GIMP Not Enough for Linux Users?

nursegirl writes "Novell has been running a survey about apps that people need in order to convert their data centers or desktops to Linux. The online survey has been running since Jan 13, and Adobe Photoshop was at the top of the list as of February 1. Desktoplinux.com has an interesting article about why the existence of the GIMP isn't enough for many professionals."

How can we take this seriously...

...when the author suggests that Linux using webdevelopers need Dreamweaver to create sites?

Krita is better alternative to Adobe Photoshop

Krita [koffice.org], the painting and image editing application for KOffice [koffice.org] is probably a better alternative to Adobe Photoshop on the Linux desktop. It is nicely integrated in KDE and its codebase is cleaner than that of GIMP, so it is easier to add features at a fast rate. In fact, even GNOME devs have been amazed [gnome.org] by how fast it's growing.

Re:How can we take this seriously...

I must say, well said. I don't agree with much of it, but you make your point well. I think the failings are in Linux and OSS and not in society. People often better themselves, the problem is that time is a limited resource, and which topic they choose to better themselves with is frequently an exclusive option. Given a 4 hour time block, a typical artist might have a choice... they can dive into one of their projects, add shadows, retouch some photographs... or they can spend it learning a new application. Most people will choose to better themselves by refining their ability to do what they already do well. Maybe using the GIMP would be a marvelous idea that enables them to surpass their wildest creative dreams. But there's really no way to know that before doing it. A person is just as likely to spend hours a day for a few weeks learning a new program only to discover it doesn't offer some core functionality they already had in an existing program.

People aren't stupid. The elitests who believe the average user, and average person, is a gibbering idiot is usually just as dumb when they are confronted with tasks outside their element. A Linux guru might wonder why everyone else is just too dumb to use all the wonderful CLI tools and scripting capabilities, yet when confronted with an automechanical problem, the mechanic is chuckling to himself about how Mr. Linux Guru is too dumb to even perform basic maintenance on his own car.

Like I said, time is a limited resource. Everyone can't spend all their time being an expert at everything.

Re:How can we take this seriously...

I'm a pretty advanced Photoshop user - I use it for both print and digital purposes and I've been doing so for over 10 years now. I like Linux and I'd really like to be able to switch to a Linux desktop completely one day. That said I'm giving GIMP a try every once in a while. People say it rocks once you clear the Photoshop mist and once you get familiar with the somewhat weird GUI you'll find it, well, awesome.

My conclusion so far is that while GIMP has a Photoshop resembling toolset it's really not a Photoshop competitor. Really. While Photoshop is overkill for John Doe, especially regarding the price (yeah, most people pirate it, I know), GIMP is quite sufficient. It's an awesome tool for removing red eyes in photos, fixing resolutions, brightness/contrast and stuff like that - but it's not competing with Photoshop. It's obviously not made for print due to the lack of CMYK-support, and for web production.. well, compare Photoshops "Save for web"-module vs GIMP's "Select a JPEG compression percentage please"-prompt.

I've seen work by one or two people who do some seriously impressing stuff with GIMP - and that's it. Those two people also seem to have been involved in the GIMP project since the dawn of mankind, might be a good indicator on how much time you need to spend before being able to use it fluently enough.

Some people who doesn't work with graphics professionally (or claim GIMPs awesomeness without even using it) will probably disagree with me and claim that I'm wrong. But hey, at least I've TRIED to use it. It's just completely pointless for me to even spend time with it when I have access to a (legal) Photoshop license. I don't think the GIMP project is useless though, as I said - it's good enough for the average guy, even though I think the UI could improve tremendeously.

Re:How can we take this seriously...

People aren't stupid. The elitests who believe the average user, and average person, is a gibbering idiot is usually just as dumb when they are confronted with tasks outside their element. A Linux guru might wonder why everyone else is just too dumb to use all the wonderful CLI tools and scripting capabilities, yet when confronted with an automechanical problem, the mechanic is chuckling to himself about how Mr. Linux Guru is too dumb to even perform basic maintenance on his own car.

Mmmh, no. You underestimate the stupidity of the average user.
We are talking about people who can't install a program in Windows, who can't guess that if you want to open a file you might want to check "file" menu.
I've seen people using Word to copy files (open & save as) and centering lines using spaces completely ignoring align icons.

What you forget is that User Interfaces are designed to make interaction easy while car engines are not.

Using your analogy an average user wouldn't know how to change gears or which pedal is the brake.

Re:How can we take this seriously...

The elitests who believe the average user, and average person, is a gibbering idiot is usually just as dumb when they are confronted with tasks outside their element.

I take it you have not worked retail, tech support, or at a law firm.

No, but seriously, I understand when I take my car to the garage, I am the gibbering idiot. Otherwise, I wouldn't need to take my car there. People should understand this fact on both sides of the fence.

My car mechanic doesn't need to treat me like a gibbering idiot, but neither should I claim that I know more than my mechanic. When someone calls me for computer assistant, I don't treat them like an idiot, but they shouldn't act like they know more than me and should quietly assume to be the idiot.

Heck, when I call my ISP, out of respect I play dumb in order to make the call go faster and make the person on the other ends job a whole lot easier than I would to try to say "hey... your an idiot... i know more than you!" because you know... If I didn't know how to fix this on my own I wouldn't have called (even if I knew it was something like a NIC card refresh etc and knew what the other person had to do... i'm not going to demean them over it).

We are all gibbering idiots outside our realm of expertise. Otherwise, we wouldn't have capitalism.

Re:How can we take this seriously...

It's obviously not made for print due to the lack of CMYK-support

It seems that Adobe and their patents play a role in that, but its true of course that this is a serious limitation for those whoms work is going to be used in print.

and for web production.. well, compare Photoshops "Save for web"-module vs GIMP's "Select a JPEG compression percentage please"-prompt.

If you are doing graphics work professionally, is it too much to ask that you have some idea about how different compression levels work out? This is pretty equivalent to knowing how different kinds of paper work out when you profession is printing.

I am not a graphics artist, but I do run some websites that are used by graphics artists for publication. I had to tell each of them to stop using the bloody 'save for web' module for their pictures because the result of it is crap. Rather, they should be using jpegs in 1280x1024 resolution or better, compressed at 90% quality or better. The website will do recompression when needed. Of course the recompression by the website is why you should feed it high quality sources, but the 'save for web' confuses the hell out of those graphics artists exactly because it explicitly hides what it is doing from the user.

Re:How can we take this seriously...

"It comes odwn to laziness i guess."

No, it comes down to the fact that the vast majority of graphic designers and artists don't work in a vacuum. Artwork gets sent to customers for approval. It gets sent to publishers and print shops for production. Those people have to be able to read those files with no hassle. They have to maintain color accuracy. They have to work.

If you're billing clients top dollar, and have print runs on the line that can easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, then risking that account just to keep from spending $600 on a professional-grade, industry-standard tool is... well... stupid.

Re:How can we take this seriously...

They just don't realize it and don't really have (as you said) the time to put into it. Which is still a failing of society.

Oh come on!, a lot of people do not *have* the time just because they DO NOT CARE!. They prefer playing with their Playstation, getting drunk or fixing their car than to get into the computer.

You fail to see that, at the same way you (and I) enjoy hacking the computer, normally people enjoy hacking their cars, stereo system or any other hobby they have. And it does not mean that the society is failing.

We all have our priorities, and although for you, the computer could be a very important tool, there is people who only use it as a comunication tool. Think as the telephone, you do not care how your telephone work... you may not care how is it programmed, you just want to pick up the phone, press the buttons and speak.

We all have our priorities, and the fact that the priorities of other people are not the same as yours does not mean their are doing any wrong.

Although I arrived late to the article, let me state something. This last week, I have been working in some simulations. I made a simulation on the computer wich gave me as results something like 400,00 MB in numbers.

Now, I needed to do statistical analysis on those things, unfortunately, the deadline of the paper is for this wednesday, and I have never used any of those Statistical analysis tools. I didnt need anything too fancy, only std. deviation and averages.

Guess what I used, Excel, it has an OK statistical analysis package. Now, I wont "rant" about the absence of that on OpenOffice, I did everything I needed in MS Office, but to do that I had to import my text files (delimited by a space) to Excel. I did some simple C programs to process my code and then just imported with the File/Open function of excel, it detected it was text file and a wizzard guided me through the import stages.

Now, what does all of this have to do with the "linux still not ready"?, well, after finishing, I thought "how could I do it with OpenOffice" because you know, everybody says OpenOffice is as good as Ms Office (something I do not believe). Well, I tried to open one of those files with the File/Open IN OpenCalc and it just opened a OpenWrite window with the numbers HA!

I looked for an "Import" button, I tried with the "Document Import wizzard" without luck. So I could not even *start* to compare it.

Now there are a number of several details that I *doubt* OpenCalc has, that Excel does besides importing a file or being able to make cross references between worksheets and books but, you must see that the devil of the commercial vs open software is (as in everything else) in the DETAILS. Those small details that people take from granted when using Photoshop, Excel, Word, etc. And the fact that in some of those products you can go from 0 to a complete work in a few minutes (God, this is the first time I do a *real* statistics analysis).

Lorraborox

Sorry mate, I use UNIX every day, to run really big serious programs costing tens of thousands of dollars per year in licensing. I do it from the GUI. Sure, I occasionally type in real hard to understand commands like 'mdi', or 'dtfile' into the command line, but mostly it is just me and that big old boring HP UNIX GUI. The longest batch file I've ever written has 3 lines.

Elitism such as yours is both misplaced and counter productive. There is no really hard reason why a Knoppix type system, and a bit of fine tuning, would not make a consumer level OS. The problem is not the underlying OS, the problem is at the GUI level, and as such is solvable by scripting at the VB level.

Re:How can we take this seriously...

Bluefish is sort of a programmer's editor with extra features for HTML, not a web site design tool like Dreamweaver. The user shouldn't have to look at HTML source much, if at all.

*blink*

A web designer shouldn't have to look at HTML source much?

Re:How can we take this seriously...

If you are a freelance web designer, you "must" know the subtile differences between CSS rendering on Firefox and on Internet Explorer. You shouldn't be afraid to open notepad and write the HTML code directly. You must know all the little tricks. If you don't then you are doomed.

But...When you work inside a web agency, then roles are defined. The web designer concentrates on...design. He/she makes the lay-out according to the corporate identity, the marketing stuffs, ergonomy, and so on. His/her role is purely on design. There is another guy, a technician guy who knows everything about techniques. He/she will transform his/her work into a working HTML based lay-out.

He will give all the guarantees that it will work on all major browsers.

Then a web developer will put the lay-out inside the CMS, or as the user interface on a custom built web application.

This is a team.

On large scale project, you've got enough work justify a full-time job on design and another one to make the result HTML compliant.

My company, a small web agency outsources everything related to design. We use traditionnal infographists. We had to "educate" them on basic stuffs, but it in the end, it helps us to concentrate ourselves on the web site features and technical parts.

Most technicians are extremely bad at communication/graphism and so on. Most of us can't understand why we should spend hours to make a stupid paragraph aligned with some tiny parts of the lay-out, nor can we understand that the customer may get mad because font is Arial 10 instead of Arial 12 on the subtitle. We simply can't understand why it matters so much and why the customers cannot understand the beauty of our new CMS with all the new features that let us make multilingual content with simple clicks or this new XML import feature that works automatically with one of their partners.

A lot of talended designer are bad on the technician part. They simply don't care about how it works.

Re:How can we take this seriously...

I'm sure there are plenty of developers that simply want Dreamweaver etc. who are quite capable of coding a standards compliant web page by hand. Nowhere in my original post did I say or imply otherwise. That doesn't take away the fact that a large number of web developers are completely lost without their tools. I've done a ton of web development for major corporations (mainly server side programming not the HTML/CSS) and I've worked with a ton of them. I also have many contacts who are web developers and the good ones always get a kick out of how many so called professionals in the industry are completely lost without their tools.

They have a point...

As powerful as GIMP is, I find myself struggling to complete tasks that would be easier in Photoshop. More frustrating, however, is having to compile my own plugins. I still have not managed to compile one successfully (and I've been working with Linux since Red Hat 7.3).

Re:They have a point...

Being that there is a UNIX version of Photoshop (OS X) it should not be too difficult to wrap the inners with an X GUI outers.

I don't understand why people find this so impossible to understand -- the MacOS APIs (Carbon and Cocoa) do not exist on other platforms. You can can compile vanilla Unix applications on MacOS X, but you can't trivially recompile (or wrap) a Cocoa app on Linux.

Re:They have a point...

So perhaps someone should start a project similar to WINE, to add Carbon and Cocoa API compatibility.

Re:They have a point...

Well, for Cocoa anyway, there's GNUstep [gnustep.org], as, if I'm not mistaken, it's an implementation of the OpenStep specification that was created for NeXT and is still used today for MacOS X as Cocoa. Once GNUstep is reasonably completed, it would in theory be possible to have a certain amount of source-compatibility between any platform with GNUstep and Cocoa. Carbon, now that's a different story...

Yeah, like rezising a brush for instance!

As powerful as GIMP is, I find myself struggling to complete tasks that would be easier in Photoshop.

You mean stuff like resizing the brush with a keypress? After reading the manual, going to google, setting any arcanely named binding that might be it in the shortcuts preferences, the Gimp just sits there and stares stubbornly at me when I try it. Do these people never paint anything? OTOH, this is the same people that think that CTRL-K is much more logical for deleteing stuff than say, oh, I don't know... delete, maybe?

Apart from that, a lot of why the Gimp is such a struggle to use is those right click menus and image menus that the Gimp people are so proud of because they can do anything. Sure, they can do anything - but it also lists *everything*, always! It's called a context menu, and it could be incredibly powerful if it had any context. Oh, and things sorted in real categories.

I could very well live without a Photoshop interface, but I want a human interface.

GUI perhaps?

(dons flame resistant suit of anonymity)

Maybe this is because GIMP has one of the most god-awful GUIs known to man. I mean seriously, it seems to be designed to hide functions and impede work, not t'other way round.

Re:GUI perhaps?

"I mean seriously, it seems to be designed to hide functions and impede work, not t'other way round."

So, err, you want GIMP to hide work and impede functions?

Re:GUI perhaps?

Which part of the Gimp GUI?

1. The right-click-on-photo part that brings up every command?
2. The pull down menu above the photo that brings up every command?
3. The floating toolbox that brings up every command?
4. The customizable tab box which permits instant access to your most important subset of commands?
5. That near every subset of commands can be 'torn off' as a floating toolbar?
6. Or the part that doesn't look like Photoshop's unique boxes-in-boxes interface, a GUI style last universally popular in the Windows 3.x days?

Re:GUI perhaps?

The right-click-on-photo part that brings up every command?

That sucks. It should only bring up stuff relevant to manipulating bits of the image. The right-click menu is also known as the context menu - if I'm right-clicking on pixels I want something that relates to pixels. Some things that definitely should not be there: File, View, Image, and then most of the things on the sub-menus (which are also arranged in terms of GIMP internals rather than in terms of user-oriented categories).

The pull down menu above the photo that brings up every command?

It's not so much the menu as the fact that everything is impossible to find in the menu because it was apparently arranged by a seriously deranged individual bent on avoiding natural categories. Even when you can find something it takes 3-4 non-obvious menu options in sequence to do something that is one menu option in other drawing software. The floating toolbox that brings up every command?

The customizable tab box which permits instant access to your most important subset of commands?

Sensible defaults are better than telling people to customise what is out of the box the Worst... Interface... Ever.

That near every subset of commands can be 'torn off' as a floating toolbar?

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Actually, now that I think of it, it does have something to do with the problem since these floating toolbars don't - they sink right to bloody bottom of the window stack and you have to go hunting for the bastards (this doesn't happen in an MDI interface by the way).

Or the part that doesn't look like Photoshop's unique boxes-in-boxes interface, a GUI style last universally popular in the Windows 3.x days?

And yet a style that is retained in every serious image editor*... but nooo, the GIMP people are right and everybody else is wrong.

GIMP's user interface really is a festering pile of crap. Go ahead, GIMP-fans, do your worst to my karma - I have plenty.

* Yes I know GIMP doesn't have it. I meant what I said.

Re:GUI perhaps?

It's odd, isn't it.

Fact: Many users have experience with Photoshop and the GIMP.

Fact: Most of those users find Photoshop's UI to be vastly superior, or at least the GIMP's UI to be vastly inferior.

Fact: Those in charge of the GIMP dismiss such experienced users in the field as feeble-minded ignoramuses.

My $1,000,000,000 prediction: this comment will be just as applicable 3 years from now.

Re:GUI perhaps?

Actually I was using GIMP before I came here. Yeah the interface sucks. I have to have an entire virtual desktop reserved for it alone, and even then there are dialogs that pop up behind the window. I have to spend more time resizing windows than actually working. And if you have a lot of images open the taskbar groups them so that it takes two clicks to get to anything.

Why not have a nice tabbed interface?

Also the name sucks. At best its confusing, at worst its offensive.

Its pretty sad when its obvious to everyone what the problem is, yet its still the same thing after what, six years?

Re:GUI perhaps?

Also the name sucks. At best its confusing, at worst its offensive.

How's it offensive?

I was born with a left club foot. Fortunately, it was braced and reset before I can remember. Even though I've always walked with a slight (almost unoticeable) limp, I've never considered myself inferior in any way. The word gimp has never crossed my mind as being offensive. What I find offensive though, is when people try to tell me that I should be offended by. Gimp (in one of its definitions) is just a descriptive word for someone with a limp, so I'm a gimp, big fricking deal...

Re:GUI perhaps?

It seems to me that if it hasn't been changed in six years then it's not that great of a problem for most users.

Oh My God. Oh My God.

That is the single least insightful thing I have ever read at /.. Could there possibly be another reason for things not changing? If Microsoft has kept something crummy for six years, would it be reasonable for you to state that it's not a problem for most users, and thus nothing to complain about?

My suggestion to all the people bitching about how GIMP sucks (...) is to become a part of the community.

This is so typical of what is wrong with the open source movement. In real life (which was what TFA was about) most people can't afford to "become part of the community" because they have real, actual work to do. I use at least ten applications on a very regular basis. I most certainly can't afford to "be part of the community" for all of those. In the real world, what counts is how well stuff actually works right now, not how good they could possibly become in the future if everybody would just help out. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

I think it's a little unseemly to bash people who give you something for free.

TFA is about why people don't use the free stuff. That makes this comment a bit disingenious, don't you think?

It doesn't make sense to be oblivious to real user needs and, simultaneously, to bash real users for not using specific stuff. I know I'm Captain Obvious for spelling this out, but it seems to be needed.