Re: [BLUG] I don't think Linux will ever be ready for the Desktop

> My big problem with the Gimp is that all the little windows are really
> old-fashioned. I'm used to environments where I don't need to manually
> move windows around and then still not get the windows placed in a
> manner I can use them all at once without my desktop showing through.
> A minor annoyance to be sure, but an annoyance to be sure.

I agree that the independent windows are old fashioned.  Gimpshop actually has
this thing called a "deweirdifier" which takes care of this problem (in the windows
version at least).  If I really wanted to, I could install an older version of Gimp
and use gimpshop with it, but I still wouldn't have the 12/16 bit per channel capability.

> I suspect none of the developers have considered it important. The
> advantage of open-source software is that you can check to see if it
> is on the list of things that will ever happen, and if no one has
> thought of it you can provide the idea.

Well at least according to the FAQ on the Gimp webpage, it has been on their list for
quite a while, and they claimed it would be ready when version 2.4 came out.  We are
at version 2.6!  I really think they should ditch all other adjustments to the program,
and focus on this problem, as well as borrowing the gimpshop idea, with the
deweirdifier, as a standard part of the program.  At this point, that's pretty much all
they need to do to become competitive with photoshop.

But I started my previous comments by saying how much I like Ubuntu, and Linux in
general.  In addition to what people have already said, one thing I love about it
is the ease of using latex!  Installing latex packages in Windows was always a chore.
In linux, I just install texlive!  And, compiling PDF's is also easier.  So, when it comes
down to it, I boot into Linux the vast majority of the time, and boot into windows only
when I need to use photoshop.

-Erik

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Steven Black <yam655@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Erik Wallace <eriktwallace@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Why not Gimp" you may ask. Well have you ever compared gimp with Photoshop?
> Gimp has one mildly annoying problem, which isn't too hard to get around and
> one show stopper.  The mildly annoying problem is that the tool sets can be
> a little tricky to use. Aha, you say, but there is Gimpshop.  But Gimpshop
> doesn't work with Gimp 2.6, only with an older version (2.2 I think).  Gimp 2.6
> worked fine, I installed Gimpshop, and then Gimp wouldn't even load: the mini
> gimp icon went bounce, bounce, bounce and nothing ever happened.  Sure sign
> of a dependency issue! So I uninstalled gimpshop, and Gimp 2.6 worked fine
> again.

My big problem with the Gimp is that all the little windows are really
old-fashioned. I'm used to environments where I don't need to manually
move windows around and then still not get the windows placed in a
manner I can use them all at once without my desktop showing through.
A minor annoyance to be sure, but an annoyance to be sure.

> But this isn't the show stopper.  The show stopper is the fact that Gimp
> does not support more than 8bits per channel!  I'm sorry but it is precisely this sort
> of shortcoming that separates professional photo software from
> non-professional.  If you tell me I can't have smoother gradients, I'll go somewhere
> else where I can get the smoother gradients, and that somewhere is photoshop. If
> only the Gimp people were as efficient at improving their, software as the Ubuntu
> people are, maybe Gimp  would be able to support more than 8 bits
> per channel by now.  And the day that they do, is the day that I blow away
> windows XP partition.  I don't need to wait for Adobe to jump on the Linux
> bandwagon, but this presumes, that the Gimp folks get there act together.  Now
> having gimpshop work with gimp 2.6 or later would be nice, but as I say it is not a
> show stopper.  Not having more than 8 bits per channel really is!

It is odd that they don't have floating-point support for the color
channels. There are open-source file-formats that support
floating-point colors (as well as >8 bits per color). Floating-point
color channels would completely clear up the issue.

Also, I really thought 12-16 bits per color were fairly common in many
environments.

But then again, when you select the "Color space" you can only select
"RGB", "Greyscale" and not "HSV" or "CYMK". -- And it gives you no
indication that there's any options for differing bits per
color-channel.

I suspect none of the developers have considered it important. The
advantage of open-source software is that you can check to see if it
is on the list of things that will ever happen, and if no one has
thought of it you can provide the idea.

Cheers,
Steven Black

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug