×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Krita 1.6 — State of the Art

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the headed-in-the-right-direction-anyway dept.

212

brendan0powers writes to tell us Linux.com is reporting that while Krita 1.6 may have been released with the rest of the KOffice suite this week it is anything but a run-of-the-mill piece of productivity software. Krita is a 'fully-loaded raster graphics workhorse' definitely capable of standing up to most anything else available. Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

adsfdfas (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16681681)

lmbo asdfadsf

Re:adsfdfas (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16681705)

die in a fire

Re:adsfdfas (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682245)

Sure, after I anally rape your mother and dig up your grandmother and skullfuck the corpse.

Re:adsfdfas (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682379)

wat

Re:adsfdfas (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682767)


-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

hQQOA3Vru+y7pdKiEBAAmD9UH7Exv+IO7fI8i07fUaZ5te0HMI putAi8sKFCsUil
P2qIiD/S8Bvm2fWhEAB7sRpPdQjif/gTmEc3uRYkRQTbcFtwWl IOG/HENXsKkgTl
iygnjgi7NR86OiqHzTg2Gh4tS2iE37PJ/3W6wkVZDhmS3HId2v W0JAOAyKrF5F+q
zKfPyFfo79lRZaudmC6y+MODv1TXEYHHSPLzAC/sJ0DPe8vb8V lv/MRC7QYg00IJ
314IOAuoexbcSeWH+i8+B8HSNXEyX3SchZymC4h8D8SSqraAJX XN1va520gGYb/v
y61tyO0od2nZ1mVhLQV11+dPrAeBPveJZv9zXrlMwS2ZHm8btk FNSi1v07abVAL+
AuzrxGFu7b1gvCq6KSQGvu3onPPfAAKBRRd5pc1u9TS4gbEQLm POU770as/x1BD9
Xjm0yzZzuV1hMr6svtJp5zf7s+RbknpTNM2F3/dd98jk88uk7e amYjnN6HWLbOoH
O/HHYgGPd7/IL+QyP0VBESujaT2p2iTuJmQ8Fr7A0ALKij9KO6 uzKqYal/agiUdw
cUmkK8kr+NKb4xEZ8jPumSPWAMcdikOUPOcaDe0WW/8wOtSdUu AFalfb+kjva+ur
aMULPA2EswzGQA2w2XXnvCORwebl415pf/alrcMjRWKYKBUiay rWSm5Wpz7LJkEP /2zkOTnQd1gg+DI6whWlIZZxc2zLTtLI48rmRFPhpCGKZ2nZwv vYIwKbTDrsDsUN
UgPAUD5LdGb7orfsdDVoEfFws6I1vvTxiujSRn274fNgz483gh eW7QnT6fruJ+Bj /MuJio7tVNj9mX/t3y6F60Po+tukQ3vc/7z2vGBFaruSuYZQyX L3w9EIUhTNSDeH
A9MOBjPEVGUlelPBT038dxIAqPq3Lznsdg5qH8Hiys12McxV8R E7unHY3dhwCTgm
SLVZ2V4rk+0IyiI9Fr0jS3ITLXeCvuid8mo1w2qNRM+g7wds0p vWgR8zL4fV1GfT
lLpi1rhZJ2trRXx92T5twqI4IRcwh0kiMqKSt+eXR7aB0TV4rj +Z2T9AesV6yGs8
r9N6p/97upbzSQtohaxoojmh3ZGIwaKz/b4R+3PKYubO0kaQbv gJTlg/6ynwsGup
GjFPRZ/87fr8rNJgCu4qoEobV8fjY4B1EDyW0dDS3tWPi8hf3I EpzMt/2L2Ym9Mc
0d5N5I9HG5euZK1/MclIzHz0lnceS+jhmnVcW++SUF8s2TCEHy 90Ia1Lh0lyQZbG
Ggtc83jejcQ/CveoGZZn48cGcLNzisXMob0Y8efLxbiZvOgqzk wCGdIJhA1Qivrc
p6ViWcvnWlp8nQt/OjCVkgSf6Bk5CqqRMcaV8rQXe9o30mEBL/ khfnCsSIi3BV6b
2LII87/oiS0MCBv50Y4kKhZqLWRb3ZYCN5gFaF8Mq03m2MoE1k SCB9jQw8C8SxeA
xM3WIYfk/QQscTWOHBFGGywzbRuXJDNpwD7b2jPoeuE/MT+K
=m+dm
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16681749)

Hey look! A line tool! CMYK support! And layers! This thing may actually be usable!

Re:finally! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682325)

never before has it been so easy to airbrush a straight line

Because KDE-users are too stupid to press Shift while drawing the line, they cannot use Gimp, and so the FOSS-monkeys once again reinvented the wheel. Tragic, pathetic and somewhat sad.

Re:finally! (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682979)

Right, and alternative applications and OSes is always a bad thing. You know, Rehat should be everyone's choice distribution, and Gnome should be the ONLY desktop. Oh, and the Gnome theme you use on your desktop should be the ONLY theme, right down to your choice of wallpaper. Heck, let's take it a step further! Linux, BSD, OS X, and QNX should all be killed off in favor of Windows.

Not everyone likes Gimp. Not everyone likes Krita. Not everyone likes Photoshop. Not everyone likes Paint Shop Pro. Some people like the choices, and some people BUY Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro, but still use The Gimp for some tasks. Why shouldn't the KDE folks continue Krita development?

But of course, you posted AC just to troll, so I shouldn't be wasting this bandwidth right now responding to such an assinine comment.

Re:finally! (4, Informative)

tezbobobo (879983) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683125)

Actually, my prediction is this will fail for other reasons. Photoshop is the tool of choice for me. I am the production manager for a newspaper and even if this were 10 times more capable, we still would not budge. Photoshop is part of a larger suite. It is the ability to use Photoshop in conjunction with Quark/Indesign which makes it powerful. There are a number of people who only use raster editors, but they're not in the print world.

What I'm saying is that anyone who would need 8/16 CMYK editing and profiling would still be left empty handed by the Linux world. Before anyone starts getting on my back about Scribus and 'save to PDF' crap, get out in the real world. When your dealing with printers with very specific PDF requirements, you need the customisability provided by Distiller. When they send you a colour profile to work with, It needs to be a easy as hitting Load Colour Space in Indesign. I guarantee they will not send a Scribus compatible file. And finally about Scribus - it is not the defacto industry standard.

Therefore, if you need a raster editor for Linux, you are almost guaranteed of not needing it for the print world - except for a minuscule amount of people - and can do with anything like Gimp which is sufficiently advanced for that sort of work, ie web work, backgrounds, avatars, etcetera...

My Two Cents

Terence Boylen
Production Manager
The Record Newspaper.

(Perth Western Australia)

Re:finally! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16683721)

How thoughtful of you to speak on behalf of an entire industry. By your out-of-hand rejection of applications based only on the reputation of the ones you currently use, I would assume your work is the model of innovation.

Re:finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16683961)

I work in the newspaper industry at the moment, but I've also worked in marketing / advertising / promotions industries as well. If there's one constant amongst every single graphics-based industry, it's that innovation is not something that people want.

Reliability, the ability to print what you see, when you need it, how you want it and with the most minimum of fuss is the true desire of almost 99.9% of the entire "graphics" industry. For the most part, this means using established tools that *everybody* else uses. This means not changing toolsets unless you absolutely must. This means that when someone does something funky, or tries to send a printer a file in some format that's not either a well-created PDF, inDesign, Photoshop or Illustrator file, that file's not going to get printed, or at best, it'll probably get printed wrong. And, when you're doing print runs (on a real press or imagesetter, not off of some office laser printer), and you do it worng, you've just wasted a whole mess of money and time.

This above attitude is why Quark was for so long dominant, and not Quark 5, 6 or whatever the latest version is. Quark 4. Up until everyone switched, virtually en-masse, to inDesign, the most stable, the most used version of Quark was a 5+ year old version. No body wanted to upgrade or change mainly because they knew if they produced something out of it, a printer would most likely be able to print it right the first time.

You want to start seeing a printer turn beet red and beat the living $#!^ out of someone? Have that someone send the printer a poorly formed PDF or, even better a GIMP or Krita or Scribus or whatever non-standard file and ask him to print it.

Re:finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16684135)

You make it sound like the currently vogue software set will forevermore be so. I understand there are working stiffs out there who are set in their ways and have better things to do than toy around with in-development software, but that's no reason to rag on or dismiss the program that the industry might one day abruptly adopt. Like you said, it happened before with Quark.

Re:finally! (1)

redcane (604255) | more than 8 years ago | (#16684163)

I'm not sure what you mean by "poorly formed", but I'm certain the open source PDF exporters do the most compatible PDFs around. They don't tend to implement the newer features that can cause problems (a la Quark 6 compared to Quark 4), until they have stabilised the ones they are using. Also Scribus saves standard pdf files. I did my wedding invitiations in scribus. They printed fine. As I understand it, if your business is in supplying a print service, you should be trying to supply it to as many people as possible, regardless of the file format they use. If you don't, your sending your customers elsewhere.

Re:finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16684231)

What you call "standard" format, some others would call closed or proprietary. Is it the fault of the contributor that publishing house requires a file format that only an expensive software can read? That seems elitist to me.

Re:finally! (1)

tezbobobo (879983) | more than 8 years ago | (#16684365)

That reminds me also that whilst new versions of the software come out regularly, the machines we press on are 10 years old. We are using a system we know works with an obsolete press. Why reinvent the wheel?

Re:finally! (1)

Tsuzuki (442471) | more than 8 years ago | (#16684193)

I don't think this is a question of "failure". I could see an illustrator using this to create an editorial cartoon and passing it to you in whatever Photoshop-readable format you asked for, to be included as part of a layout on your end. Having a CMYK mode at all means less whining about the colours looking wrong when printed.

You have noticed that it's part of an office suite, right? It's not even pretending to be a Photoshop killer! IMO apps like these are never intended to unseat or usurp the app of choice for people who use entire suites like CS2 day in and day out, but I fully support anything that can help to cut down on the number of scary folks who think they really know how to use their pirated copy of Photoshop, do amazing graphic design in Word, etc etc etc... (yes I know, wishful thinking)

One of the more useful KDE apps (3, Informative)

chill (34294) | more than 8 years ago | (#16681761)

While the comparisons to Photoshop and The Gimp are inevitable, Krita is one of the more advanced components of KOffice. For me, it long ago replaced The Gimp as my image editor of choice. If you are looking for a good image editor for Linux/BSD, you owe it to yourself to investigate Krita.

Why is being KDE important? (2, Insightful)

acidrain (35064) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682499)

Does it acheive a goal that couldn't have been achived within the GIMP codebase with less effort? E.g. different UI modes?

Surely a name starting with a K instead of a G wan't enough?

I don't see how this kind of replication of effort best serves the adoption of Linux on the desktop in the long run.

Re:Why is being KDE important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682677)

isn't providing choice supposed to be central to open source and the "alternative software" world? If everyone bands together and creates a single product that kills off microsoft (insert any 800lb gorilla here), then all you've done is replaced them as the dominant software provider and you are no better.

On the other hand, I find the constant backbiting and infighting that is rampant in FOSS to be quite amusing.

Re:Why is being KDE important? (4, Interesting)

pherthyl (445706) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682763)

Does it achieve a goal that couldn't have been achieved within the GIMP codebase with less effort?

Perhaps, perhaps not. In any case, Krita is surpassing the Gimp in some areas that people have been complaining about for years in Gimp, and nothing was done. As a developer, what would you rather do, argue on the Gimp mailing list until your face turns blue about wanting to change the interface, or just start your own project? Sometimes you have to make a clean break to get new ideas implemented.

Re:Why is being KDE important? (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682793)

Other operating systems run a variety of competing graphics software, and it doesn't seem to have affected their uptake.

Krita is a part of KOffice, an impossibility for the Gimp. It's about deep code reuse (koffice libs and kdelibs), not about a different UI.

Re:Why is being KDE important? (1)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682965)

Sometimes it's actually easier to make a clean break than to modify an existing codebase. Sometimes an existing design is tied to assumptions and that you don't want to make, design decisions that you want to make differently. And for people that are familiar with coding KDE programs writing a pure KDE app will be easier, and they'll produce better code that integrates better with KDE.

I'm not familiar with this case specifically, but these could be among the reasons that they chose to write their own.

I'm sure most of the developers have used the GIMP and are familiar with its strengths and weaknesses, and many of them have probably looked at GIMP code and perhaps borrowed ideas from it.

Re:Why is being KDE important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682997)

"Surely a name starting with a K instead of a G wan't enough?"

Well I don't know about you but I think the name 'Kimp' sucks, so obviously they had to go and write their own image manipulation tool for kde from scratch.

In all seriousness: people do things because they can, developers especially. Also you learn a lot in the process.

Re:Why is being KDE important? (1)

yo_tuco (795102) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683871)

"I think the name 'Kimp' sucks"

Yes, it would given that there is no "K" in the GNU Image Manipulation Program

Re:Why is being KDE important? (1)

redcane (604255) | more than 8 years ago | (#16684195)

Yeah, but this is the Koffice Image Manipulation Program

Re:Why is being KDE important? (4, Insightful)

carlmenezes (204187) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683075)

Well, I agree with you and I don't.

Look at the distros for example. Lots of em out there and then Ubuntu comes along - when it did, we were like, "who needs ANOTHER one" - and does something right. People notice that and move to it. Other distros try to adopt some of the plus points. That's not wasted effort. I guess evolution of a species is the closest I analogy I can get to. The best survive.

So if Krita comes along and even though it duplicates 90% of the functionality, if Krita gets it right, then all that 90% of the effort is worth it.

It's diminishing returns, yes, but in the end, its the extra mile that distinguishes the leaders from the also rans. It may not be any extra functionality at all - just the way its been put together that makes it a winning combination. Then the power of open source takes over and everyone benefits.

I think thats great and thats kinda what evolution is - varying the combination of a lot of existing stuff ever so slightly to see which one produces the best. So its a double edged sword - a freakin amazing one at that :)

Planned economy? (1)

alandd (243817) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683109)

At an intersection not far from my house there are two strip malls on two of the corners. Each mall has a sandwich shop.

"Does it acheive a goal that couldn't have been achived within the [one sandwich shop] with less effort? E.g. different [special sauces in the same shop]?

"Surely a [different] name for [each store] wan't enough?

"I don't see how this kind of replication of effort best serves the [sales of sandwiches to the populace] in the long run." ;^)

Re:Why is being KDE important? (4, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683539)

Yes, it did. For the longest time The Gimp was bound by "that'll be in 2.0, using Gegl". Gegl languihed for YEARS, before recently resurfacing but still not done - not even close. This is one reason the project was forked into Film Gimp, now CinePaint [cinepaint.org] .

Personally, The Gimp's interface gave me fits and I found it very hard to work in. Since I on't use it every day, it isn't something I was willing to put a huge effort into learning. Krita is much more "natural" to me and had a much shallower learning curve.

KDE integration is more than just a theme and a K-name. That would have been almost impossible with The Gimp.

Finally, there is the name "Gimp". It means "lame" or "handicapped", which was a totally stupid thing to call a program. Yes, I know it is an acronym, but ut was a stupid idea none-the-less.

Re:Why is being KDE important? (2, Funny)

metamatic (202216) | more than 8 years ago | (#16684611)

Finally, there is the name "Gimp". It means "lame" or "handicapped", which was a totally stupid thing to call a program.

Oh, I don't know, that's pretty much how the UI makes it feel.

Re:Why is being KDE important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16684225)

Why would one want more than one OS? Wasn't Windows enough?

Get a clue. Its called CHOICE!

Re:Why is being KDE important? (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 8 years ago | (#16684697)

I don't see how this kind of replication of effort best serves the adoption of Linux on the desktop in the long run.

The goal IS NOT to get Linux adopted on the deskoop. The goal is to create an image processing component for an office suite. This is Free Software, where developers are Free to do whatever the fsck they want. If it means Aunt Tillie ain't going to be using Linux this decade, so what?

You don't like it, start funding development on the stuff you want developed. Whines don't spend in this community, but sometimes cash does.

p.s. I'm not even using Krita on Linux to begin with, so what do I care?

The one thing Krita cannot do (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 8 years ago | (#16684799)

The one thing Krita cannot - run on Windows, wheras Gimp does.

That one feature is enough for me, as we have several computers in my family, and not all of them run Linux. Yes, it is installed on the Linux box.

Re:One of the more useful KDE apps (1)

reub2000 (705806) | more than 8 years ago | (#16684119)

My first impression of it was that it was sluggish. It feels unresponsive. Doing a sharpen has only one setting. Gaussian Blur has only one setting. The curves tool seems to suffer from a bit of lag whenever I make a change. I didn't see a levels tool.

Huh? (2, Interesting)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 8 years ago | (#16681807)

Okay, so I've never heard of it. Not unusual - there are lots of killer apps out there I've never heard of. But, um, how does it stack up to the other "'fully-loaded raster graphics workhorse'" programs out there. More importantly, what are those others. ATTFA, MS Office Picture Manager isn't one. Okay. So it must be more like...um...anything in the article...no.

Okay, so where does it fit in the Photoshop, PaintShopPro, GIMP arena? Is it simpler, easier? More powerful (it is a fully loaded workhorse, after all)?

Maybe this is just a "hey - all you guys with the old Krita - there's a new .x version now". Which is fine, but really front page news?

So, is this really sliced bread, or just a little bump in the feature set of KOffice?

Fully loaded pink pony? (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 8 years ago | (#16681889)

Powerful, yet still easy to use?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16681911)

Okay, so where does it fit in the Photoshop, PaintShopPro, GIMP arena?

Adobe Illustrator is the king of that category. Photoshop is (primarily) pixel-based, not vector-based. GIMP is a typical Unix casserole of everything.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16681989)

Ummm, in case you weren't aware "pixel-based" means raster, which is what Krita is. Not sure why you're throwing vector-based programs like Illustrator into the mix...

Re:Huh? (1)

Tsuzuki (442471) | more than 8 years ago | (#16681997)

Adobe Illustrator is the king of that category.

From the summary: Krita is a 'fully-loaded raster graphics workhorse'. Pixel-based = raster. Illustrator isn't even part of this category.

Re:Huh? (1)

Tsuzuki (442471) | more than 8 years ago | (#16681941)

Photoshop, Paintshop Pro and GIMP all tend towards the photo editing end of the spectrum. The natural media tools are what look really interesting... the main programs in that category would be OpenCanvas and Painter. I don't know about you, but that CPaint link got me all hot and bothered.

Hidden Gem (3, Informative)

NereusRen (811533) | more than 8 years ago | (#16681837)

When I first heard of Krita, I was surprised to learn that I already had it as part of the KOffice package! It quickly replaced The GIMP for my "basic advanced" image editing needs, since it offers a similar type of functionality but:
  • Fits my theme, since I run KDE, and
  • Manages to restrict itself to a sensible one window, with sub panels and panes that can be moved around within the window, or floated without losing focus on the other windows.
Can you tell what I didn't like about using The GIMP? :-) (Aside from system-specific bugs that I wouldn't blame on their developers, but still gave me trouble).

You don't hear about Krita nearly as often as The GIMP (or, of course, Photoshop), but it seems to be a great alternative. I can't speak for graphics professionals (not being one myself), but it gets the job done for what I need to do. I look forward to this new version, and I hope development continues on this hidden gem of an image editor.

Re:Hidden Gem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682009)

I used to detest the gimp's interface, but then I got a graphics tablet. It's still not _perfect_, but Gimp's UI is basically totally designed for the needs of graphics tablet users. Almost all the wierd-ass stuff that gimp does makes sense once you get a tablet (and the rest when you realise that it's always been explicitly for image manipulation, photo retouching and whatnot, not original composition). [One thing strikes me though - "losing focus" hardly matters in a unix-style lazy-focus-follows-pointer world - you sure you're not running your desktop in utterly pants windows-style "click to focus-and-raise-argh"?]

Re:Hidden Gem (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683025)

[One thing strikes me though - "losing focus" hardly matters in a unix-style lazy-focus-follows-pointer world - you sure you're not running your desktop in utterly pants windows-style "click to focus-and-raise-argh"?]


That's fine when you're running a single application, or if you're running a multihead box with Gimp all by its lonesome on one screen, but as soon as you have multiple documents or multiple applications open on the screen where Gimp is, it becomes a PITA.

Where the hell is the tool palette? Where the hell is the layer palette? alt-tab or check the dock or the click window menu and search for it. When one brings a document window forward, all applicable contextual/sibling windows (palettes) should come to the foreground as well - or it should at least be an option one can enable.

Re:Hidden Gem (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683385)

but as soon as you have multiple documents or multiple applications open on the screen where Gimp is, it becomes a PITA.

It is a differnt way of doing stuff which can confuse people used to single desktops.

The gimp grew up on post twm X windows with multiple desktops - which I think is is why it went from orgininally one control window and one window per image to the luxury of being able to have one window per task group that many requested. If you don't have a spare desktop it is trivial in every window manager to add an extra virtual desktop quickly then dump everything you want onto it - many even have window grouping where you can move/iconify/whatever an arbitrary user defined bunch of windows at once.

To sum up - I think the idea is to run it all by its lonesome on one screen - and if your window manager has a limit of 64 virtual desktops like many then it isn't much of a constaint. If you are working on too many images to fit easily on one desktop the you make the control windows sticky so they appear on all desktops. There are virtual desktop tools on MS platforms as well - I found them useful for a lot of things.

To get back to the point - sometimes the current gimp behaviour is annoying for simple tasks and it is useful to have just one window for everything like the application in the article. For other tasks the simple behaviour would be annoying - you want a layer window etc but you don't want it on the foreground all the time.

Re:Hidden Gem (1)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683463)

If you're the kind of user that maximizes all the windows, I can see how GIMP would be irritating. However, I usually have a few dozen windows scattered across 4 virtual desktops. In my "web designer" desktop, I usually have GIMP and Firefox open. Bluefish, CSSed, and Firefox are open in a second desktop. The GIMP ui is extremely helpful, as I can drag the main window off to the right of the screen, have the layers window to the right, have Firefox in the center back, and a canvas in the center. I can work on a graphic and see the page in the background. Everything is clearly in view. In apps that try to make their own poor imitation of a desktop (ie, Windows Photoshop (the Mac version rocks in terms of a UI and GIMP is similar to it)) I would either have to either run a second head, alt-tab constantly, or control-alt-arrow (switch virtual desktops) constantly.

Please, before complaining about GIMP's UI give Photoshop on OS X a try. Or even the OS X version of Microsoft Office (toolbars float on the desktop, which is very nice).

Re:Hidden Gem (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683673)

Please, before complaining about GIMP's UI give Photoshop on OS X a try. Or even the OS X version of Microsoft Office (toolbars float on the desktop, which is very nice).


I have, and it does not sport the behavior I am pointing out. Bring a document forward - yep, toolbars/docks/palettes come forward as well.

And as far as virtual desktops go: I hate them, and much prefer multihead systems.

Linux needs to get its act together (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16681845)

Linux needs to get its act together

Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with less than 1% marketshare.

Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".

Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in /tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"

So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.

Re:Linux needs to get its act together (-1, Offtopic)

slightcrazed (973882) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682085)

OK - I call flamebait - motherfucker cut and pasted this rant from like 6 other linux articles.

Same shit - different day - same asswipe.

Move on please - nothing to see here people.....

Re:Linux needs to get its act together (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682209)

Yes, but its still just as true!

Re:Linux needs to get its act together (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16683021)

no it isn't it completely ignore systems like click&run designed for morons who can write "apt-get" in a console.

Re:Linux needs to get its act together (0, Flamebait)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683877)

umm at this point you can just use the normal package manager (deb,rpm,e-build ect) and have everything pulled in automatically

1 2.2 series kernel ARE YOU NUCKING FUTS anybody running a 2.2 kernel and not using an embedded kernel is NUTS
2 GL drivers (should have been taken care of by the core install)
3 Why are you using x11 and not x.org?
4 the line switch should have been done by the driver install
5 use the native package
6 sound problems are 95% error code ID:10T (whos error code is a coin toss)

I propose a MOD KOS for this and any future postings of this SCOde pasting

Installing it now. (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 8 years ago | (#16681849)

GIMP gets a bit irritating after a while. Yes, they've made great improvements on the UI with 2.3 but it's nice to try something fresh sometimes...

what about RAW photo formats? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16681901)

What options are there to edit RAW photo files under Linux? Does Krita handle those format(s)? It doesn't seem to....what does?

what about RAW wounds? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682003)

"What options are there to edit RAW photo files under Linux? "

A hex editor.

Re:what about RAW photo formats? (1)

AaronW (33736) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682023)

While I haven't played around much with Krita, I did see that it loads Nikon RAW NEF files correctly. I don't know about other cameras, but I would guess it uses the code from dcraw which handles many different raw formats.

Re:what about RAW photo formats? (4, Informative)

bobintetley (643462) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682027)

What options are there to edit RAW photo files under Linux?

As with all *nix stuff, the RAW handling is done by a separate component. Investigate UFRaw [sourceforge.net] and DCRaw [cybercom.net] . UFRaw even has a plugin for the GIMP that works well. As an amateur photographer I use and highly recommend UFRaw.

Re:what about RAW photo formats? (1)

TheViewFromTheGround (607422) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682071)

I admin a couple Gallery2 [slashdot.org] instances, and we've had good luck with its dcraw-based RAW support, from a variety of cameras (mainly Nikons, IIRC; I'm not one of the photographers, I just admin the app).

Re:what about RAW photo formats? (1)

billysara (264) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682067)

There's rawstudio [rawstudio.org] or cinepaint [cinepaint.org] . Ufraw [sourceforge.net] I guess too which can act as a stand-alone editor and also has a gimp plugin. If you don't mind closed-source then there is Bibble [bibblelabs.com] too.

Rawstudio is looking quite promising for such an early bit of software.

Re:what about RAW photo formats? (1)

josath (460165) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682807)

What if I want to open/save really RAW image files? For example, no header, 32bits per pixel, and I will have to manually input the width & height? These are unrelated to digicam outputs, and can be used in things like GBA homebrew games.

You probably want Image Magick (1)

Ayanami Rei (621112) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682973)

ImageMagick will let you quick convert raw files to PNG or whatnot by specifying the width/height/pixel format/depth as options. You can have it process a whole folder if you want.

GIMP likes tagged formats. I recall there being a RAW import method in the 1.xx series but it looks like they got rid of it.

Re:what about RAW photo formats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682139)

Actually , Krita can open and edit RAW files

Read the following thread on the Dot if you want more information.
http://dot.kde.org/1161037713/1161068107/ [kde.org]

Re:what about RAW photo formats? (2, Informative)

swillden (191260) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682825)

What options are there to edit RAW photo files under Linux? Does Krita handle those format(s)?

There are several, and yes, Krita does, too.

  1. dcraw is the basis for most all F/LOSS RAW conversion tools. It's just a converter, translating from various RAW formats to 24bpp or 48bpp PPM files. It is, however, an excellent converter, so good, in fact, that it's superior to most of the commercial offerings, and some commercial tools have taken advantage of its BSD-style license to replace their proprietary engines with dcraw. It's a command-line tool, though, and since good RAW conversion requires playing a bit with parameters, it's not all that easy to use.
  2. ufraw is a GUI tool built on top of dcraw that allows you to interactively fiddle with the conversion parameters to get a good conversion. It provides a pretty nice interface, including a good curves tool which is really important when you're converting to a 24bpp format like JPEG. Since the RAW image may have more than 24bpp of dynamic range, the range has to be compressed, and by tuning the range compression with the curves tool you can often retain image details that a more naive compression (like the one done by a typical digital camera) would have lost.
  3. gimp-ufraw is a GIMP plugin that uses ufraw to import RAW files for editing in the GIMP. With it installed you can open RAW files in the GIMP just like any other format, with the differentce that when you open the file the ufraw interface pops up to let you control the conversion process. Since the GIMP currently only supports 24bpp color depth, the gimp-ufraw must compress the dynamic range.
  4. krita uses ufraw to do the conversion. Krita isn't limited to 24bpp, but it also isn't nearly as mature or as fast as the GIMP, making it, to me, somewhat unpleasant to use.
  5. rawstudio is an up and coming competitor to ufraw. It's still immature but is shaping up to be a very nice tool. It's focused on making it easier to do large numbers of RAW conversions relatively quickly.
  6. bibble and bibblepro (my favorite) are commercial, closed-source tools that provide very high quality conversions, lots of tunable parameters and (esp. bibblepro) workflow-oriented features that enable the user to process lots of images quickly. For example, I took a bunch of family portraits a couple weeks ago and had nearly 200 images to sort through, identify the best and convert. Since the lighting and colors in the images were consistent through most of the images I was able to carefully tune the conversion parameters for one image and then "paste" the same parameter set to all of the others. Bibblepro costs $150 but if you do very much of this stuff, and aren't dead set on Free Software, it's an excellent choice. The non-pro version is cheaper, but I don't remember what it costs (you can guess which one I bought!).

I probably missed one or two tools. In addition, there are lots of variants of dcraw floating around with different option sets. I sometimes use one by Robert Krawitz that has option sets focused on making it possible to get from RAW to paper (using one of the very high quality Gutenprint inkjet drivers) with no loss in image quality or dynamic range. The results are far better than you can get out of any commercial print lab that I know of (most of them don't even accept anything other than 24bpp JPEGs, meaning you *must* compress the dynamic range before they print it, even though many printers can handle greater color depths).

To summarize: Yes, you can convert RAW images on Linux, even with purely Free software, and you can get excellent results, as good as you can on Windows or OS X. It may take a little more effort, though. Looking forward to when the GIMP moves to the GEGL engine, or when Krita gets faster and more full-featured, RAW conversion will be as good or better on Linux than any other platform.

Re:what about RAW photo formats? (1)

m_chan (95943) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683221)

bibble and bibblepro (my favorite)

Seconded. I use Bibble Pro on OSX and Linux (Fedora Core formerly 4 and 5, now on 6, and it runs on Windows, but i don't use it there). This is a product isn't worth the money that BibbleLabs [bibblelabs.com] asks for it; it's worth three times as much at least. Correction to the parent post: It's $130; if they raised the price to $500, I would pay it without blinking; it's that good at what it does. The licensing allows you to install the software on more than one OS so long as only the original purchaser uses the software and only on one machine at a time, which works fine by me. There isn't anything comparable on Linux. On OS X, there are many competitors; I've tried most of them, including Photoshop CS2 with Camera Raw, Aperture, iPhoto (yuck), each beta of Lightroom, and many others. Bibble is equal to or better than every alternative.

It's fast. It's multi-processor aware. It's extremely customizable. It's rock-steady stable (never crashed on me, ever).It's RAW processing engine is of very high quality, and it's highly tunable, though there are plenty of one-click default optimizers that are surprisingly accurate (decent auto-leveling, integrated NoiseNinja, Perfectly Clear). The batch queuing as referenced in the parent is extremely flexible to help you find the workflow that works best for you. Like to work within one window? Bibble does that. Do you want separate windows? Bibble does that; it's a highly customizable interface. The fact that you can run it on every major OS is gravy (it's a universal binary on OSX, unlike Photoshop).

One caveat: it does not work with DNG, due to some very well argued philosophical reasons.

I've processed thousands of images with it (Pentax PEF is mostly what I work with, and some NEFs). Along with VMWare Workstation, it's the finest commercial software I have used on Linux, though I use it principally on a PowerBook with OSX. I'm glad to hear there is progress being made on the open-source front for working with RAW on Linux, but for right now and likely a long time to come, Bibble me, baby.

Impressive (3, Interesting)

TheViewFromTheGround (607422) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682029)

I've been poking around with Krita 1.6, and I'm impressed. The Krita developers seem to have a much better understanding of how a simple-yet-effective FLOSS raster graphics app should work and look like. The GIMP has always seemed too complex for the casual user, but too shaggy and feature-poor for the serious graphics person.

The Krita developers are doing a laudable effort to grow their application carefully and intentionally, just like the Scribus has done, adding high priority features and implementing them well (Krita's new layer-groups implementation worked very well for me without getting in the way).

If it continues this way, Krita is likely to grab significant mindshare from the GIMP.

Krita for Windows? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683155)

If it continues this way, Krita is likely to grab significant mindshare from the GIMP.

It depends. Now that Qt for Windows is free software, when does Krita come out on Microsoft Windows?

Re:Krita for Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16683653)

"Now that Qt for Windows is free software, when does Krita come out on Microsoft Windows?"

KDE4 should be available also for Windows when released, so I'd guess KOffice along with Krita will be too.

Re:Impressive (1)

Repugnant_Shit (263651) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683735)

The Krita developers seem to have a much better understanding of how a simple-yet-effective FLOSS raster graphics app should work and look like.

So it looks like Photoshop then? Why, yes it does!

Tried it (3, Informative)

nagora (177841) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682069)

Summary:

Very slow and clunky. Ugly as sin. Memory use a-go-go. Irritating KDE-style one-click interface for the file selector. Indispensable for its ability to handle CMYK and 16+bit.

I don't need it often and I'm always glad to close it afterwards, but until the Gimp handles 16bit at least for its working space, there's no way to live without it and do photo-manip under Linux.

Re:Tried it (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682657)

1. I think you mean "nice KDE file selector": I know I detest the GNOME one... So, in short, that's subjective preference.

2. Ugly as sin? That's probably a function of your KDE theme. Redhat/fedora STILL deliberately mangles KDE to look and work like ass. Never use a kde package built by redhat or fedora...

3. Slow and clunky? Well, I dunno. Certain things do seem plain slower to process than the gimp, but only things that kind of interrupt workflow anyway (filter application). Less mature code -> less performance tuning, probably. But the fact the interface doesn't actually suck makes up for it :-) Two things currently make a large speed difference on my machine: disabling brush-shaped cursor and using crosshairs (probably the programmer made the brush-shape->cursor routine run every event loop iteration, which probably kills performance on tablets with their relatively high sample rate and pressure sensitivity changing the brush shape every iteration), and enabling opengl. But the latter made the selection indicators buggy on my machine, sigh.

I do hate one _major_ thing about it, something the GIMP does vaguely right: in the gimp, every xinput device's brush selection etc. is independent. So my "eraser" on my stylus can be a blobby eraser brush, and the stylus nib a thin line. Krita munges them all together. This is probably beginner-friendly or something, but it's the one reason I still fire up the gimp to sketch in, despite the fact the gimp is "for" photo retouching, and krita has more of a from-scratch-art orientation ?! Sigh #2.

Re:Tried it (1)

reub2000 (705806) | more than 8 years ago | (#16684215)

1. I think you mean "nice KDE file selector": I know I detest the GNOME one... So, in short, that's subjective preference.

I love it, the gimp one provides an image preview. Krita does not.

Plus Krita is as slow as molasses.

Re:Tried it (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 8 years ago | (#16684657)

Yup, Redhat/Fedora screws KDE/Qt. I do a lot of work with Linux using companies, and I can always tell who is using RH/FC and who is not. Everyone's tastes are different, but if they start bitching about KDE's performance, flicker, memory, etc., then they're invariably using Redhat or Fedora.

Re:Tried it (1)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683287)

Irritating KDE one-click style file selector? You can change that in KControl, and if you hate it that badly, maybe you should figure out how to.

GTK port of Krita (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682125)

Yes, I know the Gimp interface has good reasons why it needs to be awkward.

But I would like to see Krita with a GTK front end. KDE and GNOME baggage are too much. Make the switch to XFCE, and you will be relieved. GTK with no extra bulk is what modern applications (Firefox, Gaim, ...) use.

Re:GTK port of Krita (2, Informative)

BrigadierFrog (999009) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682463)

I don't think you quite grasp the power of using KDE with its enormous set of shared libraries. So I'll give you a link to help you along http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/memory/ [kde.org] Read that, then try it out for yourself if your not convinced. Then, come back, and don't make a fool of yourself next time ranting on how KDE has lots of "baggage".

Wasn't convinced... (1)

Chaffar (670874) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682195)

After one month of Kubuntu, I just couldn't take it anymore. Krita was just too... unnatural. I'm not a graphic artist (far from it), but when I picked up the GIMP I was able to find out how to do things by using common sense.
Krita felt really clunky and slow, and the buttons were never where you thought they should be. GIMP is the superior open source tool IMHO.

You're obviously talking about old 1.5 - Try 1.6! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682443)

One month? This is about Krita 1.6 which got just released a week ago. And Krita 1.6 is a HUGE improvement over the 1.5 you're talking about. It's a lot faster and has come a long way since. I'd really urge you to upgrade and give it another try. Like Amarok Krita had for sure its weak spots in its early releases but it's rapidly maturing and I predict that within 9 months - even through minor point releases it will become THE graphics application for Linux.

How the heck do I load a jpg? (1, Interesting)

thule (9041) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682227)

I must be a complete idiot when it comes to KDE apps. I normally use Gnome, but I thought I'd try Krita out. I did a 'yum install koffice-krita' and it installed normally. I tried to load up a photograph in Krita, but I could not figure out how to do it. I tried 'krita somepic.jpg' and that didn't work. I tried a File->Open and that didn't work. Can someone that is a KDE expert tell me how to use a KDE app?

Re:How the heck do I load a jpg? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682295)

Bug your distro about it? Not opening a jpg file through file -> open sounds like a seriuos bug that I doubt very much that it comes with krita - maybe yum didn't install the neccesary libraries for krita to support the JPG format?

Re:How the heck do I load a jpg? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682367)

Your krita package is broken, or you are a complete idiot.

Re:How the heck do I load a jpg? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682371)

Well at work, I am force to use fedora, and I also wanted to use krita, and I also couldn't find how to save or load png/tiff/jpeg (and I am a krita developers !), the simple answers is that they have hidden the filters in koffice-filters (an optional dependency, how can you consider jpeg/png/tiff to be optional ?), but sadly koffice-filters depends on other koffice application, so if you wanted krita only, you are screwed :)

And as a longtime KDE user and contributor, I strongly suggest you to avoid Fedora if you want a good experience with KDE.
-- Cyrille Berger

Re:How the heck do I load a jpg? (1)

charlesnw (843045) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682569)

Interesting.... you use Linux at work and are forced to use a certain distro. Somehow I don't buy that. Linux is about choice and freedom. I find it highly unusual it would be deployed in a corporate environment unless the users were mostly self sufficient.

Re:How the heck do I load a jpg? (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682877)

"Interesting.... you use Linux at work and are forced to use a certain distro. Somehow I don't buy that. Linux is about choice and freedom."

What? If they say use this Linux, then that's what you use. There are distributions specifically designed and marketed for corporate desktops (like Xandros). It doesn't matter what Linux is "about" in your beady little brain.

Re:How the heck do I load a jpg? (1)

leenks (906881) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682897)

Maybe you should buy it, or take a look at a few more corporate customers. I use Linux at work - a large UK organisation. On my desktop I'm forced to use Windows 2000 there, so I Exceed into Linux servers. We are essentially forced to use Redhat Enterprise Linux, although we do have 1 Fedora box (because what we wanted to run simply would not work on the version of RHEL we are told to use).

Corporate bean-counters think that it is safer to buy licences for something and get some kind of support contract, then completely lock it down to make it next to useless - even if it forces us to be somewhat behind where we want to be.

Re:How the heck do I load a jpg? (1)

MP3Chuck (652277) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683883)

Erm ... it's not so hard to believe. As much as Linux may be about choice, if I were deploying Linux across an organization I'd standardize on a single distro. It only makes sense, from a support perspective.

Re:How the heck do I load a jpg? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16684667)

Interesting.... you use Linux at work and are forced to use a certain distro. Somehow I don't buy that. Linux is about choice and freedom. I find it highly unusual it would be deployed in a corporate environment unless the users were mostly self sufficient.

That's so naive I almost laughed. Have you ever worked in a corporate environment? Setting up computers is for the IT department. Everyone else is there to do something else. And the IT department's job is a hell of a lot easier (and cheaper) when all of the workstations are running the same thing. Everyone taking care of their own machine is fine for 3 or 4 people, or for special circumstances, but it just wouldn't work for huge deployments.

At work, the IT department has the freedom and choice. Everyone else just uses what IT tells them to.

Re:How the heck do I load a jpg? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682735)

Yessiree, Bob, this Linux stuff has Adobe and Microsoft shaking in their boots, I tell you.

With this kind of user-centric design ethic, desktop market share might break into the single-digit percentages any day now.

It works now... but still lame (1)

thule (9041) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682913)

I installed the filters and it does indeed now load up jpeg's. It's kinda lame for it to ask me what filter to apply when loading the jpg. Shouldn't it just know the file type?

Re:How the heck do I load a jpg? (1)

Ben174 (853174) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682513)

Probably compiled without JPG support or something.

Re:How the heck do I load a jpg? (1)

zecg (521666) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682517)

Gentoo has jpg as a USE flag for Krita (I always check them out and always do USE="-arts" for KDE apps). I don't know about Fedora, though... Maybe it's time for a distro change?

Re:How the heck do I load a jpg? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16683841)

Heh, yes, Fedora, where you download 4 CDs of software and then after installing, you can't play an mp3 file. Sure beats the "I got me an image editor and it can't load the most common image format out of the box" experience :)

Re:How the heck do I load a jpg? (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 8 years ago | (#16684493)

There must be a library missing or something in your OS. Krita opens any common format just
fine here.

OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682297)

Has anyone compiled a stand-alone package for OS X (X11)? I don't want to have to install fink again and spend all night compiling just to try this out.

Looks like Painter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16682837)

At first glance, it looks more like Corel Painter than it does The Gimp/Photoshop. I haven't bothered to try it, that's just based on TFA and the screenie.

I wanted to like it, I really did... (1)

Mix+Master+Nixon (1018716) | more than 8 years ago | (#16682839)

Unfortunately, for me it's just excruciatingly slow and sluggish compared to The GIMP, which is installed and running fine and reasonably quickly on the same Kubuntu Edgy system. Too bad, as I liked pretty much everything about it except for the crippling slowness.

Re:I wanted to like it, I really did... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16683993)

Edgy only has 1.5, I understand that 1.6 has been improved somewhat.

Krita is complete shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16683079)

Typical KDE app - too many buttons everywhere not enough sense and just like every kde app in every version, it crashes if you sneeze.

I dare anyone to actually use this piece of crap in production and have it actually not crash if you blink.

Why can't KDE devs actually make sensible interfaces?

How about Karbon? (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 8 years ago | (#16683425)

Krita is fine but I wish they would do some more work on the object based graphics program, Karbon, it has some great features that the others programs don't (making a large drawing and priting it in tiles) but it is sorely lacking some very basic stuff also (import of bitmap obnjects like in Inkscape and OOo Draw). Oh and providing ANY instructions for it would be a big bonus too.

I just don't do just plain bitmap graphics all that much.

Re:How about Karbon? (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 8 years ago | (#16684519)

Xara Xtreme (formerly LX) is getting tons of features with each release. You could have a look at that for
your vector drawing needs:
http://www.xaraxtreme.org/ [xaraxtreme.org]

When I seen this... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16684031)

Man, is this linux shit for fags or what? Fags who like to suck dicks and get aids.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?