If it ain't broke don't fix it. Gimp has been standard for years and works perfectly. Leave it.
On 7/30/11, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > Send xubuntu-devel mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of xubuntu-devel digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Replacing GIMP (Kristian Rink) > 2. Re: Replacing GIMP (Jarno Suni) > 3. Re: Panels in Oneiric Ocelot (Eero Tamminen) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:20:46 +0200 > From: Kristian Rink <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Replacing GIMP > Message-ID: <20110729142046.14bc2260@n428> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Am Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:40:19 +0300 > schrieb Jari Rahkonen <[email protected]>: >> "average" user. My personal choice would be shotwell, which is >> admittedly a bulkier piece of software than gthumb, but still less >> than half of gimp's 14 megs (in Natty). It has all the features you >> just described and more, but in my experience surpasses gthumb in >> refinement and ease of use. > > I'd go with that. :) My preferences for gthumb are mainly rooted in my > "old-fashioned" style of working with images in (file system) folders > but I have to admit that some of the features provided by shotwell are > _really_ neat, especially the ability to "vote" for pictures (5 .. 0 > "stars") and filter images based upon this "voting", even though I > remember having seen this elsewhere before - Apple? Adding to that, > shotwell seems a more easy-to-use choice for sorting large collections > of images without having much manual work to do. :) > > Cheers, > Kristian > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:40:09 +0300 > From: Jarno Suni <[email protected]> > To: Xubuntu Development Discussion <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Replacing GIMP > Message-ID: > <CAOqj8L0BGnQAZAu7Lhju-+Uj21JfkzO=9ftxo2njaix7+ac...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Kristian Rink <[email protected]> wrote: >> Folks; >> >> reading all along this discussion the last couple of days, I see things >> becoming funny in some ways. Comparing apples and pears, anyone? >> >> Am Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:21:21 +0300 >> schrieb Jarno Suni <[email protected]>: >> >>> > Can GNU Paint crop images? I am not that sure... >>> >>> Did you mean gpaint? Natty suggests only xpaint when you type gpaint >>> in terminal (if gpaint is not installed). Gpaint can add text, but I >>> did not find undo function. >>> >>> Does anybody miss layers? >> >> Yes. I _do_. I have been working with Gimp ever since 0.9.something, >> and at the very least, for what I do, layers is an absolutely >> essential feature. But this is irrelevant IMHO. Shouldn't the question >> be, considering limited amount of space on a live or installation >> medium, which application that comes bundled with the default package >> provides _most_ value to _most_ users? At the moment, I see a >> discussion which ends up merrily mixing various different kinds of >> applications, including > > mtPaint has layers and it is very light. > >> 1) advanced image retouching / photo processing applications like Gimp >> or pinta >> 2) image management and browsing applications that provide for >> more or less extensive simple editing features, such as gthumb, geeqie, >> fotoxx, f-spot, shotwell and the like, >> 3) bare-bone image viewers, such as ristretto, gpicview, eog, ... >> 4) batch image processing applications such as phatch, >> imagemagick+scripting, ... . >> 5) applications not limited to yet focussed on doing pixel based >> painting, such as gpaint, mtpaint, ... . >> >> Maybe except for (1), I am completely convinced for each of these >> categories there are 1000+ more applications that easily could be >> listed here. So, what provides benefit to an end user using a Live >> medium or an easy-on installer without thinking twice? >> >> - Apps in category (1): Maybe not. Gimp still seems considered >> ?user-unfriendly by quite some people (whyever), and overally, the >> ?complexity and feature set of such applications IMHO is something >> ?just needed by advanced users. > > I would add rawstudio, but it is not made for painting at all. > Rawstudio does not modify your original photo files. Instead, it saves > your setting for each image in hidden .rawstudio folder in image's > folder. Processed images are saved in a folder of your choice. Batch > processing is supported (for scaling at least). > >> - Apps in category (2): Definitely yes. Pretty much everyone owns a >> ?digital camera or at least a camera equipped cell phone of some sort >> ?these days it seems, and the use case of sorting a whole load of >> ?images, browsing them, eventually scaling down one or two to quickly >> ?allow for sending them via e-mail or uploading them to flickr, >> ?facebook, ... seems the use case most likely. Should this ask for an >> ?application that comes with "sharing" support - "upload to flickr"? > > Some of these have a database of images that may help organizing > images; you have to import images to make your application aware of > them. You can use e.g flickr website to upload your photos, so it is > not necessary to use a local application for that. But there is some > advantage in sharing function, if you use tagging for your photos in > your image management software and want to use the same tags in e.g > flickr. IIRC there are tools specially made for exporting images to > flickr and others. > >> - Apps in category (3): Well, not sure, maybe not. Only benefit these >> ?apps provide compared to these in category (2) _might_ be a lower >> ?memory footprint, at the expense of eventually having to work with >> ?two different applications for "viewing" and "rudimentarily >> ?manipulating / sharing" images. > > Well, if you have qeegie, you won't miss one of these. It can edit > orientation of photos, but otherwise it is just a viewer that can show > everything you want about your images fast. You don't import images by > qeegie or others in this category. > >> - Apps in category (4): No, not on the default medium. These are expert >> ?applications used by, well, advanced or expert users who have a clear >> ?idea of what they want to do and are looking for an application to do >> ?so. >> >> - Apps in category (5): Not sure, this should basically depend on how >> ?many people actually digitally draw or paint using their >> ?GNULinux/Xubuntu box. I _guess_ the amount of people doing so at >> ?least is way smaller than the amount of people messing with digital >> ?camera stills once in a while. > > I don't use Gimp or such often after I found Rawstudio, but I > occasionally use other editors to make things I can not do by > Rawstudio, like adding text. > >> Well, disclaimer: This is strictly my $0.02 and it is a view on the >> world done by someone who is pretty much "photo-centric". However, from >> this point of view, I don't think the question is whether to "replace" >> the Gimp. The question is whether an advanced application like Gimp is >> required or well-placed in a default installation (given it's just and >> exactly an "apt-get install gimp gimp-plugin-registry" away. The >> question should be what kind of "imaging requirements" Joe Average >> might have and how to best meet them. >> >> Personally, I'd vote for inclusion of gthumb as a modestly-weight >> "category (2) app" as main image management application in the default >> installation which provides image viewing and most of the basic >> functions (scaling, cropping in terms of "cutting away" parts of the >> photo, removing red eyes, uploading to flickr, facebook, >> photobucket, ...) in an easily accessible tool. >> >> Oh well, so much for that. :) >> K. >> >> >> >> -- >> Kristian Rink * [email protected] * http://node.zimmer428.net >> "Time moves in one direction, memory in another." >> (William Gibson) >> >> >> -- >> xubuntu-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel >> > > > > -- > http://www.iki.fi/8/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 02:00:46 +0300 > From: Eero Tamminen <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Panels in Oneiric Ocelot > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hi, > > On tiistai 26 hein?kuu 2011, Kristian Rink wrote: >> Am Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:33:35 -0600 >> schrieb Charlie Kravetz <[email protected]>: >> > We are looking for constructive criticism to make Oneiric's panels >> > easier to use. Please give us your opinions and changes. >> >> Well, no global or meaningful hint, just my $0.02 on that: As most of >> the time I use Xubuntu on machines with screens not all too large >> (netbook, notebook), my usual "first steps of configuration always are >> like that: >> >> * Delete the lower panel as it just occupies space and gets into my way >> without providing additional benefit. >> >> * Lock the upper panel full-size to the screen, make it use the system >> style, height at 24 pixel, switch off any transparency or composite >> effects. > > IMHO most users couldn't care less about panel transparency and composite > still makes things less stable, not just slower. > > >> * In the upper panel, add applets in this order: >> * start menu (icon only) >> * places menu (icon only) >> * task bar >> * desktop pager (two rows, I usually run with 6 .. 8 virtual desktops) >> * notification area / system tray >> * clock >> * session menu > > I've seen several non-technical people to like a CPU usage indicator. > Especially on machines that have less RAM or are otherwise slower, it > shows that machine is actually doing something as response to user > actions, like starting Firefox... > > >> I am aware that this is a highly individual kind of setup, but I've >> been using a desktop style like that in my day-to-day productive use >> ever since early XFCE 4.x versions and so far it is the setup I found >> to be most useful and most unobtrusive - it's there, looks somewhat >> good, and just works. :) > > > - Eero > > > > ------------------------------ > > -- > xubuntu-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel > > > End of xubuntu-devel Digest, Vol 70, Issue 22 > ********************************************* > -- Ryan The Winner <[email protected]> -- xubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
