Have to agree with the sibling post, GIMP is a stable and powerful piece of software, if currently limited to 8 bits per channel. Cinepaint on the other hand is crash prone with limited functionality and an UI that is about as bad as some people believe GIMP's to be. Could it be that the FilmGimp code wasn't the best base to start from?
Repository control is a red hering, if there is significant developer and user support the fork can easly win over the userbase. If GIMP was that bad it would have gone the way of Sodipodi long ago. GIMP however is steadly improving while Cinepaint (as an example of a surviving GIMP fork) remains a bugy POS.
panning with a single keypress + mouse drag (one cannot simply press space and pan around the image with the mouse)
Will be in 2.4.
more GUI manipulation flexibility - ability to reorganize the whole UI into single MDI window similar to Photoshop or Corel PhotoPaint
AFAIK the developers believe this will be much work with little benefit, because Windows is neither the platform they use nor their main "market". By analogy: is the Macintosh version of Photoshop MDI capable?
support for "workspace themes"
Someone would have to keep this up to date and evidently the GIMP developers would rather concentrate to improve user expierence for GIMP users then to conventrate on Photoshop switchers. As I see it if there actualy is demand for a Photoshop like GIMP then Gimpshop will flourish, time will tell.
I can't believe the arrogance of some people to state that their opinion of an obviously subjective matter is "a simple fact".
I can. They have never seriously used another program that does the same in a different way. I started with Photopaint and Photoshop seemed completely unusable. Then I discovered free software and GIMP, took the time to learn the interface (wich is similar to Photoshop's) and would hate to go back. I also learned that just because two interfaces are different it does not mean that one of them is actually better.
Simply not true, most distro could do with redistribution of binary only [..]
When in doibt I go with the word of distro maintainers and common sense then unsuported statements from random slashdoters. The idea of distros that contain mostly apps named like $distroname-webbrowser and $distroname-texteditor is not appealing to me and I'm glad that most free software developers can deal with not having ironfist control over derivatives of their projects, unsurprisingly Epiphany still renders pages like any other Gecko browser out there.
The poster who said that games are not a problem was responding to someone who wanted to switch his wife (and talked about getting a game machine aimed at casual gamers), now his wife may be a hardcore gamer, but statistics suggest she is probably a casual gamer. The poster himself and his son, you on the other hand were talking about "we" as if it included all Windows users who play games.
It would honestly do the Linux cause a lot more good than a lot of the present leaders.
Just for fun? World domination? Writting your own device drivers like real men do? Or didn't I get the memo when Linux announced a serious "cause"? The Debian cause OTOH is pretty clear and Iceweasel is where it leads. Before you start the "fuck you no good zealot fucks" routine on me remember that these principles enable people to go out and create cool things like Knoppix instead of weading through a license jungle first.
Or they may not be sure what do yet--remember that Ubuntu is closely tied to Debian and adopts many of their changes. My prefered solution would be Epiphany in main as the default browser, Mozilla version of Firefox in restricted or multiverse and Iceweasel in universe.
The "redistribution thingy" is what makes distributions as we know them possible. Debian developers don't want to mess with Gecko (the rendering engine used by Seamonkey, Firefox, Iceweasle, Epiphany, K-meleon, Camino and others), they want to mess with defaults, port to different architectures and backport security fixes wihout adding features (this is what Debian stable is all about), this is essential to the way Debian does things and a name change is a small price to pay.
So if I buy a device for GNU/Linux I have to look up on the web if it will work, but if I buy one for Windows it's as simple as making sure that the people who made the driver knew what they did?
You could, if there where any rocks out there. Nukes on the other hand are easy to get into orbit, hard to detect in orbit and most importantly--it's hard to detect an attack from orbit and gives less time to react.
[..] i plug in a USB wireless card and nothing happens, i plug in a USB printer, nothing happens [..]
Are you doing it that way with Win-"install drivers before pluging in USB device"-dows? There are devices with huge yellow stickers to remind people how good Windows USB support is...
Slashdot Mirror
Have to agree with the sibling post, GIMP is a stable and powerful piece of software, if currently limited to 8 bits per channel. Cinepaint on the other hand is crash prone with limited functionality and an UI that is about as bad as some people believe GIMP's to be. Could it be that the FilmGimp code wasn't the best base to start from?
Repository control is a red hering, if there is significant developer and user support the fork can easly win over the userbase. If GIMP was that bad it would have gone the way of Sodipodi long ago. GIMP however is steadly improving while Cinepaint (as an example of a surviving GIMP fork) remains a bugy POS.
If the developers are to believed in recent versions the GUI and drawing engine are well seperated to ease the transition to GEGL.
1-4 all depend on GEGL.
Will be in 2.4.
AFAIK the developers believe this will be much work with little benefit, because Windows is neither the platform they use nor their main "market". By analogy: is the Macintosh version of Photoshop MDI capable?
Someone would have to keep this up to date and evidently the GIMP developers would rather concentrate to improve user expierence for GIMP users then to conventrate on Photoshop switchers. As I see it if there actualy is demand for a Photoshop like GIMP then Gimpshop will flourish, time will tell.
What dcraw issues do you have mind? UFRaw might help. 16 bit support depends on GEGL.
How about an application that is intended to draw circles (among other things of course). GIMP is used for many things, but it is made primary for photo editing not drawing.
Menus have been cleaned up quite a bit for 2.4 and utility window grouping is in 2.2 (the current stable release).
It should be easier once the feet are gone!
Actualy the CD format has a do-not-copy me flag.
The poster who said that games are not a problem was responding to someone who wanted to switch his wife (and talked about getting a game machine aimed at casual gamers), now his wife may be a hardcore gamer, but statistics suggest she is probably a casual gamer. The poster himself and his son, you on the other hand were talking about "we" as if it included all Windows users who play games.
Or they may not be sure what do yet--remember that Ubuntu is closely tied to Debian and adopts many of their changes. My prefered solution would be Epiphany in main as the default browser, Mozilla version of Firefox in restricted or multiverse and Iceweasel in universe.
The "redistribution thingy" is what makes distributions as we know them possible. Debian developers don't want to mess with Gecko (the rendering engine used by Seamonkey, Firefox, Iceweasle, Epiphany, K-meleon, Camino and others), they want to mess with defaults, port to different architectures and backport security fixes wihout adding features (this is what Debian stable is all about), this is essential to the way Debian does things and a name change is a small price to pay.
Actualy people how been wondering why Firefox is humping Earth for some time now.
So no version of Firefox in the basic Debian system.
Not all people are FPS fans and WoW addicts.
It is well known that stoping the world would make it harder to get off, spin it up I say!
The GPL is a compromise between giving all the code to the public domain and protecting the community.
The LGPL is a compromise between more free software and popularity.
Not trying to even understand how RMS does things before attacking him is not.
So if I buy a device for GNU/Linux I have to look up on the web if it will work, but if I buy one for Windows it's as simple as making sure that the people who made the driver knew what they did?
You could, if there where any rocks out there. Nukes on the other hand are easy to get into orbit, hard to detect in orbit and most importantly--it's hard to detect an attack from orbit and gives less time to react.