Not sure how well GimpShop will run on FreeBSD. I don't know anything about FreeBSD, myself (I am running Ubuntu Dapper), but I wonder if GimpShop and and the Gimp 2.2.15 it looks like you installed will have a conflict. On windows, GimpShop has been pretty much a bugfest, at Gimptalk, we always tried to steer people away from it, because many complained about its instability, not to mention the fact that asking for help in it's use was rather confusing, since it uses a different menu setup than the regular Gimp. I know I tried it at one point, because it would install without admin privelages on the computers where I work. It ran for about a day, then would just open and crash immediately afterwards. I got rid of it.

Also, not sure what version of Gimp this latest GimpShop is based on, it most likely isn't the latest stable version. For the longest time, it was based on Gimp 2.2.8.

As for Canon RAW files, that's a tricky question. For starters, Gimp, and most likely, by extension, GimpShop, only supports 8 bit color, so even if you can open a RAW file in Gimp/GimpShop, you aren't going to get all the information.

However.... there is a standalone program, UFRAW, that also can be used as a Gimp plug-in which will load the files and allow some manipulation. I am not sure how the plugin will work with GimpShop.

There is also DigiKam, which, with appropriate plugins, can handle Canon RAW files. I have a Rebel XT and this is what I use when I want to mess with RAW files.

--- David Southwell wrote:

Hi

I have installed ports/gimpshop on my fFreebsd 6.1 system. I want to compare its functionality with photoshop with which I am extremely familar and use extensively on my Win XP system.

I have started gimp and have two newbie questions.

1. How do I get to start gimpshop? The docs seem to have detailed documentation but although I have searched -- I seem unable to find a page that tells me how to get gimpshop running :-(

2. I found that gimp will itself will open *.jpg but does not open raw files - In my case in need to be able to open canon raw files *.cr2 and would also like to be able to open photoshop *.psd files.

Here is a list of the relevant gimp packages installed and OS version info:

# pkg_info |grep gimp gimp-2.2.15,2 The "meta-port" for The Gimp gimp-help-0.12 GIMP user's manual gimp-print-4.2.7_3 GIMP Print Printer Driver gimpshop-2.2.11_5 GIMP fork resembling Adobe Photoshop

# uname -a FreeBSD --- 6.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE #0: Sun May 7 04:15:57 UTC 2006 root@bloom.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP amd64

Thanks in advance

david

Hi,

On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 02:34 -0700, David Southwell wrote:

I have installed ports/gimpshop on my fFreebsd 6.1 system. I want to compare its functionality with photoshop with which I am extremely familar and use extensively on my Win XP system.

Please ask on the gimpshop user list then. You might find that there is no such list. But we can't help you with gimpshop questions here. It is a different application and this is the gimp user list.

Sven

* David Southwell [07-08-07 10:36]:

On Sunday 08 July 2007 02:41:26 you wrote:

Please ask on the gimpshop user list then. You might find that there is no such list. But we can't help you with gimpshop questions here. It is a different application and this is the gimp user list.

Who is we.. I appreciate the helpful responses I have had from some people on this list.

I just want to make clear that people who are accustomed to be positively helpful deserve encouragement and others, not of that disposition, IMHO contribute more to this worlld when they remain silent.

You are off base and *need* to curb your tongue. This is *not* a list for support of gimpshop which is a fork of gimp and totally unsupported here. AND you are remanding one of the *staunchest* gimp supporters.

Get *your* facts straight before running your mouth (via your fingers).

Hi,

On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 07:48 -0700, David Southwell wrote:

I just want to make clear that people who are accustomed to be positively helpful deserve encouragement and others, not of that disposition, IMHO contribute more to this worlld when they remain silent.

I just tried to help you by pointing out that gimpshop is a different application and that you should try to get support for it from the people who did the fork. If you did that you might have found out that there is no such support. You might then reconsider your decision, but that is of course completely up to you.

Sven

On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 02:42:22PM -0700, David Southwell wrote:

I rather gather there are those who disparage gimpshop and wish it to fail and those who wish it to succeed but are afraid of offending some members of the former group.

Maybe gimp could benefit from a more catholic and generous approach being espoused by everyone.

Maybe the creator of GimpShop should have respected the GIMP community instead of rejecting it. He did not consult anyone on any of the GIMP lists at all as to proper approaches, or even showed any interest in actually making useful contributions.

Since GimpShop rejects the GIMP community, we respect that decision and do not support it here. If you have issues with this, take it up with the people who do GimpShop. They can't reject the community yet expect simultaneously expect it to provide support.

-Yosh

Hi,

On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 14:42 -0700, David Southwell wrote:

Am I not correct in saying that gimpshop a tool using gimp?

No, you are not correct in saying that. It's a forked version and the person who did that fork refuses to work with the GIMP developers. We don't get any support from gimpshop, thus we don't support it.

A wider adoption of gimpshop doesn't help the GIMP project. It just causes us more work because the gimpshop developer(s) let us provide the user support. They let us do the bug-fixing and they let us do the development. The way gimpshop is done makes it impossible to return anything to the GIMP project.

And please mote that I did not send you away. I just asked you politely to ask your gimpshop questions elsewhere. Please accept that and stop this argument here.

Sven

Hi list,

answering this kind of questions and explainig why exactly we can not support GimpShop is a waste of time and done again and again and again... ... This clearly is a F.A.Q, which should we be able to answer by politely providing a link to an FAQ entry on gimp.org. This could save us lots of time which could be much better spend in further GIMP developement.

So how about we put together the top ten arguments to the ten questions that is the most time wasted on the list(s)? This way we could shorten the "discussions" about "Why the GimpShop is not GIMP", "What we think about the Single Window Interface", "Why GIMP is proud of its name" and so on...

Greetings, lexA

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 02:11:09 -0700 David Southwell wrote:

It seems to me there are two issues which seem to be confused and rolled into one seeminly illogical construct.

1. Whether some contributors to this list should take it upon themselves to try and stop other contributors, who either wish to discuss gimpshop issues from doing so.

2. Whether gimpshop should be declared as being officially supported by the list owners.

On the first point my reaction to those adopting an authoritarian position is "come on guys loosen up". It gives the impression that a few people with an axe to grind want to freeze out gimpshop rather than encouraging any extensions of gimp, of which gimpshop is one, to mature.

This list is hosted by the GIMP project. If you want to discuss another project that openly rejected GIMP and refused to listen to the team's advices on how to properly implement Gimpshop to benefit from bugfixes and new releases, you can do so by finding another list or creating one yourself.

You can't ask the GIMP project to not moderate the mailing list they host. Noone forces you to use this list if you dislike the way it is moderated.

Karine

David Southwell (david@vizion2000.net) wrote:

On the first point my reaction to those adopting an authoritarian position is "come on guys loosen up". It gives the impression that a few people with an axe to grind want to freeze out gimpshop rather than encouraging any extensions of gimp, of which gimpshop is one, to mature.

To be frank, we - as the main Gimp developers - have been insulted by the gimpshop developer(s?) by them just taking our code, messing with it and just *no* communication.

Additionally - as outlined earlier - the technical solutions used by Gimpshop are bad and hackish. E.g. Changing the strings to be more Photoshop-like immediately kills any of the dozends of translations we have available.

Every Gimpshop Mail on this list annoys me, because of this abuse of gimp. This is the reason why we are touchy and not willing to "loosen up".

Please go ahead and create a mailinglist for gimpshop. This is not the place for it.

Bye,
Simon

David Southwell (david@vizion2000.net) wrote:

IMHO it is time to let go of anger and act in a mature and constructive way.

Ok, lets just open up this list and make it a gimpshop list as well. And a Photoshop list. And a Paintshop Pro list. And a Krita list.

They all offer something that gimp urgently needs, hence it can be discussed here. The usefulness of this list would go towards zero, but whatever. This obviously benefits the greater goal of giving gimp what it apparently needs.

To make my point clear: Gimpshop has changed the user interface of the gimp in a more-or-less drastical manner. Advice given for Gimpshop cannot be applied to Gimp and vice versa. It is a different project, and the developers of Gimpshop obviously have no interest in playing nice with us Gimp developers.

Please discuss that stuff elsewhere. This is not the place since advice given on Gimpshop will confuse Gimp users and vice versa.

Go, create a gimpshop mailinglist - it is not as if ressources for mailinglists are hard to get on the net.

Bye, Simon

David Southwell (david@vizion2000.net) wrote:

I suggest you treat gimpshop as an intermediate hack. Get the best out of it you can until someone is encouraged to dvevelop something more sophisticated.

That simply is impossible, since the "solutions" of Gimpshop are no solutions. I tried to explain that already, but you apparently do not understand the impact of changing strings in the sourcecode.

The hacks of Gimpshop simply cannot be applied to the gimp, they are technically too bad. Sorry for the harsh words, but this is reality.

And in case you missed it, we are in a very intense process of looking at the gimp user interface and improving it. People comparing the current 2.3 development version with 2.2 tend to like the changes a lot. I prefer this way over just emulating parts of the Photoshop interface.

Do you accept this as a not-blinded-by-emotion answer?

Bye, Simon

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 12:06:22 +0200, Simon Budig wrote:

David Southwell (david@vizion2000.net) wrote:

I suggest you treat gimpshop as an intermediate hack. Get the best out of it you can until someone is encouraged to dvevelop something more sophisticated.

That simply is impossible, since the "solutions" of Gimpshop are no solutions. I tried to explain that already, but you apparently do not understand the impact of changing strings in the sourcecode.

The hacks of Gimpshop simply cannot be applied to the gimp, they are technically too bad. Sorry for the harsh words, but this is reality.

Just to clarify a bit... The GIMP developers are not opposed to some of the ideas included in Gimpshop, but are opposed to the way they are implemented.

Some users would like an interface that is similar to Photoshop in the terms that it uses and the menus that it offers. That's fine. Some users prefer an interface in which all windows (images, tools, etc.) are attached to a main window. That's also fine. If these options are implemented correctly, they will be included in a future version of GIMP and will be supported.

But as several developers have already pointed out, Gimpshop did it wrong both from a technical perspective and from a social perspective. Instead of using the existing infrastructure for replacing/translating strings and for customizing menus, Gimpshop modifies the source code directly and makes it very difficult to share code with the standard GIMP (every upgrade requires a code re-write). And instead of discussing the best solutions and the best way to proceed together with the GIMP developers, the author of Gimpshop refused to consider the technical advice and decided to maintain a fork instead of an add-on.

Gimpshop is different from GIMP because it is a fork of an older version, it has some bugs that GIMP doesn't have, its menus are different, etc. It makes sense to have a separate mailing list for discussing issues specific to that fork, in order to avoid confusing GIMP users with advice that relates to a different program.

-Raphaël

< lots of snip >

Build up a community that wants something better but uses gimpshop as a temporary hack. Learn from gimpshop what is needed and then draw development energy from the community to develop something better.

My plea is for you guys to stop using your guts to think and let your brains provide sound and constructive strategies for the long term benefit of gimp.

I have been following this discussion and I think I can understand both points of view, to some extent. I have never heard of gimpshop and I read this list to learn about and to try to understand Gimp. Anything else is, in my opinion. irrelevant and should not appear here.

Norman

David Southwell wrote:

"Currently all I am suggesting is that people with a history of scores to
settle need to keep quiet and if others want to talk about gimpshop then let
them do so. Noone is saying any single individual should feel obliged to

contribute to those discussion.

Let us be mature, open and flexible rather than driven by hostility. IMHO
Developers have their struggles.. users are only interested in functionality
rather than the politics of past struggles."

1. GIMP and GIMPShop are two different projects. 2. This mailing list is for users of the GIMP. 3. This mailing list is not for users of GIMPShop.

What part of this do you not understand?

It is of no relevance whether you think that you should be able to discuss GIMPShop on this list or not. This list is not for discussion of GIMPShop.

People have tried to explain this to you, but you appear unable to understand.

Please just stop, this noise is distracting and irrelevant.

On Monday 09 July 2007, Sven Neumann wrote:

I just tried to help you by pointing out that gimpshop is a different application and that you should try to get support for it from the people who did the fork. If you did that you might have found out that there is no such support. You might then reconsider your decision, but that is of course completely up to you.

Hi, Sven!

I appreciate the help you've given me at various times over the years, and I suspect that an ideal route to follow at this point might be to add a Wiki entry which carefully, politely explains this in great detail.

Then future queries can be answered like this:

GimpShop is a different product to GIMP. Read about the differences and support issues here:

http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/GimpShop

I'd happily write up such a page but I know practically nothing about the background of GimpShop, so I've just put a brief stop-gap into the Wiki.

I've linked to GimpShop and PhotoShop (both on Wikipedia), so if that's not the right thing to do, please erase the links.

Cheers; Leon

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 05:02:19 -0700, David Southwell wrote:

That would mean more developers, features and a bigger and better community of users. IMHO gimpshop is a great idea. According to some its developers have not behaved well -- my guess is there are two sides to the story. The important thing is to look to what can be provided not what can be stopped!!

Unfortunately, more users does not automatically mean more developers and more features. In some cases, this is even the opposite: some projects have seen their number of developers decrease as the number of users increased, because the community became worse (large number of conflicting user requests, unrealistic expectations, developer burn-out, etc.).

You claim that there are "two sides to the story" regarding the development of Gimpshop. This may be the case, but I encourage you to take a look at the archive of the gimp-developer mailing list and find the early discussions about Gimpshop. Then see the suggestions about how to do it "right" and what happened since then (hint: Gimpshop is still a fork using modifications to the source code instead of being an add-on).

As I wrote in my previous message, the GIMP developers are not opposed to some of the ideas included in Gimpshop, if only they were implemented in a correct way. The developers are open to suggestions and are looking at alternative solutions whenever possible. Just check the recent usability enhancements in SVN if you are not convinced about that.

Currently all I am suggesting is that people with a history of scores to settle need to keep quiet and if others want to talk about gimpshop then let them do so. Noone is saying any single individual should feel obliged to contribute to those discussion.

I don't think that I have a history of scores to settle with Gimpshop. If fact, I do not even remember contributing to previous discussions (I haven't checked, though). But please be a bit more open yourself and consider what others have written in the last days. Discussions about Gimpshop tend to create confusion on this list. Even if we ignore the technical and political aspects of how Gimpshop was implemented, the simple fact that any discussion about Gimpshop on this list tends to generate noise should be a sufficient reason to avoid such discussions in the future. This doesn't mean that Gimpshop is a taboo that should not be mentioned here. But instead of discussing it here, it would be much better to point users to a more specific mailing list.

-Raphaël

On Sunday 08 July 2007, David Southwell wrote:

On Sunday 08 July 2007 12:07:55 Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 07:48 -0700, David Southwell wrote:

I just want to make clear that people who are accustomed to be positively helpful deserve encouragement and others, not of that disposition, IMHO contribute more to this worlld when they remain silent.

I just tried to help you by pointing out that gimpshop is a different application and that you should try to get support for it from the people who did the fork. If you did that you might have found out that there is no such support. You might then reconsider your decision, but that is of course completely up to you.

Am I not correct in saying that gimpshop a tool using gimp? Judging by the helpful replies I have received gimpshop is also of considerable interest to many users of gimp who use this list.

It might be considerably improved by a being better supported by those who are advocates of gimp.

I rather gather there are those who disparage gimpshop and wish it to fail and those who wish it to succeed but are afraid of offending some members of the former group.

Maybe gimp could benefit from a more catholic and generous approach being espoused by everyone.

IMHO the gimp community could benefit from the offer of an interface that more closely resembles photoshop. How that might be achieved maybe another

David, it's just not worth it. The powers on this list are frighteningly short-sighted when it comes to discussions like you are proposing. Even though a large chunk of the list feels differently, they will moderate you eventually into the ground.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 20:08:26 +0800, Leon Brooks wrote:

Then future queries can be answered like this:

GimpShop is a different product to GIMP. Read about the differences and support issues here:

http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/GimpShop

I'd happily write up such a page but I know practically nothing about the background of GimpShop, so I've just put a brief stop-gap into the Wiki.

Thanks a lot for this good idea!

I have updated this wiki page and provided a link to a GIMPshop forum that may be helpful for GIMPshop users. If anybody finds more mailing lists or forums dedicated to GIMPshop, feel free to add the relevant links to that page.

I have also added a short description of some technical problems related to the fork (code conflicts, breaking translations) and again, this section can be expanded if anybody feels like writing more about it.

Now I hope that we can get back to discussing GIMP on this list...

-Raphaël

Hi Brendan,

David, it's just not worth it. The powers on this list are frighteningly short-sighted when it comes to discussions like you are proposing. Even though a large chunk of the list feels differently, they will moderate you eventually into the ground.

Well, "a large chunk" is suitably vague, but I just want it clear that many of us also appreciate the moderation. I don't appreciate people like David Southwell coming in and trying to turn the list into something that it is not, which is a list about Gimp. It is not about Gimpshop, or ImageMagick, or CinePaint, or whatever. The fact that he can find some help is not the point - you could probably find people on this list interested in political candidates or global warming, but this is not the place for those discussions.

In my opinion.

Em 2007/07/09, às 11:06, Simon Budig escreveu:

And in case you missed it, we are in a very intense process of looking at the gimp user interface and improving it. People comparing the current 2.3 development version with 2.2 tend to like the changes a lot.
I prefer this way over just emulating parts of the Photoshop interface.

In fact some of its improvements are getting better than what's avalable in Photoshop :) Yeah!

Victor Domingos

On Monday 09 July 2007, Alex Feldman wrote:

Hi Brendan,

David, it's just not worth it. The powers on this list are frighteningly short-sighted when it comes to discussions like you are proposing. Even though a large chunk of the list feels differently, they will moderate you eventually into the ground.

Well, "a large chunk" is suitably vague, but I just want it clear that many of us also appreciate the moderation. I don't appreciate people like David Southwell coming in and trying to turn the list into something that it is not, which is a list about Gimp. It is not about Gimpshop, or ImageMagick, or CinePaint, or whatever. The fact that he can find some help is not the point - you could probably find people on this list interested in political candidates or global warming, but this is not the place for those discussions.

In my opinion.

David had Gimpshop in one thread, big deal. People get so sensitive about one guy discussing one topic which is confusing. If the topic doesn't get replies, then it dies. Now a wiki exists to explain to people like David why the people who run Gimp feel the way they do. All done. Now you can get back to discussing whatever you were discussing. If one topic on a mailing list ruins your day, perhaps you should look into lightening up.

On Monday 09 July 2007, Alex Feldman wrote:

Hi Brendan,

David, it's just not worth it. The powers on this list are frighteningly short-sighted when it comes to discussions like you are proposing. Even though a large chunk of the list feels differently, they will moderate you eventually into the ground.

Well, "a large chunk" is suitably vague, but I just want it clear that

And I am only going on the "large chunk" of emails I got when I was talking about Gimpshop. All of them from list members.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:20:12 -0400 Brendan wrote:

And I am only going on the "large chunk" of emails I got when I was talking about Gimpshop. All of them from list members.

Why doesn't this "large chunk" of users create a gimpshop mailing list (or forum or whatever), instead of sending private e-mails in fear of being moderated? It would be much more convenient.

Karine

[slightly reordering the quotes]
David Southwell (david@vizion2000.net) wrote:

Really gimpshop is part of gimp.. the version of gimpshop running on my system depends upon the latest version of gimp.

This is backwards logic. We - as the GIMP developers - have no influence on Gimpshop. Hence it cannot be a part of the Gimp.

If at all it is the other way around: Gimpshop needs Gimp to work, hence (a specific version of) Gimp is part of Gimpshop.

A gui that emulates photoshop is really needed .

I don't think so. If people want to have a GUI that behaves like Photoshop, then they should simply use photoshop. It might surprise you, but we don't actually have a problem with people making that descision.

There are millions of trained photoshop users out there. Most modern software
seperates the view or (GUI) from the Model and the controller. This means
that developing alternative skins (gui's) becomes s straightforward process.
Maybe this discussion could be turned into examining the question -- How easy
would it be to focus on facilitating the development of alternative skins
(gui's) for gimp?

We already have two "gui"s - the classical Gimp user interface and a commandline tool, which does not even link against GTK+ (the library for displaying the buttons/windows/menus on the screen).

Granted, the latter is not exactly an exiting interface, but it shows, that the image manipulation core and the GUI are pretty well separated at the moment.

So, the separation you want is there. However, the largest chunk of code in the GIMP deals with the User interface. If one wants to exchange this against another user interface he would have to write an awful lot of code. Not exactly easy. And for a separation inbetween through the GUI I don't see an obvious "cutting" point.

Bye, Simon

On Monday 09 July 2007, David Southwell wrote:

A gui that emulates photoshop is really needed.

If it were done as a "wrapper" idea over standard GIMP, and integrated, I could easily agree with that. Much better again if it were modular, so you could enable and disable PS-ish chunks.

The current gung-ho we-know-better approach is hardly conducive to co-operation, and I suspect that the result will be a "poor man's clone" of PS, one which continually lags behind both PS and GIMP. Abandoning core GIMP work to support it will hurt GS first up because it will stop providing better platforms from which to build the clones, & second up by making PS more of a false "standard" to which GS must constantly be in pursuit.

With this in mind, the ideal thing to do is to start (without, of course, asking the GS developers) a "GimpShop Clone" which is a more modular menuing system for GIMP, expressed as a PS-like overlay. Call it PhotoGIMP and listen to the whinging! (-:

Things like a PS plugin-plugin would be a worthy but I think separate project. Amongst other things, you could probably convince such a beastie to run essentially headless. Call it PhotoFactory and see what other whinges arise?

It would be in the spirit of the thing to do overlays for TuxPaint, GPhoto, MS-Paint or whatever as well.

Anyway, that's my 2c worth. End of conversation, I suspect.

Cheers; Leon

On Monday 09 July 2007, Raphaël Quinet wrote:

I have updated this wiki page

Excellent! Thank you!

I have also added a short description of some technical problems related to the fork (code conflicts, breaking translations) and again, this section can be expanded if anybody feels like writing more about it.

Yah, it's an area I have little expertise on. Good to see some knowledge appearing here. (-:

Now I hope that we can get back to discussing GIMP on this list...

Ah, yes.

One overlay I'd like to see appear is *not* a PS clone, it's an overlay that makes GIMP instantly useful to newbies, so runs things in modes and fashions they expect.

This would have to be a separate project of sorts, with its own lists and stuff else it would cause list flooding to pale today's events into total insignificance.

I'd like to see it done in a sort of minimalist fashion, modifying as little as possible to meet the expectations of its anticipated user-base.

I'll probably get slandered for suggesting this, but... nothing ventured, nothing pained (or something like that). How about calling it "Wilbur" out & out, as a way of signifying a cute & cuddly GIMP?

Cheers; Leon

-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Datum: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:43:40 +0800 Von: Leon Brooks
An: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Betreff: Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp - not-gimpshop

On Monday 09 July 2007, Raphaël Quinet wrote:

Now I hope that we can get back to discussing GIMP on this list...

Ah, yes.

One overlay I'd like to see appear is *not* a PS clone, it's an overlay that makes GIMP instantly useful to newbies, so runs things in modes and fashions they expect.

So what would those be?

I mean, I've used various graphics programs before, but GIMP was the only such program which I've used since I actually started with digital painting. And for the most part, it was all fairly logical and consistent - the only thing I had problems with in the beginning was how to draw circles and rectangles (but I am better now).

Personally, I think the interface of GIMP works perfectly well. What's lacking is appropriate _documentation_ for what you can actually do with it - tutorials, to be specific.

And here GIMP is sadly far behind Photoshop and other commercial applications. It's one thing to tell a newbie: "This is the text tool, and here is how it is used." That's important, technical stuff he needs to know, but when making decisions about what software to use such dry descriptions won't make him _enthusiastic_. Now, on the other hand, if he finds a tutorial that says:

"Today we will show you how to make Giant Flaming Letters of Doom(TM) with GIMP!"

- _then_ he will feel enthusiastic.

Last summer I started collecting all those hundreds of links to art tutorials which would eventually become the Art Tutorials Wiki links list. Since I was using GIMP at the time - and I still am - I tried to get GIMP tutorials first and foremost, but found few of them. On the other hand, there were plenty of first-grade tutorials for Photoshop, Painter, and other commercial programs out there. Many of them would make you go out and buy these programs - if you didn't know that you could create the same effects with GIMP with little effort.

So if we want to make GIMP more newbie-friendly, I think we should let the developers continue to develop the program by adding new functions instead of spending too much time emulating other programs. The rest of us who aren't as well versed in coding can try to create tutorials that will make others enthusiastic about GIMP.

I already have started to do that - I've started on a tutorial which attempts to explain how to draw fantasy maps with GIMP and Inkscape:

http://artwiki.wikidot.com/digital-cartography

And I've gotten some enthusiastic feedback from various people interested in doing so. But that's just one possible topic - so pick your own and work on it!

- Jürgen Hubert

The Art Tutorials Wiki http://artwiki.wikidot.com/

On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 05:36:44AM -0700, David Southwell wrote:

On Sunday 08 July 2007 14:37:01 Manish Singh wrote:

On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 02:42:22PM -0700, David Southwell wrote:

I rather gather there are those who disparage gimpshop and wish it to fail and those who wish it to succeed but are afraid of offending some members of the former group.

Maybe gimp could benefit from a more catholic and generous approach being espoused by everyone.

Maybe the creator of GimpShop should have respected the GIMP community instead of rejecting it. He did not consult anyone on any of the GIMP lists at all as to proper approaches, or even showed any interest in actually making useful contributions.

Since GimpShop rejects the GIMP community, we respect that decision and do not support it here. If you have issues with this, take it up with the people who do GimpShop. They can't reject the community yet expect simultaneously expect it to provide support.

This is a developer grudge centric response.

There are millions of trained photoshop users out there. Most modern software seperates the view or (GUI) from the Model and the controller. This means that developing alternative skins (gui's) becomes s straightforward process. Maybe this discussion could be turned into examining the question -- How easy would it be to focus on facilitating the development of alternative skins (gui's) for gimp?

A gui that emulates photoshop is really needed .

Really gimpshop is part of gimp.. the version of gimpshop running on my system depends upon the latest version of gimp.

Wow, everything you've said in this post is pretty much wrong.

Same thing goes for most of your other posts. You write a lot but actually say very little. You clearly don't do any research before you make your assertions.

I question that you have even used Photoshop, since you seem to think the half-assed things GimpShop does to emulate Photoshop really makes PS users comfortable.

Please stop posting to the list, as all you can seem to do is post misinformation and assertions that you cannot back up.

-Yosh

On Mon, 2007-09-07 at 07:55 -0700, gimp-user-request@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU wrote:

Destructive discussion about whether gimpshop discussion between consenting adults should be allowed or not is like proposing the baby should be put out with the bathwater.

Look David, I'm a GIMP user and I don't appreciate questions and answers on this this that do not directly relate to GIMP. Imagine a new user hearing a solution to their question answered in a Photoshop way and then going to the GIMP and finding out it doesn't work.

Please do not confuse these two DIFFERENT projects. As others have said if you want Gimpshop support, start your own list. This list is about GIMP, it's what the list owners meant when they created it, leave it at that.

Manish Singh wrote:

Please stop posting to the list, as all you can seem to do is post misinformation and assertions that you cannot back up.

I would take it one more step and request that no one respond to any more posts on this discussion. David, you're a troll, please drop this issue.

I do not know the history of how gimpshop developers and gimp developers fell out with one another. Frankly I amd most users do not care about how that happened but I am more concerned about how the future. I would like to see a viable photoshop emulating gui for gimp and 16+bit per channel, decent raw file handling and a far more easily customisable working environment that builds on industry wide knowledge.

David,

It seems to me that with your needs and wants and attitude, you are better off just buying and using Photoshop. You must remember that with FOSS like the GIMP, sometimes you need to invest your own time into making it work in your workflow... like finding another package to handle your RAW files, and then importing them into the GIMP. If you absolutely need and demand all the these things now, then just go with the commercial product, and don't worry about the GIMP.

Regards, Mike

* Michael Clark [07-09-07 16:30]:

It seems to me that with your needs and wants and attitude, you are better off just buying and using Photoshop. You must remember that with FOSS like the GIMP, sometimes you need to invest your own time into making it work in your workflow... like finding another package to handle your RAW files, and then importing them into the GIMP. If you absolutely need and demand all the these things now, then just go with the commercial product, and don't worry about the GIMP.

Please explain what this has to do with the "Subject:" you have provided?

While I agree that "David" is riding a dead horse that should be smelling up some other forum, you should show a little consideration yourself with your postings :^)

a clumsy gui that is not at all easy to use (especially for those trained in photoshop) and which does not compare favourably with standards set by photoshop.

I personally don't mind the UI... It is simply a matter of learning how to use it. I have never used PS, myself, but I suspect I would find that making a transition from Gimp to PS to be just as annoying from a UI standpoint.

_____________________________________

As I wrote in my previous message, the GIMP developers are not opposed to some of the ideas included in Gimpshop, if only they were implemented in a correct way. The developers are open to suggestions and are looking at alternative solutions whenever possible. Just check the recent usability enhancements in SVN if you are not convinced about that.

Raphaël,

I'm all into usability as I use a high ratio of keyboard shortcuts vs. mouse in GIMP. Can you elaborate on some of the new usability enhancements? I'm all ears.

For reference, I'm currently running 2.3.14 (which I compiled with default compile settings).

Thanks! Eric P.

Perhaps I'm in danger of starting an argument here but some of your points surprise me a little.

Manish Singh wrote:

Maybe the creator of GimpShop should have respected the GIMP community instead of rejecting it. He did not consult anyone on any of the GIMP lists at all as to proper approaches, or even showed any interest in actually making useful contributions.

Sorry, but surely the whole point of the free software movement is that it quite deliberately empowers users to do all of the things you've just objected to. If you're uncomfortable with people taking these liberties then maybe you should consider releasing your code under a proprietary licence. And who says GimpShop is not a useful contribution? The contribution to the Gimp project may be null but to the free software community it clearly fills a niche.

Since GimpShop rejects the GIMP community, we respect that decision and do not support it here. If you have issues with this, take it up with the people who do GimpShop. They can't reject the community yet expect simultaneously expect it to provide support.

Well actually, maybe they can because at least one member of this list provided an answer that the OP found helpful. And, to be honest, if it had been left at that we'd have 3 replies in this thread instead of 30.

--- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall ---

On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 08:24:36PM +0100, David Marrs wrote:

Perhaps I'm in danger of starting an argument here but some of your points surprise me a little.

Manish Singh wrote:

Maybe the creator of GimpShop should have respected the GIMP community instead of rejecting it. He did not consult anyone on any of the GIMP lists at all as to proper approaches, or even showed any interest in actually making useful contributions.

Sorry, but surely the whole point of the free software movement is that it quite deliberately empowers users to do all of the things you've just objected to. If you're uncomfortable with people taking these liberties then maybe you should consider releasing your code under a proprietary licence. And who says GimpShop is not a useful contribution? The contribution to the Gimp project may be null but to the free software community it clearly fills a niche.

Oh, they can totally take the code and do whatever the GPL allows, that's fine. The GPL allows forks, but doesn't require the organization that was forked from to provide support to the fork.

Red Hat has no obligation to provide support for CentOS people either. Consequently, the CentOS people actually maintain their own mailing lists and bug tracker, etc., so CentOS actually provides their users proper service.

Since GimpShop rejects the GIMP community, we respect that decision and do not support it here. If you have issues with this, take it up with the people who do GimpShop. They can't reject the community yet expect simultaneously expect it to provide support.

Well actually, maybe they can because at least one member of this list provided an answer that the OP found helpful. And, to be honest, if it had been left at that we'd have 3 replies in this thread instead of 30.

Numerous people have complained that GimpShop posts are just clutter here, and it *does* cause confusion. It also clutters the bug tracker, since the GimpShop guy doesn't actually upgrade the code in timely manner.

-Yosh

On Thursday 12 July 2007, Manish Singh wrote:

The GPL allows forks, but doesn't require the organization that was forked from to provide support to the fork.

True. However, I'm wondering if there's anyone here willing to moderate such a list, & what it would coist to run such at Berkeley?

The logic is that it would take such posts away from the main list (which you're reading now) & really be helping people. The downside is that it could be seen as supporting GimpShop despite the developer's entire unwillingness to join this community.

In answer to the second point, are are any other good, free (yeah, yeah, I know) list servers in action that you'd recommend someone independant started a support list on?

The idea behind that is to take the traffic away but still be able to monitor it, so that despite said developer's approach, good ideas could be captured for the benefit of *both* packages. And, who knows, bad ideas might even get a little slapping about before anyone implements them, so establishing a precendent.

If enough people here think the idea's basically a winner, I might ask Linux Australia to be a list host, with the idea of inviting a few others here along as moderators.

Cheers; Leon

On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 05:16:56AM +0800, Leon Brooks wrote:

On Thursday 12 July 2007, Manish Singh wrote:

The GPL allows forks, but doesn't require the organization that was forked from to provide support to the fork.

True. However, I'm wondering if there's anyone here willing to moderate such a list, & what it would coist to run such at Berkeley?

The logic is that it would take such posts away from the main list (which you're reading now) & really be helping people. The downside is that it could be seen as supporting GimpShop despite the developer's entire unwillingness to join this community.

In answer to the second point, are are any other good, free (yeah, yeah, I know) list servers in action that you'd recommend someone independant started a support list on?

The idea behind that is to take the traffic away but still be able to monitor it, so that despite said developer's approach, good ideas could be captured for the benefit of *both* packages. And, who knows, bad ideas might even get a little slapping about before anyone implements them, so establishing a precendent.

If enough people here think the idea's basically a winner, I might ask Linux Australia to be a list host, with the idea of inviting a few others here along as moderators.

Why is this our problem? The initial response to the GimpShop question was to ask the GimpShop people for support? How about everyone who likes GimpShop to ask the guy who started it to have a mailing list or some other support forum, and his own bug tracker? If he doesn't want to do this, this is a gigantic reason *not* to use GimpShop.

Alternatively, the same people who like GimpShop could ask him why he doesn't/didn't actually work contructively with the community.

-Yosh

On Thursday 12 July 2007, Manish Singh wrote:

Why is this our problem?

Our list & our community is being distracted by it. That gives us a facet of the problem. We can reduce that facet by simply saying "That's a GimpShop problem, please take it http://here/" in response.

Hopefully, this will prompt GimpShop developer(s) to put up their own fora, even if only in self defence.

One possible (not likely, you'll notice, but possible) outcome is that having GIMP-friendly moderators will lead to participants pressuring GimpShop developers to turn it into a a collection of patches on GIMP, or maybe a GIMP module of some kind.

Cheers; Leon

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:27:49 -0500, Eric P wrote:

I'm all into usability as I use a high ratio of keyboard shortcuts vs. mouse in GIMP. Can you elaborate on some of the new usability enhancements? I'm all ears.

Well, it's difficult to single out a specific feature. I suggest that you read the recent changes summarized in: http://developer.gimp.org/NEWS
And maybe more importantly, that you look at the work done by Kamila and Peter for improving the user interface: http://gui.gimp.org/
Some of these improvements have already integrated in the current version in SVN but others are still pending. For example, have a look at:
http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Selection_%2B_crop_tool_specification

You will also find many little things that have been improved to guide the user along the way, such as tooltips for all menu items (quick description of what each filter does) or status bar messages that help you to remember how to use each tool and what to do with Ctrl/Alt/Shift.

-Raphaël

On Wednesday 11 July 2007 17:16, Leon Brooks wrote:

On Thursday 12 July 2007, Manish Singh wrote:

The GPL allows forks, but doesn't require the organization that was forked from to provide support to the fork.

True. However, I'm wondering if there's anyone here willing to moderate such a list, & what it would coist to run such at Berkeley?

The logic is that it would take such posts away from the main list (which you're reading now) & really be helping people. The downside is that it could be seen as supporting GimpShop despite the developer's entire unwillingness to join this community.

In answer to the second point, are are any other good, free (yeah, yeah, I know) list servers in action that you'd recommend someone independant started a support list on?

The idea behind that is to take the traffic away but still be able to monitor it, so that despite said developer's approach, good ideas could be captured for the benefit of *both* packages. And, who knows, bad ideas might even get a little slapping about before anyone implements them, so establishing a precendent.

If enough people here think the idea's basically a winner, I might ask Linux Australia to be a list host, with the idea of inviting a few others here along as moderators.

Cheers; Leon

Anyone can set up a list at yahoogroups. I see some with three members. The owner of the list can set the rules, allow anyone to join or requre preapproval, prescreen or not prescreen posts, set up assistant moderators and so on. I am the lead moderator on self-publishing@yahoogroups.com I have two essentially coequal co-moderators. The owner of the list is SPAN.

It is a comprehensive service and it is free. It isn't perfect but what is?

On Thursday 12 July 2007, Raphaël Quinet wrote:

You will also find many little things that have been improved to guide the user along the way, such as tooltips for all menu items (quick description of what each filter does) or status bar messages that help you to remember how to use each tool and what to do with Ctrl/Alt/Shift.

Yah, I think improvements which make a gazillion little improvements "across the board" are both very difficult to usefully describe beyond "it's better" and and very important.

This makes the announcements tend to either be overwhelming, confusing prose or uninformitavely brief. Let's have a go, and see if I can cover everything in one short par, but still be informative:

Extensive improvements to User Interface factors, such as improved shortcuts, plus informative status messages & tooltips to let the user know what is actually happening at any instant.

Cheers; Leon

On 7/12/07, John R. Culleton wrote:

Anyone can set up a list at yahoogroups. I see some with three members. The owner of the list can set the rules, allow anyone to join or requre preapproval, prescreen or not prescreen posts, set up assistant moderators and so on. I am the lead moderator on self-publishing@yahoogroups.com I have two essentially coequal co-moderators. The owner of the list is SPAN.

It is a comprehensive service and it is free. It isn't perfect but what is?

Yahoo Group messages are nastily formatted HTML. I hear the Google Groups has added mailing lists -- I wonder if that's any better?

Chris

On Thursday 12 July 2007 19:13, Chris Mohler wrote:

On 7/12/07, John R. Culleton wrote:

Anyone can set up a list at yahoogroups. I see some with three members. The owner of the list can set the rules, allow anyone to join or requre preapproval, prescreen or not prescreen posts, set up assistant moderators and so on. I am the lead moderator on self-publishing@yahoogroups.com I have two essentially coequal co-moderators. The owner of the list is SPAN.

It is a comprehensive service and it is free. It isn't perfect but what is?

Yahoo Group messages are nastily formatted HTML. I hear the Google Groups has added mailing lists -- I wonder if that's any better?

On self-publishing@yahoogroups.com we ask for plain text. I can't remember if we set a parameter to insist on that. I know that the messages I clear are all in plain text. So your statement doesn't apply in our case at least. I see HTML on a few other lists but those senders get yelled at.

HTML has no place in email IMO. If the mail is not from one of my mailing lists or from a designated client I have a filter that sends HTML bearing mail to a special folder. 98% of such mail is SPAM. I delete based on subject line.

On 7/13/07, John R. Culleton wrote:

On Thursday 12 July 2007 19:13, Chris Mohler wrote:

[...]

Yahoo Group messages are nastily formatted HTML. I hear the Google Groups has added mailing lists -- I wonder if that's any better?

On self-publishing@yahoogroups.com we ask for plain text. I can't remember if we set a parameter to insist on that. I know that the messages I clear are all in plain text. So your statement doesn't apply in our case at least. I see HTML on a few other lists but those senders get yelled at.

HTML has no place in email IMO. If the mail is not from one of my mailing lists or from a designated client I have a filter that sends HTML bearing mail to a special folder. 98% of such mail is SPAM. I delete based on subject line.

Good news. I'm on only one of those Yahoo lists, and I assumed text wasn't an option - who wouldn't turn off that nasty HTML!? For those who haven't got one: they're particularly ugly!

Going to bitch at that particular list admin right now... ;)

Chris

On July 12, 2007 04:13:16 pm Chris Mohler wrote:

On 7/12/07, John R. Culleton wrote:

Anyone can set up a list at yahoogroups. I see some with three members. The owner of the list can set the rules, allow anyone to join or requre preapproval, prescreen or not prescreen posts, set up assistant moderators and so on. I am the lead moderator on self-publishing@yahoogroups.com I have two essentially coequal co-moderators. The owner of the list is SPAN.

It is a comprehensive service and it is free. It isn't perfect but what is?

Yahoo Group messages are nastily formatted HTML. I hear the Google Groups has added mailing lists -- I wonder if that's any better?

I belong to a couple of OTR lists there, and most of the text comes through plain, but it's a VERY windows centric world at Yahoo.

Bob.