Beta

×

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 2.2 Released

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the bring-out-the... dept.

The Gimp 577

wongn writes "Several weeks since the splash screen contest was first announced, the latest milestone release for GIMP has come about - GIMP 2.2.0 has just been officially released. Only the linux binaries and source have yet appeared. From the website: 'The GIMP developers are proud to announce the availability of version 2.2.0 of the GNU Image Manipulation Program. About nine months after version 2.0 hit the road, we have completed another development cycle and can bring a new stable GIMP to our users' desktops.'"

cancel ×

577 comments

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

Does anyone care? (0, Flamebait)

CodeYoddler (674760) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131898)

I mean...Photoshop is a lot lot better. Bring on the flamebait.

Re:Does anyone care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131922)

I mean...Photoshop is a lot lot better. Bring on the flamebait.

I don't have $600 to spend on Photoshop. So yes, I do care. Thank you for asking.

Re:Does anyone care? (1)

pmsr (560617) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131956)

Great! Nice can of worms you have opened. Now we will have a battalion of people suggesting you could do like everybody else and pirate a copy for free.

/Pedro

Re:Does anyone care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132067)

Great! Nice can of worms you have opened. Now we will have a battalion of people suggesting you could do like everybody else and pirate a copy for free.

Does anyone have a bittorrent link?

Oh yeah, never mind.

Real world vs. fanboy fantasies (-1, Flamebait)

Mike Bourna (748040) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131902)

Why announce this now, when only LinuxOS binaries are available?

I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.

I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:

Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
  • Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
  • Training costs were 32.3% better.


They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
  • $40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
  • $1.79 per peak request per second.


Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
  • 28.2% less for large enterprises.
  • 25.0% less for medium organizations.


A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
  • Is nearly three hours faster.
  • Requires 77% fewer steps.


Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
  • Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
  • Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.


These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.

Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???

--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan, Amiga community representative

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".

Oddly enough... (0, Offtopic)

ylikone (589264) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131981)

most professional admins I know are actually switching AWAY from microsoft servers. So I guess it all depends on who you listen to and who you believe when it comes to "hard numbers and 100% facts".

But this is all irrelevent, as Linux will have completely taken over the server AS WELL AS the desktop before the end of this decade.

Re:Real world vs. fanboy fantasies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131991)

and this has what to do with GIMP?

Re:Real world vs. fanboy fantasies (5, Funny)

Dano Watt (841769) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132021)

You forgot one important statistic: 0% of the people here will take you seriously.

Re:Real world vs. fanboy fantasies (2, Funny)

oberondarksoul (723118) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132146)

"Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???"

Not only that, but a highly respected one who can spell his name correctly. :P

icon (3, Funny)

2MuchC0ffeeMan (201987) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131904)

Alright, animated topic icons!

I thought i was seeing things.

Re:icon (4, Funny)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131911)

Consider it a GIF from the Gods.

Re:icon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131962)

Quite possibly the worst pun ever.

Re:icon (0)

jpmkm (160526) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132048)

How long have you been waiting to use that one?

Re:icon (2, Funny)

RealBeanDip (26604) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132093)

Beware of Geeks bearing GIF's.

Re:icon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131914)

Huh?

(looks at top of page) ./heartattack

Re:icon (1)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132157)

I see it, too. Great, now I'm going to have nightmares about Wilbur creeping up on me while I'm not looking and...*gasp*...replacing the toilet handle with a five-window interface for operating it.

first? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131908)

first?

gentoo (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131910)

... just as i was finished emerging gimp-2.0.

I know, these jokes are getting old, and in reality it took only a few minutes to emerge gimp-2.0.

Re:gentoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132114)

Still, I emerged cinepaint instead last week because 2.0.4 doesn't have the filter previews that 2.2 has. GIMP has built flawlessly for me in the past but what's the point of running a distro for it's package management system if you're going to build everything by hand?

Seriously... Why would you use this? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131913)

If GIMP was not open source, would you use it? Does it have anything over Photoshop in terms of Functionality or Ease of USe?

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131936)

No. The only things that it beats Photoshop at are price and scriptability / extensibility. Neither of these are important enough to me to make it worth all of the frustrations.

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131938)

There is one feature that Photoshop has, that GIMP is seriously lacking.

A $650 price tag!

Seriously though, nobody is going to take The Gimp too seriously until it costs $650. High prices for software bring a placebo effect that simulates quality.

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (2, Funny)

IO ERROR (128968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131982)

I'll sell you The GIMP for the bargain basement price of $649.99. Just write out a check or money order to CASH and mail it to the address in my whois record.

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (3, Informative)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132024)

Selling The GIMP [gimp.org]

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (5, Insightful)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132057)

See http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html [cryptonomicon.com] .

Seriously, do you think a perponderence of people even use the features that Photoshop has over Gimp? My department, for instance, bought two licenses for CS so that we could crop and size some photos, and do some very basic web graphics.

The boss turned down my suggestion, I think, because of the usual suspicion and fear that surrounds GNU software: "What? It can't be free. There must be some catch. It might even be illegal." The only downside that Gimp has is the annoyance of, "Oooh I don't like it the interface is all different" from my coworkers. But like they say, nobody ever got fired for buying (insert your favorite 800-lb gorilla corporation here).

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (3, Insightful)

sahonen (680948) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132168)

For that you should have bought Paint Shop Pro, though admittedly every version since 6.0 has been junk.

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (4, Informative)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131969)

It runs on Linux, and it doesn't cost $650.

Adobe really is an 800 lb gorilla. Even their educational prices for Photoshop are $300. By comparison, Macromedia Director Pro is $100 (educational), with the full suite for only 150. Even if you factor in the base price of Director, it's a helluva better deal. The only reason Adobe charges so damn much is because they know a certain number of people will buy it regardless.

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (3, Insightful)

tiedemann (214491) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131987)

Well, depends on the situation.
Me, I actually use GIMP sometimes because of it's excellent scripting functions.
Then, on the other hand, I usually use Photoshop or ImageReady when it comes to editing the files sent to me by the AD (I'm doing sites for a PR company).
I sure wish Photoshop had the same or similar scripting stuff that GIMP has though (no, droplets doesn't count since I can't edit them the same way).

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (4, Funny)

tarquin_fim_bim (649994) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131989)

When did Adobe release a Linux port of Photoshop?

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132003)

If GIMP was not open source, would you use it?

No.

If linux wasn't open source, would I use it?

No.

If firefox wasn't open source, would I use it?

No.

If X wasn't open source, would I use it?

No.

I think you get the picture.

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132026)

If Linux and the BSDs weren't free software, what would you use?

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (1)

damiam (409504) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132192)

Whatever OS the free software community had developed to take their place.

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (-1, Offtopic)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132031)

Who modded parent as funny? (No, this post is not off-topic. Mods need to get some fucking brains and until then SOMEONE has to make posts like this.)

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132173)

I think the issue is that the mods are "anyone who's been here for about 3 months", so by definition most of them will be fuckwads.

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (4, Interesting)

MrRuslan (767128) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132055)

Well I can tell you for me it worked great. I use it for banners and logos and it is much easier to use than PS plus it works on windows and linux so thats a big plus. for me photoshop is overkill but gimp is just right.

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132083)

Angle measurement is better than Photoshop I think. And if it is not open source but still free, I will use it eiter.

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132095)

For one it runs under my Debian PowerBook...

Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132135)

I only run open source code, so NO!

It's easier to spell (1)

winkydink (650484) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132151)

Other than that, I can't think of anything offhand that it does better/easier than Photoshop.

What's New in 2.2 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131916)

Details of the release: http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/WhatsNew2 [gimp.org]

I for one... (0, Redundant)

gotgenes (785704) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131925)

...welcome our new GIMP overlords!

Thanks so much to the GIMP crew for making this software! I absolutely love it for making graphics for my spare-time webdesign!

GIMP developers ROCK!!!

In Other News (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131930)

I released a dump into the toilet. Film at 11.

Yeah, but (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131977)

does it run Linux?

Does it support (2, Insightful)

Kickasso (210195) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131932)

gimp-print 5.0.0 yet? Yeah it's beta but so what?

Download? (5, Funny)

jeffkjo1 (663413) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131934)

GIMP 2.2.0 has just been officially released

Anybody have a link to a torrent?


Oh.... wait

"GIMP 2.2.0 released" on Slashdot... (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132053)

...and Slashdot's revenge released onto the poor Gimp ;-))

In cyberspace nobody can hear your server scream - but they can watch it crawl.

Re:Download? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132070)

The wrong way to make a torrent is the approach that the Pirate2Pirate sites used. The right way to make a torrent is to run a tracker on your web server or on your DSL.

Re:Download? (1)

lakeland (218447) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132140)

Er, no. A single web site with all the programs I want to download sounds ideal. Having a tracker only serving one program really sucks.

Re:Download? (1)

shut_up_man (450725) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132211)

Funny, I'll admit... but there's no good reason why there shouldn't be a torrent for this. Or the latest Debian ISOs, or anything else open source. So how about it - would SlashTorrent work? How about TorrentForge?

I know that it would lack the oodles of sci-fi movies, Enterprise episodes and hentai clips that everyone loves, but it'd be genuinely useful and prove that BitTorrent can be used in a legal manner.

And the winner is... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131940)

See "Work In Progress" by Bill Luhtala here! [gimp.org]

(closer view [gimp.org] )

GIMP has a very specific user base: (-1, Troll)

character_assassin (773327) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131952)

- morons - Linux users (i.e. morons) - liberals (i.e. Linux users) - people too poor to afford PhotoShop (i.e. liberals) Thus, anyone who uses GIMP is a moron. Now shut the fuck up, put on a dress, and bake me a cake, bitch.

Re:GIMP has a very specific user base: (1)

Proud like a god (656928) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131974)

Someone delete this troll.

Re:GIMP has a very specific user base: (1)

Dano Watt (841769) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132039)

Nobody understand the fine art of sarcasm anymore. What a shame.

Re:GIMP has a very specific user base: (1)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132190)

Some posters just need to shut up and laugh. Trolling and humor are not mutually exclusive.

I, for one, laughed my ass off at that post.

Re:GIMP has a very specific user base: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131983)

Where did you find enough neurons to learn to type?

Re:GIMP has a very specific user base: (1)

TheKarateMaster (810628) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131988)

You might be a redneck if...

Re:GIMP has a very specific user base: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132006)

check this dickheads posting history, should be banned IMO.
prime example like this post [slashdot.org]

don't sweat it, ya'll (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132060)

...just laugh that there's a big enough loser out there who feels the need to come to a website to post this. Seriously, imagine what this tool is probably like.

He probably is alone in his room, with no friends, sitting in front of a computer, making a difference in a society the only way he knows how, by trying to start shit on a website that is self-described "news for nerds." Wow. This is to you 'character assassin:' I feel sorry for you.

And I laugh at you, pinhead.

But that's a hassle (0, Flamebait)

lheal (86013) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131965)

"It is advised that you uninstall GIMP 2.0 before installing GIMP 2.2"

[whine]
Why can't it just replace it?
[/whine]

Because stuff changes, I know. I just wish the world were perfect. There are bound to be filename differences, but at least there aren't a bunch of stray registry entries hanging around.

You can go back on topic now.

Re:But that's a hassle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132133)

> I just wish the world were perfect.

Install Debian.

Re:But that's a hassle (1)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132212)

Ahh, yes. Debian: the perfect world - where Gnome Display Manager starts up in runlevel 2 when you install it.

(Ok, that one was pretty easy to fix, but god damn, that should've been obvious)

Hooray for dumbing down? (1, Flamebait)

ThatComputerGuy (123712) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131968)

Great.. now we get to use that awesome new save dialog [gimp.org] ! I couldn't stand being able to choose the dir to save in easily... Reduced usability is fun!

And the amazing new open dialog [gimp.org] ... After all, being able to type in the name of the file or dir you'd like to see is lame. Text input boxes are soooooo 1990s!

Now if only they'd replace these text inputs on /. so that I can type everything out with my mouse... The ultimate in usability.

*GAG*

Re:Hooray for dumbing down? (1)

AkaXakA (695610) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131985)

Oh come on, it's a far better open dialog than before, albeit not a perfect one. The save dialog does look horrible though, and the theme isn't helping.

Re:Hooray for dumbing down? (0)

OmniVector (569062) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132008)

you probably don't know the first thing about HCI.. so clearly that makes you a valid source!

Re:Hooray for dumbing down? (-1, Flamebait)

dmaxwell (43234) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132084)

Ah hell! Yet another HCI high priest. You people could manage to injure yourselves at dildo practice.

Go ahead mod it flamebait. I have karma to burn.

Re:Hooray for dumbing down? (1)

isdnip (49656) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132047)

You make a good point. In your basic Windows dialog, for instance, there's a cruddy mouse-driven picker, but there's also a line where you can type filenames, and clicking the mouse once just fills in that line with the filename you clicked on. The GIMP box seems to be more in line with the WIMPS orthodoxy that requires the mouse. It's annoying and unnecessary. GUIs should be a tool to empower users, not a strait jacket to dictate to them.

Re:Hooray for dumbing down? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132059)

Did you notice that (a) it's easier to click once than to type in a file name, and (b) you can give the list focus and type the name if you want? Sometimes simplicity and useability can come hand in hand.

Re:Hooray for dumbing down? (1)

ozamosi (615254) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132154)

But if the file is hidden, then it wont come up. Or if the file is in a hidden map (maybe your WM has its icons in the folder ~/.icons for instance). GUIs are virtuable unusable if you cant type in them...

Re:Hooray for dumbing down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132214)

RTFM for Gimp's sake, it's a simple Ctrl+L wich most people do not need and you should know.

Re:Hooray for dumbing down? (1, Interesting)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132199)

it's easier to click once than to type in a file name

No, it's not. Visual metaphor and spatial navigation have always been very hard for me. By far the most natural interface for me is simply typing the damn name, preferably with the help of regexes.

Re:Hooray for dumbing down? (1)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132153)

Indeed. The new GTK open/save dialogs SUCK. Horribly.

I liked the old one. It supports regex matching, and makes it pleasant to use the keyboard. The new one has neither.

I won't be upgrading to 2.2 unless someone either forks it or releases a patch using the old dialogs. If I knew the GTK API, I'd do it myself, but alas...

Re:Hooray for dumbing down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132156)

You are the dumb one here, not the save dialog.

Re:Hooray for dumbing down? (2, Informative)

marq00z (732044) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132159)

Just press Ctrl+L to type the filename and/or path...

You notice something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132189)

The parent shows that the gimp's open dialog box has a preview pane next to it, now why couldn't the devs over at gnome put that into the wallpaper applet is beyond me...

Re:Hooray for dumbing down? (1)

Rie Beam (632299) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132193)

And I assume you're complaining about them adding the Fill tool, when it's plain to see any true GIMP user prefers to fill in the pixels with the paintbrush?

But seriously though, this does strike me as kinda annoying on behalf of those involved. Don't they have better things to work on than making sorting more important to a file than the file itself? How about fixing the classically-bad GUI?

Re:Hooray for dumbing down? (3, Informative)

fuvm (177940) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132216)

That open dialog [gimp.org] really reminds me of something [zankasoftware.com] . Hmm. Oh well, keep innovating guys!

Timetable for Windows binaries? (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131998)

I couldn't find a timetable for when the Windows binaries would get updated. How long does this usually take? Or what major bugs are still in GIMP unstable 2.2-pre2 [sourceforge.net] ?

My problems with GIMP. (3, Insightful)

dominion (3153) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132013)

Overall, GIMP is an incredible feat of OSS, so I dno't want it to seem that I'm being completely negative.

But, there's two problems I have with GIMP, and one of them might have been fixed and one definitely hasn't.

First is the interface. Much has been said about it, but it really is not intuitive at all. A UI overhaul would be very helpful, and could go a long way to get a lot of Adobe enthusiasts to check it out. I've been using Mac OS X a lot lately, and it's really pointed out a lot of the really horrid UI decisions that have been made with Linux-grown software. The right-click menu is horribly unintuitive, there's too many options cluttered on one screen instead of giving them a heirarchy of use and seperating them by tabs or other methods. There's a whole bunch of things that could be done to make the the interface better, enough to fill a whole research document, so I'll leave it at that.

Second is the name. It needs to change. This is not about being PC, it's about reaching out to as many people as possible, and getting them to try out the GIMP. Will universities ever teach classes in a program that's called 'the gimp?' Will companies ever take seriously an employee who says that he wants to install 'the gimp' on his computer? Y'all have to have gotten the same weird looks as me when you've suggested that people try 'the gimp'. Have you ever told it to someone who uses a cane or crutches or is in a wheelchair?

If you have, you probably felt like a real jerk right after it slipped out of your mouth.

C'mon, change the name, we're not kids anymore, alright?

Re:My problems with GIMP. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132038)

The right-click menu is horribly unintuitive

Then don't right-click. Since 2.0 there has been a traditional menu bar at the top of each image window.

Re:My problems with GIMP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132183)

Shame it's often obscured by the dialogue boxes that float about instead of being in the window.

Re:My problems with GIMP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132046)

1st step in improving GIMP or indeed any OSS app, DUMP GTK its a warm cup o shite.

Use something like XUL or some other cross platform UI markup language. Then we can chop and change the UI that pleases us.

Same for Ethereal and GAIM crap UI.

Re:My problems with GIMP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132160)

Do us a favour and learn english, will you?

Re:My problems with GIMP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132213)

Let me guess, you are a linux GIMP FANBOY. They even named the application after you, GIMP.

Re:My problems with GIMP. (1)

Norgus (770127) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132058)

Actually, 'the gimp' is installed on my college network.

Re:My problems with GIMP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132068)

Only because your college is too tight and cheapskate to afford the REAL APPLICATION THE REAL WORLD uses. Good luck getting a job with GIMP expereince.

Re:My problems with GIMP. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132065)

I agree that the biggest problem GIMP has for widespread acceptance is the name. Frankly, it has labored without the benefit clever self recursion for far too long!

So, in the interest of its long term viablility, I formally propose a name change:

GIMP Isn't Microsoft Paint

will, I believe, catapult GIMP onto desktops around the world.

Re:My problems with GIMP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132082)

I suggest you start looking at Paint.NET as its starting to be more of a photosop competitor than GIMP ever will be.

Paint.NET [google.co.uk]

Re:My problems with GIMP. (4, Insightful)

agent dero (680753) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132109)

If you have, you probably felt like a real jerk right after it slipped out of your mouth.

C'mon, change the name, we're not kids anymore, alright?


Most of us know we're talking about an application if we ever mention "The GIMP" to a handicapped person, and are mature enough to handle it.

That's almost along the lines of getting nervous about talking about the civil rights movement with a black person.

Give me a break, we're not kids anymore, remember?

Re:My problems with GIMP. (3, Insightful)

dominion (3153) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132145)

civil rights movement with a black person.

The civil rights movement was a positive thing. The word 'gimp' is a negative slur. How are these related?

Re:My problems with GIMP. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132162)

Please no, not again!

Gimp developers seem obsessed with user interface stuff, scripting langugage stuff, etc. Not that I'm saying they are getting everything right the first time, but please, please do the important things first:

1.) My consumer digital camera delivers 12bit color channels. I hate being forced to throw away 4bit of image information before I even start editing a file in Gimp.

2.) Sometimes I want precise control over the colors in my prints. With Gimp this is impossible: It doesn't do color managment, so the colors I see on the monitor are never the same as those in the printout. That's especially annoying when printing portraits.

These are real, important, technical limitations of the Gimp. I really don't care for the name, and I'm capable of learning where to click. But when it comes to making use of all the information in an image and to correctly display it on the monitor I have much trouble making compromises.

In reality (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132044)

The gimp is waaay behind in ease of use compared to Photoshop or Fireworks... sort your shit out motherfuckers.

Re:In reality (2, Interesting)

Dano Watt (841769) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132069)

Is that because you've been using Photoshop for years and just tried out the Gimp and realized that it's not set up like Photoshop (gasp!)? Well I thought the same thing the first time I gave it a whirl. But I realized that if I've been using the Gimp for the past seven years, I would have had a hard time adjusting to Photoshop. It's all relative.

Re:In reality (1)

CygnusXII (324675) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132182)

Not really, when you walk into a PressShop and the Interface is Photoshop. I mean get real, jobs are dictated by statndards of what you know, and where GiMP might get you familiar with Computer Graphics Manipulation, it will not prepare you for the REAL World, and REAL World shops run Adobe. That is a cold hard fact. So no matter how Open Source Evangelistic you want to be, you still have to bring home the Bacon. Evangelism is for time off from work, and as a hobby, whilst providing for your family is what comes first. In order to do this you must accept that until GiMP is majorly over hauled, and the Big Boys are knocked out of the Box, Adobe is the Defacto Standard.

ALSA Support!!!! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11132072)

At last, ALSA support in the midi control module!
Now I can draw pictures while playing my 80's strap on casio keyboard!!!!

Splash screen (5, Informative)

mstefanus (705346) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132075)

The splash screen that won [nyud.net] the contest and some others that worth [nyud.net] mentioning.

Unfortunately the Industry Dictates the Standard.. (0)

CygnusXII (324675) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132087)

The photography field, Graphics, and PrePress statndards are ruled by Adobe, AGFa and the like, which is the Mainstream Bread and Butter to Adobe. GiMP is nice and Open and Free, but the Paradigm will not change until the Old Gaurd Changes, this means all the Older Mac Heads, and Windows proponants that evolved with Photoshop. If ease of use and cost were simply a factor, then Paintshop Pro would be the logical alternative, as to cost, Corel would be a contender as towards quality, and Macromedia would be extensibility. Unfortunately in the Graphics field Adobe has been around for a long, time and this equates with Quality, not to mention the fact that most users have grown with it, have all of it's shortcuts and process's (sp?) ingrained, and are comfortable with its interface. Where GiMP is nice, free and open source, it is still a new kid on the block, and if you are short on $$$ and want something free go for GiMP, but do not expect to land a Graphics Job were it plays a major factor on your Resume, where being proficient in Photoshop or any of the others mentioned are a definate Resume Boost.

All I want from the GIMP (1)

BinaryOpty (736955) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132121)

All I want is the Windows version of GIMP not to pop up command boxes for errors that close the program when you close them. That's all I want.

I hope someone makes a patch (2, Insightful)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132175)

Anyone willing to make a patch for GIMP 2.2 that will replace the horrific new open and save dialogs with the old ones?

Please...the new ones are completely unusable.

Torrent links! (3, Informative)

schnits0r (633893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11132203)

Windows torrent [oxynova.com]

Linux [oxynova.com]

And for the sake of everything holy, reseed and be nice to my tracker and server
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>