GIMP Developers Outline Plan For 2019 (gimp.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GIMP Developers Outline Plan For 2019 (gimp.org)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday January 2, 2019 @04:55AM from the up-next dept.

The GIMP developers on Wednesday published a blog post in which they look back at the year 2018 (release of GIMP 2.10) and outline the things that they intend to get around this year. From the post: We expect to be shipping 2.10.x updates throughout 2019, starting with the version 2.10.10 currently expected in January/February. This version will feature faster layer groups rendering, smart colorization with the Bucket Fill tool, and various usability improvements. We are also planning the first unstable release of GIMP that will have version 2.99.2, eventually leading up to version 3.0. The prerequisite for releasing that version will be the completion of the space invasion. ZeMarmot project (which can be supported on Patreon or Tipeee) is also planning to focus a bit more on better canvas interactions, as well as animation support improvements, starting from merging existing work. On the GEGL and babl front, we expect to continue working towards better CMYK support and performance.

170 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Duh GIMP is lousy. by Desler · 2019-01-02 05:02 · Score: -1

1) Make it suck less.
There. That should be sufficient to have them stay busy for years.
1. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's still miles better than any other free image editor.
2. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by Desler · 2019-01-02 05:05 · Score: -1
  
  Paint.NET is way better to use and it's had less people working on it than Duh GIMP. He even had high-bitdepth and non-destructible layers in his programs years before GIMP did. GIMP is a joke.
3. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:06 · Score: -1
  
  WTF is gimp anyway????
  I use PhotoShop daily!
  I have a hearing loss in one ear, so my audio will always be suspect. I use a Zoom H2 audio recorder with a pop filter 12" away from my mouth, Audacity to clean up and normalize the audio, and sync the audio to the video and apply a "voice enhancement" eq to the audio in the video editor.
  My PC has an eight-core processor and a Nvidia 1050 Ti 4GB video card. A minute of 1080p video renedered on the processor takes a minute. A minute of 1080p video renedered on the Nvidia card takes 10 seconds. I don't think an iPad has the same performance of my PC for renedering videos longer than a short clip.
  I can't imagine using Photoshop without a keyboard and mouse, or not being able to access my files from my file server. Video renedering on the iPad will probably suck donkey balls.
  Blackmagic also charges high prices for their gear as Apple does. Need an HDMI to USB3 capture device? Blackmagic is $300. Any generic company is $50.
  I take public transit. A local bus take me down the street to pick up the express bus, the express bus drops me off in Palo Alto, and a local bus take me down the street to my job. An hour each way. Driving through Palo Alto during rush hour is insane. Since I work in government I.T., I start work at 7:00AM.
  For a final project in Small Group Communications, my four Vietnamese classmates appointed me to do all the work and be the speaker because I was white. So I did all the work and spoke in front of the class. Our instructor, a black woman, gave me all their credit for the assignment and forced them to retake the class. They screamed "white privilige" all the way to administration and their complaint landed on deaf ears. They couldn't prove that they did anything to merit a grade and cheerleading from the back of the room doesn't count.
  The background file for my national security clearance got stolen by the Chinese a few years ago That contained a lot more information than the credit reports that Uncle Sam requested from all three bureaus.
  Bonus: get some silver coins, view recommendations on my special Youtube channel dedicated to the topic! They constitute a fail-safe insurance strategy for your retirement!
  --
  Rocketman - Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan - William Shatner Trailer
4. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That applies to pretty much all software, especially the kind you pay for. GIMP is very feature full, useful, and improving steadily, and oh yeah, FREE as in beer. If you want to accelerate its development, donate some cash, coding help, or STFU and leave it alone.
5. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  I hear that they also accept funko pops and silver coins.
6. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Paint.net is nice but itâ(TM)s only available for Windows.
7. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by hey! · 2019-01-02 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Sure, if you don't need any of the features that Gimp has an Paint.NET does not. Not having the same feature set isn't a criticism of Paint.NET, if it floats your boat, then great. Same goes for MS Paint.
  Saying that Paint.NET is easier for what you do isn't a very convincing criticism of GIMP; saying that Photoshop is easier for what you do is a more substantial criticism, especially if you've actually spent some time using GIMP rather than marveling at how odd it's UI is.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
8. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  The proceeding virtue was concocted and brought to you by AC, an acknowledged source of truth and accuracy.
9. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Um, no. Screw off. I shall point out it's shortcomings as I wish. It *is* feature full - after you find them. It is useful, as are most other graphic programs. "Improving steadily"? No. Been using it for years and it still has a 'torture the user' UI.
10. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  Paint.NET is way better to use and it's had less people working on it than Duh GIMP.
  That is just your opinion -- not an objective fact.
  
  He even had high-bitdepth and non-destructible layers in his programs years before GIMP did.
  Uhm... Versions of GIMP (most notably filmgimp/cinepaint) had 32-bit depth years before paint.net existed.
  
  GIMP is a joke.
  Opinions are like assholes...
11. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  It may well be, but I have never been able to achieve what I wanted to do due to the confusing UI.
12. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  "Been using it for years"
  Then you must have some kind of memory problem with your own brain. Its UI is no more torturous than Photoshop. If you've been unable to familiarize yourself after all that time, give up and move on to something more your speed.
13. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by reanjr · 2019-01-02 07:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  GIMP users have the same problem with Photoshop, I assure you.
14. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 07:40 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I've read the criticism about Gimp's GUI a lot, but i've learnt graphics using Gimp and it feels pretty consistent to me. Also it has one big advantage over its competitors: it hasn't changed much, meaning I didn't have to relearn everything at every new version. I built up from the knowledge I acquired over the years and I consider myself proficient with Gimp. I don't see the UI hampering my work a single bit.
  On a related note, I can't use photoshop because the UI feels weird to me. I'm used to a different way to work now.
15. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  Paint.NET is proprietary and very limited compared to Gimp.
16. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  just checked it out, you're right, http://paint.net/ is awesome! so many colors! so many textures!
17. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by Hognoxious · 2019-01-02 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  If they don't make it suck more I'll happily settle for that.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
18. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by Zero__Kelvin · 2019-01-02 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  You could suck less, but if you do make sure to find an alternative source of protein!
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
19. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by ChrisMaple · 2019-01-02 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Within the limits imposed by the GTK+ toolkit, it's pretty easy to change the gimp UI to fit your preferences; some of it can even be done without recompiling.
  Many of the plug-ins are well written and can be modified by even mediocre programmers to have improved functionality and/or more accurate results.
  It's obvious that your attitude is that you'd rather complain bitterly than do anything good.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
20. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 11:27 · Score: 0
  
  100% agree with what you are saying. Same experience.
21. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  No, they don't. Another thing always worth mentioning is speed. GIMP is slow. Ultra slow in comparison to every other program you could use going as far back as 30 years on multiple platforms. Not just start-up times, not just the lack of GPU acceleration, but also everything from UNDO to even basic filters like gaussian blur. We're talking twice as long in most cases. GIMP zealots like yourself wouldn't notice though, because you've never used anything else.
22. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 12:07 · Score: 0
  
  There's always that one faggot like you telling everyone else not to be gay. Go gargle Stallman's balls.
23. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2019-01-02 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  1) Make it suck less.
  There. That should be sufficient to have them stay busy for years.
  Agreed. Over the years I've tried to use GIMP with limited success, mostly because the UI is retarded, as is the workflow.
  Simple things like cut and paste do not work like they do in 99% of all other image editing software programs. You should be able to select an area and then work with it- fill it, move it, cut it, etc etc. But you can't- everything is a 20-step process and it's infuriating as hell.
  So yeah, using GIMP is painful and frustrating. If it's any consolation, it's even worse on the Mac that I'm forced to use at work.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
24. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2019-01-02 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  Paint.NET is way better to use and it's had less people working on it than Duh GIMP.
  
  I wish wish wish he'd release a version for Linux, but I know that ain't gonna happen in my lifetime (for understandable reasons).
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
25. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by reanjr · 2019-01-02 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  You're a moron. Photoshop takes longer to startup than GIMP.
26. Re:Duh GIMP is lousy. by thegarbz · 2019-01-03 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  but i've learnt graphics using Gimp and it feels pretty consistent to me.
  That is why you don't understand it. It's also why you're limited as a result. The thing about Photoshop's UI is not that it's different from GIMP's, but rather that the UI is more similar to that of every other product on the market and fits into a larger ecosystem.
  There's no problem with being unique unless you're in an industry where uniqueness is not appreciated. That's where the criticism from GIMP's perfectly functional UI comes from. You can seamlessly jump between Photoshop, Paint.NET, and CorelDraw with ease. Not so with GIMP.
27. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by thegarbz · 2019-01-03 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  GIMP users have the same problem with Photoshop, I assure you.
  GIMP users would. Paint.Net users would not. CorelDraw users would not. It's worth remembering GIMP's criticisms isn't that it's UI isn't functional, it's that it is unique in the industry.
28. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by thegarbz · 2019-01-03 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Photoshop takes longer to startup than GIMP.
  Huh? Who cares about startup? GIMP is noticeably slower at actually working with images especially large ones.
  Oh and no it isn't, both start within seconds of each other, but Photoshop wins on my system.
29. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by reanjr · 2019-01-03 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  The AC brought it up. I can't remember the last time I ran some GIMP operation and it took long enough to notice or interfere with my work. Maybe you are comparing GIMP on Mac (which is probably slower than Linux) or comparing a powerful Mac with a weak PC?
30. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by thegarbz · 2019-01-03 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  No, GIMP on PC. Not all workloads involve adding a bit of text to a 256x256 image and uploading a creative meme to the internet. For many of the people where speed matters, they have suitable workloads to complain about too. Install them side by side, fire up a 200mpxl image and try yourself, or fire up a smaller image with a shitton of layers.
31. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by reanjr · 2019-01-06 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  No one is claiming you should use GIMP to design a billboard or that there aren't workloads where Photoshop is faster. But 99% of graphics work will not be materially affected by the difference in performance.
  Ironically, CS has some features like content-awareness that make Photoshop a better choice for those who don't know what they are doing, but professionals will find GIMP has pretty much all the same features for digital publishing (print being obviously unworkable in GIMP).
32. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by reanjr · 2019-01-06 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically, Photoshop got a lot of the same criticism for its multi-window interface with weird tool windoes. It's just that everyone got used to the way Adobe does it.
33. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by thegarbz · 2019-01-07 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's just that everyone got used to the way Adobe does it.
  No. It's that everyone *adopted* it.
34. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by reanjr · 2019-01-07 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Who else adopted it? I've literally never seen an app with an interface like CS.
35. Re: Duh GIMP is lousy. by thegarbz · 2019-01-07 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh go back to the top and read the thread again. And if you can't find the similarities between the examples already mentioned and how incredibly different they are to GIMP then really there's not much more I can do to help you.
A plan? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:07 · Score: 3, Funny

The fact that GIMP developers can actually formulate a plan is the real news here.
Fuck GIMP and its users. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:08 · Score: -1

If you see someone running GIMP, take their computer away from them, format it, and then install God's one true operating system, Windows 10, and Adobe Photoshop. Use their credit card to buy it as punishment for daring to use something else.
1. Re: Fuck GIMP and its users. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:10 · Score: -1
  
  Sounds like the correct plan to me. Even naming their product after a weird sex dungeon freak screams of a lack of professionalism (although maybe not a lack of other -isms).
2. Re:Fuck GIMP and its users. by jellomizer · 2019-01-02 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  I think for a lot of people wouldn't have a problem, if you used your credit card. The GIMP sucks. But Photoshop is too expensive for average Joe - non professional Image manipulator, who may need a bit more features then Paint.net but will not be using day to day. Paying 50+ dollars per month for a program that you may use once every few weeks just isn't worth it.
  Back in them old days of the early 2000's I was able to get legit copy of Photoshop from a third party for about $300 then every 4 years or so I bought the upgrade for a few hundred dollars. The reason why I got the upgrade wasn't for the actual new features, but because it now supported the newer hardware better. Updated OS, 64bit. In general architectural changes that allowed me to process bigger pictures faster.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
3. Re:Fuck GIMP and its users. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  If you see someone running GIMP, take their computer away from them, format it, and then install God's one true operating system, Windows 10, and Adobe Photoshop. Use their credit card to buy it as punishment for daring to use something else.
  If you want me to use Adobe, you will fucking pay for it.
4. Re: Fuck GIMP and its users. by KixWooder · 2019-01-02 05:34 · Score: 2
  
  Photoshop CC, plus some other applications in the package are available for 9.99/month. Not that expensive.
  
  Not free, but not that pricy.
  
  --
  I hate fat people.
5. Re:Fuck GIMP and its users. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  People still use GIMP?
  When I have to color some pixels, I've switched to krita. GIMP users should try it and see if it's to their liking. I find it much easier and intuitive to use...
6. Re: Fuck GIMP and its users. by darkain · 2019-01-02 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not the initial license, but upgrade licenses for Photoshop were $200 and released every 18 months. Now it is $10/mo, so over those same 18 months the cost is now $180. While 10% cheaper, you're now forced into every single "upgrade" by always paying. No longer can you skip paying versions if they don't have new features for your given workflow. Even if you don't upgrade your local install, you're still paying for those upgrades now. So, call it "Not that expensive" if you want, but they just hooked you into paying endlessly for renting their software that you once could own.
7. Re: Fuck GIMP and its users. by reanjr · 2019-01-02 07:03 · Score: 2
  
  I have a coworker on Mac who has a license to use Adobe CS (Photoshop), but who uses GIMP regularly instead. There are a few features you can't get in GIMP, but if you don't need those, it's all what you're used to. And if you intend to automate your work, GIMP blows away Photoshop.
8. Re:Fuck GIMP and its users. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Early 2000s? Same here; my CD of Photoshop 4.0 yes, that's how long ago it was came with the scanner we just bought. Haven't found the need to upgrade; my work at Kinko's had the complete set. In the meantime, I was reading all about Linux and GIMP. Found what I needed in both.
9. Re: Fuck GIMP and its users. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  Photoshop CC, plus some other applications in the package are available for 9.99/month. Not that expensive.
  No. That's SaSS: Subscription as a Software Substitute. Unless you're a business (where recurring expenses are more tax-efficient for you and easier to explain to the shareholders), the TCO of SaSS is always higher than the TCO of Software.
  I've used variations of Photoshop since 1994. 24 years. That's $2,880 ago at $10/month.
  If you really want to be pedantic, I'm running CS2 that I purchased13 years ago -- which would have cost me at least $1,560 at subscription pricing.
  The last viable (self-hosted, runs locally, no phoning home) Photoshop was CS6. Full MSRP was $699. It's 6 years old, and if you own - not rent - CS6, every month from that point forward is now free. As long as you can keep the machine (or the VM in which it resides) backed up, you can use it forever.
10. Re: Fuck GIMP and its users. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  Jim Kelly from Microsoft's software devision here. Using GIMP on Windows is prohibited and strictly against the law. If you know someone using GIMP, please turn them in to the correct authorizes. Justice needs to be served.
11. Re:Fuck GIMP and its users. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe I can try Paint Shop Pro 5 in Wine. It's the kind of software that said your license is expired since 1687 days, but let you fully use it. It was easy to use too and deforming pictures on a computer was fun back then. Version 2.x or 3.x even ran with 4MB RAM in Windows 3.1.
12. Re: Fuck GIMP and its users. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  $10 as a one time fee sure it's not that expensive But you missed the "per month" bit. That stuff adds up quickly. How long are you planning to live?
13. Re: Fuck GIMP and its users. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  The question is, how are you going to earn money with it?
  I know some people prefer to buy apps outright, and they should have that option, but Adobe Creative Cloud is an astonishingly good value for what you get. Any creative pro would be a fool not to take advantage of it.
  If you're just planning to dick around with it, though, it might be too expensive a toy to justify.
14. Re: Fuck GIMP and its users. by negRo_slim · 2019-01-02 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Photoshop costs $10/month and you get a few other apps like Lightroom. They update fairly often, it's not a terrible deal really.
  
  --
  On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
15. Re: Fuck GIMP and its users. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 12:26 · Score: 0
  
  GIMP's automation feature requires rolling your own scripts. It doesn't sound like your coworker, whose judgement is already questionable as a MAC user, is actually a graphic artist.
16. Re: Fuck GIMP and its users. by reanjr · 2019-01-02 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  He's not a graphics artist. He's an iOS developer. And guess what? Most people who use Photoshop are amateurs who aren't graphics artists.
17. Re: Fuck GIMP and its users. by bn-7bc · 2019-01-06 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  Did to notice that GIMP is in all caps, and they are not shorting, you might already know this, but in case you don't, GIMP is an abbreviation for GNU Image Manipulation Program, so no "sex dungeon freak" involved. have a nice day
18. Re: Fuck GIMP and its users. by bn-7bc · 2019-01-06 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm jo post AC but give your full name and a rather unspecific job indication. I'm not 100% certain but jo might be a troll, if you are not please difference the law and the jurisdiction in which law enforcement actually enforces it and remeber /. is also read outside the US so unless you are referring to the EULA which may or may not be enforceable (and is not law in a strict sense anyway) good luck getting any enforcement at all. If it was meant as a joke, well played, you got me to waste my time replying. anyway have a nice day
How about a less offensive title? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:10 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Hey Gimp developers, how about changing the title to something that isnâ(TM)t slang for disabled people??
1. Re:How about a less offensive title? by ogdenk · 2019-01-02 05:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How about taking your virtue signalling SJW bullshit somewhere else?
2. Re:How about a less offensive title? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:21 · Score: -1
  
  Exactly, making fun of disabled people is a bib no-no! That's why Cdreimer left /. after 20 years and posted 100+ videos in 2018. His trolls are still butthurt that he left them alone with APK.
  The thing to do for him: post more videos :)
3. Re:How about a less offensive title? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:25 · Score: -1
  
  That was probably our mentally disabled resident IT closet cleaner who made the GP post!
4. Re:How about a less offensive title? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  Hey Gimp developers, how about changing the title to something that isn't slang for disabled people??
  If they do that, I'm taking me and my gimp suit elsewhere!
  Come to think of it, that may make my coworkers happy.
5. Re:How about a less offensive title? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 06:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Interesting that *your* mind went there instead of the definition of gimp: twisted silk, worsted, or cotton with cord or wire running through it, used chiefly as upholstery trimming or a fishing line made of silk bound with wire.
  Now, why exactly is it your mind jumps to slurs?
6. Re:How about a less offensive title? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  OK, From now on Gimp will be know as "Software for Photos And Slideshow Tools In Colour"
7. Re: How about a less offensive title? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  What do you want to call it? Cripple? Spazz? Mong? Windowlicker? Joey Deacon?
8. Re: How about a less offensive title? by reanjr · 2019-01-02 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Offense is something that is taken, not given. Stop taking offense from people.
9. Re:How about a less offensive title? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  That got old really really fast, at internet speed. Thanks for playin'
10. Re:How about a less offensive title? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 07:19 · Score: -1
  
  How about go f yourself.
11. Re:How about a less offensive title? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  It's a very appropriate name. It's an incredibly gimped image manipulation application.
12. Re: How about a less offensive title? by Zero__Kelvin · 2019-01-02 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  It's GIMP, and is an acronym for the for the GNU Image Manipulation Program. You sound like an idiot when your big complaint is the name of the program is an issue of some kind. Next you'll be saying Firefox suggests animal cruelty and Microsoft reminds you too much of your dick.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
13. Re:How about a less offensive title? by Early+Six+Digit+UID · 2019-01-02 09:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I used to work in cartography years ago and we used to use Photoshop for certain parts of our workflow. At some point I was tasked to look into Photoshop alternatives because management wanted to save the ~$700 per seat cost. Being a Linux user since the mid-90s, I looked at The GIMP. I don't remember exactly why it wasn't as good as Photoshop - I believe it was slower and either didn't support CMYK or had poor support for it. Anyway, I compiled my report and said this was a possible replacement, though not as good for our workflow.
  
  I then had to have the conversation:
  --Me: This is the GNU Image Manipulation Program or GIMP
  --Boss: What?
  --Me: GIMP
  --Boss: Why the hell would they call it that?
  --Me: Well, it stands for GNU Image Manipulation Program
  --Boss: Yeah, but do they know what gimp means?
  --Me: Yeah, they'd have to at this point
  --Boss: Why don't they change it?
  --Me: Hubris or they're trying to be cute
  --Boss: We're not using software called GIMP
  
  So it goes. It's a bad name that they use just to be cute and then get defensive over when people don't like it. I'm not a fan of the UI and it had problems back in the day (I haven't had a reason to use it in a long time), but I can give you at least one anecdote where the name directly stopped an organization from using it. It's got nothing to do with snowflakes or SJWs, it's just a bad name in a lot of people's minds.
14. Re: How about a less offensive title? by Zero__Kelvin · 2019-01-02 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, they should absolutely rename it because your boss is incompetent.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
15. Re:How about a less offensive title? by ChrisMaple · 2019-01-02 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Get source code.
  Change all instances of GIMP to XKCD.
  Compile.
  Profit.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
16. Re:How about a less offensive title? by nctritech · 2019-01-02 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Git the hell out of here. (Spelling is correct.)
17. Re: How about a less offensive title? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 12:36 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not a SJW and I'm about as anti-PC as you can get, but even *I* think the name "GIMP" is totally fucking stupid and gay as hell. Though it makes FOSS neckbeards giggle, and that's exactly why it was chosen.
18. Re: How about a less offensive title? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  What the acronym stands for is irrelevant. It is a stupid, gay name all on its own. Since you're a huge FOSS faggot, you really like it!
19. Re:How about a less offensive title? by spitzak · 2019-01-02 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  I can assure you that people who complain about the GIMP name are not what you call "SJW". Likely the exact opposite.
20. Re: How about a less offensive title? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 14:59 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, wouldn't Chrome be a more likely target for that? By the way, ever notice that Chrome is not very shiny or Chromelike? Intetesting name for a browser that uses blue, white, yellow, and red as its primary color scheme... where's the chrome??
21. Re:How about a less offensive title? by bn-7bc · 2019-01-06 20:38 · Score: 1
  
  tank you for informing me (tho the post was not directed at me). As these are areas outside my interest i have not googled the other meanings of gimp (and my limited contact with it has been software related)
  Note to self: stop posting in this tread you will be taken for a spam boted account, that is generally detrimental to karma
Yeah they're busy with their innovations... by SurenEnfiajyan · 2019-01-02 05:24 · Score: 2

...but refuse to fix basic usability issues like missing lines/rectangles/rounds from GUI mode.
1. Re:Yeah they're busy with their innovations... by AmiMoJo · 2019-01-02 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  It's interesting how open source projects get into a situation where a lot of people agree that they need some basic usability fixes, but no-one wants to actually do them.
  In my (limited) experience it's often because the barrier to entry for contributing improvements is extremely high. Some would say that's to maintain quality, but often it's not because of demanding standards or even lack of resources for code review (hi libusb), but simply the complexity of the code and the time cost of getting started making relatively minor fixes.
  I don't know if GIMP is like that but maybe there is a reason, i.e. the only people motivated to work on it are not interested in the basics.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re:Yeah they're busy with their innovations... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-03 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  I think the high barrier to contributing occurs because:
  1. There is no written documentation of the code design.
  2. The code itself is undocumented.
  3. The code design is a mess.
  4. The code is poorly executed.
  5. No one wants to help new contributors.
  6. Egomaniacs refuse code contributions.
3. Re:Yeah they're busy with their innovations... by arglebargle_xiv · 2019-01-03 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  That was my immediate response as well, they're announcing obscure features that maybe 0.005% of their users might care about (or even know what they are), but the one massive thing that's missing is making it actually usable. How about making 2019 the year of making GIMP less painful than an unnecessary root canal?
Question for the developpers of GIMP by godrik · 2019-01-02 05:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

We have seen in the last few years many advances of Computer Vision and Machine Learning tools to do segmentation, anime drawing colorization, night picture to day picture conversion, changing meteo conditions, and so on.
Do the GIMP developpers intend to include tools of that sort in the project?
1. Re:Question for the developpers of GIMP by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus christ don't give them any more feature ideas.
  We'll be here for the next 10 years for V0.2
  Also, those features suck when not done by someone that cares.
  Use proper tools for them.
  Every version implemented in image editors have always been inferior to the dedicated tasks by people that care about machine learning.
  The only exception has been Adobe who actually hired people that cared for those features, which is why we ended up getting stuff like context-aware features, despite many being used outside of PS for years.
  But they still massively improved on them to be more than just gimmicky or niche use.
  Before PS versions, at the most they were used to stretch images because of the lowest-noise path algorithm that found the best route to stretch without destroying the image integrity.
  But current versions are capable of repeating textures at boundaries intelligently, without blurring them.
  Gotta give credit where it is due. They did a damn good job of that.
  Sadly, GIMP isn't exactly well known for popularity or good work ethic. I went on the tracker a few times over the years and it was, quite frankly, a bitter disappointment.
  In fact, I feel it was so bad that developers simply never went near it, and instead chose to totally start from scratch rather than fix the shitheap that GIMP has become.
  Nobody has the balls to say "no" or the patience to deal with the path GIMPs developer community has chosen.
  I sure never. I'd rather contribute to the Kernel than waste time on petty shit on there.
  2 years ago I decided to reinstall GIMP to see if it was less shit. I was let down. (5 people were shocked)
  But I was particularly let down by the fact that GIMP still loaded PNGs with some external library which opened up some "importing" window. Now do that with 50 PNGs and watch those 50 windows opening one after the other. Not only that, every one of them stealing focus on creation. Instantly uninstalled after I reconfirmed that behaviour. No way. Fuck that noise.
  On that note, the layering system is laughable as well. It needs to be scrapped and redone from scratch.
  I've used better layering systems in god damn flash collab drawing websites.
  It is also seriously buggy. You can make glitched animations by doing some weird process I forgot, but you can actually do it by accident if you are making some complicated animations that use (1 or more) base layers and only use modified layers after them to save on filesize. Here is an example. It's totally not lewd, despite the URL.
  I had some image saved that showed you how to do it. It's a funny effect, but it just screams buggy as fuck. It looks like VLC at times when it craps itself.
  Until they can fix basic usability issues like that, I couldn't care less what they do.
  I simply cannot take GIMP seriously when it does shit like that.
2. Re:Question for the developpers of GIMP by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  The only exception has been Adobe who actually hired people that cared for those features, which is why we ended up getting stuff like context-aware features, despite many being used outside of PS for years.
  No, they hired graphics weenies and they pay slightly better than the shit wadges that the other graphics companies pay and its easy to find engineers who want to work on cool products like Photoshop than make a shit load of money writing custom code to do something like integrate shipping software that's going to be thrown out in 5 years anyway.
3. Re:Question for the developpers of GIMP by DrSpock11 · 2019-01-02 07:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  If you RTFA you would see the blog post specifically call out the ability to do smart colorization of inked drawings.
Space Invasion? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:27 · Score: 0

"version 3.0. The prerequisite for releasing that version will be the completion of the space invasion."
Wha?
If it doesn't include... by Known+Nutter · 2019-01-02 05:28 · Score: 2

If it doesn't include hookers and blackjack, I'm not interested.

--
Beware of the Leopard.
1. Re:If it doesn't include... by jwhyche · 2019-01-02 07:37 · Score: 2
  
  What if they just skipped the blackjack? Would that be enough to interest you?
  
  --
  I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
2. Re:If it doesn't include... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 22:35 · Score: 0
  
  What if they just skipped the blackjack? Would that be enough to interest you?
  But then who would manage the hookers?
I've been waiting since 2003 by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:28 · Score: 0

For Gimp to get good. Now you know why Adobe can get away with their abusive practices.
Open Sores general 2019 Plan: by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:31 · Score: -1

Same as every other year: continue to suck.
Excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:33 · Score: 0

The prerequisite for releasing that version will be the completion of the space invasion.
So, never? What? Who's invading? WHAT?
good design is too difficult by petes_PoV · 2019-01-02 05:37 · Score: -1

It's still miles better than any other free image editor.
Well, being zero-cost is no excuse for having a crappy UI. The problem is that designing an intuitive, well set out UI is much more difficult than all the bells'n'whistles functions the developers add to the menus.
If only they would apply their talent to that instead of gratuitously adding more obscure features, they would have a product to be proud of. But UI design is probably beyond their capabilities.

--
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
1. Re:good design is too difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  I used to use GIMP all the time, and didn't see the reason for the complaints.
  I tried to use it recently, after 40 minutes of trying to draw a square and looking up online tutorials while attempting, I gave up. It has gone way downhill over the last couple of years. If you use it all the time, probably fine, if you try and learn it don't bother.
2. Re:good design is too difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 06:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, being zero-cost is no excuse for having a crappy UI.
  What's wrong with the GIMP GUIs? (Note that GUI is pluralized -- GIMP has several standard GUIs -- something that is not easily attainable with proprietary software).
  
  The problem is that designing an intuitive, well set out UI is much more difficult than all the bells'n'whistles functions the developers add to the menus.
  If only they would apply their talent to that instead of gratuitously adding more obscure features, they would have a product to be proud of. But UI design is probably beyond their capabilities.
  Let me guess -- you're a Mac user who happens to be a usability expert.
3. Re:good design is too difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  Feel free to ask for a refund then.
  And you have no excuse to whine when you could be helping the project make what in your mind is a "good" UI. I personally don't have any problems using Gimp.
4. Re: good design is too difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  The same applies to any program. Fire up 3D studio max and see how far you get.
5. Re:good design is too difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  And you have no excuse to whine when you could be helping the project make what in your mind is a "good" UI.
  They will not accept your input. They are convinced they know best. The only way to fix the UI is to fork the whole damn project.
6. Re: good design is too difficult by Zero__Kelvin · 2019-01-02 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Being evidently unable to learn and use a UI is your real problem. There is nothing at all wrong with their UI since they implemented the single window option.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
7. Re:good design is too difficult by 91degrees · 2019-01-02 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  What's wrong with the GIMP GUIs? (Note that GUI is pluralized -- GIMP has several standard GUIs -- something that is not easily attainable with proprietary software).
  Immediately you provide a perfectly reasonable answer to your own question.
  
  No idea if this is still the case, but last time I used it it had windows floating all over the place, rather than a much more comfortable single window with dockable subwindows.
  
  Not sure what the other GUIs are, but the fact that they exist shows that the default is probably terrible. Users don't want to piss about with configuring their software. They want to manipulate images.
8. Re:good design is too difficult by 91degrees · 2019-01-02 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  "Whining" does help. People want a good, easy to use free image processing application. They are saying why GIMP is not that application. The developers can ignore them if they choose. That's on them.
9. Re:good design is too difficult by nctritech · 2019-01-02 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  GIMP (even 2.8.22) has a single-window mode that docks the two main toolboxes and solves the stupid floating toolbox annoyance that no one has ever liked. Unfortunately, single-window mode is not the default; you must go to the Window menu and check it...which means you have to know it's there to be checked.
10. Re:good design is too difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  I really like the floating toolboxes. I can arrange them where I like them on one monitor and use the main monitor for viewing.
11. Re:good design is too difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 15:43 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. I like the floating window mode, as well, but sometimes I use single window, depending on the size of my monitor. Never used the Photoshop emulation.
12. Re:good design is too difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 15:50 · Score: 0
  
  The default mode varies with the package maintainer of the distro.
  Of course, it's easy enough to toggle between modes with no more than two mouse clicks, so it is hardly an insurmountable crisis.
13. Re:good design is too difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 16:47 · Score: 0
  
  Get involved or shut up.
14. Re:good design is too difficult by 91degrees · 2019-01-02 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  People who ignore criticism in this way are doomed to failure.
15. Re: good design is too difficult by 91degrees · 2019-01-02 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  If people can't pick up and use a UI immediately, then a possible reason is that the UI is not very good rather than the users being wrong.
16. Re: good design is too difficult by Zero__Kelvin · 2019-01-02 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  I was able to pick it up just fine. Of course I am smart enough to know that when you learn a complex piece of software you don't just open it, point and click and hope for the best. You read the fucking documentation, and at least one quality book that gets into how the UI works *and* the underlying principles that are needed to be able to fully grasp the design and understand the decisions made by the team to do it that way.
  
  Believing as you do that software that is more than moderately complicated can quickly learned, with or without putting in the proper time and effort using all the proper resources
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
17. Re: good design is too difficult by 91degrees · 2019-01-02 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  Most people figure out how to use Photoshop without a manual. Sure sometimes software is complicated and does need to be explained, but here this seems to be being used as an excuse.
#1 upgrade: by Gravis+Zero · 2019-01-02 05:46 · Score: 0

Ditch that clunky GTK API! I mean, that idiots that made that should be exiled and forced to work on developing a graphics application with it. I bet it would wind up as much as an abomination at GTK! ;)
(psst... hey captain whoosh, GTK was made by GIMP devs for GIMP)

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:#1 upgrade: by DMJC · 2019-01-02 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Most of GTK is great, the only big issue GTK has is the support for auto-connecting signal handlers to class methods in C++. AKA it can't do it. This makes GTK useless for object oriented programming. Also who the fuck wants to muck around with strings in C? talk about pulling teeth. Even if you just program C++ in C style and only use the string classes from C++ it's a massive step up in usability. Until GTK is useful in other languages than C and Vala it will never be a great tool. QT/KDE has one of the worst looking UIs/widget sets ever. GTK nailed the visual design but blew it on usability in code. What we actually need is a lightweight API like GTK that integrates well into C++ code and has a decent wysiwyg editor for quickly bashing together UI layouts. Glade is almost that tool. The QT equivalent sucks. I've used both. The GTK UIs always come out looking nicer.
2. Re:#1 upgrade: by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  I like the use of Qt in Virtualbox. It's not bad that it has its own look, apparently works the same across OSes. The GUI is pretty much a front-end though i.e. a consistent way to create, set up, start/stop things ; then the action will happen in the guest OS's GUI (or lack of).
  As a user I share your opinion. E.g. XPDF switched to Qt, it looks "off" (and some minor scrolling usability issue on my version of 3.0.0). Well, the older xpdf GUI was some kind of Motif or raw X, so it was quite funny (usable still). The great thing though is it's available for Windows! So, I have a pdf reader for Windows. There's transmission-qt as well, good for downloading linux .iso from Windows. On linux I'll go on with transmission-gtk then. This is an interesting case, the devs seemingly made an identical looking GUI on GTK and Qt or at least working the same (deadbeef audio player was different, almost identical looking GUI whether you use GTK2 or GTK3, switchable in the options). I'm sure some fonts and things may be different, but good enough for Transmission (which defaults to gtk on linux gtk desktop distros)
  Also, GTK2 software was/is available for Windows, GIMP and Evince 2.x are examples. I can't think of a GTK3 application under Windows even though some might be useful (e.g., a port of Gnome Maps). Yes, we could just ignore that part about Windows, though sometimes you end up with a Windows computer for some reason.
3. Re:#1 upgrade: by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 12:12 · Score: 0
  
  Object-oriented programming is total fucking trash. Your problems started when you started thinking it wasn't. Stop that shit.
4. Re:#1 upgrade: by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 15:23 · Score: 0
  
  Hmm. I've never used gtkmm (I'm one of those C masochists), but it apparently lets you do those things. You can define signal handlers via inheritance:
  
  class Foo : public Gtk::MessageDialog { public: Foo(std::string msg) : Gtk::MessageDialog(msg) { } void on_response(int response_id) override { std::cout << "Response: " << response_id << "\n"; } };
  
  or by connecting member functions:
  
  class Bar : public Gtk::MessageDialog { public: Bar(std::string msg) : Gtk::MessageDialog(msg) { signal_response().connect(sigc::mem_fun(*this, &Bar::my_response)); } private: void my_response(int response_id) { std::cout << "Response: " << response_id << "\n"; } };
  
  Looks a little funky, but unlike g_signal_connect, at least it's type-safe.
Can they make it load faster? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 05:58 · Score: 0

What the heck is it doing with all those CPU cycles?
1. Re:Can they make it load faster? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  Mining bitcoins. They were mining bitcoins before it even existed!
2. Re:Can they make it load faster? by ChrisMaple · 2019-01-02 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Gimp loads all the plugins at startup, one file at a time. This is perhaps a poor design choice, but it does give a lot of flexibility for the addition of new plugins.
  If it bothers you, try running gimp from a SSD.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
3. Re: Can they make it load faster? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 12:56 · Score: 0
  
  Bullocks. Grab a stopwatch and apply any of those "already loaded" filters. All of them are at least twice as slow as anything else, even a late 90s era copy of Paint Shop Pro.
Pixelmator by DontBeAMoran · 2019-01-02 06:31 · Score: 1

It's not free, but it's the perfect in-between image editing software between the "GIMP which is free but has a really weird non-standard way of doing everything" and "Adobe Photoshop which is really expensive or requires monthly fees ".

--
#DeleteFacebook
Need those adjustment layers by future+assassin · 2019-01-02 06:55 · Score: 2

then we'll be set

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Name suggestions from other /. users by tepples · 2019-01-02 07:03 · Score: 2

In the past, other Slashdot users have suggested replacement names:
- GNU Image Editor (GIE)
- GNU Raster Editing And Touchup (GREAT)
- GNU Image Manipulator (GIM) with soft G to sound like "gym"
- GNU Image Retouching and Editing (GIRE)
- GNU Image Retouching Lab (GIRL)
- GNU Adaptable Image Tool (GAIT)
- GNU Users' Foto FudgER (GUFFER)
1. Re:Name suggestions from other /. users by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  - GNU Adaptable pixel Yanker - GAY
  - GNU Adaptable Pixel Editor - GAPE
  - GNU Adaptable Studio pHoto - GASH
2. Re:Name suggestions from other /. users by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  - GNU Raster Image Program (GRIP)
  - GNU Layered Image Manipulation Program, Special Edition (GLIMPSE)
  - GNU Retouching and Image Treatment Suite (GRITS)
  - GNU Image Blending, Layering, and Enhancement Tool (GIBLET)
3. Re:Name suggestions from other /. users by ogdenk · 2019-01-02 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, who actually gives a shit? Show me the army of upset disabled people or people with questionable fetishes upset over the name. The only people I see whining are are leftist virtue signalling SJW bitches. And I don't care if they use the same image editor I do.
  I don't write code for the project but it's disgusting that people think they get to impose their moral righteousness bullshit on others. You people are no better than Christian Nationalists republicans. Liberty is more important than you being butthurt over a name. I'll judge a project based on how well it works, not whether my boss thinks it has a silly name.
  The only thing that pisses me off more are these stupid project CoC's where entire development communities have caved to pressure from a noisy SJW minority. Even FreeBSD, which being a small community I'm rather surprised didn't have the balls to not cave.
4. Re: Name suggestions from other /. users by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 12:42 · Score: 0
  
  You got trolled and fell for it, hard. Salvage what little dignity you have left by shutting the fuck up.
5. Re:Name suggestions from other /. users by spitzak · 2019-01-02 14:30 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that you think the people complaining about this name are "SJW"s says a lot. I can assure you the complainers are the exact opposite political persuasion.
Nice by EnsilZah · 2019-01-02 07:04 · Score: 1

So they're saying they'll have CMYK usable by the time print is officially dead?
GIMP with Qt when? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 07:04 · Score: 0

It's inevitable.
The question is when.
1. Re:GIMP with Qt when? by ChrisMaple · 2019-01-02 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  I've given this some thought; it's an idea I like. However, there are some problems. Rewriting gimp for Qt is a huge job; my estimate is that there's well over 100 Mbyte of source code. Once it's been written, all you'd have is a fork: it's unlikely that gimp.org is going to accept a completely rewritten program. The creator of the fork then has to maintain it, and he'll be missing all the improvements that were in process when the fork goes public but not yet incorporated in the final gimp product. And once it's done, who's going to use it, besides systemd haters like myself?
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Shills by eneville · 2019-01-02 07:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unlike all the other posts here, I find GIMP is a reasonably good piece of photo editing software. If you think that it suffers in some way, how about buying the developers a cup of coffee perhaps, or send a patch over for merger?
Complaining about the naming of the software does not cut the mustard. The fact the developers don't spend time pandering to SJW is a good thing, get your mind of out of the gutter.

--
Why UNIX?
1. Re:Shills by DrSpock11 · 2019-01-02 07:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I honestly do not understand why GIMP gets so much hate.
  Is it a little awkward to use? Yes, but so is Photoshop if you don't know how to use it. Is it less feature rich than Photoshop? Absolutely.
  But it's also 100% cheaper and sufficient for the majority of casual image editing.
  How disheartening is it to see Slashdot of all places shit all over the FOSS alternative to Photoshop.
2. Re:Shills by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  Judging by the posts, 90%+ of /. posters hate FOSS and all it stands for these days.
3. Re:Shills by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  Why would you want to pay for a meal when I shit in this paper bag for you? It's free, and I'll even tell you what I ate.
4. Re:Shills by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  If the only advantage your software has is that it's FOSS, you need to write better software.
5. Re:Shills by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Unlike all the other posts here, I find GIMP is a reasonably good piece of photo editing software. If you think that it suffers in some way, how about buying the developers a cup of coffee perhaps, or send a patch over for merger?
  I too use the GNU Image Manipulation Program all the time.
  Complaining about the naming of the software does not cut the mustard. The fact the developers don't spend time pandering to SJW is a good thing, get your mind of out of the gutter.
  No, complaining about the acronym makes sense. It's the primary reason why GIMP has not seen wider adoption when it's good enough for 99% of pseudo-advanced photo editing done in the business world. My anecdotes involving my former bosses and friends' workplaces attest to this exact reason.
  To contrast, Audacity and Blender are audio and 3D editing projects which were also sub-par on initial release, and have become quite popular, even in industries that focus exclusively on sound and 3D rendered video. The name GIMP hurts adoption, if nothing less than it doesn't even sound like it's an image editing software.
6. Re: Shills by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  Nice strawman.
  If they wrapped up GIMP into a pretty box, changed it's name, and slapped a $200 price tag on it. People would eat it up.
7. Re:Shills by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  >and sufficient for the majority of casual image editing.
  I think the problem is that fanbois (not the devs) try to pretend it's for professional image editing, rather than casual image editing. Personally, I'd love for it to step up and become a professional-quality tool. It seems to be be headed (slowly) in that direction. Until then, fanbois: please stop saying it's "better" than PS cuz it ain't better until it starts peeling away some of the PS professional user base.
8. Re: Shills by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  > If they wrapped up GIMP into a pretty box, changed it's name, and slapped a $200 price tag on it. People would eat it up.
  Not with that terrible UI/workflow.
  That's really the biggest flaw of GIMP: It's not "Photoshop"-esque. You can find a bunch of tutorials for both, but people pirate Photoshop. "GimpShop" was popular and had a surge of users before someone bought a URI and parked the site to have people fork over money for a free-forked work.
  What GIMP developers should do is actually redo the entire UI to where Photoshop tutorials can be done in Gimp/workflows can be done in Gimp like Photoshop. When that happens, I feel a lot of the complaining for/about Gimp would vanish.
9. Re:Shills by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  Why would you want to pay for a meal when I shit in this paper bag for you? It's free, and I'll even tell you what I ate.
  sorry about your botched lobotomy, better luck next time
10. Re:Shills by SurenEnfiajyan · 2019-01-02 09:16 · Score: 2
  
  Is it a little awkward to use?
  From my experience it's even more awkward to use than most basic image editors. The point is that for many use cases an image editor like Paint .Net is good enough, where GIMP is much more complicated. And most (semi)professionals would rather use a cracked version of Photoshop. For most users GIMP is more like an overcomplicated and unintuitive version of Ms Paint where the basic functionality, such as lines/circles/rectangles in toolbar, is missing.
11. Re:Shills by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  Haha, best analogy of the year
  Captcha: squats ^_^
12. Re:Shills by fido_dogstoyevsky · 2019-01-02 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  ...If you think that it suffers in some way, how about buying the developers a cup of coffee perhaps, or send a patch over for merger?...
  After losing the ability to save anything other than xcf and seeing their reaction to complaints about it I'm not sure a cup of coffee will do the trick. Be better advised to put effort into Krita.
  
  --
  It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
13. Re:Shills by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  That's because GIMP is an advanced image editor, not a basic one. You're comparing a car to a plane, of course the plane has a higher learning curve as it does so much more. You could drive a plane on a road, but the controls aren't optimized for that. Just how GIMP isn't optimized for basic editing tasks.
  Use the right tool for the right job and stop complaining about how your plane doesn't fit through the bank's drive-through.
14. Re:Shills by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 15:29 · Score: 0
  
  Is it less feature rich than Photoshop? Absolutely.
  No. It's not.
15. Re:Shills by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 15:39 · Score: 0
  
  I think the problem is that fanbois (not the devs) try to pretend it's for professional image editing, rather than casual image editing.
  I am a pro photographer and I use GIMP. It does a lot of things that Photoshop cannot do, and (like numerous open source projects) many innovative features appear in GIMP long before they appear in Photoshop.
  However, as a professional image maker, I don't use a lot of the plugins nor the cutting-edge features -- I try to get as much right the first time when I actually create the original image. Those with mediocre ideas are mostly the ones rely on "advanced" features.
16. Re: Shills by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 18:20 · Score: 0
  
  > If they wrapped up GIMP into a pretty box, changed it's name, and slapped a $200 price tag on it. People would eat it up.
  Not with that terrible UI/workflow.
  That's really the biggest flaw of GIMP: It's not "Photoshop"-esque. You can find a bunch of tutorials for both, but people pirate Photoshop. "GimpShop" was popular and had a surge of users before someone bought a URI and parked the site to have people fork over money for a free-forked work.
  What GIMP developers should do is actually redo the entire UI to where Photoshop tutorials can be done in Gimp/workflows can be done in Gimp like Photoshop. When that happens, I feel a lot of the complaining for/about Gimp would vanish.
  I really hope they don't. I love GIMP's current & previous UI. Or if they do turn it into (imho) the abomination that is Photoshop's confusingly messy GUI. I hope they make it optional.
17. Re:Shills by SurenEnfiajyan · 2019-01-02 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  That's because GIMP is an advanced image editor
  
  Just how GIMP isn't optimized for basic editing tasks.
  
  Use the right tool for the right job and stop complaining about how your plane doesn't fit through the bank's drive-through.
  That's the problem, GIMP isn't usually the right tool for both basic and more advanced tasks. Even for semi professionals it has usability problems. GNU/Linux didn't conquered the consumer world for similar reasons - it's only targeted for "professionals". The developers are too arrogant to listen to their users and fix bugs/usability issues, most people would rather use a cracked version of Windows.
18. Re:Shills by thegarbz · 2019-01-03 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Is it a little awkward to use? Yes, but so is Photoshop if you don't know how to use it.
  No that's not the issue here. All software is awkward to use if you don't know how to use it. The key is that Photoshop is not awkward to use if you have used other image editing software. If you learnt Photoshop you can pick up Paint.NET and everything would be and work like you expect it to.
  GIMP isn't awkward to use, it's different from everything else for having a learning curve that shouldn't exist someone who has used advanced image editing software before. And likewise becoming an expert at GIMP will more than likely simply render you clueless if you're ever stuck using something else.
19. Re:Shills by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-03 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously you don't use it, but tried it once and failed.
Script Fu at startup by mccrew · 2019-01-02 08:21 · Score: 2

I would like to see some simple creature-comfort improvements to improve usability. My first suggestion would be to either not load all the Script-Fu scripts, or to load them in the background, so that I can get to a usable screen faster. Startup is so slow, and much of the time it is because the UI is blocked loading all the scripts (most of which go unused during a session).

--
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
1. Re: Script Fu at startup by Zero__Kelvin · 2019-01-02 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's a configuration issue and your complaint about it's default configuration rests with your distro, not the GIMP team. Any complaint about how it is set up on your system today rest solely on your shoulders, since you choose to complain about how it is configured rather than configure it the way you prefer.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
2. Re:Script Fu at startup by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  I think that some sort of user bookmarks systems that links to these scripts would help. This could then be displayed as a menu.
3. Re: Script Fu at startup by mccrew · 2019-01-02 10:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Thanks for the stereotypical Slashdot answer: User is to blame for out-of-box configuration. Or user is to blame for not taking all time necessary to exhaustively personalize program startup.
  
  --
  Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
4. Re: Script Fu at startup by Zero__Kelvin · 2019-01-02 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  There is no "blame", and I said the distribution is responsible for out of box configuration, not the user. Given that you were unable to read and understand that simple statement it is no wonder that you can't deal with basic configuration documentation and set up your system properly.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
5. Re: Script Fu at startup by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 11:48 · Score: 0
  
  Do you whine to your microwave manufacturer when you buy a new microwave, plug it in, and it's clock is off? Or do you take a moment and adjust it to your liking? Stop viewing software as some magical, unchangeable box. Much linux focused software is designed with the idea that you'll customize it.
6. Re: Script Fu at startup by mccrew · 2019-01-02 11:51 · Score: 2
  
  Thanks for another stereotypical Slashdot response: "I can't actually address the point so I'll take a swipe at the person."
  If there's one thing that never changes around here - and I've been here since just about the beginning - is that when folks are seeking feedback about something, they only want a friendly pat on the head. Any feedback that requires any introspection or actual change is met with hostility.
  As an occasional, non-professional user of Gimp, startup could be faster out of the box. This is an entirely reasonable suggestion to people who are looking for ways to make the product better.
  My point stands.
  
  --
  Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
7. Re: Script Fu at startup by spitzak · 2019-01-02 14:36 · Score: 2
  
  No that is bull. What he is asking for is perfectly reasonable: defer loading stuff until it is first used! This cannot be fixed by changing the configuration (other than I guess making there not be any plugins, which seems to be what you are suggesting).
8. Re:Script Fu at startup by zwarte+piet · 2019-01-05 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  On Linux, the only os worth having, gimp loads 10 times faster.
here's a start by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 09:15 · Score: 0

How about the possibility to draw a fucking circle in under 8 hours? And to make the app not look like a pile of garbage that is still competing with ms paint - 20 years ago?
1. Re:here's a start by ChrisMaple · 2019-01-02 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  1. Gimp is an image manipulation program, not primarily a drawing program. You're trying to mow a lawn with a shovel.
  2. Think first. There are several ways to draw circles, using tools like elliptical select and/or the filled circle brush.
  3. In the FX-Foundry plugin, FX-Foundry -> Shapes -> Parametric -> Ellipse. Alas, it's not very good.
  4. Here's a direct method.
  Make a new layer.
  Choose the filled circle brush.
  Click on the pencil tool. Choose a size (diameter).
  In the image, click where you want the center of the circle. Remember that location. Now you have a filled circle.
  Click on the eraser tool. Reduce the size by 2.
  In the image, click on the center of the filled circle. Now you have a circle with a thickness of 1 pixel.
  Merge down the new layer to put the circle on the previous top layer.
  Reading it, it looks like a lot of work, but it's not. It takes less than 2 minutes. It's inconvenient, but it's easy and straightforward.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
2. Re:here's a start by stepho-wrs · 2019-01-03 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  2 minutes?
  Why do most bitmap image programs do circles by clicking on one point (which forms one corner of the circle's bounding box) and then dragging to the opposite corner of the bounding box?
  Most of the time that I want to draw a circle I want to click on the centre (usually a well defined place) and then drag out the radius until I can see that it is as big as a I want.
  Not such a problem with vector programs like Inkscape - I can slap any ol' circle on the page and then manipulate it to what I want.
another whiner like Louis CK by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 09:35 · Score: 0

The only people I see whining are are leftist virtue signalling SJW bitches.
You need to take look in a mirror, snowflake. You wusses are the ones getting your panties in a bunch over getting called out for being shitbags. And believe it or not I find your idiocy absolutely hilarious; but not hilarious to give the likes of Louis CK any attention.
1. Re:another whiner like Louis CK by ogdenk · 2019-01-02 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, we're the wusses for not kowtowing to your bullshit and not capitulating due to a screechy vocal minority. Last I checked, the name still stands asshole.
All those photos of trump in leather... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 12:20 · Score: 0

Were was he Gimped or PhotoShopped?
How bout a decent UI? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 13:39 · Score: 0

At its core gimp is great, but the user interface is quite dated, and frankly awful
1. Re:How bout a decent UI? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-03 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  It's not even that good.
Fuck off by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-02 15:12 · Score: 0

I downloaded it FROM GIMP on the GIMP website. How is that Win10's fault?
If you tip your head back a tad bit further, the GIMPcock will slide down until it hits the bawls, apologist. I use GIMP almost every day and have done so for at least 15 years. I know it's a Pinto and not a Ferrari.
Expand from center by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-04 07:21 · Score: 0

Both of the rectangle and ellipse select tools in GIMP have an option to expand from center, and those selections can also be manipulated after slapping on the page by dragging the edges or corners of the bounding box, by changing the selection mode (intersect, remove, etc. with shift/control hotkeys) and making another selection, and with the many entries in the "select" entry of the menu bar.
I've been working with Inkscape heavily for the first time over the past week+, and I'd hardly describe the circle tool as intuitive... at one point the "switch to arc/segment" buttons were greyed out for reasons beyond my comprehension, and lacking the will to force myself to fit the mold required by the software I resorted to freehand.
I will say though that Inkscape's extension system is lovely; I'm learning Python at the same time because of it, and being able to change code without even restarting the program is a beautiful thing. Just last night I version-upped a modification to the in-built plot extension that optimizes the SVG order to reduce pen up travel; with multiprocessing it can cut >10 miles of travel in a few minutes... unfortunately basically everything else in the chain chokes on that much data.