[HN Gopher] Gimp 2.99.2 - GTK3 user interface toolkit
___________________________________________________________________
Gimp 2.99.2 - GTK3 user interface toolkit
Author : constantinum
Score : 101 points
Date : 2020-11-06 19:40 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.gimp.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.gimp.org)
| zeotroph wrote:
| What is it with the simplified Gtk file dialogs?
|
| Whenever I use one I am instantly annoyed because I get the
| impression that some UI-concept from MacOS was badly copied, but
| is a mismatch for arguably more poweruser-centric Linux user
| base. Once I discovered that Ctrl-L can bring up the url/file
| path I found it at least usable, but still not pleasant.
|
| Am I using it wrong? Can I change the default system wide
| somehow? Is there a design document which can finally convince me
| that this is generally a good idea, just not for me?
|
| Also, some Gtk apps had/have tearable menus, a shame these went
| out of fashion. Is there something fundamentally wrong with that,
| too, or can this be enable globally for Gtk, and maybe even Qt
| apps?
| JaggedJax wrote:
| Thank you for the Ctrl+L trick! This has been killing me for
| ages.
| blibble wrote:
| you can change it system-wide... but there's a bug which means
| it constantly gets reset
|
| the most annoying thing about the dialogs is if you type a
| filename in: instead of selecting the file with that name it
| starts doing a recursive search...
|
| no-one has EVER wanted to do that
| jl6 wrote:
| This is rapidly becoming GNOME's most famous bug. The
| developers still claim it's working as intended.
| pmontra wrote:
| That's why I'm using Nemo as file manager in Ubuntu.
| Unfortunately the files dialog is still Nautilus but it's
| okish there, given I don't have to do much when picking a
| file or deciding where to save it.
| ravenstine wrote:
| > Plugins now possible with Python 3, _JavaScript_ , Lua, and
| Vala
|
| :O
|
| This is a game changer for me. I could use Python, but I'm a full
| time JavaScript developer and I'm just not the biggest fan of
| Python in the world. But if I could script in Gimp using
| JavaScript... that'd be sick!
| iso8859-1 wrote:
| A lot of GNOME is written in JavaScript now, this is just GIMP
| catching up to that ecosystem.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Which is why I eventually switched to XFCE. GJS use is quite
| noticeable.
| jamesgeck0 wrote:
| IIRC, the optimization benchmarks Canonical did have
| indicated that JS hasn't been the issue in most of the
| Gnome performance issues they've worked on.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Well, https://feaneron.com/2018/04/20/the-infamous-gnome-
| shell-mem...
| snvzz wrote:
| Why would they do this switch on a minor version number release?
| Florin_Andrei wrote:
| The N.99 pattern is usually meant to be "pre-release of
| (N+1).0".
|
| And this is a development release anyway. Stable is still 2.10
| snvzz wrote:
| Oh, I see. Not sure where I got the idea I was running
| 2.99.1.
| [deleted]
| heavyset_go wrote:
| They really need to get around to either adopting the Glimpse[1]
| name, or dropping their current one for something else.
|
| The project's name makes it hard to recommend it in a
| professional context even when it would get the job done well.
|
| [1] https://glimpse-editor.org/
| bogwog wrote:
| Did these people seriously fork GIMP just so they can change
| the name?! I didn't even know anyone cared about that.
|
| I've been using GIMP for many years (since at least 2008) and
| have heard _many_ valid and not very valid complaints, but
| never anything about the name being offensive.
|
| GIMP has a lot of problems hurting its adoption in professional
| settings, but the name is hardly one of them. Creating a fork
| just for that is bike-shedding to the extreme.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| We've used it in visual fx houses since 1998, no one ever
| mentioned the name. Many folks don't even know the word, it's
| British I think.
| Kye wrote:
| GIMP devs and fans for 24 years when people bring the name
| up: "If you don't like the name, fork it."
|
| What's the actual problem here?
| sigzero wrote:
| Only a "woke" one really.
| Kye wrote:
| I know what each of these words mean individually but I
| have no idea what you're trying to say.
| russholmes wrote:
| It is an unpleasant slur both in UK and US English.
| https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gimp
| srslygetalife wrote:
| Or what? A special SJW forces squad will be sent to harass
| developers team and do some hostile takeover of project because
| some group wrongly believes they're morally allowed to do so?
|
| I knew at least one lunatic person will bring this "
| _problematic_ " issue of Gimp name that nobody else gives
| flying fckgw about.
| Errsher wrote:
| Do you work with a bunch of children?
| terramex wrote:
| Wow, that splash screen is so bad that it wraps around the scale
| and is actually amazing. I admire not trying to compete with
| Adobe's colorful, highly polished but extremely boring splash
| screens.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| I think this has been the tradition with GIMP dev version
| splash screens. They are really tongue-in-cheek. It'll
| change...
| tripa wrote:
| I wasn't too happy when my distro upgraded from 2.8 to 2.10. The
| new icon set for the toolbox may be more trendy, but I have a
| _much_ harder time recognizing /understanding which is which not
| they're all monochrome.
|
| Glad to see HiDPI come up.
| MildlySerious wrote:
| The silver lining to that is that I ended up using shortcuts
| that I never bothered memorizing before.
| Kjeldahl wrote:
| Yeah, except I guess 98% of HiDPI users are on MacOS, a
| platform they are currently unable to create builds for.
| tripa wrote:
| So I am the 2%. Glad anyway :)
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| It's 2020. I've been sitting in front of two 4k monitors for
| perhaps five years now, under Ubuntu Mate. Every month or so
| an HN comment implies it doesn't work. ;-)
| reidrac wrote:
| You can change that on the settings. I know because I had the
| same problem and you can choose a more familiar iconset.
| Dahoon wrote:
| >You can change that on the settings.
|
| Always a valid reply in Linux discussions.
| ohazi wrote:
| Does anyone know if those hideous GTK3 title bars are rendered by
| the client (GIMP), or is the person taking the screenshot just
| using GNOME?
| klodolph wrote:
| The title bars look identical to everything else on my Gnome 3
| system.
| ohazi wrote:
| Right, and I'm running XFCE with a different theme, or i3
| without any titlebars, and every GTK3 app that uses client-
| side window decorations looks out of place.
|
| I'm not running Gnome 3, I don't ever intend to run Gnome 3,
| and GTK shouldn't poison the last 15 years of GTK
| applications to try to bump up the Gnome 3 adoption numbers
| by attrition.
|
| It's petty and obnoxious.
| cycloptic wrote:
| The titlebars are a design choice made by the app
| developer, not by GNOME. At least in the sense that it's
| only part of GNOME's design guidelines, app developers
| using GTK don't have to follow it if they don't want. There
| are various ways you can configure/modify a GTK app to hide
| the titlebars and attempt to use server-side decorations.
| But either way you are faced with the choice of potentially
| hiding important functionality if the app developer has
| decided to put buttons in the titlebar, or having two
| titlebars like with this patch:
| https://github.com/PCMan/gtk3-nocsd
| [deleted]
| xalava wrote:
| Just on time for GTK 4. Pretty ironic considering that GTK stands
| for Gimp ToolKit.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| And Inkscape only updated to 3 earlier this year. I wish the
| GTK devs would realize that these applications are the life
| blood of their toolkit. Calculators, calendars, and even mail
| apps can be popped out easy peasy when they need to be.
| Applications like GIMP, Inkscape, and Ardour take years to
| become usable and competitive.
| jorvi wrote:
| Only half on topic, but I wish GIMP garnered the same amount of
| industry support that Blender has. It has the bones to be great,
| it just needs a lot of UI and UX polish, and in open source those
| things always seem to attract the least passion (which is okay!
| if people work on something for free and of their own accord,
| they can pick whatever they want to work on). If some serious
| industry dough was being poured into GIMP, they could pay people
| to work on the less-fun bits.
|
| Tbh they also should ditch the NIH attitude. Yes, sometimes
| Photoshop's behaviour or keybinds are more convoluted than
| GIMP's, but people have Photoshop's quirks ingrained and making
| the transition easier is what counts. Blender has an amazing
| 'industry keybinds' option.
| TooCreative wrote:
| No non-destructive adjustment layers ...
|
| People are waiting for non-destructive adjustment layers for over
| 10 years now.
|
| Does HN exist this long? Lets do a search... It does!
|
| 10 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2091318
|
| 9 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2890549
|
| 8 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4814360
|
| 7 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5912145
|
| 6 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8969088
|
| 5 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9932717
|
| 4 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12092173
|
| 3 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15101108
|
| 2 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17926027
|
| 1 year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20422647
|
| Today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25011401
| ddevault wrote:
| Gimp is a volunteer-run open source project. You ready to get
| cracking on that patch?
| formerly_proven wrote:
| The Gimp devs taking nine years to port from Gimp Toolkit 2 to
| Gimp Toolkit 3 kinda invalidates all claims about porting between
| Qt versions being too hard, doesn't it?
| bitwize wrote:
| GTK hasn't been the Gimp Toolkit in years. It's much more the
| GNOME Toolkit these days.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Yes, siding with you on this.
|
| Biggest fault of the Gtk/GNOME ecosystem these days is a
| small bunch of atrociously toxic people centering around
| RedHat shouting "Nobody besides me works on this, and that!
| So sit tightly, and shut up with your feedback!," while
| completely forgetting that it was them who scared off, and
| trolled out most normal people out of the GNOME community,
| including some of the best devs they had.
| Iwan-Zotow wrote:
| No, there are a lot of breaking changes beyond 2->3 transition.
| Basically, everything had changed: toolkit, extensions,
| styling, icons, theming
|
| Devs wanted to do it all at once
| jononor wrote:
| A major reason for not shipping GTK3 port, which was largely
| completed a long time ago, is that GIMP 2.x has a stable
| plugins API and GTK2+ is exposed in said API. At the same time
| there has been other major revamps of the API with changing
| image processing layer to use GEGL. It was decided to release
| both breaking changes as GIMP 3.x, instead of breaking first
| the one, then the other.
| jandrese wrote:
| The port from GTK2 to GTK3 isn't even that hard in my
| experience. It's a lot of typing but for the most part stuff
| works the same with a few exceptions (like tooltips).
|
| It's kind of important too because bugs in Gtk2 aren't getting
| fixed anymore. I ran into DBUS related issue with Gtk2 and
| ScrolledWindows in Ubuntu 20 and the dev response was basically
| "ew, gross, I'm not touching that". Fixing it required me to
| rewrite the app to use Gtk3 instead.
| brnt wrote:
| Is there any technical merit for Gtk at this point?
| pjmlp wrote:
| I guess being the one that is more GNU/Linux oriented, so
| that is what most managed languages frameworks bind to
| (Swing, SWT, GtkSharp, Gtk-rs, Gtkmm, PyGtk,...), specially
| because of GObject it is relatively easy to generate
| bindings.
| rebeccaskinner wrote:
| Maybe it's just familiarity, or I'm out of touch since it's
| been a few years since I was really evaluating the options,
| but I find GTK much nicer to work with than Qt. It seems to
| do better with language bindings too. GTK being a C API seems
| to make it a lot easier to auto-generate bindings for any
| language with an FFI. Qt, being both primarily a C++ API, and
| also with the custom preprocessor and signal/slot nonsense
| seems like it's much harder to make sensible bindings for.
| matthiasv wrote:
| > GTK being a C API seems to make it a lot easier to auto-
| generate bindings for any language with an FFI.
|
| Not only that but as outlined in that article, GObject
| introspection allows easy integration with most popular
| dynamic languages (most importantly JS and Python) without
| the need for specific bindings.
| nikodunk wrote:
| Damn! That looks a so much better than the GTK2 2.10 version. And
| better Wayland & HiDPI support - thank the stars.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-11-06 23:00 UTC)