How do I modify a selection ?
Yugo
to do is a most basic operation when, say, you want to create a picture
for a desktop: I want to modify a selection while keeping the aspect ratio.
I found out that you can create a selection of a given ratio by going to
the Dialog menu(1) of the selection tool. This dialog menu only appears in
the File menu of the GIMP interface, not if you right-click on the picture.
I have then found all kind of ways to bend the selection left and right,
but absolutely no way to do the most basic opereation: enlarge the
selection while keeping the aspect ration.
When I was using PaintShopPro in Windows, the ratio of the selection was
indicated in the status bar whenever it was modified. Pulling or pushing
the corners would enlarge or shrink the selection while keeping the aspect
ratio. Pulling the site would enlarge or shrink the selection while
modifying the aspect ratio. What's the advantage of having to open the
File - Dialog - Tool Options menu , then having to select whatever aspect
ratio you want and having to return to the menu if ever you want to change
it -- because, of course, menus close every time you choose an option --
whereas PSP could do that with the click of the mouse? I'm not sure I get
this.
I've googled the manuals, the guides, the tutorials: nothing. For a
moment, I tought I had found it: right click on the picture, select Select
- Grow, enlarge the size in the interface, then move the selection
anywhere you want with CTRL+ALT + mouse. Unfortunately the corners are
rounded automatically and I see no way to change this.
I'm appalled by all the time I've lost again this afternoon trying to
accomplish a basic operation that is so self-evident in an amateur
software in Windows. As I write these lines, The GIMP appears to me as an
awful lost of time, both in terms of learning as in a production context.
I don't care that the GIMP doesn't offer CMYK or that it does so through a
plug-in that might not work as well with Adobe's Pantone. I don't care
that's it's not entirely vector base or that it doesn't offer 24 bit
colors. But after all the hype I've read on the net about The GIMP, I
would expect it to do what's it's supposed to do without so much headache.
Reading all Those Fucking Manuals has no value per se, the only thing that
matters is having the job done efficiently. The fact that the GIMP is free
is no excuse: even paid at the minimum wage, you'd be much better off
buying a commercial software than using the GIMP. And that's exactly
Microsoft's argument for selling its software...
At the present time, I can't see how I can get halfway productive with The
GIMP. Every new step of learning is a nightmare. So, I wonder if there's
something very fundamental that I don't get or if the hype is totally
undeserved. Does GIMPShop make things so much easier? Will I still have to
open and reopen menus to achieve the most basic operations?
I suppose comp.graphics.apps.gimp is where the GIMP experts are. I hope
you can light my lantern.
Michael Schumacher
> I use version 1.2.5 of The Gimp. It's an old version, but what I'm
> trying to do is a most basic operation when, say, you want to create a
> picture for a desktop: I want to modify a selection while keeping the
> aspect ratio.
You can scale the selection and keep the aspect ratio while doing
so. I have however no idea if this is already possible in 1.2.
HTH,
Michael
--
GIMP > http://www.gimp.org | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp
Wiki > http://wiki.gimp.org | .de: http://gimpforum.de
Plug-ins > http://registry.gimp.org |
Michael Soibelman
Well I'm glad to see you found the correct newsgroup to post your Gimp
questions. Is there a reason you can't upgrade to a newer version ?? The
older version which you are using is very limited in its' capabilities.
Last time I tried to install in Windows it only took about 20-30 minutes.
I am quite certain you would find a newer version much more useful.
http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/stable.html
AS most users are not using the one you are it is difficult to 'go back' and
figure out how to do what you are trying. Forget reading the manuals.
Just try the newer version. And in a short while version 2.4 will be
released. All the features you want are in there. As I use the unstable
version (2.3.10) I can tell you these features are much improved.
P.S. I hope you can get over my earlier response to you. I was in a bad
mood. I apologize. ;-(
As for doing what you want in the older version make your selection. Then
edit -> copy. Then ->edit -> paste as -> new image. In the new image
select ->image -> scale. If you leave the lock icon alone changing one
value (width or height) scale the image while retaining the aspect ratio.
I'm fairly certain the version you're using functioned that way.
Yugo
> Is there a reason you can't upgrade to a newer version ??
None other than I use a 2 years old version of Slackware and many
softwares need upgrading, with the libraries changes and so on. I decided
I'd change all with my next change to Suse or Debian.
> The
> older version which you are using is very limited in its' capabilities.
> And in a short while version 2.4 will be
> released. All the features you want are in there.
You mean you can change size or ratio with only a click of the mouse? That
would be a pleasant surprise, but I can't help doubting it will ever
happen. We're told so oftent that th enext version will be better!
Windows', not necessarily Microsoft's, and Linux's software development
follow different routes.
The first version of a Windows software usually offers only very basic
features, but they work. Linux's developers OTOH often seem compelled to
offer all the paraphernalia of options that are at best awkard to use.
Sometimes they don't work at all. All the options seem to appear in
haphazard ways, they're repeated, they're in a menu here, but not there
and appear in some menus where you don't expect them at all. And when
you're tired of searching and you ask, you're told to RTFM when, the
doctumentation which, though it comes in thousands and thousands and
thousands of pages, rarely answers your questions.
This is a serious problem with Linux's development. I hope distro
developpers can orient developers in a more structured kind of development
by offering ONLY better thought-out software. From what I read on
Kanotix's forum, it seems that The GIMP will be dumped from the next release.
I don't know what will replace it. Maybe KDE's new IMP ? If so, it's
certainly far less powerful than The GIMP. But if users can at least
reframe a picture for their desktop without headaches, it would certainly
be a step in the right direction.
Tough quite powerful, programs like The GIMP give users so many heaches,
such a bad experience of Linux software, that they're certainly not a good
publicity for Linux. I put more hope in a little program that does its
thing cleanly that in a program that has been in developmen tfor years and
never succeeded in being but a joke productivity-wise.
Sorry to be harsh, but that's the way I feel. Now, if only I could
remember the name of that KDE program... Must be another acronym or
"inspired" name that bears no relation to the program's use. When are we
going to get out of this nonsense?
> P.S. I hope you can get over my earlier response to you. I was in a bad
> mood. I apologize. ;-(
No problem. Before you answer this time, try to think if there is not a
semblance of common sense in what I write here too. I'm not against Linux
because I say some things don't work. Linux's development did start 10
years after Microsoft's, but it started in Unix tracks. It was a huge
advantage -- see what Mac has done in so little time of this advnatage! --
that Linux was never able to capitalize on to build a market share. And
even though Linux is free software, market share is important, otherwise
Microsoft will set the standards -- these days, mainly through buying ISPs
-- and all you'll be able to do with your Linux computer is play solitaire
in your basement.
> As for doing what you want in the older version make your selection. Then
> edit -> copy. Then ->edit -> paste as -> new image. In the new image
> select ->image -> scale. If you leave the lock icon alone changing one
> value (width or height) scale the image while retaining the aspect ratio.
>
> I'm fairly certain the version you're using functioned that way.
No, it won't. Pasting the selection as a new image won't permit to grow
the selection. You can scale it, but not grow on what is not there
anymore. Anyways, for now, I'll redraw the selection until I find a
software that's more concerned about productivity.
Note: I was able once to grow a selection with the shift key and pulling a
corner, but only once. Maybe there is a bug or I accidentally did
something else that I didn't noticed.
Yugo
> Sorry to be harsh, but that's the way I feel. Now, if only I could
> remember the name of that KDE program...
For the records, it's a KOffice project called Krita. The name is
self-evident: everybody knows that Rita is very much in photo retouching.
Lord! So much work, so little common sense!
Yugo
> Well I'm glad to see you found the correct newsgroup to post your Gimp
> questions.
Yes, I suppose I did: there's hardly anybody here. What remains to be seen
is if it's because The GIMP is so easy to use or because, despite all the
hype, nobody uses it.
Doctor J. Frink
>I use version 1.2.5 of The Gimp. It's an old version, but what I'm trying
>to do is a most basic operation when, say, you want to create a picture
>for a desktop: I want to modify a selection while keeping the aspect ratio.
>
>I found out that you can create a selection of a given ratio by going to
>the Dialog menu(1) of the selection tool. This dialog menu only appears in
>the File menu of the GIMP interface, not if you right-click on the picture.
>
>I have then found all kind of ways to bend the selection left and right,
>but absolutely no way to do the most basic opereation: enlarge the
>selection while keeping the aspect ration.
The 2.2 version of GIMP will allow you to make rectangular or ellipsoid
selection freely or with a set aspect ratio.
You can then manipulate that selection with normal editing tools, such
as scale, which can be set to enlarge keeping width, height or aspect
fixed. Other tools like crop can have aspect ratio set or maintained.
Forget GIMP 1.2, you're just giving yourself a bad impression of what is
now a much better program IMO.
Frink
--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail'
See his mind here : http://www.cmp.liv.ac.uk/frink/
Annoy his mind here : pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook
"No sir, I didn't like it!" - Mr Horse
Yugo
> Forget GIMP 1.2, you're just giving yourself a bad impression of what is
> now a much better program IMO.
Well, since version 2.4 is just about to come out in two or three months,
it should correspond to the time I'll change my distro. I suppose it will
be included and I'll certainly give it a try.
But, you know, that version of PSP I tried was number 4. It was around...
1998, I suppose. It's now up to 10. Certainly, it didn't offer all The
GIMP's options, but it was functional. You didn't have to search for and
read the fucking manuals for hours to perform the most simple tasks. You
didn't have to open menus to just create... and resize a fixed aspect
ratio selection.
Excuse me, but I'm a bit fed up with all the hype and the meager results.
Michael Soibelman says that the next release will be a real breakthrough
in terms of usability. Sorry, I'm not a believer anymore. The GIMP has now
been in development for more than ten years and it still hasn't got an
efficient interface. Seeing the priority the GIMP team gives to its interface:
GIMP had eight projects accepted for this Summer of Code:
* Vector Layers
* Vanishing Point Cloning
* Healing Brush Tool
* GIMP Resource repository
* New Brush System
* JPEG 2000
* Ruby Scripting
* UI Improvements
I doubt very much that 2.4 will be much easier to use than 2.2 or 1.2. I
could hope and pray but I don't believe anymore in anything except more
headaches coming from The GIMP.
This crufty crap is way overhyped.
Doctor J. Frink
>
>This crufty crap is way overhyped.
Don't use it then.
You paid nothing for it, get free help for it and can even join in and
(help) fix things you don't like. If that's not good enough for you, pay
up for something else and use that.
Whinging on like a selfish git will get you nowhere.
Yugo
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:35:29 -0400, Yugo <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>This crufty crap is way overhyped.
>
>
> Don't use it then.
>
> You paid nothing for it, get free help for it and can even join in and
> (help) fix things you don't like. If that's not good enough for you, pay
> up for something else and use that.
>
> Whinging on like a selfish git will get you nowhere.
Yes, that's a very good description of the Linux spirit. If you're a
beta-tester for commercial software, they listen to you religiously
because they intend to sell the software to somebody like you and they
want to make sure it's utmostly functional.
Linux developers have a more simple view on the matter. They say "It's
free, stop whining!" That's how after 15 years of development Linux hasn't
caught 1% of the... voter's market. You know, those people who cast a ballot.
Keep up the good spirit!
John K. Herreshoff
If you find linux to be so frustrating, don't use it. You'll feel a lot
better.
John.
--
jkherr at power - net dot net (wipe the spaces)
K6KMJ
Yugo
> If you find linux to be so frustrating, don't use it. You'll feel a lot
> better.
Good answer! I really love Linux advocates. It's the fifth year of Linux
on the desktop and still, it's a total blank. Suse, despite the hype of
its new CEO about the "great services opportunities for [his] partners",
is nowhere close to make it happen.
Linux has failed also lamentably in the embedded devices market. It's
doing pretty good in the server market mainly because of Apache. And
thederided recent gains Microsoft made with GoDaddy were yesterday Linux's
pride.
Just twist the reality with words, is all Linux advocates do. Do you
remember when, in 1999, "evangelist" Eric S. Raymond answered this question:
Q: Five years from now, how many people will be using Linux?
A: If we continue to grow our user rate at the level we've been doing now,
[Raymond writes an arithmetic formula to determine this] we'd get six
doubling periods, which means just shy of a billion people, 860 million in
fact. I'm not expecting it to be quite that high because trends like this
tend to show logistic growth rather than exponential, and it's not clear
what the threshold is. I'd say somewhere near 750 million would be a good
conservative estimate.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr1999/nf90427c.htm
750 million people using Linux in 2004? Even in 2006, we're not close to
1/100 of this figure, unless, of course, you do like this Linux Counter
guy and you extrapolate 138699 registered users to 29 million. Why not to
1 billion, then? There are so many downloads and, as we know, most do not
end up as coasters but are used at least a thousand times for new single
boot installations.
Keep up your good Linux advocacy. Make sure you have the answer you just
made in your clipboard. As time goes by, it might come in more and more
handy. The important thing is that developers rest assured that they
shouldn't care about users. They're real geeks, they know the way!
John K. Herreshoff
> Anger, Flames, Destruction, Rants, Taunts.
Remember MSDOS of 20 years ago? It was command line, and so many people
could not use it. Then came the MS gui, and people could use 'computers.'
If you find linux to be so frustrating, don't use it. You'll feel much
better... Unless you like the free aspect of linux. Linux and its
freedom, however, takes some work, dedication, and insight. You won't get
something for nothing, even if it is free.
Yugo
> Remember MSDOS of 20 years ago? It was command line, and so many people
> could not use it. Then came the MS gui, and people could use 'computers.'
Most people could, but computers were too expemsive. I see no relation to
the present discussion.
> If you find linux to be so frustrating, don't use it. You'll feel much
> better... Unless you like the free aspect of linux. Linux and its
> freedom, however, takes some work, dedication, and insight.
Full bullshit! All that working with the GIMP in peculiar requires is that
you be ready to lose your time. It's just plain awkward and
counterproductive.
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
>> If you find linux to be so frustrating, don't use it. You'll feel much
>> better... Unless you like the free aspect of linux. Linux and its
>> freedom, however, takes some work, dedication, and insight.
>
> Full bullshit! All that working with the GIMP in peculiar requires is that
> you be ready to lose your time. It's just plain awkward and
> counterproductive.
Than take his advice and don't use it! What's your problem man. Neither
Gimp nor the Linux community force you to use the software and to spent
precious time writing flame baits. Every posting you write is more wasted
and lost time for you.
Use the software that fits your needs best and relax.
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Yugo
Good answer! I really love Linux advocates. It's the fifth year of Linux
Joal Heagney
<snip>
Am I imagining it, or is this response word for word the same one you
used after John kicked in?
And you should be careful of lumping all us GIMPites under the banner
"Linux advocates". There are a lot of users in this group who use Mac
and/or MS. I use Linux, but think of myself as an "Open Choice advocate"
rather than a "Linux advocate" - I personally don't care what you use,
as long as you don't try to take away our rights to use what WE want to
use.
You've listed plenty of reasons why you don't think Gimp is the program
for you. Okay, we've heard and understood. What we don't understand is
why you don't use your power of choice and act on that realisation? :)
Bu-bye.
Joal Heagney
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
> Yugo wrote:
>> Good answer! I really love Linux advocates. It's the fifth year of Linux
>> on the desktop and still, it's a total blank. Suse, despite the hype of
>> its new CEO about the "great services opportunities for [his] partners",
>> is nowhere close to make it happen.
>>
>> Linux has failed also lamentably in the embedded devices market. It's
>> doing pretty good in the server market mainly because of Apache. And
>> thederided recent gains Microsoft made with GoDaddy were yesterday
>> Linux's pride.
>>
>> Just twist the reality with words, is all Linux advocates do. Do you
>> remember when, in 1999, "evangelist" Eric S. Raymond answered this
>> question:
>
> <snip>
>
> Am I imagining it, or is this response word for word the same one you
> used after John kicked in?
Well he sticks to his own advises. Later on he wrote:
Keep up your good Linux advocacy. Make sure you have the answer you just
made in your clipboard. As time goes by, it might come in more and more
handy.
Having a clipboard is a nice feature. Or maybe he's a bot. :-)
> You've listed plenty of reasons why you don't think Gimp is the program
> for you. Okay, we've heard and understood. What we don't understand is
> why you don't use your power of choice and act on that realisation? :)
He likes whining? He wants to be flamed? He has not expected us to be a
such calm and friendly bunch?
Yugo, if you want "action" then take this to comp.os.linux.advocacy, or
crosspost the reasons why computer language $X is better than all others
over the comp.lang hierarchy, or debate this silly "free" stuff on the
Debian mailing list. ;-)
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Yugo
> Am I imagining it, or is this response word for word the same one you
> used after John kicked in?
oesn't it fit well? Same argument, same answer.
> And you should be careful of lumping all us GIMPites under the banner
> "Linux advocates". There are a lot of users in this group who use Mac
> and/or MS. I use Linux, but think of myself as an "Open Choice advocate"
> rather than a "Linux advocate" - I personally don't care what you use,
> as long as you don't try to take away our rights to use what WE want to
> use.
As for taking your rights sway, don't count on me, count on Microsoft.
> You've listed plenty of reasons why you don't think Gimp is the program
> for you. Okay, we've heard and understood. What we don't understand is
> why you don't use your power of choice and act on that realisation? :)
Indeed, if, as a user, there's anything you don't like about Linux, the
automatic answer is "Since you're a programmer, fix it!"
Unfortunately, not everyone is a programmer. Some people use computers
that will die of old age in a year or two. They don't really feel like
becoming programmers. And maybe it's better that your doctor, dentist,
mechanic, learn more about their trade than about computers. You and your
car will be better served.
Those arguments are so vain it's unimaginable that they can come from
people with half a brain functional. Linux software is, in general, so
awkward that after 15 years of development, the /voter's/ market share is
about left untouched. So Microsoft is left to do whatever it wants.
Apparently, Microsoft has bought Sympatico, the most important ISP in
Canada, formerly wholly owned by Bell Canada. Now, all sort of added MS
services are offered for a few dollar more. Of course, all the site is
very IE compliant, Mozilla... not so much.
Now, sympatico.msn uses the national television as a portal:
http://sympatico.msn.radio-canada.ca/index.shtml
Sympatico-Msn also buys a lot of publicity at Radio-Canada. You see, they
must help them pay the bills, cause Radio-Canada uses Microsoft's
proprietary formats everywhere, including for streaming its news.
So, it's very nice of you to ask that I don't tamper with your freedom of
choice but I'm afraid it's just completely ridiculous. It's braggarts like
you who, by refusing to face Linux's problem head on, are destroying your
freedom.
15 years, no result on the voter's market share. And th àe bragging still
goes on.
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
> Joal Heagney wrote:
>
>> You've listed plenty of reasons why you don't think Gimp is the program
>> for you. Okay, we've heard and understood. What we don't understand is
>> why you don't use your power of choice and act on that realisation? :)
>
> Indeed, if, as a user, there's anything you don't like about Linux, the
> automatic answer is "Since you're a programmer, fix it!"
Huh? We didn't tell you to fix or enhance the Gimp. We know that not
everyone is a programmer. If you don't like the Gimp or Linux then use
software you like. It's really that easy.
> [snipped much OT stuff]
This group is about Gimp. Not Linux vs. Windows nor which companies
Microsoft bought.
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Yugo
> This group is about Gimp. Not Linux vs. Windows nor which companies
> Microsoft bought.
Yes and, as we were saying, The GIMP is one of those software primarily
developed for Linux that braggarts love to boast about. Unfortunately, its
ackward interface makes people flee from Linux.
That's what we were saying in a Gimp group.
As for the rest, I've got a pet rock I can talk to with more chances to be
understood than by braggarts like you. So Linux is great and the Gimp is
great and everything is great. Have fun looking and searching and RTFM!
Michael Soibelman
Well, I was going to stay out of this but my advice is just ignore the OP.
I responded to his flamebait on another newsgroup and told him his Gimp
questins should be posted to this group. So he comes here and makes the
same tired old circular arguments. Then he says he's using version 1.2 !!
So I remind him to update to a newer version. But he goes on and on and
on. If he were a female I'd say he was just a whining bitch, but that
would be unfair to the woman of the world. He's just a whining...well you
can go to alt.os.linux.suse and read my original response to his first post
regarding Gimp. I am quite convinced this guy is just jerking everybody's
chain. Anyone using a recent version of Gimp can easily accomplish any of
the tasks this guy couldn't accomplish with 5 years of trying. So it
becomes obvious this guy is a troll. No point but to be an annoyance. So
go ahead and ignore him. He serves no usefull purpose here. If he really
wanted help he would have asked for it BEFORE spending his time going
nowhere. I wont respond any more to his rants. Nor should any of you. As
for his bs about Linux zealots, etc, this is just something he learned from
some other zealots. Forget it. Don't waste your time. Just keep using
the programs 'you' like and forget this guy. Any of the older versions of
photoshop run under wine so he could use that if he wanted to. But no, he
insist that he is spending all this time trying to do some simple task
which wont work the way he wants. So 'we' must be zealots...What a
hypocrite. I think he's just either stupid or a liar or both.
End of story.
My 13 year old niece and 12 year old nephew use Gimp all the time and
think it's great. But then, they HAVE brains. Just yesterday my niece
told me how she had done something with an image file, using Linux, she
couldn't even do in Windows. Without me telling her how. So again, my 13
year old niece seems to be way ahead of were this guy is. I uninstalled
Windows from her computer because it kept crashing and installed 10.1. She
loves it. She does the usual stuff kids her age do and I never had to give
her or her 3 cousins ANY instructions on how to use it. Seems obvious that
it passes the kid test. Surfing, chatting, writing papers for homework,
importing and exporting to Excel spreadsheet from OOo, etc. No problem !
Well, I guess there just zealots too !! And at such an early age. What
have I done ?? Oh, and then there's my buddy I showed SuSE about a year
ago. He installed it on all he windows boxes at home and at work. They
are all dual booting. He figured it all out on his own. Then his kids
started using it. Then his son went to Mexico with the 5 cd set of SuSE
9.0 and showed his friend at the university. They (the university)
installed it in there computer labs and all the students are using it.
Just last week he called me to tell me he had installed Yellow Dog on his
now dual booting Mac. ALL ON HIS OWN. So I guess we're all just zealots.
I guess it's better to be a zealot than a hacker. Next well just be a
bunch of...communist. Oops, I forgot. That's what we were BEFORE we were
zealots.
So if Microsoft has nothing to fear from zealots, hackers, communist,
etc..why is this guy so persistent ??? Maybe he's not really a person ??
Here's a little something interesting:
NEW YORK - A decade has passed since the Yugo was last imported to the
United States.
The much-ridiculed discount automobile was discontinued in the U.S. in
1992, but has forever remained an American icon of all things cheap.
;-)
Like that band from yesterday, he's just A CHEAP TRICK.
P.S. I THINK HE MADE UP THE WHOLE THING. No one is that stupid !!
Yugo
> Well, I was going to stay out of this
Maybe it wouldn't have been such a bad idea.
> I responded to his flamebait on another newsgroup
Yea, flamebate.
> and told him his Gimp
> questins should be posted to this group. So he comes here and makes the
> same tired old circular arguments. Then he says he's using version 1.2 !!
As I said I also used PSP 4, and I still think it was great. However
little it did, it did it efficiently.
> So I remind him to update to a newer version. But he goes on and on and
> on.
I have seen the latest versions on live CDs. They are better, a bit
better, but still a lot of pain in the ass.
> If he were a female I'd say he was just a whining bitch, but that
> would be unfair to the woman of the world.
Still, I can see you'd love to say it, wouldn't you?
> He's just a whining... just jerking everybody's chain, is a troll. an
> annoyance, ignore him, He serves no usefull purpose here, Forget it.forget
> this guy, What a hypocrite, he's just either stupid or a liar or both.
Thank you for your constructive comments. It's easy to guess fron them how
intuitive The GIMP is.
Now, if you'd tell me how you'd sharpen a whole picture and a selection in
The Newest GIMP, I'd tell you how I think it should be done. Will see
which way seem more efficient.
> My 13 year old niece and 12 year old nephew use Gimp all the time and
> think it's great. But then, they HAVE brains.
Of course, I don't have half the brains of your niece and nephew, but I've
participated in beta testing a whole lot more than they have, even if, as
I explained, this is only possible with Windows.
All you said here is that you still had one beer too many.
Michael Soibelman
I don't drink !!
Yugo
>>All you said here is that you still had one beer too many.
>
>
> I don't drink !!
It's worst than I thought, then.
Michael Soibelman
worse, not worst !!
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
>> This group is about Gimp. Not Linux vs. Windows nor which companies
>> Microsoft bought.
>
> Yes and, as we were saying, The GIMP is one of those software primarily
> developed for Linux that braggarts love to boast about.
Many people use it on Windows. So this point is moot.
> As for the rest, I've got a pet rock I can talk to with more chances to be
> understood than by braggarts like you.
Then talk to that rock and use some other software for image manipulation
than the Gimp.
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Joal Heagney
> Indeed, if, as a user, there's anything you don't like about Linux, the
> automatic answer is "Since you're a programmer, fix it!"
>
My response to that VERY broad generalisation about open source
advocates? As a non-programmer I believe the following is an appropriate
way to respond to an opensource problem.
1. If you can program, and FEEL like giving the time, please help us out
a bit.
2. If you can't program but are good at logic and future-visualisation,
describe in detail how you would like things to work with an
application. E.g. GUI mock-ups, case studies, reference to a
mathematical/computer paper etc.
3. If you can't future-describe like this, then specify a specific
problem IN DETAIL and in a cooperative fashion. I.e. not just "I hate
Linux, Linux suxxors, you all stink!" type comments. :)
And finally:
4. Wait for the developers to fix things. Seriously, if you can't do a
single constructive thing to help with development, badmouthing the
developers and pissing and whining WON'T get them to work faster!
> So, it's very nice of you to ask that I don't tamper with your freedom
> of choice but I'm afraid it's just completely ridiculous. It's braggarts
> like you who, <snip>
Braggarts?? Moi!?? Did I inadvertently state at any time in my post that
I thought opensource was the one true answer? My apologies if that was
the case, as my real viewpoint is that opensource is good for
somethings, commercial is good for others, but ALL AREAS OF COMPUTER
SCIENCE BENEFIT FROM HAVING OPENSOURCE PARTICIPATE!!! At the very least
it discourages commercial companies from monopolising and overcharging
a particular software market.
However, if I DIDN'T state that opensource was the one true answer, then
I believe you owe ME an apology for misrepresenting my viewpoint sir!!!!
<desnip> by refusing to face Linux's problem head on, are destroying
> your freedom.
Cheap shot time :) Linux's problem? Are you stating that there is only
ONE problem? That's good, perhaps you could specifically describe it to
us? You know, as opposed to jumping onto the bandwagon about opensource
philosophy. SPECIFICS MAN, GIVE US SPECIFICS!!!! And if the developers
tell you "Not yet." or even "No."
1) abide by their decision,
2) check out other projects,
3) get a group of people to create a new opensource project, (You DON'T
have to do the development yourself, but few opensource projects get far
if the person pushing them isn't prepared to do a little learning or
hard work themselves.)
4) or look at commercial software. Sheese, talk about a no-brainer decision.
> 15 years, no result on the voter's market share. And th àe bragging
> still goes on.
>
Firefox anyone? Openoffice? OpenGL????? Python? And if we consider that
in opensource the "open" bit is more important, then some open protocols
should also be considered - you know, such as the internet protocols?!? :)
Lord knows that without opensource software pushing the bandwagon on
transparency and open protocols, we'd probably have Microsoft-HTML,
Microsoft-FTP, Microsoft-File-Sharing and Microsoft-Java, all trying to
push out the original versions and doing their best to be IN-compatible
and UN-clear with everyone else ... oh wait.
Joal Heagney
Joal Heagney
> Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
>
>> This group is about Gimp. Not Linux vs. Windows nor which companies
>> Microsoft bought.
>
> Yes and, as we were saying,
We? Hmmm. Is this one person talking or a group of bored high-school/uni
students trying to flame-bait? I have noticed the depth of argument and
ability to spell has been going up and down a little bit in your posts
Yugo. :) (And please don't point out that I spell a lot of words with
s's instead of z's. I'm Australian and we use British spelling over here.)
> The GIMP is one of those software primarily
> developed for Linux that braggarts love to boast about. Unfortunately,
> its ackward interface makes people flee from Linux.
Primarily developed for Linux? Primarily developed on __UNIX__ I'll
grant you, but Gimp is used extensively in the BSD, Mac-OS and Microsoft
worlds as well. There are very few open source programs that are "pure
Linux" - I have a hard time thinking of any big projects actually. Hmmm.
I wonder is this because opensource allows programmers to port more
easily than commercial software??? :) Could be ...
> That's what we were saying in a Gimp group.
>
> As for the rest, I've got a pet rock I can talk to with more chances to
> be understood than by braggarts like you. So Linux is great and the Gimp
> is great and everything is great. Have fun looking and searching and RTFM!
>
Personally I have rarely heard Gimpites use the term RTFM on this
newsgroup. Mostly the ones who do have drifted in from some other less
polite newsgroup such as comp.lang.perl. The majority of users in this
group (and the python and blender groups) are polite, try to be helpful
and generally want others to enjoy using GIMP, which is why we get
ticked off when someone comes in here blasting away about how "Linux
sucks" (paraphrased) and seems only interested in picking an argument
about opensource advocacy.
The fact that I'm giving you such time to your responses is because you
didn't launch into this immediately and some of your responses show
thought (Even if they seem a little over-prepared and thus lacking
genuineness.)
What I'm trying to sort out now is are you actually serious about your
viewpoint (and therefore are a person worth spending time to discuss
things with) or are you just trying to stir us up. If it's the latter,
you REALLY need to get a better life. :)
Joal Heagney
Kent Paul Dolan
> The first version of a Windows
> software usually offers only very basic
> features, but they work.
On what planet? MS Windows XP contains bugs
and misfeatures carefully carried forward
intact from MS-DOS 1.0 (which I first
used in 1983). That's 23 years of "but they
DON'T work".
The version of the Microsoft C compiler I
received from the vendor in 1989, by then
surely half a dozen years old, came packed
with a list of 125 known bugs in the
delivered software.
Please don't write puff pieces for Microsoft's
non-existent product quality where I have to
encounter them.
xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
> There are very few open source programs that are "pure Linux" - I have a
> hard time thinking of any big projects actually.
I think I know one big "pure Linux" open source project: Linux! ;-)
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Yugo
> 4. Wait for the developers to fix things.
I've done that. The problem is, in the Linux world, they throw anything at
you that would be considered in early alpha stage in Windows and call it a
beta. (I suppose that's part of the release early, release often
philosophy.) Then the comments pour in and you get no answer back. You
reread those 17 pages of known bugs, you wonder which the developers
thought you might be refering to, you lose your time, it's a pain, you
give up.
In the Windows world, know bugs are mostly fixed, You don't deal with
Bugzillas, you write to somebody. It happened once that I didn't get
answers from a company I was beta-besting for. They'd send me a copy of
the final release just the same and I used to see that most of my comments
had been ignored. Pretty soon they were bankrupt. That's what I figure
would happen to most Linux software if money was an issue.
> Seriously, if you can't do a
> single constructive thing to help with development, badmouthing the
> developers and pissing and whining WON'T get them to work faster!
In a previous message, thinking that noone would ever ask, I wrote:
"Now, if you'd tell me how you'd sharpen a whole picture and a selection
in The Newest GIMP, I'd tell you how I think it should be done. Will see
which way seem more efficient"
Why don't you answer this question instead and tell us how you would do
it... unless you think it's perfect the way it is? If we can come to an
agreement and 15 of us write to the developers /maybe/ we will be heard.
You think it's a loss of time? You're probably right.
>> So, it's very nice of you to ask that I don't tamper with your freedom
>> of choice but I'm afraid it's just completely ridiculous. It's
>> braggarts like you who, <snip>
>
>
> Braggarts?? Moi!?? Did I inadvertently state at any time in my post that
> I thought opensource was the one true answer? My apologies if that was
> the case, as my real viewpoint is that opensource is good for
> somethings, commercial is good for others, but ALL AREAS OF COMPUTER
> SCIENCE BENEFIT FROM HAVING OPENSOURCE PARTICIPATE!!! At the very least
> it discourages commercial companies from monopolising and overcharging
> a particular software market.
As I explained, it certainly discourages nobody for the time being,
except, /for now/, in the server market.
> However, if I DIDN'T state that opensource was the one true answer, then
> I believe you owe ME an apology for misrepresenting my viewpoint sir!!!!
>
> <desnip> by refusing to face Linux's problem head on, are destroying
> > your freedom.
>
> Cheap shot time :) Linux's problem? Are you stating that there is only
> ONE problem? That's good, perhaps you could specifically describe it to
> us? You know, as opposed to jumping onto the bandwagon about opensource
> philosophy. SPECIFICS MAN, GIVE US SPECIFICS!!!! And if the developers
> tell you "Not yet." or even "No."
Is this what GIMP developers say to users? I thought they had a few
so-called stable releases.
Finally I wonder why I'm argumenting here. Anybody in his right mind who
has used another photo retouching soft will tell you that The GIMP is
awkward. Professionals, even those working for the net, don't use it.
> Firefox anyone?
Yes, great! Why is it, though, that they made the fonts so small in mode
1280 x 1024 that the url window is hardly readable? Anybody with a
slightly impaired vision can't read it. Of course, a url bar is not that
important in a browser.
While Google now allows searches of more than 10 words, who came up with
the bright idea of making searches possible only in a small windows where
hardly more than 3 words can be entered? What was wrong with searching in
the url window? Yea, Opera had made it and it was considered a "feature".
Anybody with a head in the bunch?
And that's only on the first line, when the browser opens.
> Openoffice?
What's the 8th most often asked question at OOo? How to save a document as
a default template. Of course, those bastards don't RTFMsss!
Etc.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Excuse me, but I'm a bit fed up with all the hype
> and the meager results.
Well, let's ananlyze that.
You're not intelligent enough to upgrade to the
current version, so you're whining about a version
the rest of us have nearly forgotten.
You're too lazy to read the manuals.
You're too lazy to explore the product and learn how
to use it without manuals. [I made _hundreds_ of
images with GIMP 1.25 and earlier versions before I
even noticed GIMP _had_ a manual.]
[FYI, the proper way, in GIMP 1.25, to get exactly
the rectangular or elliptical selection you want is
to drag helper lines onto the image out of the
vertical and horizontal rulers, put them tangent on
both sides of what you want to select, then drag
your selection from corner to diagonal corner of the
box that makes. GIMP is not Photoshop, Adobe
Illustrator, or Corel Draw, it is under no
obligation to do things the way they do.]
You're too busy kvetching about stuff entirely
unrelated to GIMP to learn anything about GIMP.
You're busily whining about how _little_ GIMP has
accomplished in 10 years, yet you aren't even USING
the GIMP with 10 years of work in it, you're using a
version frozen much earlier than that.
In the end, you're just a whiney twit, and no one
would mourn your leaving.
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
> Joal Heagney wrote:
>
>> 4. Wait for the developers to fix things.
>
> I've done that. The problem is, in the Linux world, they throw anything at
> you that would be considered in early alpha stage in Windows and call it a
> beta. (I suppose that's part of the release early, release often
> philosophy.)
Most open source projects don't have alphas or betas but just version
numbers. Common sense should tell that a 0.0.2 isn't that mature. Many
have a notion of stable and development versions though.
> In the Windows world, know bugs are mostly fixed, You don't deal with
> Bugzillas, you write to somebody.
First, this is an over generalization. Not all known bugs in the Windows
world are mostly fixed, and there are plenty open source projects with
mailing lists and IRC channels where you can reach developers without
dealing with bug tracking software.
While bug tracking software looks a bit complex to some users they have
some advantages over private communication. You can search if someone
entered a similar report and add to that bug description or even find a
workaround that way.
Oh and it's again that false dichotomy of Windows and open source.
>> Seriously, if you can't do a
>> single constructive thing to help with development, badmouthing the
>> developers and pissing and whining WON'T get them to work faster!
>
> In a previous message, thinking that noone would ever ask, I wrote:
>
> "Now, if you'd tell me how you'd sharpen a whole picture and a selection
> in The Newest GIMP, I'd tell you how I think it should be done. Will see
> which way seem more efficient"
>
> Why don't you answer this question instead and tell us how you would do
> it... unless you think it's perfect the way it is?
What's wrong with applying `Filters→Enhance→Sharpen…` to the image
or the selection!?
> Finally I wonder why I'm argumenting here.
You are not the only one. ;-)
> Anybody in his right mind who has used another photo retouching soft
> will tell you that The GIMP is awkward.
I'm not in my right mind then. I don't think it's awkward.
>> Firefox anyone?
>
> Yes, great! Why is it, though, that they made the fonts so small in mode
> 1280 x 1024 that the url window is hardly readable? Anybody with a
> slightly impaired vision can't read it. Of course, a url bar is not that
> important in a browser.
Filed a bug report?
> While Google now allows searches of more than 10 words, who came up with
> the bright idea of making searches possible only in a small windows
> where hardly more than 3 words can be entered?
I have no problem entering 10 or more words there. Most people start a
search with just one or two words anyway and then refine the search term
if the results are to broad or wrong.
>> Openoffice?
>
> What's the 8th most often asked question at OOo? How to save a document
> as a default template. Of course, those bastards don't RTFMsss!
That's the 8th most often question? Yes those people should consult the
online help. It's described there. It's not that they are expected to
read it "cover to cover" and learn it by heart but IMHO it's not that
unrealistic to expect them to fire up the online help and search for
`standard template`. I expect the same from people having such a problem
with Microsoft Office, WordPerfect or any other office suite.
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
John K. Herreshoff
>
> In the end, you're just a whiney twit, and no one
> would mourn your leaving.
>
> xanthian.
>
>
>
Oh, Such a cruel world... sigh.
;-)
Yugo
> In <12bno94...@corp.supernews.com>, Yugo wrote:
>
>
>>Joal Heagney wrote:
>>
>>
>>>4. Wait for the developers to fix things.
>>
>>I've done that. The problem is, in the Linux world, they throw anything at
>>you that would be considered in early alpha stage in Windows and call it a
>>beta. (I suppose that's part of the release early, release often
>>philosophy.)
>
>
> Most open source projects don't have alphas or betas but just version
> numbers. Common sense should tell that a 0.0.2 isn't that mature. Many
> have a notion of stable and development versions though.
Tell this to Suse, they have no idea of how Linux development is done:
Development Release: SUSE Linux 10.2 Alpha 2
http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=03571#0
>>In the Windows world, know bugs are mostly fixed, You don't deal with
>>Bugzillas, you write to somebody.
>
>
> First, this is an over generalization. Not all known bugs in the Windows
> world are mostly fixed, and there are plenty open source projects with
> mailing lists and IRC channels where you can reach developers without
> dealing with bug tracking software.
I don't use IRC. When I used Windows software, there always was an email
where you could reach the author. Whether it was shareware or commercial
software, results came fast.
> What's wrong with applying Filters?Enhance?Sharpen… to the image
> or the selection!?
Why should a beginner suppose that sharpness is a filter? Why enhance? Is
there an option to degrade? Why does this fuckin menu closes everytime you
select a certain degree of sharpness?
Why doesn't it close with the ESC key only when you're through? Why can't
you get sharp*ness* in a menu when you right-click the picture? You'd then
have a -100% 0 +100% scale for blurring to sharpening, either a selection,
outside a selection, or both for the whole picture, plus the tools for
selective blurring or sharpening.
Why all those click-ke-dee-roo RTFM menus?
>>>Firefox anyone?
>>
>>Yes, great! Why is it, though, that they made the fonts so small in mode
>>1280 x 1024 that the url window is hardly readable? Anybody with a
>>slightly impaired vision can't read it. Of course, a url bar is not that
>>important in a browser.
> Filed a bug report?
Tthe problem with Linux software is you've got to file reports for the
most obvious things. It's as if the developers only saw their code and
never used their own software.
With even the 17" LCD screens coming in 1280x1024 definition, this mode is
ever more popular. I now have a good quality 19" LCD and the url windows
is readable. But on a CRT, it was hard to read and such is probably the
case for 17" LCDs. How come developers can't figure out that it would be
better fot the fonts to fill the URL window without somebody writing to
them? Are they such dunces?
If you have to fill a bug report for this, what is it you won't have to
fill a bug report about?
>>While Google now allows searches of more than 10 words, who came up with
>>the bright idea of making searches possible only in a small windows
>>where hardly more than 3 words can be entered?
> I have no problem entering 10 or more words there.
Oh, yes! The only little problem is you can't see what you've entered
before sending the query. Who cares, you have time, you can correct it later.
> Most people start a
> search with just one or two words anyway and then refine the search term
> if the results are to broad or wrong.
I see your point of view. You mean it was quite an inconvenient to fill
only 2 or 3 words in the url window for a search while you could just as
well enter 10 or more AND SEE THEM?
You know what? The pain with discussing with Linux developers is that
they're exactly like you. Their logic is nil.
>>>Openoffice?
>>
>>What's the 8th most often asked question at OOo? How to save a document
>>as a default template. Of course, those bastards don't RTFMsss!
>
>
> That's the 8th most often question? Yes those people should consult the
> online help.
RTFM for saving a document as a default template? What is it then, that
you won't have to RTFM about?
But don't tell Linux developers that their interface is ill-conceived. The
problem is people don't want to spend days on end RTFMsss.
P.s.: As I'm trying to send this message I an told that certain characters
are not in my chosen character set. I looked 3 times through the message
and I can't find any Russian or Chinese characters. Everything seems OK.
If the software can identify some characters that are not part of the
default character set, why doesn't it highlight them?
Should I write to the developers about this too? I feel I could spend my
whole life writing to developers about just one software.
Kent Paul Dolan
> I've participated in beta testing a whole lot more
> than they have, even if, as I explained, this is
> only possible with Windows.
Giggle.
How strange. I've beta tested in
BSD Unix 4.2,
BSD Unix 4.3,
Control Data KRONOS,
Control Data NOS,
Data General AOS/VS,
Data General SECOS,
Debian Linux,
Digital Equipment VMS,
DRDOS,
Dynix,
FreeBSD,
Honeywell GECOS,
HP1000/RTE,
HPUX,
IBM OS/360,
IBM OS/370,
IBM OS/390,
MS-DOS 1.0 - 6.0,
MS-Windows '95,
MS-Windows '98,
MS-Windows 2000,
MS-Windows 3.1,
MS-Windows NT,
MS-Windows XP,
PDP/RT11,
pSOS,
Red Hat Linux,
Sun Solaris,
Sun SunOS,
Unisys Executive System 1000,
Varian BEST,
VxWorks,
and lots of other operating systems you're unlikely
to recognize, plus a few cold iron hardware systems
without operating systems. Many times I've beta
tested software products for portability between two
or more of those operating systems. You must be one
classic case of "brainwashed dunce" if the only OS
in which you can beta test is MS-Windows.
FWIW
xanthian.
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
> Marc BlackJack Rintsch wrote:
>
>> In <12bno94...@corp.supernews.com>, Yugo wrote:
>>
>> Most open source projects don't have alphas or betas but just version
>> numbers. Common sense should tell that a 0.0.2 isn't that mature. Many
>> have a notion of stable and development versions though.
>
> Tell this to Suse, they have no idea of how Linux development is done:
>
> Development Release: SUSE Linux 10.2 Alpha 2
> http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=03571#0
SuSE Linux is not most open source projects. You know the difference
between "most" and "all"!?
>> […], and there are plenty open source projects with mailing lists and
>> IRC channels where you can reach developers without dealing with bug
>> tracking software.
>
> I don't use IRC. When I used Windows software, there always was an email
> where you could reach the author. Whether it was shareware or commercial
> software, results came fast.
As I said, most projects have a mailing list. The authors read your mails
there and other users read them too. So your problems can be tackled by
more people than just the one author you would have reached otherwise.
>> What's wrong with applying Filters?Enhance?Sharpen… to the image
>> or the selection!?
>
> Why should a beginner suppose that sharpness is a filter? Why enhance?
Why should a beginner suppose it's not a filter? Most things in Gimp are
implemented as filters and a beginner will quickly find out, looking
around in the menus. And filters have to be categorized somehow. I have
about 140 filters under the filter menu and it would be bad to have them
all in one menu instead in several sub menus.
> Why does this fuckin menu closes everytime you select a certain degree
> of sharpness?
Huh? What are you talking about?
> Why doesn't it close with the ESC key only when you're through?
Again I have no idea what you are talking about. The escape key in
dialogs acts as pressing the `Cancel` button. That's common GUI
convention. You can change the sharpness value and either apply or abort.
What do you mean with “only when you're through”?
> Why can't you get sharp*ness* in a menu when you right-click the
> picture? You'd then have a -100% 0 +100% scale for blurring to
> sharpening, either a selection, outside a selection, or both for the
> whole picture, plus the tools for selective blurring or sharpening.
Because no one has done such a filter or interface to existing filters.
And the filters *are* in a sub menu when you right click on the image.
> Why all those click-ke-dee-roo RTFM menus?
It's one click and then moving the mouse. You can tear off often used
menus so they stay permanent on screen and you can define keyboard
shortcuts to menu entries you use very often.
For a quick overview of the available filters you can browse the menu, no
need to consult the manual.
>>>Yes, great! Why is it, though, that they made the fonts so small in
>>>mode 1280 x 1024 that the url window is hardly readable? Anybody with a
>>>slightly impaired vision can't read it. Of course, a url bar is not
>>>that important in a browser.
>
>> Filed a bug report?
> Tthe problem with Linux software is you've got to file reports for the
> most obvious things. It's as if the developers only saw their code and
> never used their own software.
What is obvious to you maybe never happened to the developer!?
> With even the 17" LCD screens coming in 1280x1024 definition, this mode
> is ever more popular. I now have a good quality 19" LCD and the url
> windows is readable. But on a CRT, it was hard to read and such is
> probably the case for 17" LCDs. How come developers can't figure out
> that it would be better fot the fonts to fill the URL window without
> somebody writing to them? Are they such dunces?
Font sizes are given in points. That's an absolute size so it's a problem
with the combination of display and windowing system if they come out in
different sizes if you change the resolution of the monitor.
>>>While Google now allows searches of more than 10 words, who came up
>>>with the bright idea of making searches possible only in a small
>>>windows where hardly more than 3 words can be entered?
>
>> I have no problem entering 10 or more words there.
>
> Oh, yes! The only little problem is you can't see what you've entered
> before sending the query. Who cares, you have time, you can correct it
> later.
Yes. Or Google is suggesting a spell checked query. Or the results are
already good enough.
>> Most people start a search with just one or two words anyway and then
>> refine the search term if the results are to broad or wrong.
>
> I see your point of view. You mean it was quite an inconvenient to fill
> only 2 or 3 words in the url window for a search while you could just as
> well enter 10 or more AND SEE THEM?
File a feature request then that the the Google entry's size should be
customizable.
>>>What's the 8th most often asked question at OOo? How to save a document
>>>as a default template. Of course, those bastards don't RTFMsss!
>>
>> That's the 8th most often question? Yes those people should consult
>> the online help.
>
> RTFM for saving a document as a default template? What is it then, that
> you won't have to RTFM about?
Things you already know or can deduce from context? Why is it so bad to
have to look up something that is not used very often?
> But don't tell Linux developers that their interface is ill-conceived.
Well I like the Linux interface philosophy “everything is a file”.
It's a nice and clean abstraction. Well most of the time. If `fnctl`
comes into the mix, things start to get a bit ugly.
> The problem is people don't want to spend days on end RTFMsss.
Open the online help and search for `standard template` does not take days.
> P.s.: As I'm trying to send this message I an told that certain
> characters are not in my chosen character set. I looked 3 times through
> the message and I can't find any Russian or Chinese characters.
Yep I use(d) characters outside ISO-8859-1. Most of the time that's right
arrows for "paths" through a menu hierarchy like in `File→Open`, opening
and closing quotation marks like “these” and ellipsis (…) when I snip
something.
> Everything seems OK. If the software can identify some characters that
> are not part of the default character set, why doesn't it highlight
> them?
>
> Should I write to the developers about this too?
Yes.
> I feel I could spend my whole life writing to developers about just one
> software.
You seem to already do this right now, right here. :-)
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Joal Heagney
That's the project, but most of it's programs and utilities have
cross-pollinated and/or emigrated to other operating system
environments. :) Even it's basic tools like g++ existed on several
platforms before Linux was even invented.
Joal Heagney
Joal Heagney
> Joal Heagney wrote:
>
>> 4. Wait for the developers to fix things.
>
> I've done that. The problem is, in the Linux world, they throw anything
> at you that would be considered in early alpha stage in Windows and call
> it a beta. (I suppose that's part of the release early, release often
> philosophy.) Then the comments pour in and you get no answer back. You
> reread those 17 pages of known bugs, you wonder which the developers
> thought you might be refering to, you lose your time, it's a pain, you
> give up.
And commercial companies DON'T release unstable software as pay-for
"stable" releases?
> In the Windows world, know bugs are mostly fixed, You don't deal with
> Bugzillas, you write to somebody. It happened once that I didn't get
> answers from a company I was beta-besting for. They'd send me a copy of
> the final release just the same and I used to see that most of my
> comments had been ignored. Pretty soon they were bankrupt. That's what
> I figure would happen to most Linux software if money was an issue.
Mm-hmm. That's the first point. Money isn't an issue. That said, most
opensource developers are very particular in pointing out what is a
stable release and what is a development release. There's a link right
on the first page of www.gimp.org warning you about 2.3's potential to
do anything from simply crash, to molest your wife.
The second point comes from that "known bug" sentence. I'd be interested
in finding some research on how quickly bugs are FOUND AND FIXED in
opensource vs commercial. In fact, I'm gonna hunt some down as soon as I
finish this message.
> In a previous message, thinking that noone would ever ask, I wrote:
>
> "Now, if you'd tell me how you'd sharpen a whole picture and a selection
> in The Newest GIMP, I'd tell you how I think it should be done. Will see
> which way seem more efficient"
Instead of asking people to "ask you", why didn't you just tell us?
Would have saved the grandstanding!
> Why don't you answer this question instead and tell us how you would do
> it... unless you think it's perfect the way it is? If we can come to an
> agreement and 15 of us write to the developers /maybe/ we will be heard.
> You think it's a loss of time? You're probably right.
I would if you asked a question instead of asking us to ask you to ...
now I'm confused.
(2nd read, 2nd edit of message).
Okay - sorted out what you were asking.
To sharpen a whole layer in GIMP 2.2 (I'm sensibly staying away from 2.3
until it becomes 2.4.), <Image Menu>-Select-Select All, <Image
Menu>-Filters-Enhance-Sharpen
(Or <Image Menu>-Filters-Enhance-Unsharp).
To sharpen a selection in a layer, make the selection using any one of
the myriad ways in Gimp (I prefer path tools because while they're a lot
of effort, they give really nice edges), then do the second step in the
method mentioned above.
Read below for my comment on why Gimp doesn't have Layer Effects yet.
(For other gimp/non-photoshop users - these are special layers that will
allow you to apply an effect to every layer below the effects layer.
They can be masked, opaquisied and turned on/off. They're seriously
sweet, but there are code issues why they haven't been added to Gimp yet.)
>> At the very
>> least it discourages commercial companies from monopolising and
>> overcharging a particular software market.
>
> As I explained, it certainly discourages nobody for the time being,
> except, /for now/, in the server market.
Well discourage might be a bit to strong a word, but the Halloween docs
did seem to hint that it was making monopolies think a bit. Also, even
if Linux disappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow, the idea of
Open Source development is still there, just in case Microsoft decides
to charge $1000 for a basic home operating system.
Have you heard of React-OS yet? Now there's a cheeky idea. :)
>> Cheap shot time :) Linux's problem? Are you stating that there is only
>> ONE problem? That's good, perhaps you could specifically describe it
>> to us? You know, as opposed to jumping onto the bandwagon about
>> opensource philosophy. SPECIFICS MAN, GIVE US SPECIFICS!!!! And if the
>> developers tell you "Not yet." or even "No."
>
> Is this what GIMP developers say to users? I thought they had a few
> so-called stable releases.
Yep, and these are purely expected to be stable. They won't have
features tacked on, and they will ALWAYS be behind the cutting edge.
Anyway, I thought your original post said you were trying to use 2.4? It
hasn't been released yet, and 2.3 is most definably UN-stable.
As another example, Blender has recently released it's latest stable
release. Lot's of cool features, but Cloth-modifiers didn't make the
cut. It will probably be there next release, but by that point we'll
probably have a new feature that "didn't quite make it in time."
:) Maybe even GIMP-like tools that combined with Blender's multibit
colour support will herald in the "new replacement for Gimp". :)
> Finally I wonder why I'm argumenting here. Anybody in his right mind who
> has used another photo retouching soft will tell you that The GIMP is
> awkward.
The main awkwardness of Gimp as compared to Photoshop at the present is
the lack of these features (In my own immodest opinion)
- Higher than 8 bit colour editing.
- Layer groups
- Layer effects
- CMYK colour mode editing.
All of these are best added by integrating a completed GEGL. This will
take time, but once it does, Gimp will not only get 16-bit-per-channel
colour editing like Photoshop but also 32-bit-per-channel,
64-bit-per-channel (Though that might be going overboard!) and possibly
mixed-bit-per-channel.
Imagine being able to edit film footage in native TV (YUV-4:2:2) format,
with it's weird 8-bits for luminescence and 4-bits per each of its two
colour-difference channels.
Yes this is taking time. Yes it is frustrating. However, with the slow
crawl in GEGL development, there doesn't seem much that the Gimp
developers can do.
Is it possible that Photoshop will have improved by then? Probably, but
at a certain point throwing more bits at a computer domain doesn't gain
a visible improvement in the final product.
> Professionals, even those working for the net, don't use it.
Nope, but film companies do use it's bastard son, cinepaint, aka
filmgimp to retouch high-resolution digital film.
>> Firefox anyone?
>
> Yes, great! Why is it, though, that they made the fonts so small in mode
> 1280 x 1024 that the url window is hardly readable? Anybody with a
> slightly impaired vision can't read it. Of course, a url bar is not that
> important in a browser.
True. Point 1. Have you filed a bug report? Or set the fonts in Preferences?
Point 2. As a high-school teacher my students have the exact same
difficulty with the main body text in Internet Explorer being too small,
at least until I teach them how to change text sizes.
> While Google now allows searches of more than 10 words, who came up with
> the bright idea of making searches possible only in a small windows
> where hardly more than 3 words can be entered? What was wrong with
> searching in the url window? Yea, Opera had made it and it was
> considered a "feature". Anybody with a head in the bunch?
On the other hand, who thought up the brilliant feature that typing
(outside the url or a form of course) would automatically start
word-finding? I still get tripped up when I go to IE and have to find
where "pollute" appears in a site about cat breeding - which I ended up
at after typing in "animals pollution" into a search engine.
> And that's only on the first line, when the browser opens.
>
>> Openoffice?
>
> What's the 8th most often asked question at OOo? How to save a document
> as a default template. Of course, those bastards don't RTFMsss!
But is the question answered? And is it the same person who answers
every time? In the python newsgroup there used to be an unstated
protocol with giving assistance to questions.
The adapts would answer long-term user questions, the long-term users
would answer short-term users, and the short-term users would answer the
"newbie" questions.
> Etc.
>
Roel Schroeven
> Marc BlackJack Rintsch wrote:
>
>> In <12bno94...@corp.supernews.com>, Yugo wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Joal Heagney wrote:
>>>> Firefox anyone?
>>> Yes, great! Why is it, though, that they made the fonts so small in mode
>>> 1280 x 1024 that the url window is hardly readable? Anybody with a
>>> slightly impaired vision can't read it. Of course, a url bar is not that
>>> important in a browser.
>
>> Filed a bug report?
> Tthe problem with Linux software is you've got to file reports for the
> most obvious things. It's as if the developers only saw their code and
> never used their own software.
>
> With even the 17" LCD screens coming in 1280x1024 definition, this mode is
> ever more popular. I now have a good quality 19" LCD and the url windows
> is readable. But on a CRT, it was hard to read and such is probably the
> case for 17" LCDs. How come developers can't figure out that it would be
> better fot the fonts to fill the URL window without somebody writing to
> them? Are they such dunces?
My laptop has a 15.4" screen with 1400 by 1050 pixels, and the font in
the Firefox URL bar is perfectly readable. In fact I wouldn't want it to
be any bigger. Please don't regard your personal preferences as
universal truths.
--
If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood
on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton
Roel Schroeven
Joal Heagney
>
> Tell this to Suse, they have no idea of how Linux development is done:
Well then use Ubuntu. :)
*sighs*
I HAVE noticed a very strong decline in several Linux distros over the
last half-decade, in terms of release stability, coherence and
bug-fixes. It is important to realise that the companies that release
different distros do very little development of their own nowdays -
mainly just packaging up software and putting it in a fancy installer disk.
In the years 1997-2002, the distro companies WERE the head of linux
development. Redhat was great because it had one of the best graphical
system configuration tools bar none. Then they started focusing on the
server market (security and stability) and ignoring the desktop users,
so I tried SUSE, then Mandrake. Mandrake took what Redhat was doing, and
did it better.
Then when the "market" fell out of the bottom of Linux after the release
of Mac-(cough-BSD-cough)-OS, the distro companies either became
uninterested or got sloppy. Mandrake put out two unstable releases (8.0
and 8.1) one after the other, and Redhat didn't seem interested in
desktop users with systems that required a LOT of text-based
post-configuration. Mandrake Release 8.2 was stable and satisfactory,
but 9.0 didn't even install on my machine.
Looking back on it, the distro companies that had the poorest products
were the most commercialised. No matter how good I think open source is,
I have to acknowledge that there isn't much money in it. Interestingly
those companies that were trying the hardest to fit into the traditional
economy were the ones giving out the crappiest software.
So in 2003-2004, I started looking for an alternative. I looked at SUSE,
tried Debian and eventually settled on Ubuntu. Both Debian and Ubuntu
are purely non-commercial distributions. They survive on contributions
and volunteers, but don't sell distros or support a-la Redhat.
Debian is still very much a hard-core Linux distribution - doesn't even
have a graphical installation. However, the core system is rock solid,
tested 10 ways to hell, well integrated, and totally configurable. I
LOVE the fact that Ubuntu is based on this solid core but provides lots
of graphical configuration tools as well as a graphical install.
> Development Release: SUSE Linux 10.2 Alpha 2
> http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=03571#0
>
If you are having trouble with SUSE, PLEASE save yourself some heartache
and try out Ubuntu Dapper. You won't look back. :)
Joal Heagney
Joal Heagney
>>> While Google now allows searches of more than 10 words, who came up with
>>> the bright idea of making searches possible only in a small windows
>>> where hardly more than 3 words can be entered?
>
>> I have no problem entering 10 or more words there.
>
> Oh, yes! The only little problem is you can't see what you've entered
> before sending the query. Who cares, you have time, you can correct it
> later.
>
>> Most people start a
>> search with just one or two words anyway and then refine the search term
>> if the results are to broad or wrong.
>
> I see your point of view. You mean it was quite an inconvenient to fill
> only 2 or 3 words in the url window for a search while you could just as
> well enter 10 or more AND SEE THEM?
>
> You know what? The pain with discussing with Linux developers is that
> they're exactly like you. Their logic is nil.
>
Whoo-hoo. Look what I found!!!!! :D
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/349/
Joal Heagney
Yugo
>> I see your point of view. You mean it was quite an inconvenient to
>> fill only 2 or 3 words in the url window for a search while you could
>> just as well enter 10 or more AND SEE THEM?
>>
>> You know what? The pain with discussing with Linux developers is that
>> they're exactly like you. Their logic is nil.
>>
>
> Whoo-hoo. Look what I found!!!!! :D
>
> https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/349/
Gizmotry, just like in the MS Windows world! Everythin gis done all wrong,
then, in some obscure place, there is a fix.
Hey, did I sau that: when you can use the URL window, you don't need a
search window. Why enlarge it?
Yugo
> Yugo wrote:
>
>>
>> Tell this to Suse, they have no idea of how Linux development is done:
>
>
> Well then use Ubuntu. :)
> *sighs*
Not very sensible to irony, hey? OTOH, Suse would have to learn what Red
Hat has learned the hard way. Having two categories of users, some that
are offered a final alpha-grade release of OpenSuse and others that are
offered a stable SLED, is not really appreciated by users.
> I HAVE noticed a very strong decline in several Linux distros over the
> last half-decade, in terms of release stability, coherence and
> bug-fixes.
I would rather say since a year or two.
> Then when the "market" fell out of the bottom of Linux after the release
> of Mac-(cough-BSD-cough)-OS,
Yea, BSD-OS all the way. What a nice license, this BSD license! I believe
I'm going to send them a few dollars, so they can help Apple some more.
> the distro companies either became
> uninterested or got sloppy.
I don't see any relation here.
> Mandrake put out two unstable releases (8.0
> and 8.1) one after the other, and Redhat didn't seem interested in
> desktop users with systems that required a LOT of text-based
> post-configuration. Mandrake Release 8.2 was stable and satisfactory,
> but 9.0 didn't even install on my machine.
>
> Looking back on it, the distro companies that had the poorest products
> were the most commercialised.
I'm afraid it is so.
> No matter how good I think open source is,
> I have to acknowledge that there isn't much money in it.
Suse might find this out the hard way pretty soon.
> Interestingly
> those companies that were trying the hardest to fit into the traditional
> economy were the ones giving out the crappiest software.
>
> So in 2003-2004, I started looking for an alternative. I looked at SUSE,
> tried Debian and eventually settled on Ubuntu. Both Debian and Ubuntu
> are purely non-commercial distributions. They survive on contributions
> and volunteers, but don't sell distros or support a-la Redhat.
I wonder where Shuttleworth is headed. The least that can be said about
his previous business is that it was far from open source.
I've tried an Ubuntu Live-CD about 18 months ago. Nothing worked. I was
told it was normal since it was only some kind of demo. The demo was there
to show that nothing worked.
Then, there was this root password visible mess:
"An extremely critical bug and security threat was discovered in Ubuntu
Breezy Badger 5.10 earlier today by a visitor on the Ubuntu Forums that
allows anyone to read the root password simply by opening an installer log
file. Apparently the installer fails to clean its log files and leaves
them readable to all users. The bug has been fixed, and only affects The
5.10 Breezy Badger release. Ubuntu users, be sure to get the patch right
away."
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/13/0525254&from=rss
It now seems to me that the only purpose of Ubuntu is to operate a Debian
split.
> Debian is still very much a hard-core Linux distribution - doesn't even
> have a graphical installation.
What a big problem, mainly for a GIMP developer! Graphical, ncurses, who
cares, soon as it works? Mainly that you're supposed to install once in
your lifetime.
> However, the core system is rock solid,
> tested 10 ways to hell, well integrated, and totally configurable. I
> LOVE the fact that Ubuntu is based on this solid core but provides lots
> of graphical configuration tools as well as a graphical install.
It's based on a solid core, then the twities step in.
>> Development Release: SUSE Linux 10.2 Alpha 2
>> http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=03571#0
>>
>
> If you are having trouble with SUSE, PLEASE save yourself some heartache
> and try out Ubuntu Dapper. You won't look back. :)
I'll more probably settle for the real thing itself, apparently.
Yugo
> Yugo wrote:
>
>> Joal Heagney wrote:
>>
>>> 4. Wait for the developers to fix things.
>>
>>
>> I've done that. The problem is, in the Linux world, they throw
>> anything at you that would be considered in early alpha stage in
>> Windows and call it a beta. (I suppose that's part of the release
>> early, release often philosophy.) Then the comments pour in and you
>> get no answer back. You reread those 17 pages of known bugs, you
>> wonder which the developers thought you might be refering to, you lose
>> your time, it's a pain, you give up.
> And commercial companies DON'T release unstable software as pay-for
> "stable" releases?
I'm afraid they do. But when I was using Windows, either I used well-known
shareware, Arachnophilia, Eudora or Free Agent, for instance, or a
commercial software whose developers I was working for as a beta tester.
This company has wiped out all its competition, even Microsoft's.
Choosing software in the Microsoft world was easier, there were some
inescapable markers. Today, I use Kmail for email and Mozilla news.
They're not half as well designed as Eudora and Free Agent were ten years
ago. I've tried all the most hyped software for email and news reading --
Pan, for instance -- and never considered they were worth a switch.
Arachnophilia was an HTML editor whose interface you could completely
redo. Paul Lutus, the developer, said since he was giving his editor away
-- only asking that you give some money to an animal shelter -- he
wouldn't bring out new version with buttons for new code: you could add
all the buttons you wanted, name them as you wanted, place them in the
menus you wanted, etc. And all this without a bug!
I have yet to see an equivalent in Linux, save for a new version which he
wrote im Java and which I haven't tried.
>> In the Windows world, know bugs are mostly fixed, You don't deal with
>> Bugzillas, you write to somebody. It happened once that I didn't get
>> answers from a company I was beta-besting for. They'd send me a copy
>> of the final release just the same and I used to see that most of my
>> comments had been ignored. Pretty soon they were bankrupt. That's
>> what I figure would happen to most Linux software if money was an issue.
>
>
> Mm-hmm. That's the first point. Money isn't an issue. That said, most
> opensource developers are very particular in pointing out what is a
> stable release and what is a development release. There's a link right
> on the first page of www.gimp.org warning you about 2.3's potential to
> do anything from simply crash, to molest your wife.
Don't worry. I know what a so-called stable release is.
> Instead of asking people to "ask you", why didn't you just tell us?
> Would have saved the grandstanding!
Why do you think I participated so much in beta testing for Windows
software and almost never in Linux (A few comments to LIVE-CDs, but that's
about it.) Because when I tried, what I got back was either complete
silence or somebody trying to teach me his way of doing things. I've had
enough.
See:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.graphics.apps.gimp/msg/ab9c089722b1b028
>> Why don't you answer this question instead and tell us how you would
>> do it... unless you think it's perfect the way it is? If we can come
>> to an agreement and 15 of us write to the developers /maybe/ we will
>> be heard. You think it's a loss of time? You're probably right.
>
>
> I would if you asked a question instead of asking us to ask you to ...
> now I'm confused.
Shit, the question is the paragraph you deleted just at the top:
"Now, if you'd tell me how you'd sharpen a whole picture and a selection
in The Newest GIMP, I'd tell you how I think it should be done. Will see
which way seem more efficient"
And it wasn't really a question, just a way to say let's compare how
awkward it is to do in The GIMP vs how it could be.
What is still a pending question about The GIMP (1.25), though, is how do
you enlarge (grow, in GIMP parlance) a selection that's already made. Of
course, in the latest release, a nice icon has been added for doing
exactly that and people tell me that since 1.25 was an early version, it
was normal not to be capable of enlarging a selection. Must have been
another of those stable alphas one again!
OTOH, adding an icon with all instruction sin the FM was not the way to do
it either. As I explained, with PSP, you just pull the corner and it
enlarges the selection keeping the aspect ratio.
>> As I explained, it certainly discourages nobody for the time being,
>> except, /for now/, in the server market.
> Well discourage might be a bit to strong a word, but the Halloween docs
> did seem to hint that it was making monopolies think a bit.
Yes, the Halloween docs, and Eric S.W.Z.Q. Raymond, and The Cathedral and
The Bizzard, and the times and life of Linux Tolvalds, I've read it all.
Too bad users still prefer Windows user friendlyness.
>>> Cheap shot time :) Linux's problem? Are you stating that there is
>>> only ONE problem? That's good, perhaps you could specifically
>>> describe it to us? You know, as opposed to jumping onto the bandwagon
>>> about opensource philosophy. SPECIFICS MAN, GIVE US SPECIFICS!!!! And
>>> if the developers tell you "Not yet." or even "No."
>>
>>
>> Is this what GIMP developers say to users? I thought they had a few
>> so-called stable releases.
>
>
> Yep, and these are purely expected to be stable. They won't have
> features tacked on, and they will ALWAYS be behind the cutting edge.
> Anyway, I thought your original post said you were trying to use 2.4?
No.
> :) Maybe even GIMP-like tools that combined with Blender's multibit
> colour support will herald in the "new replacement for Gimp". :)
Maybe a handful of geek in th eworl will think it's great. Good for them!
>> Finally I wonder why I'm argumenting here. Anybody in his right mind
>> who has used another photo retouching soft will tell you that The GIMP
>> is awkward.
> The main awkwardness of Gimp as compared to Photoshop at the present is
> the lack of these features (In my own immodest opinion)
> - Higher than 8 bit colour editing.
Err.... wasn't it GIMP's 16 bit color editing versus PS's 24 ?
Besides, you should stop comparing to Photoshop in terms of usability.
I've never tried photoshop, but I just went to GimpShop and compared the
menus. It's pretty much the same kind of ugly mess, the only difference
being that artists got accustomed to it. Sometimes, in commercial
software, interfaces are made unncessarily complex just to make user that
once used to them, users won't want to learn another one .Hence the
importance of being first on the market.
If you can download the test version of PSP, maybe it would probably be a
better comparision, even if it's not professionl software and it has all
kinds of gadgets. (But removing red eyes in a click might not be a bad
idea either.)
> > Professionals, even those working for the net, don't use it.
>
> Nope, but film companies do use it's bastard son, cinepaint, aka
> filmgimp to retouch high-resolution digital film.
Yes. That's about it.
>>> Firefox anyone?
>>
>>
>> Yes, great! Why is it, though, that they made the fonts so small in
>> mode 1280 x 1024 that the url window is hardly readable? Anybody with
>> a slightly impaired vision can't read it. Of course, a url bar is not
>> that important in a browser.
>
>
> True. Point 1. Have you filed a bug report?
I already answered this in another message, I believe.
> Or set the fonts in
> Preferences?
You can't set URL windows's fonts in Preferences.
> Point 2. As a high-school teacher my students have the exact same
> difficulty with the main body text in Internet Explorer being too small,
> at least until I teach them how to change text sizes.
You can't set URL windows's fonts in Preferences. Have you tried it before
answering?
>> What's the 8th most often asked question at OOo? How to save a
>> document as a default template. Of course, those bastards don't RTFMsss!
>
>
> But is the question answered?
Yes, it is explained how by clicking in the most unexpected places you'd
never have though of, you can finally save a document as a template.
What's this mess all about?
> And is it the same person who answers
> every time?
Thanks the Lord, the same person does not have to answer th question. They
finally decided it would be a nice idea to post the way through their maze
on their site.
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
> Both Debian and Ubuntu are purely non-commercial distributions. They
> survive on contributions and volunteers, but don't sell distros or
> support a-la Redhat.
Ubuntu (Canonical) sells support. The financial backing was the reason
for the split from Debian according to Shuttleworth. Because he wanted to
put some money in but realized that this might "poison" the Debian project
if some people are paid and some are volunteers, especially if it comes to
making decisions where it's not clear how much weight the money had.
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Doctor J. Frink
>
>(2nd read, 2nd edit of message).
>Okay - sorted out what you were asking.
>To sharpen a whole layer in GIMP 2.2 (I'm sensibly staying away from 2.3
>until it becomes 2.4.), <Image Menu>-Select-Select All, <Image
>Menu>-Filters-Enhance-Sharpen
>(Or <Image Menu>-Filters-Enhance-Unsharp).
I don't think you really need the select-all step, as by default a
filter operation will operate on the whole layer if there is no
selection. I know I've never selected all before sharpening/blurring
whole images.
>The main awkwardness of Gimp as compared to Photoshop at the present is
>the lack of these features (In my own immodest opinion)
>- Higher than 8 bit colour editing.
Definitely becoming more of a problem as more people get used to >8bit
output from cameras/scanners. It's about the one thing that would make
me move to a different package if I got a high end camera.
>- Layer groups
>- Layer effects
No idea about these but they sound useful for most people.
>- CMYK colour mode editing.
This is something that keeps coming up in the GIMP/Photoshop discussion
but seriously, how many people *need* CMYK mode? Sure it'd help with
pros who are going to get published but that's a minority for GIMP.
GIMP should support it but I'd definitely put it as a low priority
addition (but if you're doing a graphics engine from scratch it should
be in there from the start along with the ability to support other image
modes like LAB).
Frink
--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail'
See his mind here : http://www.cmp.liv.ac.uk/frink/
Annoy his mind here : pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook
"No sir, I didn't like it!" - Mr Horse
Michael Soibelman
Dear Joal,
This guy is here for one purpose...flamebait !! Period...After reading his
ranting for many days now I am certain of that. He actually is not going
to upgrade to a recent version of Gimp because he LIKES to complain. As he
stated in another post, no he doesn't have anything else to do. So go
ahead and spend wasted time if you like but realize he is not trying to
accomplish anything usefull !! Period...I and you and others have been
rational in our responses but he just keeps responding about zealots,
etc... It seems quite obvious who the zealot is here. I think I've just
developed the correct response to this guy and believe we should all act
together on this. Since we are all zealots, according to Yugo my response
will be the same one I used with my nieces and nephew when they were
younger and used his "yeah, but..." mentality.
All that I would say to them and will say to him is the following:
"That's Nice" :-) LOL
So don't get too annoyed when you see that all over the place. Chess,
anyone ?
Michael Soibelman
> I use version 1.2.5 of The Gimp. It's an old version, but what I'm trying
> to do is a most basic operation when, say, you want to create a picture
> for a desktop: I want to modify a selection while keeping the aspect
> ratio.
>
> I found out that you can create a selection of a given ratio by going to
> the Dialog menu(1) of the selection tool. This dialog menu only appears in
> the File menu of the GIMP interface, not if you right-click on the
> picture.
>
> I have then found all kind of ways to bend the selection left and right,
> but absolutely no way to do the most basic opereation: enlarge the
> selection while keeping the aspect ration.
>
> When I was using PaintShopPro in Windows, the ratio of the selection was
> indicated in the status bar whenever it was modified. Pulling or pushing
> the corners would enlarge or shrink the selection while keeping the aspect
> ratio. Pulling the site would enlarge or shrink the selection while
> modifying the aspect ratio. What's the advantage of having to open the
> File - Dialog - Tool Options menu , then having to select whatever aspect
> ratio you want and having to return to the menu if ever you want to change
> it -- because, of course, menus close every time you choose an option --
> whereas PSP could do that with the click of the mouse? I'm not sure I get
> this.
>
> I've googled the manuals, the guides, the tutorials: nothing. For a
> moment, I tought I had found it: right click on the picture, select Select
> - Grow, enlarge the size in the interface, then move the selection
> anywhere you want with CTRL+ALT + mouse. Unfortunately the corners are
> rounded automatically and I see no way to change this.
>
> I'm appalled by all the time I've lost again this afternoon trying to
> accomplish a basic operation that is so self-evident in an amateur
> software in Windows. As I write these lines, The GIMP appears to me as an
> awful lost of time, both in terms of learning as in a production context.
>
> I don't care that the GIMP doesn't offer CMYK or that it does so through a
> plug-in that might not work as well with Adobe's Pantone. I don't care
> that's it's not entirely vector base or that it doesn't offer 24 bit
> colors. But after all the hype I've read on the net about The GIMP, I
> would expect it to do what's it's supposed to do without so much headache.
> Reading all Those Fucking Manuals has no value per se, the only thing that
> matters is having the job done efficiently. The fact that the GIMP is free
> is no excuse: even paid at the minimum wage, you'd be much better off
> buying a commercial software than using the GIMP. And that's exactly
> Microsoft's argument for selling its software...
>
> At the present time, I can't see how I can get halfway productive with The
> GIMP. Every new step of learning is a nightmare. So, I wonder if there's
> something very fundamental that I don't get or if the hype is totally
> undeserved. Does GIMPShop make things so much easier? Will I still have to
> open and reopen menus to achieve the most basic operations?
>
> I suppose comp.graphics.apps.gimp is where the GIMP experts are. I hope
> you can light my lantern.
That's Nice.
Michael Soibelman
> Doctor J. Frink wrote:
>
>> Forget GIMP 1.2, you're just giving yourself a bad impression of what is
>> now a much better program IMO.
>
> Well, since version 2.4 is just about to come out in two or three months,
> it should correspond to the time I'll change my distro. I suppose it will
> be included and I'll certainly give it a try.
>
> But, you know, that version of PSP I tried was number 4. It was around...
> 1998, I suppose. It's now up to 10. Certainly, it didn't offer all The
> GIMP's options, but it was functional. You didn't have to search for and
> read the fucking manuals for hours to perform the most simple tasks. You
> didn't have to open menus to just create... and resize a fixed aspect
> ratio selection.
>
> Excuse me, but I'm a bit fed up with all the hype and the meager results.
> Michael Soibelman says that the next release will be a real breakthrough
> in terms of usability. Sorry, I'm not a believer anymore. The GIMP has now
> been in development for more than ten years and it still hasn't got an
> efficient interface. Seeing the priority the GIMP team gives to its
> interface:
>
> GIMP had eight projects accepted for this Summer of Code:
>
> * Vector Layers
> * Vanishing Point Cloning
> * Healing Brush Tool
> * GIMP Resource repository
> * New Brush System
> * JPEG 2000
> * Ruby Scripting
> * UI Improvements
>
> I doubt very much that 2.4 will be much easier to use than 2.2 or 1.2. I
> could hope and pray but I don't believe anymore in anything except more
> headaches coming from The GIMP.
>
> This crufty crap is way overhyped.
That's Nice
Michael Soibelman
> John K. Herreshoff wrote:
>
>> If you find linux to be so frustrating, don't use it. You'll feel a lot
>> better.
>
> Good answer! I really love Linux advocates. It's the fifth year of Linux
> on the desktop and still, it's a total blank. Suse, despite the hype of
> its new CEO about the "great services opportunities for [his] partners",
> is nowhere close to make it happen.
>
> Linux has failed also lamentably in the embedded devices market. It's
> doing pretty good in the server market mainly because of Apache. And
> thederided recent gains Microsoft made with GoDaddy were yesterday Linux's
> pride.
>
> Just twist the reality with words, is all Linux advocates do. Do you
> remember when, in 1999, "evangelist" Eric S. Raymond answered this
> question:
>
> Q: Five years from now, how many people will be using Linux?
>
> A: If we continue to grow our user rate at the level we've been doing now,
> [Raymond writes an arithmetic formula to determine this] we'd get six
> doubling periods, which means just shy of a billion people, 860 million in
> fact. I'm not expecting it to be quite that high because trends like this
> tend to show logistic growth rather than exponential, and it's not clear
> what the threshold is. I'd say somewhere near 750 million would be a good
> conservative estimate.
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr1999/nf90427c.htm
>
> 750 million people using Linux in 2004? Even in 2006, we're not close to
> 1/100 of this figure, unless, of course, you do like this Linux Counter
> guy and you extrapolate 138699 registered users to 29 million. Why not to
> 1 billion, then? There are so many downloads and, as we know, most do not
> end up as coasters but are used at least a thousand times for new single
> boot installations.
>
> Keep up your good Linux advocacy. Make sure you have the answer you just
> made in your clipboard. As time goes by, it might come in more and more
> handy. The important thing is that developers rest assured that they
> shouldn't care about users. They're real geeks, they know the way!
That's Nice
Michael Soibelman
> John K. Herreshoff wrote:
>
>> Remember MSDOS of 20 years ago? It was command line, and so many people
>> could not use it. Then came the MS gui, and people could use
>> 'computers.'
>
> Most people could, but computers were too expemsive. I see no relation to
> the present discussion.
>
>> If you find linux to be so frustrating, don't use it. You'll feel much
>> better... Unless you like the free aspect of linux. Linux and its
>> freedom, however, takes some work, dedication, and insight.
>
> Full bullshit! All that working with the GIMP in peculiar requires is that
> you be ready to lose your time. It's just plain awkward and
> counterproductive.
That's Nice
Michael Soibelman
> Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
>> In <12biocg...@corp.supernews.com>, Yugo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>If you find linux to be so frustrating, don't use it. You'll feel much
>>>>better... Unless you like the free aspect of linux. Linux and its
>>>>freedom, however, takes some work, dedication, and insight.
>>>
>>>Full bullshit! All that working with the GIMP in peculiar requires is
>>>that you be ready to lose your time. It's just plain awkward and
>>>counterproductive.
>>
>>
>> Than take his advice and don't use it! What's your problem man. Neither
>> Gimp nor the Linux community force you to use the software and to spent
>> precious time writing flame baits. Every posting you write is more
>> wasted and lost time for you.
>>
>> Use the software that fits your needs best and relax.
Michael Soibelman
> Joal Heagney wrote:
>
>> Am I imagining it, or is this response word for word the same one you
>> used after John kicked in?
>
> oesn't it fit well? Same argument, same answer.
>
>> And you should be careful of lumping all us GIMPites under the banner
>> "Linux advocates". There are a lot of users in this group who use Mac
>> and/or MS. I use Linux, but think of myself as an "Open Choice advocate"
>> rather than a "Linux advocate" - I personally don't care what you use,
>> as long as you don't try to take away our rights to use what WE want to
>> use.
>
> As for taking your rights sway, don't count on me, count on Microsoft.
>
>> You've listed plenty of reasons why you don't think Gimp is the program
>> for you. Okay, we've heard and understood. What we don't understand is
>> why you don't use your power of choice and act on that realisation? :)
>
> Indeed, if, as a user, there's anything you don't like about Linux, the
> automatic answer is "Since you're a programmer, fix it!"
>
> Unfortunately, not everyone is a programmer. Some people use computers
> that will die of old age in a year or two. They don't really feel like
> becoming programmers. And maybe it's better that your doctor, dentist,
> mechanic, learn more about their trade than about computers. You and your
> car will be better served.
>
> Those arguments are so vain it's unimaginable that they can come from
> people with half a brain functional. Linux software is, in general, so
> awkward that after 15 years of development, the /voter's/ market share is
> about left untouched. So Microsoft is left to do whatever it wants.
>
> Apparently, Microsoft has bought Sympatico, the most important ISP in
> Canada, formerly wholly owned by Bell Canada. Now, all sort of added MS
> services are offered for a few dollar more. Of course, all the site is
> very IE compliant, Mozilla... not so much.
>
> Now, sympatico.msn uses the national television as a portal:
>
> http://sympatico.msn.radio-canada.ca/index.shtml
>
> Sympatico-Msn also buys a lot of publicity at Radio-Canada. You see, they
> must help them pay the bills, cause Radio-Canada uses Microsoft's
> proprietary formats everywhere, including for streaming its news.
>
> So, it's very nice of you to ask that I don't tamper with your freedom of
> choice but I'm afraid it's just completely ridiculous. It's braggarts like
> you who, by refusing to face Linux's problem head on, are destroying your
> freedom.
>
> 15 years, no result on the voter's market share. And th àe bragging still
> goes on.
That's Nice
Michael Soibelman
That's Nice
Michael Soibelman
Yugo
It seems Canonical ended up poisoning the Debian community just the same.
Here's just one point on how it happened:
"When Canonical entered the market and hired some developers to work on a
Debian-related project, a lot of jealousy boiled up among those who didn't
get a job, because back then it seemed that Canonical was out to pay
people to work on Debian -- which is a common dream among us developers;
at least people hoped that's what it would be. Many fundamental
contributors felt left out and confronted with the question why they
should continue their work for free when others are now getting paid for it."
Jim Carlock
> That's Nice.
That's not so nice to repeat everything in the OPs message and
then reply only with, "That's Nice." Seriously, it's a waste of time
to reply if you fail to add something beneficial to the conversation.
Even if the guy is full of hot air, repeating everything he says ends
up as bandwidth abuse and newsgroup abuse. It's a waste of
everyone's time. Not just your own time.
As for Yugo, please chill out and focus on one thing at a time.
I just took a look at the gimp-win project and there's only one
developer there. Perhaps he's only doing the Windows port
from Unix? Your complaints, Yugo, would go alot further if
you could communicate them in a civilized and modest fashion.
I'm not sure where the Unix GIMP originates, I only searched
SourceForge.net and didn't spot any links right off the bat to
any other sites.
Hope this helps.
--
Jim Carlock
Post replies to the group.
Joal Heagney
<snip>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:51:03 GMT, Joal Heagney <jhe1...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> - Layer groups
>> - Layer effects
>
> No idea about these but they sound useful for most people.
Oh they are. Basically they get rid of the necessity to Copy, edit and
Merge Layers to get certain effects, and enable users to directly edit
complex effect stacks.
Layer groups as I envisage them (Inspired by something I saw in
Photoshop) in Gimp would work by turning the Layers stack into more of a
tree. Imagine being able to do the following:
1. Create a normal layer.
2. Stack a second full white layer over the top of this in screen mode.
3. Combine these two layers into a Layer Group
4. Then imagine using this group to define a Layer Mask for a third
Layer, over the top of a fourth layer.
5. Now imagine being able to go back to the second layer and painting
directly into this. The effect is to be able to "paint in" the parts of
the first layer that you want to use as a mask for the third layer.
Yes you can do this by layering, merging and setting as mask in normal
gimp, but what happens when you change four different things at once,
and realise that you want to alter the second thing, but keep the third
and fourth thing?
Layer Effects a-la Joal Heagney Gimp would work like this.
You create a special layer (Called an effects layer) and "embed" one of
Gimp's filters into it. The layer can have a mask, which simply states
which area the effect is applied to (Think "stored selection"). Then,
when you click on the "Edit Layer Attributes" in the Layers Dialog, it
allows you to alter the settings of the Filter.
The only problem with this implementation is that I can envisage it
chewing a LOT of processor speed and memory - though this could be
offset by using caching of the different parts of the image tree.
>> - CMYK colour mode editing.
>
> This is something that keeps coming up in the GIMP/Photoshop discussion
> but seriously, how many people *need* CMYK mode? Sure it'd help with
> pros who are going to get published but that's a minority for GIMP.
That's why I put it at the bottom of the list. :)
> GIMP should support it but I'd definitely put it as a low priority
> addition (but if you're doing a graphics engine from scratch it should
> be in there from the start along with the ability to support other image
> modes like LAB).
>
> Frink
>
LAB does sound more useful than CMYK - imagine all those tutorials that
talk about decomposing into LAB, editing the L channel and then
recomposing back to RGB. Lot of rewriting there. :)
Joal Heagney
Joal Heagney
>
> Dear Joal,
>
> This guy is here for one purpose...flamebait !! Period...After reading his
> ranting for many days now I am certain of that. He actually is not going
> to upgrade to a recent version of Gimp because he LIKES to complain. As he
> stated in another post, no he doesn't have anything else to do. So go
> ahead and spend wasted time if you like but realize he is not trying to
> accomplish anything usefull !! Period...I and you and others have been
> rational in our responses but he just keeps responding about zealots,
> etc... It seems quite obvious who the zealot is here. I think I've just
> developed the correct response to this guy and believe we should all act
> together on this. Since we are all zealots, according to Yugo my response
> will be the same one I used with my nieces and nephew when they were
> younger and used his "yeah, but..." mentality.
>
> All that I would say to them and will say to him is the following:
>
> "That's Nice" :-) LOL
>
> So don't get too annoyed when you see that all over the place. Chess,
> anyone ?
True, but maybe if we keep trying to talk some sense into the
discussion, we can drown him out with reason and enlightenment. :)
Joal Heagney
PS: I have actually seen this happen in the python newsgroups. Somebody
chimes in with a flamebait, everybody dives in to "help" the troll, and
then somehow the thread ends up drifting into several different
discussions about this feature or that philosophy, with the troll
becoming little more that the embedded (and isolated) piece of grit that
caused the pearl (not perl :D ) to grow.
Joal Heagney
Unix GIMP originates from it's own web page, www.gimp.org.
Interestingly, sourceforge DOES store Gimp's new print drivers though.
Joal Heagney