The GIMP Now Has a Working Single-Window Mode 403
An anonymous reader writes "Phoronix is reporting that The GIMP now has a working single-window mode, a long desired feature by the open-source graphics community to be more competitive with Adobe Photoshop. There's also a number of other user highlights in the new GIMP 2.7.3 release. The GPLv3 graphics software can be downloaded at GIMP.org."
NOOOOO!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
I just learned the old interface! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry, all the controls are in the window, leaving you a 150 by 150 pixel region to view your image.
That's development release (Score:5, Informative)
Use it with care, as it is development release with rather large rewrites and therefore not suitable for production use. For this release I honestly don't care about single window mode as I'm not Windows drone - GEGL improvements and usage, new text entry mode, and lot of other small improvements interests me more.
Official release in fall/spring (as far as I understood).
Re:That's development release (Score:4, Interesting)
Still no 16 bit per pixel images (it can import them, but not work in 16 bit).
Re:That's development release (Score:4, Funny)
erm .. I mean 16 bit per channel.
Re:That's development release (Score:4)
For this release I honestly don't care about single window mode as I'm not Windows drone
Only Windows can do single window mode? Linux always has either none or multiple windows?
Otherwise how would caring about single window mode require one to be a Windows drone?
I for one think it's nice to be able to have the screen focused on a single purpose without a distracting background or icons and windows you might accidentally click. Particularly the visually distraction of it all. Ever noticed how Photoshop has a very dull and gray interface?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course programs on other operating systems could do "single window mode" (i.e. MDI). However normally only programs on Windows do.
"Single window mode" here means MDI, i.e. having a single main window with subwindows instead of multiple independent windows.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
On Linux, the multiple-window thing is manageable - you just throw the Gimp windows on a separate desktop (maybe set the desktop background to something dull and grey, if you like). If you have it on the same desktop as other applications, you're going to have problems, because it's very easy to have some of the Gimp's windows at the front, while others are hidden behind other windows. You could work around that by making some of the windows always-on-top. It still sucks, but at least you can actually use t
Re:That's development release (Score:4, Insightful)
Otherwise how would caring about single window mode require one to be a Windows drone?
The only reason to require single window mode is if your window manager is broken. If you're on UNIX, you can just get a wm that works. If you're on windows, you're screwed.
I for one think it's nice to be able to have the screen focused on a single purpose without a distracting background or icons and windows you might accidentally click.
So dedicate a virtual desktop to the multiple window version of the GIMP and maximize the image. You don't have to see anything you don't want to see.
Working on the right features, I see (Score:4, Insightful)
Wake me up when I can finally use 16, 32 or 64 bits per channel, and the channels aren't restricted to RGBA or integers ...
Re:Working on the right features, I see (Score:4, Interesting)
While that would be nice, by far the worst thing about Gimp is the UI. It may be OK on a desktop with a big screen but I was trying to edit an image on my laptop recently and with all the windows splattered everywhere, most of them forcing themselves to the front all the time because, my God, the font window is so much more important than the image I'm trying to edit, I ended up with about a quarter of the screen available for editing.
I'm really hoping that this is an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure single-window is an improvement on small screens. I remember much frustration while using Inkscape on a netbook a while ago, because its single window didn't fit in my resolution, and my window manager had strange ways of dealing with that.
With a Gimp-like UI I would just have move the toolbars to another desktop and switched between desktops with a keyboard shortcut.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure single-window is an improvement on small screens.
Not with the way Duh Gimp people implemented it, that's for sure. All they did was take the lazy route of smashing the formerly floating windows into a single window. That's really not the way to have done it. The single window mode also needed a subsequent REDESIGN of the UI. The UI now just looks like a cluttered mess.
Re:Working on the right features, I see (Score:5, Interesting)
Wake me up when I can finally use 16, 32 or 64 bits per channel, and the channels aren't restricted to RGBA or integers ...
Overkill slightly? Power dynamic range from single photon starlight to laser eye damage is only about 100 dB... You can't buy 64 bit A/D converters, unless you're talking about some kind of marketing thing where you have 4 16 bit A/D in the same box. LCD monitors are very low contrast, just barely above 20 dB, paper and ink's only about 10 dB.
There does not seem to be a practical input or output technology that can use more than 16 bits. 8 bits is probably too low. I would advocate for 16 bit, but 32 is as pointless as using scientific notation for each channel.
Re:Working on the right features, I see (Score:5, Interesting)
16bits per channel is really important.
I own some print shops, we take artist original prints and paintings and produce reproductions, a la Giclée. We scan as high res as possible, with as many bits per color channel as possible.
Since no scanner is eprfectly color accurate, we do some post production work in Photoshop. 8bits per channel does bring some loss to saturation, contrast and gradients during post production. 16 bits per channel lessens these effects.
Do we use 32 bits? Almost never, but it does come in handy in *rare* instances. Recently we had to scan a painting with metallic inks. 32 bits per channel actually allowed us to properly map the metallic colors to our metalic ink on our printer.
Re:Working on the right features, I see (Score:4, Interesting)
32bit per channel isn't out of the realm of sanity - think computer graphics.
But 64bit? That's pushing it more than a little.
http://www.anyhere.com/gward/hdrenc/hdr_encodings.html [anyhere.com]
Maybe if you wanted to capture in a single scene the darkest material ever made, in the shadow of a nuclear explosion.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just about dynamic range, it's also about manipulating the image without degrading it due to rounding errors.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just about dynamic range, it's also about manipulating the image without degrading it due to rounding errors.
Indeed. And this is why many scientific images are converted to the FITS [wikipedia.org] format before processing. FITS files allow floating point representations of images, and support multiple image planes, such as multispectral images, as well as simple photometric and spectral measurements. Obviously, there need be no loss of precision in manipulating images with float or double datatypes. Software such as NASA fv [nasa.gov] will render FITS images as well as is possible with your hardware. However, they are not properly handled
Re: (Score:3)
It's true, for example, a picture that has a large expanse of sky with a subtle gradiation .. if you start messing with the curves (adjusting brightness, contrast, etc), you will start seeing banding in the sky pretty quickly, but if you're working in 16 bit mode, you won't have this problem. This is also the reason we work with camera RAW files instead of JPEG's, there's just a lot more data in the files. (I'm a part time/semi-pro photographer, so I spend a lot of time in Photoshop). Actually since we'r
Re: (Score:2)
32Bit per channel ought to be enough for anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true, having extra bits per channel doesn't expand the dynamic range, it does however give you more values in that range than you would otherwise have. Most of the extra values end up corresponding to things that would be unrecoverable because they're too dark to be registered.
Re: (Score:2)
True, and lets not forget to add:
Non-destructive editing.
a 10x increase in speed of the basic engine (which will be needed for non-destructive editing)
A macro recorder to easily record repetitive operations.
photo-shop like history operations
A single window mode is not the most important thing GIMP needs to compete with Photoshop
Re: (Score:2)
and add: unified transform tool.
I think GEGL might be a good aid in points 1 and 2 you made, though. I do hope they'll be making use of it to work at the resolution on display (manipulate only a few pixels) and 'render' that to the full res in the background, and tiled management so that if I do work on a small piece of a gigapixel image, it doesn't try doing so on the full copy in RAM (and inevitably swap file), but just the tiles I'm hitting.
In the mean time, I guess I keep adding RAM and speeding up the
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention they spent that effort duplicating something that has already been done years ago by GimpShop [gimpshop.com]:
"It shares all GIMP's advantages, including the long feature list and customisability, while addressing some common criticisms regarding the program's interface: GIMPshop modifies the menu structure to closely match Photoshop's, adjusts the program's terminology to match Adobe's, and, in the Windows version, uses a plugin called 'Deweirdifier' to combine the application's numerous windows in a simila
Re: (Score:2)
This is expected for GIMP 3.0, which isn't all that far away in the scheme of things. The main issue as of 2011 is not so much implementing high channel depths, it's porting the obscenely huge amount of existing tools and effects to use it. Someone long ago, in 2000, before I was allowed to drink, decided that the GIMP's core should be replaced by a high tech and elegant solution called GEGL which not only ups the bit depth and allows colour-space conversions but allows pixel's values to be re-calculated to
Screenshot? (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd think a story about a major UI change would come with a screenshot or something...
Re:Screenshot? (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone here would just say it was photoshopped.
Yes but.... (Score:2)
Yes but can you draw a straight line yet intuitively without having to look up a tutorial? :)
Yo Grark
YES!!!!I (Score:2)
This is a great step in the right direction. While I know the GIMP is far behind the current Photoshop in feature set, having a similar UI will encourage more users to give it a try. Even with the features of Photoshop years ago, the GIMP will be more useful with a decent UI than it is currently.
Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work! (Score:4, Interesting)
Prior to graduating, I used GIMP because I couldn't afford Photoshop and didn't want to pirate it. When I started working for the university, I used it and Open Office specifically to show low/no-funding educational organizations that they don't need to spend thousands of dollars so their workers could edit documents and make beautiful images.
I continued to use it in different departments so the departments wouldn't have to spend the $200 university license fees.
In all these instances, I used GIMP portable either from a thumb drive or from the desktop. No installation because no one has permissions to install programs on their computers. A couple weeks ago, though, a new campus-wide update prohibited the launching of ANY exe not explicitly installed by an IT admin. I appealed and they said to buy and use photoshop. /sigh
Tell dept heads that IT has been counterproductive (Score:2)
A couple weeks ago, though, a new campus-wide update prohibited the launching of ANY exe not explicitly installed by an IT admin.
Then how do students and faculty in the computer science department test the programs that they're working on? Or are computer science courses at your university fully Dijkstra-style [wikipedia.org] courses done entirely on paper?
I appealed and they said to buy and use photoshop.
Have you tried making it known to the heads of all departments that IT's policy of declining to approve GIMP, which you have shown to be the least expensive program that fits the departments' requirements, is counterproductive to the university's mission?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Their rationale is that they don't want to have to spend the time supporting (answering questions about and updating) another program which has such a small user-base. Of course, they said the same thing about Firefox and Thunderbird (both of which I was running that from a thumb drive for a quite a while) and now they're both supported programs.
Funny Bit: The supported campus email clients were Outlook and Eudora up until a couple years ago. Yes, EUDORA.
Also, I don't think that they would agree that p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Package GIMP on a CD (i.e. copy the installer), and sell it to the university for $1. Might they then install it?
Or, show that there's a need for you to use software that's affordable in the developing / academic / whatever world. Where I work I'm hoping "no, we must use MySQL/Postgres as our partners in African countries can't afford the higher-up-in-government mandated Oracle, and we have joint projects with them as a key part of what we do" will work. (It's worked before, apparently we're told to use s
Re: (Score:2)
Bad design choice (Score:2)
People wanted an MDI like Photoshop. Instead they get an SDI. It is almost as if the GIMP devs wanted to prove they could fail at even the simplest UI design choices.
Who was asking for it? (Score:2)
I know, must be the same person who goes full screen on
EVERYTHING, even though he has a 24" screen to begin with. GIMP
makers can stop right there and call it a one-off, heck even
sell this on street corners, make it a really rare copy that you
can't even download on TOR.
Oooh, coffee's ready!
Why? Photoshop went to all floating with CS2... (Score:2)
I love how that was the biggest Whine from the Photoshop crowd. Yet Photoshop went to floating windows design with the advent of CS2 and I did not hear them all whine to Adobe..
Honestly, you cant make them happy. Dont even try.
welcome (Score:2)
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:4, Informative)
No they don't do this every couple of years.
But the main reason Photoshop people don't switch is that Photoshop isn't all that expensive if you use it every day. GIMP also does not have 16-bit color or CMYK.
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, cool, so they don't want to use it? Good deal! I guess we can stop porting their shitty 1980's UI and window management models to it now, then, can't we? Can we just rip this fucking single-window crap right back out and put the GIMP back the way GIMP users use it, and not the way a handful of Photoshop dilettantes keep saying the GIMP *should* be so they can switch?
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am saying that the Photoshop users clamoring for GIMP to be like this and GIMP to be like that are the dabblers, and don't represent the vast majority of Photoshop users, who as far as I can tell are happy with what they have and just have some work to get done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Last time I attempted to use it, the simple fact you couldn't see the brush when you moved the mouse over the canvas infuriated me to the point I doubt I'll bother with it again.
This seems like a totally different issue from the single-window mode thing, and I don't see how any GIMP user would complain about this being implemented.
The GUI was hideous. If there is development work going on in this area, then IMHO it should be applauded. Taking your approach of simply poo-pooing everything because you absurdl
Re: (Score:3)
The overwhelming majority of GIMP users run Windows? I figured most Windows users just used pirated versions of Photoshop.
Re: (Score:2)
No no no no no...there are two groups of PS users out there. Those who use it for their work (and bought it), and those who should that it is superior to everything else (illegal copies). Ironically, only those who didn't buy it seem to shout loudest that GIMP is bullshit and can't be used. I have yet to meet one graphic designer who says that GIMP is not usable for him because of the multi-window-environment.
I'm pretty sure croddy meant the second group, because the first group does have constructive/good
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a reason that the dabblers complain about the GIMP. Have you ever read through one of those tutorials on how to do some cool graphics technique, like floating semi-transparent 3D letters above a picture? They tend to be written as "go to the *X Menu* and select *Name*" so they can't be translated to a program that has different menus and names. The dabblers don't know how to do things, just how to follow recipes.
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You've just met one then. I've used GIMP since the 90's and I've worked professionally in print publishing since 2000. I used GIMP to accomplish effects that my PS peeps were utterly unable to accomplish because GIMP's open source nature allowed me to code my own plugins, which was nice since we had a limited budget for such things. One of our first uses was a photomosaic plugin(I think the code I modded for the SGI is still out there somewhere) for a front page of the paper.
Sure, it didn't do CYMK, etc. bu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is some work [youtube.com] by photoshop dilettantes [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Can we just rip this fucking single-window crap right back out and put the GIMP back the way GIMP users use it
Of course you can -- it's open source. You can change it however you want.
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, people wanting a single-window interface are just a tiny niche of users. No, wait, they're practically every graphic artist ever.
But sure, go ahead and keep things "the way GIMP users use it." All three of them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So this is done in photoshop [youtube.com]
Oh, and here is what can be done in GIMP [youtube.com] ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly - Photoshop is an unusable piece of crap *simply because of this stupid single-window thing*. I already have a perfectly good window manager. Let *it* manage the damn windows, and stop trying to run another half-assed excuse for a window manager *inside a damn window*, of all the retarded places to do it.
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:4, Interesting)
As well there should be. Having a single window that spans two monitors only works well if both monitors have the same resolution. Otherwise it tends to be somewhat awkward. What's wonderful about the current system is that I can place my tools on one monitor along with a view of the whole image and do my manipulation on the other monitor.
Just as long as they keep the older multi-window mode I don't have any problems with this.
Re: (Score:2)
This is how I have it set up on my work PC (and how I use it on a PDA - with the tiny screen, switching windows is easier than trying to cram everything into the already crowded 4" screen) but on most computers a single-window mode would be preferable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm so delusional I honestly believe that a kid's exercise in scheduling the printing of A and B just for fun is at least as good of server than a multimillion dollar software ecosystem. Now could you drop the origin bullshit, it doesn't matter where things start, only where they are now.
PS: A bad hack of an early version of this school project was better for film retouching than Photoshop, explain that with your "logic" of origins.
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the main reasons are: it's a recognizable brand, employers provide Photoshop for their employees, colleges have it in their labs, it supports most digital cameras' RAW formats, and everyone freakin' pirates it when they're studying photography or design or print media or whatever other visual art. Seriously, it's rampant. I know MANY people who pirated Adobe products and continued to use them in their careers. Basically, nobody ever paid for it except the odd one or two. I feel like the oddball, having actually purchased Photoshop CS rather than pirating it back when I was in college - my peers even made fun of me for it. "You mean you actually paid for that? Why didn't you just download it? I would have given you a copy." (Of course, mine actually worked properly, and theirs didn't always.) You'd think that would be something you could buy with your student loans, even though the 'student price' is still rather expensive for an average photo student.
GIMP is poised to be at least average in digital photo manipulation. It doesn't stand out as a shining example of technological achievement, but it's at least average.
Most digital photography goes straight to the Web, and you don't need CMYK for that. You need sRGB. If you're the one sending images to a printer, yes you want to handle CMYK. Once you profile your average photo printer, as long as you're outputting in the right color space - you should get really good results. CMYK is mostly of interest to electronic prepress: think books and newspapers. But your average photographer doesn't need that. They have a prepress department to handle the conversion and bit depth reduction. In fact, many printers and RIPs accept profiled RGB images these days, so converting to CMYK may or may not gain you anything in the end. Your mileage will most definitely vary.
Your point about HDR is valid. HDR has been the new hotness for years.
One thing Adobe products do well is decoding Camera RAW formats. That's a big deal, since you can slightly adjust your exposure post-shoot. Otherwise you have to either use 8-bit-per-channel JPEG, or pay the manufacturer for the full software. The 'lite' version usually comes with the camera but you can't do everything Adobe does. GIMP could really break into the market if they packaged UFRaw with the software.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, you mean 16-bit per channel right? I'm pretty sure it supports 32-bit color (24-bit if you don't use alpha)
Re: (Score:2)
For 16-bit color:
Image --> Mode --> Indexed --> Generate optimum palette --> Max colors = 65536, Convert?
For CMYK support, maybe this?
http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml [blackfiveservices.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
There's no miscomprehension. If you say "16-bit color", that means 16 bits per pixel, with 65,536 possible values. It's just like 8-bit color meaning 256 possible values, or 24-bit color meaning 16.7 million values. Computer graphics systems have used this terminology since the 80s, and probably earlier.
If you mean something else that's specific to the printing industry or whatever, then you need to spell it out. This is a general forum, not a forum for printing professionals.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if we assume your interpretation, you're still horribly confused. You're mixing up 16-bit indexed images (16 bits per palette index), which pretty much don't exist (and which GIMP doesn't support - if you actually try what you just described you'll see that GIMP clamps the number of colors down to 256) and 16-bit RGB images (RGB 5-6-5), which do exist in many embedded devices, and which as far as I can tell GIMP has no support for either (other than perhaps via a plugin). I had to dither/quantize a PNG
Re: (Score:2)
More like because they've already learned the Photoshop interface, and can't be bothered learning another.. especially if they already suck with computers.
Re: (Score:2)
And maybe because Photoshop is actually good value?
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Because GIMP's only goal is to be usable to Photoshop users and make them stop using Photoshop.
Not!
Re: (Score:2)
What is GIMP's goal?
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have aspirations of becoming the standard image editing app?
I'm not asking to argue, I've just never followed GIMP enough to know if they were just trying to make an image manipulation app or if they want it to be the app everybody uses.
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the photoshop people still don't switch, because it doesn't have their favourite plugin.
Why does it have to be about switching?
As an experienced Photoshop user let me give you a little tip: Instead of trying get Photoshop users to switch, why not tantalize them with how it can be an additional tool in their toolbox?
Let's say, for example, that GIMP has an extra awesome macro-recording/playback capability that makes Photoshop look like a toy in comparison. (I don't know if this is the case or not so please forgive my ignorance.) If you were to say to me: "You can record a macro in GIMP, then apply this sophisticated set of rules to it that PS doesn't have, and easily set it up to run on all the files in a folder", then I'd go and try it out!
Take out the switching talk and you'll gain a lot more interest. Otherwise you're fighting this huge uphill battle where you have to take into account way too many things that are of importance. Then you'll sit there thinking Photoshop users are mindless fans that lack your vision when in reality you just haven't addressed their needs.
Re:Don't they do this every couple of years? (Score:4, Informative)
I forgive your ignorance, but I feel compelled to respond here by saying that it's actually the other way around. Photoshop has an awesome recording/playback capability (called Actions). You just hit record, perform the steps you desire, hit stop and there you go.
With the GIMP the nearest equivalent are scripts, but you have to write them yourself using a pseudo-scripting language. There's no simple recording feature, and I wasn't going to sit and waste time learn how to code up a script for an equivalent workflow of what I was used to doing in Photoshop, because the scripting is actually very complicated, particularly if you can't find the commands to do what you want.
People have complained about this (from 2001! - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51937 [gnome.org]), but nothing has happened because as the last post in said thread says, "we simply don't have
enough developers."
I won't bug them about it, but I won't bother with GIMP anymore because it simply lacks easy of use and important functionality. Open source doesn't always work in practice.
Re: (Score:3)
I use to use GIMP all the time... Then I switch to Photoshop and I found Photoshop being much better then the GIMP for the stuff that I needed to work with. GIMP has a lot of good features but getting to the ones that I need the most are more cumbersome, then with Photoshop.
Re: (Score:3)
> And the photoshop people still don't switch, because it doesn't have their favourite plugin.
No, they don't switch because GIMP is crap. I have a PSD created in 2003 that GIMP still can't render properly ...
Wake me up when GIMP supports ...
- 16-bit/channel
- Effect Layers
- implements ALL the PS layer blend modes
- Layer Groups (nested layers)
- fixes it stupid name
Re:to be competitive (Score:5, Informative)
How to create new Exif data? (Score:2)
Gimp seems to think every jpeg is 72dpi which is kind of a non-starter when using it for anything but web images.
Exif data is supposed to handle this, but has anyone else figured out how to create Exif data for a new image? The "Save Exif data" checkbox in Save as JPEG appears to be grayed out unless the image already had Exif data when I opened it.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if somebody could hack exiftool [queensu.ca] into a GIMP plugin.
Personally, I've just snapped a picture of the inside of my lens cap and then edited it in GIMP on the rare occasion when I wanted to have EXIF data in something I'd created.
Re:to be competitive (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I consider it very intuitive. Maybe it's because I've not been trained by Photoshop, and thus don't confuse "it works like Photoshop" with "it is intuitive".
But if they now have a Photoshop-like MDI interface, maybe they can undo some negative changes in the multi-window interface (like, add back the main menu to the tools window and don't force an otherwise useless image window without an image to be open just to have the main menu available). The Photoshop-UI-lovers can just use the MDI interface.
Re:to be competitive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Could I trouble you to elaborate more on what you mean by 'fight the layers system'?
Just curious.
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded! I want pics!
It'll buy you familiarity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So what is single window mode and what will it buy me?
The current GIMP interface is a multi-window affair which many find hard to grasp for one reason or another, or just find inconvenient.
A single window environment will improve your productivity if:
* you have trouble with the existing interface
* you have never used the existing interface, and are trying the program after using other graphics tools (i.e. less retraining effort as it should in theory be closer to what you are already used to using)
* you just don't like the existing interface
I'm quite
Focus (Score:3)
I think the multi-window arrangement made more sense than it does now back when focus-follows-mouse was the dominant focus control method in unix-a-like environments, but almost everyone now uses click-to-focus.
I'm slightly surprised at that assertion, mostly because the very first thing I have to change when using a vanilla WM is the focus behaviour to focus-follows-mouse (or pointer). Clicking to focus seems a waste of a click - the pointer is already in the window, why should I click just to get focus? And in doing so, I've got to watch what I click on - if it's a browser I would have to take care that I'm not clicking on a link, etc.
Am I so much in the minority here?
And, just to keep this vaguely on topic, I l
Re: (Score:2)
You say many distros, and quote ubuntu&kubuntu (which have the same gimp package)? So it works in all but ubuntu?
Doesn't that just mean that ubuntu's packagers screwed up?
Re: (Score:2)
1% can be an awful lot of money left on the table. Corporations that ignore a subset of the market because it's only 1% tend not to do well in the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
No GIMP segfaults here, on Ubuntu, Debian, CentOS...or any Windows versions.
Re: (Score:2)
After all these years, all I've seen is complaints about the name but nobody steps up and actually forks it and changes the name.
Re: (Score:2)
There's always Cinepaint. They forked from GIMP 1.04 IIRC and they do support 16bits per channel.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The GIMP was around for a -long- time before that movie came out.
In the -real- grown up world, the adults recognize that GIMP is an acronym for Gnu Image Manipulation Program and then move on without ever even thinking of ass-rape (or anything else).
IOW, maybe it's time for -you- to grow up and get over it...
Re: (Score:2)
No! Just "GIMP". (Score:2)
It hasn't been called "The GIMP" for quite some time.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never had anyone laugh at GIMP so far IRL, I've gotten way more laughs about Ubuntu, Gnome and SugarCRM.
Re: (Score:2)
Something boring and commercial with no imagination in it, like PhotoShed or PicWorks.
Re: (Score:2)
Well those separate windows end up being a real pain in terms of finding what you want to do. Click to many Close of your images then you program quits... File -> New on one of your images you are working on to create a new window is very annoying. also with all that space you are wasting on having duplicate menus clutters things up more then they should. OS X handles this concept with that Global Menu bar, but for windows and Linux you need that Single Window Mode for the best UI for that platform.
A
Re: (Score:2)
GIMP's UI is awkward because it differs from almost every program out there, not just Photoshop. It is harder to learn even for non Photoshop users.
Making software user friendly benefits experts not just the average user. People want to spend time actually manipulating images instead of figuring out a wonky new interface.
Re: (Score:2)
However, they also added the ability to move a window from any border so sometimes when you want to resize the window you end up moving it instead. oops.