GIMP 2.2 Splash Screen Competition 257
Lalakis writes "The GIMP 2.2 Splash Contest is now officially
open! Competition entries should be attached to the live.gnome.org wiki
before midnight next Sunday. Submit your work and get the glory (there may be a small prize sponsored, too)."
My Favorite Splash Screen (Score:5, Insightful)
How about having no splash screen as an option and let everyone else stare at the pretty picture for N seconds. I have so many windows open that I don't need to have something else occupying my desktop. To me, splash screens are annoying like browser popups - which I haven't seen in months thanks Mozzy that also has the alias & shortcut command option of nosplash.
How many windows? (Score:2, Insightful)
What would be better (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My Favorite Splash Screen (Score:5, Insightful)
how about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My Favorite Splash Screen (Score:4, Insightful)
They do have a purpose though, they hide the fact the program takes forever to initialize
Re:My Favorite Splash Screen (Score:4, Insightful)
Java Programs Need Them (Score:2, Insightful)
background load while using it would be nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Waiting (about 30 seconds?) is a pain when you only want to edit an 16 pixel icon especially.
p.s. aren't message boxes also awful too, interrupting work and stealing focus... oh, I had typed more but lost it all after gimp loaded up and changed focus while I was typing and looking at keyboard.
Re:What would be better (Score:4, Insightful)
I started out in graphics with gimp. I had enough interest in pixelling to want to continue, to learn the roped and put up with the difficulties. I'd been TOLD that graphics was hard, and it was tedious indeed.
Then I used Photoshop, ready to scoff at the proprietary solution costing so many thousands and doing no more than gimp. Within 2 weeks I'd gone out and bought photoshop because no matter how much you listen to someone else's experience with a program, there is nothing more revealing than using it yourself. Gimp feels nearly feature complete, but in the same way a large rock is feature complete with a set of six various sized hammers. When you need to hit something and do it right, the hammers let you do it exactly how you want to.
Photoshop is a set of hammers.
Re:What would be better (Score:1, Insightful)
This whole debate/troll about Gimp's GUI is not about bugs or incompleteness, it's about choices that have been made. This GUI is not buggy, it doesn't lack important features, but they made the choice to not copy Photoshop, and that's what it's all about. Don't like these choices ? Fork it and make a Photshop-like GUI. But don't remove the ability to like Gimp from us.
Re:My Favorite Splash Screen (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not delegate splash screens to a special daemon which can be decorated with skins, docked into the KDE/GNOME panel or just deactivated?
Re:how about... (Score:3, Insightful)
My Favorite Splash Screen-GConf. (Score:1, Insightful)
Like GConf?
What The Gimp really needs for professionals (Score:3, Insightful)
Few management types are going to approve of using a BDSM-themed program no matter how free it is.
The attempt at making a cute raccoon-like animal the mascot doesn't help. We all know that he's wearing nothing but leather and pain below the neck.
Re:What would be better (Score:4, Insightful)
How about a logo contest (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How many windows? (Score:1, Insightful)
A serious question about Gimp. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me put it simply: Airbrush sucks. I need something better.
The task is preparing gray-to-heightmap images from photos for later 3D engraving using a CNC engraving machine. I "spray" more white using airbrush where the image in the background is higher, leave dark where the bottom should stay deep. The effect is very neat for small details or simple shapes. But it really sucks when it comes to large areas. The fact that the output is slightly grainy is not that bad - a single pass of blur and the "grains" are gone. Much harder is achieving bigger smoothly curved surfaces - just try to spray a regular flat gray area (using white), it's just as hard as to get a smooth gradient - you get low-depth, several pixels wide depressions, bumps etc that are very hard to remove.
Regular "gradient" is not an option either - I need shapes much more sophisticated than regular "spherical" or "shapeburst" - maybe something like Bezier curved gradients could help...?
Any ideas, suggestions?
(no, don't suggest Photoshop. It does exactly the same.)
What is it that people don't like about the GIMP? (Score:2, Insightful)
I, for one, can't really see what people dislike so much about the project. The application was perfectly usable before 2.x, yet got a huge boost when 2.0 was released. The GIMP has done the most of any project when it comes to building new widgets on top of the GTK toolkit.
The GIMP is no Photoshop. It doesn't have adjustment layers, color management, the healing brush, all the cool plug-ins for digital photographers that Photoshop CS introduced, and lots of other features. Photoshop is a remarkable application, there's no question about it, but the GIMP is eminently usable -- it's a remarkable project, and it is making great strides.
So the next time, if you feel the need to complain, please try to be a little bit more specific and use less inflammatory language.
Re:What would be better (Score:3, Insightful)