one of their poorest OS's "WinCE". That isn't rude, and it certainly wasn't intentional, but it's still an unfortunate name for them to have picked.
  I'm holding out for a WinCE-ST edition.
  
  --
  I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
that "Eureka" moment in every program's dev cycle by Tumbleweed · 2012-04-17 08:36 · Score: 5, Funny

"Oops! Oh, it worked?" ...
"Crap. WHY does it work? It totally shouldn't work!" ...
*shrug* "Ship it."
Pippin the Goatkeeper by sl4shd0rk · 2012-04-17 08:36 · Score: 1

You just know some pretty crazy things are going to happen when you pair-program with a name like that.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
16-bit? by del_diablo · 2012-04-17 08:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

While we are first at it, how is the 32/24-bit support for the images? I mean.... for so long, the 16-bit limitation has been a serious disadvantage.
Things GIMP needs to do:
1. 32-bit support for images
2. Buildt inn Normal Map plugin
3. Buildt inn direct X image support, patents be damned
4. Finally finish of the fight with the monster GEGL, how many years has it been? For a saga, a few months is ok, but not years.
1. Re:16-bit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  While we are first at it, how is the 32/24-bit support for the images? I mean.... for so long, the 16-bit limitation has been a serious disadvantage.
  Things GIMP needs to do:
  1. 32-bit support for images
  2. Buildt inn Normal Map plugin
  3. Buildt inn direct X image support, patents be damned
  4. Finally finish of the fight with the monster GEGL, how many years has it been? For a saga, a few months is ok, but not years.
  I was shocked you didn't spell that "Finnished" or something.
2. Re:16-bit? by Xtifr · 2012-04-17 09:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  1. I'm not sure what you're saying. The 32/24 bpp support has been there since day one. The same maximum depth as my video card, and probably yours as well, It's only 16 bits per channel (128/96 bits per pixel) that isn't supported, and that's mainly an issue for those who work in the dying industry of paper-publishing, and those odd individuals who want to work on "raw" photographic images despite not being able to see the results of their manipulation.
  2. Why does a "plugin" need to be "buildt inn"? You're not making any sense here.
  3. Why on earth should a UNIX program depend on proprietary Microsoft technologies that aren't available on UNIX? If you want to make a Windows-only fork, feel free.
  4. That's what this article is about, dummy!
3. Re:16-bit? by del_diablo · 2012-04-17 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  I really need to learn how to spell English, yes.
4. Re:16-bit? by AmonTheMetalhead · 2012-04-17 09:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  As a photographer I disagree with your statement. The advantage of working with raw picture files is that you have much more data available then you have after a lossy compression has been applied to your image. Shooting in RAW allows you to do all sorts of neat tricks that with a standard jpg are extremely difficult if not impossible.
  
  Believe me, you do notice the difference between a processed jpg & a processed raw file.
5. Re:16-bit? by bolthole · 2012-04-17 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  pro tip: you arent writing to all pros :-}
  that is to say, dont casually interchange "you", with "I".
  It would be more accurate if you wrote, "Believe me, I do notice the difference"....
  But I'm guessing most of the non-photography professionals here on slashdot, either would not notice the difference, or really wouldnt care about the difference.
  that being said... I can appreciate your professional input, and I personally think it would be great if GIMP fully supported you as a photog professional. I just wouldnt hold my breath waiting for it to happen :-/
6. Re:16-bit? by Trogre · 2012-04-17 10:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  1. I'm not sure what you're saying. The 32/24 bpp support has been there since day one. The same maximum depth as my video card, and probably yours as well, It's only 16 bits per channel (128/96 bits per pixel) that isn't supported,
  Correct, although I think you mean 64/48 bits per pixel, not 128/96.
  
  and that's mainly an issue for those who work in the dying industry of paper-publishing, and those odd individuals who want to work on "raw" photographic images despite not being able to see the results of their manipulation.
  No, that is wrong. While most pictures are saved in 24 or 32 bit formats, once loaded in a graphics program any workflow involving colour or level manipulation at 8-bits per channel (a paltry 256 shades of gray) very quickly shows up artifacts, compounding with every operation. This is a very real problem and it has been solved for pretty much every other photo editing program out there (including Krita and the GIMP fork CinePaint).
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
7. Re:16-bit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 11:49 · Score: 0
  
  Examples?
  You sound like an audiophile - and I don't mean that as a compliment.
8. Re:16-bit? by budgenator · 2012-04-17 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  .jpg is ok, but why not use something more professional like OpenEXR?
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
9. Re:16-bit? by Card · 2012-04-17 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  List all the cameras that support OpenEXR. There's your answer.
10. Re:16-bit? by dbIII · 2012-04-17 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of RAW formats work natively in gimp and a few other graphics applications thanks to libraw.
11. Re:16-bit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 15:22 · Score: 0
  
  Examples?
  You sound like an audiophile - and I don't mean that as a compliment.
  You sound like an idiot - and I don't mean that as a compliment.
  8 bits per channel is not much. Especially not when the final output image is the product of a long chain of intermediate filter calculations, all done as individual steps where the filter inputs and outputs are both 8bpc pixels. It's very easy to accumulate enough roundoff and other errors to lose a ton of the original image's dynamic range during processing.
  Much the same principle applies to real audio engineering (not the audiophile version of it), where there are sound arguments for 24-bit samples when recording and mastering, but not so much when it comes to distribution (16 bits is more than enough here). In both the audio and video domains, more bits per channel during the capture and processing stages means fewer worries about saturation (clipping in the audio realm), numerical precision problems, loss of dynamic range, etc.
12. Re:16-bit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  What kind of tricks can you do?
13. Re:16-bit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 16:21 · Score: 0
  
  We like greater depth in astronomy and astrophotography, and it is useful for traditional photography as well. That extra dynamic range is huge. The point have never been that you end up with a 16 bit/channel image. The point is that you have a greater range to work with, and can do more with it before/as you pull it down to 32/24 bpp. You can compress the dynamic range any way you want, and you can manipulate it before you choose to do so.
14. Re:16-bit? by SEE · 2012-04-17 16:31 · Score: 2
  
  that's mainly an issue for those who work in the dying industry of paper-publishing
  Printing and publishing are not the same industry. The people printing labels, packaging, billboards, and junk mail are not particularly threatened by ebooks and digital editions of periodicals; even if the entire publishing industry goes entirely nonphysical they'll still be around. And they'll still need high-bits-per-channel CMYK for best results.
15. Re:16-bit? by spitzak · 2012-04-17 16:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It has not been solved. 16-bit integers are not the answer because you lose resolution when you multiply brightness levels. 16-bit integers are actually a huge impediment to doing things correctly but they were forced on us by people who did not know better, and for machines that were not as fast as current ones they did offer a bit of benefit.
  The correct method is to use *floats*, and ideally a linear colorspace. There is even a 16-bit float so it takes no more memory than 16-bit integers. When you multiply a float by 2 you still have the same number of levels between the darkest and brightest visible colors.
  I have no idea what GEGL does but I suspect it gets it wrong still...
16. Re:16-bit? by Trogre · 2012-04-17 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  I hadn't considered that. Thank you for your explanation. I'll need to go think about whether floats would help in the general sense.
  My instinct is to think that 16 bits would be enough, since we're still using values between 0 and 100% brightness, just with 65536 values rather than 256. I hear what you're saying though, since audio software such as Audacity deals with floats for wave amplitude (which can be considered an analogue for brightness for this purpose).
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
17. Re:16-bit? by Xtifr · 2012-04-17 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, I suppose I can kind of see that. Nevertheless, it seems like a silly thing to complain about in an article about how the limitation is going away.
  Article: Gimp removing the 32bpp limit
  Original Poster: yeah, now if only they'd fix the 32bpp limit
18. Re:16-bit? by Xtifr · 2012-04-17 20:17 · Score: 2
  
  First bullet point on the front page of www.gegl.org:
  "Floating point handling and processing and output of larger 8bit, 16bit integer and 32bit floating point per component buffers larger than RAM."
19. Re:16-bit? by thegarbz · 2012-04-17 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  RAW processing is the first step of a larger part of a workflow. Sure natively changing a RAW image is great, especially if it maintains the original bitdepth. But You still won't interest me or any other photographer until GIMP will natively process the RAW layer at 16bit along with the adjustments and modifications that are stacked on top of it.
20. Re:16-bit? by vurian · 2012-04-17 20:34 · Score: 2
  
  It has been solved. Krita supports 8, 16 bit integer -- but also 16 and 32 bit floating point per channel. And heck, if you have a high-end graphics card and a high-end monitor that support more than 8 bits per channel output -- and those do exist -- then Krita supports that, too.
21. Re:16-bit? by dbIII · 2012-04-17 22:35 · Score: 2
  
  The year 2004 called to tell you that you can use gimp that way now with the appropriate plugin:
  http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/
  Who cares about "natively" when the job gets done in full?
22. Re:16-bit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  ... and [16-bit limitation is] mainly an issue for those who work in the dying industry of paper-publishing, and those odd individuals who want to work on "raw" photographic images despite not being able to see the results of their manipulation.
  
  Ya see there are these little things called dynamic range and quantization error. Take your 8-bit photograph, for example, and play with the levels a bit to correct the exposure level. Pretty soon you're down to only a hundred actual colors with gaps in the rest of the histogram. On the other hand, if you start with a 16-bit image and do the same manipulations, converting to 8-bit at the end, you'll get a nice smooth histogram because you've thrown out the extra information at the end instead of at the beginning.
  I do astronomical [for work] and photographic edits [personal] all the time and there is a noticable difference in the final 8-bit jpeg/png's between when I edit in 16-bits and when I'm forced to convert to 8-bit image from the start.
  -JS
23. Re:16-bit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  GEGL itself supposedly supports half and float color values. I *really*, *really* hope that they make Gimp able to use them. Otherweise it's just like wrecking an old trainwreck further. I've considered starting to write a Gimp alternative because it has been stuck with 8 bits per channel forever now, Cinepaint barely works and looks dead, and Photoshop is the only real alternative if you need these kinds of features.
24. Re:16-bit? by spitzak · 2012-04-18 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Having read some more, I believe this hack does not allow anything other than 8-bit data to be used. The reason is that the actual pixels are still stored in the "old" gimp format, and GEGL is reading from this image. Anything not using the GEGL api actually will bypass this and directly interact with the gimp-storage, so it can't change.
  However this is not a complete loss. With this change it is now physically possible to change *some* of the calls to GEGL. This is much better than having to change *all* the calls at once. The hope is that with this incremental ability, it gives a path to having *all* the calls replaced, by doing a few at a time. At that moment they can scrap the Gimp storage format and use what GEGL wants, which will allow data other than 8 bits.
  Conversely I am suspicious that even if all the calls are changed to GEGL, that the calling code will not make assumptions that the data is 8 bit, since currently they cannot try any format other than 8 bit. I don't know how GEGL's api is designed, it may be abstract enough that code cannot actually make such assumptions?
25. Re:16-bit? by thegarbz · 2012-04-19 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest you re-read my post specifically the last line and focus on the words "adjustments and modifications that are stacked on top of it".
  The point was not that GIMP lacks raw support, it doesn't, and there's better ways to do it than UFRAW. The point is that AFTER you have finished processing your raw file you are left with a layer image in GIMP. From then on all processing you do save for a few experimental GEGL operations happen in 8bit, and that is where the usefulness of GIMP is severely lacking.
Just a Matter of Time by neoshroom · 2012-04-17 08:44 · Score: 1

Those who deliberately engineer masterpieces, those who "inadvertently" engineer masterpieces and those who write the (cough) software that causes the other two groups to act.
In this case, these accidental geniuses are responsible for work that mainstream GIMP developers had long claimed was impossible. From the looks of it, six impossible things were achieved, so said developers should round things off with a meal at Milliways.
Clearly they will when they attempt to add Photoshop plugin compatibility to GIMP inadvertently create the world's first time machine.

--
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:46 · Score: 0

Jules : What does Marcellus Wallace look like?

Zed : Oh, so sorry, my mistake...
To fix horizons, use Rotate with Corrective + Grid by tepples · 2012-04-17 08:48 · Score: 5, Informative
Yup, I don't get it, for example, why rotating a photo to get the horizon straight is not just a matter of drawing a straight line over horizon, and have GIMP figure out how to rotate the photo to get it straight.
Here's how to correct a horizon in GIMP 2.6.11:
1. Select the rotate tool.
2. In tool options, choose Preview: Grid. This makes GIMP draw straight lines that you'll line up with the horizon.
3. In tool options, choose Direction: Corrective. This gets GIMP to figure out how to rotate the photo to straighten things parallel to the grid.
4. On the image, turn the grid until parallel with the horizon.
5. Once the grid is aligned, press Enter.
Re:Wow! by Thuktun · 2012-04-17 08:53 · Score: 1

Wow, this is just amazing and surprising news...that people still use GIMP. One word...Pixelmator.
I wonder why everyone doesn't run this, then?

Built exclusively for Mac OS X
Oh, that's why.
Bookmarking a folder for Save As by tepples · 2012-04-17 08:55 · Score: 1

Ditto for the "Save as". Why isn't there an option to set the default "Save to" directory in that dialog window?
I already see one, at least here on Xubuntu. When you Save As... or Save a Copy..., try right-clicking a folder and choosing "Add to Bookmarks". Then you'll have easy access to this folder every time you open the save dialog box.
1. Re:Bookmarking a folder for Save As by John+Bokma · 2012-04-17 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  But this isn't a Gimp Feature, but something the filer (?) supports, like Nautilus. Since the directory I use is already a bookmark, I do indeed use this method, but it's cumbersome. Just a simple tick box with "use this folder from now as a default" and it's solved. But there are many places in Gimp that suffer (IMO) from exactly those issues: arbitrary (IMO) defaults, no easy way to make my defaults the ones I want, etc.
  Again, this might all be my own fault; I haven't read the fine manual, nor the 3 books I have on Gimp, thoroughly
  
  --
  
  Perl Programmer for hire
2. Re:Bookmarking a folder for Save As by AvitarX · 2012-04-17 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting. I am constantly frustrated with Adobe's dialogs, and much prefer to just use the OS one.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
3. Re:Bookmarking a folder for Save As by John+Bokma · 2012-04-18 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  I have no experience, yet, with PhotoShop et al. But I am going to get myself a Mac in the near future and PhotoShop. Maybe PS will frustrate me as much as Gimp does now, who knows.
  
  --
  
  Perl Programmer for hire
4. Re:Bookmarking a folder for Save As by AvitarX · 2012-04-18 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  There's a button to "use OS dialog" that solves the issue.
  I don't know what the benefit of the Adobe dialog (designed in flash) is supposed to be, but I assume it has to do with their versioning software that I never use.
  I really like consistent file open/close diologs, and feel Windows lacks them the most (if you count gnome and kde apps as separate on Linux), then Linux, with OSx the best, but all the commercial software I'm exposed to (Adobe, Quark, Office primarily) shit all over OS conventions. I really like KDE, though I assume other software ported would suck just as much as on Windows or OS X. The idea of desktop consistency is total bunk when it comes to "important" commercial software.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
You forgot the Name Complaint! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:56 · Score: 0

A GIMP thread can't pass /. without several humorless dweebs complaining that the "unprofessional" name turns off humorless dweebs.
Filtering HDs from your user base is actually a /feature/ for fun dev projects. In honor of this excellent filter and to expand it, I propose we finally get around to changing the name anyways: to GINP - GINP Is Not Photoshop.
1. Re:You forgot the Name Complaint! by spitzak · 2012-04-17 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  Extra points for complainers who believe the word "gimp" was first used in the movie Pulp Fiction and the use in that movie defines what the word means.
  It would be funny if it was not such a sad comment on the intelligence level here.
2. Re:You forgot the Name Complaint! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 02:32 · Score: 0
  
  If the devs weren't so seemingly set against a name change, that would be perfect.
Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 08:59 · Score: 0

Built exclusively for Mac OS X—and it shows
Not everyone use Mac OS X ;-)
Re:Wow! by tepples · 2012-04-17 09:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Pixelmator
Price to anyone who owns something other than a Mac: $630.
Have at it, dude! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 09:13 · Score: 0

Start coding and let us know when your program addresses all the deficiencies you see in the GIMP.
(although I concede that "GIMP" is one of the more unfortunate names ever chosen for a software package).
1. Re:Have at it, dude! by jockm · 2012-04-17 09:34 · Score: 2
  
  Can I point to apps like Acorn and Paint.Net and Pixwlmator and Krita and others instead? These are all apps that were started long after GIMP was, and yet have managed to support things like 16 bit colorspaces, and other things.
  While they might not all be FLOSS, I would argue that all of them are better than GIMP because they are far more usable, have far better support for colorspaces and high bit depth, were developed AFTER the GIMP was (and in less time), and don't have insulting names. I am not kidding about the latter btw, the GIMP folk have drawn a line in the sand when it comes to the name, but they are simply wrong there (like they are on so many things). It is childish, it is insulting, and it is unprofessional.
  But that isn't why I avoid GIMP, it is because of the glacial pace of development, the horrible usability, the utter lack of non-destructive editing, and so many other factors,
  As the list at the start of this post, small teams can produce high quality tools. The GIMP team has been spinning its wheels (and arguing what color they should be) for years and years, and after they release 2.8 (sometime this decade?) it will still pale in comparison to Photoshop 7. And that was released a decade ago.
  In the mean time I rarely open Photoshop, unless I have something really hardcore to do. 95% of the time the aforementioned Acorn does what I need. I can't say the same about GIMP.
  
  --
  
  What do you know I wrote a novel
2. Re:Have at it, dude! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  "I am not kidding about the latter btw, the GIMP folk have drawn a line in the sand when it comes to the name, but they are simply wrong there (like they are on so many things). It is childish, it is insulting, and it is unprofessional."
  Slashdot user blames someone else. That should make headlines.
3. Re:Have at it, dude! by PrimaryConsult · 2012-04-17 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  Mod up! paint.net is far more usable than the GIMP, and at same price tag (for the end user). Only problem of course is that it's for Windows, and there is no Wine support.
  But yeah, all of Photoshopy features I actually used were in it (layers, levels, history, effects) with a UI I could understand and use efficiently immediately, unlike the GIMP (at least when I switched).
4. Re:Have at it, dude! by jockm · 2012-04-17 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  And what could/should I be doing? Are you saying that naming your product after an insulting term is appropriate? Or that it isn't a barrier to adoption?
  People have tried to get the project to change its name, and the team has refused. So forgive me it seems correct to point out the name as one of many issues where the app falls behind.
  
  --
  
  What do you know I wrote a novel
5. Re:Have at it, dude! by KlomDark · 2012-04-17 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, I have used Paint.net exclusively for so many years that I am completely dumbfounded by the Photoshop UI these days. Paint.net's UI is as good as GIMPs UI is bad.
  And how many people whining about the name GIMP know that it's an acronym (sorta re-recursive) for GNU Image Manipulation Program? People that are offended by this use of GIMP are probably just as offended by the word "Manipulation".
Photoshop 2.5 here we come by tangent · 2012-04-17 09:14 · Score: 1

Gimp 2.6 came out three and a half years ago, and 2.8 isn't out yet, yet we're already hyping features that won't appear until the next major version?
Photoshop 2.5 had deep color support and CMYK. It was released in November 1992. Gimp = teh AAAWWEEEESOME.
Maybe we can get layer styles before the Y2K38 bug destroys the computing world.
If we figure on catching up one major Photoshop release per Gimp release, that means we can get to Photoshop 6.0 layer styles by Gimp 2.18, which should be out in another 16 years at the current schedule of ~4 years per. Whew...still time, then.
1. Re:Photoshop 2.5 here we come by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 11:55 · Score: 0
  
  "Photoshop 2.5 had deep color support"
  Except you couldn't really do much with that until CS3, but there's no sense in arguing against Slashdot users :)
2. Re:Photoshop 2.5 here we come by tangent · 2012-04-18 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  There's not much sense in your argument.
  It's true that 100% of filters and such didn't always work with 16-bit+ images in Photoshop. It might even have been CS3 where that 100% mark was reached, I don't remember.
  The thing is, the important things in Photoshop have been 16-bit+ capable for a very long time. Namely, things dealing with image dynamic range, like Levels and Curves. Once you're happy with the brightness of all the pixels, you can confidently smash it to 8 bpc and continue working with it, confident you're not likely to introduce banding and such, which you'd get starting with an 8 bpc image needing brightness adjustment.
  Yes, it's nice that recent versions of Photoshop don't place a constraint on your workflow, so that you could apply a color filter before a levels filter. Does it matter much, though?
  In any case, we're on the eve of both Photoshop CS6 and Gimp 2.8. Even if you insist on the CS3 benchmark, Gimp is still at least four major versions behind, maybe five.
  People bitch about the cost of Photoshop, but somehow forget that waiting for improved features has a cost, too. It doesn't matter if Gimp eventually catches up. The Photoshop people will have been benefiting from years or decades of productivity in the meantime.
Re:To fix horizons, use Rotate with Corrective + G by John+Bokma · 2012-04-17 09:17 · Score: 1

Thanks! I recall that I used this method once, but it's just too cumbersome. I still think that just drawing a line and have Gimp figure it out is easier. This comes close, but one still has to tweak the grid, which is more cumbersome (IMO) than just drawing a line.

--

Perl Programmer for hire
Mostly ported? by Tony+Isaac · 2012-04-17 09:24 · Score: 1

What does "mostly" mean?
Most programmers I know think it's "mostly" done when they've written enough code to get through a few seconds of testing. They don't think about all the little quirks, hidden features, bugs, and refinements that took a long time to discover and implement the first time around. Rewriting code often looks like an attractive option (clean code, new technology) until you get half way into it (you know, that "mostly done" point) and discover why the old code was so messy...it had to do so much to please so many people!
I predict there will be a long distance between "mostly done" and "done."
1. Re:Mostly ported? by Required+Snark · 2012-04-17 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Some software wisdom: Just because it worked once doesn't mean it will ever work again.
  
  --
  Why is Snark Required?
2. Re:Mostly ported? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  The first 80% of the work on Gimp 2.8 is done, and the developers are well into the second 80%.
  Real programmers do not laugh at that truth.
Re:To fix horizons, use Rotate with Corrective + G by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 09:31 · Score: 1

We have creative studio installed at work. I do archviz. For simple things such as straightening the vertical of a photograph or rotating an image I prefer Gimp. For very large (A2 and up at 300dpi) i use photoshop as the performance of Gimp isn't quite up to it. Lots of the gimp tools are actually better or equal to photoshop, the editable freehand select rocks for instance. Gimp should get the Gnome3 treatment though, lots of unecessary info like matrices for transforms and numbers for rotate in pop ups. Clean it right up! I'm not kidding and I'm a pro.
/. no longer has an animated gif for Gimp?!! by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2012-04-17 09:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

I know slashdot now uses PNGs for the icons to fit with the theme... but I *really* miss the old Gimp icon with the animated eyes. Can't an exception be made?
1. Re:/. no longer has an animated gif for Gimp?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 15:54 · Score: 0
  
  No need for exceptions, png supports animations https://people.mozilla.com/~dolske/apng/demo.html
2. Re:/. no longer has an animated gif for Gimp?!! by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2012-04-18 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  No need for exceptions, png supports animations https://people.mozilla.com/~dolske/apng/demo.html
  
  Excellent. I'm amazed Mozilla implemented this... last time I was looking at this, they were adamant it would not be implemented in Firefox because they didn't want to do anything that would increase download size, and since no one used it (for the obvious reason there were no implementations) they weren't going to implement it.
  
  Wonder what caused the change in heart?
Long Live the GIMP by psherma1 · 2012-04-17 09:50 · Score: 2

For folks waiting for specific features, I understand your frustration with GIMPs development pace. Open Source projects often stutter and stumble, sometimes they even seem to disappear; so let's not forget the bottom line: A lot of people have been able to do things with images they could never have afforded to do if it were not for the GIMP. Viva la GNU Image Manipulation Program! (catchy :)
1. Re:Long Live the GIMP by lvxferre · 2012-04-17 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Viva el GIMP, sure. While I agree people like me did with GIMP lots and lots of image manipulation, yet, it should be better.
  GIMP's problem is pretty much like this: it's bad enough to make programmers like it enough to join the dev team, but it's good enough to nobody try starting some alternative or even fork.
  
  --
  Nerdy news for your nerdy needs? http://www.soylentnews.org Soylent News is people!
not flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 10:09 · Score: 0

This is 100% accurate and very far from flamebait.
Grow up mods.
Time for 2.10 by gr8_phk · 2012-04-17 10:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

GIMP 2.10’s core will be 100% ported to GEGL, and all of the legacy pixel fiddling API for plug-ins is going to be deprecated.
This should be the only objective for 2.10 other than bug-fixing the single window interface which debuts in 2.8. They should get feedback on the UI, tweak a few things (not rework them) go full GEGL and get 2.10 out the door ASAP. The 2.8 is going to get a lot of people to look at it again, but when the features of GEGL are found to be missing they'll walk away AGAIN and it will be some time before they check in again. So let's not advertise 2.8 so much, but hurry with 2.10 and then make a push for people to switch.
Higher bit depth images? Not really by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 10:18 · Score: 0

"With this, 2.10 will finally feature higher bit depth images"
Do you understand what you did with this sillyness? We NEVER promise that. But now every undereducated person is going to say "But you promised that! I read that somewhere!" Alas, such is Slashdot.
1. Re:Higher bit depth images? Not really by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 01:02 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't that where you assholes got the idea that everyone wanted an MDI. Fix the bit-depth problem you douche.
"GIMP" is not an offensive name by gr8_phk · 2012-04-17 10:23 · Score: 2

It is a fitting description of the software ;-)
Long Time GIMP User by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 10:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm a digital artist and iOS programmer and I haven't had Photoshop installed in 10 years. I've developed 3 design-heavy iOS apps and shown artwork in museums in New York made with GIMP.
Recently I got fed up with the long absence of GIMP updates and decided to finally switch to Photoshop. I was sure it was going to be a lot better if I just got over the hump and learned it. After converting my latest iOS project to Photoshop and learning how to do the basic operations I needed to get around, I found that many of the basic tasks I do regularly are a bit more cumbersome to do in Photoshop. I went onto forums and found other people on Adobe's forums trying to figure out the same thing, and then coming to an inpass. I even discussed my issues with long time Photoshop users. Photoshop is definitely easier and has more features, but is inflexible compared to GIMP in some ways, like with keyboard shortcuts.
I eventually went back to GIMP. For what I'm doing it just makes more sense. Everything in GIMP is hard to do and the interface is weird, but if it fits your needs and you spend the time to learn the interface, it's great. It's always been more stable than Photoshop for me, and it's free.
Really excited there's a new version on the way.
Still Haven't Renamed it, Eh? by Greyfox · 2012-04-17 11:16 · Score: 1

There was some discussion on here a few years ago about a renaming project for it because of the negative implications of "GIMP". I tried my hardest to make "GOATFUCKER" work, because I felt a worse acronym probably would have won by default, but couldn't get very far. I think I was up to "GNU Open Art". That's a long way to go. Would have been funny as hell, though. I assume that since they didn't rename it, all the other submissions were equally atrocious.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Re:Still Haven't Renamed it, Eh? by jones_supa · 2012-04-17 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  "I run the industry-standard Photoshop on Windows, what are your tools of trade?"
  "Ah, I run GIMP on Ubuntu. They inadvertedly souped up a new version with great features. With Precise Pangolin coming just out of door, it's gonna be awesome!"
  "Umm, cool..."
thanks by e**(i+pi)-1 · 2012-04-17 11:55 · Score: 2

it has to be said once: there is no faster and better program for unix and gimp developers are my heroes. I I use it since gimp 1.0 and could not be happier. Sure, one has to get used to it, but things are done with the gimp before photoshop even starts up. I even prefer it on my macs, where photoshop is installed.
1. Re:thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  I prefer Notepad to Word. On my Macs, where Word is installed, I prefer TextEdit.
Geggle? by Culture20 · 2012-04-17 12:30 · Score: 1

Am I the only one that had to google GEGL? It would have been nice for the summary to spell out the alphabet soup (although I already knew that GIMP is the character from Pulp Fiction).
1. Re:Geggle? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 16:06 · Score: 0
  
  You joke, but a gimp is a dressmaker's tool, or something that's beautiful or well-formed. Calling the crippled guy "Gimp" was in the same vein as calling the fat kid "Tiny."
2. Re:Geggle? by sjames · 2012-04-18 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Just be sure you don't accidentally GEGL Google!
Re:Autodesk Animator by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 13:01 · Score: 0

Sir, you have excellent taste. Autodesk Animator Pro is probably the greatest piece of software ever made. Most of today's problems can be traced to people who were not raised on it.
Regarding the GIMP, even as a still image program AA rocks. 20 tools x 20 inks = 400 tools; unsurpassed palette control - seriously, if you use palets you need Animator. And it lets you do stuff in 8 bit that most graphics programs forbid.
Then of course we have its speed: as computer get faster, AA will always be the fastest, being so lean and mean (thanks, DOSBox!) The guys at Yost rally knew how to code. I remember full screen animation on the 386, using every bit of memory, with 3D paths... pretty much anything visual you could imagine was possible. It's still the greatest.
If the GIMP is not like other programs, and the GIMP is like Animator, the it's the other programs that are wrong.
Just sayin'
Re:that "Eureka" moment in every program's dev cyc by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 13:18 · Score: 0

Was that what God said just before taking Sunday off?
Re:that "Eureka" moment in every program's dev cyc by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 14:06 · Score: 0

It was more like:
"Everyone says this is impossible, we think it isn't. Let's do some proof-of-concept work, and then make a proposal."
A few hours later: "I've got something running...wait, this does pretty much what our ideal end product should do."
Extends one week project to 3 weeks: "Well, that was pretty easy. Should shut up the folks who claim it's impossible."
The single window, single monitor single desktop i by dbIII · 2012-04-17 15:14 · Score: 1

The single window, single monitor single desktop idea isn't for everyone. The whole inane bullshit of managing meta-windows inside the application window in Photoshop etc may be what you are used to but requires just as much if not more of a leaning curve than gimp which puts stuff in real seperate windows (instead of windows inside windows). With a multiple desktop or multiple monitor system an interface such as the one for gimp makes a lot more sense. It's not 1990 anymore so I don't want to have to use an MS Windows1 style interface.
Just look at Photoshop's development by mrloafbot · 2012-04-17 15:23 · Score: 1

Photoshop barely works with 16bit images and of those features only some of them work in 32 bit everything only works in 8bit and even then you cant work in any sort of linear space. It's really sad that Photoshop which is supposed to be the king of 2d graphics cant add pixels together correctly, or even mulitply out an alpha channel. Let alone be consistent across the full range of bit depths they "support". I work with this kind of stuff everyday and have been following the development of Gimp and as slow as it is at least they have a plan and are working to it. Photoshop may have 32bit support by CS 21 at the rate they're going. One of their new features was a dark interface.. seriously.
1. Re:Just look at Photoshop's development by tezbobobo · 2012-04-19 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Well, Adobe may not have a plan (unlike GIMP), but at least they have functionality (also unlike GIMP).
Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 16:44 · Score: 0

It's built largely on included APIs and tool in OS X. Apple did most of the work.
You better believe it, then. by Isaac+Remuant · 2012-04-17 18:02 · Score: 1

There's a Single Window mode already.

--
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
I'm offended! by Isaac+Remuant · 2012-04-17 18:17 · Score: 1

I bet you're offended by the FreeBSD logo as well.
Steve Hughes: Offended

--
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
1. Re:I'm offended! by amaupin · 2012-04-18 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  You lost.
Re:The single window, single monitor single deskto by nyctopterus · 2012-04-17 21:25 · Score: 1

You are totally incorrect in your assumptions about what I want. I have a multi-monitor setup (as do most people that run graphics software professionally). Multi-window is fine, but it needs to not look like complete arse. This "everyone's just used to Photoshop" is a red herring. The GIMP's just ugly.
What's wrong with the UI? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-17 23:03 · Score: 0

Other than your personal dislike for it (or, alternatively, your love-fest with the horrible MSWindows-driven UI paradigm), I mean.
Gegl uses 32 bit floats as internal storage by AlexiaDeath · 2012-04-17 23:18 · Score: 1

Is that right enough for you?
Re:The single window, single monitor single deskto by dargaud · 2012-04-18 00:50 · Score: 1

Multiple windows allow us to make use of multiple monitors, true, but if it's the price of fishing out the layer window on one desktop, the tools window on another and the image on yet another, I don't see what the point is. And it's exactly what happens when you launch a lengthy processing function and change desktop to do something else in the meanwhile: when it finishes, some of gimp's windows magically change desktop to 'signal' you and now you have to put them all back together again. Annoying as hell.

--
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 02:28 · Score: 0

Who said that versions numbers are real, decimal values? They are tokenized values with decreasing significance.
CMYK - Finally by tezbobobo · 2012-04-19 03:26 · Score: 1

Seriously haven't used my /. account in years - literally. I remember it because one of my last posts was whinging about the lack of CMYK in GIMP which pretty much ruled it out for all serious print design work. If they can manage CMYK and greater bitdepth then I can finally predict a bright future for GIMP (formerly the banner ad only graphics app). YAY!!!
It's not 16 bit but 48 bit you clown by dbIII · 2012-04-20 11:52 · Score: 1

So you've got a very expensive camera with a sensitivity of 48 bits per pixel (16 per channel), Leica, top end Nikon or whatever, and you are complaining that a free tool designed for quick and nasty web page art isn't good enough? I suggest using another tool and don't come back and complain until the free tool even pretends that it's good enough (after GEGL is well established).
Or is it you don't have such an expensive camera but just want to kick the gimp a bit to show your loyalty to photoshop or whatever? Gimp isn't perfect but it's not bad for trivial work on images from some digital cameras.
1. Re:It's not 16 bit but 48 bit you clown by Rich0 · 2012-04-22 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  I've got a fairly inexpensive camera with with 12-bpp sensitivity, which means that I'm losing range if I edit it in Gimp.
  Sure, I can use other tools, and that is what I do if I need the dynamic range. I'd love to be able to use Gimp, and prefer FOSS.
Eight bits per channel is 32 bits by dbIII · 2012-04-22 02:20 · Score: 1

So you are not losing anything at all from your 12 bit per pixel camera, and you even get an alpha channel when you edit the image.
Now do you see that the above poster is just making noise unless they have very expensive gear and are complaining about software not designed to handle it?
1. Re:Eight bits per channel is 32 bits by Rich0 · 2012-04-22 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, slight correction - 12 bits per channel, and I believe this camera records 3 channels per pixel (though it might be 4 - I'd have to look it up). So, that's 36-48 bits.
  JPEG gets you only 8 bits per channel, so anything better than a point-and-shoot in terms of dynamic range needs to use RAW, or some other file format.
2. Re:Eight bits per channel is 32 bits by dbIII · 2012-04-22 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  OK, then I can see you would will lose something as it resamples to 8 bits per channel.