Gimp 2.8 Finally Released

Cryophallion writes "After many years of development, GIMP 2.8 is finally released. Among its features: the oft-desired single-window mode, layer groups, and many other massive improvements, including some of the GIMP UI team's work. This might be the release that helps make The GIMP a much more user friendly experience for newcomers, and has features that are rivaling those of certain exceptionally expensive commercial programs. While the porting of GEGL is still ongoing (and recently reported to have made massive advances made), this is a major step forward for one of the premier open source projects." Here are the official release notes.

Comments

Maaaaaan...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Gimp Users website is a design trainwreck.

Re:Maaaaaan...

[DeathToBill]

Well, I think the prominent headline, "GIMP on Linux - Compile it yourself!" tells you the sort of people who designed it.

The Name

[Anonymous Coward]

They really ought to consider re-naming it. Try installing it in - say - a junior high school some time. See how that goes over.

Re:The Name

[Dishevel]

GNU
Image
Manipulation
Program

It is only offensive to those who feel a deep seated need to be offended.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people who just can not spend a whole day without being "Deeply Offended" by something.

Re:The Name

[jockm]

Considering your signature, I fear this is going to fall on deaf ears. You have a very high threshold for offense, and believe everyone should too. I suspect this because you are willing to equate a piece of computer hardware to criminal sodomy out in public, but please correct me if I am wrong.

But here's the thing, if you are a disabled person then Gimp is just like "the N word", and insult hurled at you in anger and derision. It is also a word you reserve the right to yourself. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree, but you do have to accept that, because that is the reality out in the world — at least with enough people to matter.

And I can see why you think your explanation, giving the name in full, is cogent. But here's the thing: If the default were to say "The GNU Image Manipulation Program" and some people shortened it to "GIMP" then that would be one thing. Unfortunately that isn't the case. The devs of the program called it GIMP from the beginning, and took a very long time to accept that anyone could be offended by that. And now it is a line in the sand to them, one they will not cross.

The name is a problem. It stops people using it, it stops schools teaching it, it hurts the app.

Re:The Name

[Atzanteol]

It's only offensive to people who are crippled, know somebody who is crippled, feel the need to not offend people who are crippled, or who work in a professional business and don't want to potentially offend customers/employees/etc. who may be crippled, etc.

In other words, it speaks volumes about the marketing ability of geeks. Just as I said. If I created the worlds greatest network monitoring system and named it "Portable Enterprise Network Information System" it wouldn't matter. Nobody is going to install PENIS in a professional environment.

GIMP is a stupid name. You may not care. I may not care. It's still a stupid name.

Re:The Name

[optimus2861]

As an engineer I have to fight the tendency to assign acronyms to things that don't need them, or even discard/alter acronyms that come out "wrong". GIMP does not get off the hook for having a silly name because it's an acronym. In fact the full name of the program looks like it was chosen to create the acronym - which is doubly silly.

Bemoan it all you want, but GIMP is a stupid name and it ought to change if it wants to be taken seriously.

Re:The Name

[kiwimate]

Your stubborn refusal to consider someone else's feelings, combined with your signature, makes me think you have a remarkable lack of sensitivity, empathy, and social awareness. As such, you may not get much out of this post.

Sometimes one has to pick one's battles. You can choose to fight on the naming of a piece of software based on your assertion that it's only offensive to people who want to be offended. Alternatively, you can choose to accept that whether you agree with the sentiment or think it's foolish, nonetheless the term is offensive and/or silly and/or nebulous to potential users. The bigger issue could be that you want to spread the word about free and open source software and this is a great example of something that has come out of the community and matured, but which potentially is being held back by its name.

I'm not a FOSS evangelist, but if I were I'd think it was a valid concern and wonder if I could give up the battle ("I wanna keep the name GIMP!") so that I have a better shot at winning the war. (And I really dislike using that terminology, by the way, because it should be about choice and giving people something that's better, not a fight against the enemy.)

Look, it comes down to this. Like it or not, the name is a problem for more than a handful of people. Do you really want that to be the impediment that stops one of the best examples of free and open source software from being more widely adopted? Is it really that important to you? Where do your priorities lie?

(And no-one is going to call it "GNU Image Manipulation Program". One syllable versus eleven. Easy choice.)

Re:The Name

[shiftless]

What, that geeks don't value marketing?

No, that 99% of geeks are so clueless about marketing that they don't even understand why it's desirable.

This isn't a business that's seeking to conquer the world and "gain market share", it's an open source project where people want to create a tool for others to use.

If they want others to use it........then change the fucking name. How difficult is this concept, really?

It's been extraordinarily successful in that regard.

No, it's been somewhat successful. It could have been and could still be extraordinarily successful, were the developers not clueless twits.

If some people can't get past a name just to use a product, then why is that the developers problem and not the people who choose to not use a product for childish reasons?

It's the developer's problem because the developers will go down in history as clueless twits who provided a marginally useful tool, rather than smart folks who genuinely "got it", understood their user base, and provided a seriously useful tool for them.

I mean, as another poster suggested, why not call it NIGGER? I'm sure there'll be leagues of those "childish" people flocking to it, right?

A good mechanic when shopping for used cars, can tell the difference between a car maintained by a fucking moron, and one by a person with half a clue. Guess which car he will gravitate towards purchasing?

A materials scientist who is a plastics expert isn't going to buy some cheap ass garbage plastic basket made out a material which he knows won't last 6 weeks; he's going to buy the one next to it that costs a dollar or ten dollars more. It's not even that the cheap one will break; it's the *knowledge* of it being a cheap piece of shit that would haunt him in his sleep if he knowingly bought such garbage.

So given all the above logical, reasonable statements, why the fuck would you assume that an artist is any different? Why would a person who is finely attuned to artwork and design sense gravitate towards a half assed graphics program so moronically designed that the very name gives it away?

I think it's a stupid name, but I also think if someone is that hyper-sensitive to a name, then perhaps they should fork over a few hundred bucks for photo shop so they won't be offended. I kind of like the idea that being hyper-sensitive to things costs people money.

No--being hypersensitive to things makes people money.....a concept the "GIMP" developers might have half a hope of understanding, were they actually artists rather than your average geeks with zero artistic sense. It is precisely because the GIMP geeks aren't anything like their ideal user base (you know....artists) that their tool is nowhere near as good and as popular as it could be.

Re:The Name

[Kozz]

The name was not a problem.
First came the name. Then came the problem.
Also.
The "N" word is fucking stupid. If someone is being offensive and says the word "Nigger" then they are an easy to spot dumb fuck.
Blacks can use the word nigger all they want. I will be modded down because I have used the word twice.
I did not use it offensively. The word itself is not offensive because blacks can say it all they want.
That means that is is only offensive because I am not black.
That is racism. That to me is offensive.
I am not often offended, but people who corrupt language to change thinking are in my opinion evil and highly offensive.

A couple of points for you to consider...

• If you think that all Black Americans feel the same way about the word "nigger", you're sorely mistaken.
• The speaker doesn't get to decide whether his words are offensive. That's up to the listeners. If it's well known that a word is deemed by many to be offensive, the speaker ought to at least attempt to be respectful of that, even if he doesn't agree. To do otherwise seems anti-social, antagonistic, a jerk... pick one.
• Of all the things in this world worth of the word "evil", I'm pretty sure you're stretching the definition.

As for the naming of GIMP and whether it should be changed... would it be such a big deal? We've watched many projects go through forks and renames and changes of ownership. StarOffice, OpenOffice.org, LibreOffice. Phoenix, Firebird, Firefox. I think we'd get along just fine with a name change.

To be obstinate on this topic is short-sighted if we (as a community) would like to see this product succeed at an ever-growing rate. If the name is holding it back from adoption or acceptance to any measurable degree, isn't it a good thing to seek improved marketing?

Re:The Name

[actiondan]

Quite right.

Aside from any offensive connotations, which of these names clearly fails at being clear about what it does?

Photoshop
Paint
GIMP

Re:The Name

[s73v3r]

It's not based solely on the color of the speaker. It's also based on the history of that word. You cannot deny that the word nigger has a very, very negative connotation, especially when coming from a white person to a black person.

Honestly, you're starting to sound like one of those jackasses who likes being offensive purely for the sake of being offensive.

Re:The Name

[Atzanteol]

You may pretend words don't have a connotation. But you're wrong.

Here comes the complaning...

[vladilinsky]

Every time there is anything posted about GIMP the entire comments consist of nothing but people complaining that it is not photoshop. What does it contribute to the discussion? We have all heard it before, many times. If you irrationally hate some piece of software, don't use it. If not enjoy the progression and the new features.

I for one, am glad that GIMP exists and want to thank all the people involved for all their hard work. It is not perfect but gets better with every release. I happily use it for all my photo manipulation needs.

Re:Here comes the complaning...

[slim]

I tried Photoshop, and I didn't like it because it wasn't the GIMP.

I'm sure PS is fine, but once you've learned one UI it's difficult to adapt to a different one.

Re:Here comes the complaning...

[Wattos]

Thank you for posting this.

You get a feature rich, stable, complete application for absolutely free and you still complain about it not being something else. Gimp may have a very steap learning curve and may lack some features of photoshop but it is still a solid package and we should be absolutely greatful that there are people out there who dedicate their time to provide the package to us for free.

I am absolutely sure that most people here, who complain about gimp not being photoshop, do not even have a valid license for photoshop. Additionally, if you think its so much worse, why dont you go ahead and try to make it better, its open source after all. But that would actually require you to do some work.

I am happy that gimp 2.8 finally got released. I continue to use and support it :)

Re:Here comes the complaning...

[Frosty Piss]

Every time there is anything posted about GIMP the entire comments consist of nothing but people complaining that it is not photoshop. What does it contribute to the discussion?

The reason people complain is that they really *WANT* to get away from Photoshop and its 600$+ price tag (no everyone can get away with using a pirated copy), but the Gimp Team will not prioritize features that *professional* users want.

Are they features that *everyone* (or even most) users want? Maybe not, but before Gimp can gain widespread acceptance among the various *professional* users, the Gimp team needs to set a high priority on addressing their needs.

And this would be a good thing, many of those people whining about Gimp desperately want to dump Photoshop - It just isn't possible with Gimp in its current state.

And, they lame-assed come-back "It's Open Source, why don't YOU write some code" is, well, lame and doesn't really need addressing.

Re:Here comes the complaning...

[jockm]

I don't care that it isn't photoshop. I do, however, care that when it comes to features GIMP 2.8 still compares badly to Photoshop 7. No non destructive editing, no CYMK, I don't see anything in the announcement about high color depths, etc.

I don't need GIMP to be a clone of photoshop. I don't need the keystrokes, the icons, even the core philosophy to be the same. But I do need it to compare well against the feature set of PS7, which came out a decade ago.

We know that small teams can produce apps that are comparable to PS7, in much less time than the 16 years it took us to get to GIMP 2.8 — Paint.NET, Acorn, Pixelmator, etc.

It is more than time to stop giving the GIMP team a pass, and start holding them to a higher standard.