Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-8081-120121-

GIMP

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 7:12

Ahh, if Gimp was a type of person easily identifiable by an outward trait, I would throw javelins at their cocks.
And miss on purpose if it meant getting a head shot.
Fuckdamnit do I hate Gimp. I'd rather stick my newly roused genitalia in a rambunctious beehive than ever use that shitpile again.
The asswipe magnitude of the developers must be near the MAXIMUM point, which is always serious.
Fuck Gimp. I hope they go extinct.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 7:16

ok

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 7:38

ASSWIPE MY ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 7:47

>>1
If you don't like the GIMP, then don't use it PROBLEM SOLVED

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 8:01

>>4
nope im on loonix

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 8:19

>>5
Uninstall it, there are plenty of other programs. If you want photoshop, it should run with WINE.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 8:37

Did you ask for an MDI interface?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 9:26

>>5
You're clearly a programmer, create your own.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 9:41

>>8
It's obvious he's a Java programmer. He's only capable of a monstrosity 5 times more horrible than Gimp.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 16:16

>>1
I have some bad news for you. Not only they will never go extinct, additionally, no open-sores competitor to Photoshop can possibly rise in the next 10 years.

The very existence of the GIMP is the reason Adobe enjoys its de facto monopoly, and their monopoly the reason they have not made any serious improvement for average Photoshop professionals since version 10 ("CS2") - or version 7 from 2002 if you somehow have no use for smart objects.

In the presence of a competitor that, to the casual user and the artless GNU hippie, is a reasonable imitation of Photoshop, it's impossible for any new open-sores project to gain momentum.

Starting from scratch would make it impossible to recruit developers, everyone would just demand that you contribute to the GIMP instead, or at least be a complete re-implementation of it, since everyone knows that the GIMP is the third best free software in existence, after GNU/Linux and Firefox.

Forking the GIMP would not allow for any improvement whatsoever, for reasons that seem too obvious to explain.

And contributing to the GIMP is impossible, because the GIMP developers are retarded sociopaths who would do a service to the free software movement and Photoshop professionals everywhere by dying in a fire and taking their competitor to MSPaint with them in their graves. I mean funerary urns.

Just know that you are not alone in your hatred, >>1.

tl;dr: have you read your ``How to Win Friends and Influence People'' today?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 16:39

yet more hyperbole about how the GIMP is the antichrist

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 16:44

>>11
brilliant refutation of it

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 16:48

>>12
There is no reason to refute unsubstantiated claims. Quite frankly, I'm sick of having this discussion on /prog/. Trolling things because they are FOSS and not perfect is a /g/ thing, take it there.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 16:58

>>13
It's true that anyone claiming that the GIMP is even near as useful Paint.net for artistic purposes is hoplessly deluded, and that most of the freetards frequently make this claim, since as a group they tend to have very little appreciation or understanding of the graphic arts.

But we're not trolling it because it's FOSS, we're actively hating it because it is a terrible piece of shit that prevents innovation in graphics software and poisons social dynamics in its vicinity. Its being FOSS is only incidental.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 17:12

>>14
But we're not trolling it because it's FOSS
Then why does every argument against the GIMP always consist of various ad homs at "freetards" "gnu hippies" "open sores" etc. In fact, almost every single sentence in >>11 has at least one.

You claim it is holding back graphics software, but give no indication of why other than "adobe doesn't innovate", that's adobes fault and not the GIMPs. If no-one else wants to take up that specific area of graphics program, what does that say about the type of project it is to work on?

If you have specific criticisms I'll listen. One of the big ones is that it doesn't support certain colour features needed by professional graphics artists, which is a fair point. I've heard multiples criticisms about the UI (which range from constructive to abusive), which also have a point. But to give no real substance and just claim that GIMP is the great Satan of the graphics world is flat out retarded.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 17:36

>>15
Why would anyone prefer to drive a Porsche over a Smart?
Both have four tires, headlights, a motor, a stereo, and seats. The Porsche's only dubious advantage is that there are four seats instead of two.

Blindly comparing features does not really work in our case. These programs are supposed to make art happen. If they are not comfortable to use, the results suck.

The few who gave it a chance and tried to learn it are always bitter about the experience, unless they also are FOSS advocates.

Almost no talented artist uses the GIMP. You will not manage to name more than 10 names if I add the condition that those artists must not be overt FOSS enthusiast, to rule out those who use it for political reasons, rather than practical ones.

I'll concede the the GIMP is as comfortable as photoshop for retouching red eyes then scaling pictures, which is the most common task in Photoshop.

Do you have more hands-on experience than this kind of tasks with graphics software?
I don't think you would need to have someone spell out for you what I said if you had.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:01

>>16
Why would anyone prefer to drive a Porsche over a Smart?
Both have four tires, headlights, a motor, a stereo, and seats. The Porsche's only dubious advantage is that there are four seats instead of two.
The same reason people use Macs over normal computers and why people use Photoshop over the GIMP. Namely, that branding is important and in each of these cases the former has a really strong brand (there are other reasons, but I think that this is an important one).

If they are not comfortable to use, the results suck.
Agreed, and I did mention that some people find it uncomfortable to use the GIMP (especially, but not limited to, experienced Photoshop users).

The few who gave it a chance and tried to learn it are always bitter about the experience, unless they also are FOSS advocates.
You mean the vocal ones, after all, you never usually here back from a satisfied customer.

Almost no talented artist uses the GIMP.
How do you know this? Is there some kind of a registry I don't know about.

You will not manage to name more than 10 names if I add the condition that those artists must not be overt FOSS enthusiast, to rule out those who use it for political reasons, rather than practical ones.
You set me this challenge last time, and I have to say this is a weird question. First of all, I don't tend to care what tools an artist uses, it's the end result that matters. Do you want famous artists? I'm sure google could tell you that. Or would you prefer people I know? Because they all use photoshop. Or they won't admit to using the GIMP

I'll concede the the GIMP is as comfortable as photoshop for retouching red eyes then scaling pictures, which is the most common task in Photoshop
So, in other words, you are admitting, that the GIMP will satisfy the average person. Which is what GIMP advocates usually claim themselves.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:07

>>17
Thank you for proving that we can safely discard anything you have to say.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:08

>>18
Discard it if you want, all I am trying to say is that the GIMP usually gets a lot of criticism without any actual specific problems listed, and you still continued to skirt around that particular issue instead giving a vague "it's uncomfortable" which helps no-one.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:11

this-thread-has-ended-peacefully.txt

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:19

>>19
Why do you care so much about the GIMP, if by your own admission you do not care at about quality photography, visual design, or the graphic arts?
I care because bad tools in my fields make me sick.
I would never dare to go around claiming that since OpenOffice is good enough for me to write and print out one-page documents it is good enough for a novelist accustomed to MS Word. I accept that I lack the experience to guess what people who write all day really need.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:29

>>19
You have obviously never used it. It's like OpenOffice (but much worse): technically there's nothing wrong with it, but in practice it feels like utter shit.

There are plenty of great FOSS applications. This Gimp is not one of them.

It's funny how people talk about "branding" and "inertia". How come Firefox has gained its marketshare? It's the king amongst people who know that you can use another browser besides that "blue e" in their desktop. I assure you a higher percentage people who use Photoshop have heard about Gimp than people who use browsers have heard abut Firefox, yet nobody uses it.

The difference is that Firefox is actually decent.

And now that I've mentioned browsers, do you know why Chrome has managed to gain one in every thirty people, eating marketshare from most previous players? I mean, it has less features than the competition. It doesn't really have any "killer" feature over the paper.

But it feels fucking great. Benchmark numbers will show nothing conclusive, feature charts will sow it in bad light. But once you use it, you'll understand instantly the appeal it has. Suddenly all the other garbage feels clunky in comparison.

Fortunately the Firefox devs actually listen and have a clue, and are trying to copy the good aspects (i.e. totally rip the user interface and implement the multiprocess stuff).

tl;dr: Enjoy your piece of shit, people like you are the reason I have to waste 30 minutes pirating Adobe's garbage every now and then.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:30

>>21
if by your own admission you do not care at about quality photography, visual design, or the graphic arts?
That's putting words into my mouth. I said I don't care how it's done if the result is good, not that I don't care full stop.
I would never dare to go around claiming that since OpenOffice is good enough for me to write and print out one-page documents it is good enough for a novelist accustomed to MS Word.
I also never said that it was necessarily good enough for a professional, in fact, I was the one who gave an example of an area that it was lacking.

What I want, is for people to tell me why it doesn't work for them, and abstract "it's shit" helps no-one. Can we drop this now? I'll lay down arms if you do ;)

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:33

I am not sure who is trolling whom itt.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:38

why it doesn't work for them
That's like asking why electronics bought for 1/10th of their normal price in Chinatown don't get the job done. It's all about branding, right?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:44

>>24
That guy >>25

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 19:17

>>26
Enjoy you're famicom in a PSP case.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 19:20

>>24
Just try to use the Gimp for five minutes and you'll know for sure.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 19:39

I love the Gimp. Yes, I do know how to conjure the spirits of Gimp with my spells in Scheme and C.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 7:28

The GIMP is superior to photoshop because it has more filters and more language bindings.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 8:41

>>1
You are a looser, and you blame software.
>>10
So where is Blender?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 8:43

>>31
Truth. Nothing you can do in photoshop can't be done in MSPaint.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 8:56

>>32
Nothing can be done in MSPaint that hasn't already been done better with a pen and paper.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 9:59

If the GIMP is so shit why did they use it in pulp fiction ?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 10:52

For the last time, it's not shit.
It's true that it's only barely better than Photoshop. But it is free (as in freedom).
Designers only use Photoshop because that's what they were taught to use, and they are not critical thinkers seeking alternatives (they're designers). Adobe has deals with every school. And Adobe uses the non-standard PSD format to lock users in. GNU can't compete against disloyal practices like this.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 11:18

>>35
I really hope you're trolling. Seriously, I'd rather have radical Muslims than you fucking retarded FOSS faggots. Also, every single statement in your post is not only wrong, but also easily disprovable.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 11:19

>>35
There are so many things that are just easier to do in Photoshop. It's those little (and big) things that really add up when you're doing really serious business. One being layer grouping and another being layer adjustments but there are countless other features that make things easier in the long term. But yeah, Photoshop is non-free while Gimp is free.

Here's looking to Gimp 3.0.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 11:23

>>36
easily disprovable
You sure told him!

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 11:43

>>35
4/10 if only because of >>36's fantastic resposnse.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 11:46

There are so many things that are just easier to do in Photoshop

As always, you provide no examples. You just don't wont to let us realize that you didn't RTFM.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 13:00

>>40
Drawing a line.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 13:58

>>22
Enjoy your piece of shit, people like you are the reason I have to waste 30 minutes pirating Adobe's garbage every now and then.

People like you are the reason Gimp sucks.

Software, especially on the scale of Gimp, exists and is developed because people use it. Despite what you might believe about FLOSS development processes, it is impossible for a group of people to lock themselves in a basement and emerge five years later with a complete, finished Photoshop replacement. Developers need users to contribute, to spot bugs, to donate, to press their employers to support the product, to spread the word, to view advertisements and buy paraphernalia, to write books and tutorials, to answer questions in forums, et cetera, ad infinitum.

How can Gimp possibly gain enough momentum if it competes not against Photoshop, but against the pirated Photoshop? Both are free as in free beer, who'd choose the less functional/polished/popular one?

By pirating PS you steal not only from Adobe, but from your fellow users and from the open source community too. And after you have been stealing from them for a while you have the gall to ask why there are not enough features in their product and declare that if the situation ain't going to be corrected (i.e. if the people you are stealing from would fail to offer you a quality product for free), then you'd continue stealing from them.

Calling you a hypocrite would be offensive to all those gaybashing gays, pro-family values cheaters, abstinence-only promoters having a pregnant teenage daughters, and the rest of your regular kind of hypocrites. It's like saying that Hitler had antisemitic tendencies.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 14:01

>>42
10/10, would read again!

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 14:03

>>41
It's not any more difficult to draw a line in the GIMP than in MS Paint, with the exception that MS Paint give you a new canvas by default.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 14:36

>>40
Draw a circle in GIMP. Go on, I dare you.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 14:43

>>45
Darn you, you... you... DOUBLE NIGGER

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 14:48

>>45
This is a little harder, because the GIMP doesn't have shape drawing tools [I agree this is a flaw], so you make a circular selection and go to > edit > stroke selection

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 14:52

The GIMP is terrible. I don't know a single person who likes it. Inkscape, on the other hand, is quite decent. The OSS community should drop The GIMP and start over.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 14:57

>>47
Yeah, I know that. One piece of "advice" I read said to make a circular selection, fill the selection with a colour, scale the selection down by a few percent, and then fill it with white.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 15:11

>>48
There are other Free graphics editors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_raster_graphics_editors uh, I feel like FV
Have you tried GIMPshop?
>>49
That sounds like the sort of advice we give here. Was it a troll or were they serious?
>>47
After a little thought, I can understand why the made this decision. What they did was abstract out the idea of manipulating a shape (in this case, drawing) from the process. Very programmer like.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 15:40

>>40
I said layer group and layer adjustments. You can simulate these features in today's Gimp but it's not as easy to achieve the same results as much more work is involved. Apparently, GEGL is going to permit features equivalent to this. Other examples include fancy paintbrush system that's as powerful as Photoshop's and a Berizer curve path system as convenient as Photoshop. Once again, Gimp has equivalents of these features in today's Gimp but it's not as easy to achieve the same results as much more work is involved.

>>41,45
You're confusing visibility with easy to use/easy to learn. Just because a feature is invisible does not mean the feature is hard to use. Drawing a line or oblong is very easy in Gimp.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 16:29

I propose everybody to close eyes and imagine that it is Gimp which was used for decades and is used in art schools and by professionals and that Photoshop is just a newcomer from FOSS.
I imagined that everybody is complaining that tool icons are too small and that it works in nonstandard way and that .PSD is a format which is used only by Photoshop, and that it takes ages to start program.
But seriously Gimp have not best planned gui and lack of 16 bit/channel and no .hdr/.exr.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 16:42

>>52
If GIMP was the stablished standard and Photoshop the newcomer, everybody would instantly drop The GIMP and wonder why they had tortured themselves for so long. Eventually they'd reach the conclusion that GIMP's developers were to blame, and a public lynching would be likely to follow.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 17:27

>>53
It hasn't happened for microsoft, it's not going to happen to the GIMPs developers. You also assume that the programs would be exactly as they are now in his fantasy scenario.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 17:30

>>54
It hasn't happened for microsoft
You mean with what?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 17:33

>>55
public lynchings

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 17:54

>>56
No, which product of theirs?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 17:56

>>57
Microsoft Bob

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 18:24

>>58
lol'd. Wasn't the project lead by Gates' wife?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 18:33

http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Straight_Line/

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 18:36

>>60
Is that supposed to be sarcastic? In any case, the GIMP tells you how to do it at the bottom of the screen when you are using the pen.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 18:38

>>59
That's what wikipedia claims

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 20:49

>>61
I've seen people mess up on much, much simpler tasks.

Name: !!sr3pXTMOoTb6gqV 2010-01-17 21:59

GIMP sucks.  Not just a little but a whole lot.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 23:02

>>61
This was the official reply to one of the most requested feature ever. Another feature requested for 10 years was to have an interface that doesn't get in your way, but he GIMP project preferred to blame users for using real-world window managers that made things difficult, and advocated using imaginary window managers that made all the issues go away.

Made by retarded hateful pricks; used by the sort of nerds whose sense of aesthetics revolves entirely around fractal, cellular automata, and penguins; and promoted by deluded GNU activists.
If I were Adobe, I'd sponsor them.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 2:26

>>65
It's pretty clear (based on their history) that the Gimp developers' target audience are the exotic WM using Unix crowd. Another thing is that because people are used to helplessness, they don't understand that they are free to fund their own fork of Gimp that would be perfect for them.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 4:12

>>66
GIMP should go one step further and make the users compile the source code.  If users have a problem, they should learn to be programmers and fix it themselves.  Photoshop was made by programmers for users.  GIMP is made by programmers for programmers.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 4:37

>>67
We do not expect users to have any technical skill. We only expect them to find programmers who do.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 8:52

>>66
If you wanted to build an image editor that works, why in the world would you start with the gimp?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 10:28

>>69
The open-source community is committed to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 10:38

>>70
i lolled

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 10:39

>>70
I was this close to HBT.  7/10.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 13:18

>>65
Gimp ui makes sense if you use more than one monitor.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 13:19

>>66
I use it on Openbox and there is no problem.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 13:55

>>70
Then why do they develop GIMP at all, when pretty much anyone and their mother has Photoshop pirated?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 14:15

>>75
Because not everyone uses Windows or MacOS.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 14:31

>>76
in your bizarro world, maybe

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 15:49

Programmers:
languages - lisp, haskell, lua, C
factoid - knows at least 4 ways to implement fibs
reads - A Neighborhood of Infinity
editor - vim, emacs
OS - linux

Plumbers:
languages - Java, Python, C++, C#
factoid - knows "tricks" and "design patterns"
reads - coding horror, reddit, TDWTF
editor - Eclipse, Visual Studio
OS - windows

Noobs:
languages - ruby, python, C, C++
factoid - about to start programming a game
reads - not even answers to the questions they ask
editor - IDE or gedit
OS - windows or Ubuntu

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 15:53

>>75
I like my freedom. I don't have that with Photoshop.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 16:03

>>78
You do understand that a programmer is someone who writes software, a task which simply doesn't happen in your first two languages, and which happens only in the loosest sense on you're OS, no?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 16:06

>>80
You're right, Haskell software has long since transcended software and has become art.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 16:08

>>78
Sysadmins:
languages: perl, shell, C; they all suck.
factiod: hate the people that use our systems, yes you faggot devs too.
reads: USENET forums like *-security-announce, security focus, man pages, tech dox; they all suck
editor: vi, emacs, sed & awk, perl -pi -e; they all suck
OS: they all really suck a.k.a.: whatever shit the clueless suits decided on before I started and now have to maintain.


FTFY

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 16:18

>>78
A Neighborhood of Infinity
Don't advertise your blag.

Though it's interesting.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 16:44

>>83
I somehow doubt that >>78 is Sigfpe, but in the unlikely event that he is, I enjoyed his ICFP talk.

Name: >>78 2010-01-18 16:45

>>84
I am not he.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 16:48

>>85
In that case, the talk was shit XDXDXDXD

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 17:55

>>83
Reading it now, being told that I just
rediscovered one of the deepest notions in mathematics
feels good man.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 17:58

I like my freedom. I don't have that with Photoshop.
I prefer the freedom to draw pictures to the freedom to implement myself what the bare requirements to actually draw pictures.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 18:20

As if anyone actually cares what you prefer.

You are one voice amongst billions; of no significance.

Your opinion just adds to the background noise, and is not even enough to clear the s/n floor.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 18:39

>>89
There are no opinions here.  The gimp is undeniably shit.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 18:42

>>90
And still not one plausible argument. Even the biggest hater of the thread said that "the GIMP is as comfortable as photoshop for retouching red eyes then scaling pictures".

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 18:45

>>91
And you think that's something that'd make your mama proud?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 18:47

>>92
Hell no! Ain't no pleasing that bitch.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 18:48

I'd like to take a minute of your time to inform you that things aren't going very well with my cute japanese girl friend. Stuff happened and she blocked me now. Onto the next one :(

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 18:49

>>94
Thank's for taking your time to inform us! I hope thing's get better for you two.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 19:18

>>94
Thank's for taking our time to inform us!

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 20:03

>>92
That's something that makes it a Photoshop alternative. Given that it is not intended to be a drop-in replacement (http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/index.html) this actually proves just how intuitive it can be for someone who until now was only using the Photoshop mindset.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 20:23

>>97
Notepad is a fair and intuitive replacement for MS Word if you're looking for grocery list editing software. That doesn't make it good.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 20:54

>>98
'Implying that Ms Word is good

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 21:56

>>99
It's better than OpenOffice.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 23:15

>>98
Nice strawman here. Notepad is a plain text editor, MSWord a formatted text editor. That's like comparing the Gimp to MSPaint. Of course paint can also retouch red eyes and scale images, but what is your point exactly?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-18 23:32

>>101
You assume that Notepad and MS Word are both text editors.
You assert that Notepad can do some task, but claim that being able to do a given task does not show that Notepad is good.

I point out that by giving two examples of text editors, and then by dismissing one of them, you've left with the implication that the only alternative left, MS Word, is a good option. A and B. If not A, then B.

I remind you that your claim that Notepad is not good is not evidence that MS Word is good in the first place. Notepad and MSWord may both fail at doing certain tasks where other text editors may succeed.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 3:32

>>88
Wrong tool for the job mate. Gimp is a photo manipulator, not a painting program. If you want to draw pretty pictures, try Inkscape. Besides that, you cannot have freedom when you choose Photoshop. Instead of freedom, you choose to give up your freedom in exchange for the opportunity operate Photoshop on your machine.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 6:47

Inkscape? Seriously? It is soooooo slow. For painting Artrage and Mypaint.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 7:27

>>104
SAI! SAI! SAI is the standard!

Name: Sagey McSagerson 2010-01-19 10:46

ITT: Trolls trolling trolls. Good day to you foul sodomites and persons of color.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 11:19

>>103
This is the most retarded thing said in this thread. You can't make pretty digital paintings with a vectorial illustration program. That's like recommending using flutes to make rock music.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 11:45

>>107
Jethro Tull:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jethro_Tull_%28band%29

Jethro Tull are a British rock group formed in 1967.[1] Their music is characterised by the lyrics, vocals and flute work of Ian Anderson, who has led the band since its founding, and guitarist Martin Barre, who has been with the band since 1969.

TROLL ATTEMPT: FAILURE (score 1/10)

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 12:15

>>108
Using exceptions is not a proper way to refute anything.

Name: /prog/ compliance officer 2010-01-19 12:19

>>108
Code tags are not a substitute for [m] or proper quoting

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 12:19

When I produce exquisite pieces of ART, I don't want eight EXTRA MEGABYTES of worthless
color palettes and paintbrush positioning code!  I just want an Image Editor!!
Not a "GIMPitor".  Not a "Mario Paintitor".  Those aren't even WORDS!!!!
ImageMagick! ImageMagick! ImageMagick IS THE STANDARD!!!

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 12:26

>>110
Your pathetic rules do not apply to me.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 14:00

((lambda x (loop (print (eval x)))) (read my-anus))
 > (apply pathetic-rules>>112)
 > (apply pathetic-rules>>112)
 > (apply pathetic-rules>>112)
 > (apply pathetic-rules>>112)
 > (apply pathetic-rules>>112)
 > (apply pathetic-rules>>112)
 > (apply pathetic-rules>>112)
 > (apply pathetic-rules>>112)
 > (apply pathetic-rules>>112) ...

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 14:03

>>111
3/10, keep going

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 15:20

>>10
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=293
This particular image was drawn in Flash and touched up in Photoshop.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 15:23

>>107
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=293
This particular image was drawn in Flash and touched up in Photoshop.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 16:22

>>16
Yeah. Crappy ones.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 17:10

Paint Shop Pro > *
Suck it, bitches.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 17:29

>>101
That is exactly my point.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 19:23

>>119
Photoshop can do everything MS Paint does
The GIMP can do everything MS Paint does
Ergo the GIMP can do everything Photoshop does

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 19:55

>>116
Why would anybody draw using Flash? [a]:([/a]

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 20:03

>>120
Expert Logician

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 21:09

>>115
>>116
At the time of this writing, there's no such "strip_id" as 293. The largest one is 292. How you ended up with 293 is beyond me, none of the links point to it, even if you access 292 explicitly there's no "next" button.

In other words, you made up the number, or made a grievous mistake trying to guess an absolute link. Fortunately for you, that site tolerates bad input in the form of out-of-bounds "strip_id"s: it just returns the latest one.

What I'm trying to say is that your link is, in some fashion, a Schrödinger link, so to speak — the moment a new update is posted, its destination will change.

And it's within the real of possibility that "strip_id" 293 won't be drawn in Flash, or that it won't be edited in Photoshop.

In that case, your post would have been a Schrödinger post, however you shouldn't feel much accomplishment since such schemes were invented a long time ago.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-19 21:32

>>123
$ cat & [ $RANDOM -ge 16384 ] && kill -9 %1
[1] 16697
$ ▌

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-20 2:19

>>115
She should have just pirated it.
BITCHES AND WHORES

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-20 2:40

>>123
What? It's VGCats latest strip about the perfect Christmas present.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-20 2:49

>>126
That's strip #278.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-20 16:26

>>115

furry pron?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-30 5:51


You might be able to get similar end results with Gimp, after more effort, and getting some additional scripts/plugins.

But even doing something simple like stroke effects on a layer is a pain in the ass in Gimp, not to mention you don't have the preview setup like in PS.

So you can adjust settings before applying, so it comes out how you want it, instead of create effect -> apply it -> don't like it -> undo -> start over

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-30 7:46

LInux needs  something like windows7 paint.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-30 10:38

>>129
Thats just a workflow you get used to.
Also with the new GEGL core will make a lot of things in gimp easier.
Previews exist for GIMP plugins.

Name: ​​​​​​​​​​ 2010-10-23 8:13

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -