Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why GIMP is Inadequate

troy-sobotka.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#51

Post by unwind »

nailer wrote: post #29
samdk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agh. Here's me still thinking it's still 2010. Yeah, unfortunately things really haven't changed since the review: we're still on the same major version (2.6) that we were when the review was published. (Hence the comment at the end about development seeming to have slowed a ton.)

Yes. I used GIMP exclusively between 1999 and about 2009. There was always something coming in the next version that would fix GIMP. Color profiling, single window, better text tools, etc. They never did. GIMP doesn't even bother subscribing to GNOME's HIG. It's cast adrift in the world of Linux, and after a decade of using it I'm now happily on Pixelmator on OS X.

As far as I know (and I've lurking on the gimp developer list for 10+ years), GIMP has never been a GNOME application. So, from that point of view, there's no particular reason to expect it to conform to GNOME's human-interface guidelines, is there?

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#52

Post by davidw »

dagw wrote: post #47
wazoox wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh please stop the flame, this is ridiculous. Photoshop didn't support 16 bits before CS, in 2003. Did it prevent people to use it ? Would you say that all magazine covers were "child play" before then?

Not true. Photoshop has had support for 16 bits since at least version 3. What CS brought was full 16 bit support for all layer adjustments and painting features. Before that 16 bit was only supported by a subset of the available editing options.

Still though, the sniffy "merely a toy" is kind of over the top. Are automobiles merely toys because they don't have the range, passenger capacity and speed of a Boeing 747? How about motor scooters? And bicycles? The Gimp is not as good as Photoshop. Is it good enough for many uses? Sure.

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#53

Post by masklinn »

damncabbage wrote: post #35
joakin wrote: post #9

I expected this to be a rant or flame, but in fact he has described wonderfully what needs to be said. Besides from all this pro features that GIMP lacks, in my opinion its biggest flaw its the UI. Its poor and raw, and makes sense if you are a programmer... Mainly this is what keeps it far from the regular users I know. Hope It doesnt die, its a very good open source multiplatform editing tool...

I, hand on my heart, swear that, as a programmer, I don't think GIMP's UI makes a jot of sense. A week away from GIMP to mess with Photoshop had me converted after the first couple of days, sadly. Photoshop is both a blessing and a curse for OSS. (A blessing that it's a nice shiny target. A curse in that the target is half-way to the moon.)

There are numerous closer targets to shoot for, which are not photoshop but are still pretty darn nice (Acorn or Pixelmator for instance on OSX).

OSX also has SeaShore, which I believe is built upon GIMP's tech but with a Cocoa frontend. It is fairly nice.

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#54

Post by DrStalker »

davidw wrote: post #52
dagw wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. Photoshop has had support for 16 bits since at least version 3. What CS brought was full 16 bit support for all layer adjustments and painting features. Before that 16 bit was only supported by a subset of the available editing options.

Still though, the sniffy "merely a toy" is kind of over the top. Are automobiles merely toys because they don't have the range, passenger capacity and speed of a Boeing 747? How about motor scooters? And bicycles? The Gimp is not as good as Photoshop. Is it good enough for many uses? Sure.

Having an attitude of "It's good enough" is probably why GIMP has made such a small amount of progress in recent years.

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#55

Post by davidw »

DrStalker wrote: post #54
davidw wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still though, the sniffy "merely a toy" is kind of over the top. Are automobiles merely toys because they don't have the range, passenger capacity and speed of a Boeing 747? How about motor scooters? And bicycles? The Gimp is not as good as Photoshop. Is it good enough for many uses? Sure.

Having an attitude of "It's good enough" is probably why GIMP has made such a small amount of progress in recent years.

That's not the kind of 'good enough' I meant. It's good enough for many things, not "so good that it doesn't need improvement". Anything can be improved, and doubtless the people who work on it know that.

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#56

Post by hackermom »

It's funny how the writer mentions a handful of technically unimportant flaws with GIMP, blowing them out of proportion, but fails to mention the one big thing where GIMP falls flat on its ass: the clunky, unstructured mess of a UI.

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#57

Post by npaquin »

The problem that I've always had with GIMP is that it (menus, macros, general UI, etc.) doesn't mimic Photoshop. If you want to go after a well established product why not mimic these things to achieve a higher adoption rate (due to instant familiarity)?

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#58

Post by wazoox »

dagw wrote: post #47
wazoox wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh please stop the flame, this is ridiculous. Photoshop didn't support 16 bits before CS, in 2003. Did it prevent people to use it ? Would you say that all magazine covers were "child play" before then?

Not true. Photoshop has had support for 16 bits since at least version 3. What CS brought was full 16 bit support for all layer adjustments and painting features. Before that 16 bit was only supported by a subset of the available editing options.

And the GIMP supports 16 bits for most operations, simply by enabling GEGL in the Color menu, therefore it is quite equivalent to old Photoshop in this regard.

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#59

Post by mgkimsal »

unwind wrote: post #51
nailer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I used GIMP exclusively between 1999 and about 2009. There was always something coming in the next version that would fix GIMP. Color profiling, single window, better text tools, etc. They never did. GIMP doesn't even bother subscribing to GNOME's HIG. It's cast adrift in the world of Linux, and after a decade of using it I'm now happily on Pixelmator on OS X.

As far as I know (and I've lurking on the gimp developer list for 10+ years), GIMP has never been a GNOME application. So, from that point of view, there's no particular reason to expect it to conform to GNOME's human-interface guidelines, is there?

It uses the same crappy GTK file mgt widget design philosophy as GNOME.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTK%2B GTK is the GIMP toolkit, and GTK is run by the GNOME foundation. There's quite a bit of relationship between GTK/GIMP/GNOME, even if it may be mostly historical these days.

I've always considered GIMP to be a GNOME app, and most people I know have.

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#60

Post by cageface »

This article brings my experience with OSS full circle. It was the Gimp and GTK that first drew my attention to OSS in about 1997. At the time it was tempting to believe that OSS was inherently a better development model but after almost fifteen years it's clear that it's been wildly successful in some domains but a washout in others.
Post reply on HN