GIMP frustrations

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

I am reasonably accomplished at photoshop. I have been using it for more than 10 years on both PC and Macs.

As part of my moving away from PC-based crap, I decided to start working with GIMP.

I have to say, I am very frustrated. The learning curve is much steeper than a new photoshop version, or even when I self-taught myself photoshop over a long weekend to get my first job on a website.

Am I alone in this?

[bemildred]

1. Nope. Gimp has a lot of power, but it's frustrating for noobs.

The interface is full of ad-hoc-ery and feature-itis.
The price is really excellent though ($0.00), and you get source code.
And anyway, I like Gimp, but I'm just saying it's not just you that struggles.

[qnr]

2. Would it help any if it looked more like Photoshop? (I understand that

it is just plain different, but still, there must be some reason that someone went to the effort of making it look like Photoshop). Here is the link to the appropriate thread, if you haven't seen it yet: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=240x542

Edit: The Mac link takes you to a page that looks like it has a link to the Linux version.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

3. Maybe... But I get really lost trying to install Gimpshop

I am trying again, but...

I should be able to get this thing mastered, dammit.

[qnr]

5. Ugh :/ - I feel for you. I just installed and uninstalled it fine here,

but my package manager is totally different.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

6. so, what package manager is that?

??

[qnr]

7. It's our own package manager: "Sorcery"

Here is a description of it:

http://wiki.sourcemage.org/Sorcery

More information than you want to know, but here is what the gimpshop spell looks like.

All you have to do is type "cast gimpshop" - sorcery then does everything necessary, using these files:

The DETAILS file is the main file. It gives all the information about the program (name, description, version, md5/hashsum/GPG, website, download url, etc.):

           SPELL=gimpshop
       BUILD_API=2
         VERSION=2.2.4
          SOURCE=GIMPshop-source-2.2.4.tbz
          MD5<0>='5d518f18205e89cd4992131e797120fe'
   SOURCE_URL<0>=http://www.plasticbugs.com/blogimg/GIMPshop-source-2.2.4.tbz
SOURCE_DIRECTORY=$BUILD_DIRECTORY/gimp-$VERSION
        WEB_SITE=http://plasticbugs.com/index.php?p=241
         ENTERED=20050331
         UPDATED=20050331
      LICENSE<0>=GPL
           SHORT="GIMPshop is GIMP with a Photoshop look"
cat << EOF
The GIMP is the GNU Image Manipulation Program. It is a freely
distributed piece of software suitable for such tasks as photo
retouching, image composition and image authoring. It can be used as a
simple paint program, an expert quality photo retouching program, an
online batch processing system, a mass production image renderer, a
image format converter, etc. GIMPshop renamed and reorganized GIMP's 
tools, options, windows, and menus to closely resemble Adobe Photoshop's 
menu structure and naming conventions.
EOF

The DEPENDS file shows mandatory and/or optional dependencies for the program. If you don't have the mandatory ones, it will automatically download and install them. If you select any optional ones, it will download and install them.

depends  gtk+2        &&
depends  libart_lgpl  &&
depends  XML-Parser-Expat &&
optional_depends  gimp-print \
                                        ""\
                                        "--disable-print"\
                                        "to support printing from gimp"  &&
optional_depends  libexif                      \
                  ""                           \
                  "--without-libexif"          \
                  "for EXIF jpeg tag support"  &&

optional_depends  libgtkhtml              \
                  ""                      \
                  "--without-libgtkhtml"  \
                  "for GTK help browser"  &&

optional_depends  librsvg2                         \
                  ""                               \
                  "--without-librsvg"              \
                  "for SVG import/export support"

The CONFLICTS file shows what program(s) this program conflicts with, and asks you if you want to dispel (uninstall) the one you are already running. If you do uninstall it, and don't like the new one, you don't have to recompile the old one, it keeps a copy of the binaries and it takes just seconds to get back.

conflicts gimp

Sometimes when you install a program, you need to update programs that are already installed, so that they are aware of the new one. That is what the TRIGGERS file is for.

on_cast libexif check_self

The HISTORY file keeps track of who initially wrote the spell, what changes have been made, etc. (email addresses removed)

2005-03-20 Arjan Bouter <email>
        * POST_REMOVE: source FUNCTIONS until dispel does that

2005-02-23 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: 2.2.4 (devel & stable)

2005-02-21 Arwed v. Merkatz <email>
        * FINAL, POST_REMOVE: run update_desktop_database

2005-01-22 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: 2.2.3 (devel & stable)

2005-01-10 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: 2.2.2 (devel & stable)

2005-01-03 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: 2.2.1 (devel & stable)

2004-12-20 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: 2.2.0 (devel & stable)

2004-11-21 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: 2.2-pre2

2004-11-03 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: 2.0.6/2.2-pre1

2004-10-15 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: 2.1.7

2004-10-11 David Braaten <email>
        * DEPENDS: made gimp-print optional (bug 7480).

2004-10-05 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: 2.1.6

2004-09-26 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: 2.0.5/2.1.5

2004-09-05 David Braaten <email>
        * DETAILS: devel version 2.1.4.

2004-08-06 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: 2.0.4

2004-07-20 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * PREPARE, DETAILS: BUILD_API=2
          added support for devel/stable version (2.1.2/2.0.3)
          deprecated gimp-devel spell

2004-07-19 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: 2.0.3

2004-06-24 David Braaten <email>
        * TRIGGERS: follow sandalle's suggestion to check_self instead of cast_self.

2004-06-22 David Braaten <email>
        * TRIGGERS: trigger on libexif. (bug# 7017)

2004-06-15 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: 2.0.2
        * BUILD, gcc-3.4.patch: removed, now useless

2004-05-26 Unet <email>
        * BUILD, gcc-3.4.patch: added, self-explanatory :)

2004-04-15 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: 2.0.1

2004-03-26 David Braaten <email>
        * DETAILS: remove some 'devel' text from the descriptions.

2004-03-25 David Braaten <email>
        * DETAILS: copied from gimp-devel. Version is 2.0.0.
        * DEPENDS: copied from gimp-devel.

2003-11-27 Jason Flatt <email>
        * DEPENDS: Changed jpeg to optional_depends and added tiff and libpng
          as optional_depends. (Bug # 4793.)
        * HISTORY: Formated to new formating standard.

2003-06-17 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: updated to 1.2.5

2003-05-30 Ladislav Hagara <email>
        * DETAILS: updated to 1.2.4
        * DEPENDS: added gimp-print

2003-04-05 Eric Sandall <email>
        * CONFLICTS: Added missing conflicts on filmgimp. (No record of it's
          removal? -- Jason)

2002-12-01 Unet <email>
        * DEPENDS: Added a dependancy to jpeg

2002-06-12 Unet <email>
        * Created this.

There are more files that are used when appropriate. This just happens to be the ones needed for GIMPshop.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

8. since it is a shell script, I should be able to use it

yes?

[qnr]

9. I know of people that have. You'd need the whole sorcery package I think.

Might be easier to just try to install from a source tarball, if you're only going to be using it for one file.

[qnr]

4. delete - replied to wrong post

[FormerDittoHead]

10. You are not alone. - here's a simple question about Linux (RANT)

<rant>I truly wonder, why, Why, WHY don't Linux developers understand the VALUE OF TIME when it comes to LEARNING something in order to (gasp) get something DONE?

I have a little secret for Linux companies. I have the secret on how Linux's use on the desktop could increase 1,000,000% overnight:

Initially, make it ACT, FEEL, and Look like Windows (sans the logo). (starting with installing new programs)

GASP! NEVER! Oh NO! But why the fuck NOT?

If Linux developers simply *rearranged* the stuff, created some "front ends", stopped expecting desktop users to learn C programming and made it FEEL like windows (CUA keys, universal copy and paste commands shortcut keys to start, menu arrangements, etc) you'd see people in DROVES switching over...

I mean, *START* by mimicing Windows, THEN (ding!) "improve" upon it. GET the market FIRST, THEN teach them all the crap you guys think end users should have to learn (like configure/make/make install and fixing dependencies, for god's reason escapes me why you expect people to learn such crap. Oh I forgot, we should all learn C programming).

How many "Is Linux ready for desktop users" articles am I going to have to read before the developer GET it when the central theme is ALWAYS a comparison to WINDOWS. Not stablity. Not security. It's TIME. The TIME it takes to LEARN something new when we're just trying to get something DONE.

Gimp (to actually keep with the topic) is a VG example. They SAY that it's "just as good" as Photoshop... Now if only I could find the command to do... I don't know... *ANYTHING*. Here's a tip: make the "photoshop clone" interface, complete with all the commands, actions, history, etc (ie: the MIRROR of complete Photoshop) the *default* and make the "C++ developers IDE" interface an "option"....</rant>

[RoyGBiv]

11. It's not about "the market."

[qnr]

12. Because the Windows way of accomplishing things isn't really efficient

either. People are just used to doing things that way, but that doesn't make it right.

Anyone willing to invest three hours (1) into their system, figuring out how a program operates (or the whole shebang, from configuration, through compilation, through installation, through use) can use that information for 95% of the other Linux programs that are out there. Of course, some programs are inherently more complicated (Cinelerra, The GIMP, transcode, for example) -- but did you just pick up Photoshop and know it inside out within minutes of opening it?

Linux isn't Windows. If people want Windows, without taking a little bit of time to learn a new way of doing things, perhaps they should stick with Windows.

After all, wouldn't French and Chinese be ever so much easier to learn if they'd just start using English words and rules of grammar? Sounds silly, doesn't it? Same thing applies with Linux - or BSD - or whatever alternate choice you consider.

Edit: (1) Three total hours of actually using a program I mean. The actual 3 hours of learning experience might take much longer than that to accomplish, if you understand what I mean.

[RoyGBiv]

13. Linux is not Windows

I intended to put this in the body of my previous reply, but I'd lost the link and didn't have time to edit.

So ...

This is the classic and detailed answer to your rant as shown by how it is introduced. I would highly suggest reading it. It's long, but it explains very clearly why Linux doesn't work like Windows and why the point is not to capture the market.

Selected tidbits ...

If, as I do, you spend any amount of time on a Linux forum, you'll eventually grow exasperated, as I did, by the number of posts that run something like this:

"Hi! I've been using Linux for a few days, and it's mostly great. But, it's a shame that doesn't work like it does on Windows. Why don't all the developers completely rewrite all the software so it acts more like Windows? I'm sure Linux would get lots more users if they did!"

...

A Windows user must realize that he's only an experienced Windows user, not an experienced computer user; just like a car driver is only a car driver, not an all-road-vehicles driver. A Windows user on Linux must realize that he has just become a novice again, just like a car driver on a motorbike. A Windows user must be willing to learn that there are different ways of accomplishing the same task, just as a car driver must get used to the handlebars replacing a wheel and the need for a crash helmet he never had to use before. And they have to be prepared to accept that "different" does not mean "inferior".

...

When somebody devotes a large chunk of his own time to create a piece of software, he will make the user interface (UI) as good as possible. The UI is a hugely important part of the software: there's no point having functionality if you can't access it via the UI. You might not know what it is, but there is always a reason why the UI works the way it does. That reason? Because it is the best UI the creator could create.

Before you insist that a more Windows-like UI would make the software better, bear this fact in mind: The creator of this software, a coder who, by definition, knows far more than you do about this piece of software, doesn't agree with you. He might be wrong, but the odds are against it.

...

But the 'release cycle' of Linux isn't like Windows. You don't get the finished, highly-polished GUI package released right from the start. GUIs add complexity and no functionality to software. A developer doesn't sit down and design a pretty GUI that does nothing, he sits down and creates a piece of software that does what he needs it to do.

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

14. There will be counter rants...

There are already, I see.

Simple answer? There is not one.

It is a philopsophy issue, a religious belief.

I do wish they would make the programming lighter, even though I am a very experienced computer user, my mind does not "do" programming, the synapses are just not there.

That said, I am usually able to muddle though most things.

I wish I could answer some of your questions better. Perhaps someone else can.

[RoyGBiv]

16. I wasn't ranting ...

I was attempting to offer a genuine response to the rant, using a well-constructed discussion of the exact issue raised.

Of course I doubt anyone will read it, but that's okay.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

17. So I see. I had not read it at that point.

Sorry.
Meant no offense.

[qnr]

18. Actually, I read it. It was very good. Interesting that I've never come

across it before.

[Lowell]

15. We use multiplatforms where I work

I run a Mac OSX, PC Win$hit XP and a Sparc 10 on Unix. Until recently Photoshop had a version for Unix. At home I have one PC running XP and three on Linux. I've learned to use Gimp and find it a very powerful program, but like you point out it is not like Windoze.

I prefer Unix and Linux to the other platforms. It takes a little more investment of time to learn, but it is much more flexible and dependable than the alternatives. If you don't have the time or energy to invest in learning Gimp then just stick with Windoze and take the chances of an unstable and insecure system. Personally I have found that Gimp offers nearly all of the features found in Photoshop. Those it lacks will be developed sooner or later, or are not worth it anyway.

Part of the beauty of Linux is that it can be configured they way you want. It is also open source so you can take applications and modify or alter them to your particular needs. Linux is not for the weak or faint of heart. I have been using Gimp for a little over a year now and find that I learn new things all the time. If you are serious about moving to an open source system then give it the time and effort needed to learn.