Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics The Gimp Technology

GIMP 2.7.2 Released — Another Step Toward 2.8 264

Posted by Soulskill
from the slowly-but-surely dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The developers of GIMP have finally released a new development version on the way to GIMP 2.8. GIMP 2.7.2 includes a huge bunch of changes — but it is not intended for production use. 'The new release comprises layer groups (which were introduced after 2.7.1), an almost done text-on-canvas feature, the all-new brush engine and of course the new single window mode.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GIMP 2.7.2 Released — Another Step Toward 2.8

Comments Filter:
  • One reason alone (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MonsterTrimble (1205334) <monstertrimble@[ ... m ['hot' in gap]> on Friday April 15, 2011 @11:18AM (#35828914)

    'The new release comprises layer groups (which were introduced after 2.7.1), an almost done text-on-canvas feature, the all-new brush engine and of course the new single window mode.'"

    Single window mode is all you need to know about why you should upgrade.

    • by JanneM (7445) on Friday April 15, 2011 @11:26AM (#35829052) Homepage

      "Single window mode is all you need to know about why you should upgrade."

      As long as I can not use single-window mode I'm happy to upgrade. If it becomes the only way to use gimp, it's time to fork the code.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anrego (830717) *

      I actually prefer the floating windows (in all applications, not just gimp) although I find gimp makes them fairly unintuitive. I have several (6) monitors, and being able to spread stuff out is nice. Not sure why people have this desire to have everything crowded in one window, I mean, I get that photoshop does it that way and can see why people looking for a photoshop replacement would want this... but the preference for single window over floating window appears to be moving through all applications.

      When

      • by vux984 (928602) on Friday April 15, 2011 @11:47AM (#35829314)

        I have several (6) monitors, and being able to spread stuff out is nice.

        You do, of course, realize the vast majority of people using the software have a single monitor, right. A tiny fraction have 2. The number of people on the planet with 6 monitors using gimp regularly would probably fit in my garage.

        So although you are happy with your setup, and the way you organize windows works for you, its not an option for most people.

        • by Anrego (830717) *

          I agree 6 is rare.. but 2 seems to be quite popular, especially with graphics people.

          Even when using a single window though, I still prefer floating windows. Sometimes it's nice to full screen something, and use shortcuts ... sometimes you want to have toolbox/layers and such beside the image. Various expand/maximize functions in single window apps always seem cumbersome to me... I'd rather use my window managers tools for managing windows than some application specific set of tools. I actually don't use gi

          • I use multi-monitor setups (2 monitors at work; 4 at home), but still prefer single-window mode. Nothing stops the user from stretching the single window across the multiple monitors, after all.

            The thing that frustrates me about GIMP's floating palettes is that if I have other windows open, then in order to bring GIMP fully to the front, I need to click through all of the various sub-windows. I've learned to work around it (e.g. in KDE I can middle-click other windows to push them fully behind the GIMP;
        • The number of people on the planet with 6 monitors using gimp regularly would probably fit in my garage.

          The number of atoms in the universe would conveniently fit into your garage as well. It only has about 80 digits.

        • by Hatta (162192)

          Everyone using a modern OS can have virtual desktops of some sort. This makes floating windows useful to everyone.

          Think about it, when you use single window applications with multiple windows inside the main window, the application essentially has to reinvent the window manager for those internal windows. Of course, it does so badly. Why not let your window manager do the job it was designed to do?

          Besides, Photoshop has floating windows too. I just opened CS2 and count 6 windows. Tell me, what is the m

          • by vux984 (928602)

            Everyone using a modern OS can have virtual desktops of some sort.

            And almost nobody uses them.

          • by kikito (971480)

            "the application essentially has to reinvent the window manager for those internal windows."

            No they are not. Any modern OS has implementations of windows-inside-of-windows.

            "Tell me, what is the major difference between this [uberdownloads.com] and this [yeniprogram.gen.tr]? I just don't see it."

            There's no difference in those screenshots because you are not using any other programs, at least with the gimp screenshot.

            Add a browser window, a notepad, and a music player. They will intermix with the gimp windows

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by jabelli (1144769)

            The PhotoShop ones are "Palette Windows" (WS_EX_PALETTEWINDOW in Win32-land) and so go with the main window and the window manager knows not to give them separate entries on the task bar and alt-tab list. However, they added this as an option somewhere in the 2.6 series, as I have it set that way.

            Well, knowing Adobe, they're probably some owner-drawn hack instead.

            If you open more than one image, however, GIMP gets one window per image, while Photoshop still has a single entry in the window manager.

      • by _0xd0ad (1974778)

        At least in the version I have, the floating windows are always-on-top and CAN'T BE MINIMIZED. Seriously... WTF. And they clutter up the task bar because they all have their own button.

        Then again - maybe they fixed that. I don't use GIMP enough to bother updating it regularly. I'll have to download the most recent version when I get home tonight.

        Ideally, the tool buckets should not have their own task bar buttons (focus them through the Windows menu in the canvas window). They should be always on top, but t

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by metamatic (202216)

          Yeah, the problem with GIMP isn't the floating windows.

          The problems are:

          1. The floating windows continue to float on top of everything else even when GIMP drops down the window stack and they become useless.
          2. You can't lift other windows above GIMP's floating windows, no matter how hard you try.
          3. Clicking one of GIMP's floating windows doesn't bring GIMP to the front of the window stack.
          4. Clicking the main GIMP window doesn't bring the floating windows to the front.

          You can fix some of these problems by c

      • by Blakey Rat (99501)

        If they did floating windows like Paint.NET does nobody would complain. The problem isn't the concept, but their half-assed execution.

    • 'The new release comprises layer groups (which were introduced after 2.7.1), an almost done text-on-canvas feature, the all-new brush engine and of course the new single window mode.'"

      Single window mode is all you need to know about why you should upgrade.

      Heck with that.

      The lack of layer groups has been the single greatest barrier to my migrating to GIMP as a production tool. Without them, working on large and complex files becomes an organizational nightmare. Creating blank layers with names like "---- BEGIN Name of Subdivision ---"/"---- END Name of Subdivision ---" to lend structure and delineate groups of layers like we did in 1999 just doesn't cut it in modern production environments where decompressed file sizes can be measured in gigabytes.

      A sta

    • by Machtyn (759119)
      I love the floating toolbars the GIMP offers me. (I have 2 monitors). I just wish my video editing software didn't try to cram everything onto one window. It makes for a small preview window, tools menus, and limited timeline bar. If I had my choice, I would have the ability to switch my preview video and the timeline bar to the main screen as needed.
    • by Snaller (147050)

      Regularly, for the last oh 10 years or so, every time there has been an announcement of a new version - I've been asking if you could have a 'master' window in which all other windows opened - and always the reply was attacks on me, my current OS of choice and possibly a passing reference to my parentage.
      And so i didn't try GIMP again.

      However this time I'm going to try it again, see if what you said means what i think it means.

  • by RobotRunAmok (595286) on Friday April 15, 2011 @11:28AM (#35829076)

    Yeah, I know, Noble Open Source coders are supposed to be above the cosmetic issues and petty concerns of Man's World, but when you are looking for credibility amongst designers, illustrators, photographers and other arts professionals, would it really hurt -- would you really lose so much integrity -- to slap this thing with a flashier moniker than "G.I.M.P."?

    And if not, why GIMP? Why not just go for the gold in the shoot-your-own-snarky-foot Olympics, call it TARD or DOUCHE or FLACCID? I'm sure who ever came up with "GNU Image Manipulation Program" could just as easily reverse-engineer an acronym for HOMO or DICKLESS...

    • would it really hurt -- would you really lose so much integrity -- to slap this thing with a flashier moniker than "G.I.M.P."?

      Considering the splash for GIMP 2.7 is the mascot locked in a cage with a dominatrix standing beside it I'm thinking that they decided to embrace the (bad) name and run with it.

      • by jimicus (737525)

        Really? I've just looked for the splash for 2.7 and I can't find anything that looks like that.

    • would you really lose so much integrity -- to slap this thing with a flashier moniker than "G.I.M.P."?

      There are two steps to doing this. First make the application's name configurable at compile time, much like Firefox does. Second and possibly more expensive is to come up with a recognizable name that isn't already else someone else's trademark, plug it into the application, and promote it.

      • by Jiro (131519)

        The name is a prime example of geeks not having social skills. They just don't get how the name hurts adoption of the program, reasoning that since the name has no effect on the program's functionality, no logical person would ever refuse to use it based on the name, and if someone does refuse to use it, it's their fault for being so illogical and there's no reason to cater to them. Guys, there's a reason why McDonalds isn't named "N*gger Burgers".

        It can also be thought of as a small example of how free s

        • by tepples (727027)
          Let me make explicit what I thought was implicit in my previous comment: If you want to hire a branding expert, go right ahead. It's just that unlike geeks, branding experts don't come free.
          • by Jiro (131519)

            Even assuming it takes a branding expert to make a really good name, it doesn't take a branding expert merely to throw out a name that obviously sucks a lot more than average. No branding expert is needed to figure out that "Gimp" is going to discourage use of the program, just some common sense.

            • it doesn't take a branding expert merely to throw out a name

              Yes it does. All executable files on both UNIX and Windows need a name of nonzero length, as do all program menu entries. So throwing out a name would require a new name to replace the old name.

    • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Friday April 15, 2011 @12:19PM (#35829812) Journal

      blah blah blah GIMP sounds funny blah blah blah

      Does anyone really care about this anymore? Everyone I know who has started using the GIMP had a chuckle about the name, then really forgot about the name and got on with editing photos.

      Basically, noone cares anymore.

      And also, language changes. Google "gimp". You have to get to the bottom of the second page before you reach an "urban dictionary" definition of the old meaning. The first two whole pages are about image manipulation.

      • by Jiro (131519)

        Everyone I know who has started using the GIMP had a chuckle about the name, then really forgot about the name and got on with editing photos.

        Everyone you know who has started using GIMP is probably a geek, not an upper level person at a company or other place where image matters.

        • by IrquiM (471313)

          Everyone you know who has started using GIMP is probably a geek, not an upper level person at a company or other place where image matters.

          Yeah, that's why the in-house applications in the company I work for have names like CATS, SMILE, BRATS, SODIT, etc. Somebody there using GIMP wouldn't surprise me at all! Oh, and yes, we're by far the biggest one in the world in "our" industry.

      • by mdielmann (514750)

        Obviously people who have chosen to use the software either like the name or don't care about the name. The issue the GPP raises is, is GIMP's market share being reduced due to the poor name? And if it is, why on earth would you want to keep it? By the same logical premise where calling it GIMP shouldn't matter, since the name has no bearing on the functionality, why keep it if it's having a negative effect on your product?

      • Does anyone really care about this anymore? Everyone I know who has started using the GIMP had a chuckle about the name, then really forgot about the name and got on with editing photos.

        Yes, people still care. Anyone in a position of power is not going to allow this due to the name. Lots of people find the name offensive / or too risky so it will never be installed. To the point that they would rather pay money, then to use GIMP. Heck, there are developers that won't touch the source code because nob
        • by Machtyn (759119)
          In regards to the resume, I would hope the contributing editor would use The Gnu Image Manipulation Program on their resume.

          Even still, why not fork the project with a different name. Every time a new release build is released, fork it, rename it, rinse-repeat
    • by kikito (971480)

      I'm not a native English speaker and to me "gimp" meant just "that free photoshop from gnu" until I ended up in this forum.

      I demand that gimps choose another name. We could call them RobotRunAmoks.

    • by Ant P. (974313)

      Yeah, and what's with that browser plugin named after exposing oneself in public?

  • Coming anytime now (Score:3, Informative)

    by arielCo (995647) on Friday April 15, 2011 @11:34AM (#35829144)

    Cue:

    * Griping about the interface, or Photoshop's interface. Obligatory mention of GIMPshop
    * "Not up to scratch for pro work", followed by "I'm a pro and I like it" and "Not much of a pro then" retorts
    * "Hey it's free and Photoshop costs $$$"

    In 3... 2... 1...

    Another day in Slashdot

    • by Geeky (90998) on Friday April 15, 2011 @12:04PM (#35829594)

      OK, I'll bite.

      Has it got colour management yet?

      I switched from Linux to Windows for Photoshop and OS level colour management (with support for calibration tools). No brainer unless you want to spend more than the cost of Photoshop on printer ink and paper.

      • by arielCo (995647)

        That'd be news, so you can assume it hasn't. That and adjustment layers. But sooo many arguments here revolve on issues that haven't changed ...

        Just out of curiosity (honestly), would it be good enough for professional art that won't be printed?

        • by Geeky (90998)

          Maybe, for artwork. Less so for photo editing. A calibrated screen is still useful for knowing that at least on your screen the colours meet some objective standard - you can't control how they appear on other people's screens, of course.

          I use adjustment layers extensively on my photos. Rather than trying to dodge and burn on the image, for example, I'll create an adjustment layer and then paint it in over the areas I want to affect. I then blur the mask to soften the edges of the effect, and adjust the opa

      • by gmueckl (950314)

        To continue that list: Does it even have support anything higher than 8 bits per channel yet? I really require that for some of my work and I always end up using Photoshop in a Windows VM. At least I've written my own little viewer for HDR images, so I can at least get by without having to fire up PS constantly.

        Last I checked, the ability to handle 16 bit integer and floating point formats has been deliberately removed from Krita as well - supposedly because it was suddenly intended to be a painting program

        • by Geeky (90998)

          Yes, that's another killer.

          For photos I can just about manage with 8 bit for what I do in Photoshop as I do the basics converting from RAW in Lightroom - but then I need Lightroom. Back to square one.

          I'd use a VM myself, but since 99% of what I do with my PC now, other than web browsing, is photo editing I figure there's no point in the overhead (and last I checked the virtual graphics card in VMWare, at least, didn't support colour calibration properly).

        • by steveha (103154)

          The GIMP guys are working towards support for 16 bits per channel. I was hoping to learn about the progress toward that, but I didn't see it discussed here; mostly people were griping about UI.

          As I understand it, the GIMP core engine has 8 bits per channel pretty much hard-wired into it and it would be a pain to fix that. Instead, the GIMP guys have been working on a new engine called GEGL [wikipedia.org], and this was designed from the ground up to handle higher bit depths and to allow non-destructive editing. I believ

  • Lets just drop the 'G' and call it 'Imp' from now on...

  • Help Wanted (Score:4, Informative)

    by jensend (71114) on Friday April 15, 2011 @12:22PM (#35829846)

    A decade ago, the GIMP was one of the jewels of open source, something everyone would show off to others as an example of what open source development could accomplish. But it's been so short of manpower that it's largely stagnated for quite a while. They could really use some help. See Nordholt's latest blog entry [chromecode.com] for some related thoughts.

    • Well, the opensource world doesn't really have "donate for feature" runs. I think that would really help.
      And it would help if some prominent OSS guys were doing a bit of PR for such runs.

    • by perpenso (1613749)

      A decade ago, the GIMP was one of the jewels of open source, something everyone would show off to others as an example of what open source development could accomplish. But it's been so short of manpower that it's largely stagnated for quite a while. They could really use some help. See Nordholt's latest blog entry [chromecode.com] for some related thoughts.

      A decade ago there were lower expectations for open source, it was more of a by geeks for geeks environment at the time. As acceptance increases expectation rise, comparisons to commercial counterparts are more often made, etc. To a broad audience saying GIMP was considered a jewel doesn't elevate GIMP, it tarnishes open source.

      That said, I don't think GIMP is a bad program. Its a useful program, certainly a vast improvement over things like MS Paint. However even for simple things I find the US$80 Photo

    • by Teckla (630646)

      They could really use some help.

      I think it's finally time for me to step up to the plate and help out on a FOSS project. Your post helped me realize it's finally time.

      I'll start working immediately on the ball-gag module.

  • Really.. thanks for clearing that up!

  • I occassionaly (about twice a month or so) edit an image for a few personal non-professional websites.
    About every other month or so I edit an image for some other personal project.
    About once a month I edit an image at work. This is not really my job (thus no employer purchased graphics package), another guy does that but for really easy little one-offs it's quicker to do it myself.
    At work I have to use Windows. I honestly do prefer Linux at home, it's what I like, not a religion or a point I am trying t
    • by Ant P. (974313)

      Use Krita. All the excuses photoshop fanbois wheel out every time GIMP is mentioned don't apply to it, and this has been the case for years.

Nobody said computers were going to be polite.

Working...