Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Gimp Graphics Software

GIMP's 10th Anniversary Splash Contest 171

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the has-it-been-10-years-already dept.
Lalakis writes "Barely in time for GIMP's tenth birthday is the 10th Anniversary GIMP Splash Contest. This new contest requires a tutorial with the submissions, so get out your favorite text editor and show us all of the beautiful things you can make your GIMP do. Submit those entries and wait to see if there is a gimp-2.2.10 with your entry as the very special release splash. Here are all the current submissions. The contest will be open until Sunday the 27th of November, at which point the winner will be announced and committed to CVS. Happy Birthday GIMP!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GIMP's 10th Anniversary Splash Contest

Comments Filter:
  • But the gimps sleeping...

    Well wake em up!

    • Apparently the gimp isn't all that is asleep... The contest [gimp.org] has been closed.

      "Submissions The contest is now closed. You can view the current submissions in the gallery or in the public voting system. Results The jury has now made it's choice and we have a winner: "work in progress..." by Bill Luhtala has been choosen as the splash image for Gimp 2.2."

      Somebody better wake up Commander Taco and let him know.

      Homer: Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the ani
  • by Bumjubeo (849737)
    Happy Birthday GIMP! Huzzah!
  • by J. T. MacLeod (111094) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @12:42PM (#14101157)
    If the GIMP is ten years old, that says a lot about my own age.

    I refuse to accept this arbitrary number!
  • by AntiDragon (930097) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @12:45PM (#14101185)
    Happy Birthday to you,
    Happy Birthday to you!
    You like tight black leathers...
    And belong in a zoo! .... ... ...OK..I'm really sorry..don't know what came over me..I'll climb back in my box now...

  • Fancy text editor (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 0110011001110101 (881374) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @12:45PM (#14101186) Journal
    FTFA - so get out your favorite text editor and show us all of the beautiful things you can make your GIMP do.

    I looked at those current submissions, and if I could get my text editor to do that, I wouldn't need any fancy competition to validate my skillz!

    • Re:Fancy text editor (Score:2, Informative)

      by Lalakis (308990)
      Are you a journalist? Read the whole sentence:

      This new contest requires a tutorial with the submissions, so get out your favorite text editor and show us all of the beautiful things you can make your GIMP do.

      • > Are you a journalist? Read the whole sentence:

        He probably read it and was still confused, given that the `journalist` used the word `show` when he meant to use `describe`.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      "and show us all of the beautiful things you can make your GIMP do."

      Trust me, he does anything I goddamned tell him to do.
    • Of course you can use your text editor to do great images. Just type it in postscript.
      Ok, to actually see the images you'll need either a postscript viewer or a really great imagination (but then, to type postscript images directly in the editor, you probably need the latter anyway :-)).
  • Is it ok (Score:5, Funny)

    by commodoresloat (172735) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @12:47PM (#14101202)
    to submit an entry I created with Photoshop?
    • Re:Is it ok (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This is probably why they require a tutorial.
    • Frankly, for the last splash screen contest, I've submitted quite a few images made in Corel Photopaint on a Windows box (obviously). Most of them got good scores and some ended up high in the ranking. :)
  • Age shows (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    GIMP's age shows. It has been improved and polished what it has but it has also in features fallen behind with the modern features the commercial professional photo editing and imagery applications have. I wouldn't myself even bother noticing GIMP's anniversaries nowadays, sadly.

    No dynamic effect layers, the drawing tools are from CCCP, the color management still has got a lot to do, pdf importing isn't very good afaik, ... Bah. GIMP can imho just plain rot in hell and stay in the earlier 80s as a tool as t
    • by diegocgteleline.es (653730) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @01:01PM (#14101310)
      No dynamic effect layers, the drawing tools are from CCCP, the color management still has got a lot to do, pdf importing isn't very good afaik

      But they're adding a new splash screen!
    • Even if it can't fully compete with the commercial ones, the underlying fact that it's free, and you can still with a little added effort do most things with GIMP that you can do with other editing packages, kind of takes it out of the "rot in hell" category, for me anyway.
    • GIMP can imho just plain rot in hell and stay in the earlier 80s as a tool as the developers seem to be prioritizing.

      dude, it's free. don't like the development status? lend a hand [gimp.org].

    • Note to self: AC works for Adobe.

      Laugh! It's a joke!

      Maybe.

      qz
    • by staticsage (889437)
      "the drawing tools are from CCCP"

      The drawing tools are from the USSR?
    • Fallen behind??? GIMP never got past the competition.

      Anyway, considering there's no corporation to whip the development along, GIMP folks have succeeded bolting in a lot of what I would consider basic necessities of drawing. Everything else is just extra that would be cool to have but not really necessary.

      Sure, additional drawing tools and such would be nice, but at this price, I'm not complaining.

    • I've got a great new splash screen that I made using the GIMP. Now if I can just remember how to crop it... select, crop, no that didn't work... transform tools, select... no... dammit!
      • Now if I can just remember how to crop it... select, crop, no that didn't work.

        Yeah, that one's a bit of a trap if you're coming from Photoshop. Actually, the crop tool works fine, but by default it's set to crop a single layer, not the whole image. Unselect the "Current Layer Only" checkbox and it'll work like Photoshop from then on.
    • Slightly OT, like the parent post, but... :)

      I think I prefer the older Gimp (1.2). I've tried a couple versions from the newer 2.x series, and I think it's lost some of its quality. Sure adding Python-Fu is nifty and there's some nice eye-candy in the tools, but they've dropped some of the important features, and I'm noticing more color artifacts in my images after I make some simple changes.

      e.g. Image->Colors->Invert from v1.2 has disappeared. Filters->Colors->Value Invert is a poor repl

  • by Stumbles (602007)
    You know instead of worrying about some silly splash screen. How about making it support 16 bit tiffs and saving at that. AFAIK 2.2.9 don't.
    • why is this a troll now??
    • Why prioritize support for 16 bit tiffs? Most of the viewers don't yet. Really bugged me when a newer imagemagick made a 16 bit tiff without me asking it to, and it wouldn't work with any of my other applications, and I had to waste hours to figure out why IM was spitting out a tiff that didn't work with anything.
    • The developers don't need to do a lick of work for this splash screen contest. It's fun, something a non-hacker can do, and good advertising for the Gimp. It's not like the devs are all drawing splash screens instead of making 16-bit support work (not that you have a right to demand that they do *anything*, let alone a specific feature on a specific timeline). It's not the "either-or" situation you make it out to be...
  • by CrazyJim1 (809850) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @12:50PM (#14101229) Journal
    The free Gimp port to windows saved me money I would have had to use on a commercial Photoshop. Its nice to have another piece of free software that belongs on every person's computer.
    • I have saved money and also stayed on the right side of the law thanks to the GIMP.
      In the "war on piracy", there is no better weapon than Open Source :-) Why steal it (Piracy IS theft remember!) when:
      a. you can get it for free.
      b. it does almost exactly what you want and,
      c. you can even have a say in what it does next! if you're that way inclined ;-)
  • If anyone submits the Photoshop 1.0 splash screen, he gets a spanking. It was slow going for a while, but The GIMP's come far in the last couple years. Excellent work, duders.
    • Re:Not funny (Score:3, Interesting)

      by temojen (678985)
      Come far? only if you want to limit yourself to cartoon drawing (better done vector anyways). Still no 16 bit support. Still no colour management. Both are must haves for photograph editing.
      • I have never needed CMYK or 16-bit support for my home photos. Most people are not pro photographers or even hobbyist phographers. The professionals will never touch Gimp even if it does support 16-bit and CMYK.
        • CMYK is not colour management.
        • If you want to correct lighting in your home photos (even more nescesary than for pro photographers due to slow lenses, bad metering and on-camera flash with low-end digital point & shoots) you'd best do it in 16 bit mode (camera set to raw). Try cinepaint.
          • If you want to correct lighting in your home photos (even more nescesary than for pro photographers due to slow lenses, bad metering and on-camera flash with low-end digital point & shoots) you'd best do it in 16 bit mode (camera set to raw)

            ICBW, but I'm not aware of many low-end digital point & shoot camera which support some form of raw output.
            • Depends on what you mean by low-end. My Canon Powershot S60 can, and it's far from being a pro SLR camera (but none the less, very nice IMO). I imagine many of the 5MP+ point-and-shoot cameras can at least. However, I've done both 8 bit and 16 bit (converted raw to TIFF/16bit, native 12? bits) to printer (not CMYK), and let me put it this way: It helps, but it is not the biggest factor in the quality of my pictures. Doing some manual hue/white balance/contrast/saturation/levels correction has a much greater
  • NO (Score:3, Informative)

    by radicalskeptic (644346) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [enotirt]> on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @12:52PM (#14101243)
    In OS X, when you open the GIMP under X11, the spash screen is the most annoying part of the whole program. It's always on top, and it takes at least a minute to load all the fonts, extensions, scripts etc. Please, if you're going to have a splash screen, at least make sure other windows aren't stuck behind it! Maybe it is different in Windows or Linux, but it's a real peeve of mine on OS X.
    • Re:NO (Score:3, Informative)

      by szo (7842)
      the linux version has --no-splash, I would guess the OSX has too.
    • It's as if you want the GIMP developers to take into account some basic usability considerations.. but that can't be right, because from your post it seems you have previously used the GIMP, and so would know that the developers are strongly opposed to sensibility.
    • Re:NO (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I just measured 16 seconds on my PB 1.33Ghz and 1/3 of that was X starting up. 10 seconds if caches are pre-loaded, and 8 if pre-loaded and X is running. I'm running Gimp 2.0 with a prebuilt Gimp.app. Is something wrong with your setup?
    • Re:NO (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BigSven (57510) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @01:23PM (#14101452) Homepage
      Now why is that the fault of GIMP? GIMP does set the appropriate window hint that is telling the window manager that this is a splash screen. It appears that Apple is to be blamed here for delivering a lousy X server.

      On a related note, GIMP startup takes about 3 to 5 seconds here. See also http://svenfoo.geekheim.de/index.php/2005-11-05/gi mp-startup-time/ [geekheim.de]
    • Just submit your own entry and make it fully transparent :)
  • by Gopal.V (532678) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @12:55PM (#14101262) Homepage Journal
    tigert.gimp.org [gimp.org] was the place to look for the coolest tricks with gimp. I used to just love the splash screen history [gimp.org] there. And the Bugs Must Die [gimp.org] was my bugzilla image [dotgnu.info] replacing the traditional Ant for a long time.

    All in all, without tigert's demos - I'd have relegated gimp to being a glorified paint application instead of the cool tool for web-desginer it has recently become (and I'm not a professional web-dev, but I still like to muck around with gimp). Jimmac is good, but Tigert was and is the gimp wizard I shall worship for ever.

  • Time flies (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gnarlin (696263) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @01:19PM (#14101416) Homepage Journal
    10 years and still no CMYK support, which incidentally is the key feature which is holding the GIMP back from becoming a serious contender with photoshop. One would think that someone or some group would see the value of such a feature in a free software graphics program and have it implemented. If for nothing else then to save money and have a better bargaining position when dealing with vendors of propriatery notoriety [adobe.com].
    • Re:Time flies (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FooBarWidget (556006) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @02:54PM (#14102347)
      Why are everybody so obsessed with CMYK? Face it: most people are not professional graphics designers and don't need CMYK. If I want to touch up some photos for my homepage, I couldn't care less what CMYK is. If Joe Average wants to create a few drop shadows for his photo gallery, he doesn't need CMYK.

      Besides, professionals wouldn't use Gimp even if it supports CMYK. They'd still use Photoshop because that's what they were thaught at school. Implementing CMYK wouldn't solve anything at all - the peopel who complain would just move on to new things to complain about.
      • But if you are touching up photos you would benefit from more than 8 bits per channel.

        As an amateur photographer, this in my opinion outweighs CMYK as the biggest drawback of the GIMP.

        • Cinepaint (formerly Film Gimp) supports higher bit depths... I was under the impression that this would eventually make it's way back to Gimp proper, but I don't know the status of that.

        • 16-bit integers are probably a waste of time. Any effort in this area should be into supporting 16-bit floating point (use the ILM EXR "half" format for the data, it has 1 sign bit, 5 exponent, and 10 (plus hidden 1. bit) of mantissa).

        • Last time I checked 16-bit channels != CMYK ?
  • I would be using wine if we did not have gimp.. stop whining and help them get the features you want. + we already /.ed their site...
  • Happy birthday to GIMP, the "King Pimp" of graphics software. Without this powerful, free, open-source image editor, I couldn't have created the graphics for my blog: http://sunandfun.blogspot.com/2005/04/in-praise-of -gimp.html [blogspot.com]
  • No splash screen (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crow (16139) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @01:35PM (#14101597) Homepage Journal
    The best splash screen would be not having one at all. Fortunately, there's a command-line option to turn it off, but I would rather not have to set an alias for every application.

    At least it doesn't steal the keyboard focus like OpenOffice does.
  • by Apostata (390629) <{moc.liamtoh} {ta} {atatsopa}> on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @01:35PM (#14101606) Homepage Journal
    ...but the number of steps involved to create a simple drop-shadow would depress anyone who read the tutorial.
    • One step is too depressing? Yes, there's a script that does it all in one step and it has been part of the GIMP distribution for like 8 years.
      • Yes, a script with no preview feature. One step indeed.
        • But you effectively do have a preview, in the form of undo.. If you don`t like the result, hit undo and try something else.. Not quite so convenient as a preview in the dialog itself, but still the same result...
          On the other hand, it would be usefull to be able to preview any operation before committing it without leaving the dialog, and seeing an instant (or as fast as your machine can handle it) preview as soon as you modify a setting in the dialog, such as moving a slider.
    • ...but the number of steps involved to create a simple drop-shadow would depress anyone who read the tutorial.

      Script-fu > Shadow > Drop shadow..., change settings, hit OK.

      Have fun with the contest!

  • I use GIMP for editing images for my website. I especially like v2.0 since they implimented GTK++. The interface has gotten better, though the file browser on the Win32 version needs an update from the Linux-style one they have now.

    Yes, it need improvment. Yes, its harder to use than say Photoshop, but if you can't plunk down $100 or $200 for a professional commercial software program then GIMP is just good enough to do the job.

    For web design its perfect.
    • "The interface has gotten better, though the file browser on the Win32 version needs an update from the Linux-style one they have now."

      I disagree. I think the Win32 version should use the standard Win32 dialogs.
    • Thing is, for me it's not so much the money as it is the platform. AFAIK I can't buy a Linux version of Photoshop - so Gimp is the only good graphics program available for my development platform of choice. I would probably drop Gimp altogether and layout $500-$600 for Photoshop if they had a Linux version.
  • Needed features (Score:4, Informative)

    by Orrin Bloquy (898571) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @01:37PM (#14101623) Journal
    1. CMYK support. RGB is for screen, CMYK is for print, and Aldus/Adobe never had trouble with this concept.
    2. Contiguous fill. When pestered about this the answer from GIMP developers was that the paintbucket code was "too optimized" (i.e. obfuscated, undocumented) to modify. If I select a region and pour paint inside it, the paint shouldn't leave the margins of the selection.
    3. Less crappy documentation on creating plugins.
    4. For shits&giggles, an LSS import/export filter for those of us who like to make our own ISOLINUX splash screens (the converter's in Perl, how tough could it be)?

    I know webcomic artists whose refusal to use the GIMP is completely based on #2. In Photoshop, it's a checkable option. In Fireworks, it isn't.

    5. At least one major feature that is missing from Photoshop (like, say, selective region compression in JPEG, which has been part of the spec from the beginning and would allow you to set a different lossy for a region containing text).
    • Re:Needed features (Score:5, Insightful)

      by slavemowgli (585321) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @02:19PM (#14102044) Homepage
      There's a GIMP fork called CinePaint (formerly known as Film Gimp, as it focused on features needed by the movie/special effects industry) that has CMYK support, IIRC. The features it adds were originally supposed to get merged into GIMP 2.0, but the GIMP developers later told the Film Gimp guys that they didn't want these things in the main branch after all.

      For me, this is one of the biggest mistakes the GIMP developers ever made, but it also shows a fundamental problem in their attitude: instead of welcoming additions and new users scratching their own itches, they locked them out and told them they weren't welcome. Of course, you do have to focus on what you want to accomplish in a project and avoid feeping creaturism, but rejecting features that are clearly useful and within the scope of a project... that's arrogance.

      As someone else said, it actually shows that GIMP is 10 years old by now. It's still a useful tool, and I actually use GIMP 1.2 almost daily (I also have GIMP 2.2 installed, but I always found it slower and more clumsy than the earlier versions), but the idea to produce a free Photoshop replacement... that was missed long ago, and without some radical changes on both the code and the project management level, I doubt it's ever going to happen.

      I hate to say it, but GIMP is looking old, and considering that it's still considering a kind of flagship among open source application, it's making us all look bad. Is this really the best we can come up with?
      • Re:Needed features (Score:4, Informative)

        by BigSven (57510) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @03:04PM (#14102446) Homepage
        Actually, it wasn't quite like you put it. The FilmGimp developers told the GIMP developers that they don't think their code should be merged into the main trunk. It wasn't ready for it and would have broken things all over the place. FilmGimp was after all a very reduced version of GIMP. Noone has ever been locked out of GIMP development. I wonder where you picked that up.

        And no, neither FilmGimp nor CinePaint have CMYK support. That has never been the intention behind this project. Instead it was about adding support for 16bit color depth. That is of course an important feature and at some point it is going to be added to GIMP as well. I can't tell you when because it simply depends on when someone will finish the remaining bits that are needed to bring GEGL into shape so that GIMP can start to use it.

        If you think that GIMP is looking old, perhaps you should really consider to replace that old copy of GIMP 1.2 you are using.
        • I wonder where you picked that up.

          Maybe from the CinePaint home page, as mentioned in the AC comment below [slashdot.org]? Quoted from that comment:

          Also, this statement on the CinePaint home page is just a (bad) joke: "Later the film industry was told no, that GIMP wasn't interested in meeting the film industry's requirements because it wasn't what existing GIMP users cared about."

          This statement is indeed present on the CinePaint home page: section "Where CinePaint Came From", middle of third paragraph. If the

      • Re:Needed features (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @03:30PM (#14102661)
        There's a GIMP fork called CinePaint (formerly known as Film Gimp, as it focused on features needed by the movie/special effects industry) that has CMYK support, IIRC. The features it adds were originally supposed to get merged into GIMP 2.0, but the GIMP developers later told the Film Gimp guys that they didn't want these things in the main branch after all.

        That's a rather biased view of how things happened. I suppose that some CinePaint developers would like to describe the history like that. But looking at the archives of the GIMP mailing lists reveals a different story: Film Gimp started from a fork of an old version of the GIMP 1.x (based on GTK1), while the main development was taking place on what would eventually become GIMP 2.x (based on GTK2). Film Gimp development stagnated for a couple of years, until a new guy (Robin Rowe) appeared and decided to revive it.

        When he brought this up on the developer's list, the consensus was that it would be much better to take the best bits of the old Film Gimp codebase and merge them into the new architecture that was developed for GIMP 2.x instead of continuing to work on the old Film Gimp and making the fork diverge even further from the GIMP. There were also some arguments why the design of the old Film Gimp and the way it was storing image data was not appropriate for the GIMP and would have to be adapted instead of being merged directly, but I'm not sure that I understand the details of that. Anyway, it looks like he decided to go ahead and work on the old fork despite the suggestion from the GIMP developers. Later, that code was renamed CinePaint. Also, CinePaint distanced itself from the GIMP in very obvious ways (check some old versions of the CinePaint home pages in the web archive). So although the GIMP developers could have handled this in a better way, a lot of issues could have been solved if the features needed for the movie industry had been integrated in the then-current GIMP instead of reviving an old fork like Robin did.

        Just check the archives of the GIMP mailing lists and you will see a different story than the simplistic view that you just described. Also, this statement on the CinePaint home page is just a (bad) joke: "Later the film industry was told no, that GIMP wasn't interested in meeting the film industry's requirements because it wasn't what existing GIMP users cared about." This is very different from what I understand after browsing the archives of the mailing lists (although I can never know if some other discussions took place behind the scenes). Anyway, if you are interested in checking this for yourself, the GIMP list archives are linked from http://www.gimp.org/mail_lists.html [gimp.org] and you can just browse through the discussions around the times when Robin posted something on the developers lists (check mail-archive for search, or manual browse through the old XCF lists). There were a few personal attacks from both sides, though. So these guys should learn to get together in a better way. But still, it looks like Robin is as much (if not more) to blame as the GIMP developers.

        • Re:Needed features (Score:4, Informative)

          by Raphael (18701) <quinet@nosPaM.gamers.org> on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @04:21PM (#14103061) Homepage Journal
          you can just browse through the discussions around the times when Robin posted something on the developers lists (check mail-archive for search, or manual browse through the old XCF lists).

          Browsing through these archives is not so easy, given their limited search features. But anyway, as I was (unfortunately) involved in some of these discussions, I can confirm that the story is very different from what is presented on the CinePaint home page. My opinion may be biased in this case, but I think that it is unfair to blame the GIMP developers for the CinePaint fork (or more exactly, for the lack of a merge between Film Gimp and GIMP).

        • I don't think it's reasonable to draw your conclusions based on your summary of events (I haven't read the original thread).

          It sounds like Robin Rowe came along and wanted to add new features to Film Gimp. How hard is it to add new features to an existing project? I don't know if it's easy, but it's doable. Compare that to merging that fork back to something with which it has hugely diverged (or merging the important bits back, or whatever)--that's a huge task that is not going to immediately help introdu

      • I dont think FilmGimp was interested in CMYK support (hint: film does not use CMYK). It was to support more than 8 bits per pixel.
    • Re:Needed features (Score:3, Informative)

      by tialaramex (61643)
      "If I select a region and pour paint inside it, the paint shouldn't leave the margins of the selection."

      Hold down SHIFT, or select the radio button for this kind of fill (which is labelled and has an annotation indicating that it can be activated with SHIFT).
    • 2 -> what are you talking about? I select a region, I click on the bucket fill tool, I click on the region, and voila - the selection is filled, and nothing else. Where is the problem you are talking about?
    • Ahh, thank you for volunteering. How soon are you going to start implementing this?
    • 5. At least one major feature that is missing from Photoshop (like, say, selective region compression in JPEG, which has been part of the spec from the beginning and would allow you to set a different lossy for a region containing text).

      I don't think "selective region compression" is part of the JPEG spec. Care to elaborate?
  • I prefer GIMPShop since I can speak the same lingo moving between Photoshop and the GIMP. If you want to add rounded corners to your submission, or a drop shadow, check out this guide. Looking for feedback if you have a better/automated/Script-Fu way of accomplishing the same task.

    http://paininthetech.com/creating_rounded_corners_ with_gimpshop [paininthetech.com]
  • Wow - is it just me or would all of the current submissions be a step down for the GIMP?

    If you have a creative bone in your body, please submit something.
    • I did [angband.pl], before the gallery got removed because of slashdotting. Oh, wait... you were insulting my ingenious masterpiece, too! You bastard!

      (I don't claim I can produce any usable graphics -- but considering that my thing is among two best submissions at the moment, you're really right.)
  • Now where did I put those copies of goatse.cx and tubgirl?
  • Don't forget the beauty of Inkscape - the latest version v0.42.2 [inkscape.org] made it even cooler to use to create web-savy SVG that Firefox 1.5 now renders out of the box. I love those Calligraphic pen tools!

  • Exactly (Score:4, Funny)

    by cca93014 (466820) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @01:54PM (#14101804) Homepage
    Real geeks don't win prizes; the merely have them committed to CVS.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Happy birthday The GIMP!

    We got you EXACTLY what you wanted for your birthday! A slashdotted server! Enjoy!
  • ... to /. the gimp.org website by putting direct link to current submissions :P

    The proactive measures has been taken; The requested URL /contest/gallery.cgi was not found on this server.
  • please tell me what is up with the shifting eyes on the gimp gif here on slashdot? is there a story behind this?

    i had to up my schizophrenia meds because of it when i scanned this story

  • First, let me congratulate the Gimp for its 10 years.

    Second, the splash screen is really annoying as well as slow application loading. What abou lazy initialisation of everything that is not needed at the moment and is not essential for basic application run? Just load information about plug-ins, such as name, description, menu entries or tool icons at app startup. Then load tools/plug-ins/scripts when the user first needs them.

    When I launch an application I want to use it immediately. I am fine with half

  • does anyone have the right one?
  • by Dirtside (91468) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @09:22PM (#14105131) Journal
    I love the GIMP, I use it every day (yes, for real work), but the name is beginning to bug me more and more. It may seem harmless, but 1) it could be a lot more appealing with a better name, and 2) yes, there are some people who find the name offensive. We wouldn't want it named New Image Gnu Graphics Editing Routine, would we?
    • The name is GNU Image Manipulation Program, what's offensive about that? You could simply stop using the acronym if it bothers you.
      • How very specious of you. You know damn well 99% of folks, including you and your URL, call it GIMP (with or without capitalization). I agree with Matt's rhetorical question, would you have the same response if it were the New Image Gnu Graphics Editing Routine?

        Facts: the name is offensive to some people (disclaimer: not me), and you've known this for at least 6 years [svlug.org]. Rather than issuing belligerent Bush-like denials, you'd be MUCH better off by saying "we're sorry you're offended, but that's not our inte

A failure will not appear until a unit has passed final inspection.

Working...