Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Graphics The Gimp Linux Technology

GIMP Dropped From Ubuntu 10.04 900

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This discussion has been archived.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 ) * <> on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:23AM (#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.

  • Yep (Score:2, Insightful)

    by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:28AM (#30155866)
    A lot of us have been saying that UI is godawful for a LONG time, only to be shouted down by the fanboys. Now it looks like the developers at Canonical agree. And considering that one of their big goals was to make a user-friendly Linux distro, with a halfway decent GUI, I can understand why they would appreciate something that's obvious to anyone who isn't wearing blinders.
  • name change (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:29AM (#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 MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:29AM (#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.

  • Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:31AM (#30155916)

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

    Oh, wait......

  • by JDeane ( 1402533 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:32AM (#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 kcfoxie ( 1504385 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:37AM (#30155990)
    One of the first things I hear about, next to "Can I sync my iPod" is "Can I run photoshops to edit my pics?" To the average person who has figured out how to crop in Photoshop and paste to things together with layers, GIMP is a dream. Complex, sure, but so is Photoshop. I understand the decision and actually kind of agree with it, but I think saying because it's too confusing for users is a little undermining their target audience of savvy 20 somethings who pirate Photoshop to make LOLcats.
  • Re:Yep (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SaDan ( 81097 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:38AM (#30156004) Homepage

    I'd say you have no idea what the folks at Ubuntu are thinking. It's a huge app, and it takes up disk space. It's also not something your average Ubuntu user will ever use, so it makes sense to make room on the default install CD for other applications that may prove to be more useful to more people.

    I'm one of the folks who learned image editing in the Unix/Linux world, and have yet to touch Photoshop for anything image related.

  • Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darundal ( 891860 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:39AM (#30156020) Journal
    Why is this stupid? Most users photo editing is limited to stuff like removing red-eye. A lot of users don't even do that. Not to say that GIMP isn't good, but one does have to wonder exactly why it should be in the default install or live CD. Can you explain why you think it is borderline stupid for them to pull something out most users aren't using, especially considering they are likely to use the space for a bunch of other software that more people are likely to use (why else would they give a limited room excuse)?
  • by mrjb ( 547783 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:40AM (#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:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Panzor ( 1372841 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:44AM (#30156110)

    I don't mind the gimp UI as long as it has it's own workspace. Gimp on windows or gimp on a desktop used by someone that doesn't utilize multiple workspaces is...agonizing.

  • by SaDan ( 81097 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:44AM (#30156112) Homepage

    RTFA, you are way off base:

            * the general user doesn't use it
            * its user-interface is too complex
            * it's an application for professionals
            * desktop users just want to edit photos and they can do that in F-Spot
            * it's a photoshop replacement and photoshop isn't included by default in Windows...
            * it takes up room on the disc

    None of those are anything the GIMP folks should take as a negative. You don't see Photoshop installed on every home PC for digital photo touch up, do you? They are saying that there are plenty of other smaller, easier to use applications for that purpose. GIMP will still be available via apt/Synaptic for those of us who might want to use it, it's just not going to be part of the DEFAULT installation.

  • Yay. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:44AM (#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.

  • Re:Yep (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dsavi ( 1540343 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:46AM (#30156152) Homepage
    I'm not sure about being yelled at by the fanboys, but I don't think I've seen a single GIMP user, no matter how happy with GIMP, that doesn't want a Photoshop UI.
  • by Rob the Bold ( 788862 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:49AM (#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.

  • Re:Yep (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:49AM (#30156208)
    The problem extends far beyond the fact that GIMP spawns more windows than Internet Explorer 4.0 does when visiting an prOn site.
  • Too bad, really (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:51AM (#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 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 []. 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.

  • by rhyre417 ( 919946 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:51AM (#30156236)
    And we are supposed to believe you because of your anonymity?

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Unfortunately, on slashdot, the second statement is usually
    (sometimes unfairly) tagged as the extraordinary one.
  • by S-4'N3 ( 1232394 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:53AM (#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.
  • by Hikeeba! ( 117395 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:56AM (#30156320) Homepage

    GIMP was an attempt to rival commercial offerings? I'm sure the GIMP developers wanted to make the best software they could, but when you state it like that it just seems so painful.

    From where I sit GIMP is a mess and no where near as nice any many commercial offerings, so it seems they failed pretty badly there. I do like the fact that it exists to some extent and it is free. Though I almost always use an alternative if I can.

    Maybe I'm just really anal about code and quality control so I'm being too harsh here...

  • Re:Yep (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MrHanky ( 141717 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @10:58AM (#30156342) Homepage Journal

    Well, most of you whiners don't seem to actually use it, and now you even make up arguments from the Canonical devs to support your unfounded claims. Of course fanboys will "shout you down"; you don't know what you're talking about.

  • by C_Kode ( 102755 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:00AM (#30156362) Journal

    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?

  • Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)

    by scorp1us ( 235526 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:01AM (#30156378) Journal

    This is par for open source. We've (I) have been clamoring for this for at least 5 years now since 2004/5, and we're getting it delivered in 2010. I am happy it is coming, I am sad it took so damn long. Because I know I was not a marginal case. I refuse to use GIMP because it just isn't laid out like PS. I tried I gave up. I tried I gave up. I tried I gave up. I've seriously tried every year, but I am too ingrained with PS to "get it"

    But I am glad the fan boys came around and realized *they* are the marginal users, and continuing their stance is in turn marginalizing their software. We do need a PS replacement that isn't so damn annoying. Imagine if the KOffice, OpenOffice and GNOME Office document writer apps were a white window where your typing went and each tool bar a separate window. People would hate it. PS/GIMP is no different.

  • by fbjon ( 692006 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:04AM (#30156434) Homepage Journal
    It is worse, because it's an acronym. Not only that, the acronym already exists as an unrelated word in the dictionary, so it's twice as bad. And it has some rather unflattering meanings, so that's three times worse!
    Here's a far better name, took me 2 minutes to think of:

    GNU Image Manipulation, or GIM, pronounced "Jim" as in "Jimmy up some lolcats in there" or "fake, that pic's been jimmed!".

    Easier to pronounce, has no meaning as either GIM or "Jim" in any language I can think of, except as a name in English.
  • Re:Yep (Score:3, Insightful)

    by abigsmurf ( 919188 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:07AM (#30156472)
    The number of little annoyances I have with the GIMP UI are immense.

    Why does closing the toolbox close the whole program?
    Why does it fail to minimise/restore in a non-glitchy way in XP?
    Odd menu choices (why is greyscale/indexed colour/etc in mode rather than colour?).
    Opening a single image to edit. You have to click the close button twice to close GIMP (but only if it's the last open window).

    There's nothing glaring wrong with GIMP, it's just all these minor interface issues all add up and make the program much more of a chore to use than it needs to be.
  • by liquidpele ( 663430 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:08AM (#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.
  • Re:name change (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:19AM (#30156700)

    You can't just change a name arbitrarily. It makes you seem fickle, unmanly. There has to be a good reason.

    For example, if the Gimp project merged with the F-Spot project, the new name could G-Sp -- hrm.

  • Re:name change (Score:5, Insightful)

    by harmonise ( 1484057 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:23AM (#30156764)

    What would be the upside of changing the name?

    The upside would be having a software program whose name is not a pejorative term in the English language.

  • Re:Yep (Score:3, Insightful)

    by websitebroke ( 996163 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:28AM (#30156854)

    I'm by no means a Photoshop power user, but I can get around in it and use it just fine. Personally, I'm much more comfortable in GIMP's UI setup at the moment.

    For example, the single window paradigm doesn't take advantage of Compiz's present windows feature. With my current KDE setup, I mouse to the lower right corner of the screen and it lays out all the windows in the workspace. Click on one, and off you go. With Photoshop, You have to sift through the windows manually.

    Honestly, I'm thinking it's just what you're used to using that makes you like one or the other, and it looks like GIMP will be giving us a choice between single and multi window in the near future. The single window mockups look rather good, and more usable than Photoshop in my opinion.

    Honestly, I think what GIMP really needs is 16 bits/channel image support (WTF guys?), adjustment layers, etc. That's what still keeps me opening up Photoshop, not the UI.

  • Re:Yep (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:28AM (#30156864)

    And perhaps you don't know that GIMP has finally gotten around to single-window after being harangued for YEARS to do so, and as you yourself mentioned, it still has a lot of "rough edges" (i.e. it's not for use in a production environment, or even by casual users). How is that useful to anyone at this point, save for developers? That's right, it's not useful, to ANYONE, except developers, yet I assume you want some beta version of GIMP 2.8 thrown in there just to satisfy your idiocy.

    "Borderline on stupid" indeed (not a real phrase by the way, nor is it even proper English, not that I'd expect proper English from a twat). I'm glad Canonical doesn't trust cretins like you to their QA process.

  • Re:Yep (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:29AM (#30156894)

    The last time I used GIMP, it was to add some text to an image. I opened it up, switch to the text tool, and click the font list... only to be greeted by a a long list of fonts, each displayed in the regular UI font for GIMP. Maybe some people can just see 'Rosewood STD' on a list and know that it's the perfect font for their project, but I just used Photoshop on my GF's computer instead. That little story sums up my feelings about GIMP in general - it's like it's creators almost go out of their way to not offer UI improvements that other software has had for yers.

  • by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <> on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:30AM (#30156898) Journal

    One of the ways of introducing people to alternative software is to install it and have in sitting there on the menu. By removing the GIMP, they're just encouraging people to think that linux is "not ready for serious users."

    For people who are used to working with photoshop, the GIMP is different - hence cumbersome. Same as for people used to MS-Office, OpenOffice is "too different", or who are used to "teh InnerNet == IE", firefox was too cumbersome.

    People got over it with firefox, they're getting over it with oo, and given time, those who are sufficiently motivated to explore will get over it with the gimp.

    Between the fugly colour schemes, the stupid naming schemes, the artificial restrictions on root (hey - it's MY computer, not yours), not including the toolchain for building the system by default - even on xubuntu, etc., I'm glad I stuck with opensuse.

    If they want it to be so dumbed down, why don't they just pull a lindows/linspire?

    Yes, it's a flame, but ubuntu sucks for development. And now it's going to suck for users who want a bit more than average / mediocre.

  • by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:33AM (#30156958)

    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.

  • Re:Too bad, really (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TrancePhreak ( 576593 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:36AM (#30156992)

    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.

  • by poetmatt ( 793785 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:37AM (#30157016) Journal

    Inversely, are we supposed to believe you because of your registered account or UID? a quick google search of "gimp solaris motif" says no []. Try not harping on people just because they're anonymous, douchebag. Disclaimer: I am not the anon.

    From the link:

    Currently, the biggest restriction to running the GIMP is the Motif
    requirement. We will release a statically linked binary for several
    systems soon (including Linux).

  • Re:Yep (Score:3, Insightful)

    by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:42AM (#30157138)
    Oh, that's a bunch of BS. Apple manages to do great UI design without "pandering to Windows-refugee ingrates." It's just a question of too many OSS projects being done completely by coders who think they don't need to bring designers and technical writers onboard (hence the long list of OSS programs with great code but really shitty UI's and piss-poor documentation).
  • Re:Yep (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:43AM (#30157184) Journal

    I've never quite understood the resistance all these years towards using a single multiple document style window

    There is a single window, it's your desktop. If you want to switch away from that window, switch to another desktop. I'll never understand what's so hard about that.

  • John (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:52AM (#30157374)

    I've found myself in a position more than once trying to explain that GIMP is a powerful image editor. But management types don't listen after I tell them the name of the software. "GIMP"'s name is the single biggest barrier to adoption of what is otherwise a fantastic image editing software. I've been using it for years to produce my (admittedly not at the Disney level) graphics - see for my latest project that includes (among a ton of other OSS) GIMP's handy work.

    The latest version of Gimp had some really nice enhancements to the UI. I use GIMP almost every day. Every time I spin up the GIMP process, though, I lament the name.

  • by JSBiff ( 87824 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:57AM (#30157448) Journal

    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.

  • What is the story? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nukenbar ( 215420 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @11:59AM (#30157476)

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19, 2009 @12:03PM (#30157586)

    I disagree; as someone with almost no experience using either GIMP or Photoshop, I find things a lot easier to do in Photoshop on the rare occasions I need to do some image manipulation (on a computer with PS installed). My own computer has Ubuntu (and thus GIMP) on it and every time I need to do something it's a battle between me and the program to get it to do what I want.

  • by mea37 ( 1201159 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @12:04PM (#30157632)

    Oh, cry me a river.

    Intelligent people who want to "solve the problem themselves" will do so by clicking on the install package for GIMP and be right where they'd have been if this hadn't been done. You're the one complaining like a spoiled child, which means presumably you're affiliated with the GIMP project. Meanwhile, the majority of Ubuntu users who don't care either way will go on about their business, noting that there are several MB of tools they actually find useful in the default install where GIMP had previously displaced them.

    Power and efficiency do not require a craptastic user interface. That argument only comes from those who can't do UI design and don't want to admit it's a limitation in their skillset.

    Your movie quotes apply to how we present ourselves, not how we present the things we make. The makers of Ubuntu are making it for users; they want it to be used, so they care what the users think - even the ones you think are idiots for not agreeing with your views on what is good software.

    Meanwhile, you sound awfully bitter that GIMP isn't loved enough to keep its precious spot on the Ubuntu default install CD.

    But you know what, have it your way. If you want to believe that Ubuntu is the project that will suffer as a result of caring about user experience, rather than seeing that GIMP is at this moment suffering for failing to do so, go ahead. Too bad I won't get to hear your excuses when we see this in hindsight a few years from now.

  • by josh_freeman ( 114671 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @12:06PM (#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.

  • Re:Too bad, really (Score:2, Insightful)

    by interval1066 ( 668936 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @12:06PM (#30157668) Homepage Journal
    No, its fine. You can still install GIMP if you want it. Everyone going on about what a bad move this is. Ridiculous. GIMP is a huge blob of software that I very rarely use. Why don't I use it often? Because the UI is NOT intuitive, its all over the place, and doesn't conform AT ALL to the SDI UI model that has proven to be the best UI model out right now (SDI: Firefox, IE. Tabs are ok, 16 different windows keep me searching for what I want, very bad design.) As a UI designer (as one of my hats) GIMP's design is very poor in my opinion, it stinks of being an afterthought of an application. For raster editors that have a superior UI in my opinion look at Carbon 14 or Inkscape, both Linux apps. However, for my money, although not a raster-based editor, take a look at LViewPro. This windows app has the best user interface ever. I spent very little time learning how to use it. Not something I can say about GIMP.
  • by McNihil ( 612243 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @12:09PM (#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 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19, 2009 @12:13PM (#30157804)

    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.

    Photoshop is not intuitive. Where do you get that idea from? The Photoshop UI is a mess. That is why people make a living teaching other people how to use Photoshop.
    In fact the GIMP UI is a lot like various user interfaces that Adobe uses on OS X.

  • by cream wobbly ( 1102689 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @12:18PM (#30157890)

    The same ["It is a very powerful tool"] goes for Photoshop, and none of us expects that to come bundled with Windows...

    Ah, but so often it is, as Photoshop Elephants.

    The danger now is that F-Spot will grow, and we'll have a never-ending cycle of basic utilities becoming ever more bloated tools. Kinda like VW cars (where would we be without a car analogy?): the Lupo is about the size of a Golf Mk. I.

  • by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <> on Thursday November 19, 2009 @12:18PM (#30157900) Journal

    Where do you draw the line though? You can't possibly put icons for everything on the desktop - you'd need a 50" screen.

    [X] Who said anything about icons. Stick it in the applications menu. Would Applications->>Graphics->GIMP be so hard?
    [X] My desktop is 3840x1200, you ignorant clod!
    [X] My 50" plasma IS my laptop secondary display.

    Ubuntu is taking a step backwards here. Again.

  • by dimeglio ( 456244 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @12:21PM (#30157952)

    GIMP's distinctive UI is a breath of fresh air in the world of UI cloning. However, this is a guaranteed fail in terms of user acceptance. I believe that a single UI metaphor is essential, even if it means cloning the UI of other popular applications. Case to point if the UI would have been simpler, IMHO it probably would have been included in Ubuntu. It would also encourage more people to use it instead of Phøtøshøp.

  • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @12:40PM (#30158332) Homepage

    Sometimes I notice a wonderful double standard on slashdot. The GIMP having an interface that is entirely, completely unlike Photoshop is not a weakness. Microsoft rearranging a few things into a ribbon is a complete disaster that will kill it. That. Does. Not. Compute.

    Yes, I know there's more than one person on slashdot but you'd think the moderation and groupthink was the same but even the groupthink is inconsistent. Personally, I think the GIMP interface is a victim of designers with too much knowledge. If you know the code, know the modules then things seem so much more logical than if you're staring at a black box. I just see a bunch of puzzle pieces and no obvious way they're hanging together.

  • by brkello ( 642429 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @12:45PM (#30158418)
    You are captain obvious and captain oblivious in the same post. Duh, it is an acronym. But the acronym has a negative connotation to it. I don't care if Recursive Execution To Automatically Rate Derivatives is the best, most descriptive name you have come up with. If it has a negative connotation, maybe you should come up with something better.
  • by JohnnyBGod ( 1088549 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @12:46PM (#30158448)

    I'm sorry, no. Try doing something as simple as drawing a black box or triangle in GIMP. Why the hell do you have to use paths to draw simple geometric shapes?

  • by mjeffers ( 61490 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @12:57PM (#30158686) Homepage

    If there was a "Canonical's Ultimate Network Test suite", "Sun Human Interface Toolkit" or "Hulu's Interactive Television & Live Entertainment Room" all of those would be descriptive names. However, naming those products after their acronymns would be just as stupid as calling it GIMP.

  • Re:Yay. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vondo ( 303621 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @01:14PM (#30158996)

    Except for the millions of people, you know, using photo managers. F-Spot, digikam, iPhoto, Picasa, Lightroom, Aperture. Yup, no market for those.

  • by Nadaka ( 224565 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @01:17PM (#30159074)

    GIMP isn't ready for serious users because its called GIMP. The word has a fairly long history and association with homoerotic bondage and would be seen as sexually deviant by most people. Someone not familiar with GIMP will have no idea what it actually does and have the above pretext as the only clue. These people with either be terribly offended and avoid it, or be sorely disappointed when they don't find the kink they thought they would.

  • GIMP's stupid name (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nerdposeur ( 910128 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @02:30PM (#30160502) Journal

    GIMP isn't ready for serious users because its called GIMP.

    I'm not familiar with the negative association you mention, but I do have a negative association with the word "Gimp": it's slang for a crippled person. Just what I need: software that hobbles along!

    One thing that Linux seriously needs to get over is the need to name everything with acronyms. Mozilla didn't call their browser the Standard Link-browsing Universal Gui, because SLUG is a horrible name for a browser. And GIMP is a horrible name for... well, anything.

    Then the icon is this crazed badger or something. I'm confused from the get-go.

    The complete lack of marketing savvy is one thing that gives Linux the "not ready for prime time" public image. At least Ubuntu makes software that doesn't scare people.

  • by Fallingcow ( 213461 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @02:51PM (#30160892) Homepage

    Part of the trouble is the attitude of GIMP interface lovers (and the devs?) re. what is the job of the app and what's the job of the WM--specifically, it seems they think that it's the user's job to make sure they're running it in a windowing environment that can pick up The GIMP's slack, since that stuff is "the WM's job, not the app".

    This is a problem because no other programs that I'm aware of subscribe to that philosophy, and (perhaps consequently) I don't even know what environment I'd have to run the damn thing in to get the features it ought to provide on its own. I mean, you're just totally fucked in Windows, and even in Linux the best I've managed was a combination of sticky windows and focus-follows-mouse with a dedicated virtual desktop for The Gimp--but I hate focus-follows-mouse and I hate The Gimp for (apparently) expecting me to use it to make their interface remotely usable.

    I can't remember ever using another program that expected me to bend my environment to the needs of the program, rather than the app finding a way to fit in and handle its own damned unique needs, especially since my preferred WM setup is about as vanilla as you can get.

  • by SgtChaireBourne ( 457691 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @02:57PM (#30161022) Homepage

    The claims of removing Gimp are just smoke and noise to hid the damage the monomaniacs are doing elsewhere in Debian and Ubuntu.

    Microsofters always try to present their schemes as a done deal. It's documented in their bag of tricks. The relevant trick is from plaintiff's exhibit 3096 [] from the court case Comes v Microsoft []. Microsoft appeared prepared to ignore the last state, Iowa, indefinitely in the last unresolved class action case for over-charging. Roll down to page 45 and start reading. Or download the song version [].

    Regardles, Ubuntu 10.4, Lucid Lynx [] is just starting. There are several channels through which the mistake can be corrected. One is through brainstorm: Idea #110: No Mono by default in Ubuntu [] can use your vote.

  • Re:Too bad, really (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fallingcow ( 213461 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @03:03PM (#30161104) Homepage

    Ah, The GIMP--the only application in the world that expects the user and WM to supply most of the UI features that other programs manage to provide on their own.

    God help you if you don't like whatever dumb shit settings you have to use to make The GIMP's interface suck less, or if you don't want to switch/upgrade your WM just because this one program has taken it upon itself to evangelically push a set of WM features and settings that aren't expected by any other application in the whole world.

    Or if you're running it on Windows. Then you're just fucked.

  • by kbielefe ( 606566 ) <> on Thursday November 19, 2009 @03:57PM (#30162096)

    Mucking about with the packaging is the clearest sign you're using the wrong distribution. No one can tell you what the best distro is for your needs, but take a friendly word of advice from someone who used to run gentoo testing, one of the most bleeding edge repositories out there, still considered it to lag too far, so started compiling some apps from cvs, still found that lagging too far, and started manually patching security fixes from mailing lists before they were even committed to cvs. If that sounds like addictive behavior to you, I wouldn't disagree. Upgraders Anonymous, anyone?

    Guess what I run now? My two computers run karmic koala, and my wife's computer runs hardy heron LTS. At some point I asked myself what benefit I was gaining from my obsession with being up to date. I couldn't give a better answer than what you said above: a couple point versions. What's a point version, really? What new features did I rely on, or even just really like from those point versions? I couldn't tell you. What additional risk did I assume by waiting for the normal security update process to propagate through? A negligible few weeks during which my easier to update IDS rules and other layers of security told me I never had anything to worry about. What benefits have I received since I stopped worrying about having the latest and greatest? A system that breaks far less often, and requires much less of my own effort to maintain, while still having a feature set that only lags a few months behind. I still keep up with the news of up and coming new features, but don't worry if it won't work on my desktop until lucid, or whenever. You may have better answers for your situation than I did, but I hope you'll at least ask them of yourself.

  • Re:Yep (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dusty101 ( 765661 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @04:16PM (#30162410)

    Not to try to be deliberately argumentative or sound like a fanboy, but I got used to using the GIMP without struggling too much while a penniless student. If there was something that I didn't know how to do, I could usually follow an online GIMP or Photoshop tutorial well enough to replicate the effect I was aiming for with the GIMP.

    Fast-forward to a couple of years ago, and I finally got around to trying a 30-day trial of Photoshop on my Mac. I simply couldn't ever seem to find what I was looking for in its menu and tools system - things just felt as if they were in the wrong places to me. Nowadays, I'm fortunate enough to find myself in a position to be able to buy a copy of Photoshop these days for my own personal use, and I'd like to be able to learn enough to claim that I'm fairly handy with Photoshop as well, but my (admittedly limited) experience with it has rather put me off the idea.

    For the record, I'm not any kind of professional graphic designer, & my use has been very limited, but I've got to state in all honesty that the GIMP works OK for my own relatively light use. Don't get me wrong: I know that Photoshop has some particular technical advantages (as amply detailed in other posts here), but the cost & (mostly) the time investment required for me to appreciate those is too great.

    This is a fairly rambling post, but my point here is this: while I freely admit that my own experience might just be another example of "Good Enough is the enemy of Best", I think it's not unreasonable to acknowledge that every user tends to get used to certain ways of doing things. Photoshop is widely used (and widely pirated) - so much so that it's become a verb - and so there are probably many more regular users worldwide; consequently, the general consensus is that that's what's intuitive to more people. After all, isn't that perhaps at least part of the reason that (e.g.) Windows is still so popular, and OpenOffice looks the way it does?

    Simply stating that the GIMP UI is "godawful" without providing some concrete justifications and suggestions for improvement is rather abstract, and not actually terribly helpful. "Make it more like Photoshop" doesn't count either, unless concrete examples of why the Photoshop way is actually better are also provided.

  • by ZombieRoboNinja ( 905329 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @04:56PM (#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: [] [] ...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: [] (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 NoobixCube ( 1133473 ) on Thursday November 19, 2009 @09:07PM (#30166916) Journal

    I'm unsure of my facts here, so by all means correct me, but I think I remember reading that GIMP was never originally intended to be a free Photoshop alternative. It started life as a very basic image editor, and it's been shaped by continual ad-hoc alterations into something we can call a Photoshop alternative. I wouldn't say it's a good enough Photoshop alternative for the really high end users who utilize Photoshop to it's full potential, but it's definitely more than enough for 99% of the Photoshop pirates who think they need it just to cut and paste Bush's head onto Hitler's body (a.k.a, 4chan regulars).

  • by deek ( 22697 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:05AM (#30167932) Homepage Journal

    Try using Debian Testing, if you're a little shy of trying the unstable collection. It's still very up to date, lagging the unstable release by a few weeks or months, and packages have already filtered through unstable, so most obvious issues have been ironed out.

    I use Testing as my default release, although I've also selectively installed applications from unstable and experimental. I'm really happy with how it all works. It suits me perfectly.

    Then again, I'm the kind of guy who likes to use Gimp to tweak level curves on photos. Gimp too hard to use? I don't think so.

  • by bigstrat2003 ( 1058574 ) * on Friday November 20, 2009 @01:04AM (#30168266)
    Using a clone of a library which was originally written by Microsoft does not make software "Microsoft-designed".

If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming