Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics The Gimp Linux Technology

GIMP Dropped From Ubuntu 10.04 900

Posted by Soulskill
from the should-have-used-the-fireman's-carry dept.
kai_hiwatari writes "It looks like the Ubuntu developers consider GIMP to be too powerful for a normal desktop user. They are removing it from the upcoming Ubuntu 10.04. Among the reasons cited are that the UI is too complex, it takes up room on the disc, and 'desktop users just want to edit photos and they can do that in F-Spot.''"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GIMP Dropped From Ubuntu 10.04

Comments Filter:
  • by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:23AM (#30155784) Journal

    Too powerful for normal users, too limited for power users.

    Image editing is still way behind Windows and Mac OSX, where you have Photoshop for power users and also Paint Shop Pro for less power users, but who still like a full image editing suite.

    • by lisaparratt (752068) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:25AM (#30155828)

      Chained up in the basement.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Funny. Pulp Fiction joke about the Gimp. I laugh EVERY time!

        Rally thogh, there is a mild situational irony in moving Gimp from the Disc to an online annex...

        The Gimp was orgiginally envisioned to demonstrate the power and flexibility of free, desktop systems. The creators wanted to show Linux and free software "stone soup" development was capable of producing and supporting software that rivaled what was available as commercial offerings.

        One side effect of this was the generation of a new toolkit for the

        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:42AM (#30156076)
          Gimp was originally built on Solaris using Motif. I used to work with Spencer and it had nothing to do with demonstrating the power and flexibility of free desktop systems.
        • by S-4'N3 (1232394) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:53AM (#30156268)
          Agreed about the joke, but does GNOME and Ubuntu rely on GIMP? I doubt it. Anybody who needs it can still install it, and it will still top most searches as being the only viable free alternative to photoshop.
        • Curiously... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:24AM (#30156778) Journal
          I remove F-Spot, which I neither like nor use. Actually I nearly despise it due to the hard-coded directory name stupidity introduced a couple of Ubuntu versions ago (every volume with a /photos directory was deemed to be from a digital camera, even if it was a 1TB internal fixed disk). The resulting moronic behavior of the file browser was really Ubuntu's fault, but F-Spot carries the stigma.

          Our raw photo processing is done with Bibble Pro and Noise Ninja, both of which sell native Linux versions. GIMP is a keeper for image editing, however, and gets quite a lot of use. Especially by my teenage daughter, who became a GIMP whiz as a pre-teen.
          • I second this. F-Spot is terrible. Makes a total clusterfucked mess of your filing system. I've hated it for years.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by timeOday (582209)

          there is a mild situational irony in moving Gimp from the Disc to an online annex...

          The online repository isn't an "annex," the disc is... raise your hand if you actually install new packages by digging around for a CD-ROM. Nobody? I use Ubuntu and Gimp and probably never would have noticed this.

    • by MBGMorden (803437) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:29AM (#30155898)

      I don't think many people will care. Ubuntu already doesn't provide a lot of software I use pretty often (avidemux for example) - I'll just grab GIMP using apt.

      I like it though. Don't get me wrong as someone who once taught Photoshop (only a beginner's class - I'm by no means a Photshop guru) I realize that it's limited in comparison, but the thing is that I don't do professional graphics work. I edit home pictures and just generally goof around. I need more than MS Paint, but I don't want to spend any money given my limited software budget I allow myself for personal purchases (mostly just games nowadays - for utility programs I use only free stuff). As such, since I won't resort to pirating commercial apps, GIMP does nicely. It's about as close to Photoshop as you're going to get in a free application, and once you get used to it it's not that bad.

      • by tepples (727027) <tepples AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:36AM (#30155966) Homepage Journal

        I'll just grab GIMP using apt.

        But if it's in "universe", Canonical won't sell tech support, and it'll probably lag behind in updates.

        It's about as close to Photoshop as you're going to get in a free application

        The more honest comparison is to Photoshop Elements, but otherwise, your point is valid.

      • by josh_freeman (114671) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:06AM (#30157664)

        I've always wondered why one of the camera manufacturers hasn't gotten behind Gimp instead of writing their own buggy photo editing/raw conversion tools. It would prove interesting.

        • by AusIV (950840) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:42AM (#30158376)
          Similar things have happened with other products like Audacity. My mother-in-law runs a dance studio and was banging ahead against the software she was using to mix tracks for a recital. I suggested Audacity, but she was convinced that because it was free it couldn't possibly be better than what she had. The next year I saw she was using Audacity and commented that I saw she had taken my advice. She told me that this wasn't a free program, that it had come with some piece of hardware she'd purchased. I shook my head and moved on, but I found it interesting that audacity was gaining a user base through inclusion with hardware.
          • by b4dc0d3r (1268512) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @12:56PM (#30159820)

            People like this, I usually say you're right, it isn't free. It comes bundled if you buy a computer with Linux. But for this software, the authors don't mind if you use it on Windows too.

            I'd be interested in what hardware it was bundled with. So interested I found this page actually:
            http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/bundlers [sourceforge.net]

            Sound cards, ADC audio capture, USB electric guitars (wtf is that anyway), other misc packages. If the software is good, people will put it wherever is needs to be. I guess GIMP is more useful as a toolkit than an application.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by the_womble (580291)

        I realize that it's limited in comparison

        I would like to know what the currently missing features are. When this has come up previously people have mentioned colour separation (there is now a plugin for that), bit depth (still a problem:, but you could use the CinePaint fork), adjustment layers (does this address it: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread1259.htm [cambridgeincolour.com]?), colour management (I assume there are specific missing features within this, as the GIMP has colour management) and the lack of Panatone colours (no FOSS software will ever ha

        • by spitzak (4019) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @02:27PM (#30161528) Homepage

          Though dweebs here like to throw out buzzwords like CMYK and > 8 bits, the most obvious missing thing is that you cannot "group" the layers so that the compositing operation is done between them and then the result is overlayed. For instance you cannot non-destructively colorize a lineart layer and put it on top of a background, something that Photoshop makes easy.

          More than 3 channels (CMYK is one minor use of that) would be nice. In professional special effects graphics these are used mostly for mattes and effects channels and information such as the normals of the surfaces. Use for the printing "black" is a minor insignificant detail compared to these other things.

          Having worked with professional graphics quite a bit I have to say that "color management" is 95% bullshit. It is not possible to make a reflective printout the "same" as a light-emitting screen, anybody claiming this is lying.

          Photo manipulation and painting is helped considerably by not losing information on display, this means that on current 8-bit images and 8-bit displays, any method other than 1:1 mapping of the image values to the display is WRONG, and thus most "color management" is in fact harmful (dithering and error diffusion can resolve this problem some, but nobody is doing it because users don't like the slightly-visible patterns, 10-bit displays may help here).

          If you really want to manage actual light data, the most important step is to change the internal representation to a "linear" format where the emitted energy is proportional to the stored number, but the "color management" people refuse to do it because it would make "color management" (ie changing the primaries) into a trivial matrix transform and put them out of business. Also it is not practical in any integer-based storage format.

          I very much hope they forget completely about any integers > 8 bits. If you are going to use 16 bits then use ILM/Nvidia "half" floating-point format. Stop living in the previous century and pretending something Photoshop did then is actually modern...

          • by Eponymous Bastard (1143615) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @06:04PM (#30165468)

            Group layers and a single window interface are in current SVN.

            For everything else you'll have to wait a year or two until the Gimp developers integrate their new GEGL framework, revamping Gimp into something else entirely along the way. It'll use float-based RGB as its internal representation, but handle anything as input and output. The current implementation of GEGL is dog-slow though, so don't bother to try it.

            As for the GP's suggestion for adjustment layers, no it's not enough. And yes, Adjustment layers could be implemented without waiting for GEGL integration, but the Gimp developers refuse to do it worrying that it'll make the integration harder (And because they want to come up with a completely new UI for them).

    • by Nerdposeur (910128) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:41AM (#30156050) Journal

      On Windows there's also my personal favorite, Paint.NET. It does WAY more than Paint, it's fast, and it's free. It ain't Photoshop, but it's all I need.

    • by beelsebob (529313) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:47AM (#30156170)

      Not forgetting on OS X Pixelmator [pixelmator.com] which is a truly *excellent* piece of software

    • Too bad, really (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KingSkippus (799657) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:51AM (#30156230) Homepage Journal

      It's too bad, really. I like GIMP because it shows users that unlike Windows, which comes with a bunch of widget apps at best, that Ubuntu comes with serious productivity software, equivalents of which on Windows can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars.

      I guess I can see where they're coming from. I do agree that double-clicking on a picture shouldn't launch a full-fledged photo editor like GIMP, but I liked that it was easily accessible without having to do anything extra. Couldn't the same argument be made of OpenOffice.org? Are they going to replace it anytime soon with a scaled-down Wordpad equivalent? What about Compiz? Those also take up space, aren't needed for basic computer use, and could be installed with trivial effort.

      Image editing is still way behind Windows and Mac OSX, where you have Photoshop for power users and also Paint Shop Pro for less power users, but who still like a full image editing suite.

      Actually, for most users, I'd suggest GIMP on Windows, or for lighter-duty work, Paint.NET [getpaint.net]. I gave up on Paint Shop Pro after Jasc sold out to Corel. It's gotten more expensive and now they're playing games I hate that other mainstream commercial software is. (There's now a more expensive "Paint Shop Pro Ultimate" edition...). Too bad, too. Years ago, Paint Shop Pro was one of the first shareware programs I ever bought.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TrancePhreak (576593)

        that Ubuntu comes with serious productivity software, equivalents of which on Windows can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars

        I'm willing to wager that the majority of that software is also available for free on Windows. GIMP is a prime example.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      The summary leaves a little of the story out. Per TFA, it's not included in the DEFAULT INSTALL, but isn't removed from the repositories and is still available for install.

      A simple sudo apt-get install gimp will install it on your system.

      The article makes it sound like Gimp won't be available. It may as well go on to list all of the other software that isn't installed by the default installer, but that list is extensive.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Abreu (173023)

        In Ubuntu, newbies don't even have to call up a terminal

        Just open "Software Center" -> "Graphics" -> "Gimp" -> "Install"

    • by Will.Woodhull (1038600) <wwoodhull@gmail.com> on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:50AM (#30157348) Homepage Journal

      ...too limited for power users

      Uh, no. Not any more.

      I used Paint Shop Pro from nearly its beginnings until Jasc sold it to Corel. I tried Corel's first version (PSP v9 IIRC) and went back to Jasc's last version (PSP v8.1 or 8.2) since the Corel version offered nothing of significance except more idiot buttons ("click this and it will make your image better!). Then I moved to GIMP when I switched from Windows to Unbuntu-- 2007 / 2008, about 18 months in transition. Much of the transition involved learning GIMP's menus, and with changes in the last version I think this is now going to be easier for newcomers.

      If you are doing commercial image work for hardcopy printing, then you need to have at least one copy of Photoshop available for the specific tools it provides for that kind of stuff (CMYK color separation, etc). And you have probably gotten your formal schooling on Photoshop and it probably isn't worth it to you to build skills with any other interface.

      For everyone else, including commercial work for electronic presentation (PowerPoint, PDFs, web pages, texture and billboards in 3D modeling and animation, etc), PSP used to be an excellent low cost alternative to Photoshop. Upgrades were adding new significant new features and there was a large and active community providing an incredible amount of support. But Corel appears to be more focused on developing more idiot buttons for the digital camera amateur than in making improvements to the core code.

      Meanwhile, GIMP has gained significant new capabilities and is now the clear leader in all aspects of image preparation with two exceptions: it does not have the specialized tools for interfacing with hardcopy print shops; it uses a different menu structure and nomenclature than that used in Photoshop based schools. GIMP's core is under active improvement, with new releases happening more frequently than Photoshop or Corel can manage. There is a large community of users who are providing the same kind of support that PSP users used to enjoy.

      The GIMP has layering, masking, and filtering that is equivalent to Photoshop. It has a plugin capability and the community has provided a very broad range of additional features through this. It is a product that can do serious image work.

      Back to the main topic of this thread-- I think Ubuntu is right in dropping the GIMP from automatic inclusion. Those of us who are into serious image work will have no trouble adding it back in. Persons who are looking for quick fixes for their snapshots are better served by Picassa or something like that (I haven't done any work with F-Spot so I can't say anything about it).

  • by Albanach (527650) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:24AM (#30155806) Homepage

    Let's be clear - it's not removed from Ubuntu, it's removed from the default install.

    It's still a click away in the package manager.

    Sounds sensible to me. I'd imagine the vast majority of Ubuntu users are unlikely to use the gimp.

    • by JDeane (1402533) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:32AM (#30155924) Journal

      I agree it should be in the package manager as a download.

      I think the CD version should just be a bare bones OS with all your drivers and a few basic aps, the DVD version should be the deluxe model with all the bells and whistles.

      That way for people who just want to add stuff later so they can pick and choose load a CD for people who want it all weather they use it not they can go DVD.

      I think some other distro's work this way.

    • by Rob the Bold (788862) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:49AM (#30156202)

      Sounds sensible to me. I'd imagine the vast majority of Ubuntu users are unlikely to use the gimp.

      And any user that wants Gimp will know to install it. It was a rather specialized package to install on every desktop distro. We don't put geda or rosegarden or Scilab on every desktop. If I'm setting up a machine for web browsing, games, light office tasks, etc., Gimp just wastes space and install time.

  • Eh. (Score:3, Informative)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:28AM (#30155862) Journal
    This should more properly say "GIMP dropped from Default Ubuntu 10.04"

    If GIMP were actually being dropped(i.e. the devs said "fuck it, it isn't worth packaging for our repos, users who care can get it from a third party repo or build it from source.") that would be news, and bad news for GIMP. As it is, though, Ubuntu makes it trivial to find and install programs that are in the default repositories.
  • name change (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:29AM (#30155896)

    why do the developers of gimp refuse to change the name? i have used gimp, i have it installed on windows, and i really like it. i think that given it is free software, it goes far and beyond what one would expect of a free program.

    but surely it could benefit from a name change...what would be the downside of a name change? would some developer's egos be bruised that they bowed to outside pressure?

    i dont mean to troll, but once the name changes

    • by thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) <marc,paradise&gmail,com> on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:35AM (#30155956) Homepage Journal
      dude, finish your sentence! The suspense is killing me!
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by muckracer (1204794)

        >> i dont mean to troll, but once the name changes

        > dude, finish your sentence! The suspense is killing me! ...the year of the Linux Desktop has arrived.

        TFIFY! :-)

    • why do the developers of gimp refuse to change the name?

      "GNU Image Manipulation Program" is a program published by the GNU project that manipulates images. As a descriptive name, it's no worse than "Microsoft Internet Explorer".

  • by C_Kode (102755) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:30AM (#30155908) Journal

    I have no issue with this. Gimp is more than most people need anyhow and maybe it will be a good kick in the nads to get the Gimp guys to clean it up a little more.

    Photoshop is a lot more intuitive than Gimp is. I always feel like I have to jump through hoops to do the same thing in Gimp as I do in Photoshop.

    • by mrjb (547783) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:40AM (#30156040)
      When are people going to learn?

      Photoshop is a lot more intuitive than Gimp is

      if you're used to Photoshop. Gimp is a lot more intuitive than Photoshop if you're used to Gimp. I've cursed at Photoshop; my wife curses at Gimp. That's cause we got used to working with one, and the other just works differently.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by C_Kode (102755)

        This isn't true. In Photoshop, I use the selector tool and select an area and crop it. In Gimp I have to add a layer, then select an area a crop. WTF is the point of adding a layer so I can crop it?

        • by liquidpele (663430) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:08AM (#30156490) Journal
          And lets not forget the fact that if you paste, it adds a paste layer but doesn't show the thing you pasted until you right click on the new layer and choose.. "new layer". ??? And the fact that it won't look at what's on the clipboard, and use those dimensions when I go to file->new. Gimp has a lot of potential, but they need to make it "just work" and pull their heads out of their asses.
        • What version of GIMP are you using, something from like 1998?

          1) Make selection
          2) Open "Image" menu in main menubar
          3) Click "Crop to Selection"

          You're done. That seems pretty easy and straight forward to me, and sounds almost identical to what you described. It's the way I've been cropping images for as long as I can remember in GIMP. I'm sure there's *always* a harder way you can find to do something, but that doesn't mean it's the way you are intended to.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by grumbel (592662)

        Gimp is a lot more intuitive than Photoshop if you're used to Gimp.

        It really isn't. Gimp lacks of toolbar is annoying (had to patch that in myself), the use of multiple windows gets in the way a lot, no proper line, circle, etc. tools (no, stroking/filling a selection is not the same), the palette editor is abominable, the brush dialog unsortable and there are many other weird little things, like that you have to Ctrl-Alt+mouse-button to just move a selection, that make Gimp less then perfect. And whats the point of the "Floating Selection", why isn't that a normal layer?

        T

  • Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:31AM (#30155916)

    Nonsense. it's like removing Photoshop from the install of Windows.

    Oh, wait......

  • What is F Spot? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sporkinum (655143) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:42AM (#30156068)

    I looked in the repository for kubuntu 9.10 and didn't find anything with that name. What is it and where is it?

  • PFref (Score:5, Funny)

    by muckracer (1204794) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:43AM (#30156102)

    Zed: Bring out the Gimp.
    Maynard: Gimp's not installed.
    Zed: Well, I guess you're gonna have to go apt-get install him now, won't you?

  • Yay. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:44AM (#30156116)

    Ok, so they removed GIMP. Maybe not so bad... assuming their out-of-the-install "replacement" was decent. But come on, F-Spot? What the f***? Seriously? I don't like so-called "media libraries" that ask you for a specific "working directory" and mention copying all your crap over to it *right on the first screen*. I guess the best thing about this is that it's only a _sudo apt-get install gimp_ away. Couldn't their replacement at least be a proper image EDITOR, not all-in-one manager? No way in hell I'm touching F-Spot, that's for sure.

  • by ProppaT (557551) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:01AM (#30156372) Homepage

    It's not that Gimp is too powerful for the normal desktop user, it's the fact that Gimp's user interface is way, way too confusing for anyone but those who REALLY want to learn it. I've been using Adobe and Corel paint/photoediting programs for 15 years now and, let me tell you, that knowledge does not necessarily translate to Gimp. It's like starting from scratch, and not in the "about time someone rebuilt this from the ground up" kind of way, more of the "what the hell were they thinking?" kinda way. Then again, it's open source. It's powerful software created by people who'd rather be using a command line anyway...

    • by Eugene O'Neil (140081) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:25AM (#30156794)

      No, what it's REALLY about is the amount of space it takes up on an install CD, and the fact that even your proverbial Grandmother could figure out how to install it off the internet with one mouse click using Ubuntu's amazingly slick package management interface.

      This story should have been titled "Ubuntu speeds up install process for people who don't select Gimp", except that would make it too obvious that there is no story worth writing about here.

  • by smoker2 (750216) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:39AM (#30157074) Homepage Journal
    I look forward to the day when Canonical finally get rid of that pesky Linux thing from their default install. I mean all it does is confuse people who can't run their walmart bought software on it. Die Ubuntu die.

    A distribution for those who can't find their ass with both hands.
  • What is the story? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nukenbar (215420) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:59AM (#30157476)

    As long as I can still do "sudo apt-get install gimp", who cares?

  • by McNihil (612243) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:09AM (#30157726)

    Yeah I too got a bit "pissy" when I discovered that XEmacs was not included in the Red Hat releases by default anymore... 10 years ago or something close to that.... but with yum/apt et.al. its easy to get... I have over 1 GB of packages that aren't in the default Fedora install... big deal... booohooo... its so simple that I've completely forgot about what a default install is and I don't care.

    A big non-story but that is my side of the view. YMMV.

  • Ubuntu Studio (Score:4, Informative)

    by kayoshiii (1099149) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:48AM (#30158484)
    Its worth noting that gimp will still be part of the default install for Ubuntu Studio. Should you require Gimp on a default install of some kind.
  • by ZombieRoboNinja (905329) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @03:56PM (#30163166)

    So I've used various drawing programs for years to make crappy little graphical schematics to post online. MS Paint is all I really need, although I've used Photoshop and similar programs as well.

    I heard a lot about how powerful GIMP was, and my Mac didn't come with even a basic drawing tool, so I downloaded it. Lasted... oh, maybe 2 minutes.

    The issue came when I wanted to draw a line. Now, every other graphics program I've used has a "line" tool, somewhere in plain sight. Observe:
    http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Using-Paint [microsoft.com]
    http://www.extropia.com/tutorials/photoshop/line_tool.html [extropia.com] ...and so on. Such was not the case for GIMP. In GIMP, you use the Shift key with other tools to draw lines. Not an inherently bad way of doing things, I guess. But here's how you have to find out about it:

    http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Straight_Line/ [gimp.org] (That's from the official GIMP site, mind you.)

    Hey, GIMP guys. Screw you and your sarcastic screenshot telling me what the "Shift" button is. Your interface is the WEIRD one. People who use MS Paint or Photoshop or friggin' ClarisWorks - your potential customers - expect "line" to be a tool, not a key. And it's not like the key is entitled "Shift Or Draw Straight Lines In Some Linux Programs." It is NON-OBVIOUS that this would be the manner you draw lines. I don't care that I had to look up how to use a new interface, but don't act like I'm supposed to psychically fucking know ahead of time how your arbitrary interface works.

    Note how both MS Paint and Photoshop are way MORE straightforward in this operation, and yet avoid sarcasm in their tutorials.

  • by quixote9 (999874) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @04:34PM (#30163948) Homepage
    Honestly. F-spot is awful. Gthumb actually works -- you can do complicated stuff like decide which directory you want photos to be in. First thing I do with a new ubuntu install is dump f-spot, install gthumb, go through the effing rigamorole to make it the default app for that, and curse a whole bunch. For any actual image processing, it's gimp. Duh.

    The gnome devs have so many stupid defaults sometimes I wonder what planet they live on. Just one example: you can't rename the desktop icons for media. It's "8GB-drive" or whatever. I have about three separate USB thumbdrives, all 8GB, and no way to name them something useful because I'm such a dumb user that would confuse me.

    The only one with enough clout to kick those guys is probably Shuttleworth. So why in hell isn't he doing it?

Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. - Henry Spencer, University of Toronto Unix hack

Working...