[HN Gopher] Gimp 2.10.20
___________________________________________________________________
Gimp 2.10.20
Author : Santosh83
Score : 267 points
Date : 2020-06-11 16:10 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.gimp.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.gimp.org)
| ris wrote:
| Gotta say I'm really confused about their branches and version
| numbers these days. New features in a point release seems to be
| normal for them now.
| modzu wrote:
| props to the team! but having learned on photoshop i could just
| never get used to gimp. and me most used functions being smart
| select and smart fill -- does gimp do that yet? in any case i
| dropped both for photopea. i still can't get my head around how
| nicely it works in a browser tab
| chadly wrote:
| I've used pixlr in the past but I think photopea is my new
| favorite.
|
| I also find it frustrating using gimp after using photoshop for
| so many years. But I don't want to go back to my windows box
| _just_ for photoshop.
| [deleted]
| superhuzza wrote:
| Photopea is absurdly advanced as a browser offering. Breath of
| fresh air after using bloated image editing software.
| [deleted]
| modzu wrote:
| if anyone wants to know more, here's a cool talk about it:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZmaeC_Ma5A
|
| the whole thing is just 2MB of JS written by one guy!
| dvirsky wrote:
| A Bloom Filter? Is that a pun or is it a known industry term for
| such an image filter?
| ronjouch wrote:
| Worlds colliding :) . It's referring to image-manipulation
| technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_(shader_effect) ,
| not CS concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_filter
| slashink wrote:
| It's a term for "light bloom" commonly used in rendering and
| games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_(shader_effect)
|
| You're right that it's not that related to a bloom filter data
| structure.
| [deleted]
| lattalayta wrote:
| Bloom is a standard effect in CGI and game dev to simulate the
| diffusion effect of really bright light sources that can be
| witnessed in real-world photography
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_(shader_effect)
| [deleted]
| vmchale wrote:
| Lovely! Thank you to all contributors. I use your software.
| siraben wrote:
| GIMP is also extensible with Python, Perl or even Scheme[0].
|
| [0] https://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Basic_Scheme/
| Tomte wrote:
| Funny, I always just assumed that "gimp" is the English word for
| German "Gimpel". Turns out, it's not. In English it's a
| bullfinch.
|
| BTW that's my main use for Wikipedia, more than actually looking
| an article up: find the German Wikipedia page and switch to
| English or Swedish or whatever to find the appropriate
| translation of the thing or concept. Especially when a dictionary
| would give you dozens of translations in different fields,
| Wikipedia's disambiguation pages are close to perfect.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Indeed, Wikipedia is an absolutely amazing context-aware
| translation tool.
| vestrigi wrote:
| Using Wikipedia with English as a second language in general is
| wonderful. If a german article is not complex enough, I
| continue with the English article which is often more rich in
| information. On the other way around, if an English article is
| to hard to grasp for me, I switch to the German article and
| quickly get the basics. After that, I continue in English if
| there were still some questions left open. Of course there are
| topics that are best to be read in German because that's the
| language of the people that spark the most interest in that
| topic.
|
| Of course applies to speakers of every other language that
| speak English as a second language or any other language that
| is well represented on Wikipedia.
| mkchoi212 wrote:
| Ah what awesome new features/changes! Can't wait to try these out
| :)
| jarrell_mark wrote:
| I wonder if Glimpse will be updated to this version
| daitangio wrote:
| What is Glimpse?
| antjanus wrote:
| https://glimpse-editor.github.io/
|
| It's an unofficial fork and rather than reading a whole weird
| thread of people arguing about this fork, read the quick
| summary they have on their site:
|
| "Our contributors have used the GNU Image Manipulation
| Program for a long time, but like any free software project
| it has finite resources and has to prioritise some changes
| over others. That can mean good usability improvements and
| functional changes the community suggests go unaddressed
| because other changes take priority.
|
| What the Glimpse project aims to do is inject some new ideas,
| energy, contributions and money into a free software program
| that most enthusiasts and power users take for granted. We
| also want to expand the adoption of this great piece of free
| software, and offer a valid alternative for end users that
| have become disgruntled with the GNU Image Manipulation
| Program and are tempted to switch back to using proprietary
| software.
|
| The very first thing we focused on with 0.1.0 was our own
| rebrand. We chose a new name and commissioned a professional
| logo, and our efforts to replace the existing "gimp" branding
| throughout the software and its dependencies is something we
| continue to make excellent progress on today.
|
| However, we want to go further, and we will do that by
| focusing on usability changes, UI themes, icon packs, and
| better installation mechanisms. We believe that by making
| changes and improvements in those areas, that will create a
| better overall user experience that broadens the appeal of
| the application and introduces more people to the world of
| free software.
|
| Finally, we also want to make it easier for power users to
| find and install third party plug-ins. Initially that will
| take the form of an optional installer containing a selection
| of plug-ins already, but that is an area we can hopefully
| develop more over time."
|
| https://glimpse-editor.github.io/about/#why-are-you-forking
| jandrese wrote:
| Glimpse is what you get after you send the GIMP through the
| corporate product management department.
| CharlesW wrote:
| "Glimpse" is what you get if you like GIMP but wouldn't be
| comfortable using software called (for example) "CRIPPLE".
| Tomte wrote:
| A hostile fork, because some people found the name offensive.
| chapium wrote:
| Glimpse is a better name anyway.
| dvirsky wrote:
| To be honest Gimp is a terrible and embarrassing name, that
| IMO should have been changed years ago by the original
| creators. This is a world class incredible piece of
| software with over two decades of legacy, not some toy
| project.
| Avamander wrote:
| Only for a small part of the English-speaking community
| though.
| dvirsky wrote:
| I mostly read it as a reference to Pulp Fiction (which I
| think was the intent) and that doesn't make it much
| better.
| buovjaga wrote:
| You are correct:
| https://www.xach.com/gg/1997/1/profile/1/ Gimp Gazette 1
| January 1997
|
| "At the time, Pulp Fiction was the hot movie and a single
| word popped into my mind while we were tossing out name
| ideas. It only took a few more minutes to determine what
| the 'G' stood for."
| prokoudine wrote:
| > A hostile fork
|
| As a GIMP contributor, I have to disagree here.
|
| Our first interaction was indeed far from being pleasant.
| However, they now seem to have a much better understanding
| of just how much effort it takes to rebrand something like
| GIMP and they now realize the technical implications of
| rebranding as far as functions in the source code (broken
| plugins).
|
| They also reportedly started moderating their community
| with regards to how much crap it is allowed to post about
| the original GIMP project :) Which is also really good to
| know.
|
| Finally, the guy who maintains the rebranding fork has been
| a regular on our IRC channel since last autumn or so. I
| think things are slowly getting better.
|
| I'm not sure how much time they are going to need to roll
| out the first release of their own GEGL-based image editor,
| I'm not even sure if there's even any code to build and
| see. But personally, I think they'd have far less friction
| if they started out with that part.
|
| All in all, I wish angry people left them alone. I don't
| think it's in anyone's real interests to have all this shit
| swinging. And I definitely don't like the idea of GIMP
| being in the center of this.
| Tomte wrote:
| Good to know. My use of "hostile" was precisely informed
| by that terrible GitHub issue thread and the Twitter
| shitstorm.
|
| I'm glad that sensible minds have prevailed and you've
| found a way to work alongside each other.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| I thought the name was funny and cool when I first dabbled
| with Linux as a teenager in the early 00s, sorta added to
| linux feeling rebellious and more hackery.
|
| But nowadays where it has to be used across so many schools
| because its the only application they can afford I do think
| it was inappropriate and should have been changed.
|
| Then again I think a better future is possible for image
| editing, cloning Photoshop poorly isn't the only solution
| to the problem.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I personally really don't think that some US schools
| anecdotally not using GIMP because of it's name is worth
| ruining decades of tutorials and documentation for the
| entire rest of the world.
|
| FWIW, GIMP has been installed on every single educational
| computer I've interacted with from pre-elementary school
| to college, in both French (Quebec, France, Morocco),
| Arabic (Morocco) and English (Quebec) schooling systems.
| jansan wrote:
| I take comfort in knowing that people with common sense
| are still the majority on this planet, even if social
| media is suggesting the opposite.
| prokoudine wrote:
| > cloning Photoshop poorly isn't the only solution to the
| problem
|
| Cloning Photoshop, poorly or otherwise, has nothing to do
| with GIMP.
| enriquto wrote:
| So many useful reasons to fork a project, and these guys
| somehow managed to find an absolutely ridiculous one.
| whisps wrote:
| Isn't that the beauty of OSS? People can fork projects
| for whatever reason they want to.
|
| They are not at all hostile to GIMP--they encourage
| donating to the GIMP org--but I think their reasons for
| an alternative are sound:
|
| _Glimpse Image Editor is an optional alternative
| intended to assist users that are offended or made
| uncomfortable by the "gimp" name, and assist free
| software advocates that encounter barriers when they
| recommend the GNU Image Manipulation Program to friends,
| family, coworkers and employers._
|
| However, Glimpse does have some other differences from
| GIMP which might interest you:
|
| _We also focus on making the software more "enterprise
| ready" so it is easier to modify and distribute for
| schools and workplaces. That means fewer "easter eggs",
| improved build and packaging tooling/documentation,
| backported fixes on a known-stable base we support for at
| least a year, and a more efficient Windows installer. We
| also plan to have a more predictable release cadence, as
| that will assist IT departments with their software
| deployment schedules._
|
| https://github.com/glimpse-editor/Glimpse
| jansan wrote:
| They can do with their time whatever they want, but
| creating a fork to remove all light-hearted and fun parts
| of a software feels a bit dumb.
| throwanem wrote:
| If Gimp implementors had spent less time on "light-
| hearted and fun" and more on boring but actually
| important stuff like rendering text well, I might not
| have spent the last decade or so steering everyone I
| possibly can away from Gimp and toward Photoshop for
| professional work.
|
| I took a chance on the Gimp because I believed in the
| cause - I _wanted_ it to be a viable alternative to
| Photoshop. It very nearly cost my firm a contract big
| enough that losing it would probably have put us out of
| business - and would certainly have put me out of a job.
| Software that screws up that badly doesn 't get a second
| chance.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Well, I suspect they build the thing to the degree they
| need the thing. I use GIMP for some stuff but I can't
| draw on it like I can draw on Krita, for instance. Pity
| it didn't work for you.
| prokoudine wrote:
| > I took a chance on the Gimp ... It very nearly cost my
| firm a contract big enough that losing it would probably
| have put us out of business... Software that screws up
| that badly doesn't get a second chance.
|
| I'll be 100% blunt and unpleasant here, OK?
|
| You tried using this software in production without prior
| testing. And yet somehow the developers of that software
| are to blame? I'm afraid, this means that in the decade
| that passed since then you learned nothing.
| throwanem wrote:
| Who said anything about a lack of prior testing? I hadn't
| used it with such a business-critical client before, but
| that's not the same as saying I hadn't _used_ it before.
|
| It's also not the same thing as saying I am, or then was,
| a fool. But your own uncharitable and erroneous
| assumptions are your concern, not mine, for all that they
| and others like them have long since ceased to surprise
| me in the context of criticizing a beloved FSF flagship
| product.
| prokoudine wrote:
| "I made a choice that was wrong for our business because
| I didn't know enough, but I'm not the guy to blame".
|
| No, you still haven't learned a thing.
| throwanem wrote:
| I mean, look, I get it, okay? You're a Gimp contributor
| [1], it's easy to feel attacked when somebody criticizes
| your work, especially when that work is very meaningful
| to you. But that's no excuse to deliberately
| mischaracterize what I've been saying, as you have done
| in this thread. If you think I'm wrong, you can find a
| way to say so that doesn't require also calling me
| incompetent.
|
| As I said, I understand that it's easy to feel attacked
| when someone criticizes your work. But that's still no
| excuse to make it personal, the way you're doing here, or
| the way you have considerable prior form [2] for doing.
| It's not just that this sort of behavior on your part is
| rude and uncalled for, although it is also those things.
| Such behavior - and I'd think this would be important to
| you, even if simple courtesy evidently is not - gives an
| extremely poor representation of the same project you're
| trying to defend.
|
| I'm not going to get any further into this with you,
| because there's clearly no point in doing so. Your mind
| is, by all the available evidence, _extremely_ made up,
| and I don 't come to Hacker News to be pointlessly
| insulted.
|
| But, to briefly reiterate in parting what others have
| already said at length, you might consider changing your
| behavior, whether to maintain civility in discussions of
| this sort, or if you can't manage that, then simply to
| avoid engaging in them at all. What you're doing right
| now does neither the Gimp, nor its current and past
| contributors, any good at all.
|
| [1] https://www.gimp.org/author/alexandre-prokoudine.html
|
| [2] https://www.gimpusers.com/forums/gimp-
| developer/21084-alexan...
| mtmail wrote:
| The write 'fewer', not to remove all. And it's one of
| many changes listed, not the main one.
| karatestomp wrote:
| Even Excel has (had?) a secret flight sim.
| throwanem wrote:
| Not for a quarter century now, more or less.
|
| Whimsy is a wonderful thing, taken in moderation. It has
| no place in tools meant for serious work.
| lynndotpy wrote:
| Had -- Microsoft has essentially had a no-easter-eggs
| policy since at least 2002 as part of their "Trustworthy
| Computing" initiative.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustworthy_computing
|
| They have a blog post from 2005 on the matter:
| https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
| us/archive/blogs/larryosterman...
|
| > One of the aspects of Trustworthy Computing is that you
| can trust what's on your computer. Part of that means
| that there's absolutely NOTHING on your computer that
| isn't planned. If the manufacturer of the software that's
| on every desktop in your company can't stop their
| developers from sneaking undocumented features into the
| product (even features as relatively benign as an Easter
| Egg), how can you be sure that they've not snuck some
| other undocumented feature into the code.
| enriquto wrote:
| This "Trustworthy computing" thing is 100% bogus if you
| cannot compile the code yourself.
| Avamander wrote:
| https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-
| windows-10s-windows-fe...
|
| Hmm.
| Drdrdrq wrote:
| Ironic, given the tracking built into Windows 10 Home.
| frenchyatwork wrote:
| Oh, that was very much planned.
| enriquto wrote:
| > We also focus on making the software more "enterprise
| ready" so it is easier to modify and distribute for
| schools and workplaces. That means fewer "easter eggs",
|
| Honestly, I don't understand how can people be so
| severely misguided. If one place would benefit greatly
| for easter eggs in free software is precisely a school.
|
| But if they are backporting useful documentation, well,
| it's alright. There's nothing wrong with a fork, but the
| stated reasons are dumb.
| frenchyatwork wrote:
| > Honestly, I don't understand how can people be so
| severely misguided.
|
| Sounds like a good description of school administration
| to me.
|
| Creativity is critical to a good education, but it's also
| difficult to measure. Educators want to be able to show
| (to themselves and others) that they're being effective
| in a measurable way, so unless you're being creative in a
| specific and controlled fashion, it's a distraction.
| dvaun wrote:
| According to their FAQ[0] they will periodically incorporate
| updates.
|
| [0] https://glimpse-editor.github.io/about/#is-forking-the-
| proje...
| ktzar wrote:
| I just wish it got features that were in Photoshop in the early
| 00s. Adjustment layers, basic effects as part of the layers ...
| FreakyT wrote:
| The thing that always irritated me about GIMP is that any
| functionality gaps between it and Photoshop would always be
| summarily dismissed as "oh no, you're just _used to Photoshop_
| ".
|
| It looks like it may have been fixed now, but I distinctly
| remember GIMP having separate tools for "scale", "move", and
| "rotate", each of which had slightly different UIs. People
| didn't find that confusing because it was "different from
| Photoshop", they found it confusing because that's a _terrible
| UI_.
| prokoudine wrote:
| I think you are talking about the Unified Transform tool in
| GIMP. It's been around for 6 years or so, but we only made it
| part of a stable release two years ago.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| I really wish that people would see there are possibilities
| beyond that dated system.
|
| Feel like we're doomed to the ideas of the Photoshop team from
| 20 years ago.
| MrLeap wrote:
| Right? Data structure wise, layers are a stack. We've got
| fancier things we could use to generate images.
|
| What about a digraph? A node graph editor for compositing
| would be pretty cool. It'd get you kind of what you have in
| blender / unreal / unity's vfx graph / shader graph.
|
| I like the push for everything to be non destructive, but
| it'd be cool if I could, in a reduced input "live" kind of
| way, see before/after choices -- so I can make adjustments
| like an optometrist.
|
| I make a lot of texture masks for interactive 3d stuff, the
| digraph approach would be nice if it let me bitpack things in
| a more complicated way into color channels than what's
| possible now.
|
| Maybe what I'm actually asking for is more photoshop-y like
| tools in blender?
| FreakyT wrote:
| I think if you go too far down this path you end up with a
| tool that's utterly incomprehensible to the majority of
| your user base. Layers may be simplistic, but they're
| relatively easy to understand.
| gmfawcett wrote:
| With layer groups, it's rather more a tree than a stack. A
| full DAG approach might be interesting.
| prokoudine wrote:
| Weeeeeellll, GIMP is based on an image processing engine that
| is built around direct acyclic graphs. We are still not sure
| how much of that we will expose to users when the time comes
| to work on non-destructive editing. But it's a possibility.
| johnchristopher wrote:
| Can I apply a drop-down shadow to a layer in GIMP, move that
| layer around and disable or tweak (color, distance, fade,
| orientation, etc.) the drop-down shadow as will in a non-
| destructive way for the underlying image/pixels ?
| fimdomeio wrote:
| Am I the only one that looks at the gimp ui screenshot and feels
| there's something terrible wrong with the ui. It looks like the
| whole interface was diseigned for a different text size and now
| all the proper spacing between elements is gone.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| Before I switched to MacOS, Gimp was my goto photo editor and I
| still have much love for this most excellent piece of software.
| Even though the interface was a bit clunky in some ways, it was
| one of the early/ best great apps for desktop Linux.
|
| A lot of people forget that the G in GTK stands for Gimp, it is
| arguably the foundation of much of modern Linux GUI.
|
| This makes me want to take a swing at desktop Linux again.
| akandiah wrote:
| > A lot of people forget that the G in GTK stands for Gimp
|
| Source? It's always stood for Gnome Toolkit. You must be
| confusing this with the GDK (GIMP Drawing Kit) that's between
| the library layer and the display server. The GDK is part of
| the toolkit.
| homarp wrote:
| GTK was originally designed and used in the GNU Image
| Manipulation Program (GIMP) as a replacement of the Motif
| toolkit;
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTK
| homarp wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/19990417052141/http://www.linux
| w...
|
| "GTk (GIMP Toolkit), the windowing toolkit that now lies at
| the core of the Gnome desktop, was originally written as
| part of GIMP."
| nwallin wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTK#History
|
| > GTK was originally designed and used in the GNU Image
| Manipulation Program (GIMP) as a replacement of the Motif
| toolkit; at some point Peter Mattis became disenchanted with
| Motif and began to write his own GUI toolkit named the GIMP
| toolkit and had successfully replaced Motif by the 0.60
| release of GIMP.[36] Finally GTK was re-written to be object-
| oriented and was renamed GTK+.[37] This was first used in the
| 0.99 release of GIMP. GTK was subsequently adopted for
| maintenance by the GNOME Foundation, which uses it in the
| GNOME desktop environment.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| gimp has always been one of the ugliest user interfaces. even
| now it looks significantly worse than most linux apps.
| matt_kantor wrote:
| You may know this, but there is an official version of GIMP for
| macOS[1]. There are a couple weird things like non-native
| open/save dialogs, but it's surprisingly usable.
|
| [1]: https://www.gimp.org/downloads
| tobylane wrote:
| I use Seashore, which appears to be on version 2.5. It's a
| port of gimp to native aqua.
| https://github.com/robaho/seashore
| _eht wrote:
| I've been using Gimp non-professionally for almost eight years
| now and the latest releases this last couple years have made it
| such a pleasure to use. Great job team.
| pkulak wrote:
| Okay, I was just going to comment on how much I enjoy using
| Gimp, and the stories I've been hearing over the years about
| bad usability baffle me. I've really only started using it
| recently, and it's been an absolute joy to use.
| asutekku wrote:
| I think Gimp has the same problem a lot of FOSS seems to
| have. They are extremely powerful on the right hands but
| because open source community doesn't have that much of an UX
| designers, they are really unoptimal to use and the learning
| curve is so steep most people won't bother
| cameronbrown wrote:
| Maybe UX designers value their time better.
| yoz-y wrote:
| I think it's more of a philosophy problem. In FOSS you
| have the power and will to get things done, so you don't
| want to be waiting for sketches or in an endless
| discussion about details with a designer.
|
| Commercial products work on different timelines and have
| different goals, and ultimately the developers are often
| not the users so they don't really care one way or other
| to follow somebody else's design.
|
| Ideally you get somebody who is both a great designer and
| a coder but those are few (Asesprite comes to mind)
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| In college they taught us Adobe tools. Around the same time I
| was picking up FLOSS and dual booting Redhat. And GIMP's UI
| used different terminology and menu nesting. Some of GIMP's
| choices seemed confusing or redundant.
|
| I've grown more accustomed to GIMP since my job doesn't
| justify Adobe prices. But it's still quirky to me.
| prokoudine wrote:
| You know, I'm still perplexed that, in Photoshop, you
| activate all tools from the toolbox except the effin
| unified transform tool which you need to call from menu (or
| learn the shortcut, I believe it's Ctrl+T). Photoshop is
| actually full of weird stuff like that. At my previous job,
| whenever I pointed that out to our designer, he went, like,
| 'Yeah, but what do you want? This software is 30 years
| old'. That's something I don't commonly hear people
| admitting on interwebz though :)
| themodelplumber wrote:
| These are really great changes. I haven't 100% adapted to the
| latest with Gimp but hope to get more time in for play. The broad
| changes in 2.10 were driving me crazy on a recent, more serious
| comic art project, so I reverted to 2.8.
|
| Since that time though, I'm getting used to the changes, and the
| non-destructive techniques are really appreciated, especially
| compared to the old contingency methods I was using like saving
| backup layers.
|
| Gimp is, to me anyway, almost a completely different app now.
| natch wrote:
| A previous version of 2.10 broke so many things for me on macOS
| it was unusable. I also went back to 2.8, 2.8.22 specifically.
| The things that broke were tiny little trivial sounding
| behaviors that would be hard to document in a ticket, or subtle
| to describe, yet with huge workflow impact. I feel little hope
| anyone working on the project noticed what they had broken, or
| will understand what was lost, or would think that any of the
| tickets, if reported, would merit prioritization, but together
| they added up to quite a setback. I'm thinking it will take a
| few rounds of major updates to make it worthwhile for me to try
| again.
| benbristow wrote:
| Nice work!
|
| Still think Affinity Photo for PS23.99 one-time is a better
| option if you're on Windows/Mac though. I've easily switched from
| Photoshop which I've never been able to do with GIMP.
| wetpaws wrote:
| A gentle reminder that Krita is free and basically on par with
| PS. I was struggling to migrate to Linux for years till Krita
| matured and adopted Photoshop keybindings.
| barking wrote:
| That is one absolutely beautiful website.
| mythz wrote:
| Never heard of them, thanks for the reference looks like a
| great high quality app, just bought it on iPad (was only $9.99
| atm).
|
| On macOS I use Pixelmator which is one of the best quality Apps
| I have on macOS, was also only a small 1 time purchase.
|
| Edit:
|
| Spent the last 1hr playing with it on Windows, gorgeous iOS &
| Mac App of the year quality Apps like this never exist on
| Windows, at USD $25 it's a steal (50% off until June 20).
| Finally a Photoshop replacement quality App for my hobby design
| tasks that I don't need to maintain a subscription for.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| What bugs me about Pixelmator is that they will not take your
| money unless you buy the product through the Mac app store,
| and that means that if you want to run it on older hardware
| or an older version of MacOS you're SOL.
|
| Contrast with Affinity, which supports lots of older versions
| of MacOS and will happily take your money on their own
| website. Affinity is the clear winner in this contest for me.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Pixelmator relies heavily on features of Core Image which
| are not available in versions of MacOS that don't have the
| App Store.
|
| Affinity does everything in the CPU, which is also why it's
| slower - Pixelmator gets a lot of GPU acceleration.
|
| (And frankly, complaining that it doesn't work on versions
| of Mac OS released over _9_ years ago seems unreasonable.)
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| The latest Pixelmator won't work on MacOS 10.12, which
| was released 4 years ago. 10.12 most certainly has both
| Core Image and the App Store.
|
| Older versions of Pixelmator did work on 10.12. If you
| can find one, you can download it. But you can neither
| purchase it or activate it beyond the 30-day demo period.
| badsectoracula wrote:
| How is it unreasonable when other programs do work and
| your computers still works otherwise fine? Why waste
| money by dumping an otherwise capable computer just
| because of Apple's arbitrary planned obsolescence?
| protomyth wrote:
| For macOS, Acorn is a pretty nice program for those that
| don't need every bell and whistle and it works (and is
| updated) fairly regularly.
| jorvi wrote:
| You shouldn't trust Pixelmator. They basically took every
| single complaint about Pixelmator, sat on those for years,
| and instead of improving Pixelmator they pretty much
| abandoned it and suddenly released Pixelmator Pro with all
| those features and fixes instead
|
| It's the same as Flexibits updating Fantastical, switching to
| a subscription model (the app used to be EUR6 but now is
| EUR50/y) and both putting old features behind paywalls and
| 'unlock this with premium' buttons everywhere that you can't
| hide
|
| I just can't & won't trust companies that pull switcharoos
| like that
|
| Affinity are good folks as far as I can see, and haven't
| pulled stunts like that yet
|
| Edit: well I guess HN loves everything moving to a
| subscription world. What the hell..
| [deleted]
| mythz wrote:
| I've yet to pay twice for Pixelmator which I've used for
| years & they've never nagged me once, will gladly pay again
| in a heartbeat.
|
| It's great they offer a different & improved SKU as I don't
| see how they could develop such a quality App for a low 1
| time payment & was concerned for their sustainability,
| happy to hear they offer a quality upgrade that I can
| upgrade to support continued development of their quality
| app.
| jorvi wrote:
| The biggest example is single window mode. This was the
| most requested and most upvoted request for years. It was
| quite obvious that behind the scenes they
| decided/realized 'hey, if this feature is _that_
| important to people let's purposely hold it back until we
| can use it to force people to upgrade. Genius!'
|
| I understand that there is a limited support window and I
| understand that sustainable software development requires
| version upgrades, but the way Pixelmator did it left a
| foul taste in many many users their mouth.
| morsch wrote:
| Caveat emptor.
| andrekandre wrote:
| just a single data point to be sure...
|
| but for me, i didnt like the ui of pixelmator pro, and am
| glad they left the older one alone, and made the totaly
| redesigned one a separate app, as i would have just
| abandoned it for afinity or something else (not saying
| pixelmator has a perfect ui by any stretch tho)
| chrisseaton wrote:
| What's your problem?
|
| They introduced a new and improved product based on
| feedback. Do you think they should have done that for free?
|
| Personally I prefer subscription model.
| the_af wrote:
| Features-wise, possibly. If you like your software to be Free
| (as in "libre") it's probably not better than GIMP. For some
| people, like the ones who support the FSF, this matters.
| barking wrote:
| Since FSF only has 4800 paying supporters worldwide, does it
| matter to that many people, globally, as a point of
| principle.
| the_af wrote:
| Um, yes it does? I'm not a paying supporter and I didn't
| mean it that way, but I can _assure_ you there are more
| than 4800 people in the world that care about Free
| software. Even if there were only 4800, would it really
| change my point?
| [deleted]
| prox wrote:
| Yes, especially performance is top notch, and switching is from
| Photoshop is a breeze.
| [deleted]
| kenforthewin wrote:
| Love gimp and happy to see new releases. I wish they would change
| the name.
| Kye wrote:
| I wonder what the overlap is between people who screamed "if
| you don't like the name, fork it!" for 20+ years and people who
| lost it over Glimpse doing exactly that.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _I wish they would change the name._
|
| It's time to pick a name that's not offensive. Far more than
| the UI, this has hurt the project more than its contributors
| can imagine. I've given up evangelizing it because of responses
| I've gotten to the name.
|
| Like, call it "Imp". Short, cute, and the icon/mascot
| practically draws itself. It's not rocket surgery.
| teknopurge wrote:
| love Gimp. top-notch OSS project, and has been for 20 years. that
| is all.
| axegon_ wrote:
| Good job! Haven't opened gimp or photoshop in years but looking
| at it, it seems to resemble photoshop _A_LOT_ as far as UI is
| concerned and that's probably a good thing: photoshop folks would
| feel more at home. Specifically what really impresses me is how
| visually similar it looks(to me anyway), knowing that GTK is
| powering it. Very impressive!
| innocenat wrote:
| Though I have yet see any heavy-duty image manipulation program
| that doesn't resemble Photoshop.
| andrewla wrote:
| Of note is that the origin of GTK is that it was the UI toolkit
| for Gimp -- the "Gimp ToolKit" evolved into the standalone
| "Gnome ToolKit".
| maddyboo wrote:
| Before I got into programming as a teenager, GIMP was one of the
| first "advanced" pieces of software I really dove into. I learned
| so much just messing around, creating wallpapers, editing
| screenshots from games, making photo-manipulation "art", logos
| for imaginary companies (and later even a few real ones). I am so
| grateful such a wonderful, free, open source piece of software
| existed for me to play with, I think it's part of what sparked my
| interest in computing.
| jhoechtl wrote:
| Gimp has fallen far behind of what is an advanced software. The
| GUI is atrocious and it's still using GTK2 which is blurry on
| my scaled screen. And as it seems there is no way out anytime
| soon.
|
| It was advanded - 10 years ago.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| The GUI is perfectly fine. I use it all the time and it does
| everything I need. Sometimes I have to look up how to do
| something but that's true of any program. What exactly is it
| missing?
| murermader wrote:
| I think his point was more about the GUI technology,
| instead of the GUI layout. The GUI does not behave very
| well on HiDPI screens with scaling.
| Helloworldboy wrote:
| I had basically this exact experience with GIMP, truly life-
| changing software for me.
| abacadaba wrote:
| Automating some tedious tasks to generate 1000's of image sets
| with python-fu was one of the things that made me love
| programming. Also was my introduction to lisp when i tried
| first with script-fu, but that was mostly incomprehensible to
| me since im dum.
| justwalt wrote:
| In a similar vein, the thing that got me to try Linux when my
| previous computing/programming experience was VBScript in
| high school and Matlab in my ChemE degree, was a bash one
| liner that renamed and organized by date some photographs
| that a group of many friends had taken from a vacation trip.
| I thought it was incredible that that kind of power was
| available a terminal away, and also a first class feature.
| gmfawcett wrote:
| I found that my GIMP skills increased _significantly_ after
| browsing through the great tutorial collection, "Meet the
| GIMP!". I'm not an artist by any stretch, but even just learning
| how to use layers and layer masks properly made a huge
| difference.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/user/MeetGIMP
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-06-11 23:00 UTC)