So on my Debian Sid box, I start GIMP to edit an XPM file (overkill, yeah I
know) and see a completely new splash screen. I guess the big feature is the
libgimp API v3 is now stable.

How long has version 3 been in the works? Seems like years.

--
Q: How do you stop an elephant from charging?
A: Take away his credit cards.

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:41:03 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>
> How long has version 3 been in the works? Seems like years.
>

Too long for you? Well, then why don't you contribute to its
development?

GIMP offers many channels for contributors.

Otherwise stop complaining. This is FOSS, and FOSS does
not magically grow on trees.

GIMP is one of the great wonders of the FOSS world.

GIMP outshines commercial competitors in many areas but
commercial software is oriented towards idiots. GIMP,
for the most part, is not.

Like LibreOffice, GIMP is GIMP and it does not attempt
any emulation.

--
Gentoo: The Fastest GNU/Linux Hands Down

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:13:34 +0000
Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> wrote:

> Like LibreOffice, GIMP is GIMP and it does not attempt
> any emulation.

That's a farcical claim, when its UI from the get-go has been a naked
clone of Photoshop - first in its original Mac-style "separate windows
for documents & tool palettes" incarnation, and then in its later
"single window, tool palette on the left, extended options docked on
the right" version. The biggest difference is that Photoshop's workflow
and UX choices are generally well thought-out and helpful, while GIMP's
are clunky and awkward.

(Shame, because GIMP's technical functionality is quite solid. Yet
another cautionary tale about the unfortunate tendency of programmers,
left to themselves, to treat user experience and UI design as an
afterthought...)

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:57:10 -0800, John Ames wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:13:34 +0000
> Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> wrote:
>
>> Like LibreOffice, GIMP is GIMP and it does not attempt
>> any emulation.
>
> That's a farcical claim,
>

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You were a farce since the day you
were born.

>
> when its UI from the get-go has been a naked
> clone of Photoshop
>

All image editors, like all word processors, spreadsheets,
and accounting software, etc., are EXACTLY the same. They all
do the same fucking thing and none of them can stake a claim
on having the definitive GUI.

But idiots like you, will always be duped.

>
> The biggest difference is that Photoshop's workflow
> and UX choices are generally well thought-out and helpful, while GIMP's
> are clunky and awkward.
>

Only to a mental asshole like you.

True artists, and their cerebral programming side, envision
in their minds the concepts first and the GUIs much, much later,
if at all.

But you are NOT an artist and you have no cerebral side.
That much is quite obvious from your stupid and droll posts.

My advice to you is simple:

Keep out of professional territory. You will remain a cheap
dilettante until your dying day.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

--
Gentoo: The Fastest GNU/Linux Hands Down

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 19:27:45 +0000
Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> wrote:

> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You were a farce since the day you
> were born.

Never claimed otherwise!

> All image editors, like all word processors, spreadsheets,
> and accounting software, etc., are EXACTLY the same. They all
> do the same fucking thing and none of them can stake a claim
> on having the definitive GUI.
>
> But idiots like you, will always be duped.

I'm not even stating that as a criticism; there's nothing wrong with
copying what works, and in fairness even Photoshop has a clear lineage
back to MacPaint. But pretending that there's no imitation going on,
when GIMP started out looking like one version of Photoshop, and its
big "facelift" revision served to make it look like the newer versions
of Photoshop, is just silly.

> > The biggest difference is that Photoshop's workflow
> > and UX choices are generally well thought-out and helpful, while
> > GIMP's are clunky and awkward.
>
> Only to a mental asshole like you.

Clearly, I am dealing with a master of rhetoric.

(I could write an essay on how slackass GIMP's UI design is - I have,
elsewhere, and if you'd like I can go and dig it up - but I think a
single example will suffice to illustrate the general point: the GIMP
team have *no* idea what the point of keyboard accelerators is. They
*have* accelerators, but they frequently assign the same letter to
multiple elements in a single menu/window, so that instead of being
able to quickly navigate through the most commonly-used paths by muscle
memory - as you can in Photoshop and other well-designed professional
software suites - you have to sit there hitting the same key multiple
times until you can visually confirm that the focus has cycled to the
option you want, at which point you might as well have just used the
mouse.)

> True artists, and their cerebral programming side, envision
> in their minds the concepts first and the GUIs much, much later,
> if at all.

I mean, it's certainly true that form ought to follow function, and
that *working well* is more important than being slick. But good
functionality and good UI design are *not* mutually exclusive, and
treating UI design as if it's a "later, if at all" consideration is a
good way to produce software that is intuitive only to its developer(s).

> My advice to you is simple:
>
> Keep out of professional territory. You will remain a cheap
> dilettante until your dying day.

I shall treat this golden wisdom with the reverence it deserves. Thank
you, O great sage, for blessing me with the insights of your mighty
brain.

> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

*Master* of rhetoric.

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 11:59:11 -0800, John Ames wrote:

>
> (I could write an essay on how slackass GIMP's UI design is
>

One must fell a tree.

One is confronted with an axe and a chainsaw.

I choose the axe and I can bring down that tree faster than
some flabby idiot who has no choice but to pick up the chain saw.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 20:22:36 +0000
Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:

> One must fell a tree.
>
> One is confronted with an axe and a chainsaw.
>
> I choose the axe and I can bring down that tree faster than
> some flabby idiot who has no choice but to pick up the chain saw.

That's lovely, but its relevance to the ccnversation is not immediately
clear.

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:57:10 -0800, John Ames wrote:

> That's a farcical claim, when its UI from the get-go has been a naked
> clone of Photoshop - first in its original Mac-style "separate windows
> for documents & tool palettes" incarnation, and then in its later
> "single window, tool palette on the left, extended options docked on
> the right" version. The biggest difference is that Photoshop's workflow
> and UX choices are generally well thought-out and helpful, while GIMP's
> are clunky and awkward.

So, is it an actual “clone” of the Photoshop UI or not? If it is identical
to the Photoshop UI, then it would be just as “clunky and awkward” as
Photoshop.

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:57:10 -0800, John Ames wrote:

> That's a farcical claim, when its UI from the get-go has been a naked
> clone of Photoshop - first in its original Mac-style "separate windows
> for documents & tool palettes" incarnation, and then in its later
> "single window, tool palette on the left, extended options docked on
> the right" version. The biggest difference is that Photoshop's workflow
> and UX choices are generally well thought-out and helpful, while GIMP's
> are clunky and awkward.

So, is it an actual “clone” of the Photoshop UI or not? If it is identical
to the Photoshop UI, then it would be just as “clunky and awkward” as
Photoshop.

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 20:45:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> So, is it an actual “clone” of the Photoshop UI or not? If it is
> identical to the Photoshop UI, then it would be just as “clunky and
> awkward” as Photoshop.

I've never used PhotoShop but I consider GIMP an excellent example of how
not to do it. The latest I have is 2.10 on Debian; I don't know if 3 is
any better.

Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:41:03 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> How long has version 3 been in the works? Seems like years.
>
>Too long for you? Well, then why don't you contribute to its
>development?
>
>GIMP offers many channels for contributors.
>
>Otherwise stop complaining. This is FOSS, and FOSS does
>not magically grow on trees.
>
>GIMP is one of the great wonders of the FOSS world.
>
>GIMP outshines commercial competitors in many areas but
>commercial software is oriented towards idiots. GIMP,
>for the most part, is not.
>
>Like LibreOffice, GIMP is GIMP and it does not attempt
>any emulation.

There's no doubt that running Windows or macOS allows one to access
commercial software that would best GIMP, but that doesn't mean GIMP
is without a lot of use, it's good enough for me to get by, as LO or
WPS Office suites for me are fine, I'm not married to M$ or Adobe. But
we have to understand the people who are married to them, and feel
lucky that our burdens are so much lighter.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-12-27, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 20:45:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> So, is it an actual “clone” of the Photoshop UI or not? If it is
>> identical to the Photoshop UI, then it would be just as “clunky and
>> awkward” as Photoshop.
>
> I've never used PhotoShop but I consider GIMP an excellent example of how
> not to do it. The latest I have is 2.10 on Debian; I don't know if 3 is
> any better.

I kind of look at PhotoShop the same way. Last I tried it, though, was
several versions ago. I have almost zero use for either.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-12-27, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

> There's no doubt that running Windows or macOS allows one to access
> commercial software that would best GIMP, but that doesn't mean GIMP
> is without a lot of use, it's good enough for me to get by, as LO or
> WPS Office suites for me are fine, I'm not married to M$ or Adobe. But
> we have to understand the people who are married to them, and feel
> lucky that our burdens are so much lighter.

For many people, it's nothing more than a pissing match over the number
of features that their favourite software package offers. Whether they
actually use those features or not is irrelevant.

Meanwhile, those of us who just want to get the job done ignore all
that and look for a package that does what we want without all that
other stuff getting the way.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 09:25:54 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

>
> Meanwhile, those of us who just want to get the job done ignore all
> that and look for a package that does what we want without all that
> other stuff getting the way.
>

The Photoshop lackeys are always the instigators. They seem greatly
distressed by the fact that some folks do not worship their idol.

The last time I used Photoshop, the desktop and not the "cloud" version,
I was appalled that it is actually based on the MDI, or the multiple-
document interface. MDI is by far the stupidest idea of an interface
that anyone could imagine, especially in this era of multiple desktops/
screens. The GIMP uses the sensible SDI model which is infinitely
more comfortable and efficient.

But the only advantage that Photoshop has over the GIMP is its ability
to handle huge numbers of layers which I suppose is very important in
that ridiculous world of commercial art and marketing. I can't see
any REAL image pro being that enthused about multiple layering.

The Photoshop apologists will always focus on the graphical interface
which should be of minor concern to any image pro. The important part
of image processing is understanding what has to be done and then how
to accomplish it. The actual GUI is only a secondary consideration.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024, John Ames wrote:

>
> I shall treat this golden wisdom with the reverence it deserves. Thank
> you, O great sage, for blessing me with the insights of your mighty
> brain.
>
>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>
> *Master* of rhetoric.
>

Might I suggest a fight to the death with the Lirpa?

Farley Flud wrote:

> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>For many people, it's nothing more than a pissing match over the number
>>of features that their favourite software package offers. Whether they
>>actually use those features or not is irrelevant.
>>
>> Meanwhile, those of us who just want to get the job done ignore all
>> that and look for a package that does what we want without all that
>> other stuff getting the way.

Indeed. I was tired of hearing about it decades ago. I've never once
had any need for either.

>The Photoshop lackeys are always the instigators. They seem greatly
>distressed by the fact that some folks do not worship their idol.

And, golly gee, the free product isn't as good as the expensive
product. What a "tragedy".

--
"Personally, I have no particular love for Photoshop's pricetag
either, but that doesn't mean that I'll globally reject it for all
possible consumers" - lying asshole "-hh", snittishly pretending
that cola advocates "globally reject" Photoshop for "all possible
consumers"

Farley Flud wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:41:03 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> How long has version 3 been in the works? Seems like years.
>
> Too long for you? Well, then why don't you contribute to its
> development?
>
> GIMP offers many channels for contributors.
>
> Otherwise stop complaining. This is FOSS, and FOSS does
> not magically grow on trees.

I wasn't complaining, dumbass.

> GIMP is one of the great wonders of the FOSS world.
>
> GIMP outshines commercial competitors in many areas but
> commercial software is oriented towards idiots. GIMP,
> for the most part, is not.
>
> Like LibreOffice, GIMP is GIMP and it does not attempt
> any emulation.

--
How wonderful opera would be if there were no singers.

John Ames wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:13:34 +0000
> Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> wrote:
>
>> Like LibreOffice, GIMP is GIMP and it does not attempt
>> any emulation.
>
> That's a farcical claim, when its UI from the get-go has been a naked
> clone of Photoshop - first in its original Mac-style "separate windows
> for documents & tool palettes" incarnation, and then in its later
> "single window, tool palette on the left, extended options docked on
> the right" version. The biggest difference is that Photoshop's workflow
> and UX choices are generally well thought-out and helpful, while GIMP's
> are clunky and awkward.
>
> (Shame, because GIMP's technical functionality is quite solid. Yet
> another cautionary tale about the unfortunate tendency of programmers,
> left to themselves, to treat user experience and UI design as an
> afterthought...)

Ummmm, what about PhotoGIMP?

Anyway, having never used Photoshop, I have no real issue with the GIMP
interface.

I once owned a 600-page book describing (with graphics) the things that could
be done with GIMP.

--
From concentrate.

rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 20:45:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> So, is it an actual “clone” of the Photoshop UI or not? If it is
>> identical to the Photoshop UI, then it would be just as “clunky and
>> awkward” as Photoshop.
>
> I've never used PhotoShop but I consider GIMP an excellent example of how
> not to do it. The latest I have is 2.10 on Debian; I don't know if 3 is
> any better.

Meh. One gets used to a product.... or moves on.

--
One size fits all.

On 2024-12-27 10:25, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-12-27, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There's no doubt that running Windows or macOS allows one to access
>> commercial software that would best GIMP, but that doesn't mean GIMP
>> is without a lot of use, it's good enough for me to get by, as LO or
>> WPS Office suites for me are fine, I'm not married to M$ or Adobe. But
>> we have to understand the people who are married to them, and feel
>> lucky that our burdens are so much lighter.
>
> For many people, it's nothing more than a pissing match over the number
> of features that their favourite software package offers. Whether they
> actually use those features or not is irrelevant.
>
> Meanwhile, those of us who just want to get the job done ignore all
> that and look for a package that does what we want without all that
> other stuff getting the way.
>

Well, I appreciate that I can get gratis a piece of software that is
that good. Maybe commercial software is better, dunno. It doesn't matter
to me, it covers way more than my needs.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 26/12/2024 20:22, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 11:59:11 -0800, John Ames wrote:
>
>>
>> (I could write an essay on how slackass GIMP's UI design is
>>
>
> One must fell a tree.
>
> One is confronted with an axe and a chainsaw.
>
> I choose the axe and I can bring down that tree faster than
> some flabby idiot who has no choice but to pick up the chain saw.
>
>
>
>
>
Ah we have a total dickhead in the group

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 14:26:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>>
> Ah we have a total dickhead in the group
>

You got that part right.

But the actual identity thereof might give you quite a shock.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 27/12/2024 14:41, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 14:26:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>>
>> Ah we have a total dickhead in the group
>>
>
> You got that part right.
>
> But the actual identity thereof might give you quite a shock.
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>
>
>
>
*plonk*ing the plonker
--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 2024-12-27 08:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-12-27 10:25, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2024-12-27, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There's no doubt that running Windows or macOS allows one to access
>>> commercial software that would best GIMP, but that doesn't mean GIMP
>>> is without a lot of use, it's good enough for me to get by, as LO or
>>> WPS Office suites for me are fine, I'm not married to M$ or Adobe. But
>>> we have to understand the people who are married to them, and feel
>>> lucky that our burdens are so much lighter.
>>
>> For many people, it's nothing more than a pissing match over the number
>> of features that their favourite software package offers.  Whether they
>> actually use those features or not is irrelevant.
>>
>> Meanwhile, those of us who just want to get the job done ignore all
>> that and look for a package that does what we want without all that
>> other stuff getting the way.
>>
>
> Well, I appreciate that I can get gratis a piece of software that is
> that good. Maybe commercial software is better, dunno. It doesn't matter
> to me, it covers way more than my needs.
>
>
+1

TJ

On 2024-12-26 15:22, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 11:59:11 -0800, John Ames wrote:
>
>>
>> (I could write an essay on how slackass GIMP's UI design is
>>
>
> One must fell a tree.
>
> One is confronted with an axe and a chainsaw.
>
> I choose the axe and I can bring down that tree faster than
> some flabby idiot who has no choice but to pick up the chain saw.
>
>
>
>
>
I'm not a professional logger. I'm just an old farmer who over the years
has used both, and if well maintained the saw is faster and more
accurate for putting the tree where you want it instead of on your
pickup truck.

I've also bucked the tree into pieces with a chainsaw and with a
crosscut hand saw, both one-man and two-man, and the chainsaw is easier,
faster, and better.

I've also split many a log into firewood with a hammer and wedges, as
well as with a gasoline-powered hydraulic log splitter, and the log
splitter will split tangled logs into usable pieces with ease that a
hammer and wedges won't touch no matter how long you beat on them.

Perhaps you believe that the exercise from using hand tools is better
for health. Well, anybody who thinks you don't get a workout when using
power tools to put up a winter's supply of firewood clearly has never
actually done the task.

Dunno what any of this has to do with GIMP 3.0. though.

TJ