/prog/ - GIMP — World4ch

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.

GIMP

1 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 7:12

2 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 7:16

3 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 7:38

4 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 7:47

5 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 8:01

6 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 8:19

7 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 8:37

8 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 9:26

9 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 9:41

10 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 16:16

11 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 16:39

12 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 16:44

13 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 16:48

14 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 16:58

15 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 17:12

16 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 17:36

17 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:01

18 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:07

19 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:08

20 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:11

21 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:19

22 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:29

23 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:30

24 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:33

25 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:38

26 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 18:44

27 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 19:17

28 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 19:20

29 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-16 19:39

30 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 7:28

31 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 8:41

32 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 8:43

33 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 8:56

34 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 9:59

35 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 10:52

36 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 11:18

37 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 11:19

38 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 11:23

39 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 11:43

40 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 11:46