Talk:GIMP/Archive 4

Pronunciation
The lack of the proper IPA pronunciation of GIMP is disturbing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.31.254 (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Was GIMP deliberately crippled?
Even elementary operations take noticeable time. They even added a time progress bar for operations that other software makes instantly. Is there some sort of artificial delay - or is it just sloppy programming? East of Borschov (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Licensing
If the GIMP software is licensed under the General GPL license, does that mean the images become "free" once they are manipulated in GIMP? In other words, if I make a video game using images from GIMP, does that mean I lose the proprietary-ness of the content of those images? Sorry if I am not asking the question very well ... The article says "professionals" can use GIMP, but if that means they have to give their stuff away fom free, then it really isn't for "professionals" or is it somehow? I am of the understanding that the word professional means "you do it for money". Thanks for whatever info you may have on this because I am very confused. --75.93.124.96 (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry for the stupid question. I can see now that the GPL only applies to the software. If it applied to the images, well, I can see where that would be unjust. I'm just glad they don't call it the Free Software And Images Foundation. --75.93.124.96 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Unstable?
>> There is no stable 64 bit Windows distribution version of GIMP available as of December 2009. Works just fine, very stable under Windows 7 64 bit. I believe this might need to be updated. 72.72.146.7 (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Trick Shot
I really think that the trick shot in the article ought to be removed. Wikipedia is not a place to show off ones artistic talents (do that in deviantart or flickr).  Fιηεmαηη  (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Further, the picture is badly manipulated. One could easily say that it was manipulated.  Fιηεmαηη  (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The Bias Crack Pipe
The intro has become biased again and possibly other places in the article. -"The original product vision for GIMP, now fully realized", the aim of the vision was to give gimp a self-identity so that better choices can be made. If you have a look at the plans for the future it is clear they are not fully realised. -"With its encyclopedic abilities, GIMP", what does that even mean? -"the main free-software functional drop-in replacement" says who? -"with a similar feature set and a similar and complex user interface" the featureset of gimp is far smaller.

Context is everything here, cherry picking arguments that suit your beliefs to give GIMP a better image is not helping this article. GIMP stands on it's own feet well enough without dodgy statements in it's wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.85.126 (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Color Depth
The GNU Image Manipulation Program does not support the color depth necessary to be of any use to the film industry. To say it is being used by the film industry is misleading, at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.79.94 (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference for that? Does anybody else here have a reference for it being used by any particular film maker? --Nigelj (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it was intended to be a reference to apps based on The GIMP, ie CinePaint - see eg this 2004 article, linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/04/29/cinepaint.html or the most recent about page @ cinepaint.org/more/about.html. Pbhj (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You reference things that are true or have been stated, nobody creates an encyclopaedia with evidence to disprove every alternative crack-head theory Gnepets (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Lack of a saturation brush
The part that says GIMP lacks "non-destructive editing, tools such as a saturation brush" is not strictly true. A "non-destructive saturation brush" can be effectively implemented using layers and layer masks. The problem here is comparing GIMP to Photoshop. GIMP has different tools, and different ways of acheiving the same results - GIMP is NOT Photoshop --62.249.233.80 (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Different ways of achieving the same results does not mean better ways, nor does it mean comparisons are unworthy. That particular article was targeting GIMPs fitness for use in professional environments, the comparison was deserved.  Gnepets (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * not strictly true how so Gnepets (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * GIMP is NOT Photoshop, section is called media attention and the only place in which references to photoshop is made. Do you have a solid reason as to why this should not be here? Gnepets (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge "GIMP release history"
A software release log does not deserve a separate article, IMHO. I strongly suggest the GIMP release history article is merged into this article. It also does need to be so detailed - an external link to official release log on manufacturer's website should be enough. kashmiri (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC) For I think it's a good thing for all the info on the GIMP to be in one place. I don't think the detail should be reduced though. --JamesNZ (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's fine as a free-standing article and the level of detail is sufficient. I wish more product articles had that level of detail. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For. As kashmiri mentioned, we should only need to link to the software's development or release log, as opposed to rewriting the whole thing on Wikipedia. Instead It might only be necessary to mention big releases that brought in monumental features or incorporated large changes. It shouldn't be necessary to maintain a separate page for it. --JayDez (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Firefox has its own History of Firefox where all the releases are documented. The same applies here. --Neo139 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is it all in one place: Wikipedia. By that extension, I trust you'll be going to argue that teh history of Firefox should be on the same page as the browser along with Firefox 3.6. Merge them all. And that every version of Windows and Mac OS page should be on one page as well. Some articles need to have children so that the parent articles can focus on the important issues and links to the tangential issues should be available. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I originally separated the pages and I feel it's important to understand why this was done. I am both the largest contributor to this article in number of changes (and I've had multiple accounts and ips as well), and increasing the quality, I know that doesn't make me special, however it does mean that I have very detailed knowledge about this situation.
 * As noted in Kashmiri's suggestion it is huge, and like he says it does not need to be as large, however it is as large as it is, it is accurate (enough) and as such it's very difficult for me to comprehend why removing it would be a good idea. As such I separated the articles.
 * There is no "manufacturers" website as GIMP is an opensource project, this in itself makes me ask "Why should we remove this, when it appears the requester does not understand the situation?". I'm not trying to say you don't, you may have a greater understanding than I do, however I feel that isn't being communicated to me.
 * The history has sources from all over the place, there is no single history.
 * The article is so large it takes away from the most important thing about GIMP: what is it now.
 * The history of something and what it is and represents today are very different things, wikipedia is the only encyclopedia I know that is capable of holding up-to-the minute accuracy.
 * The article GIMP is vastly superior quality to GIMP release history due to the concerted efforts of myself and small group of other people
 * The quality of GIMP release history is not terrible, it would just take a mammoth effort to bring it up to scratch.
 * I feel merging the articles compromises the content of both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnepets (talk • contribs) 12:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: if there are no significant arguments to counter the opposed arguments I will remove the the merge request after Friday the 3rd of February. Gnepets (I ceebs logging in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.172.193.182 (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll do no such thing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I don't understand your comment "you'll do no such thing" on the GIMP history merge request in regards to me removing the request. The arguments made do not make any sense to me as the disregard the process in which GIMP is made and the lack on a single place of history, the only salient argument I can see is the one towards it all being one thing and I don't feel that in and of itself is a water tight reason?
 * Can you explain yourself better?
 * Have I done something you find offensive?
 * How are you feeling about what was said?
 * Am I misunderstanding the process, is there a vote or something meant to happen?
 * Why is removing the merge request such a major thing, can't the process be reverted by a simple edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnepets (talk • contribs) 12:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said on your talk page, can anyone explain why this shouldn't be done? Is there a formal process I am missing? (I can see the way I said it lacked diplomacy, forgive me for being a little controlling / human) Gnepets (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * First, there is no clear consensus in the discussion.
 * Second, when you do so as an anonymous editor, it's pause for concern. Don't forget to sign-in when you edit, and don't forget to sign your comments when you comment.
 * Third, 25% of all of your edits on Wikipedia have been to this article. That suggests that you are too closely associated with the subject to be neutral. It might appear as bias. I didn't know your potential bias when you were an anon (not signed-in) but it's clear now.
 * While it's my opinion that the merge shouldn't go forward, it shouldn't be an anon or an editor who is closely associated with the subject that should remove the merge tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) January 30, 2012
 * I feel your position is clearly biased, you gave me an order of what to do on Wikipedia "You'll do no such thing"
 * In my mind you are to closely tied to the rules and regulations which are only guidelines to judge this decision, nor did you even take the time to explain why this is a bad decision.
 * Your arguments are judging me not my actions, weighted by statistics and ideals.
 * It's clear that I have bias, however I feel bias itself should not exclude me from decision making unless in and of itself it shows my decisions to be poor.
 * Clear concensus is required to make a decision, setting a time limit on the decision making process is not forcing the decision in itself, the timeframe can be extended.
 * "it shouldn't be an anon or an editor who is closely associated with the subject", why not? I can't imagine how either of those things are important if the decision is reasonable? I feel at the end of the day someone just has to do it and that is how things get done. Gnepets (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you were offended, but 1) you weren't signed in and the anon had no history in the discussion and 2) the discussion still hadn't ended. It was premature for either the anon or you, who in this instance happen to the same editor, to suggest that it was time to close discussion and move forward. My position is not biased. I would have made the same comment if Jimmy Wales himself suggested closing the discussion and moving forward. My arguments are simply judging the state of the debate: stale but no concluded. Clear consensus is not needed. A consensus is needed WP:CONSENSUS. As for why an editor close to the subject shouldn't make an argument to do something, I'll let you think that through but I'll point you to the concept of bias.
 * If you look carefully, I'm on the same side of the debate as you are, so if I had a bias it would be to close it too. I don't have a bias. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You know what they say about buts.... As for you I feel like your sentences are loaded and smug, you make the assumption that you are correct. You are also making a claim I find ridiculous "that you or any human can be unbiased". What I'm really trying to say is I'll let you have this one because I can't be bothered arguing, more to the point I just simply don't enjoy communicating with you. Gnepets (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. I can't believe you've devolved this into a mild personal attack. In short, it is premature to close the debate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Having a separate article is perfectly appropriate under WP:SPINOUT.  Re-merging would result in substantial information loss.  Some of the support !votes above seem more appropriate for an AFD-type discussion than a structural one.   TJRC (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Easy ways to help improve the GIMP article

 * were you looking for something about GIMP and couldn't find it? Tell us and if it's appropriate we'll add it to the article!
 * Do you find something in the article confusing? Tell us and we'll try and untangle it!
 * Do you know more about GIMP than wikipedia does? Tell us when it's wrong, well fix it up!

Just telling us what confuses you, isn't clear, isn't good enough helps Make the GIMP article better and that contribution is really valuable. If your willing to edit and put in the effort required to improve the article I'm grateful as I've slowly been working at it on and off for a few years! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnepets (talk • contribs) 13:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

CYMK
I removed the section on CYMK from features as it over-values CYMK as a printing format. CYMK is an illusion to real printing needs, to really make this article shine someone who really gets commercial and consumer printing needs at an abstract level. What we had before wasn't accurate enough for an encyclopedia. If you really know your stuff about printing needs please specify why GIMP isn't good enough for printing please add to the article (The developers of GIMP are in agreement that they can do worlds better than what is done now as far as I know). Gnepets (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Media Attention?
Is the purpose of the section to inform the public or advertise that bloggers and their sites that have written about the software? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.36.225.66 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 31 August 2011‎
 * You've asked a leading question. In order to answer this I'd like you to state the question in form of "In order to improve this article/section, I believe" or "I beleive that  compromises the quality of the article for reason .  I suggest doing  in order to improve it". Gnepets (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The section devoted to bloggers blogging about the gimp really is pointless, it tells us nothing about the software. Rather than being a pedant about the way the question was phrased, try thinking objectively about the entire article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.36.234.211 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the section doesn't have a direct positive impact on quality, however, I would argue that it has a positive impact on the quality of the article indirectly. The section was added to stop the quality of the article degrading by editors who thought it necessary to make comparisons to Photoshop.  The effect of the edits was that they changed the focus of the article from "GIMP" to "how much is GIMP like photoshop".  Whilst I could revert these changes I looked for a way that stopped editors from feeling the need to make such edits.  Now the section "Media Attention" exists and it covers the topic is GIMP a replacement for Photoshop in a less biased way than trying to make fruitless comparisons in the article.  Since I added the section the drive by edits have stopped.  To answer the question the section exists for neither of those reasons, it exists to stop unintentional drive by vandalism. --Gnepets (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No change the final version till...
No change the final version till in the website of gimp not release the executable for download yet is enable the src of the program not the program?

--Patrias (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly you're saying that we shouldn't change the release version number until the Windows installer is available. If that's the case I say no, because Windows is not the only platform on which it runs. We could argue about Mac OS X or many other platforms. The source code is available and that's all they every officially distribute. The binaries are available from third-party sources but the site points visitors to those locations as a courtesy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * this is a misunderstanding of the way GIMP is developed, GIMP is a source code release. Binaries are released seperately as allowed by the GPL.  GIMPs version is the source release.  Gnepets (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I also believe that if someone is willing to put in the hard work and they are correct we should congratulate them rather than say the work is not appreciated. As such: thanks to everyone who has helped update the article with the release! Gnepets (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please help update pictures.
As some of the images on GIMP are getting crusty and old I'd like to ask you to spare a moment and update some images. Your time and effort will be appreciated by me. Gnepets (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Major re-arrangement of GIMP article
I've tried to reduce the number of sections and prioritise those that people have the least access to normally.

Reasoning.
 * features are easily accessible and better understood by simply using GIMP. Moved below.
 * Development. Few people have access or knowledge about the GIMP development process.
 * Merged User interface into development. This is really another form of development with a dedicated Usability / User Interaction team.

--Gnepets (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Etymology of GIMP
Does it have anything to do with Pulp Fiction? 216.249.143.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly, Pulp Fiction predates GIMP. If you wanted to confirm for sure though you'd need to dig through the old mailing list archives for the project, or more likely try to contact the original developer from Berkeley (note: the mailing list began as gimp-list and split into gimp-user and gimp-developer around '96). The hard part of finding confirmation is avoiding all the later discussions about the name. I don't believe anyone seriously doubts the origin of the name, but at the same time there isn't proof enough to add it to the article. -- 109.77.221.201 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Found it, to my own surprise. Only because I thought enough to use Google Groups for the search. A message from 97 links to an interview on Zach's GIMP news website:

"At the time, Pulp Fiction was the hot movie and a single word popped into my mind while we were tossing out name ideas. It only took a few more minutes to determine what the 'G' stood for." -- 109.77.221.201 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Google
The Google logo (sources in article) was created by Sergey Brin using the GIMP, ""it wasn't the look that meant the most to him. He was pleased that he had been able to teach himself how to use GIMP, free software that was tricky to employ," writes David A. Vise in The Google Story."

Are there are other notable instances of the cultural impact of GIMP? It doesn't seem appropriate to add this one case alone to the article. Maybe a "see also" link? Maybe someone else can think of an appropriate way to mention it in the article? -- 109.77.221.201 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Features
Though I dislike article with sections "Features" almost as much as I despise articles that use the term "technology", it could be interesting to use the article Image editing to make this article better. User:ScotXW t@lk 21:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge the GIMPshop article with the GIMP article. GIMPshop is long dead, and seems to be a scam now (see this for example). Also the fork itself doesn't seem to be notable on its own. --Narayan (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am strongly against merging GIMPshop (or any other fork) into this article. If a fork is not notable enough to have its own article, that is the subject of another discussion and should be held on the fork's talk page. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose - This is a bad idea/precedent to set. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and that cuts BOTH ways: If you do this for one fork, then each time a new fork of GIMP rises to prominence it will become proposed to add that fork to the GIMP article. If you merge GIMPshop now, then why not merge GIMPhoto too while your at it? This is like suggesting merging OpenOffice with LibreOffice & NeoOffice & ApacheOO & Go-OO & StarOffice. Additionally, what do you do if encyclopedic sources for one of the forks actually exceeds the parent (As StarOffice did for a while)? Do you rename the whole article under the new best fork's name? Remember that StarOffice is now obsolete so the article would have had to be renamed again. No, merging software fork articles is a bad idea. Dodi 8238 has it right, either a fork is worthy of its own article, or else it gets listed as a brief mention in the subsection on known variants/forks. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about merging every fork, but I'm proposing to make the GIMPshop article (reasons stated above) a redirect to the GIMP article and to add some information to the current summary about Gimpshop at the Forks and derivatives section, maybe an activity time indicator. --Narayan (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Naryan, I am agreed GIMPshop is dead and and the website appears to be a scam I'm agreed.  What do you consider an important reason to merge a page?
 * You've said that it is not noteworthy (and I'm agreed), however you'll need to provide reason as to why it's not noteworthy. I would argue GIMPshop was a set of patches and not a fork as it did not continue on beyond providing a single set of patches that adjusted the layout of the application.  As such while I recognise it had the potential to be noteworthy, it's creators never continued it long enough.  I think it's worthy of mention on GIMPs page as it did have a lot of attention, yet attention and noteworthiness need to be distinguished in this case.  Do you agree with my reasoning? Gnepets (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, let me agree with your comments about GIMPshop being a short lived fork relying on a set of patches. Short lived, as the fork development abruptly stopped after being hijacked by someone who created a website to get some advertising income. I also don't think there are a lot of external sources to give proof of its relevance. Maybe we should reword the part about GIMPshop in this article as follows:
 * GimPhoto (2007 -, active) and GIMPshop (2006, inactive): Derivatives that aim to replicate the Adobe Photoshop in some form. --Narayan (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Merging with GimPhoto makes more sense to me, it is the spiritual successor to GimpShop. -- 109.77.204.14 (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation
shouldn't GIMP be pronounced /dʒɪmp/ because of /dʒɪnəɹəl/ /ɪmɪdʒ/ /mənɪpjuleɪʃʌn/ /pɹəʊɡɹæm/ (General image manipulation program)Zombiedude347 (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No. --Michael Schumacher (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not? Seems less offensive to crippled people?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.119.188 (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)