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

Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

schoenitzer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 177 posts

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#161

Post by prmoustache »

threeducks wrote: post #40
snvzz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different focus. Krita is for free drawing, gimp is a photoshop replacement. I do agree they probably would benefit from trying Krita.

I often hear that Krita has a different focus, but does it lack anything that GIMP has? (disregarding obscure features like bell pepper brush)

Yes it does.

I am mostly using krita for painting and gimp for general editing and composing usually so I haven't double-checked every single feature on both but I have one example: krita can open a pdf but cannot save it and doesn't even have a "print" functionality. Found out when trying to sign a contract with krita on my convertible thinkpad. Gimp makes it a breeze in comparison.

I am sure there are other features missing in both directions. It is great to have choice.

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#162

Post by PetitPrince »

somat wrote: post #158
da_chicken wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The few people I know doing visual design still balk at a program that lacks native CMYK editing. Honestly I'm still skeptical about the significant improvements made for 3.0 due to the project's history. I remember CMYK being the most common complaint (after the UI) 20 years ago, too. And at the time the entire GIMP project insisted that you never needed it and RGB was good enough. By coders for coders, indeed.

This I feel is a fair complaint, I have seen it many times but I have to admit I am not a visual designer so I do not really understand it. Allow me to enumerate. rgb is a larger color space than cmyk, that is to say the colors that cmyk can represent are a subset of rgb. You are doing the work on an rgb monitor. what does having the illusion that you are working in cmyk get you? just use a cmyk color picker but most…

Irrespective of technical merit, if your printing shop requires a CMYK PDF, they requires a CMYK PDF.

You're not going to argue and discuss the merit of such and such color spaces with them; you're going to switch tools so that you get them to print your wedding invitations.

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#163

Post by npteljes »

prmoustache wrote: post #160
npteljes wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do know about the movie, and having one (upcoming even) movie being made about GIMP doesn't say anything about its usage, or it not being made for coders. Being made for coders is a bad claim as well, at most, it's a jab at its user interface, which, I think, is no worse then Photoshop's by the way, it's just that people are familiar with one, and the not the other. A good refutal of the for-coders claim would be t…

> I do know about the movie, and having one (upcoming even) movie being made about GIMP doesn't say anything about its usage, or it not being made for coders. Yes it does because ZeMarmot producers are the main contributors to Gimp's code.

GIMP's initial release was in June 2, 1998.

ZeMarmot's announcement was in 05 February 2015.

The GIMP was an at least 17 year old software project, when the animated movie was announced.

Of the two main GIMP maintainers, one of them works on ZeMarmot.

What this all says is that yes, there is an animation movie 10 years in the making, by some of the people who also work on the GIMP project. It says nothing about GIMP being made for any particular purpose, either or not for coders, and/or for animation or for visual creatives in particular.

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#164

Post by alexey-salmin »

DonnieBurger wrote: post #64
beezlewax wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fairly idiotic at this stage that this has never been changed. Highly damaging to the products outward appearance.

I don't think it's highly damaging. It's an acronym. Is BBC's name highly damaging?

You're laughing but when I worked on a search engine, it was a serious question which videos should we display if the search query is just "BBC".

The prudent approach prevailed for a hundred different reasons but online user metrics weren't one of them. Apparently people were not very fond of the British Broadcasting Corporation, especially outside of the angloshpere.

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#166

Post by jrm4 »

veggieroll wrote: post #120
chongli wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A gimp is a man dressed in a bondage suit used for BDSM sexual roleplay. Gimps are considered inappropriate to even talk about in school and business settings. The GIMP software might as well have the name of a curse word like fuck or shit as far as its appropriateness in public discourse goes.

Literally, get over it. Even my (extremely conservative) church group doesn't have an issue with it. 1) because most people don't know BDSM terminology and 2) gimp has other connotations so it's not even obvious that was intended and 3) most people aren't terminally online and 100% don't care as long as the program works. I've never had a problem sharing it. And no one outside tech has ever brought up BDSM when I tel…

Sigh. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

An extremely conservative church group is perhaps the worst place to try to figure this out; y'all will self-censor naturally.

Anyway, I teach IT, in a department -- shared with Communications -- and can absolutely assure you that this name is a no-go. I get that people don't like "politics" and "optics" and such, but that's what's happening here.

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#167

Post by jrm4 »

enriquto wrote: post #118
chongli wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A gimp is a man dressed in a bondage suit used for BDSM sexual roleplay. Gimps are considered inappropriate to even talk about in school and business settings. The GIMP software might as well have the name of a curse word like fuck or shit as far as its appropriateness in public discourse goes.

Thanks for the clarification (as well as the suggestion of looking at the urban dictionary, in the other comment). My point is that when you say: > Gimps are considered inappropriate to even talk about in school and business settings This refers solely to the tiny percent of the world where people are native english speakers. Elsewhere, it already means the image processing software, if anything at all.

[dead]

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#168

Post by ryanmcbride »

veggieroll wrote: post #154
ryanmcbride wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cool thing about life is that, we don't have to get over it. Instead we can advocate for change. And there's literally nothing you can do about it lol.

Fork it then.

Another cool thing about open source is that I can do that while still trying to affect change in the core repo :D

There's really no "shut up and go away" that you can give me that will work, because you aren't some grand FOSS arbiter, you're just some rando on the internet like me.

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#169

Post by jrm4 »

alexey-salmin wrote: post #125
jrm4 wrote: post #94

Will continue to say it, this piece of software that could be a mainstream huge deal, a straight-up Adobe killer, will never do this unless it changes its name. I've mostly given up hope on this, but it's still wild that people who work on the software just seem to very stubbornly not understand this. Whether you want to blame it on ableism, or perhaps simply "you should name your software after something/someone ski…

> you're preventing people like me (IT teaching, a go-between between techies and non-techies) from being able to recommend it. Why exactly is it bad? It's not that all software have to be loved and recommended by everyone, opinions differ and it's normal. If for you the name matters more than the substance then well maybe you're not the target audience, so be it.

Because I believe in the higher goal of free and open source software, which is more or less the same as the belief that knowledge should be shared -- and the space that GIMP occupies is one that I think a great deal of people would (have benefitted from) if it were to be disrupted from Adobe.

No, I don't believe in hiding good software that can help a lot of people under a secret rock.

Re: Writing a Gimp 3.0 Plugin

#170

Post by gloflo »

cmyk_student wrote: post #150
gloflo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was easier when the icons had color and were not grouped into multiple tools behind one icon.

You can change both if you like (it's one of the first things I do whenever I install GIMP on new systems)! In 2.10, you can change the icons in Preferences under the Icon Theme section, and remove tool groups in the Toolbox section. In 3.0 it's even easier, as both options are available in the Personalize tab of the Welcome Dialogue. I'm hoping this will help make that feature more discoverable. :)

Thank you! This comment made my day.
Post reply on HN