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.''"
Where does this leave GIMP? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re:Where does this leave GIMP? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Where does this leave GIMP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Inversely, are we supposed to believe you because of your registered account or UID? a quick google search of "gimp solaris motif" says no [gimp.org]. Try not harping on people just because they're anonymous, douchebag. Disclaimer: I am not the anon.
From the link:
Re:Where does this leave GIMP? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, that's incorrect. GIMP was first made with Motif, and because of restrictions associated with Motif, the GIMP developers decided to create their own toolkit, GTK (aka the GIMP ToolKit). GIMP came first, GTK was later.
As far as GIMP interface goes, it seems to be rather fashionable to complain about it, but I don't think it is that terrible. One thing I would really like to have is a simple way to create a custom menu or toolbox with most frequently used tools and filters. If that was easy to do, I would have nothing whatsoever against GIMPs user interface. Of course, having 16 bit channels would be nice.
Re:Where does this leave GIMP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Curiously... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Another stupid move by ubuntu (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Another stupid move by ubuntu (Score:4, Informative)
I disagree. Serious users will know exactly what they need and download it. 'Regular' desktop users will do fine with FSpot.
It's not as if they are banning GSpot from the desktop. People can always download it if they prefer.
Re:Another stupid move by ubuntu (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Another stupid move by ubuntu (Score:5, Insightful)
[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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where does this leave GIMP? (Score:5, Informative)
crap?!?
I confess - I've tried several photo suites. I would love for Gimp to be as good as or better than photoshop, and it's not.
It *is* 90% of photoshop, at 0% of the price, which is far more than any of the other (half-dozen) suites *I* have seen in various jobs. It has one major failing that they're working on in the palette issue (I happily concede having never been in a situation where that made the slightest difference. That said, sure I don't do desktop publishing, but I'm am not egocentric enough to go "Sure it's a major field but I don't use it so who cares!". Yeah, it's a major failing that doesn't happen to affect most users.)
But it's a great software application, it's simple/intuitive enough that my *mother* can use it (Admittedly, she wasn't ruined by using photoshop first), it does 90% of what it's strongest competitor does, 99% of what any standard user will do, it's a small (~35 mb vs 1 Gig(?!?!) required for CS!) install, it runs well (Let's not get into the *other* CS requirements), and it's, ah . . . not the price of a used car.
You keep using this word - I do not think it means what you think it means.
Pug
Re:Where does this leave GIMP? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
If GIMP is in universe (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:If GIMP is in universe (Score:5, Informative)
Try Debian Unstable.
It's almost always newer than Ubuntu. Stuff is updated very regularly and you don't have to mess around with PPAs.
Re:Where does this leave GIMP? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Where does this leave GIMP? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Where does this leave GIMP? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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
Re:Where does this leave GIMP? (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Re:Where does this leave GIMP? (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Don't forget Paint.NET (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Don't forget Paint.NET (Score:5, Informative)
Plus it's written in [expletive deleted] .NET, so it will probably never be available for Ubuntu
That's funny, because Ubuntu is including F-Spot, which is written in C#.
Re:Where does this leave GIMP? (Score:4, Informative)
Not forgetting on OS X Pixelmator [pixelmator.com] which is a truly *excellent* piece of software
Too bad, really (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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)
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)
In Ubuntu, newbies don't even have to call up a terminal
Just open "Software Center" -> "Graphics" -> "Gimp" -> "Install"
Re:Where does this leave GIMP? (Score:5, Interesting)
...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).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, that's officially being worked on right now. [mmiworks.net]
Personally, I like the multi-window layout, but I'll certainly give the single-window UI a shot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually I LOVE the multi-window layout on a multiscreen setup (image on one screen, tools on the other). But love to HATE it on a single screen setup.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Where does this leave GIMP? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It actually alters the RED part of the eye. It won't just drop a blob of black on the image where ever you happen to click. It won't alter the image if there isn't a red eye there to be corrected.
THIS is the problem with "moron interfaces". No one bothers to notice or care if the functional parts make sense.
Oddly enough this makes the "complicated" interfaces easier to deal with since you have to clean up fewer mistakes and can be more crude with how you "aim" the tool.
Only removed from default install (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Only removed from default install (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Only removed from default install (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
I just installed it on my kubuntu laptop. It's an 8 MB download. I just installed Lightroom 3 on Windows the other day. That's a 120 MB download.
Re:Download size (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's not moved to universe. It's still in main. It's only being removed from the install CD and the default install.
If it's still on the DVD, then I have no complaint, as dial-up users are used to having to buy the DVD from a store like OSDisc.com.
Re:Download size (Score:5, Funny)
The Windows GIMP installer is 16MB if that takes 5 hours to download it would mean it takes 9.11 days to download the full 700MB ISO.
Wow I just realized something if it take 5 hours to download 16MB that is about 7Kb/s. At that rate it take 9.11 days to download 700MB. See the relationship 700, 7, and 9.11.
It means that GWB knew about 9-11. 9-11 was perfectly executed hence the 7, the 700 club is a conservative organization so that means GWB new. Canonical fits in because Linux is a Communist system and they want to found a NWO.
PEOPLE OPEN YOUR EYES
Re:Only removed from default install (Score:5, Informative)
If you want Slackware you know where to find it.
Eh. (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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
Re:name change (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
>> 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! :-)
The name says what it does (Score:3, Informative)
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".
Re:The name says what it does (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The name says what it does (Score:4, Funny)
GIM is truly outrageous. Truly, truly, truly, outrageous!
Re:The name says what it does (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The name says what it does (Score:4, Insightful)
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:name change (Score:5, Insightful)
The upside would be having a software program whose name is not a pejorative term in the English language.
John (Score:5, Insightful)
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 farmdirectory.org 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.
I have no issue with this (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I have no issue with this (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
Nonsense. it's like removing Photoshop from the install of Windows.
Oh, wait......
What is F Spot? (Score:3, Interesting)
I looked in the repository for kubuntu 9.10 and didn't find anything with that name. What is it and where is it?
Re:What is F Spot? (Score:5, Funny)
"What is it and where is it?"
Are you sure didn't mean G Spot? :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"What is it and where is it?"
Are you sure didn't mean G Spot? :)
Which is the name of a program for identifying the codecs used in .avi files, so you know what to get to be able to play them.
Seriously.
PFref (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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.
They've got this one backwards. (Score:4, Informative)
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...
Re:They've got this one backwards. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
not a surprise (Score:5, Funny)
A distribution for those who can't find their ass with both hands.
What is the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as I can still do "sudo apt-get install gimp", who cares?
This IMHO is a nonissue (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Why I Quit GIMP After 2 Minutes (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Using-Paint [microsoft.com]
http://www.extropia.com/tutorials/photoshop/line_tool.html [extropia.com]
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.
shoot the decision-makers at Gnome (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:4, Informative)
In how many editors is the red-eye-removal tool something that actually manipulates the red layer of the image rather than just being a black paint tool?
It seems stupid that Gimp is one of the few editors that will not mar your photos if you try to do red-eye removal on something like the cheek but it is true. The dang thing is a tad more complex than a "simple editor" needs to be but it at least gets the "technical details" of the process correct. The "simple tools" don't.
I've been suggesting a "granny gimp" sort of UI theme for a long time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This sort of "why bother" and "the rubes can't tell" attitude is why iPhoto and Picasa are the Velveeta of image editors.
I also suspect that those cheesy tools simply prevent "work" from being done entirely. Those tools only seem to be easy because of the convincing veneer. They really aren't. That was part of my point. "Doing it right" is actually HARDER with those "easy" image managers.
Fortunately JPEG is an open standard.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless the GIMP team has a time machine, I think his points are valid. At least the GIMP fanboys aren't as bad as the Blender fanboys who will tell you to your face that Blender's GUI isn't confusing...
Re:Yep (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yep (Score:4, Funny)
Why is it boarder line stupid?
2.8 is not out yet so the current version is still the one with the not so easy to use interface.
I bet that it will be on the the Add remove menu if not Synaptic so what is the problem?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
You are not looking for alternatives. (Score:3, Interesting)
You are looking for rip-offs.
An alternative to anything will not ape mindlessly the thing it is intending to supplant, people developing similar tools arrive to different conclussions, specially when it comes to usability.
Usability is certainly related to familiarity (most people that say something is not "user friendly" or "intuitive" what they really mean is that they are used to a piece of software and that they will never learn anything else because they have invested so much on the previous tool.
The GI
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Interesting)
As a long time GUI critic I've never quite understood the resistance all these years towards using a single multiple document style window for graphics editing. The kind of graphics editing I do usually involves dozens of tiny images all open at the same time. In the "real world" desktop with paper and scissors it was once not uncommon for someone to use a cutting tray of some kind that could be moved and set aside without having to move or otherwise deal with dozens of individual image scraps.
Obviously not everybody works the same way, and window managers/desktops these days are better at dealing with groups of windows, but it always seemed crazy not to at least have it as an option.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 wh
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fark.com photoshop contests? (Score:4, Funny)
You are doing it wrong.
This looks shopped.
I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few in my time.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
To me photoshop was the odd interface because I encountered that after gimp and CAD programs - and then got flamed a great deal when I asked where undo was. The response from several was "real professionals save frequently and will never need undo" along with a prolonged game of kick the newbie that never pretended to be anything else in the first place. The reality is just like CAD and solid modelling programs. There are too many options to make a simple interface possible thus both suck until you've used them a lot.
Re:Oh the power of the retards... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.