Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

The Gimp from the Eyes of a Photoshop User

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the eye-of-the-beholder dept.

The Gimp 1199

Eugenia writes "Many in the F/OSS community are raving about the Gimp, however pros who have actually used Photoshop think differently: This Mac professional designer goes through the steps of getting Gimp 2.0 up and running on his Mac, only to get baffled by the chaotic interface in general and its non-standard UI compared to other Mac apps, its slowness to open large files and to apply filters, the unintuitive tools that accompany it and its very visible bad quality of text and lines/shapes. That designer even bought a 'supported' version of MacGimp by an OSS-Mac company, Archei, but he never heard back for his support requests (free Gimp for Macs here). I think that's one of the best-written articles I've ever read about the reality of most open-source geek-driven projects vs their equivelant professional/proprietary ones. Personally, before I get persuaded to use Gimp again for my photography projects, I would need --in addition to the author's peeves -- full 16-bit per channel support, high-quality scanning/printing drivers with integrated GUI (a'la SilverFast), and a 'crop and rotate' feature (as seen in PS/PSE). Besides, both Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop Elements cost bellow $100 (with PS Elements getting bundled with most scanners/printers/digital cameras, albeit without the much needed 16bit support either)."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

HEY CMDRTACO! COMMENT THEFT IS RAMPANT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023680)


Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment theives dealt with?

One thing about photoshop! (1, Redundant)

rkz (667993) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023683)

Alot of people have animosity towards Adobe, myself included over various issues, but there is one thing that Adobe has that nobody else can hold a candle to:

Photoshop.

This one software package is single-handedly keeping me from migrating to Linux. For those who say "But what about Gimp? It's just as good..."

Those people have also never done professional graphics for print, video or even the web. The toolset within Photoshop is unrivaled, it's color acuity precise, and it's workflow caters to multiple mind sets. For every one way to do something there is a handfull of other, equally successful methods to achieve exactly the same result. It is an artist's tool.

Mature? Nope. There are dozens of features that the community has been begging to have integrated for years, and slowly but surely Adobe has listened. I can understand not implementing every little widget and gizmo that has been suggested by crackpot users over the years into their flagship product line, and each new upgrade offers something useful that can either save me time or opens up a new realm of creative flexibility. Photoshop has many years to grow, become better and more refined. Most people just don't see it because a histogram is this wierd spikey deal that screws up an image, filters are normally reserved for creating 'L3nZ FL4r3s', and the layer effects were the perfect time saving device for all those bubbly drop shadowed graphics with glowy mouse-overs your client is begging for.

There is no alternative, and by glancing at the top 10 new features, it seems that Adobe has not forgot that Photoshop is not a toy program. I didn't see any "Improved Applesque Button Creation" feature.

(yet)

Re:One thing about photoshop! (5, Informative)

aePrime (469226) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023721)

Photoshop is great, but you CAN run it under Linux. It's a supported application of
Crossover Office. [codeweavers.com]

I use it all the time under Linux with no problems.

Re:One thing about photoshop! (-1, Offtopic)

necro2607 (771790) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023752)

Hmm, did you steal this comment too?

Re:One thing about photoshop! (5, Interesting)

moresheth (678206) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023787)

Adobe hasn't just made Photoshop well, but they also have quite a few professional tools that I don't think I could live without.

Illustrator, InDesign, AfterEffects, and Acrobat(files) are other leading softwares that are essential for me (as a graphic designer). And once you get used to the way Adobe feels and organizes tools, you get accustomed to it, so much so that it becomes a pain to try to use other non-Adobe programs. This familiarity comes in handy, however, when you think to yourself, "How would I do [x] in InDesign or AfterEffects?" and the first thing you think of, it's there.

Adobe has a monopoly on my graphics editing.

Re:One thing about photoshop! (4, Informative)

rowanxmas (569908) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023810)

I personally find that Illustrator is even more candle repellent. In terms of Vector graphics manipulation, I think it is tops.
This is the company that invented PostScript after all.

Re:One thing about photoshop! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023823)

Can I say "But what about Wine? It runs Photoshop..."

And before anyone brings it up--multiple monitors (4, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023826)

A lot of people fire back about GIMP's interface with, "But think of how friendly to multiple monitors it is!"

Never mind that Photoshop works just fine with multiple monitors! It has as far back as I can remember. I've seen five-monitor Mac setups arranged in order of the artist's graphics processes, moving from one monitor to another, going from area to dialog to area and so forth.

I get WHY people justify GIMP's interface. I just don't agree whatsoever.

Re:And before anyone brings it up--multiple monito (5, Informative)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023881)

Yeah, the mac version does that but on the PC, it is an MDI inteface which does not work well on multiple monitors since you can only move the toolbars to a different monitor.

Thank goodness I have a mac. :)

I agree... (3, Interesting)

necro2607 (771790) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023690)

We use photoshop here at work (digital-based photography business) all day long, and a few of us have tried using GIMP for image editing. We all found it fairly awkward. I've tried using it more than everyone else and I just find the whole "right-click to do everything" approach fairly disorienting.

Re:I agree... (5, Interesting)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023739)

I agree. I have always used Paint Shop Pro for years under Windows. Now that I've switched to Linux I've all but abandoned Microsoft Office in favor of Open Office. I use Opera instead of Eudora. I used Kate (awesome!) instead of notepad. I use Xine for movies and DVDs and XMMS works great for music.

But when it comes to working with images I still have to run Win4Lin to open a Win98 session and run Paint Shop Pro. The interface on The Gimp is just unusable to me. And maybe it has all the same features as Paint Shop Pro, but at least with PSP I can find them.

Re:I agree... (1)

maxbang (598632) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023879)

I'm with you on PSP. I've always preferred it over Adobe for working with images. Not only is it much cheaper, but it provides as much functionality and, IMO, a more intuitive UI. I only wish GIMP would be able to bridge the gap to provide us with an open source alternative.

Re:I agree... (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023794)

I only right-click if I need a filter. For everything else, there's either the appropriate window, or a keyboard shortcut.

Re:I agree... (2, Insightful)

ejaw5 (570071) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023831)

I just find the whole "right-click to do everything" approach fairly disorienting.

I think if you keep using it you'll start to appreciate the right-click-on-the-image deal. Say if you want to select a region and apply a sharpen filter, you can draw your box, then at the location, bring up the menu and select sharpen. Instead of having to go up to the top of the screen.

Clearly not Macintized enough (1)

Atario (673917) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023833)

...pros who have actually used Photoshop think differently: This Mac professional designer...
If you were real Mac-heads, you'd have said "think different".

Re:I agree... (1)

mz2 (770412) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023867)

Having used Gimp2 and its prereleases for some time now, I can assure you that the lack of context-menus and just instead that dumb-fuck non-context-huge-ass menu is not the only way of doing things anymore. It is still available when clicking in the actual image window (which I personally think is useless now when that same menu is visible at all times anyways, since a context menu with layer-specific items would be useful in the image window), but it's come far from the 1.x awkwardiness :) Matias

HEY CMDRTACO! COMMENT THEFT IS RAMPANT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023695)


Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment theives dealt with? ?

Interface (4, Interesting)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023697)

(donning asbestos underwear)

FYI, I am a programmer and web app designer, not a graphics artist. That being said, I feel that any GUI application with a well-designed interface should be fairly intuitive and I should be able to get up to speed in a few minutes (I learn quickly).

I tried The Gimp on Linux. I tried The Gimp in Windows (the new native version). I still cannot get it. I try Photoshop and I can be halfway productive instantly. The result suck, remember I am not a graphics designer and I cannot even write legibly let alone draw with a pencil or a mouse, but I can get around the filters, tools, etc.

My experiences with other peoples' work proves that The Gimp is capable and powerful. My experiences with my own work proves that The Gimp has a steep learning curve mostly due to its odd interface.

Indeed (2, Insightful)

JMZero (449047) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023844)

I'm actually pretty good with El Gimpo (though I'm a programmer like you), but the interface still boils my bum. No matter what you do, you have 700 windows open by the time you're done. If you're doing other stuff with the computer at the same time or working on a few images, you end up with a useless soup. And, if you're like me, you'll end up spending way too much time hunting through the endless right-click menus (often for the same 4 or 5 options).

Speaking of which, useless novelty crap has the same rank in the right-click hierarchy as bread and butter functions (there's probably hotkeys or some configuration crap I can do to fix this - but I'm ranting here). Beginning users are helplessly confused by the selection/anchoring setup. The Channels/Paths thing is just messed up, and I bet most users just steer clear of the whole thing and just implement what they can with layers and fudging. Lots of the subtools lack the features that would be required to make them useful, and are far too customizable in only the ways I couldn't care less about. Or are just pretty much useless novelty doodads.

Still, I use it because it's a free way to do some common picture operations (like fudging color) on my work computer.

You can't really complain too much about a free product - but you can certainly wish it had had a usable (and here I mean more than "it's possible to use") interface.

I agree with the Mac artist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023698)

I had the EXACT same experience with Gimp on all my OSes: Windows, Mac and Linux. Gimp is simply NOT as good as Photoshop, not even as good as Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop Elements.

More work is needed.

Re:I agree with the Mac artist (2, Informative)

justsomebody (525308) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023874)

Funny, when I try this on Linux and Gimp (FC1 and 2.0.0) and (FC2t3 and 2.0.1) there's no glitches like this, fonts are just as beatiful as on in Photoshop (must be related to X11 on OSX or something).

And besides,... Gimp environment is Linux friendly not OSX friendly (Gimp behaves completely different than any other software on OSX).

To sum it all up, writer had just as awkward position as I had when I run Photoshop (tryed to use my alerady paid versions) on crossover office on Linux (something just didn't belong there). As much as I was working with Photoshop in the past (few years of intensive usage, after that I traded it for Linux and Gimp), I found my self very uncomfortable with Photoshop interface as he with Gimp.

Nothing new (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023700)

Stupid Mac user fail to grasp simple concepts, rants about non lickable widgets and once more proves the tremendous amount of stupidity present in yuppies. Film at 11.

last post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023701)

last post! suck it down loosers!

FreeType for GIMP (5, Informative)

Inhibit (105449) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023703)

On the matter of Text, use FreeType for the GIMP. It produces beautiful scaled, rotated, and angled text output.

Obligatory Link (5, Informative)

Inhibit (105449) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023740)

And I almost forgot. The Obligatory link [gimp.org] for the google impaired. :) Hinted, Kerned, and Anti-Aliased to your hearts content.. fully buzzword compliant!

Re:FreeType for GIMP (5, Insightful)

wibs (696528) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023828)

It's great that FreeType exists, but it's still missing the point. You shouldn't need to scour the web looking for plugins to make your program do the (simple) things you want it to do. If we were talking about something only a small set of advanced users would ever need, I wouldn't see a problem... but text rendering? Everybody needs that!

Re:FreeType for GIMP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023868)

Why isn't this a default component of the GIMP? The example on the linked page just looks pathetic. I'd expect better text from a VIC-20.

change the name! (1, Informative)

gamesmash (726875) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023705)

From dictionary.com: 8 entries found for gimp. gimp2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gmp) Slang n. A limp or a limping gait. A person who limps.

Re:change the name! (2, Interesting)

necro2607 (771790) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023843)

GIMP = GNU Image Manipulation Program

Anyway, many linux apps' names are a play on words, so I don't see why GIMP ought to have a different name. Plus the GUI is all GIMPed up anyways. Oooo.. *slaps knee*

Can it work on ascii art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023709)

inquiring minds want to know

UI in the OS world (5, Interesting)

Rabbitt (741607) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023712)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the author here. Most applications in the OS world are obvious in the sense that they are written by Developers (apps that I work on included). That is probably one of the biggest things missing in the OS world - UI people. People who understand how to ogranize all the options / bells&whisttles / etc into something meaningful and intuitive to the average 'joe' user. While there are definitely great strides towards creating more UI friendly apps, it is still one of the gravest detriments to our community as a whole.

Re:UI in the OS world (1)

irokitt (663593) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023772)

Yes, looking at the Gimp on my GNU/Linux box and then using Photoshop on my WinXP box, I would say that there is an obvious lack of professional touch.

But then I fire up Mozilla FireFox to post to Slashdot, and your argument gets blown to pieces.

Anyone used that Film Gimp? (2, Interesting)

Mantrid (250133) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023715)

I do my image stuff with Paint Shop Pro - but I was wondering about a post effect software (like Adobe's package - like Photoshop for film). I'm pretty sure I remember reading about a film version of gimp - anyone had experience with it and know if it's any good?

Re:Anyone used that Film Gimp? (4, Informative)

cmowire (254489) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023742)

Not the way you think...

FilmGimp a.k.a. CinePaint, is for a few specilized film editing applications, mostly to do with hand-rotoscoping, dust removal, and such. It is not a general purpose tool for video editing like Premiere or AfterEffects.

Missing (4, Insightful)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023717)

In the price comparison I think she's missing one of the major points of the gimp - it's open source. I don't think many of the developers are working on it so I don't have to shell out some money for paint shop pro, they're more likley developing it because there's a gimp shaped hole in the open source comunity that needed filling.

Re:Missing (3, Troll)

RatBastard (949) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023832)

Who cares if it's open source? I don't. What I care about is being able to use it. If the interface is horrid and badly thiought out I'm not going to bother with it. Yeah, PSP isn't free, but it's interface is easy and well thought out. That lets me do what I need to do.

I use the best tool available in my price range. If that tool is free, geat. I'll use it. If that tool is not free, fine. I'll save up my lunch money and buy it.

GIMP is like Johnson's "woman preacher" (5, Insightful)

SYFer (617415) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023720)

I am Photoshop certified and use the app every day in my work. I have also enthusiastically installed and am a sometime user of GIMP (on Mac) and I've gotta say this guy is right on target.

Enthusiasm for the GIMP reminds me of Samuel Johnson's famous comments on women preaching [samueljohnson.com] .

Historical sexism aside, his point was that when we see something hard being done by someone unexpected, we sometimes fail to notice how poorly it's actually being done.

In the OS community, everyone gets so excited about having a "free" (as in beer) app which potentially replaces an expensive commercial app, that we get a bit carried away in our enthusiasm.

Its like the do-it-yourself TiVo's that aren't really anywhere near as convenient or feature rich as the real deal.

GIMP gives us a glimpse of the tremendous potential of Open Source software, but anyone who thinks its "as good as PS," isn't a serious Photoshop user.

Re:GIMP is like Johnson's "woman preacher" (4, Insightful)

mveloso (325617) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023809)

There's an old quote that says it better:

"It's not that the dog talks well, it's that it talks at all."

This is the problem with a lot of open source: people are happy that it talks at all. Maybe someday they'll get around to talking well?

Re:GIMP is like Johnson's "woman preacher" (2, Insightful)

RetroGeek (206522) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023875)

the problem with a lot of open source: people are happy that it talks at all

There is also the economic factor. If a commercial app sucks, it does not make money and the company drops it (or the company drops).

With OSS, there is no economic filter. People just keep working at it. The only feedback loop is user comments. If those comments are not taken into consideration, well, the app is still there.

Note: I am NOT saying that all OSS is bad, nor that all money making commercial s/w is good. There are always exceptions to every broad statement.

Re:GIMP is like Johnson's "woman preacher" (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023850)

In the OS community, everyone gets so excited about having a "free" (as in beer) app which potentially replaces an expensive commercial app, that we get a bit carried away in our enthusiasm.

This excellent commentary is reflective of all of Linux and its software base. Things that Linux does that exist in other operating systems are somehow twice as good on Linux, even if implemented slightly less well (I'm thinking taskbars, start menus, device drivers, the works).

HEY CMDRTACO! COMMENT THEFT IS RAMPANT! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023722)


Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with??

Re:HEY CMDRTACO! COMMENT THEFT IS RAMPANT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023839)

Okay, it looks like your complaint is legitimate, but why post it randomly in a discussion that's not related?

Also, you either seem to have a tool that detects these sorts of things, or you're involved in some way (probably the one being plagarized, I can sympathize with that). How about making this tool, if it exists, available?

Adjustment Layers (4, Interesting)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023725)

One place where Photoshop still owns the GIMP is in the availablity of adjustment layers.

One of the really cool things you can do with adjustment layers is work with an image you're turning into black and white and make it look like an honest-to-God black and white image (as opposed to merely a desaturated color image). In some ways, it's almost like taking an internal picture of your subject and adjusting the tones and hue on the fly, which can turn out some very nifty results. In GIMP, you just don't have that flexibility.

FUCK YOU, EUGENIA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023731)

You fat fucking smelly Greek whore! Do you even wash on the rare occasions when your husband wants to fuck you? I bet your arse smells like a pig farm after eating all of the fucking pork and potatoes you cook-- you do nothing but sit all day, sweating and farting. It must smell like a swamp where criminals dump bodies in the sweltering heat.

Do you even shave? You sound like a lazy fucking wart of a housewife who wouldn't even bother. I bet the place is a mess too: dishes needing done, a layer of dust over everything, and stains and spills here and there. What a fucking pig-- a hairy fucking Greek bitch-pig.

Oh yeah, and your "skills" are laughable. You can't code for shit-- there's more holes in your PHP site than in a Greek brothel. Your English is terrible, which is pathetic for an editor-in-chief of a news site that reports in the language. Your obvious biases and slants make you look even more silly and unprofessional, as well as your multi-paragraph rants and fits of rage you write in your own forums. It's no wonder no one takes you seriously.

In short, ELQ, FUCK YOU. You are a loser, a no-lifer, a wanna-be, and a fecal smear in the world of technology. You are a detriment to the community you claim you serve. I challenge you to refute one thing I have said. You can't; it's all true.

And you know it.

GIMP is FREE (5, Insightful)

fons (190526) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023736)

A lot of people who think photoshop is great forget that they didn't pay for their copy BECAUSE IT IS EXPENSIVE.

You get what you pay for. It's that simple. And considering The Gimp is free it's a GREAT DEAL!

If they would be honest A LOT of home users SHOULD use the GIMP instead of using an illegal version of Photoshop.

Re:GIMP is FREE (1)

the unbeliever (201915) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023792)

Photoshop Elements is priced more towards a home user's point and is selling quite well, thank you.

Photoshop is geared towards professionals, who have either 1) expense accounts or 2) corporate purchasing agreements.

Re:GIMP is FREE (5, Insightful)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023798)

Everything on my Linux system is free, except Win4Lin. The Gimp doesn't measure up to even the other open source programs I use. I actually prefer OpenOffice to Office, I prefer XMMS to WinAmp or CoolPlayer, I prefer Opera to Mozilla/Eudora on Windows.

There are plenty of quality apps with a GUI for Linux. That The Gimp is free is no excuse to have a crappy interface that is completely unintuitive.

Re:GIMP is FREE (2, Interesting)

XaXXon (202882) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023812)

I wouldn't go with all the caps, but you're right on target -- though I'd argue that with the gimp, you get well more than you pay for.

From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, I'm sure an free illegal version of photoshop is more useful than a free legal version of the gimp, but if people would use gimp instead at least then we'd hear one fewer company whining about people infringing on their copyright and about how it cost them $X million a year.

Re:GIMP is FREE (5, Insightful)

merdark (550117) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023819)

I think the point here is that maybe the GIMP developers should *listen* to the designers. Some of these things (like the interface) are not impossibly hard to fix.

Then we'd have a usefull free program. But no, for some reason the designers of GIMP just will NOT listen. They like their crazy interface, regardless of how many professions tell them it's crap.

Re:GIMP is FREE (as in beer) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023872)

I got PS 4.0 Lite for free with my scanner. I still use it in OSX. The first time I saw PS (probably 2.0, at university) I was able to use it instantly, it made sense. I've tried several times to use Gimp and never got anywhere with it. The article author is right.

If something can't be used, it doesn't matter if it is free.

HEY CMDRTACO! COMMENT THEFT IS RAMPANT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023741)


Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with???

A long way to go (5, Insightful)

EchoMirage (29419) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023743)

This article re-illustrates something that serious graphic designers have been pulling their hair out in trying to tell the GIMP community for years: the GIMP - though a nice project - is completely and totally off in a little world of its own.

There are some major beefs that graphic designers and Photoshoppers have with the GIMP:
(1) The interface sucks. Nobody likes working with 16 different open windows
(2) The interface sucks. Nobody likes menus in different windows and toolbars
(3) No 16-bit/channel color support
(4) No [good] CMYK support = will never be used in prepress[1]
(5) Repeat (1) and (2)
(6) [Lack of] Speed
(7) Dependencies (GTK+, etc.)

Most importantly, I think, the GIMP community needs once again to have its teeth kicked in for its idiocy in choosing the name 'GIMP.' Yes, we here on Slashdot all know that it stands for GNU Image Manipulation Program, and we've all heard how it's "just an acronym" and not supposed to mean anything. But for reasons of political correctness, common decency, etc. the program's name will continue to be a major reason that it never sees any serious adoption.

So, GIMP developers, clean up the interface and change the product name, and your program has a decent chance of seeing the light of day in the real world.

[1] In the GIMP developer's defense, most/all of the CMYK process is patent protected.

Re:A long way to go (5, Funny)

dameron (307970) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023815)

(7) Dependencies (GTK+, etc.)



I'm having a hard time with this one....

-dameron

Re:A long way to go (1)

FattMattP (86246) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023827)

I thought that 16-bit per channel support was added in CinePaint [sf.net] and was going to be merged back into the Gimp trunk. Does anyone know anything about that?

Re:A long way to go (1)

d00gieb (774821) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023838)

In the GIMP developer's defense, most/all of the CMYK process is patent protected. What's rocket science about CMYK? Are the lookup tables patented? This has been around since the '50s.

Re:A long way to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023883)

I've been told that the problem is not a patent issue so much as it's related to Adobe's exclusive licensing of the Pantone color set. Designers eat, drink, and sleep with Pantone, and if you don't support it, you won't score many points with that particular crowd of horn-rimmed hipsters.

NameChange (1)

rowanxmas (569908) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023860)

I would agree, before Pulp Fiction it was a good name. Now, its not. How about:

  • GImage
  • GNUImage
  • FreeImage
  • OpenImage
  • ...

heh, he screwed something up (5, Insightful)

phoxix (161744) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023744)

[..] UNIX has this wonderful habit of trying to protect users from their own stupidity without recognising its own. [...]

s/UNIX/OS-X

Yeah ... now it sounds rite ... Unix doesn't hide anything, and thats where the power is (and the great ability to screw up the entire system).

Sunny Dubey

Re:heh, he screwed something up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023774)

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

You are going to get modded down so fast by the Apple zealots/trolls that have taken over Slashdot

AC

Such high expectations considering its name. (5, Funny)

Gary Yogurt (664063) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023745)

gimp

n : disability of walking due to crippling of the legs or feet

I suggest they rename it to Firehercules or Spartacus.

Re:Such high expectations considering its name. (2, Offtopic)

d00gieb (774821) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023811)


Or Achilles!

Wait, nevermind...

Linux user's perspective (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023749)

I agree, the Gimp's interface is inconsistent and painful. Then again, Photoshop doesn't even run (although it can be made to run badly on x86 only using Wine). So I guess it's Gimp for me.

Complain about usability all you want, I'd rather have an app that functions.

PhotoShop Killer? (1, Insightful)

standing_still (772809) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023750)

Honestly, I have not read the gimp site since version 2 became available, but approx. 6 months ago I recall reading on the gimp webpage that gimp was by no means the Adobe Photoshop killer. I don't know if this applies to version 2, but if it does it would be the user fault for not doing a little better research.

Photoshop and professional users (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023751)

Sorry, Big difference between professional photoshop users and the general "I wanna edit my digital photo" public.. Surely no one in the world would argue that any current version of FREE software would compare favorably in the eyes of a photoshop professional. But there IS an arguement to be made that the GIMP is more than sufficient for the majority of everyone else's needs. One day the cost of photoshop will drive a savvy UI person to paste a PS emulator on the front of the GIMP and s/he will be endlessly praised by the rest of the OSS community... I can wait :)

gimp not bad anymore (5, Interesting)

Apreche (239272) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023753)

Gimp 1 had a terrible interface. No bones about it. Gimp 2 however, has a decent UI. It's not super amazing, but its good enough, above average.

The problem is that these Photoshop users are used to photoshop. Any other UI no matter how slick and perfect will be worse for them. They are trained on photoshop so well that using anything else kills their efficiency. Like driving stick for the first time after driving automatic your whole life.

I'm no graphic wizard, just a programmer. And I recently got gimp 2 for windows and linux. I couldn't do fancy things right away, but its not because I couldn't find the buttons or they were in bad or hidden places. It's because I don't know anything about making graphics. If graphics people start out on the gimp instead of photoshop they will be just as good on that.

So don't try to convert people to gimp. Just get new people who are about to pirate photoshop for the first time to use gimp instead.

That's about it...

Re:gimp not bad anymore (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023854)

No kidding... I learned GIMP long before I had access to PhotoShop (and long before GIMP 1.0). Trying to do anything in PhotoShop is amazingly painful, but I don't rant about how horrible its interface is. It's just different, and I don't know it. I spend a long time hunting for functions that must be there. I don't know what PhotoShop calls them or where they put them. The GIMP's grouping is more "natural" to me; that's what I first learned.

The original article spends quite a while complaining that the GIMP is different, and then lists some "problems" that I've never seen on the Unix side. Are these MacGimp problems? When the image is at a high enough resolution and zoomed out, I don't see stepping on Solaris or Linux. And the typesetting example he has may be due to using different fonts for "Helvetica." Mine doesn't look that bad. All the tool icons have tooltips, and the help pops right up. All but the help could be explained by a poor X server on his Mac.

And then there are all the complaints that it doesn't look like a "native Mac" application. Ok. It isn't a native Mac application. Looks perfectly native on my machines. The apps that try to look like Mac apps drive me nuts. It's a different perspective.

A night in the life of Eugenia (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023757)

Sweating and farting nervously on the verge of mental meltdown, ELQ reloads each of her precious OSNews pages, making sure all is well. Fifty Internet Explorer windows are open in Windows XP, it's gridning the hard drive to death. ELQ's cable modem and NIC activity LEDs are nearly solid from the raw frenzy of almost constant browser reloading. Eugenia's eyes twitch rapidly from window to window with Mercurial speed to make sure that any rogue comments do not escape her attention, always hitting her refresh buttons with pinpoint accuracy. No logical order for checking, purely random and impulse driven by raw Mediterranean temper, stopping for the occasional savage bite from a pork loin still affixed to the bone, Eugenia's eyes never leave the monitor.

"N-n-n-n NO! No TIME for Dance Dance Revolution, oh but it's been so long! I cannot allow the BASTARD flooders' comments to be seen. MY DOMAIN IS SACRED!"

Hair is frizzled and days unwashed, asscrack just barely half wiped in a frenzy to return to her monitor, having taken a large shit earlier. No time to flush! Her armpits are over-ridden with pubic hair, her fat flaps reek of B.O. and yeast from days of neglect and hour upon hour of sweating. Relentless sweating.

"Cannot to be keeps up this pace! I may be need to go to hospital for exhaustions" she pants in desperation, wiping the sweat from a matted hair lock with her week-old t-shirt offering.

The hour of judgement approaches! Comment number 45 in thread 374 is clearly of anti-Greek sentiment! It reads "Eugenia continues to post yet another story that's simply ripped off from other websites. How much longer can this continue? It's my opinion that she has poor editorial skills. I think they should be revoked."

"YOU BASTARD FUCK!", Eugenia erupts in raw hatred, simultaneously ripping a 120 decibel-at-1-meter fart into the back of her chair. "Nobody is to be attack my site!" Eugenia blasts away at 10 words per minute in a barely-coherant broken English. She's on a mission. After several hours, the words on the screen are completely shattered and in disarray, they make no sense. Eugenia is impressed with her English progress and submits her lousy retort. Relaxing only for several seconds to savor the rush, she continues her patrol, sleepless into the night.

Not Biased... no, REALLY.. (2, Insightful)

TheCeltic (102319) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023759)

And I quote.."I think that's one of the best-written articles I've ever read about the reality of most open-source geek-driven projects vs their equivelant professional/proprietary ones." ... Not biased.. REALLY.

It's always humorous to me when trollers go after an opensource project that offers an excellent (albeit different) solution than a commercial closed source project. Do they ever compare apples for apples? How many free plugins/styles/scripting languages do you get with photoshop? what is the price tag again? I've used both, photoshop is better.. but Gimp is excellent and more than "good enough" for most projects (without being closed source or having a high price).

Love Open Souce but..... (1)

WwWonka (545303) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023762)

God how I wish the Gimp had the same professional and intuitive feel as Photoshop. You hear all the time "yeah, but Gimp can do the same things PS can and it's free!"

Point taken, but I think of it this way. You are taking a road trip from LA to Vegas. A Porsche and Saturn will both get you there. One is going to take you in style and cost alot more, the other is practical, no frills, and is a hell of lot cheaper.

Quick! Which would you rather take if given a no cost option to you?

HEY CMDRTACO! COMMENT THEFT IS RAMPANT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023763)


Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with? ? ?
Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with? ? ?
Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with? ? ?
Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with? ? ?
Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with? ? ?
Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with? ? ?
Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with? ? ?
Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with? ? ?

I loathe The Gimp. (0, Flamebait)

RatBastard (949) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023764)

I loathe The Gimp. Why? The interface is one of the worst I have ever seen. Ever. Including MS Word for DOS!

That being said, I find the interface for Photoshop to be a complete pain in the ass as well. If it wasn't for the fact that there isn't a Mac version of PaintShopPro, I wouldn't be using Photoshop (okay, Photoshop Elements, but it's still the same interface) at all.

[Nelson] HA-HA! [/Nelson] (1)

Asprin (545477) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023768)


...only to get baffled by the chaotic interface in general and its non-standard UI compared to other Mac apps, its slowness to open large files and to apply filters, the unintuitive tools that accompany it and its very visible bad quality of text and lines/shapes.

I'm sorry, but I can't resist.

Isn't that sort of reaction kinda par for the "Mac user tries anything else" course? In fact, I think the text quoted by the submitter is a MacOS-level autotext macro.

We call 'em "MacSnobs" for a reason, eh? :/

Re:[Nelson] HA-HA! [/Nelson] (1)

irokitt (663593) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023840)

I would probably be thinking that too, but I've used the Gimp under Linux, and it sucked. Perhaps it's worse on the Mac, maybe it's better, but you can't hide the fact that it isn't exactly Free Software's poster child.

Re:[Nelson] HA-HA! [/Nelson] (1)

Quobobo (709437) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023849)

I don't see anything wrong with it at all. Adobe manages cross-platform compatibility (albeit without Linux support), and still has an excellent inferface for the Mac version. The rest of his complaint is perfectly valid as well, unless you're actually defending slowness, unintuitive tools, and bad quality of text/shapes.

Sheesh. The exact same complaints could have been written by a Windows or Linux user.

Re:[Nelson] HA-HA! [/Nelson] (1)

necro2607 (771790) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023882)

Yeah, but the MacOS GUI is logical...

Take some people who've never used computers before, and let *them* decide which is more usable between MacOS' GUI and GIMP's...

The gimp from their eyes? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023773)

Goes something like this:

After using GIMP, making "the switch" to open source graphics software wasn't even a question anymore. The Gimp supports every colour model invented by man. It's so easy, yet powerful, that anyone from a finger painting toddler to a professional graphics artiste would feel at home using it. Photoshop doesn't even support images greater than 1024x768 in size. It doesn't support alpha transparency, or layers. Your colour palette selection in photoshop is a mere 16 colours, all pastel. Not so in the Gimp, which supports 12-bit TrueImage colouring.

The gimp has major backing from companies such as IBM, Microsoft, and Intel. Who backs photoshop? Adobe. The makers of pdf. Would you trust your images to people who created a closed, propietary document format? Speaking of formats, gimp supports GIF straight out of the box without having to worry about licensing issues. Photoshop is only able to save in PCX.

Advantage: Gimp.

You shouldn't complain! (2, Insightful)

mrdlcastle (254009) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023775)

Personally those that are complaining should put their money where their mouth is.
Gimp is done by people who love to give back to the community. If you look at what has been done, it is an awesome project. If you don't like that it's not a Photoshop Killer, then pitch in and pay the salary of a couple of the GIMP programmers so they can dedicate their undivided attention to the project and I guarantee you that you'll get what you ask for.
For where this product comes from, it is great. It shouldn't be looked at as a Photoshop replacement for professionals, but as a Photoshop replacement for those of us who can't afford Photoshop.
Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth. If you don't like the product and don't want to contribute to make it better. Go buy Photoshop.
Otherwise, get your hands dirty.

The truth... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023781)

... about the state of Desktop OSS comes out. Mod me out as a troll if you like, but it won't change the independent truth revealed by this article. True, but sad. :-(

Great quote... (1, Insightful)

Geopoliticus (126152) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023782)

From the review, "UNIX has this wonderful habit of trying to protect users from their own stupidity without recognising its own."

*sigh* too true.

The Gimp is competing with MS Paint not Photoshop (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023784)

The Gimp is good for what it is: a small app for doing simple graphics work, like cropping photos, simple website graphics etc. Who in their right mind claims that Gimp can compete on any level with Photoshop?

Song of the piracy apologist (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023785)

If you agree with any of this, feel free to repost it in the future.

Song of the piracy apologist:

(1) I don't personally believe in copying CDs illegally-- but I think we should avoid using unkind words like "piracy" to describe those that do -- instead, we should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement.

(2) I don't believe in the record companies emotively abusing the word "theft," but I do believe in emotively abusing words like "information," "sharing," and "Copyright Enforcement Militia."

(3) I believe that piracy is driven by "overpriced CDs" even though CDs have dropped in price over the years.

(4) I believe that piracy is driven by overly long copyright duration, even though most pirated works are recent releases.

(5) I believe that illegitimately downloading music is giving the author "free advertising". I don't buy any of the music I download, of course--but lots of other people probably do.

(6) I believe that ripping off the artists is wrong. The record companies always rip off the artists. Artists support P2P, except the ones that don't (like Metallica), and they don't agree with me, hence they're greedy or their opinion doesn't count or something.

(7) I believe that selling CDs is not a business model, but giving away things for free on the internet is.

(8) I believe that artists should be compensated for their work -- preferably by someone else. I mean, they can sell concert tickets (which someone else can buy) or sell t-shirts (to someone else) or something. As long as someone else subsidises my free ride, I'm coooooool with it.

(9) I believe in capitalism but only support music business models which involve giving away the fruits of ones labor for free.

(10) I believe that copying someone elses music, and redistributing it to my 1,000,000 "best friends" on the internet is sharing. Music is made for sharing. It's my right.

(11) I believe that record companies cracking down on piracy is "greed", but a mob demanding free entertainment is not.

(12) I believe that it's not really "piracy" unless you charge money for it, because, receiving money is wrong, but taking a free ride is fine.

(13) I believe that disallowing copying and redistributing music over Napster is the same as humming my favourite song in public. Because when I hum my favourite song in public, everyone likes it so much that they run home, get out their tape recorders and once they've got a recording of it, they aren't interested in hearing the original any more.

(14) I believe that when illegal behaviour destroys a business, it's "free enterprise at work".

(15) I believe piracy is simply "free advertising." Even though that's what radio is, but with the legal permission of the copyright holder. Basically, what I really want is to be able to choose the songs I want, listen to them whenever I want, but I don't want to have to pay for it. Essentially, I want the whole thing for free with no strings attached.

What I find amusing is that the pirates seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between creative activity and brainless copying.

Since a lot of the people here are GPL/OSS advocates: the "OSS way" applied to this domain is to learn how to play an instrument. Or how to sing or whatever. Then get together with a bunch of other people who can also play music, and make some noise.

One of the unfortunate things that has happened to the OSS movement is that a lot of the loudmouth advocates for it don't understand what it's really about. They view it primarily as a means to get free stuff, and then they turn their eyes from the free stuff to the non-free stuff and think to themselves "maybe I'm entitled to get that one for free too". The noble ideals of grass roots participation in the creative process, and/or supporting it in a principled way (namely, boosting the "free foo" movement by preferring free foo to nonfree foo), or for that matter, any other form of moderately principled codes of ethics, are completely lost on them. I think it's a shame that these leeches use OSS, but there's not a whole lot that can or should be done about that. But I'd be much happier if at the very least, they wouldn't confuse the OSS movement (free as in freedom) with the Napster driven movement (free as in "loader").

Significant Rebuttals:

Often, the rebuttals to this post are more amusing than the points raised.

Witness, for instance, this post [slashdot.org] , not surprisingly upmodded as "Insightful." I have chosen this reply as representative of the mindset the above list mocks, because it demonstrates quite clearly how deluded the self-righteous values of pirates have become with regards to pirating artists' music. The entire post was an unknowing illustration of every mindset mocked in the list, and it was educational enough to warrant inclusion. It would be amusing if it wasn't depressing:

Well, I do believe in copying CD's. If they're gonna charge me 19.99 for a crappy album that I couldn't listen to beforehand and is 80% filler to buttress the radio hits,

Notice that the CD is apparently crappy, yet he will make a copy of it. Why would you make a copy of a crappy album?

if they're gonna charge me $19.99 in spite of the multiple price-fixing they've been found guilty of,

I guess he should be angry at his local store, then. Mine charges $11.99 at most. But none of this matters--iTunes presents songs at .99 per song. There is absolutely no excuse anymore when it comes to the high price argument.

then, when I actually like the CD then yeah, I am gonna copy it for my friends.

Apparently, he wants to spread this "crappy" album around. It's so crappy, his "friends" will also have copies. Meanwhile, the artist is getting screwed.

In my past experience, my friends wind up buying the CD if they like it,

Again, the already-debunked "sampling" argument. This anecdote, raised by all piracy apologists, begins with "In my experience" and then outlines some instance in which someone actually went and bought the CD after hearing a copy of it. This is supposed to justify the blatant piracy and copyright infringement, as if the other 99% of Kazaa users are merely "sampling" the music. It flies in the face of not only common logic, but human nature. If you can get something for free you would otherewise have to pay for, it's natural to want it for free.

and that's with a full 16/44 copy, not some crappy mp3. Though my burner is so old, it's really a pain in the ass so you've gotta be a pretty good friend.

The artists appreciate your support of their rights by pirating their music. All in the hopes someone decides to buy the full CD. Quite a risk you're taking on their behalf.

I don't see how anybody is abusing "sharing", that's exactly what we're doing.

The point whooshes completely over his head--the complaints against the RIAA painting people as "thieves," then turning around and painting copyright infringement as "sharing."

Giving voice to that which we think is worth other people knowing about.

Witness the spin--"giving voice to that which we think is worth other people knowing about." The issue of it being completely illegal is ignored. The issue of spreading an artist's music so that others don't have to pay for it, thereby ripping them off, is completely ignored. Suddenly, you're "giving a voice," a positive spin that is meant to invoke emotive feelings of goodness and freedom. Typical propoganda.

I don't know anybody that shares music that they don't like.

Completely irrelevant. If you like music, you should pay for it. Use iTunes or spend 12 bucks on the CD. You don't magically have the copyright transferred to you from the copyright holder so that you can "give a voice" to "sharing."

I don't see how anybody is abusing the word "information". Please elaborate.

Apparently, the phrase "information sharing" has escaped this poor soul's ears. It's another classic spin used by piracy apologists to justify their activities.

And this is the first time I've heard "Copyright enforcement militia", and as much as it tugs at my heartstrings I prefer cartel.

And I prefer "criminals," because legally and morally, that's what pirates are. Ripping off artists in the name of some hippie mindset justified in their minds in order to remove the pang of guilt the feel over the fact that nobody will be able to make money making music. Because they end up "giving a voice" to every song that comes out.

Not true. As overpriced as CD have been found repeatedly in courts of law to be, people continue to buy them, and in increasing numbers.

The yearly decline in CD sales is magically not happening in this person's mind. In fact, sales are somehow increasing. No stats are given, and no facts. It's just happening in his mind. Can't argue with that kind of research.

I believe that what drives piracy is the ClearChannel takeover of radio coupled with the consolidation of the "record industry" into two or three major monoliths, which led to the overwhelming proliferation of incredibly bad, bland, uninspired, uninteresting, untalented, demographically safe crap being promoted by Corporate Music.

The classic hivemind argument.

Apparently, GETTING SOMETHING WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY FOR IT isn't the underlying factor in piracy. This is an example of the niche opinions of Slashdot somehow being projected onto the majority of society. Outside of Slashdot, nobody knows or cares about the "RIAA."

If music is so terrible, nobody would be pirating it. This is another example--the old fogies here at Slashdot believe the bands today are "crappy," ignoring the fact that today's generation loves them. Somehow, someone's individual opinion in a post on Slashdot is supposed to represent the entire CD-buying demographic.

Somehow, the ClearChannel takeover of radio is supposed to be the reason for piracy. Apparently, people can't buy CDs because a certain companies owns radio stations. I guess ClearChannel has agents set up at record stores to prevent you from buying CDs, and hackers online to prevent you from buying via online music stores like iTunes.

All people want is to hear good music again.

If music is so bad, why is it being pirated so much? Again, ignorance of the fact that today's youth loves today's music. The Slashdot fogies who think The Who is still relevant believe all of today's music is bad. Sounds like my parents.

Music doesn't get pirated because nobody wants to hear it...it gets pirated because people want to hear it without having to pay for it. This is not a hard situation to figure out.

It's hard to look at the history of copyright law and not see Disney et al's just-one-more-extention policy as a money grab. Copyright law was specifically written to allow copyrights to expire after a reasonable time to allow works of IP to enter into the public domain. These regulations were sound and just and were written for a reason.

This paragraph is bizarre, because it's in response to the point that piracy apologists attempt to justify piracy as a response to copyright extensions, when most pirated works are recent releases. His entire retort is irrelevant.

I do believe that showing other people how good a certain artist is could possibly result in that person buying the CD. Sharing crappy, lossy MP3's is one way of showing them how good it is, just like radio used to be.

This means pretending the copyright magically transferred to you and delivering "free advertising" is legal. 100% of the people downloading from you will also magically run out and buy the CD instead of just listening to the mp3 you gave them.

The truth, as we all know, is that maybe 2% of people will actually go out and buy a CD when they already have it downloaded. Most people can't tell the difference between 192kpbs mp3s and a standard CD. But piracy apologists will use any argument to distract from the fact that they have yet to reply to--what they're doing is legally and morally wrong.

BUT. I have bought dozens of CD's that I liked the MP3's of. And I don't see why you feel the need to conflate the two unless you're afraid of your own argument's invalidity.

In other words, "My anecdotal situation means that all the millions of Kazaa users are all going to buy CDs of their mp3s, especially mp3s that I'm sending them. It's 'free advertising,' and I don't understand how you could possibly point out the fact that what I'm doing is illegal and wrong toward music artists--giving people a reason not to pay for the music by ripping a free version and giving it to them."

Wow, you really have a poor grasp on the situation.

The amusing part is that I know full well what goes on in the music industry. Trust me on this.

Let me rephrase for you: I believe that ripping off the artists is wrong.

The obvious question then becomes--how can you justify pirating an artist's music?

EVERYONE TAKE NOTICE--this is the bizarre contradiction that cannot be understood. This is the heart of the propoganda spin. In a pirate's mind, it is simply ignored because it makes no sense and they know it. How does pirating music prevent an artist from being ripped off? Aren't you preventing them from being paid? Aren't you giving away the fruits of their labor? Did you get their permission to do this? Did you know artists willingly sign their contracts? The list of reactions could fill paragraphs, but let's continue.

Again, just for the record, a piracy apologist has actually stated that they believing ripping off artists is wrong. The mind boggles.

The record companies always have and always will rip off the artists. Some artists, usually those whose immediate financial future depends on the gratitude of Corporate Music, support P2P. Some artists, mostly those whose immediate financial furtures *do* depend on Corporate Music, don't support P2P, like Metalicca, and don't agree with me, hence one must realize their opinions are informed directly by their vested interests.

"Vested interests" means making a living making music. This entire reply was a pointless statement that didn't actually say anything knew but merely restated. "Some artists support P2P, and some don't." No kidding. But if you believe record labels rip artists off, how is giving away their music so that NOBODY gets paid any better? How can you explain that artists willingly sign their contracts? Have you actually spoken to any of the artists you are ripping off, or did you just assume you're "protecting" them as you grabbed their latest album for free?

Selling CD's is indeed a business model, but not one that meets the needs of today's consumer.

What are the needs of today's consumer? Are you a business major? Are you saying it's okay to pirate the fruits of artists' labor because you don't believe CDs are a viable business model?

What makes you think they're not a viable business model--the fact that sales are going down? Did you honestly not factor in the multitude of piracy amongst college students and youth that goes on? And if you didn't, why did you ignore this factor? Obviously it will have an impact.

The consumer *will* go where they can get the best product, this is called "competition" and is a vital component of capitalism.

Oh, no. I can see where this is going.

Or don't you believe in capitalism?

And there you have it. Apparently, piracy is capitalism. Just another form of "competition." Not paying for something is capitalism. And if you believe in paying for the CD at the store and not getting for free, you don't believe in capitalism. Again, the mind boggles, but this deserves further examination.

How does one's brain actually reach this conclusion? It would be interesting to chart out the logical process that lead to this incredible leap. It's more amazing because you know that to this piracy apologist, it's not insane at all.

Somehow, a band working their way through clubs, signing to a major label, taking three months out of their lives to slave away on a record album for the label to promote and advertise and put in stores, and people buying the CD that gets put out, is not capitalism.

Somehow, the band doing all that, and then some college students ripping the CD and putting it online so that nobody has to pay for it, is capitalism.

I don't ever expect an explanation for this. I merely illustrate it here for the amazement of all. Welcome to the great lengths that pirates have gone to in order to remove the stigma of criminality from their online activities. Infringing on someone else's rights is somehow just another form of free enterprise.

Remind me again the next time the GPL gets violated and people here are up in arms--"don't you believe in capitalism?"

And I'm not giving anything away, if I was then I wouldn't have it anymore because I'd have given it away.

It does not register in the mind of this too-far-gone pirate that you can give a copy of something away. What's more intriguing is that the phrase "giving away" is such a red flag in their minds. Who cares?

I *share*.

Thank you for the clarification. Criminals always share their goods. Notice that this person stated before that they didn't see instances in which the word "sharing" was being emotively abused. Then goes right out and does it.

If it sounds innocent that's because it is.

If my previous statement about criminals sounded like flamebait, it wasn't. If you infringe on somebody else's copyrights by distributing their intellectual property, that is illegal. It is also immoral. You are giving away copies of their work so that they don't get paid for it. Again, you will never, ever be able to justify this--especially to an artist's face. Why? Because you'll never ask them and you never have.

It is not innocent. Are you saying the law should allow people to pirate anything that is copyrighted? How will John Carmack ever make money on Doom 3 if pirates simply copy it everywhere so that nobody has to actually buy or order it? Can you explain that? And can you explain how it is "capitalism" and "competition?"

No...of course you can't. You're a music pirate who has simply justified copyright infringement in your mind because you're used to the convenience of downloading, and now you're bitter that someone is trying to take away the free ride.

I believe that artists should be compensated for their work, preferably by as many people as possible.

How do you expect that to happen if nobody will buy the CDs because they've have someone "share" it with them online?

I mean, they can sell concert tickets to people who heard about them through P2P, or sell t-shirts to people who heard about them through P2P, or sell CD's to people who heard about them through P2P, or sell iTunes downloads to people who've heard about them through P2P.

Welcome to the logic of irrationality. The point this statement is a retort to was about how piracy apologists say that very thing in order to explain how artists will be compensated, meanwhile never actually buying any t-shirts, concert tickets, etc. themselves.

This also ties into the debunked "free advertising" argument, which doesn't matter anyway because you weren't given permission by the copyright holder to share their material online. If you believe the copyright of the GPL should be upheld, you must also believe in upholding the rights of other copyright holders. Or else you are a hypocrite making yourself look like a fool. Intellectual property rights exist so that people can make a money from their ideas--which includes music. Are you saying artists don't have that right?

P2P is not being used as a free radio. It's being used to pirate music without paying for it. The fact that this person ignores this simple fact tells you how far their mind has gone to justify their activities. The other 99% of Kazaa and eMule users simply don't exist in his mind. Magically, P2P is this community-driven radio in which people "share" "free advertising" with each other. This is a head-in-the-clouds ideal that is absolutely far from the real situation, but hey, it justifies piracy in a neat little sentence. "People will 'hear about them through P2P' which makes it all right!"

One wonders if this person also believes bootleg t-shirts are all right, or concert bootlegs, because they're merely "competition"...well, it doesn't matter. That would shatter his religion of piracy. And yes, it has become a religion.

As an artist myself,

Oh? Name your band and give me your website, then "share" all of your albums and never get paid for them.

I fully appreciate the artists' need for compensation to subsidize future works, almost as much as I appreciate P2P's potential as a promotional utility and distribution channel.

How will artists get paid on a distribution channel that does not enforce payment?

You honestly expect everyone to embrace a distribution channel in which nobody pays for anything, and the business model is dependent on the "good will" of the downloader who "might or might not" buy the album once they've downloaded it? Why would someone buy an album they already just got for free?

I believe in capitalism.

Yes...and your definition of capitalism, per above, is free distribution of everything without paying for it. Very capitalistic, indeed.

The music business model I support the most is traditional CD stores, which I visit about once or twice a month to buy things that I've heard online.

It's not that people must buy CDs or iTunes songs, it's that they should respect the rights of copyright holders and not rip artists off by pirating their music with bizarre justifications about "giving a voice" and "sharing" other people's works that normally you must pay for. Do you also do the same with games, movies, and other software?

Almost all business models involve giving away a sample of the product

Since when is downloading an entire album in a RAR file just a "sample of the product?" iTunes gives you samples, as do most music stores which let you hear the album through headphones.

P2P piracy is unnecessary, but more importantly, it's not prevalent for the reason you describe--it's just people freeloading to get things without paying for them. To deny this is to remain purposely ignorant to what's happening, which simply weakens your argument all the more.

(cheese cubes at grocery stores, songs on radio and MTV back when you could actually hear good music there, advertisements, test drives of cars, etc).

Yes, somehow that compares to having entire discographies available on P2P services, often in uncompressed APE format. They are merely "samples." And with the eventuality of Internet2, people will be able to download entire catalogues in 30 minutes...this is just for "sharing" purposes.

I believe that copying someone elses music that I paid for in a store, and redistributing a lossy MP3-compressed version of it to my 1,000,000 aquaintances on the internet is sharing.

Yes, it is illegally sharing music. Nobody is arguing this.

Music is made for sharing so that more people can buy it if they like it.

Music is made for entertainment that people can choose to purchase or not. It is not a right. And it is not something you have the right to "share" with people for your own selfish reasons--whether or not you believe radio is evil, or today's music sucks, or CDs are overpriced, has absolutely nothing to do with the copyright holder's distribution rights being trampled on because some college academic students have access to the university T1 line.

Not only is it my right under "fair use", it's beneficial for the artists.

Witness a fundamental misunderstanding of Fair Use. Fair Use lets you make an archival backup of the material you purchased. Fair Use has absolutely nothing to do with illegally sharing that backup with other people so that they don't pay for the original material.

Obviously it is not beneficial for artists to give away their music albums so that people don't pay for them. That's like saying giving away Doom 3 will be beneficial to John Carmack. Don't you think the CDs are being put out because they are intended to be bought? Did you get the artist's permission to distribute their copyrighted material? Did you even consider the rights of the copyright holder?

I believe that the record industry filing thousands of lawsuits against people it knows can't afford to fight them is extortion.

It is not extortion to protect your copyrights. If people are illegally distributing copyrighted materials without the creator's permission, you have no legal basis to stand on.

I believe that the public desire to hear a wide sampling of music, some of which is bound to appeal to them, is nothing new,

No, it's not. That has nothing to do with freeloading albums. iTunes provides samples, music stores provide samples, radio provides samples, online radio provides samples, and so on.

Nobody is using Kazaa or eMule to "sample" albums. They're using it to get music for free without paying for it.

and used to be met by radio before the massive de-regulation and conglomeration of the 90's. You'll notice that's about the time good music disappeared from the public sphere.

No, you'll notice that. Others will say music is just as good as it ever was. And yet others will say you're just not looking hard enough.

Guess what--your niche opinion does not magically extend to the entire rest of society.

And it's also irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with piracy. You don't have the right to pirate music because you think music is bad. In fact, it doesn't even make sense. Why would you pirate music you don't think is good?

I believe that it's not really piracy unless you keep it and don't pay for it.

Copyright infringement occurs when you download the music. If you believe Kazaa will police itself, and that users will, "out of the goodness of their hearts," solemnly swear to delete the albums so they can run out and buy them, you are purposely clouding the issue to avoid the facts.

Anyting I've downloaded that I haven't eventually bought I've erased.

Congratulations. Because you, one person, deleted things you didn't buy, that means illegally distributing materials without the copyright holders' permission is legal and moral. I'll remember that during the next GPL violation Slashdot article.

13 is just ridiculous, you're being pedantic and you know it. If you've got a point then make it, but it's only fair for you to stay in the bounds of reality here.

I quoted this one simply because it speaks for itself. The person educating me about "sharing" versus stealing and "free advertising" and "competition" is complaining about pedantics.

Guilty as charged. See also "Boston Tea Party"...

After all, online P2P music piracy has everything to do with "taxation without representation," which was the reason for the outrage over the East India Company's tax benefits via the Tea Act of 1773.

Somehow, nobody can just NOT buy the CDs if they hate the RIAA so much. They have to go and "share" them instead. Ripping off the artists is supposed to prove something.

I believe P2P is basically free advertising.

"Free advertising" implies two things:

1.) That everyone is "sampling" all this advertising in order to go out and buy the CDs. 99% of the time, this is not the case. You are purposely ignoring common sense and human nature.

2.) The more important point that makes everything else moot--the copyright does not transfer to you. You do not have the permission of the copyright holder to distribute their entire works in order to "advertise" for them. If you believe in copyright enforcement of the GPL, you can't ignore this. Essentially, you want copyrights obliterated so that nobody can make money off of anything they created, because you're used to the convenience of downloading it all and don't want the free ride to disappear.

Since that's what radio used to be before the ClearChannel takeover.

Which has nothing to do with anything. You don't have the right to pirate artists' music because you don't like ClearChannel. There are plenty of alternatives.

Basically, what I really want is to be able to sample a large and diverse variety of music to better inform my music buying decisions,

So use iTunes, listen to online radio, use music kiosks in music stores, and so on. You do not have the right to break the law and "sample" materials. You're not actually sampling anything, because a sample is a smaller amount of something greater. P2P allows the entire product to be given away so that you don't have to pursue the legal alternative of paying for it. It is the opposite of capitalism and of competition. You were probably one of the same people to jump up and hate "M$" for bundling IE for free in order to crush competitors. By your definition it would be "competition" and "capitalism" as usual.

since CD's are so ridiculously overpiced I can't really afford to buy a bad one.

That has nothing to do with piracy. You don't have the right to pirate music because you believe $11.99 is "ridiculously priced." Even iTunes is currently .99 a song.

Conclusion:

The entire drive of the piracy apologist mindset is to justify an illegal and immoral act. It is illegal because it breaks the law--it disregards copyright law (something championed in GPL situations) and pretends that copyright holders have no rights. The creators of the pirated materials are disregarded in the face of opposition toward some "evil" corporation--in this case, the scapegoat is the RIAA.

More importantly, it is immoral. You are disrespecting the artists. You did not ask for their permission. You've never spoken to them about it. If they dislike P2P, they are poked fun at. The entire piracy movement is an attempt to get things for free, freeloading off the capitalist system that created the environment in which the materials could be created. You do not protect artists from their own contracts (you know, the ones they signed themselves) by making sure they're never paid for their efforts. Pretending everyone else should go out and see concerts and buy t-shirts is an attempt to deflect blame. Notice the person making this claim never actually buys tickets or t-shirts themselves. It's always "someone else."

Song of the piracy apologist: "GIMME THAT, THAT'S MINE! GIMME THAT, THAT'S MINE!"

Stunning conclusion (3, Insightful)

Wylfing (144940) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023786)

Dump several hundred million dollars of development capital on The GIMP folks and I'd wager we'll see it advance pretty quickly. Repeat after me: The correct way to view FOSS applications and drivers is "Does it work at all?" Yes? Then choose one of the following:
  1. Shut up and wait for features you want
  2. Give dollars to the developer(s)
  3. Contribute code or documentation to the project

Re:Stunning conclusion (4, Insightful)

Professor D (680160) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023859)

4. Buy Photoshop and earn your paycheck.

I've got a better idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023871)

4. Don't use it, buy an ACTUAL graphics manipulation software package, and laugh at the Gimp from afar.

HEY CMDRTACO! COMMENT THEFT IS RAMPANT! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023788)


Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with? ? ?
Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with? ? ?
Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with? ? ?
Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with? ? ?
Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with? ? ?
Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with? ? ?

The moral of the story is (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023790)

Open Source simply historically speaking does not produce quality end-user or GUI applications. Open source is written by programmers, for programmers. If it isn't something a programmer or sysadmin would be interested in, it doesn't get much attention paid to detail or quality.

Jeez. (1)

ProudClod (752352) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023797)

So many people moan.

Seriously, I think one solution would be to fork it altogther, call it something non-offensive like "Accuro-paint-o-tron" (except more snappy) and write those missing features.

Then offer to backport them back to the GIMP. Keep it friendly, see what happens.

The name is fucking weird though...

Opinion on all four, and a speed tip. (2, Informative)

strredwolf (532) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023800)

I've used all four in comic artwork, and here's my option:

[b]PHOTOSHOP:[/b] A bit overkill, but it's the best for most any application. It's better on a Mac, though, than on a PC, due to interface issues.

[b]GIMP:[/b] Next best thing, I can do almost 100% of the stuff I can do in Photoshop. Speeding stuff up (like employing multiple CPU's or servers) will help, and 16-bit/channel may help photo artists.

[b]Paint Shop Pro:[/b] If it's what you got and you can't get the others, it'll do. Most of the stuff above you can do.

[b]Photoshop Elements:[/b] DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT GETTING THIS!!! BAD! BAD!! The interface is confusing for even old Photoshop users, and to think I used Photoshop *BEFORE* going with Gimp!!! EEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!

Most of the time, you (the common user) don't need something heavy-handed as Photoshop. You just need to tweak Gimp/PSP to use more memory. I have it using half of 1.5 gigs here, may push it back up to a full gig. That speeds filters up fast (when you don't have to swap!)

Well... (5, Interesting)

.com b4 .storm (581701) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023802)

When I was primarily a Linux user, I used GIMP for many hours out of each day, tinkering with my photos, working on images for web sites, etc. It is a good tool, and it has a lot going for it. The new interface is nice, but... in so many regards, GIMP is no Photoshop. I quickly realized this after I got a Power Mac and Photoshop 7.

Even though I do not use Photoshop in any professional context, it is a phenomenal product even for my personal use. Here are the major things that keep me from using GIMP on the Mac beyond occasionally playing with it:

  • No easy automation that compares to Photoshop. Click a record button, do your thing, and you're set. Then you can use that macro manually, or apply it to a collection of images.
  • All the builds of GIMP I've tried for Mac very obviously do not take good advantage of my dual processors. When I can actually see the redraw process for simple layer changes, etc. that is a bit disturbing. That just should not happen on a dual 1ghz G4 system.
  • It requires X11, and a whole host of problems goes with that - for example, no support for international input (i.e. I cannot compose images and include Chinese characters in them by typing them with the text tool). Not to mention that I've yet to find a way to get GIMP to support Mac keybindings, like OpenOffice does. Then there's the small matter of X11 using Option-Click to emulate the right mouse button, whereas almost everything else on the Mac uses Control-Click ...

Don't get me wrong - GIMP is a nice program, and for the price it absolutely kicks ass. But just that handful of problems listed above will be enough to turn off serious photo/graphics folks. Hell, I'm a geek that has used Linuxy and UNIXy stuff for years, and I am seriously bothered by those issues I listed, among other nit-picky ones.

Adobe doesn't have much to worry about at the moment. But if an Aqua native version of GIMP came out and could offer similar performance on high-powered Macs, then they might have reason to start sweating.

HEY CMDRTACO! COMMENT THEFT IS RAMPANT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023813)

Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with?

Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with?

Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with?

Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with?

Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with?

Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with?

Actions? (1)

necro2607 (771790) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023820)

One other thing I noticed about GIMP, it doesn't appear to have "Actions", at least with functionality similar to that of Photoshop. Maybe I just don't know the app well enough but I haven't found any decent automation feature. We use Actions a lot in photoshop, we've got a folder with around 100 of them for our daily work... Am I just missing some hugely obvious feature or something?

HEY CMDRTACO! COMMENT THEFT IS RAMPANT! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023835)

Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with?

Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with?

Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with?

As someone new to GFX... (1)

incom (570967) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023836)

As someone new to GFX editing, and having used photoshop, and gimp, for about 5 hours each, I can say that The Gimp interface isn't as bad as all these long time photoshop users always whine about. I can do the same tasks in each app, with about the same difficulty and time taken. The Gimp is all I need, not being a pro. I'll probably get flamed for this by all the people who can't except that an experience contrary to thiers is possible, and the people who have been using photoshop so long, that they don't realize how much time it's taken them to gain thier profficiency and intuitive feel for it's UI.

Expectations of OSS are unjustified. (1)

Aaron England (681534) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023837)

Where does the expectation that OSS should work for everyone come from? It's entirely unjustified.

HEY CMDRTACO! COMMENT THEFT IS RAMPANT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023856)

Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with?

Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with?

Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with?

Known troll rkz [slashdot.org] is committing theft by karmawhoring THIS COMMENT TODAY [slashdot.org] which was stolen from THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] from another user back in January. Does the text "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom of the page mean anything? Why aren't comment thieves dealt with?

To true (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023857)

I've noticed one annoyence on the OSX version, maybe its a config issue, but clicking on a window (and gimp has many) only focuses it, you have to click again to actually draw/click a button.

But the real real killer feature thats lacking from gimp (and i cant for the life of me understand why its not there) is photoshops ability to apply an effect - ie drop shadow, and then go back later and adjust its settings or remove it, and the same with applying a filter - such as brightness/contrast adjust and then go back at any time and adjust that without loosing image quality because its a non-destructive filter. Yes i know you can have the effect on another layer, its totally not the same though. Audio applications have direct-x plugins and such and now days non-destructive filtering is just a cannot-do-without feature. Gimp could even go further than photoshop and allow any arbitrary filter to have re-editable settings so you can go back and tweek it later, this wouldnt even mean re-writing the filters, just make the effects non-destructive and stackable and you will have photoshop users drooling. As it stands, destructive filters are just not an option for modern designerss, when you want to tweek, you need the power to tweek lots of different settings at ease and see the results almost instantly, and when you apply something like level correction or brightness and contrast it is destructive to the image if you want to adjust it later. The idea of digital graphics is a total abstraction from the problems of the physical world and having to worry about generation loss etc.

Other issues such as 16 bit colour, CMYK, easy macro recording etc are going to get there in the end, but all in all its a great program!

Goddamnit, go to the chalkboard... (1, Interesting)

el-spectre (668104) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023861)

And write "The only intuitive interface is the nipple. Everything else is learned." 100 times.

I swear, I feel like forming the AAAAI (American Association Against Abusing "Intuitive"). Our slogan: "Come join Aiyeeee!!!"

</RANT>

That said, I hate the multiple window thing too. It's ugly and cluttered. (yeah,I understand that GTK doesn't do MDI... it should.)

Another Photoshop alternative.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9023863)

Picture Window Pro from Digital Light and Color [dl-c.com] is worth a look for digital photographers looking for an alternative to Photoshop. It's much cheaper, but stacks up very well on the features (including 48-bit color and a very complete color management system).

The whole article is a joke (1)

Seth Finklestein (582901) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023877)

"But then, I hear you say, it's free, what do you want for nothing? Well no, it's not free actually, not for well-heeled Mac users anyway. archei.com charge $29.95 for the downloadable 'package' or $49.95 for a CD-ROM to circumvent the 'compiling' part."

Honestly, this luser is completely clueless and is in need of a LART. He paid $30 to download the GIMP?! What a loser! I can't believe that any of you would believe such an article, let alone read it.

The author is a moron. (0, Troll)

margal (696859) | more than 10 years ago | (#9023878)

He lost credibility in his first paragraph:

'Open source' means that the source code is available at no cost to anybody that wants to download it, use it, modify it, use it to fill empty hard drives - whatever.

I think we now know what kind of knowledge this guy has, and how easy it will be to disregard his opinions. Troll.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?