Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Gimp Technology

GIMP 2.2 Splash Screen Contest Revisited 382

Posted by samzenpus from the artist dept.
As reported here earlier, the GIMP team asked artists to submit their artwork to be used as the official splash screen for GIMP 2.2. The reaction was overwhelming. More than 666 splash screens have been submitted. You can look at the submissions in the gallery or download the movies, grab some popcorn and enjoy... Once you've seen all splashes, you may want to help the judges to pick the best splash by voting for your favorites.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GIMP 2.2 Splash Screen Contest Revisited More

GIMP 2.2 Splash Screen Contest Revisited

Comments Filter:
  • More than... how many?

    That's weird. I mean, "more than 600" I could understand. "Nearly 700" would probably be more precise and less wordy. But more than 666? Why?
  • More than 666 splash screens have been submitted would that be a conservative estimate?
    • I'd like to tell you, but it did take less than 666 seconds to get the site slashdotted by more than 666 slashdot readers clicking on the less than 666 links in the summary.

  • Obsessed with evil? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Folmer ( 827037 ) *
    Someone seems to be obsessed with the mnumber 666.. why not say 670 or whatever number it really is, instead of "more than 666"...
    • 1. Submit a somewhat-niche story.
      2. Use an odd/occult number instead of a common one.
      3. Increase comment count of your story by roughly 70%.
      4. Laugh as your pawns go "666? WTF?"

      No profit, but no ???, and sweet satisfaction.
    • because of fucking around with peoples heads.

      if you think a number makes something EVIL, isn't it _you_ who is obsessed with evil?

    • Someone seems to be obsessed with the mnumber 666

      That would probably religious christians. To the rest of the world 666 is just a number. The only thing odd to me about the number is the precision of it while saying 'more than 666'.

  • Evil Word Play (Score:3, Funny)

    by AsnFkr ( 545033 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:04AM (#11041066) Homepage Journal
    666 submissions? The name "the gimp" in general. What are these developers up to?

  • 666... (Score:3, Funny)

    by mu-sly ( 632550 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:04AM (#11041067) Homepage Journal
    ... the number of The GIMP? :-S

  • Dijjer links to movies (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sanity ( 1431 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:06AM (#11041082) Homepage Journal
    Dijjer [dijjer.org] links to movies:
    full set [127.0.0.1] Day one [127.0.0.1] Day two [127.0.0.1] Day three [127.0.0.1] Day four [127.0.0.1] Day five [127.0.0.1]

  • Who needs splash screens anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DoktorTomoe ( 643004 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:07AM (#11041084)
    Splash screens suck. No, they really suck. They use ressources and are pulling down usability of the system in general when an application is loading. Some splashscreens are even always on top, rendering the system useless until the application is loaded (OpenOffice.org is my scapegoat here :). Where is multitasking here?

    Personally, I really would prefer some status indicator in the users menu or in some kind of applet (KDE already does that, blinking mouse cursors and similar), but please, PLEASE do not use splash screens.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tunah ( 530328 ) <sam.krayup@com> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:14AM (#11041121) Homepage
      Splash screens are irritating, but in most cases a long delay with no splash screen is worse.

      • Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Handyman ( 97520 ) * on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:25AM (#11041193) Homepage Journal
        Yes, a long delay without a splash screen is irritating as well. But there is nothing as irritating as a splash screen that is always-on-top. What were they THINKING making the OOo splash screen always-on-top? They already have a reputation for being the slowest starting office product out there, must they rub it in your face then?
      • So you're advocating choosing the lesser of two evils? It is possible to have a small, efficient splash screen. One with no image, just a progress indicator and a busy/wait cursor. Also, as the grandparent mentions, splash screens have no business stealing focus from something I'm actually working on (I'm talking to you Adobe!).
        • It is possible to have a small, efficient splash screen. One with no image

          Are you really claiming that loading a 100 kb image from a modern hard disk produces a noticeable delay? Surely you realize that such an image could be loaded and displayed in literally microseconds. That said, I wholeheartedly agree with you about Adobe. I loathe launching Photoshop on Windows. Every couple of seconds, the splash screen steals focus back from whatever else it is I'm trying to do until Photoshop has finished loa
          • My main complaint is the focus stealing. However, in general I don't like splash screens and appreciate software that gives me a way to disable it (like the Gimp). Of course, I wouldn't have to disable it if they'd just make it more functional. I know it doesn't take long to load and display the image for the splash screen, but I also know that that window could be used to show me something more informative, like a progress bar.
        • Not only that, but imho splash screens need to be proper windows - that is, minimizable, draggable, windows. Not just a pretty picture. That way, I can launch the program and minimize it and then get on with my day, and go back to it when its ready.
      • > Splash screens are irritating, but in most cases a long delay with no splash screen is worse.

        Agreed, but why not use a window to "contain the splash screen" instead?

        I call this a 'splash window': it comes up immediately like a splash screen because it contains nearly nothing: a cute image like a splash screen and if possible a progress indicator.
        Unlike a splash screen, it isn't always on top: as any window, you can minimize,maximize,resize or even close it if you opened the wrong app.

        The only part w
        • The splash screen is just a window. Unlike other windows it has the _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_SPLASH hint set. These hints are defined in the Extended Window Manager Hints, a spec meant to unify the GNOME and KDE window manager hint conventions.

          It is up to your window manager what to do about a window that has the splash hint set. You could probably configure it to give it a window decoration and to treat it like any normal dialog window.
      • I think that a lot of splash screens are irritating, but some are useful when they give progress information! For example:
        • Gnome/KDE splash screens tell you about what components of the desktop are being loaded. Since you can't do anything until the desktop is loaded anyway, this isn't inconvenient. And if you're unhappy with the startup time, you'll have a rough idea of what components are taking longest to load.
        • Gimp splash screen: similarly gives you information on what components take a long time to
      • With a bar at the top/left/right/bottom of the screen that displays the status of loading applications.
        It's enough to tell people whats going on without getting in their way.

        You could even put a few bars under the mouse pointer if you wanted something a little more in your face.
      • Beg to differ. I'd rather see nothing... that way I know that there isn't time/resources wasted loading worthless splash info. Frankly, I don't care who worked on Photoshop, if I really wanted to know, I'd go to Help, About ---- and read til I was blue in the face.

        At the very most, I would settle for a "loading" with a status bar.

    • Re:Who needs splash screens anyway? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GauteL ( 29207 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:18AM (#11041135)
      While some splash screens are a waste of resources, a simple splash screen is not.

      If an application takes more than a few seconds to start, the simple fact is that many, many users will click on the icon again, starting two instances of the program.

      Slight visual feedback is very often not enough.

      If a splash screen is done properly, there is no reason to hate it as much. It should behave like other windows and there should be an "--no-splash" option, which Gimp already has.
      • "If a splash screen is done properly, there is no reason to hate it as much."

        Yeah, but they never, ever seem to get done properly. Even if the splash screen isn't one of those obnoxious ones that insists on always being on top, it's still blocking a good portion of my desktop. The result is that I can't get to the icons of other programs that I want to also start during a time where I'm otherwise stuck twiddling my thumbs.

        On a related note, with Unreal Tournament 2004, I found a bit of a nifty workaro

    • Mac OS X bounces the icon of the loading application in the Dock until it is ready to use. It's a good indicator and isn't as annoying as it may sound.
    • I can immediatley think of two good reasons for splash screens:

      1) I like them.
      2) They are good for branding/marketing purposes. (Increasingly relevant as OSS approaches Joe User.)

      Granted they shouldn't be always on top, and for those that don't like splash screens there should be a way to disable them.

      Cheers,
      Dave.
    • Use gimp --no-splash then. GIMP implements the startup notification protocol (as defined on freedesktop.org) so there's really no need for the splash. It's just eye-candy and if you don't like it, feel free to turn it off.
    • Some splashscreens are even always on top ...

      You should be able to set your window manager so this can't happen. If no, get a better window manager.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:08AM (#11041094)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Nice ! (Score:4, Funny)

    by selderrr ( 523988 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:10AM (#11041098) Journal
    I really like the default one that you see when clicking the article link : a splashscreen that looks like slashdot, but with this funy little spinning cursor.

    luvley !

  • Sorted results by popularity are now available. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vasqzr ( 619165 ) <vasqzr@nosPAM.netscape.net> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:16AM (#11041128)
    Sorted results by popularity are now available.

    Is that a good way to do it?

    "You might as well not bother voting for your favorite, since it only has 13 votes."

  • Who is Samzempus? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sk8king ( 573108 )
    Apparently he's posted the last 10 stories or so. Never seen the name before. Or else I never noticed.

  • Why splash screen? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stivi ( 534158 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:19AM (#11041148) Homepage
    Interesting contest, however, why is there a need for a splash screen? Would not it be better to change the application, so the startup sequence will be very short and the application will be immediately useable?

    What about lazy initialisation/lazy loading of modules? I doubt that for common tasks you are going to use all modules/scripts/filters whatever. I think that it would be sufficient just to load list of modules and necessary information (such as icons or descriptions...). Then load module on first use.

    Same can be used for other applications (OpenOffice?).

    I do not believe that a modular application with good design can not be changed to use lazy initialisation/lazy loading. Perhaps I am wrong...

    What do others think?
    • Would not it be better to change the application, so the startup sequence will be very short and the application will be immediately useable?

      A very warm, fuzzy suggestion that will get you an 'A' when you provide it to your teacher. However, in the real world, any non-trivial app is going to take at least a couple of seconds to launch. So to take you up on your suggestion, they'd have to strip features from the GIMP.

      Another classic example of the sharp disparity between the academic world, and the real
    • Yeah, that'll work nicely. Set up the airbrush tool, get out the stylus, start painting... chug... a second or three later, the tool file is loaded and it starts actually noticing my command; meanwhile, who knows where I am or how much it missed. I think I'll live with a little load time in the beginning, with some nice art!

  • So many (Score:5, Insightful)

    by northcat ( 827059 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:21AM (#11041164) Journal
    So many posts criticising the use of the number 666... Looks like noone on slashdot has a sense of humour. The only acceptable jokes are old, unoriginal, non-innovative, stereotypical ones like "netcraft confirms it" and "in korea only old people...".

    • Re:So many (Score:4, Funny)

      by maxwell demon ( 590494 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:25AM (#11041190) Journal
      Netcraft confirms: Slashdot humor is dying. In Korea only old people criticise the use of the number 666.
    • You see... having a sense of humour means finding things funny when they are.

      I don't believe this is funny. The netcraft/korea/soviet russia jokes were all funny to start with. OK, so they've been regurgitated too many times (and the korean one's only been around for a week or two and is already old). But what's funny about using 666 with no context around it to make it amusing? It just comes across as odd.

    • Correction: "in korea only old people..." is a new, unoriginal, non-innovative, stereotypical slashdot joke.

    • OK, explain then what is funny about using 666 in the article for us humour impeared types.

      I see plenty of stuff on Slashdotted modded up as funny that isn't the "in Soviet Russsa" and the like. The thing is they usually are actually funny, just mentioning 666 is not.

    • cowboy neal has a sense of humour... :^)

  • So many images so few mb/s (Score:4, Interesting)

    by steveyT ( 664379 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:25AM (#11041187) Homepage
    Youch, I think we broke that one.

    I really like Gimp however splash screens are lovely but shouldn't they be concentrating on making it an effective commercial alternative to Photoshop.

  • Change the Name! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thrills33ker ( 740062 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:27AM (#11041209) Homepage

    This is just retarded. Do the GIMP developers actually want their software to gain wider acceptance? It does not need a new splash screen, it needs a NEW NAME! Imagine trying to get someone to try the GIMP:

    User: Can you get me a copy of Photoshop?
    Advocate: No, but I can give you a copy of The GIMP, its a free alternative to Photoshop, and its really good!
    User: The GIMP? What kind of a name is that? I'll get hold of Photoshop thanks!

    I mean come on, GIMP developers - we all know its a great piece of software but you have to admit that marketing matters. Look at FilmGIMP [sourceforge.net] - they changed their name to CinePaint. Why? "This change will present a more professional name", it says on their site.

    The GIMP team would be much better off holding a new name contest than a splash screen contest.

    • Good point. Much as I hate the whole marketing-speak tendency of re-branding, and much as I like the software, people do find the name far weirder than some of the other strangely named linux apps. Why not just change it to GnuIMP ? Then people can shorten it to GIMP, or extend it to GNU I.M.P.

    • Re:Change the Name! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by hkb ( 777908 )
      You have a point. From personal experience, many schools won't incorporate The Gimp into their curriculum, because the name is "intolerant" and "derogatory" of special education students.

      I think its stupid, but thats how the real world thinks.
    • I agree about names being important - but GIMP is nowhere near as bizarre as this:

      User: Can you get me a copy of Office?
      Advocate: No, but I can give you a copy of OO.o.
      User: What? Did something startle you? Why'd you say "ooh"?

      Why not just call it OpenOffice and be done with it? The 'dot org' in the name is quite goofy - and has got to break some marketing rule about syllables in a product name. And when I see "OO.o" written somewhere my response is always "what's up with this number formatting string

      • Re:Change the Name! (Score:2, Informative)

        by roye ( 717936 )
        I believe the .org part was added because of an existing product called Open Office. However, the first few pages in a Google search only reveal hits for Openoffice.org and related sites so I would assume that .org part would not matter any longer. On Topic: The GIMP name should be changed.

    • Re:Change the Name! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mornelithe ( 83633 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @09:23AM (#11041649)
      You know what else is retarded?

      The fact that in every single story even remotely related to The Gimp, there is always at least one comment by some dude who's freaking out about the name of The Gimp, and a whole slew of posts about how The Gimp's interface is dog shit compared to the all hallowed Photoshop (ignoring the fact that The Gimp looks closer to Mac Photoshop than Windows Photoshop does, yet no one complains about Mac Photoshop's interface). And they're always modded insightful and interesting, instead of '-1: We've heard this 10,000 times already and you really have nothing new to say on the subject,' like they should be.
      • Well, they _are_ both continuing problems which have not yet been fixed.

        Photoshop's UI isn't the greatest, but the GIMP's is really assinine in places. The superficial MDI versus "controlled SDI" differences that it has with Photoshop are not the problem.

        ("controlled SDI" versus real SDI _is_ part of the problem, but that has nothing to do with Photoshop)

        Similarly, software being named "The GIMP" really really is a problem for most non-technical users (particularly in corporate environments). Right or
      • You know what else is retarded? How whenever someone on Slashdot points out a weakness with an open source application and the reply is an instant, "yeah, well, the commercial application is just as bad!"

        GIMP toolbars? It's the same as Photoshop but people don't complain about it!

        Poor installers? Windows has poor installers too, you know!

        Sheesh, man, how are you ever going to make the product BETTER than Photoshop or BETTER than Windows if you always use the other product's weaknesses as a scapegoat?

        • Re:Change the Name! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Mornelithe ( 83633 )
          No, sorry.

          Most people who are unsatisfied with The Gimp's interface say that the correct interface is Photoshop's. Well, Photoshop originated on the Mac, so it's original, and, presumably, intended interface is more like the interface The Gimp has than the Windows interface of Photoshop.

          The Windows interface of Photoshop is, primarily, an attempt to get some of the features of the Mac (Upper-left screen menu, top screen toolbar, etc) that can't be had in a similar GUI on Windows. The only way to get those
      • Then its a reason to speak even louder, as 10.000 times is of course not enough.

        The point is not to say "interesting" stuff, the point is to CHANGE something, as boring as it may be.
    • Well, I'll say right off that I think you're on the right track. I know it's not a popular opinion among the geek crowd, but if you want opensource software to be taken seriously, you should use professional-sounding names instead of geek-cool names.

      I've said it about The GIMP I've said it about Mozilla. I'm in IT, and I help out lots of friends/family, and I've had bosses who wouldn't take the "dinosaur browser" seriously because of the name and the icon (luckily, with all the press Firefox has gotten, p

  • Splash screens (Score:2, Funny)

    by Refrag ( 145266 )
    Splash screens are the work of Satan himself!

  • In other news... (Score:4, Funny)

    by pavera ( 320634 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:38AM (#11041264) Homepage Journal
    The Gimp team was forced to file for bankruptcy and cease development after its main supporters decided to cause a DDoS attack on their web site by simultaneously downloading a massive number of pictures and movies from their site.

    SCO commented: "This attack is further proof that the Open Source community is largely a terrorist organization that cannot be trusted. They seem to be even as we speak cannabalizing their own allies. This behavior proves that we own linux."
  • Can I use Photoshop to draw the splashscreen?
  • And that comes from crowd that usually trashes Microsoft for it's "bloatware" and ridicules Windows users who install cute/stupid add-ons and desktop themes and whatnot.
  • To help distribute the load, I have mirrored the full movie on my website [thelinuxbox.org]. Please go here [thelinuxbox.org] to view it.

  • Winner's Prize (Score:3, Funny)

    by J Mack Daddy ( 774273 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @09:37AM (#11041788)
    What does the winner of this popularity contest get by way of reward?

    Let me guess... a free copy of The Gimp! :)

  • Kudos to Joshua Estes for his photo but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wazzzup ( 172351 ) <astromac@f[ ]mail.fm ['ast' in gap]> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @09:53AM (#11041932)
    I'm thinking that, while a nice picture, an upside-down phallic mushroom with mud on the end of its stem is...well let's just say there are less subliminal options presented.
  • What is this "more than 666"? Do you mean 667? Why make such a random and meaningless statement?

    If it was 666 at the time you wrote, why not say "so far 666 have been submitted". If you wanted to just indicate a large general number, why not say "more than 650" or "almost 700".

Slashdot Top Deals

Brain off-line, please wait.

Close