Slashdot Mirror
GIMP Core Mostly Ported to GEGL
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.
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.
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."
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.
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)
Welcome to "how version numbers have worked for at least twenty years". Enjoy the stay.
"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
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.
Versions are not decimal numbers!!!!! what number is 2.8.4?
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
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.
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"
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
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)
"Oops! Oh, it worked?" ...
"Crap. WHY does it work? It totally shouldn't work!" ...
*shrug* "Ship it."
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!
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.
Perhaps they could accidentally rename the program to something that isn't offensive...
GIMA. Graphics Image Manipulation Application
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.
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.
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:
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.
Meh, they shoulda jumped to Microsoft versions.
Gimp 2009 ..etc.
Gimp 2009 (sp1)
Gimp 2013
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.
Pixelmator
Price to anyone who owns something other than a Mac: $630.
While I'm not a fan of MS numbering, at least it's a number that keeps going up.
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.
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?!
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.
Emphasis.
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
I'm looking forward to the Very Accelerated version they promise.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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."
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
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.
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
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.
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")
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?
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 :)
"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.
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'
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.
It is a fitting description of the software ;-)
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.
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
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?
You might want to double check that
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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
2.10 IS NOT HIGHER THAN 2.9.
It's higher than 2.09
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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".
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.
There's a Single Window mode already.
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is that right enough for you?
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 ?
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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?