Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GIMP Core Mostly Ported to GEGL

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the high-bit-depth-goats dept.

The Gimp 312

A longstanding task for the GIMP has been porting the core graphics code from the ancient implementation (dating back to version 1.2) to GEGL. Progress has been hampered by the amount of code relying on details of the implementation of image data: tiles are directly accessed instead of linear buffers, and changing that detail would break the entire core and all plugins. A few weeks ago, two GIMP hackers got together to do some general hacking, and inadvertedly ported the core graphics code to GEGL. They work around the mismatch between GEGL buffers and GIMP tiles by implementing a storage backend for GEGL using the legacy GIMP tiles; to their surprise things Just Worked (tm), and their code branch will become the 2.9 development series once 2.8 is released. With this, 2.10 will finally feature higher bit depth images, additional color spaces (CMYK for one), and hardware accelerated image operations. There's still work to be done: to take advantage of the new features, plugins need to be ported to access GEGL buffers instead of GIMP tiles, but the conversion work is straightforward and current plugins will continue working as well as they do now in the meantime.

cancel ×

312 comments

Inadvertently... (5, Funny)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39714943)

A few weeks ago, two GIMP hackers got together to do some general hacking, and inadvertedly ported the core graphics code to GEGL.

Is it just me, or does that not pretty much sum up GIMP development since day one?

Now if these guys would just inadvertently fix the user interface, or perhaps trip and fall into a total redesign, or accidentally re-organize and re-name all the tools using bumbled into industry standard names, and serendipitously selected value scales, they might unintentionally come up with something that, purely as a side effect, resembled, ever so slightly, the principal of Least Astonishment [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Inadvertently... (3, Insightful)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 2 years ago | (#39714977)

You have a pretty low UID; when's the last time you read up on GIMP development? 2002? I think most of the items you mentioned are being addressed right now in various ways.

Probably not to your satisfaction, though.

Re:Inadvertently... (4, Insightful)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715015)

Being address and have been address are sometimes very distant things.

Re:Inadvertently... (2)

bolthole (122186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715305)

yeah.
What I personally find really messed up, is that GEGL is homed under "gimp.org" and has been for a long time.. yet it is only now being merged into gimp core... and only "accidentally" ? !!

GIMP: Needs Moar Planning

Re:Inadvertently... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715355)

They fooled me with that a decade ago.

Nowadays, Gimp is a living reference for how the stubborn douchiness of programmers can make a project irrelevent, when it was once promising.

Re:Inadvertently... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715609)

I thought its purpose was to serve as a warning to anyone who tried to make a project that didn't directly rip off a commercial piece of software down to the finest detail.

Next time around on the wheel of life maybe they'll implement buttons you hold down to make other buttons appear so the adobe lusers can revel in their astonishment.

Re:Inadvertently... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715733)

Let's check the history. A couple college students write a FOSS image manipulation program for their master's degree work. They graduate and -- what do you know -- Microsoft pays them to not work on GIMP anymore.

Re:Inadvertently... (2)

Alan Shutko (5101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715051)

Well, it's nice that after 12 years, GEGL is finally making its way into everything. Progress has been a little slower than I'd have liked....

Re:Inadvertently... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715771)

Gives me hope for Berlin...

Re:Inadvertently... (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715141)

So that means they'll be done in 12+ years like GEGL?

Re:Inadvertently... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715583)

Just downloaded it to check out their progress... it's the same as it was years ago. 2.6 anyway, which I'm pretty sure is the same version they were distributing back then.

So if it has only been a few years since you last abandoned it, nothing to see here.

Re:Inadvertently... (3, Informative)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715777)

2.6 is the stable version. All the development happens in 2.7. The value sliders have been greatly improved, and they've got single-window mode (still kinda buggy though).

Re:Inadvertently... (4, Insightful)

hackula (2596247) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715783)

I use GIMP all the time and love it, but the multi window interface still drives me insane. I have heard for ages they are working on single window tabbed version, but I will believe it when I see it.

Re:Inadvertently... (2)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#39714999)

Luckily gimps tend to be accident prone.

Re:Inadvertently... (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715203)

I think the preferred term is "graphically challenged".

Re:Inadvertently... (4, Insightful)

reub2000 (705806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715137)

The user interface wasn't the problem. It was fixed in 2.0. A lot of what was hampering the gimp was the lack of support for larger bit depths and support for non-destructive editing.

Re:Inadvertently... (1)

John Bokma (834313) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715331)

Unsharp Mask: Radius 5.0, Amount: 0.50. Are there actually people who use those IMO crazy defaults?

It would've been nice if there was an option in that dialog to "use these values as default".

Ditto for the "Save as". Why isn't there an option to set the default "Save to" directory in that dialog window? Maybe it's just me but I prefer not to save the results in the directory that has the originals.

Working with the Gimp is in my experience a never ending pain in the ass. But that's probably partially to blame on my inexperience with it. But each time I get the impression that the motto is: easy tasks hard and hard tasks impossible.

Re:Inadvertently... (3, Insightful)

slater.jay (1839748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715457)

But three things a man wishes to do but once in his lifetime come as naturally as the morning sun. This is the tao of GIMP.

Re:Inadvertently... (3, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39716017)

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Bookmarking a folder for Save As (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715721)

Ditto for the "Save as". Why isn't there an option to set the default "Save to" directory in that dialog window?

I already see one, at least here on Xubuntu. When you Save As... or Save a Copy..., try right-clicking a folder and choosing "Add to Bookmarks". Then you'll have easy access to this folder every time you open the save dialog box.

Re:Inadvertently... (1, Insightful)

TemporalBeing (803363) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715367)

The user interface wasn't the problem. It was fixed in 2.0. A lot of what was hampering the gimp was the lack of support for larger bit depths and support for non-destructive editing.

Just loaded GIMP 2.6 - and I'll tell ya' it's not fixed. it's still a hairy mess to figure out. Though has been reported they are working on a new interface (one more Photoshop like); but I don't know the status or what version it was to come out in.

Re:Inadvertently... (1)

Holammer (1217422) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715439)

I try to use GIMP, I really do. But it's so far removed from how normal software of its type works I end up feeling gimped. It's borderline maddening to work with.

Re:Inadvertently... (2)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715969)

When "accidents" like this can happen, that says very nice things about GEGL's architecture (and the accidental heroes, of course).

Re:Inadvertently... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715987)

could you accidently come off sounding less like a wanker

Great! (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715017)

Now can we pleeeaaase have a new release? Gimp 2.8 is what, 2 years behind schedule?

Re:Great! (1)

Tapewolf (1639955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715071)

Now can we pleeeaaase have a new release? Gimp 2.8 is what, 2 years behind schedule?

Have you tried RC1?

Re:Great! (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715463)

Have you tried RC1?

Does it force a stupid command prompt window to appear at all times, like the 2.7.x betas did? Does it still have an obscene graphic as the splash screen, like the 2.7.x betas did?

Re:Great! (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715635)

Come on.
We all know that splash screen was awesome.

Re:Great! (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715827)

I don't know that. I never saw it. Doesn't seem to be in the splash screen archive. :P

More details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715039)

It also depends on dbus and gconf2 being installed now.

And when you compile it yourself you might be able to take advantage of HAL again.

Havoc Pennington is Jesus.

hackery (4, Insightful)

bolthole (122186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715061)

My sentiments are somewhat similar to the poster above, although a bit less... aggravated.

This sounds like a "cool hack". Which, .. ya know.. is "cool" an all... but usually not a good idea for a major piece of software such as GIMP.

IFF what they're describing is some kind of transition phase, where it allows dual-mode backend sort of stuff, and a concrete plan of action to eventually port all existing (standard) plugins to the newer methods, and then DITCH the old way.... then great.

But otherwise, having heavily layered interface/mechanics conversion code, is a Really Really bad idea. The bigger the software, the worse idea it is. It would be better to just toss it all out and start from scratch, if this is going to be an indefinitely lived hack.

Re:hackery (4, Informative)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715271)

GIMP 2.10’s core will be 100% ported to GEGL, and all of the legacy pixel fiddling API for plug-ins is going to be deprecated.

I'd say read the article before assuming the authors of a major piece of software are idiots, but this is Slashdot..

Re:hackery (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715387)

You haven't followed GIMP's history long have you? They are idiots...

16-bit? (2, Insightful)

del_diablo (1747634) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715523)

While we are first at it, how is the 32/24-bit support for the images? I mean.... for so long, the 16-bit limitation has been a serious disadvantage.
Things GIMP needs to do:
1. 32-bit support for images
2. Buildt inn Normal Map plugin
3. Buildt inn direct X image support, patents be damned
4. Finally finish of the fight with the monster GEGL, how many years has it been? For a saga, a few months is ok, but not years.

Re:16-bit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715851)

While we are first at it, how is the 32/24-bit support for the images? I mean.... for so long, the 16-bit limitation has been a serious disadvantage.
Things GIMP needs to do:
1. 32-bit support for images
2. Buildt inn Normal Map plugin
3. Buildt inn direct X image support, patents be damned
4. Finally finish of the fight with the monster GEGL, how many years has it been? For a saga, a few months is ok, but not years.

I was shocked you didn't spell that "Finnished" or something.

Re:16-bit? (3, Insightful)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39716041)

1. I'm not sure what you're saying. The 32/24 bpp support has been there since day one. The same maximum depth as my video card, and probably yours as well, It's only 16 bits per channel (128/96 bits per pixel) that isn't supported, and that's mainly an issue for those who work in the dying industry of paper-publishing, and those odd individuals who want to work on "raw" photographic images despite not being able to see the results of their manipulation.

2. Why does a "plugin" need to be "buildt inn"? You're not making any sense here.

3. Why on earth should a UNIX program depend on proprietary Microsoft technologies that aren't available on UNIX? If you want to make a Windows-only fork, feel free.

4. That's what this article is about, dummy!

There are three types of software engineer (4, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715085)

Those who deliberately engineer masterpieces, those who "inadvertently" engineer masterpieces and those who write the (cough) software that causes the other two groups to act.

In this case, these accidental geniuses are responsible for work that mainstream GIMP developers had long claimed was impossible. From the looks of it, six impossible things were achieved, so said developers should round things off with a meal at Milliways.

Just a Matter of Time (1)

neoshroom (324937) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715529)

Those who deliberately engineer masterpieces, those who "inadvertently" engineer masterpieces and those who write the (cough) software that causes the other two groups to act.

In this case, these accidental geniuses are responsible for work that mainstream GIMP developers had long claimed was impossible. From the looks of it, six impossible things were achieved, so said developers should round things off with a meal at Milliways.

Clearly they will when they attempt to add Photoshop plugin compatibility to GIMP inadvertently create the world's first time machine.

Version math (0, Offtopic)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715123)

Why is it that so many FOSS projects (GIMP, PGAdmin, etc) don't understand basic math?

"...their code branch will become the 2.9 development series once 2.8 is released. With this, 2.10 will finally feature..."

2.10 IS NOT HIGHER THAN 2.9.

Re:Version math (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715139)

Welcome to "how version numbers have worked for at least twenty years". Enjoy the stay.

Re:Version math (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715687)

Meh, they shoulda jumped to Microsoft versions.

Gimp 2009
Gimp 2009 (sp1)
Gimp 2013 ..etc.

Re:Version math (1)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715807)

While I'm not a fan of MS numbering, at least it's a number that keeps going up.

Re:Version math (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715151)

sure it is

2.1.0 however is not

Re:Version math (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715167)

The 2.6.x linux kernel branch musta driven you mad, eh?

Re:Version math (4, Informative)

robmv (855035) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715187)

Versions are not decimal numbers!!!!! what number is 2.8.4?

Re:Version math (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715227)

2.10 IS NOT HIGHER THAN 2.9.

You'd be right if this were a rational number, but since this is version numbering they pretty much can do whatever they want. (Aside from the fact that MANY projects and companies use this versioning scheme)

Re:Version math (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715247)

Then, 2.9.1 is a invalid version number as numbers don't have 2 decimal points!!!!

Version numbers have always been numbers separated by dots. Not one number. They could use a hash to keep you happy, then there would be no doubt that 2#10 is after 2#9, but it's harder to read...

Re:Version math (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715263)

I think you may be confusing software versioning with actual decimal numbers. There's a big difference, especially since it's entirely possible for a software version to contain multiple periods such as 2.10.13, or contain letters, hyphens, etc. It's an industry standard and not specific to FOSS projects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Separating_sequences

Re:Version math (0)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715265)

Wow, you are at a whole new level of stupid.

Re:Version math (2)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715335)

2.10 IS NOT HIGHER THAN 2.9.

It's two dot ten, not two point ten.
Yes, this is a big difference.

It's not so confusing for those who use a language where . isn't the decimal separator. Where comma is used, 2.10 > 2.9 while 2,10 2,9

Re:Version math (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715363)

2.10 IS NOT HIGHER THAN 2.9.

Take your bigotry towards alternate numeric systems elsewhere, sir!

Re:Version math (4, Funny)

sudonymous (2585501) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715445)

I'd love to see the brainfuck that ensues when you're tasked with figuring out whether 192.168.0.1 comes before or after 192.168.0.10.

I'm hoping for something on a similar level to that video that went viral of the blonde trying to figure out miles per hour.

Re:Version math (0)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715629)

Dear LordStormes,

Please refrain from participating in any open source software development.

Love,

The entire open source software community

Re:Version math (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715653)

They do,you don't understand that a period is sometimes not a decimal point, but a simple mark designating a seperation between two numbers.

Hint: In Europe, they don't localize version numbers to use commas. ie gimp 2.8 is not localized as 2,8.

You must not have ever seen multiple seperators either. Ever look at the linux kernel?

http://www.kernel.org/ [kernel.org]

Multiple decimal points don't make sense. Multiple seperations of a group of numbers do.

Re:Version math (-1)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715715)

Jesus Christ. Now I remember why I never post here any more. Seemingly everyone who posts on tech forums feels that having survived being the nerd that nobody wanted to talk to in school gives them the right to be an abject, vitriolic prick on the Internet, where nobody can see that they're living in their mom's basement and having a monogamous relationship with a tube sock.

Of course I -understand- how version numbers work. I've been designing software for 17 years. The point I'm making is that the way these companies are doing the version numbering, while understood, is dumb. If you're going to write a number like a decimal, it should be a decimal. When you increment up from 2.9, you should go to something like 2.91, or FSM forbid, 3.0. Secondary decimal points are ridiculous to me. If you want to reference a build number, put it in another field somewhere - nobody really cares about the build number unless that's all that changed, meaning it's probably a development snapshot rather than an actual release.

So, to review for you dickless trolls out there, understanding does not equal agreement.

Re:Version math (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715887)

Of course, you're the same guy who expected reasonable discussion after posting, in all caps, "2.10 IS NOT HIGHER THAN 2.9" to end your post.

Re:Version math (1)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 2 years ago | (#39716067)

Emphasis.

Typical GIMP questions from /.ers (5, Funny)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715149)

"How do I draw a circle? I CAN'T DRAW A CIRCLE WITH IT YET AFTER LIKE 30 YEARS" --lowuserid1997

"Does it still suck at CMYK...because where I work we are focusing *so hard* on CMYK right now, it'd be ridiculous for GIMP not to support that" --a_complete_liar

"I noticed that the interface is still a series of 'windows'...my granddaughter's IPAD allows her to paint the entire mona lisa with her pinky finger, never even showing a single window. WHAT HAPPENED TO OPEN SOURCE???" --300baud

"Anybody know of an alternative to GIMP that lets you publish to ebook formats like Kindle? I need to be able to import a 1200 page scientific text, and I want to have drop shadows on the letters and a parchment background. Also something that exports to iBooks would be great but I can't pay any money for this, and I don't want to have to work for an hour to make it all just work." --cluelessphd

Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715181)

Wow... Butthurt much?

Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715211)

I love GIMP and I thought his comment was hilarious. I'd moderate it up if I had points.

Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715233)

I'm sure you do love being a gimp. What do your sexual proclivities have to do with this?

Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715691)

Gimp is a decorative embroidery thread, fish gut, a word that means vigor, and a somewhat pejorative word for a cripple.

Did I miss a joke somewhere? Is there some sort of concerted effort underway to pejorate the word with a sexual meaning, like that new Santorum definition?

Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715861)

You're welcome. [wikipedia.org] And it's not anything new.

SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715559)

Jules : What does Marcellus Wallace look like?

Zed : Oh, so sorry, my mistake...

Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715253)

I don't know if this is funny or sad.

Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715255)

The problem is not Features, but finding them.

This is what I often do in photo shop.

Take Basic Shape, Rotate it, Apply Color, Apply a Texture, Bevel, and Apply Shadow, Create a new layer and repeat.
I can do this stuff easier in HTML5 then in GIMP.

It isn't that this cannot be done in GIMP but it doesn't make it easy to do so.

Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers (2)

John Bokma (834313) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715395)

Yup, I don't get it, for example, why rotating a photo to get the horizon straight is not just a matter of drawing a straight line over horizon, and have GIMP figure out how to rotate the photo to get it straight. Instead one has to tweak in a preview window. I use the top of another window (from a different program) to check if it's straight... Yes, I guess there are better ways to do this, using a grid in Gimp itself, but this is easier and faster to me....

I use Gimp mostly for: cropping a photo (4:3 selection), resizing it, and sharpening it. And each time it amazes me how many steps are required to achieve this... Might very well be my inexperience with Gimp, though.

To fix horizons, use Rotate with Corrective + Grid (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715603)

Yup, I don't get it, for example, why rotating a photo to get the horizon straight is not just a matter of drawing a straight line over horizon, and have GIMP figure out how to rotate the photo to get it straight.

Here's how to correct a horizon in GIMP 2.6.11:

  1. Select the rotate tool.
  2. In tool options, choose Preview: Grid. This makes GIMP draw straight lines that you'll line up with the horizon.
  3. In tool options, choose Direction: Corrective. This gets GIMP to figure out how to rotate the photo to straighten things parallel to the grid.
  4. On the image, turn the grid until parallel with the horizon.
  5. Once the grid is aligned, press Enter.

Re:To fix horizons, use Rotate with Corrective + G (1)

John Bokma (834313) | more than 2 years ago | (#39716069)

Thanks! I recall that I used this method once, but it's just too cumbersome. I still think that just drawing a line and have Gimp figure it out is easier. This comes close, but one still has to tweak the grid, which is more cumbersome (IMO) than just drawing a line.

Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715625)

Yup, I don't get it, for example, why rotating a photo to get the horizon straight is not just a matter of drawing a straight line over horizon, and have GIMP figure out how to rotate the photo to get it straight. Instead one has to tweak in a preview window. I use the top of another window (from a different program) to check if it's straight... Yes, I guess there are better ways to do this, using a grid in Gimp itself, but this is easier and faster to me....

I could be wrong, but that sounds almost trivial to write up with script-fu (gimp's scheme interface), based on what little I've done with it in the past. IANAGA (graphic artist), but in general I prefer functionality like that left out of the main program (not because that one feature is too much, but because there's a million and one little features like that, and they add up), and written in LISP (or whatever) instead. Bundling a bunch of utilities, including that one, makes good sense, and the fact they don't have it that way either is a valid criticism, but it looks like you should be able to fix it yourself.

Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715417)

Bullshit. Photoshop is Photoshop and GIMP is GIMP.
People that buy Photoshop generally don't care about GIMP.
Those that criticise GIMP for not being 100% a Photoshop clone are also those that pirate Photoshop in any case. Fuck them.
GIMP is as powerful as Photoshop, and just like every complex piece of software out there you need to learn how to use it. People learn how to use Autocad, they learn how to Blender etc... Why would they not be able to learn how to use GIMP ? You think Adobe has the definitive manual on GUI development ? Photoshop's interface on Os X is shit. But since its Photoshop you don't see people complaining.
Hypocrisy all around its all I see.

Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715545)

Fuck off yourself. GIMP is a nightmare to use. If you cannot perform trivial operations without resorting to giving up on garbage docs, the same question asked over and over in forums, before that groups and mailing lists, then waste time crawling through IRC logs, it's pretty fucking obvious dear Mr. Prick, GIMP has major usability problems, and always has done.

So stick your fanboi Photoshop rant up your sphincter, no one is talking about it.

GIMP is shit, always has been, always will be. It's a graphics tool for sadists, long since surpassed by a few other usable OSS offerings.

Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715419)

Gimp's kryptonite, since forever, has been it's insistence on doing everything in the worst possible way. Everything is tucked away in such a way as to make it as unintuitive as possible.

If anyone still cared, I'm sure you can go find the root of this in an archaic mailing list archive somewhere. No doubt it'll be someone "important" insisting that "we're not trying to be photoshop, even if it means we have to do things wrong!"

Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715627)

I can do this stuff easier in HTML5 then in GIMP.

Doing it in HTML5 first makes it easier to do in GIMP afterward? :-)

Re:Typical GIMP questions from /.ers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715361)

"Anybody know of an alternative to GIMP that lets you publish to ebook formats like Kindle?

I'm sure some asshole has come up with a cryptic perl one-liner to accomplish just that task.

You forgot the Name Complaint! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715735)

A GIMP thread can't pass /. without several humorless dweebs complaining that the "unprofessional" name turns off humorless dweebs.

Filtering HDs from your user base is actually a /feature/ for fun dev projects. In honor of this excellent filter and to expand it, I propose we finally get around to changing the name anyways: to GINP - GINP Is Not Photoshop.

Accidental (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715173)

The summary makes it sound like these guys just started bashing their heads on the keyboard and out popped functional code. It's kinda funny when you think about it.

So is time to wake up the GIMP yet? or not? (0)

NeroTransmitter (1928480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715239)

I'm also sick of the pedofilish canine looking icon, let's get a leather bondage hood in there...

GIMP More Costly? (0, Offtopic)

pacc (163090) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715269)

I thought it was open source.

If slashdot headlines continue to be this confusing I will have to start reading the summary.

CMYK (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715295)

Pardon me while I go all giggly school girl. I've been waiting for this since the 90's: OMG! LIKE FINALLY!

Re:CMYK (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715351)

Yeah CMYK is so oh important for ebooks and digital publishing.
Paper is out, e-ink is in. So in a few years no one will give a crap about CMYK in any case.

Re:CMYK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715711)

So in a few years no one will give a crap about CMYK in any case.

You obviously never buy packaged goods. BTW your local super market is full of CMYK.

Re:CMYK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39716065)

So in a few years no one will give a crap about CMYK in any case.

You obviously never buy packaged goods. BTW your local super market is full of CMYK.

You're being purposely obtuse. Of course in certain fields you will still need CMYK.
But I somehow doubt that 90% of the people criticising GIMP for its lack of CMYK support are working in the packaged goods graphics industry. They woudl be better served using something like Corel Draw, Inkscape, etc...

You're a "hacker" if... (2)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715297)

A few weeks ago, two GIMP hackers got together to do some general hacking, and inadvertedly ported the core graphics code to GEGL.

You're a "hacker" if you start playing with something in an effort to make it better and you not only succeed in a reasonable amount of time but do it for free. But if you have three meetings per week, the project drags on and on and on, the bill escalates ever closer to the stratosphere, and the project never does work?

Then you are a professional consultant.

Re:You're a "hacker" if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715495)

If you can't fix the problem there is good money to be made in prolonging it.

While we're all accidental... (0)

amaupin (721551) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715405)

Perhaps they could accidentally rename the program to something that isn't offensive...

Re:While we're all accidental... (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715451)

Perhaps they could accidentally rename the program to something that isn't offensive...

GIMA. Graphics Image Manipulation Application

Re:While we're all accidental... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715661)

How about PRICK?

Re:While we're all accidental... (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715917)

I find you name ninnies to be far more offensive than calling a piece of software 'The Gimp'. Oh no, people enjoy BDSM in the privacy of their own homes. WHATEVER SHALL WE DO?!

that "Eureka" moment in every program's dev cycle (5, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715429)

"Oops! Oh, it worked?" ...

"Crap. WHY does it work? It totally shouldn't work!" ...

*shrug* "Ship it."

Pippin the Goatkeeper (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715431)

You just know some pretty crazy things are going to happen when you pair-program with a name like that.

Wow! (-1, Offtopic)

neoshroom (324937) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715481)

Wow, this is just amazing and surprising news...that people still use GIMP. One word...Pixelmator [pixelmator.com] . That's a word, isn't it? It's sort of like an alligator for pixels. GIMP is well...uh...gimp.

Re:Wow! (1)

Thuktun (221615) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715683)

Wow, this is just amazing and surprising news...that people still use GIMP. One word...Pixelmator [pixelmator.com] .

I wonder why everyone doesn't run this, then?

Built exclusively for Mac OS X

Oh, that's why.

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39715775)

Built exclusively for Mac OS X—and it shows

Not everyone use Mac OS X ;-)

Re:Wow! (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715789)

Pixelmator

Price to anyone who owns something other than a Mac: $630.

GIMP = Most unprofessional project ever (-1, Flamebait)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715577)

A few weeks ago, two GIMP hackers got together to do some general hacking, and inadvertedly ported the core graphics code to GEGL. They work around the mismatch between GEGL buffers and GIMP tiles by implementing a storage backend for GEGL using the legacy GIMP tiles; to their surprise things Just Worked (tm), and their code branch will become the 2.9 development series once 2.8 is released.

GIMP may not be the most unprofessionally run software development effort in history, but it's got to be pretty close. Its existence is a bane because it lets Open Source Software fans claim that they have a photo editing package to compete with Photoshop, when what they actually have is a nearly unusable, unfixable pile of crap that needs to be thrown out completely (including the offending coders) and a new effort started from scratch. OSS would be better off if GIMP didn't exist at all; at least then there could be an honest evaluation of what work still needs to be done.

Have at it, dude! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39716001)

Start coding and let us know when your program addresses all the deficiencies you see in the GIMP.

(although I concede that "GIMP" is one of the more unfortunate names ever chosen for a software package).

Photoshop 2.5 here we come (1)

tangent (3677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39716025)

Gimp 2.6 came out three and a half years ago, and 2.8 isn't out yet, yet we're already hyping features that won't appear until the next major version?

Photoshop 2.5 had deep color support and CMYK. It was released in November 1992. Gimp = teh AAAWWEEEESOME.

Maybe we can get layer styles before the Y2K38 bug destroys the computing world.

If we figure on catching up one major Photoshop release per Gimp release, that means we can get to Photoshop 6.0 layer styles by Gimp 2.18, which should be out in another 16 years at the current schedule of ~4 years per. Whew...still time, then.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...