Talk:GIMP/Archive 5

Mac OS X and OS X
Relevant edits: 1, 2

The change from "Mac OS X" to "OS X" happened with Mountain Lion, so the risk with using "OS X" is that semi-knowledgeable readers may infer based on official naming that only versions from Mountain Lion (10.8) onwards are supported if it's stated that support is for "OS X". As I mentioned in the edit summary, binary versions as far back as Tiger (10.4) are available, and compiling on older systems can probably be made to work (so in the absence of conclusive reliable sources, we shouldn't state that it can't, and in general it would be odd for FOSS to not offer some kind of workaround involving successive compiling of various legacy/non-legacy versions of various dependencies... not to mention legacy versions of Gimp are still Gimp... I digress). I won't revert the change, but if there's consensus that it's potentially confusing in the way I think it is, all the other relevant changes made by the same user need to be investigated as well - in some cases, if support is only from Mountain Lion onwards or later, the change may be sound; in others, it will be misleading. Samsara 14:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please click on Mac OS X. Where you land? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the problem. Yes, the two product lines are continuous with each other, and therefore having one article covering both is unproblematic; however, each product name also only applies to some of the releases - Mac OS X from 10.0 to 10.7, OS X from 10.8 to current. Therefore mentioning only OS X could be interpreted as referring only to releases 10.8 onwards. Samsara 15:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It does address the problem. They're the same product as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I have and run both. Their branding does not affect nomenclature or use in practice. Therefore listing both separately and pointing to the same article is misleading, breaks WP:REPEATLINK, WP:LINKCLARITY and logic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody said they have to both be wikilinked, or separately wikilinked. I think the distinction should be made in text, and I think I've given some very good reasoning why. Samsara 15:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like you think they should both wikilinked: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GIMP&diff=653455865&oldid=653455180 Am I missing something? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There is also another discussion at Talk:OS_X. - TheFox21 (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see some of the same concerns there. Samsara 15:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: Left a note there. Samsara 15:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And if it's stated that the support is for "Mac OS X", could that be interpreted as meaning that Mountain Lion and later are not supported? Guy Harris (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, interesting - I'm never sure how to write the name of that platform when I refer to in in any gimp.org page or in a post. Wasn't even aware that there is some official name change adding to the confusion. --Michael Schumacher (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on GIMP. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.openusability.org/index.php/2008/01/2007-success-stories

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Simplification of the introduction
The introduction was far superior in January 2015 so I've reverted it manually. In an introduction you really need to give a direct summary.

While this is of little relevance, however, under a previous account I am by far the largest contributor by this article by number of edits once on a previous username and second largest contributor on an unknown IP address (if things are still the same). By this I mean to say I am not just barging in without great consideration towards the quality of the article. I hope you approve of this message :)

- WikifyLife (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Which banner? GNU or GNOME?
The article variously states that the GIMP project is conducted under some other banner, either GNOME or GNU. This is going to be confusing to the reader. A clearer statement should be attempted of what the relationships of these projects are. Samsara 11:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What would you say about a project where:


 * the list of GNU software includes it;
 * it's hosted on git.gnome.org
 * the FAQ says it's not a GNOME application, as it doesn't use the GNOME frameworks?


 * Note that GTK+ is also in the list of GNU software and hosted on git.gnome.org, and is rather a significant part of the GNOME project, being the GUI toolkit used by GNOME.


 * So I'm not sure what the heck the correct answer is.


 * According to the GNU Software Evaluation page on the GNU project's Web site, a free-software project can be offered to GNU as a "GNU project", and they decide whether to include it or not. "What it means for a program to be a GNU package" has a bunch of criteria.  Some key ones are:


 * Making a program GNU software means that its developers and the GNU project agree that “This program is part of the GNU project, released under the aegis of GNU”—and say so in the program.


 * This means that you normally put the program releases on ftp.gnu.org.


 * This means that the official web site for the program should be on www.gnu.org, specifically in /software/PROGRAMNAME. Whenever you give out the URL for the package home page, you would give this address. It is ok to use another site for secondary topics, such as pages meant for people helping develop the package, and for running data bases. (We can make an exception and put the web pages somewhere else if there is a really pressing reason.)


 * So, for the GIMP and the GNU Project:


 * ftp.gnu.org has only a gimp.README file that says "Gimp is an image manipulation program, available from ftp.gimp.org in the /pub/gimp/stable/ directory. The Gimp web site is http://www.gimp.org."; I guess "normally" in "you normally put the program releases on ftp.gnu.org" allows a project not to have ftp.gnu.org be the download site, as long as you at least leave a breadcrumb there to lead people to its true home.
 * http://www.gnu.org/software/gimp redirects to http://www.gimp.org, which I guess would also squeak by, although they might give http://www.gimp.org rather than http://www.gnu.org/software/gimp as the official Web site.


 * As for the other criteria, they do, at least, say "GNU/Linux" on the features page for the GIMP, and it probably follows the GNU command-line argument standards; whether they use GUILE as an extension language is another matter.


 * So I guess it could be considered to be a GNU program; I don't know whether anything more than that would be required to be "developed under the GNU banner".


 * As for GNOME, well, the GNOME Applications page speaks of "Hundreds of applications" that "are available for GNOME", and says that "Here are just some of the great applications that you can use on GNOME", introducing a list that includes the GIMP, but that's not as strong as "applications that are part of GNOME" or "...that are components of GNOME", so they're not as explicitly saying "it's GNOME software" as the GNU folks are saying "it's GNU software".


 * So, I'd say the case is better for GNU than GNOME, although I doubt GIMP is mentioned in either the GNU project or the GNOME project's weekly staff meetings. :-) Guy Harris (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Might be interesting to have a poll amongst the core (and not-so-core) contributors - as a GIMP contributor, I'm somewhat lost to answer that myself. In daily procedures, GIMP is pretty independent from both GNU (last time we officially contacted them was during the last struggle with SourceForge) and GNOME (we use the infrastructure; but are not in contact much regarding the GNOME desktop itself, for example) - for example, Ubuntu's choice to pack the GIMP translations with the gnome language packs feels really alien to us. --Michael Schumacher (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Problem solved. GIMP is developed independently of both of these organisations and happily associated with both.  GNOME is upstream development for GTK/GLIB and also acts as the legal channel which funds for GIMP are maintained.  Where GNU/FSF is the idealogical and historically correct banner.
 * I've changed the text to reflect this as associated with both. Furthermore GNOME is associated with GNU as it was once the GNU Network Object Model Environment.  On a side note aren't we all glad GNOME discarded of that frankly disastrous acronym. - WikifyLife (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Langvar
The WP:LANGVAR change happened. I disagreed with that edit. Going back, I see that the earliest versions did use Amercian English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It makes sense. I edited the page to use primarily the Queen's Australian english once upon a time (mate).  It's not because I don't think American is a language it was that I refuse to mis-spell everything :).  You're right though the page is meant to be (to my bitter dissapointment) mis-spelled :p. - WikifyLife (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

More recent review
Here I removed the 2008/9 reviews and added a more recent one. I feel the old reviews are obsolete now, while the 2013 review largely reflects the same themes, so nothing of importance is lost. GregorB (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

GSOC Text overhauled
GSOC projects implemented later in 2.8 or 2.9

Vector Layer and Jpeg 2000 and some more

See

https://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/log/?qt=grep&q=SOC&h=gimp-2-8

And

https://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/log/?qt=grep&q=SOC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C53F:B9E8:B487:CB08:86A9:D204 (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on GIMP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to ftp://ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp/historical/gimp-0.54.1.fixed.tar.gz
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627105722/http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/why.html to http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/why.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090701161515/http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/index.html to http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090423053949/http://socghop.appspot.com/org/home/google/gsoc2009/gimp to http://socghop.appspot.com/org/home/google/gsoc2009/gimp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blinkenlights.de/images/arcade/live/live-arcade-wilber-quai-large.jpg
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20060502225017/http://manual.gimp.org/en/plug-in-unsharp-mask.html to http://manual.gimp.org/en/plug-in-unsharp-mask.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090830034326/http://www.gimphelp.org/formats.shtml to http://www.gimphelp.org/formats.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ingimp.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GIMP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120615223023/http://www.wormux.org/phpboost/gallery/gallery-4+avatars.php to http://www.wormux.org/phpboost/gallery/gallery-4+avatars.php
 * Added tag to http://cue.yellowmagic.info/softwares/separate.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

2.10.0 available
See https://www.gimp.org/news/2018/04/27/gimp-2-10-0-released/

And https://www.gimp.org/release-notes/gimp-2.10.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C53F:B9E8:B46C:E7B5:3F24:8466 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

2.10.0 RC1 available
See Gimp.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.228.36 (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Support for 32-bit Windows in the 2.10x series

Does anyone know if the 2.10.x releases only support 64-bit versions of Windows?

If you go to the download page, the current stable version is 2.8.22 and has this description: "These links download the official GIMP installer for Windows (~100MB). The installer contains both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of GIMP, and will automatically use the appropriate one."

However on the development download page, the current release is 2.10.0-RC1, and has this text: "These links download the official development GIMP installer for Windows (~100MB). The installer contains the 64-bit version of GIMP."

If support for 32-bit Windows has been dropped, can this be added to the main article with a cite? I've tried checking on their official Wiki, roadmap and forums but cannot find any official info to confirm this, but not offering a 32-bit RC would suggest to me this is so...

Thanks! 95.150.169.126 (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * There is no way of knowing this. Because development of the software and and the creation of Binary executable files are often handled by different people.  So by virtue of this fact even if this is the case it will never be explicity true because someone could decide to compile a 32 bit version and get permission to release it officially (if there is not one already out there).


 * Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.129.243 (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support for 32 bit Windows hasn't been dropped, it's just that the person who made the installer packages for the release candidates didn't have a build environment for 32 bit binaries set up, and we decided to not bother with that until the stable releases. --Michael Schumacher (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

How to download GIMP. Solved.
Maybe this is not the right place to post this but I want to help others.

So, I wanted to download the version 2.10.12 for Windows. On the official website I found this: However clicking on the links proved to be useless. So I found the following direct link that worked. Enjoy! 85.193.240.212 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Show downloads for GNU/Linux | OS X | Microsoft Windows | All"

Same problem with 2.10.14. Here is a direct link. sha256 = 6de7f8722a0601e821c6cbfe3fc8b5055fb32d59d2b64fbdbd19f7dcf5a4b8e9

Checked by virus total 85.193.247.94 (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wrong place to post. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

GIMP → GIMP (software) – I am proposing two possible changes. Proposal A - Move this page to GIMP (software) or Proposal B - Move the disambiguation page Gimp to Gimp (disambiguation). The titles can be ambiguous because one title is in all caps and the other is sentence/title case. Please indicate your support or oppose votes by typing either Support Proposal A, Support Proposal B, or Oppose both proposals. Mstrojny (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. The software is the primary topic for the allcaps title of GIMP. -- Netoholic @  01:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:DIFFCAP. Both article titles seem appropriate. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no other GIMP so this is the primary topic. The other title is not all caps. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I must have made the wrong proposal. Should I close this discussion early or let it run for the 7 days? Mstrojny (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose both Per above given that this is the only article that uses the ALL CAPS and there are many articles using the lower case so this isn't the primary topic for the lower case.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 12:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Wilber (mascot of GIMP)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wilber (mascot of GIMP). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Akakievich (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

where to include GIMP ML in gimp Wikipedia?
Extension for machine learning.

Supports 2.10.x.

See https://github.com/kritiksoman/GIMP-ML — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6D40:34D1:7701:5C02:4344:89C4:2A9E (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, You should only include it in the Wikipedia article if it is a notable extension which means there is a reliable source mentioning it. A Github page is unfortunately not enough. If  there are reliable sources mentioning multiple extensions, then it maybe warrants its own section and Gimp ML could be added there. Cheers. — K4rolB (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

New history table of Versions like in german
New history table of Versions like in german

Some actual GIMP maintainer infos
See

https://www.gimp.org/news/2021/07/27/support-gimp-developers-sustainable-development/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6D40:34DA:9301:1C43:B20A:C84:BB90 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

2.10.26 available at 2021-09-05
Development phase of 2.10.26 ends at 2021-09-05

Development Phase of 2.10.28 starts at 2021-09-06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6D40:34E8:4401:E8A3:8C1E:BD2A:A06C (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Low-importance?
This article has been rated as "Low-importance" on the project's importance scale. How is it that the article about Adobe_Photoshop_Elements has been rated as "High-importance"? This is false and ridiculous. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * For Wikiproject Computing they both should be Low, or Mid at most. Feel free to fix that. – K4rolB (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Gnomelogo.svg