Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gimp 1.2 Preview

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the stuff-to-read dept.

Lunglet writes "There's a nice preview of the features Gimp 1.2 is probably going to contain over at TheGimp.com. " So many things to compile and segfault... so little time. The new path stuff especially looks sweet as hell.

65 comments

  1. Re:When I was your age... by Big+Jim · · Score: 1

    GEOPaint on Commodore 64 GEOS! 300-something by 100-something black and white windowing, using a cheap joystick for a pointer..

    It would take five seconds to cross the screen!

  2. Re:Kimp-like interface. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What exactly is wrong with the 'GIMP interface'?

    When I used it on my SGI it was very well thought out and productive.

    It could be improved but so could all GUI's.

    If anyone is interested in GUI design I suggest looking at Alias|Wavefront's Power Animator or Maya.

  3. Kimp-like interface. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Any word on when the Gimp will get a photoshop-like interface like the Kimp? I think the interface is unduely giving the Gimp a bad name.

    1. Re:Kimp-like interface. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the Gimp's interface, like most things for X, was really designed for people running in obscenely high resolutions. It would be nice to see a photoshop like interface as an option for those who don't have the screen real estate to stuff the main dialog while editing a large image.

    2. Re:Kimp-like interface. by RPoet · · Score: 1

      Is there such a thing as "Kimp"? I don't think so. Work has just started on KImageShop which will use the ImageMagick libs.

      I agree that although Gimp is a great program, its interface is really holding it back.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    3. Re:Kimp-like interface. by InvisibleCraterFunk · · Score: 1

      Rumours has it that they will begin making the Gimp core toolkit independent. This should make it easier to port to KDE/Qt and Windows. There are some KDE developers who are interested in porting to KDE.

    4. Re:Kimp-like interface. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think is wrong with the interface? I personaly like the Gimps interface better than Photoshops. I like my images where I placed them instead of swallowed inside Photoshops main window.

      If you are using the gimp expecting a Photoshop clone, maybe you should use Photoshop instead.

    5. Re:Kimp-like interface. by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I thought the Gimp followed the photoshop interaface pretty closely. A friend of mine who uses Photoshop a lot noticed the considerable similarites betweent the two programs. What kind of functionality are you looking for in a KDE version of the Gimp anyway?

      On a side note, ImageMagick needs some serious work on its interface. IMHO it needs to behave with Windowmanger options like focus-follows and autoraise before I can consider using it. Whenever I try to select something in that dialog box, it autorases whatever window is below it, which obscures not on the control panel, but the main window as well. Very frustrating, especially if you are going back and forth between that window and ImageMagick. On a final note, ImageMagick seems slower than the Gimp in most operations (save starting up).

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    6. Re:Kimp-like interface. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gimp followed the Mac-Photoshop interface, not the Windows one (Photoshop for Windows is MDI app). However, I would appreciate some kind of Mac-menu instead of right-click, too. (KDE has common menubar, it should be option for GTK too.)

    7. Re:Kimp-like interface. by warmi · · Score: 1

      Yup. One thing that keeps GIMP from being truly usefull is its rather unusuable interface. I wonder why don't they change it - I mean, in this kind of programs it interface is half the success.
      Even GTK programs are getting better and better every day ( IglooFTP looks very nice .)

    8. Re:Kimp-like interface. by Jim@Madrid · · Score: 1

      I second and third that one! I can only imagine that SGI has some unreasonably strict patents on their onscreen menus to stop the rest of the world copying them...

      Oh, and I quite like the GIMP interface too, though it'd look a lot better if I had a bigger monitor!

    9. Re:Kimp-like interface. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as someone who uses both photoshop and gimp, my quick opinion of what gimp could do?
      (i'll try not to be "wish-listy" and keep it in perspective)

      first, make the dialogs customisable,
      and make it so that you can bundle and
      pair them anyway you want (yes, like photoshop)

      to have all the dialogs i use every second of my session, it takes me a whole virtual screen.

      the thing that photoshop also does nicely is
      dynamicly changes tool options better.
      for instance, what the heck is the gradients
      bar doing seperated from everything else?

      and yes, as someone else mentioned earlier this does stink for people of small resolutions (though linux has the advantage of virtual desktops that are actually stable - win32 has them, but photoshop is about the first thing that doesn't work right)

      thirdly, why not have "always on top" functionality for them?

      ..and i've never been able to figure this out,
      but what the heck is that ugly yellow and black border around my image?

      that and photoshop has 3 viewing modes which are fabulous.

      the first is a basic image window (varies from win to mac versions), the second being an embedded
      "full screen" version, but with the menus intact on top. the background around the image is your default window background colour.
      the third is a "super fullscreen" mode, which is all black, and you get the menu off of the toolbar, like gimp.

      gimp is one step ahead with it's menus though, i have to say that. having everything off the rightclick menu is somewhat nice, so that i don't have to travel 5,000 miles across the screen every time i want something.
      ...might i add that the menus go too many sections
      down, and they may want to think about bundling stuff like script fu into the filters menu, or go whole hog and make a dialog like ps actions.

      and this is off the top of my head.

      ----------------------
      -astrix8
      javanet.com/~user
      ----------------------

    10. Re:Kimp-like interface. by tigert · · Score: 2

      first, make the dialogs customisable, and make it so that you can bundle and pair them anyway you want (yes, like photoshop)

      Yes, this would be cool. I'm sure such patches would be gladly accepted.

      And yes, as someone else mentioned earlier this does stink for people of small resolutions

      Well.. if you really work on graphics you need a bigger screen no matter what program you happen to use. The images alone need space :)

      thirdly, why not have "always on top" functionality for them?

      This is more a windowmanager thing. You can configure any windowmanager to do this for you.

      but what the heck is that ugly yellow and black border around my image?

      That is the layer border, you can turn it invisible with Ctrl-T. Visible borders are handy if you have layers that are smaller than the image.

      gimp is one step ahead with it's menus though, i have to say that. having everything off the rightclick menu is somewhat nice, so that i don't have to travel 5,000 miles across the screen every time i want something.
      ...might i add that the menus go too many sections

      Yes, I personally agree. The right-click menu is IMHO one of the best things in gimp - although it IS very deep. But blah, there are lots of plugins there that fill it up. I think that is a good thing. I dont find the menus SO hard.. You can always assign the dynamic shortcuts to often needed stuff (go to a menu and press a key combination like alt-z and see it getting assigned to that menu item.)

      And, after all, Photoshop on a Mac is not that different from Gimp interface, the 'one big mother window with all the stuff inside' is just an evil hack that windows uses because you dont have a virtual screen or anything like that.. I really dislike it. This is X. :)

      tigert

    11. Re:Kimp-like interface. by teufen · · Score: 1

      you're damn right!! and this is true not only for the Gimp, but for many other applications...

  4. Color seperation tables? We never use them... by LordRathma · · Score: 1

    Wow, I work at one of the country's largest pre-press companies...doing packaging and ads for major clients and advertising companies and we never use seperation tables in our color corrections.

    We use straight Photoshop (I'm in the PhotoMac department) and ArtPro, Illustrator and Quark...all standard packages running on standard Brisque RIPS. Now, we have special curve functions on the Brisques when we make final films (or if everything is going to the CREO direct-to-plate process...which is a whole other can of worms), but we don't use anything special on Photoshop.

    Which leads me to think that The Gimp could in fact get CMYK support without having to sell the farm to get it. But I could be wrong because I'm not on the development end other than doing beta testing and stuff like that. I'm not a programmer or have any idea how hard it would be to implement CMYK or other color spaces to a program.

    I remember when Photoshop didn't do CMYK...then only did it as a save function (couldn't work directly in it), then finally a full CMYK version. So I can only guess on how hard it was for Adobe to program all that in there. Before that, we used ColorStudio...which went the way of the dinosaur after Photoshop got CMYK. But I digress...

    --
    --- "It's not enough that I succeed...everyone else must fail."
  5. actually, ff stuff is pretty supported... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    filter factory filters are already supported under gimp from what i've seen, or you can easily port the code even if you don't know an ounce of code via the custom plugin.

    since filter factory comprises the vast majority
    of plugins, i'd say gimp's off to a good start.

    as for comercial stuff like
    kai's power ego...er..i mean tools
    , i guess we shall have to wait and
    see.

    :P

    -----------------
    -astrix8
    javanet.com/~user
    -----------------

  6. General colour independence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One component that is needed is a generalised
    memory management for arbitrary pixel format
    images, and a generalised viewer architecture.

  7. Re:What i'd really like to see.... by shoor · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I did read something about it in a book
    called Printer's Pal or something like that but...
    Isn't Photoshop or whatever supposed to be able
    to do CMYK? How does that work?

    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
  8. Re:What i'd really like to see.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple RGB/CMYK conversion isn't hard. I think it's even described in Foley & van Damme.

    What's hard -- and what may involve patent issues -- are real color management systems that use ICC profiles and do display calibration and correction.

  9. Polygon tool? by dangermouse · · Score: 1

    So the only thing I miss from the GIMP as it stands now is polygon/ellipse/rectangle drawing tools. Paths are nice, and I'm glad they've been added... but I'd really like to be able to just draw a circle.

    1. Re:Polygon tool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't seem to do rectangles though

    2. Re:Polygon tool? by scrutty · · Score: 3

      1)Right Click on image

      2)Filters -> Render -> Gfig

      3)Select New and then draw a circle or any other polygon that takes your fancy

      --
      -- Oh Well
    3. Re:Polygon tool? by Submarine · · Score: 2

      1. Select the surface around which you want to draw, using the circular selection or whatever.

      2. Use Edit->Stroke in the menu.

      This will stroke around the current selection.

      Everybody, including Gimp developer, has seen that it is an unduly convoluted way to draw a circle and that many would-be users simply think you can't draw circles. A more user-friendly interface is being worked on.

    4. Re:Polygon tool? by Big+Jim · · Score: 1

      You might try doing it with gradients, too, using the shape-following options of the fill tool (can't remember their names, but they're there). That'll let you make your circle with whatever kind of border you want!

    5. Re:Polygon tool? by dangermouse · · Score: 1

      I'm replying to myself, because I only want one reply here...

      I did not know that.. Thanks!

      ...all I wanted to say. :)

  10. Intelligent Scissors that work???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    For photo editing I use Adobe instead of "the gimp" because Adobe's "Intelligent Scissors" actually work.

    Will this change in the gimp 1.2?

    Thanks!

    motjuste@briefcase.com

  11. What i'd really like to see.... by A+Life+in+Hell · · Score: 1

    ...is CMYK support. I believe that this is the biggest hurdle in the way of GIMP being adopted as a widespread alternative to photoshop right now.
    (I suppose I could always sit down one day and code it myself, I guess, but really it'd be better for all concerned if it was done by someone who could actully wasn't stupid :)

    --
    Commodore 64, Loading up the dance floor!
    1. Re:What i'd really like to see.... by Edward+Carter · · Score: 2

      AFAIK, CMYK support is one of those patent minefields. In that case, you won't be seeing the gimp support CMYK any time soon...

    2. Re:What i'd really like to see.... by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      Well, one needs to have a color separation table which maps the RGB input to CMYK output, plus one needs to ``screen'' the image which is to say convert it from transparent blocks of light (pixels) to opaque-semi-transparent dots/areas of ink. This conversion must also include information on how to handle colrs which can be shown in RGB, but are ``out of gamut'', which is to say, not printable with four-color process printing.

      Screening isn't the biggest block, since that's typically done by a PostScript RIP, but the conversion into CMYK is.

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    3. Re:What i'd really like to see.... by shoor · · Score: 1

      Is there some good documentation, a good book or
      website that really explains well CMYK vs RBG?
      Sometimes the hardest part of writing a piece of
      software is getting a good spec.

      --
      In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
    4. Re:What i'd really like to see.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No CMYK is not the "patent minefield" but rather the Pantone and other color management systems.

    5. Re:What i'd really like to see.... by WillAdams · · Score: 2

      Color separation tables are expensive to create and require a fingerprint of the press in question as well as an understanding of colorspace and theory.

      Here're some basic books on the subject:
      Blatner, David and Steve Roth. Real World Scanning and Halftones (Berkeley, California: Peachpit Press, 1993). ISBN 1-56609-093-8, second edition 0201696835.

      Nyman, Matties. Four Colors/One Image: Getting Great Color Output with Photoshop, QuarkXPress, and Cachet (Berkeley, California: Peachpit Press, 1993). ISBN 1-56609-083-0.

      Tapscott, Diane and Lisa Jeans, Pat Soberanis, Rita Amladi and Jim Ryan. Professional Studio Techniques: Production Essentials (Mountain View, California: Adobe Press, 1994). ISBN 1-56830-124-3

      I've links to Amazon to purchase these books on my web page at: http://members.aol.com/willadams/color.htm
      (obligatory disclaimer, I'll make money if anyone does purchase through said links)

      My company spends ~$100,000 a year creating test plates for our customers to fingerprint their presses for color matching purposes. Like I said, it's expensive.

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  12. Re:gimp authors said no to kimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good to see the spirit of open source is with them.

  13. Interesting by agtofchaos · · Score: 1

    It would be nice though if someone would try atleast to add support for photoshop plugins (emulation or whatever if necessary if they are win32 specific)

    --
    ---Got Coffee?---
    1. Re:Interesting by nufan · · Score: 1

      This probably isn't worth the trouble. For all the effort that would be extended we could have native versions of the best plugins.

    2. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should actually be pretty easy to write a wrapper (a gimp plugin) for that... use a wine to run the photoshop plugins and the wrapper as an interpreter between gimp & the ps plugins.. Someone do this, please :)

  14. gimp authors said no to kimp by vipw · · Score: 1

    kimp won't happen unless a free qt is ever released.

  15. Re:Actually, this is wrong by Znork · · Score: 1

    The problem still remains that Qt 2.0, while free, isnt GPL compatible, which means that all authors have to consent to a license addition to allow linking against Qt.

  16. Isn't Irony a wonderful thing by bolx · · Score: 1

    > Rumours has it that they will begin making the Gimp core toolkit independent

    It's kind of ironic, when GTK stands for Gimp Tool-Kit. It'd be nice to have the choice.

  17. When I was your age... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember drawing on the computer using a 156x192x4 color screen with a joystick! This was on my old Atari 8bit. Strangely enought I think I drew better then than I can now on the current set of painting programs available on Linux or Windows!

  18. Re:DPaint / GIMP by warmi · · Score: 1

    HAM being based on encoding was almost like lottery. You draw and wonder when color will change or stuff like that. Neverthless it was usefull for images and like. Good old days ...
    ( I still ocasionally use Deluxe Paint under DOS ..)

  19. Re:Gimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can i have some? ...of whatever you're smoking.
    i use the gimp and i *really* like it. i work at
    a newspaper where photoshop(5) is the tool the
    graphics people use. there is no way that the gimp
    could replace photoshop. i'm not saying that the
    gimp can't be used to create anything that photoshop can -- it can, however the time it takes
    to do things with the gimp costs _much_ more in man-hour-cost than the cost of a photoshop license. yes, i use the gimp, but i wouldn't pay my artists to use it; i'd go broke -- and work would be ever-late.

    before you give me any flack about being a win-user, you should know that i use linux all day at work and the only time i booted MS in the past 8 months was to compile apache(1.3.6) for a friend.

    brent

  20. patent-protection on support for .gifs by alphamale · · Score: 1

    This likely falls under stupid questions, especially since I don't have GIMP (what with not having X), but how is GIMP allowed to support the .gif format? The GNU website says that it can't be done, since IBM and Unisys hold the patent for LZW compression.

    1. Re:patent-protection on support for .gifs by alphamale · · Score: 1

      I thought it might simply involve ignoring patents. Good work, then. If I ever put together a Linux box with a HDD greater than 130Mb, I'll try out X and GIMP. But I'll be sticking with a GIMP that does .gifs, because I'm a web designer, and as much as I appreciate the added features of .pngs, customers tend not to when their horribly outdated browsers can't display them. Ah, the fun of the lowest common denominator.

    2. Re:patent-protection on support for .gifs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Highly patent-sensitive organisations, like Debian distribute Gimp in two halves. The second half contains potentially illegal (unlicensed) GIF and TIFF code.
      I wrote some of the TIFF code, Adam Moss (IIRC) wrote all/most of the GIF code. We say "Fuck Unisys".
      Anyway -- don't use GIF or TIFF, use PNG. If you can't use PNG (animated GIFs) help work on MNG, WNG or VNG :)

      http://www.cdrom.com/pub/png/

      Nick

  21. Re:This should happen every summer by BigSven · · Score: 1

    What's this 'Preview Month' you're talking about?

    The Gimp development has always been open to the public. At some time less than at other times, but CVS has always been open to the brave ones. If you want to stay in touch with development I strongly advice you to play around with the Gimp releases or to pass by on http://sven.gimp.org/1.1/

    And, yes I'll update that site tomorrow to reflect the fact that 1.1.6 has been released.

  22. That should happen in the UI, not the core app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Desktop specific extensions such as KDE KOM/OP or Bonobo should happen in the user interface component - not the core of Gimp itself. That way you can still have a GTK+ UI, etc...
    As far as why selection of the toolkit is important I could think of three reasons, 1) You can have different user interface designs easily. While this isn't really a factor of the toolkit choice the KDE interface would be different and more oriented towards end users. It would also match the rest of KDE in look-and-feel. 2) Better desktop integration by handling the given desktops document model. 3) More efficent by not requiring the user to install a toolkit he/she is not going to use otherwise.
    mosfet@kde.org

  23. niiiice... by UnkyHerb · · Score: 1

    Looks sweet. I will have to get it right away. The 1.1 devel series was pretty nice, damn instability was the only problem. I like the gimp more than photoshop now after ive used it so much.

    --
    Your Momma's so fat she makes emacs look like nano!
    1. Re:niiiice... by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      No, it's not out yet, the article was a _preview_. So you'll have to stick with 1.1 for a while.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  24. DPaint / GIMP by DGolden · · Score: 1

    Um... I used DeluxePaint IV + PersonalPaint 7 on the Amiga for years (HAM mode was really wierd, wasn't it?). I really like GIMP, and I use it for retouching/compositing raytraces, photos, and the like, but for pixel-painting, I miss the DPaint-style interface. The GIMP (and Photoshop) though undeniably more powerful really, feel much more "clunky" (IMHO) for pixel work onto a blank bitmap, like (euro)demo pics... Also, the DPaint IV animation stuff was really good.

    So what's my point?

    Ideally, I'd like to have an alternate UI for the GIMP engine. Seems to me an implementation of the dpaint interface, interfaced through script-fu, that worked on a single layer, or even a UI that "felt" like DPaint, but had support for GIMPy features, would be possible. I was just wondering if a) one exists and I've missed it or b) if there would be any demand beyond myself for such an alternate interface?






    --
    Choice of masters is not freedom.
    1. Re:DPaint / GIMP by CryptdotX · · Score: 1

      Try Satan Paint. It may be just what you are looking for.

      Find it at:
      ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/apps/graphics/sp aint.tar.gz

      (maybe... could be an old link.)

  25. Re:I'm waiting for 2.0... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1.2 will almost definately not have 16 bit support. Thats really a 2.0 feature.

    Regards,
    Seth
    sjburges@gimp.org

  26. Gimp by Accipiter · · Score: 2
    Being an avid Photoshop user, I was tremendously impressed with the Gimp version that came with Slackware 96 when I first started using Linux (I forgot the version release). I have since convinced friends of mine (Other Photoshop users) to take a look at that version of Gimp, and they were impressed as well. (Not only by the features, but the price tag as well.)

    This new release looks great. While the older releases were excellent, they were thirsty for the features that have now been implemented. (Such as the improved "New Image" window, Brush Adjustments, etc.) I've switched to using Gimp for my image needs, because the feature set of the Gimp matches, if not defeats Photoshop. The interface tweaks in the new release of Gimp help out a lot (it took a bit of searching to find the menus in the older one). And it doesn't cost $600 to have the privelege of using it. :)

    Peter, Spencer, Thanks for this wonderful software.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

    --

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
    (If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

    1. Re:Gimp by Analog · · Score: 1

      IIRC, it was version 0.54 or somesuch; based on Motif, not GTK (which I think you are correct about not being around yet).

    2. Re:Gimp by syntax · · Score: 0

      Hate to knitpick here, but I didn't remember Gimp being a part of Slackware 96.. Was it even out then? I dont recall GTK being around then either, but then again I wasn't a very attentive user :)

    3. Re:Gimp by Accipiter · · Score: 1
      To reply to your reply, I must disagree. Photoshop is a very nice program (although I think 4 is superior to 5, with the exception of the magnetic lasso tool), however, it took time to learn it, no? If you learn how to use Gimp, and use it efficently, you can do it in the same amount of time as Photoshop.

      -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

      --

      -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
      (If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

  27. User Filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Way/3340/gi mp.html
    User Filter will allow you to use Photoshop "filter-factory" plug-ins.

  28. Re:I'm waiting for 2.0... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My gimp1.0.2 never resized an image successfully.
    Whenever I saved the resized image, it remained unchanged. Nothing happened really.

    Hope it be fixed in next version.

  29. Bravo -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Impressive. Gets better each time they update it (one would hope this _always_ to be the case, but I can cite plenty of products that get _worse_ with each subsequent release).

  30. Re:Actually, this is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What advantages would gimp be givin by becoming KDEified, or QTified, or GNOMEified. I am all for choice, but I do like GTK+ more, and i always have. Mostly because back when i had my old P60, GTK was so much kinder to my CPU then QT.

    I think gimp is a GREAT tool, and QT, GTK are great widgets, and Gnome and KDE are both great desktop invirinments, but why do we need to "pick sides"

    I remember a while back, shortly after KDE 1.0 came out, a bunch of KDE users went screaming around how gimp was dropping GTK and going to KDE, and then accusing the gnome people of "stealing "KDE's source code". I found that to be very childish and unfortunatly became biased twards KDE. Well, I guess both sides are guilty of that whole war, and yes, linux can use standards. But i'd rather have standards be on a distribution level, rather then have them forced opon the user.

    Does this make any sense?

    PS: I'm not an anonymous coward, i just lost my pw. im gusmaster@mediaone.net

  31. I'm waiting for 2.0... by mircea · · Score: 2

    ...since it's the version that will have support for 16-bit images, and I could _really_ use that. Think scientific imaging.

  32. slashdot icon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agh... the eyes... those EYES!!!

    I can't shake the feeling of Poe's "Telltale Heart" here...

  33. This should happen every summer by extrasolar · · Score: 1
    After this preview of Gimp 1.2 and that last The Future of KDE rticle, we should have a Preview Month every summer. It could be fun, finding out what the developers have been working on the previous year. Think of it like a holiday.

    --

    1. Re:This should happen every summer by extrasolar · · Score: 1
      No. I am not just talking about the Gimp. I am talking about all the projects. I don't know of many people who have the time or the desire to go through all the projects, download from CVS, compile it, just to see whats gonna be around in a half a year. Articles like this are nice because, even though I am not an avid Gimp user, I still have an idea what's happening. Id like to see more preview articles like these.

      --

  34. Actually, this is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have discussed with several Gimp authors about creating a KDE UI. Most core developers could care less about the GTK/Qt/KDE/Gnome debate and simply want to create the best software possible. There is a segment of those who feel the users would be best served by being able to select the user interface. Restricting choice is never good for the user. As far as a free open-source Qt you can download the Qt2.0 beta from http://www.troll.no.
    mosfet@kde.org