PDA

View Full Version : Bye Bye GIMP!



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Swarms
November 23rd, 2009, 07:26 PM
"Gimp is too complicated and should be replaced"

Using the same logic, Firefox, Writer, SCalc and many other applications are too complicated and should be replaced.


That is not using the same logic?

Gina
November 23rd, 2009, 07:34 PM
For example, I used ideas from Brainstorm when designing the Ubuntu Software Center. (And the Ubuntu Software Center, in turn, makes it easier to install Gimp if you want it.)I like the idea of the Ubuntu Software Center - it's looking good, though I can see where it might be improved - but that's to be expected at this stage. Good work :):)

inportb
November 23rd, 2009, 07:34 PM
As long as the Gimp is still in the repos, it's fine with me. I mean, it's not installed with Kubuntu anyway, and I just install it when I need it. For most users, Gimp offers way too many features and a simpler alternative would suffice. Now we just need to identify such an alternative. Kolourpaint, anyone?

upwinger
November 23rd, 2009, 07:36 PM
I agree with the developers! As long as GIMP is still available to download as a repos, Why bother including it? Let the users that need it add it later!

inportb
November 23rd, 2009, 07:38 PM
Also, I would not mind if Firefox were omitted for a lighter alternative. But, a browser is obviously much more commonly used than a photo editor.

RaptorJesus
November 23rd, 2009, 07:51 PM
I don't think it's a good idea. There needs to be a built in image editor. Just because the average user doesn't use it's full potential is as good a reason as removing Open Office because it's bloated. Actually, that is a good reason, so never mind.

Merk42
November 23rd, 2009, 07:59 PM
Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I did find this question (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1335405) in Absolute Beginner to be appropriate.

For me gimp is too complicated and has too many features all i want is something simpler to resize images, remove white backgrounds and generally create my own image files.

durand
November 23rd, 2009, 11:03 PM
Worst UDS decision ever http://durand1.co.cc/dump/smileys/crying.png

ronacc
November 23rd, 2009, 11:09 PM
I agree with the developers! As long as GIMP is still available to download as a repos, Why bother including it? Let the users that need it add it later!

and why bother having debs in the repos since sources do the same thing .

stinger30au
November 23rd, 2009, 11:23 PM
who cares if they remove gimp from install

hear of shell before?

*****NEWS FLASH!*****

all you got to do is

sudo apt-get install gimp


TaDa!

problem solved!

hikaricore
November 23rd, 2009, 11:59 PM
who cares if they remove gimp from install

hear of shell before?

*****NEWS FLASH!*****

all you got to do is

sudo apt-get install gimp


TaDa!

problem solved!

Thanks for repeating the same thing 50 people said ahead of you.
It's been really enlightening.

Regenweald
November 24th, 2009, 12:12 AM
who cares if they remove gimp from install

hear of shell before?

*****NEWS FLASH!*****

all you got to do is

sudo apt-get install gimp


TaDa!

problem solved!

The members of ubuntuforums.org exclusively reserve the right to approve and or veto all decisions relating to the Ubuntu operating system. apparently. cuz we said so. apparently.

Reiger
November 24th, 2009, 12:20 AM
and why bother having debs in the repos since sources do the same thing .

No they don't; they very much do not. To say such a thing is to not appreciate the difference between verified, controlled build environments and your own little digital backyard; in other words to not appreciate the difference between two different package management worlds.

Also: Kolourpaint is exactly what we need, except that the non-KDE folks can't get to enjoy it from the LiveCD since it is a KDE application.

Gina
November 24th, 2009, 01:02 AM
I use several KDE apps in Gnome but you have to get them from the repos. Just for those who don't know... KDE apps depend on a whole raft of KDE libraries. KDE is a separate offshoot from Ubuntu....

Shibblet
November 24th, 2009, 01:09 AM
I can't say that Gimp is too complicated... And Gimp is a great Graphic Manipulation program.

Why couldn't Ubuntu drop a box of "preferred programs" on the desktop, that can be downloaded and installed at the users preference.

The new Kubuntu Karmic gives a link for Firefox, but defaults with Konqueror.

Merk42
November 24th, 2009, 01:26 AM
Why couldn't Ubuntu drop a box of "preferred programs" on the desktop, that can be downloaded and installed at the users preference.

They want a feature like this in Ubuntu Software Center.

Shibblet
November 24th, 2009, 02:58 AM
They want a feature like this in Ubuntu Software Center.

I've always wanted to see a version of Ubuntu come with no software loaded. Just the basics for an OS. Allow users quick access to preferred software like...

Gimp
Firefox
Open Office
Amarok
Mplayer

This would make the ISO a lot smaller, and come with a window manager and desktop for simpler installation. This would also allow for the user to customize their system.

Reiger
November 24th, 2009, 03:06 AM
Just for those who don't know... KDE apps depend on a whole raft of KDE libraries.

And that is why they won't go on the Ubuntu Live CD: the combined size of programs + dependencies (which do not overlap with GNOME libraries and programs) is too much. Besides it is KDE which is what the Kubuntu live CD is for the showcasing...


KDE is a separate offshoot from Ubuntu....

No: I presume you meant Kubuntu. ;)

Reiger
November 24th, 2009, 03:08 AM
I've always wanted to see a version of Ubuntu come with no software loaded. Just the basics for an OS. Allow users quick access to preferred software like...

Gimp
Firefox
Open Office
Amarok
Mplayer

This would make the ISO a lot smaller, and come with a window manager and desktop for simpler installation. This would also allow for the user to customize their system.

That is more along the lines of a Debian (or perhaps more accurately: Fedora) installation, actually... Ubuntu is a bit into nurturing their users from the start.

HousieMousie2
November 24th, 2009, 03:09 AM
It is a large and very powerful program, completely beyond the needs of the average user and despite my own comfort level with GIMP I am well aware of the complicated nature of the program. It has come a long way but it is not exactly user friendly yet and can be overwhelming to new users. ((It would be great if they tried a model like Project Dog Waffle used to be... built for the way artists work.))

While I absolutely adore GIMP (it inspired me to spend $500 on a pen tablet,) and I have used it for many years and will continue to do so... I have to agree with their choice to remove it.

inportb
November 24th, 2009, 03:28 AM
Yeah, Kolourpaint would of course not work so well for a Gnome live session. But there has to be a GTK+based app like that, right? I was just giving an example.

benjamimgois
November 24th, 2009, 03:35 AM
GIMP is one of the greatest Opensource software, i think that almost everyone agree with that. But, it's to much complicated to trivial things, a program with a simpler interface and with a few options would much user friendly. But, in my opinion F-SPOT isn't the answer. F-Spot isn't intuitive and doesn't "just works" as Picasa does.

The only actual tools that we have Today to solve this problemas are KDE softwares. I believe that KolourPaint and Digikam would solve both problems! But it lead us to another Linux Desktop problem, the QT and GTK programs.

The conclusion is that the solution exists, but will not be used. That's the mess of Desktop Linux, sad but true.

andrewabc
November 24th, 2009, 04:49 AM
I've always wanted to see a version of Ubuntu come with no software loaded. Just the basics for an OS. Allow users quick access to preferred software like...

Gimp
Firefox
Open Office
Amarok
Mplayer

This would make the ISO a lot smaller, and come with a window manager and desktop for simpler installation. This would also allow for the user to customize their system.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD
;)

YokoZar
November 24th, 2009, 06:20 AM
Fair enough, except that I have yet to actually meet face-to-face anyone who actually likes or uses F-pot. And out of a large number of Linux users whom I know personally, I am the only one who actually does video editing on Ubuntu. I certainly can't speak for everyone, but just based on my own personal experience, both as an end-user and as someone providing technical support to over 100 users in my locality, this is a very poor decision. In this case, it is one poor decision too many for me to still feel any confidence in the Ubuntu development process. I seriously doubt that due consideration has been given, because I know that, in the circle of linux users with whom I associate, GIMP is much more widely used than F-spot or video editing software.
I have, on several occasions, attempted to present a new user who wants to do a simple photo editing task with the GIMP. It's not an experience I'd recommend.


Aren't WE the masses? We, the users of Ubuntu? The majority of which, according the results of this poll, are not impressed by this proposed change?

If not, who are these hypothetical masses? Where are they? Do you have a poll showing their opinion on this issue?
People who come to a forum thread complaining about GIMP and then voting in a poll with slanted wording don't represent Ubuntu's user base.

When we do actual legitimate user studies (such as InGIMP (http://www.ingimp.org/)), we find that over 90% of GIMP users are only using about 6 functions within it for about 10 minutes total. That's because the vast majority of users aren't using a free alternative to Photoshop: they're using a free alternative to the Photo Kiosk at the drug store.


Of course there are space trade-offs when composing a default package list for a CD-based distro.
It's not just a space trade-off though. Users want a simple editor when they're doing what should be a simple task - GIMP makes cropping and removing red-eye feel like some sort of herculean effort.


No-one here has argued with that (although, frankly, I do think that the penetration of DVD readers in the market is way past the point at which a default LiveDVD is a good idea as default).
I support making a LiveDVD (with both i386 and amd64 arches on it) as well, but it's unfortunately not in the cards for this cycle. Canonical folks tell me that DVDs are also substantially more expensive for ShipIt to support.


What most people are upset about is that you're proposing to drop one of the most widely known alternatives to photoshop, one of the most impressive examples of open-source software development... in favour of F-Spot, a photo-management tool that no-one likes (if you look through the thread, you'll see several posters, including me, note that F-Spot being the default photo-manager in Karmic has actually put people we know off using Ubuntu. That's how dire the thing is.).
The version of F-Spot you're using (and rightfully complaining about) is not the tool that will be used in Lucid. In Karmic the simple view and edit mode isn't there - we don't even give the user the option of not using F-Spot as a photo manager before editing.


If you were dropping GIMP and F-Spot for a simple, streamlined image editor with red-eye removal, a lot of the complaints would go away.This is exactly what Lucid's F-Spot (with a command line switch) is intended to be. You won't need to use F-Spot for photo management or anything -- there was even a proposal to remove Eye of Gnome as a viewer because it would be so similar to that.

jacobs444
November 24th, 2009, 06:23 AM
Gimp can do what PS can and you just have to know how. However its a good move to save space and one can always install it from the repos.


no id doesn't, any professional printer will tell you that it doesn't do cmyk correctly.

23meg
November 24th, 2009, 06:24 AM
This is exactly what Lucid's F-Spot (with a command line switch) is intended to be. You won't need to use F-Spot for photo management or anything -- there was even a proposal to remove Eye of Gnome as a viewer because it would be so similar to that.

Some details on that:

http://blog.reblochon.org/2009/11/unleash-your-f-spot-toolbox.html

mpt
November 24th, 2009, 06:30 AM
So it is true that:

Ifor what most people do with photos gimp is over kill
You are over-generalizing the results of the research. "In a session" means a particular invocation of GIMP, and the research does not extrapolate to indicating the myriad ways a user might use GIMP. A user may avail himself of only a half-dozen commands if he is preparing a photo file for printing, and a different half-dozen commands to prepare an image for a website, and a different set for scanning documents, and a different set for drawing cartoons, etc. etc. etc.

Sure. But we think that scanning a document, and drawing cartoons, are not “what most people do with photos”. The implicit conclusion of those in the UDS session (I was there, but didn’t say much) was that people want to create home movies more often than they want to do those other things.


Nonetheless, it is misguided to take from this that GIMP should only provide a half-dozen commands -- or that it is somehow "overkill" for GIMP to provide commands which support all of these tasks.

Now that doesn’t, by itself, mean Gimp is bad. After all, for what most people do with documents Microsoft Word is overkill, but it’s still the most popular word processor by far — because as Joel Spolsky said, “Everybody uses a different set of features”.

We’re agreeing with each other here. ;)


Again, I disagree. While I am a great fan of the Unix philosophy of "do one thing and do it well", this does not apply very well to the case of image manipulation on the desktop because of the large amount of data that must be transferred between the applications and the large amount of data manipulation required just to provide a representative rendering of the image to the user.

It would be an interesting design and programming challenge to create the image manipulation equivalent to Firefox — an image editing program that makes the common things easy, and the rarer things possible through well-integrated and efficient plug-ins. (I know Gimp has plug-ins, but I mean using plug-ins even for functions like blur/sharpen or color alteration.) That would be much better, I think, than providing a simple image editing program and requiring people to install Gimp as soon as they overstep its possibilities. But I don’t think anything like that exists right now. (As Mr Picklesworth mentioned (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8371756&postcount=250), Michael Terry’s latest work involves a “task sets” interface within Gimp, for simplifying the interface to display the few related functions for a chosen task like cleaning up a scanned document. But I’m skeptical that it will actually reduce perceived complexity, and in any case it won’t do anything about CD space consumption.)


I do think it is reasonable for a photo management program to remain distinct from a photo manipulation program. Management focuses on the organization of collections and typically does not need to process the entire file as the display of thumbnail previews is in the majority of cases sufficient for identification of the file contents (and color managing the rendered display is not as critical). Further treatment of a particular photo (or set of photos) is not encumbered by invocation of a separate manipulation program as this would entail processing the file in full regardless whether handled internally or externally.

It’s more convenient to edit photos in the same window as the rest of the photo manager than in a different window. (That’s the most visible reason Microsoft’s OLE 2.0 was better than 1.0, for example.)


Apart from Firefox, GIMP is probably the most common Free Software application deployed on Windows

More common than OpenOffice.org, VLC, Pidgin, and MPlayer? I doubt that.


Would having an extra CD or a DVD release with more applications be a viable solution? With the ability to boot a live "CD" off a USB stick, a slightly larger image could be acceptable.

Ubuntu is already available for download (http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/downloadmirrors#dvd) or purchase (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Dsoftware&field-keywords=ubuntu+9.10+dvd) on DVD. But for reasons of cost, download time, or compatibility, most people who get Ubuntu separate from their computer get it on CD.

TheForkOfJustice
November 24th, 2009, 07:01 AM
Agree with GIMP being taken off the CD.

Fine with ditching F-Spot, Tomboy and Mono as well. All 3 are rarely used, are a poor excuse for what they are used for and take up SOOOO much space it's ungodly.

Tomboy can be easily replaced using Gnome's Sticky Notes widget. Add it to one of your Gnome panels. If you want to be useful you can take some time to improve the functions and appearance of the widget. Much easier than dealing with Tomboy.

Also, Pidgin > Empathy

EDIT

As much as I love VLC I think we are stuck using Totem because VLC can use proprietary formats.

Shibblet
November 24th, 2009, 07:27 AM
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD
;)

I am aware of that, but it doesn't come with a desktop. And if you choose the minimal desktop, you don't get things like wireless networking, and such.

I was talking about an Operating System with no apps, only OS utilities.

zekopeko
November 24th, 2009, 01:17 PM
Agree with GIMP being taken off the CD.

Fine with ditching F-Spot, Tomboy and Mono as well. All 3 are rarely used, are a poor excuse for what they are used for and take up SOOOO much space it's ungodly.

This is false. Mono, F-Spot, Tomboy use less space then GIMP on the CD.


Tomboy can be easily replaced using Gnome's Sticky Notes widget. Add it to one of your Gnome panels. If you want to be useful you can take some time to improve the functions and appearance of the widget. Much easier than dealing with Tomboy.

Also, Pidgin > Empathy

EDIT

As much as I love VLC I think we are stuck using Totem because VLC can use proprietary formats.

Comparing Tomboy to Sticky Notes is like comparing a car to a bicycle.

Empathy was chosen because of the underlaying framework that will bring all kinds of cool option for end users. This is a long term decision.

VLC uses QT and isn't as simple to use as VLC.

ronacc
November 24th, 2009, 01:37 PM
I think that a lot of the problem is that the proposal to remove gimp from the cd is premature . After the proposed improvements to F-spot actually arrive and After it actually proves to be useful would have caused fewer screams .

BbICEP
November 24th, 2009, 01:41 PM
This is exactly what Lucid's F-Spot (with a command line switch) is intended to be. You won't need to use F-Spot for photo management or anything -- there was even a proposal to remove Eye of Gnome as a viewer because it would be so similar to that.
OMG. F-Spot viewer startup takes ages. Both cold and heat. Hope they won't remove eog.

BbICEP
November 24th, 2009, 01:45 PM
This is false. Mono, F-Spot, Tomboy use less space then GIMP on the CD.



Comparing Tomboy to Sticky Notes is like comparing a car to a bicycle.

Empathy was chosen because of the underlaying framework that will bring all kinds of cool option for end users. This is a long term decision.

VLC uses QT and isn't as simple to use as VLC.
But we easily can compare Gnote with Tomboy. And gnote as good as tomboy in ubuntu infrastructure (I mean Ubuntu One). So, it's reasonable to remove Mono. It doesn't matter it takes less space than GIMP, the only thing is it takes without any reason. So, it would be like correcting mistakes, nothing more.

zekopeko
November 24th, 2009, 02:01 PM
I think that a lot of the problem is that the proposal to remove gimp from the cd is premature . After the proposed improvements to F-spot actually arrive and After it actually proves to be useful would have caused fewer screams .

That defeats the whole purpose of open development. And it was said that they will improve F-spot but the main problem is that either the people missed that part (so failure of communication) or ignored it.


OMG. F-Spot viewer startup takes ages. Both cold and heat. Hope they won't remove eog.

One of the developers of F-Spot said that EOG and F-spot viewer take the same amount of time to start (cold or warm start). From my perspective that isn't so. Some profiling would be in order if they decide to use the F-Spot viewer.


But we easily can compare Gnote with Tomboy. And gnote as good as tomboy in ubuntu infrastructure (I mean Ubuntu One). So, it's reasonable to remove Mono. It doesn't matter it takes less space than GIMP, the only thing is it takes without any reason. So, it would be like correcting mistakes, nothing more.

Removing Tomboy and replacing it with Gnote brings no space savings. And Tomboy has more people working on it.
And there isn't a comparable F-Spot alternative as of yet.
Taking mono out because of your (and others like you) phobias and paranoia serves no purpose but to appease your hate for all things Microsoft.

Now please stop bringing up mono, and actually try debating the merits of software not the underlaying platform. If you continue bringing mono in the discussion I will report you to the moderators.

BbICEP
November 24th, 2009, 02:17 PM
One of the developers of F-Spot said that EOG and F-spot viewer take the same amount of time to start (cold or warm start). From my perspective that isn't so. Some profiling would be in order if they decide to use the F-Spot viewer.
Profiling won't help much. It's mono, JIT takes too much time. Lol, and unskilled C# amateurs shows their approach again: they just ignore bugs they can't or don't want to fix.

BbICEP
November 24th, 2009, 02:19 PM
Removing Tomboy and replacing it with Gnote brings no space savings. And Tomboy has more people working on it.
Haha, what hammer would you choose: the one that have been done only by one or by two people? ;)

ronacc
November 24th, 2009, 02:20 PM
That defeats the whole purpose of open development. And it was said that they will improve F-spot but the main problem is that either the people missed that part (so failure of communication) or ignored it.


I didn't ignore it ,I said WHEN the proposed improvements arrive . Considering that F-sopt has been around for several releases of Ubuntu and has improved not at all I'll believe them when I see them , not before .

zekopeko
November 24th, 2009, 02:52 PM
I didn't ignore it ,I said WHEN the proposed improvements arrive . Considering that F-sopt has been around for several releases of Ubuntu and has improved not at all I'll believe them when I see them , not before .

http://blog.reblochon.org/2009/11/unleash-your-f-spot-toolbox.html

You should know that goals set at UDS aren't "we must do them" but more "this is the goal lets try and accomplish for release X.Y".
The main problem is the reactionary force in this forums that doesn't like change.

ronacc
November 24th, 2009, 05:15 PM
since when is it reactionary to want change to be for the better ? Some of us do not believe that this change would be .

aoanla
November 24th, 2009, 05:43 PM
The version of F-Spot you're using (and rightfully complaining about) is not the tool that will be used in Lucid. In Karmic the simple view and edit mode isn't there - we don't even give the user the option of not using F-Spot as a photo manager before editing.

This is exactly what Lucid's F-Spot (with a command line switch) is intended to be. You won't need to use F-Spot for photo management or anything -- there was even a proposal to remove Eye of Gnome as a viewer because it would be so similar to that.

Right. Okay. The problem with this is that you're saying "Lets remove GIMP in favour of a nonexistent, totally revamped version of F-Spot, now". I'd be happier with a slightly more conservative "If we can make F-Spot usable, then we shall remove GIMP, otherwise..." approach, as would most of the complainants, I suspect.
(If the Lucid F-Spot is a massive improvement on Karmic's, I will be perfectly happy to give you all due plaudits.)

zekopeko
November 24th, 2009, 05:56 PM
Right. Okay. The problem with this is that you're saying "Lets remove GIMP in favour of a nonexistent, totally revamped version of F-Spot, now". I'd be happier with a slightly more conservative "If we can make F-Spot usable, then we shall remove GIMP, otherwise..." approach, as would most of the complainants, I suspect.
(If the Lucid F-Spot is a massive improvement on Karmic's, I will be perfectly happy to give you all due plaudits.)

Why am I copy pasting this link all over the place if no one reads it? http://blog.reblochon.org/2009/11/unleash-your-f-spot-toolbox.html

Is it so hard to read the blog and see that most of the functionality is in F-Spot git master? Re-size and convert format are trivial to implement, I think.

andrewabc
November 24th, 2009, 06:02 PM
since when is it reactionary to want change to be for the better ? Some of us do not believe that this change would be .

Exactly. If they had pointed out image editing software to replace gimp that was at least mspaint in features, then there would be not much argument (depends on what they plan on filling cd up with to replace extra gimp room). So far they seem to have wanted to remove gimp without even finding a suitable replacement. fspot is not good enough since mspaint beats it in features (and the mspaint I am referring to is from winxp, 8 years ago...).

It's like replacing pidgin with empathy even though pidgin has more features than empathy (and has been in ubuntu default forever). Empathy in 9.10 doesn't even have http msn connection which other IM have had for years. I guess that is a benefit for users?

ronacc
November 24th, 2009, 06:20 PM
Why am I copy pasting this link all over the place if no one reads it? http://blog.reblochon.org/2009/11/unleash-your-f-spot-toolbox.html

Is it so hard to read the blog and see that most of the functionality is in F-Spot git master? Re-size and convert format are trivial to implement, I think.

I followed that link when 23meg posted it a few pages back (you only pasted it in one other place in this thread ,and don't go claiming credit for other peoples links) . I built the git-master and if those are their "great improvements" f-spot still wont cut it . It may turn out to be a mediocre image MANIPULATION app but it is giving no signs at all of being an image EDITOR .

Merk42
November 24th, 2009, 06:29 PM
I followed that link when 23meg posted it a few pages back (you only pasted it in one other place in this thread ,and don't go claiming credit for other peoples links) . I built the git-master and if those are their "great improvements" f-spot still wont cut it . It may turn out to be a mediocre image MANIPULATION app but it is giving no signs at all of being an image EDITOR .
Because it's not supposed to be GIMP. It's supposed to be the handful of tools in GIMP the majority of people use.

ronacc
November 24th, 2009, 06:57 PM
I did not mean to imply that it was the gimp . but it has been touted at several places in this thread as a simple image editor . my image editing need are very simple since I am no artist . I sometimes need crop which f-spot has. I more often need a draw tool ( a simple paint brush or pen ) and a text tool neither of which I could find in f-spot . Crop I could live without but draw and text are for me sine qua non.

saulgoode
November 24th, 2009, 07:04 PM
This is false. Mono, F-Spot, Tomboy use less space then GIMP on the CD.
You are wrong (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8360998&postcount=97).

andrewabc
November 24th, 2009, 07:05 PM
Why am I copy pasting this link all over the place if no one reads it? http://blog.reblochon.org/2009/11/unleash-your-f-spot-toolbox.html

Is it so hard to read the blog and see that most of the functionality is in F-Spot git master? Re-size and convert format are trivial to implement, I think.

According to that link I don't see simple text input onto the picture.
MSpaint had that for almost a decade. I think it is quite possible that a normal user at some point may want to input simple text onto their picture.

fspot appears to be meant for image (picture with camera) manipulation only, and does poorly for even that (where is reduce picture size by %, or manually selecting pixel size?). Maybe sometimes someone will want to input simple text on their picture or something. fspot sucks for image manipulation, and removing gimp because fspot 'might' become better in time for 10.04 is a stupid reason.

If it does, then great, but I see no reason how it will. Better off keeping gimp, and it fspot somehow gets to a certain featureset, then replace gimp.

Why not make the radical default software changes after 10.04 LTS?
And what will be put in place of the freed gimp space? Something worth putting in (over gimp)?

zekopeko
November 24th, 2009, 07:40 PM
You are wrong (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8360998&postcount=97).

Whoopss!! It looks like the number is times 2. My bad.
So:

"This is true. Mono, F-Spot, Tomboy use 2x space more then GIMP on the CD. You get twice as many applications for twice the space."

zekopeko
November 24th, 2009, 07:48 PM
I followed that link when 23meg posted it a few pages back (you only pasted it in one other place in this thread ,and don't go claiming credit for other peoples links) .

Oh I'm sorry I didn't know somebody owned the link.

Reiger
November 24th, 2009, 08:20 PM
You are wrong (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8360998&postcount=97).

Actually I think it is reasonable to infer from some developer talk someone posted (my brain is currently too dead to come online and remember stuff) here that the idea was:

We are pressed for space. GIMP is a bit too big & fat for a Live CD ...
... Let's first try to axe a swathe of docs that you can find online too ....
... If we are still pressed for space...
.... GIMP is still big. Axe it.

So the plan of action was made before GIMP was trimmed down a bit; but not out of misjudgment of actual packaged size.

saulgoode
November 24th, 2009, 09:34 PM
It's not just a space trade-off though. Users want a simple editor when they're doing what should be a simple task - GIMP makes cropping and removing red-eye feel like some sort of herculean effort.
Here is a video demonstrating how difficult those tasks are in GIMP (http://www.flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/Temp/Redeye/).

Merk42
November 24th, 2009, 09:49 PM
Here is a video demonstrating how difficult those tasks are in GIMP (http://www.flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/Temp/Redeye/).

"GIMP makes cropping and removing red-eye feel like some sort of herculean effort."

It may actually be simple. Cropping and rotation maybe. But how discoverable is red eye removal? If you plopped someone down in front of GIMP who has never used it would they know or figure out to:
Select the area
Go to Filter >
Enhance >
Red eye removal

Compare with F-Spot that has a giant button that says "Red-eye Reduction"

MacUntu
November 24th, 2009, 11:41 PM
People who come to a forum thread [...] don't represent Ubuntu's user base.

Good luck with getting this in our minds! :P

alphacrucis2
November 25th, 2009, 12:02 AM
Whoopss!! It looks like the number is times 2. My bad.
So:

"This is true. Mono, F-Spot, Tomboy use 2x space more then GIMP on the CD. You get twice as many applications for twice the space."

Does anybody at all actually use Tomboy?

Turtle.net
November 25th, 2009, 12:08 AM
GIMP is great, no question about it.
Is it critical to have GIMP on your machine : of course not.
On top of that, if you really need it it's easy enough to install it in one single command line.
So I think that yes GIMP should be removed from Lucid basic install.
Btw, I'm only guessing but the users that use only what is on the CD wil never use GIMP anyway. They probably use their PC for the basic functions : internet, email, office apps, music

23dornot23d
November 25th, 2009, 12:24 AM
I wondered why anyone would drop one of the best graphic packages that Linux offers at the moment ......

If I can remember back to why I liked Linux so much as a new user ..... it was because of all the pre-installed software ,,,,,

The direction Ubuntu seems to be heading is to make it into a slower system with less packages ........... pre-installed .........

With the new release of Gimp 2.8 due shortly and a lot of new features ,,,,,, including single window mode and grouped layers .......... etc .......
( I personally would do a GRAPICS UBUNTU and include version 2.6.7 with FXfoundary and scriptsFU pre-installed ..... plus Gmic ,,,,, and graphics pen recognition
If they are worried that 2.8 is not going to be ready ..... for the next release )


I cannot really understand ............ Why would you remove it ........ !!!

It would be similar to windows XP coming pre-installed with Photoshop ..... then in the next release it coming without it ............

If you are aiming at a light weight release of Ubuntu ....... call it that ........

But I believe until you offer things to tempt new users to Ubuntu ......... you will be shooting yourselves in the foot ..... and also doing a great job at killing off helping the advertising of one of the best Linux graphic packages ....... IMHO .........

If this gets out as mainstream news I think it does a very bad PR job for Gimp ....... just as it is trying its hardest to make headway ......

I would love to know what the developers of GIMP think to this idea ...........

I might be slightly bias as graphics is one of my main attractions to Linux ....... plus the speed of Linux ..........

I must admit though I use ELIVE now as UBUNTU 9.10 is booting up too slowly for me and loading the graphics packages in slowly also ........

If your heading to get the younger generation of people on here ........ maybe you should have ....

1 ........ a GAMES version of UBUNTU
2 ........ a MUSIC version of UBUNTU
3 ........ a EDUCATION based version of UBUNTU
4......... a GRAPHICS based version of UBUNTU

For users you have already captured ...... and do not need pre-installed software .....

5.........a LIGHT version of UBUNTU might be good possibly for people that prefer loading in software off the NET
and know exactly what packages are available in LINUX ......... for their particular need ..........

just my initial thoughts on this ......

I am still wondering what the reasons are .... other than cutting down on Distro size ........

yossell
November 25th, 2009, 12:52 AM
Does anybody at all actually use Tomboy?

Yes - for a long time I dismissed it as just another silly post-it note app - then I started using it and found it very simple, helpful and useful for planning articles and talks.

Merk42
November 25th, 2009, 12:53 AM
I wondered why anyone would drop one of the best graphic packages that Linux offers at the moment ......
You could try watching the video where it is discussed.



It would be similar to windows XP coming pre-installed with Photoshop ..... then in the next release it coming without it ............
Flawed analogy as Windows never came with Photoshop. It did however come with a messenger and mail application which have been removed from the default install of Windows 7


3 ........ a EDUCATION based version of UBUNTU
4......... a GRAPHICS based version of UBUNTU
5.........a LIGHT version of UBUNTU might be good possibly for people that prefer loading in software off the NET
and know exactly what packages are available in LINUX ......... for their particular need ..........
Edubuntu, Ubuntu Studio and Ubuntu Minimal install respectively

23dornot23d
November 25th, 2009, 02:04 AM
I have searched for a GIMP video you mention ..... maybe if you know exactly where it is ........
a link would be useful ...... for me and others to see .....

I believe that GIMP is to be replaced with a photo organiser ......

I have read all the notes at the beginning and the quoted reasons for removing GIMP (too complicated) but see no video ........
https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-lucid-default-apps


__________________________________________________ ___________

The analogy as I wrote it is 100% correct ........ read it again ....... ;)
__________________________________________________ ___________

I will explain it ...... maybe the word similar did not come across as I meant it to .............

Linux UBUNTU + Gimp = 9.10 + GIMP is what you have at present

Windows + Photoshop = Windows + Photoshop ........ if Windows was similar it would have Photoshop as an addition .....

________________________________

Linux strength is it does have a very good photo manipulation package included

Windows does not ........... but do you think (if it came packaged with photoshop in a previous release)
Then in the next release it did not have photoshop included ............. would it help sell Windows to users ...... or not ......

to me UBUNTU appear to be talking about removing a positive item GIMP in UBUNTU because it may be complicated .....

if Windows did a similar thing it would be having Photoshop incuded .... then saying its too complicated ..... so we will remove it .......


_____________________________________________

That is my analogy ..............


as a final note I think this is relevant too ..........

( If a large percentage of people did not use digital cameras ,,,,, they would not need a decent graphics package included .... )

I also think photography is a very high priority for a lot of people ....... so again a decent editor is needed .......

To remove it ... IMHO ... is a mistake .........

Merk42
November 25th, 2009, 02:25 AM
I have searched for GIMP video ..... maybe a link would be useful ...... I have read all the notes at the beginning of the thread and see no video ........
Sorry, this is the video
http://ubuntu.mirocommunity.com/video/120/application-selection-in-the-d

I understood your analogy, it was just flawed because Windows + Free Photoshop doesn't exist. Therefore you can't say what it would be like if they did that for years then stopped.
Also Photoshop isn't free to download after an installation of Windows.

ceramicm
November 25th, 2009, 03:40 AM
If F-Spot is replacing GIMP as default image editor, why doesn't it also replace EOG as default image viewer?

It seems to me that EOG and F-Spot Photo Viewer provide very similar functionality (even more similar than say, GIMP and F-Spot). We could save space and reduce redundancy by removing EOG. What is the rationale behind not doing so?

(source saying EOG will be kept) (http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/11/giving-up-the-gimp-is-a-sign-of-ubuntus-mainstream-maturity.ars)

andrewabc
November 25th, 2009, 03:47 AM
If F-Spot is replacing GIMP as default image editor, why doesn't it also replace EOG as default image viewer?

It seems to me like EOG and F-Spot's Photo Viewer overlap much more than F-Spot and GIMP. We could save more space and further reduce redundancy. What is the rationale behind not removing EOG?

(source saying EOG will be kept) (http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/11/giving-up-the-gimp-is-a-sign-of-ubuntus-mainstream-maturity.ars)

I'm guessing because integrated part of gnome. I agree that having two programs to do exact same thing is kinda pointless.

How about removing a bunch of the games? Do they take much room? Do people expect simple games with a default OS (solitaire)?

What about transmission, do people really need a torrent program? How about removing firefox and using opera which can handle torrents?
The list goes on and on.

23dornot23d
November 25th, 2009, 03:57 AM
Cheers for the link to the video ,,,,,

That is interesting ...... they have discussed it and mentioned how will a new user crop and remove red eye and rotate photos etc ....

So ......

They said ,,,, tag some code that does not exist yet ........ onto F-spot ........... to make it function similar to photoshop !!!! ..........

( The statement in this video ..... is to copy the photoshop idea of opening into a album
click on a photo that then takes you into ................

some code that does not exist yet that will just do red eye removal, crop and rotate ...... )

__________________________________________________ ________

So as I see it .........

1 ...... they are going to develop yet another image manipulation program to do something that they can already do in GIMP ......

2 ....... they stated that GIMP will become less known to the CD users because it will not be included on it ........

3 ....... they base the way they want to go on the way Photoshop works ......
but then instead of it taking you into a top of the range editor as Photoshop does ......
it will take you into a basic editor that has not been developed yet ...........
but will be available tested and working before the latest release of GIMP ......


What is wrong with using 2.6.7 and asking the Gimp Coders to write some small scripts under a new menu Title of basic editing needs ..............


with Red Eye Removal, Crop and Rotate as the options ........




If they go down the path of creating yet another tag on graphics program that does little if anything other than crop rotate and red eye removal ......


Then in the future ..... users will ask for more things adding to this ........ you are re-inventing the wheel here ........

GIMP ..... will become obsolete in the Main UBUNTU Linux Distro ...... and a new program will develop ........ from this Tag on Code ,,,

Using a Basis .......... of ............

Trying to emulate the way photoshop works ....... ......... it is not in what I thought Linux was about ..........

No originality ............... whatsoever here ...... and someone is going to have to come up with some quick code to replace ......
what I see is years of development and fine tuning to get Gimp to where it is now ........

__________________________________________________ __________

As one of the Main Distributors of Linux UBUNTU ...... is saying the users are not clever enough to use Gimp .......

So we will baby sit them with a basic editor ....... exactly the same philosophy as Windows .........

__________________________________________________ ___________


What you should be doing is coming up with something original ..........



Like making it as easy as possible to get to the photo you want ......

1 ..... Portrait Recognition ......... pull out all the photos with faces on

2 ..... Landscape Recognition ........ pull out all the landscape photos easily

3 ..... Sunset Recognition ........... pull out all the photos with the Sun on them

__________________________________________________ __________

Next Bring up Gimp ..... with a menu that can be switched ......

From Easy to Advanced .......... Giving just the features the USER needs .........

talk to the Gimp Developers ..... work together ...... its in both parties interests to do this

GIMP and UBUNTU ...... are a great strength together ,,,,, on the photography and editing front .....

BIZZARE ......



Removing Gimp ...... after watching what was said in the video you posted ..... and tagging on
some new code to do the three things

There was no philosophy here .......... what is the future CD going to have on it ..........

a) The best Programs you have available to sell UBUNTU to the public ........
b) Basic programs that the coders will rewrite to work simply and will not give them problems .....

They look to be playing this so safe ..... and choosing option (b) ..............


Were they all coders in that room ........ by any chance ?


__________________________________________________ ___________

This is what should happen .....


Click on F-Spot ........ Go into GIMP .........

Have a set of scripts written by GIMP coders ......

Giving a Menu for Basic Commands ........ that can be swapped to Advanced once the User feels proficient .........

The code is already there ................. what could be easier and GIMP will expand from this and the users will too ........


Talk to the GIMP people first ..........

ceramicm
November 25th, 2009, 03:58 AM
How about removing a bunch of the games? Do they take much room? Do people expect simple games with a default OS (solitaire)?
There was talk at the UDS about just that. (In fact, at the bottom of the arstechnica page I linked to in my previous post, you can read a little about it.)

I think the general consensus was that yes, some games should be removed, but that a few games with multiplayer functionality (stuff that shows off telepathy, etc.) should be kept.

ceramicm
November 25th, 2009, 04:14 AM
<snip>saying the users are not clever enough to use Gimp<snip>
Respectfully, I do not at all think that is what the Ubuntu developers intend to say.

The Ubuntu developers want to give the best experience possible to the most users possible. They believe that most users prefer a streamlined interface filled with intuitive and useful features. They know that users who require more advanced features can generally find and install a program that has them (ie. GIMP).

The fact that most users will never use half of GIMP's features hardly means those users aren't "clever." The developers are not trying to be condescending, but helpful to a majority of Ubuntu's users.

By the way, I too think face recognition would be a cool feature to have in Ubuntu. This has been worked on in the past as a Google Summer of Code project. Faces can be detected in photos, but the ability to match those faces up (ie. selecting all the photos containing "Mark") does not yet exist. This is not "original," however, (I don't know why you thought it was). Picasa and iPhoto have both had this feature for a while now.

Here's a couple blog posts I found about face recognition in F-Spot, in case you are interested:
http://apart-dev.blogspot.com/2007/07/svn-rev-21.html
http://www.pittle.org/weblog/f-spot-face-detection-2_433.html

zekopeko
November 25th, 2009, 04:27 AM
<snip terribly formated post>

F-spot Viewer is going to be used for editing. The code is already there it just needs some polishing.

23dornot23d
November 25th, 2009, 04:52 AM
Polish away ......


To Rip out the heart ...... and replace it with ....... ?

http://i45.tinypic.com/2ewfrso.jpg

(12.78kb)

At least with one line of text, formatting will not be a problem ,,,, or the polishing ....

But going around in circles .... is something to quickly avoid .........

http://i49.tinypic.com/3162ff7.jpg

(68 kb)

anleu1
November 25th, 2009, 06:53 AM
perhaps Gimp developers would find it convenient to develop a "GIMPlite" version like Adobe did with "Elements"? a lite version that would take less room on a CD. Showcasing Ubuntu to people from a live CD will not need the full functionality of "full" GIMP; Lite would do. Of course this Lite version would encourage to install the full version for users that find out they need more.

I think it is true: video is the new photo and Ubuntu needs to have a good video editor out of the box

hikaricore
November 25th, 2009, 07:16 AM
Here is a video demonstrating how difficult those tasks are in GIMP (http://www.flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/Temp/Redeye/).

^ That sure looks hard.


Good luck with getting this in our minds! :P

Exactly my thoughts.

openuniverse
November 25th, 2009, 07:29 AM
.

SR_ELPIRATA
November 25th, 2009, 12:46 PM
I saw the video of the UDS and totally understood the reason behind the move. Gimp is really complicated and since the vast majority of users do have net connections... not being there after install I dont think is a big issue. With that said, I also will miss not seing The Gimp after the install.

I installed Pitivi yesterday and was just making a very simple video, so I put a picture, then a small 30s vid that I have, and tried to add sound... and it didnt work, not even can preview the sound clip.

What I mean with this... if we remove Gimp (which works flawlessly)... lets make sure that Pitivi works well too.

ELP

ceramicm
November 25th, 2009, 01:22 PM
i'd love to know if the gimp community feels betrayed by this.

According to this (http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/11/giving-up-the-gimp-is-a-sign-of-ubuntus-mainstream-maturity.ars) arstechnica article,

The GIMP developers who have expressed views on the subject seem to agree with Ubuntu's plan. Sven Neumann, a respected GIMP developer and the author of the GIMP Pocket Reference, voiced approval on the GIMP developer mailing list.

"That is pretty much in-line with our product vision. GIMP is a high-end application for professionals. It is not the tool that you would advise every user to use for their casual photo editing," he wrote.

hikaricore
November 25th, 2009, 03:07 PM
I emailed Mark Shuttleworth's secretary about this issue trying to get input from the man, but pretty much got a generic reply.


Claire Newman

Dear Aaron,

Thank you for your e-mail and comments regarding Gimp, I will certainly pas them on.
Although Gimp will be removed as a default application it will still be available to download from the Ubuntu software centre.

Thank you for your support.

Kind regards,
Claire

philinux
November 25th, 2009, 03:20 PM
Here's the link the the session if anyone wants it.

http://ubuntudevelopers.blip.tv/file/2876109/

26.00 mins onward

23dornot23d
November 25th, 2009, 03:44 PM
Just tried out F-Spot ..... did a crop .....

Ctrl-z is usually undo .... no undo ...... is that my first image ruined ..........

maybe needs a undo or have we gone away from Ctrl+z to undo ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control-Z

That was my first fun experience ..... with it ...........


____________________________________

Aha ,,,,, you had me for a minute ....... there ,,, this is not standard .....

The tab to the left ...... allows original and modified .........
____________________________________

Ok straightening .........

When you try to straighten a photo ..... it zooms in and out at the same time
whats that all about ?

Straighten .... then use the double trees to the single tree to try to stop it auto zooming ,,,,

what happens here ....

black screen at best ,,,, at worst multi coloured .....

Not sure about red eye removal .... I was expecting this to be so simple ...

I seem to have lost the edit options now on the left .... where have they gone ? ... F9

found it .....
__________________________________________________ _____________
Maybe it does need some polishing ........ as someone said earlier .......

I think its good for organising photos .... thats what it was designed to do ....
right click on a photo ..... go into Gimp and do the editing ..... thats what Gimp is for ....

suoko
November 25th, 2009, 03:53 PM
still not sure about my vote:
most people is not able to use it but with the new 2.7 single-window interface i guess it's going to be easier for dumb users
i also think it's the best app to make people try to paint in real life

Merk42
November 25th, 2009, 04:12 PM
^ That sure looks hard.
Good job ignoring what I said about the video. Oh well, keep reading only what you agree with.


According to this (http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/11/giving-up-the-gimp-is-a-sign-of-ubuntus-mainstream-maturity.ars) arstechnica article,
Hilarious Even The GIMP Developers Agree With Ubuntu's Decision

The problem is a lot of people are comparing F-Spot exactly to GIMP. They are two different kinds of programs, and Ubuntu feels F-Spot is the kind better suited to its userbase.

Here's a hypothetical situation:
So I went on vacation and took a few hundred photos. I wanted to organize them all.
I open up GIMP. Where can I browse my photos? I have to open up each one at a time??
I want to rate the good and bad ones and organize them with tags, how do I do this in GIMP?
I see almost 3 dozen buttons, I found rotate and crop, but where is red eye?
I can get all that done easily with F-Spot, what sort of crap is GIMP?

zekopeko
November 25th, 2009, 04:40 PM
Good job ignoring what I said about the video. Oh well, keep reading only what you agree with.


Hilarious Even The GIMP Developers Agree With Ubuntu's Decision

The problem is a lot of people are comparing F-Spot exactly to GIMP. They are two different kinds of programs, and Ubuntu feels F-Spot is the kind better suited to its userbase.

Here's a hypothetical situation:
So I went on vacation and took a few hundred photos. I wanted to organize them all.
I open up GIMP. Where can I browse my photos? I have to open up each one at a time??
I want to rate the good and bad ones and organize them with tags, how do I do this in GIMP?
I see almost 3 dozen buttons, I found rotate and crop, but where is red eye?
I can get all that done easily with F-Spot, what sort of crap is GIMP?

Merk don't waste your breath/keyboard. <snip>

Regenweald
November 25th, 2009, 05:13 PM
Hilarious Even The GIMP Developers Agree With Ubuntu's Decision


This is ridiculously funny, and also shows the difference between persons with a clear vision of what their project should be and its intended purpose, and.....well.....;)

Love and credit to the GIMP devs. Thanks for a great product and for having copious amounts of common sense.:D

inportb
November 25th, 2009, 05:37 PM
This is also what I envision the GIMP to be. I love the software, but I don't think it is for everyone.

23dornot23d
November 25th, 2009, 08:48 PM
Just on a note of organising photos ..... all I have ever used before today is GIMP and the file browser ....

I use folders with the years months and days I take the photos on I have over 74,000 photos ............

I for the first time today am reading all of the 74,000 photos into F-Spot to see if it can organise them any better than me ,,,,,,,,,,,

http://i50.tinypic.com/2vttq82.jpg

at the moment It has been running for an hour and is upto 10,000 photos .,,,, its just stopped at 11.000 photos ..... after filling my disk up ........
it obviously puts a copy somewhere ......... ok Preference .... you can point it to a folder .... this would have been handy earlier ......
I would have pointed it to a larger drive ........... ? does it save the full photo or thumbnails ..... and then link to the original ..... ?

Ok ...... I will see what advantages I have now ......... as F-spot is the future way to go to making things easier ......

I have yet to learn ..... how well younger people organise themselves .......... using their computers ............ but I will give you my results honestly .......

You will not get any snide remarks from me ,,,,, but if you can be bothered to read what I write ,,,,, bad formatting or whatever

and using Gimp for my editing which some believe to be crap ...... for some reason .....

You may gleam what problems other users may come across ..... if that is of interest to anyone developing this method ........



One thing I would like to see incorporated ..... is automatic landscape and portrait ........recognition .......some cameras have it nowadays .......

it automatically orientates the photo the right way around .... if its possible ...... ( if not I can continue doing that manually )

Regenweald
November 25th, 2009, 09:09 PM
I too installed f-spot and attempted an import. i immediately realized that it would be a very nice app if i had begun my collection using it, but for an existing collection, it is a bit cumbersome.

Mr. Picklesworth
November 25th, 2009, 09:10 PM
23dornot23d: Just out of curiousity, why DO you scatter insane series of periods, commas and dashes throughout your writing?

And yes, F-Spot works with the portrait / landscape meta data.

The import thing is weird. That's one feature which REALLY needs work. I often want it to move stuff that's stored locally to my Photos directory (which, personally, I think it manages quite well) but it doesn't do that. Doesn't copy them, either; it just links to the current absolute path, wherever that is. (Then the use of absolute paths is similarly ridiculous).

Also, it copies all your photos from a camera to the hard drive as the first step in importing stuff, before it presents you with any feedback. (That's the enormously long "loading" step). So, if it crashes during the operation, you get a ton of loose image files floating around that F-Spot created and then forgot about. Meanwhile, if you only wanted F-Spot to import a couple of pictures from the card, it wastes a ton of time copying over all of them and then deleting the unwanted ones. (At least that's how I understand it; haven't looked at the source code, but I have watched the terrifyingly weird behaviour via Nautilus).

Very unpleasant. That's one feature that needs some serious love (in fact, a do-over) if there are any takers. The only good thing about that part of the program is the many ways you can get to it.

inportb
November 25th, 2009, 09:13 PM
23dornot23d: Just out of curiousity, why DO you scatter insane series of periods, commas and dashes throughout your writing?

But not question marks! Whoa?

23dornot23d
November 25th, 2009, 09:46 PM
There were 2 question marks .... lols ........... and the insane formating bit that
goes with my way of .......... breaking up a post ........... so people read it ..........

rather than skipping large amounts ........... trying to speed read ..........

I see what you mean now after it crashed I was left with lots of non useful links.

I deleted it all and will try it again ........... possibly doing a year at a time ....

At least it does nothing to the original data which is good ..........

I keep 2 backups of it anyway ..... but its still a pain to copy it all ........

This is a link to the orientation Landscape Portrait ...... you will see what I mean

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5592572.html

Fujifilm have this built into some of their cameras ......

if you do have hundreds of photos ..... this will become a real help ......

putting the photos into the correct orientation ..... for you .....

possibly only works with the newer cameras ......must tag the photos (L or P)

;) ...... ok just re-read what you said ..... its already incorporated ...... cheers......

munky99999
November 25th, 2009, 11:19 PM
I disagree that GIMP is too hard. Might just be me. Though I would agree that it is fairly large. Probably better spent on other things. Personally i cant stand fspot. There's also that mono-hate-train which makes many people get rid of fspot as it is. So it's almost a... they remove fspot + havegimp. or remove fspot and need to get gimp. That's an extra jump.

It's also very very ironic. Gimp has been "not that good" compared to photoshop. Now that it's pretty much on par with photoshop. It's being dropped because it's good.


Personally though. I think it's time to exceed CDs. CDs are old tech. We dont use floppies anymore. Lets start moving to DVDs. Create a new sort of release. Sort of a barebones cd image. That has truly only essentials.

scaine
November 25th, 2009, 11:31 PM
There were 2 question marks .... lols ........... and the insane formating bit that
goes with my way of .......... breaking up a post ........... so people read it ..........


I'm far less likely to read a post like that, I'm afraid. It's strange, but trying to read it, it sounds like you're out of breath?

I admit I'm a grammar snob though, although I also admit that I don't get it right all the time myself.

[EDIT : Whoops! Back on topic : Gimp out = good, but only if a suitably useful replacement is found. And in my opinion, F-Spot is not that replacement]

zekopeko
November 25th, 2009, 11:43 PM
I disagree that GIMP is too hard. Might just be me. Though I would agree that it is fairly large. Probably better spent on other things. Personally i cant stand fspot. There's also that mono-hate-train which makes many people get rid of fspot as it is. So it's almost a... they remove fspot + havegimp. or remove fspot and need to get gimp. That's an extra jump.

It's also very very ironic. Gimp has been "not that good" compared to photoshop. Now that it's pretty much on par with photoshop. It's being dropped because it's good.

Even the GIMP devs said that GIMP isn't targeted for the audience Ubuntu is trying to reach with the default application set. Plus once Ubuntu Software Center gets reviews and recommended section I think that you can expect GIMP being heavily promoted within USC.



Personally though. I think it's time to exceed CDs. CDs are old tech. We dont use floppies anymore. Lets start moving to DVDs. Create a new sort of release. Sort of a barebones cd image. That has truly only essentials.

Actually the devs like the CD size. It makes for a more focused release. The repositories are the preferred way of adding software to suit your taste.

zekopeko
November 25th, 2009, 11:46 PM
I'm far less likely to read a post like that, I'm afraid. It's strange, but trying to read it, it sounds like you're out of breath?

I admit I'm a grammar snob though, although I also admit that I don't get it right all the time myself.

Agreed. I'm far less likely to read a post with such formatting. The same for wall of text style posts.

[EDIT : Whoops! Back on topic : Gimp out = good, but only if a suitably useful replacement is found. And in my opinion, F-Spot is not that replacement][/QUOTE]

I don't think the point is to make F-Spot == GIMP light.
Most people aren't artists or designers and they don't need GIMP.

F-Spot is just going to be expanded to cover some common tasks such as re-sizing, red-eye removal etc. So the focus is on editing photos for upload to Facebook, Twitter or whatever is the current fad, not having a full-fledged image editor.

Mutiny32
November 26th, 2009, 12:03 AM
I have a great idea you guys. Get ready for this one, it's great.

Don't remove it.

You're really asking for severe community backlash over this that you don't want. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but in the end, it's inevitable. People aren't going to accept it.

ElSlunko
November 26th, 2009, 12:09 AM
I am people and I accept it. Oh, and I use GIMP.

It's hard for me to say whether or not GIMP would be hard for me to pick up as an unexperienced user. I've experienced photoshop for over nearly a decade and over the last two years started using GIMP. It's really impossible for me to evaluate whether or not GIMP is too complicated as the primary photo editor.

However! I'll use an example from Apple (as much as I hate to do it). iPhoto for many people is a great tool not because it's feature-full but because It's easy to navigate and has just the right amount of tools needed.

GIMP, Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture etc. go beyond this scope. I feel Ubuntu needs something else as default.

I think some of you underestimate how easy it is for someone to give up completely on something when it has a steep learning curve.

munky99999
November 26th, 2009, 01:31 AM
Actually the devs like the CD size. It makes for a more focused release. The repositories are the preferred way of adding software to suit your taste.

While I usually have the usb key goin with persistence. I generally blast way past cd size.

I just fear that the chopping block will just keep comin along in order to preserve the cd size for no reason.

shark1997
November 26th, 2009, 02:21 AM
Getting rid of gimp would be awful. They should instead get rid of evolution, f-spot, and tomboy and put mozilla thunderbird and awn and bunch of other cool apps.

Also a DVD install would be nice. It would allow the user to choose what software to install and not clutter the drive with useless apps.

23dornot23d
November 26th, 2009, 02:32 AM
Out of the 197 that voted saying Gimp is too difficult .....

How many have tried F-spot .....

The question should be is F-spot too difficult ?

A simple resize to 800 x 600 ....... somebody please tell me how to achieve it .....
it takes me seconds in GIMP ..........

I am trying to achieve it on the upload to the web here ,,,,, and this is the screen I get ,,,,,,

as soon as I choose to Authorise it ........ By the way I do have a Flickr Account .....

http://keithaerospace92.googlepages.com/mylinks

http://i49.tinypic.com/2nvvy3b.jpg

For any body still having problems with my formatting ..... here's a screenshot ..... saves you reading .....

I spend a lot of time trying to promote Linux and Gimp ..... and photography ...... (using only Linux .....)

But dropping Gimp to replace it with F-Spot ....

I hope we can polish this and have it working in time for the next release ........ so ordinary users find it a breeze ......

__________________________________________________ ______________________________

munky99999
November 26th, 2009, 03:10 AM
Out of the 197 that voted saying Gimp is too difficult .....

How many have tried F-spot .....

The question should be is F-spot too difficult ?

Ok. just booted it up. went to edit a picture.

No paintbrush
no text

wtf? are these people on crack thinking fspot can even edit pictures?

zekopeko
November 26th, 2009, 03:24 AM
Ok. just booted it up. went to edit a picture.

No paintbrush
no text

wtf? are these people on crack thinking fspot can even edit (pictures) photos?

Let me fix that for you. Most people will remove red-eye and perhaps resize the photo. Then they will either put it on a DVD/CD or upload it on Facebook/Flickr etc.
If the devs think text is needed it will be coded.

ronacc
November 26th, 2009, 03:25 AM
you have to understand their definition of edit . it includes only crop resize and rotate . painting and adding text are too complex for the average user .

munky99999
November 26th, 2009, 03:31 AM
Let me fix that for you. Most people will remove red-eye and perhaps resize the photo. Then they will either put it on a DVD/CD or upload it on Facebook/Flickr etc.
If the devs think text is needed it will be coded.

there is no difference between a picture and a photo. They are the same thing. Pretending they are different can be in your world if you like... but not reality.

Also are you kidding me? Have you been to an imageboard before? Lolcats?

Text and paintbrush is easily the most important.

Just look at MSpaint. Why does an operating system come with an image editor at all? MSPaint in windows 95 easily has more power then this fspot one. Now that I have tried fspot. It's absolutely insane to have fspot replace gimp.

munky99999
November 26th, 2009, 03:35 AM
you have to understand their definition of edit . it includes only crop resize and rotate . painting and adding text are too complex for the average user .

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/1/12/O_RLY.jpg

Damn and I thought I had very low opinions of the average user; as per my experience in IT and tech sales.

If adding text is too complex. Windows 95's mspaint was a powerhouse tool.

MSPaint spraycan gone wild (http://pics.livejournal.com/jamie_power/pic/0000pttg/s640x480)

andrewabc
November 26th, 2009, 03:42 AM
you have to understand their definition of edit . it includes only crop resize and rotate . painting and adding text are too complex for the average user .

FSPOT can't even resize properly!
There is no resize by percentage (or pixels).

If someone take a 10megapixel picture, it is unlikely they want to upload 5mb of data to send the picture as an email or facebook. They can try, and maybe facebook auto resizes, but what the user should do is reduce size by percentage. It's not that difficult for a dumb user to "make the picture 30% of original size" instead of having to upload the original file.

Many emails only have 1-5mb limit per email so trying to send a bunch of 5mb pictures not resized it difficult.

And what if I go on vacation to some Cuban resort and for some reason wanted to put text onto the picture stating the location (name of building). Sure filename can be renamed, but maybe they have the picture in one of those digital frames and want people to see the pic and read the location (or names of people). Those are options dumb normal people need.

Please don't dismiss simple text/paintbrush and other options as "too advanced" or unneeded.
dumb users have used mspaint for a decade (or other more advanced stuff that came with computer). If they were to switch to ubuntu and there is no simple image editing program by default to accomplish this then fspot is a failure as the default image editing program. Mostly because currently fspot is not an image editor. It tries to be a friendly camera picture editor/organizer, but does so poorly, and I'm not sure how they plan on fixing all the problems in 3-4 months.

Mr. Picklesworth
November 26th, 2009, 04:13 AM
FSPOT can't even resize properly!
There is no resize by percentage (or pixels).

If someone take a 10megapixel picture, it is unlikely they want to upload 5mb of data to send the picture as an email or facebook. They can try, and maybe facebook auto resizes, but what the user should do is reduce size by percentage. It's not that difficult for a dumb user to "make the picture 30% of original size" instead of having to upload the original file.

Many emails only have 1-5mb limit per email so trying to send a bunch of 5mb pictures not resized it difficult.

And what if I go on vacation to some Cuban resort and for some reason wanted to put text onto the picture stating the location (name of building). Sure filename can be renamed, but maybe they have the picture in one of those digital frames and want people to see the pic and read the location (or names of people). Those are options dumb normal people need.

Please don't dismiss simple text/paintbrush and other options as "too advanced" or unneeded.
dumb users have used mspaint for a decade (or other more advanced stuff that came with computer). If they were to switch to ubuntu and there is no simple image editing program by default to accomplish this then fspot is a failure as the default image editing program. Mostly because currently fspot is not an image editor. It tries to be a friendly camera picture editor/organizer, but does so poorly, and I'm not sure how they plan on fixing all the problems in 3-4 months.

You've essentially proven, at this point, that your argument has not been researched at all. F-Spot's exporters all provide the option to resize images. The theory is that we don't want users damaging the original image from their cameras, so formatting an image to fit on the web is only done for that one operation. Makes sense, given its specific role and audience: managing photographs for people who want to organize and share photos.

F-Spot has been in Ubuntu since Jaunty, if I recall correctly, and its target audience is not changing.

ronacc
November 26th, 2009, 04:27 AM
what you've essentially proven is that you think the average user is too stupid to know the difference between "save" and "save as".

zekopeko
November 26th, 2009, 04:37 AM
there is no difference between a picture and a photo. They are the same thing. Pretending they are different can be in your world if you like... but not reality.

From where I'm standing there is a difference: pictures can be drawn, painted etc., while photos (short for photographs) are taken by a camera. So big difference there. Photos are just a subset of pictures.


Also are you kidding me? Have you been to an imageboard before? Lolcats?

Well I wonder how many people use Facebook/Flickr and how many image boards? And contrary to the popular opinion in this forums we are only a small part of the Ubuntu user base. For each and every one of posters in this thread there are 100s of thousands of people that have no idea that this forum exists.


Text and paintbrush is easily the most important.

Just look at MSpaint. Why does an operating system come with an image editor at all? MSPaint in windows 95 easily has more power then this fspot one. Now that I have tried fspot. It's absolutely insane to have fspot replace gimp.

You are making a mistake here. F-spot isn't replacing GIMP verbatim. It's going to be adapted for simple re-touching of pictures/photos. You don't need a complete photoshop clone to retouch pics from birthdays and such.
And, repeated again, even the GIMP devs agree that GIMP is an overkill for the targeted audience that Ubuntu want's to woo.

wil
November 26th, 2009, 04:37 AM
I don't care what they do. Gimp will we one of the first things that I install.

andrewabc
November 26th, 2009, 05:03 AM
You've essentially proven, at this point, that your argument has not been researched at all. F-Spot's exporters all provide the option to resize images. The theory is that we don't want users damaging the original image from their cameras, so formatting an image to fit on the web is only done for that one operation. Makes sense, given its specific role and audience: managing photographs for people who want to organize and share photos.

F-Spot has been in Ubuntu since Jaunty, if I recall correctly, and its target audience is not changing.

Ok, so I go to export file to folder, and it has "resize to x pixels" I'm slightly confused as to how resizing to a pixel gives a size. Images are length by height, how exactly do I resize by only one pixel input?
I just exported to desktop at 55 pixels. It created a folder, with 5 folders in it and two files. where the hell is the picture I exported to resize it?
When I try to open some of the images in the folders it says
"Error interpreting JPEG image file (Not a jpeg file: starts with 0x89 0x50)"

Ok, so now I realize I have to select "save the files only" instead of default "create standalone webgallery" (wtf is that?), and it resized it to 32x55pixels. So I guess the pixel input changes the height and adjusts width accordingly. Great that it let me know that. Still no % resize, the person would have to know in the first place how many pixels are in height, and then calculate on their own how big they want it. So they have to finish exporting it, then see it is too big/small, then have to open fspot and do same thing again since there is no undo button.

Let's say I want to export to flickr, and I have really big image from camera. I want to resize it to a smaller image. I get to exporter and it has the "resize to x pixels". It doesn't list anywhere original size in pixels in the exporter, so how the hell is a dumb user supposed to know what pixel amount to put in and know that it affects height? There appears to be no preview of what the pixel resize will look like, so they click "export" and it gets uploaded to flickr and is the wrong size (too big/small).


what you've essentially proven is that you think the average user is too stupid to know the difference between "save" and "save as".
Not sure if intended for me, but fspot doesn't have "save and save as". Which most other programs use.

Also, I click "import source" and select one of my partitions its starts automatically importing and freezes (had to kill it) fspot. Why doesn't it ask what folders in the partition to look into instead of trying to search the entire partition?

Sorry but the more research I do into fspot the worse it looks.

23dornot23d
November 26th, 2009, 05:23 AM
You've essentially proven, at this point, that your argument has not been researched at all. F-Spot's exporters all provide the option to resize images. The theory is that we don't want users damaging the original image from their cameras, so formatting an image to fit on the web is only done for that one operation. Makes sense, given its specific role and audience: managing photographs for people who want to organize and share photos.

F-Spot has been in Ubuntu since Jaunty, if I recall correctly, and its target audience is not changing.

Your theory is 100% spot on ....... as with all students that I ever taught ..... they could quote from text books ........ they could argue a point ....... but could they do what they preached ..... ?

Go into your bosses office .... put your laptop down ..... and ask for them to put one photo onto facebook just using F-spot ....... and prove to yourself and your boss how easy it is ........ to do this ...... 800 x 600 pixels ...... in size .....
__________________________________________________ ____________________

What tends to happen ....... is they never try out their own theory to see how it works.

( I upload more photos than the average user ......

I have tried the process of getting resized images using F-spot onto the web, either you chose to ignore the fact that it did not work , and then have the audacity to tell the next person they have not researched something, that is supposedly so simple for a normal user to do

or you believe that a theory is the only thing that matters )

In which case this whole process is a charade ........ of asking users what they think.

Because at the end of all of this discussion all that has been picked out is the odd sentence here and there that you think you can use as some form of ...... defence for something that is not working properly.

If you want to test it ..... get a new user and ask that new user to try it out and give honest answers ..... and please pick up on things ...... like where are the files going ..... how does the user know .....

That the resized images went into folder called hq when resized .... how then to get that onto a web site other than the ones you list .....


Just read the post before mine .... exactly .... mine froze on exit after resize ......

I know why yours froze too ..... it appears to be frozen as it gives no indication to the user that its searching your hard drive and copying
all of the photos that it finds ...... into ...... /Photo directory on your home drive ..... you will find some in there now as you killed it ........
same as I did the first time I tried it ..... the second time I tried I ran out of disk space ..... the third time ..... it did not have write access ....

I am sure normal users are just going to love it ........ and its a replacement because Gimp ..... is so complicated !!!!

I will come back to this in a couple of months time ..... to see if anything has been picked up on this for changes to F-spot or if I have wasted my time here .........

Tinypic and Photobucket are two very well known and highly used storage points for photos ..... how do you use F-spot to put them onto these .....
tried using web gallery ....

http://i48.tinypic.com/344fjw7.jpg

Have looked in Synaptic for Remote Plugin 1.0.8 ..... will now try the web .....
New users at least will learn a little from this experience.

On a positive note the sharpen option worked ok and also the sepia option ......
maybe a check list ..... of what works 100 % here is needed ......
( I think starting off with a list of the things that work here 100 % will be the best option ... then build on it .....)

I still beleive its easier to remove items by giving a menu like (Fxfoundary and Script_Fu do) and use GIMP
Than to re-write code and add new items to F-spot ...... which appears to be based on some already buggy code.

Its interesting to get users to comment on their experiences too

http://blog.wirelizard.ca/2009/11/25/f-splat/

I think that your heading in the wrong direction with F-Spot ...... thanks for starting this thread though
I have learned punctuation is more important than the message .......
and that Digikam and Gthumb are useful items for me in my tasks ......

http://i50.tinypic.com/2zszckm.jpg

leandromartinez98
November 26th, 2009, 12:32 PM
I think that they should keep gimp and include Inkscape. Users are
not retarded, and people like good software installed. Otherwise, a
live-CD will not impress anyone. One of the great advantages of
free software over proprietary one is that we can deliver a fully
functional desktop without violating monopoly rules. Backing down
our default application suite is not using this advantage. 75 mb
is a ridiculous amount of space to be saved. Linux distributions
should not copy windows on its weakness.

benjamimgois
November 26th, 2009, 12:34 PM
Your theory is 100% spot on ....... as with all students that I ever taught ..... they could quote from text books ........ they could argue a point ....... but could they do what they preached ..... ?
Man, you need to learn how to use commas.

Regenweald
November 26th, 2009, 03:16 PM
This thread has effectively broached the realm of pointless. We are going around in circles ladies and gentlemen. I think everyone has exhaustively expressed their points. Call it a day ? ;)

Merk42
November 26th, 2009, 03:22 PM
what you've essentially proven is that you think the average user is too stupid to know the difference between "save" and "save as".

The same thing will happen in GIMP for 2.8 (http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/gimp-2-8-new-features.html), but I guess it's okay when they do it.

ronacc
November 26th, 2009, 03:34 PM
The same thing will happen in GIMP for 2.8 (http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/gimp-2-8-new-features.html), but I guess it's okay when they do it.

what I meant was that "save" is going to overwrite the original with the changed (some apps MAY make a backup ) , "save as " saves the file under a new name and leaves the original alone .

RoestVrijStaal
November 26th, 2009, 03:38 PM
However I know that not everybody likes the GUI of GIMP, I think that removing GIMP even a worse idea than the idea of making pulseaudio the standard sound system.

Using GIMP is, just like the whole OS and PC things, PRACTICING.

I wonder which program in Lucid will be used to DRAW something.
F-Spot was never a good application for me, it's a mix of a catalog/view/editing, with no advanced features, written in evil proprietary C#. It doesn't even has animated gif support.

One thing is sure; the use pirated versions of PhotoShop on wine will be increased, because the new users don't know the exist of GIMP :P

jerrylamos
November 26th, 2009, 03:40 PM
Gimp's in the Ubuntu Software Center. Right there where I can get it if I need it.

What else do you need? I don't need it on the default CD Live.

Jerry

zekopeko
November 26th, 2009, 03:52 PM
F-Spot was never a good application for me, it's a mix of a catalog/view/editing, with no advanced features, written in evil proprietary C#.

C# isn't proprietary. It's an ECMA standard.

ronacc
November 26th, 2009, 04:05 PM
ECMA standard does Not mean open source , from wikipedia .

Criticism

Although the C# language definition and the CLI are standardized under ISO and Ecma standards which provide reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing protection from patent claims, Microsoft uses C# and the CLI in its Base Class Library (BCL) which is the foundation of its proprietary .NET framework, and which provides a variety of non-standardized classes (extended I/O, GUI, web services, etc). Some cases where Microsoft patents apply to standards used in the .NET framework are documented by Microsoft and the applicable patents are available on either RAND terms or through Microsoft's Open Specification Promise which releases patent rights to the public,[19] but there is some concern and debate as to whether there are additional aspects patented by Microsoft which are not covered, which may deter independent implementations of the full framework. Microsoft has also agreed not to sue open source developers for violating patents in non-profit projects for the part of the framework which is covered by the OSP.[20] Microsoft has agreed not to enforce patents relating to Novell products against Novell's paying customers[21] with the exception of a list of products that do not explicitly mention C#, .NET or Novell's implementation of .NET (The Mono Project),[22]. However Novell maintains that Mono does not infringe any Microsoft patents.[23] Microsoft has also made a specific agreement not to enforce patent rights related to the Moonlight browser plugin, which depends on Mono, provided it is obtained through Novell.[24]

In a note posted on the Free Software Foundation's news website in June 2009, Richard Stallman warned that he believes "Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents" and recommended that developers avoid taking what he described as the "gratuitous risk" associated with "depend[ing] on the free C# implementations".[25]. The Free Software Foundation later reiterated its warnings[26], claiming that the extension of Microsoft Community Promise to the C# and the CLI ECMA specifications[27] would not prevent Microsoft from harming Open-Source implementations of C#, because many specific Windows libraries included with .NET or Mono were not covered by this promise.

extracted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_(programming_language)

saulgoode
November 26th, 2009, 04:11 PM
The same thing will happen in GIMP for 2.8 (http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/gimp-2-8-new-features.html), but I guess it's okay when they do it.
The issue being addressed by GIMP's export interface is somewhat different. It is not about keeping the original file intact, but about saving your data to file formats which do not preserve all of the information that was being edited in GIMP.

For most image formats reloading a saved image will not completely get you back to where you were when the image was saved (analogous to how saving a word processing document to a text file will discard formatting information). GIMP is trying to address that this being such a common scenario in typical image editing workflows, it is obnoxious to keep popping up warning dialogs and asking the user what to do each time he saves the image.

23meg
November 26th, 2009, 04:18 PM
what I meant was that "save" is going to overwrite the original with the changed (some apps MAY make a backup ) , "save as " saves the file under a new name and leaves the original alone .

And how do you expect new computer users to discover that difference without the potential for data loss?

And how do you deal with the accumulation of version after version of "saved" and "save as'd" copies of file after file after file? How do you deal with a new Ubuntu user whose goal is to resize a photo before sending it as an attachment or uploading it to a photo sharing service ending up with four copies of what is essentially the same photo labeled as "IMG_1449.jpg", "IMG_1449_resized.jpg", "IMG_1449" and "IMG_1449 (copy).jpg"? How do you deal with that problem scaled to thousands of photos, coupled with poor knowledge of Ubuntu defaults and little experience with computers in general?

You can't, unless you get down to the root of the problem, and get rid of, in chronological order:


the distinction between "save" and "save as" in favor of built-in versioning


the concepts of "saving", "importing", "exporting" files at all, in favor of object indexers and catalogs provided by default


the concept of "files" as the basic unit of data organization, in favor of "objects".


The constant labeling of people who believe in getting rid of metaphors based on aging technical implementation specifics that non-technical users are neither interested nor knowledgeable in, that don't fit and don't scale in real life use, in favor of those designed in a human-centric way with specific goals in mind as "those who think the average user is too stupid" is getting sickening. Please stop it.

If you have proper arguments as to why wrestling with files, filesystems and folder hierarchies is still a good idea for Ubuntu's audience in 2009, present them. If you have none, be so kind as not to mischaracterize the positions of people who think differently in this and similar discussions.

zekopeko
November 26th, 2009, 04:19 PM
ECMA standard does Not mean open source , from wikipedia .

Criticism

Although the C# language definition and the CLI are standardized under ISO and Ecma standards which provide reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing protection from patent claims, Microsoft uses C# and the CLI in its Base Class Library (BCL) which is the foundation of its proprietary .NET framework, and which provides a variety of non-standardized classes (extended I/O, GUI, web services, etc). Some cases where Microsoft patents apply to standards used in the .NET framework are documented by Microsoft and the applicable patents are available on either RAND terms or through Microsoft's Open Specification Promise which releases patent rights to the public,[19] but there is some concern and debate as to whether there are additional aspects patented by Microsoft which are not covered, which may deter independent implementations of the full framework. Microsoft has also agreed not to sue open source developers for violating patents in non-profit projects for the part of the framework which is covered by the OSP.[20] Microsoft has agreed not to enforce patents relating to Novell products against Novell's paying customers[21] with the exception of a list of products that do not explicitly mention C#, .NET or Novell's implementation of .NET (The Mono Project),[22]. However Novell maintains that Mono does not infringe any Microsoft patents.[23] Microsoft has also made a specific agreement not to enforce patent rights related to the Moonlight browser plugin, which depends on Mono, provided it is obtained through Novell.[24]

In a note posted on the Free Software Foundation's news website in June 2009, Richard Stallman warned that he believes "Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents" and recommended that developers avoid taking what he described as the "gratuitous risk" associated with "depend[ing] on the free C# implementations".[25]. The Free Software Foundation later reiterated its warnings[26], claiming that the extension of Microsoft Community Promise to the C# and the CLI ECMA specifications[27] would not prevent Microsoft from harming Open-Source implementations of C#, because many specific Windows libraries included with .NET or Mono were not covered by this promise.

extracted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_(programming_language)

A programming language is different from the base libraries said language uses AFAIK. And the implementation of C# and CLI on Linux is FLOSS.

zekopeko
November 26th, 2009, 04:23 PM
And how do you expect new computer users to discover that difference without the potential for data loss?

And how do you deal with the accumulation of version after version of "saved" and "save as'd" copies of file after file after file? How do you deal with a new Ubuntu user whose goal is to resize a photo before sending it as an attachment or uploading it to a photo sharing service ending up with four copies of what is essentially the same photo labeled as "IMG_1449.jpg", "IMG_1449_resized.jpg", "IMG_1449" and "IMG_1449 (copy).jpg"? How do you deal with that problem scaled to thousands of photos, coupled with poor knowledge of Ubuntu defaults and little experience with computers in general?

You can't, unless you get down to the root of the problem, and get rid of, in chronological order:


the distinction between "save" and "save as" in favor of built-in versioning


the concepts of "saving", "importing", "exporting" files at all, in favor of object indexers and catalogs provided by default


the concept of "files" as the basic unit of data organization, in favor of "objects".


The constant labeling of people who believe in getting rid of metaphors based on aging technical implementation specifics that non-technical users are neither interested nor knowledgeable in, that don't fit and don't scale in real life use, in favor of those designed in a human-centric way with specific goals in mind as "those who think the average user is too stupid" is getting sickening. Please stop it.

If you have proper arguments as to why wrestling with files, filesystems and folder hierarchies is still a good idea for Ubuntu's audience in 2009, present them. If you have none, be so kind as not to mischaracterize the positions of people who do in this and similar discussions.

+1.

The ideal way would be to have all data in lossless formats and the applications to simply "transcode" it to a format that is suitable for their purpose.

ronacc
November 26th, 2009, 04:50 PM
@ 23meg To your point 1 a tool tip mabye ? more generaly any learning process involves the possibility of error and your "new computer users" are going to have to learn something , atleast until we are all born borgs . To build a 100% "goof proof" OS is impossible ( although Apple tries ) .
to point 2, dosen't computer janitor take care of multiple bu files ? I don't know , I have my own method .
to point 3 those "aging technical implementation specifics " you mention have persisted exactly because the work very well I would make very sure before I dumped them that it was the right thing to do .

I will try to refrain from using "those who think the average user is too stupid" but when the post I am replying to clearly implies that they do in fact think that the average user is stupid or lazy or incompetent ( choose your adjective) it is hard to refrain .

Mr. Picklesworth
November 26th, 2009, 05:43 PM
This thread has effectively broached the realm of pointless. We are going around in circles ladies and gentlemen. I think everyone has exhaustively expressed their points. Call it a day ? ;)

I will. Bye!

(And nice post, by the way, 23meg).

hellmet
November 26th, 2009, 06:00 PM
I'd say get rid of F-Spot too.. It is a pathetic photo organizer and I can never figure out a quick way of editing my photos. I just Picasa. What we really need is a simple MS Paint like App, before we decide to get rid of Gimp.

Reiger
November 26th, 2009, 06:01 PM
the distinction between "save" and "save as" in favor of built-in versioning


the concepts of "saving", "importing", "exporting" files at all, in favor of object indexers and catalogs provided by default


the concept of "files" as the basic unit of data organization, in favor of "objects".



There is certainly technical merit but there are also a couple of interesting ‘real world’ consequences arising from this approach.


First in order to do (1) people must have a notion of ‘project’ or at least some unit of work that transcends a specific version of a specific file/result-on-disk. This essentially requires a different mindset because you quickly run into such questions as:
(a) Is this a throw-away experiment? And if it is should it be versioned _at all_?
(b) What constitutes a commit to the project? Mere file saving may not be enough if (a) applies.
(c) Deliberate different versions of the same file, aka branches of the project. And how to merge back if the data is not text? Typically the tools have a means of object manipulation that allows for high level merging that is not readily apparent from the data format (i.e. ripping/copying audio-streams from MPEG files is not as simple on the file-level/data-level as it is on the conceptual level when working with tool sets that understand the [entire] file format).

For automatic versioning to work people must either work with a dedicated version control system; or their storage system must itself be a version control system. In the former case we are no longer quite the average user (there's an awful lot of concepts heading your way at alarming speeds at first when you do go down that road). In the latter case we end up with a generic system in which the user is unaware of the versioning and unable to influence it much (unless he/she delves into the technicalities but that is much like fiddling with mount options today). Consequentially; in the latter case we have a very real problem: binary blobs cannot be treated efficiently, yet it are those blobs that the user is probably going to be most interested in: movies, audio clips, pictures (photo's).

There is no option but a full sized copy (yes: that is what typically happens when you commit a binary blob to versioning) and we still do not have a transparent portable means of identifying a commit -- a simple save is not always quite the same as a commit.

These are at the present technical challenges: not arguments why versioning is a bad idea. (Indeed I'd agree that versioning is a good idea.)

Secondly a catalog and indexers... That sort of exists and makes good sense. But on the other hand completely doing away with ‘save’, ‘export’, ‘import’? The key here is that the world does not stop at the electronic door of my OS/computer. There is the wider world to comply with and the wider world might have very different opinions about data and formats and what makes sense in general. As such it would be impolite to send xyz files to people I know that they do not have a program for xyz; it would be only common courtesy to send them a common-format equivalent instead. E.g. export to JPEG or PNG files for ‘have a look; is this any good?’ type of e-mail.

Third issue ties in with:


If you have proper arguments as to why wrestling with files, filesystems and folder hierarchies is still a good idea for Ubuntu's audience in 2009, present them. If you have none, be so kind as not to mischaracterize the positions of people who think differently in this and similar discussions.

Yes I happen to think that the concept of ‘files’ as well as the concept of ‘file system hierarchy’ is something the users better understand ASAP. I happen to think that people kind of learn this rather quickly once introduced to any large-ish library but there you go.

Not because it is so very pleasant to work with. But more because it is a very practical means of making ad-hoc sense of something.

In some way or another the more productive or at least the more organized users will end up grouping some ’objects’ together with some others in a way of saying ‘this bunch is logically separate from that lot’. Currently this means creating 2 directories and putting ‘this bunch’ in one; and ‘that lot’ in the other. In other words; I think that in some way or another you end up with a new file/directory structure anyways because file/directory structure is not just OS/system layout: it is a means of insulating a few items from another few so we can make sense of the whole of complexity of all our data -- a few items at a time.

For another example of this: do you only work on one single project? Or do you work on multiple projects? And if you do work on one single project is there not some kind of sub-project hierarchy in the big one?

Finally file/directory type serialization is much more portable than object serialization. Precisely because it leaves the task of object-serialization to the realm of applications that do know how to deal with the resulting file anyways. In a way or another we already have this ‘list of objects’: that is what a file is.

But storing raw objects also means having to store their interdependencies and relations which is not portable; in much the same way you cannot use the raw disk layout of a ext2 partition and treat it as if it were ZFS.. that is because where file/directory is a logical concept easily replicated across a wide array of systems; a given disk layout or on-disk objects are concrete pieces and a non-portable pieces of data layout/definition.

benjamimgois
November 26th, 2009, 06:13 PM
I'd say get rid of F-Spot too.. It is a pathetic photo organizer and I can never figure out a quick way of editing my photos. I just Picasa. What we really need is a simple MS Paint like App, before we decide to get rid of Gimp.

All these "basic" desktop problems were solved along time ago on KDE. If Kubuntu wasn't so "Well Polished" as it is, it would be a better choice.

ElSlunko
November 26th, 2009, 07:03 PM
It's called non-destructive editing & many MANY people out there own a digital camera and will want something to organize and edit their billions of club photos and family trips. GIMP does not provide this alone. It can be achieved by a "simpler" program more effectively. This is why MS has paint & Apple has iPhoto. Not everyone needs or wants photoshop/lightroom/aperture/ etc.

ceramicm
November 26th, 2009, 07:41 PM
If I have a very dark picture ("Foo.JPG") in F-Spot, and I increase its brightness, F-Spot creates an extra file called "Foo (Modified).JPG". Now I have two copies of this photo, taking up twice as much space on my hard drive. The first copy is very dark, virtually useless, and I just want to get rid of it. Sometimes I want "destructive" editing.

Is there a way to do something like this in F-Spot? To mark a modified version of a file as the best version, and to remove all the other versions and unclutter my hard drive?

ElSlunko
November 26th, 2009, 08:03 PM
If I have a very dark picture ("Foo.JPG") in F-Spot, and I increase its brightness, F-Spot creates an extra file called "Foo (Modified).JPG". Now I have two copies of this photo, taking up twice as much space on my hard drive. The first copy is very dark, virtually useless, and I just want to get rid of it. Sometimes I want "destructive" editing.

Is there a way to do something like this in F-Spot? To mark a modified version of a file as the best version, and to remove all the other versions and unclutter my hard drive?

Nope I don't think so. It seems you can only remove new versions of the photo and not the original. The best method of non-destructive editing isn't the method that F-Spot uses. It's best if a photo editor+organizer creates a file that saves the changes done like many popular workflow programs do.

ceramicm
November 26th, 2009, 08:17 PM
It seems you can only remove new versions of the photo and not the original.

Oh, that's too bad. Even if I can't remove useless originals, I would like to be able to remove useless edits (such as an ineffective red-eye removal). Can you tell me how to do this?


It's best if a photo editor+organizer creates a file that saves the changes done like many popular workflow programs do.

I'm not sure I agree. If I know without a doubt that I will never revert the changes, then I do not want a file that enables this wasting space on my hard drive. I only want the finished product.


The best method of non-destructive editing isn't the method that F-Spot uses.

Agreed.

hikaricore
November 26th, 2009, 09:10 PM
I think something is wrong!

Merk hasn't chimed in for like a page and a half now to completely disreguard anyone's opinion which doesn't compliment his own.

Merk42
November 26th, 2009, 10:11 PM
I think something is wrong!

Merk hasn't chimed in for like a page and a half now to completely disreguard anyone's opinion which doesn't compliment his own.

Thanksgiving.

hikaricore
November 26th, 2009, 10:56 PM
Thanksgiving.

lol

zekopeko
November 27th, 2009, 12:15 AM
If I have a very dark picture ("Foo.JPG") in F-Spot, and I increase its brightness, F-Spot creates an extra file called "Foo (Modified).JPG". Now I have two copies of this photo, taking up twice as much space on my hard drive. The first copy is very dark, virtually useless, and I just want to get rid of it. Sometimes I want "destructive" editing.

Is there a way to do something like this in F-Spot? To mark a modified version of a file as the best version, and to remove all the other versions and unclutter my hard drive?

Try right clicking on the picture and remove it from hard drive or something similar.

kansasnoob
November 27th, 2009, 01:17 AM
sudo apt-get install gimp

End of discussion!

Sheesh!

ceramicm
November 27th, 2009, 01:40 AM
Try right clicking on the picture and remove it from hard drive or something similar.

When I use this option, a dialog appears with the following message: "This deletes all versions of the selected photo from your drive." That's a useful feature, but not exactly what I want.

I would really like these two options added:
1. "Remove selected version"
Delete one specific version (either original or modified), but not all versions

2. "Remove all versions except selected version"
Self-explanatory? Could probably have a better name, maybe "Keep only selected version"?

Could I possibly add these as F-Spot wishlist features somewhere?

zekopeko
November 27th, 2009, 03:56 AM
When I use this option, a dialog appears with the following message: "This deletes all versions of the selected photo from your drive." That's a useful feature, but not exactly what I want.

I would really like these two options added:
1. "Remove selected version"
Delete one specific version (either original or modified), but not all versions

2. "Remove all versions except selected version"
Self-explanatory? Could probably have a better name, maybe "Keep only selected version"?

Could I possibly add these as F-Spot wishlist features somewhere?

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/browse.cgi?product=f-spot

But search before reporting feature request.

I suggest that once you find the bug or report it you post on the F-spot mailing list at http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/f-spot-list.

NFblaze
November 27th, 2009, 04:08 AM
I use GIMP as a normal semi-technical and computer literate person for editing my photos I say that yes it is pretty huge ISO, and yes it's pretty complicated/powerful for instant understanding of how to use, but still it's a damn good program that I dont think should be removed, especially since we must remember that not everyone always has reliable internet connection to download the GIMP itself.

If they feel like they will remove GIMP, I think they should replace it with something as similar but not as weak as MS Paint. I think maybe something like Paint.NET for Linux. Paint.Net is rather small, but packs quite a punch. Also, F-Spot is pretty wack, it's slow, it must load every picture, the export and modification functions arent that useful either. I lament using F-Spot.

Maybe an alternative, is to have a selection during install for an option between a basic level graphics program and the more powerful GIMP.

ceramicm
November 27th, 2009, 05:06 AM
I would really like these two options added<snip> Could I possibly add these as F-Spot wishlist features somewhere?

I found three similar requests/bugs on the GNOME Bugzilla,
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=569743
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412794
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=460541

Not much response recently (of course, there are a LOT of bugs, ~833), but I did find out how to delete a single version:


Currently, the only way to delete a single version of a photo is in the File menu, which is a location that many new users may not find intuitive (it would be expected to be duplicated in the context menu).

As the Reporter states, it is NOT at all intuitive. But at least it exists! :-P

ronacc
November 27th, 2009, 05:22 AM
I thought obscure and non-intuitive was the objection to the gimp .Are you saying that applies to f-spot too ?

23dornot23d
November 27th, 2009, 11:15 AM
man iv seen people boasting about it, but never proving,
can you plz make this simple thing in gimp, i would belive you :)

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/7448/avatar1234.gif




I just went through the thread again and came across this little interesting graphic .....

Proving that with a little thought someone can really show the power of ? what F-spot

I think not ....... so what LINUX package did you use ?

__________________________________________________ ____



I will continue to stick up for GIMP and Linux though as

http://i29.tinypic.com/34qmzoo.gif


I never want to be forced into buying Photoshop and Windows ...........


_____________________________________________

To drop my best toy from your Distro is a insult ..... to me as a USER ....... for F-Spot

( Somebody mentioned calendars and cards ,,,,,, you cannot add a border or text in F-Spot ....)

Dev's know exactly what they want .... its clear its F-Spot ..... if you can develop it in the

next six months to create calenders cards ..... you will have done well ..... but .....

If you think the users are too thick to use GIMP ...... and are giving them what you believe them

to be capable of doing ............

That may be your mistake .... we will then have to live with it ......

as MICROSOFT does this ...... by babysitting everyone ,,,, and putting them in a BOX

( Maybe if a price tag had been put on a package like GIMP it would make a difference )

_____________________________________________

But hey the USERS ...... ? ..........

The votes have consistently shown a 70 to 80 user difference for keeping the

GIMP ............ how long are you going to go with this .......

( I guess if I knew little about say a music package .... that seems complicated - I might vote to say remove it )

before knowing that its a mistake .............

"Even the Dev's at Gimp agree with the decision ..... to drop Gimp"

Keeps coming up ....... they are not the majority of USERS ......

If you are aiming the next Distro at pleasing the Devs ..........

You will soon get a product the Dev's alone love .......

I really do hope that the USERS will be happy ..........

I would like to see new users at least try out a Linux Graphics Image Manipulation Package

Rather than them quoting Photoshop ..........

...... It gives those people even more ammunition to put GIMP down once it is dropped from UBUNTU .....

and for those that do not know it exists it may just become another package in the repository ........

( A little like an old book - sitting in a Library only occasionally to be seen )
_________________________________________

How are you trying to get NEW USERS onboard ......... ( with minesweep, suduko and freecell )

Somewhere along the line dropping Gimp should ..........

Involve listening and giving a little feedback to show that you are listening ......

what was the answer to the people that use dial-up ..... I never saw a reply ...... ?

___________________________________________

I have not seen one response all the way through the thread where it says, yes

we have listened to that and will take your ideas on board ............

It appears to me it has already been decided ..........

The work is already in progress ........ to include F-Spot ..........

_________________________________________

GIMP gone from the UBUNTU DISTRO ........

But hopefully not forgotten ....

and still included in many other Distros .........
_________________________________________________

UBUNTU is for everybody it brings people together
the philosophy that everyone can be treat equal
A young person in Africa gets their very first UBUNTU CD ......
no internet connection ...........

What is the best Graphics package that they have available
to use on this new CD ,,,,,,,,,,

If a school mate passes the CD onto a friend who has no internet connection.

These may be the people you are wanting on board at some point in the Future.

ElSlunko
November 27th, 2009, 04:11 PM
ceramicm,

I went pure KDE yesterday so I don't have f-spot but from memory you go to the First menu item in the toolbar (might be File, don't remember) and there should be a Version > delete current version.

So it's something like File > Version > Delete Current Version.

Sorry I can't be more specific but I'm sure you'll find it!

ceramicm
November 27th, 2009, 04:51 PM
ceramicm,

I went pure KDE yesterday so I don't have f-spot but from memory you go to the First menu item in the toolbar (might be File, don't remember) and there should be a Version > delete current version.

So it's something like File > Version > Delete Current Version.

Sorry I can't be more specific but I'm sure you'll find it!

Thank you, ElSlunko! I did find it. (It's Photo > Delete Version, if anyone else is looking). Not to start a flamewar or derail this thread, but after reading your post, I was curious--how is photo management in KDE? I've never worked much with KDE myself. Mind commenting?

23dornot23d
November 27th, 2009, 05:58 PM
ceramicm,

I went pure KDE yesterday so I don't have f-spot but from memory you go to the First menu item in the toolbar (might be File, don't remember) and there should be a Version > delete current version.

So it's something like File > Version > Delete Current Version.

Sorry I can't be more specific but I'm sure you'll find it!


I like the new look ..... of KDE ...... very impressive ..... and professional ...

I loaded up Digikam in it .......... to find it is even better with all the links needed .....

http://i45.tinypic.com/2yuewbp.jpg

for uploading photos ....... to where I want them .......

http://i46.tinypic.com/2j68lyq.png

Why don't they consider using DigiKam .... ?

The mouseover in the Dolphin folders is brilliant too ........

giving a small scrolling display of its contents ,,, going through all the photos ..

jppr
November 27th, 2009, 06:15 PM
Bye Bye GIMP! :popcorn:

benjamimgois
November 27th, 2009, 06:43 PM
I don't want to start a flame but, the entire KDE is awesome.Not just the Window Manager but the hole grid of KDE-Applications. It should be the ultimate Opensource Desktop.

alanrr_sr
November 28th, 2009, 07:03 AM
I must live in another world. I have never seen anyone that uses, or actually likes f-spot.
Strange decision...

diego1188
November 28th, 2009, 10:57 AM
How much space does this free up?
between 50-75mb i guess

Gimp uses 22MB of the livecd; in particular: gimp itself (gimp + gimp-data) occupy 6.5MB, while the remaining 15MB are occupied by the gimp-help package.

nss0000
November 29th, 2009, 03:37 AM
its not said to be removed yet right?
if they removing and replacing with a better one i support.

Should be easy enough to POLL people who have installed Ubuntu. What fraction actually use GIMP? If 10% then leave it in the std distro. If 0.5% then drop it!

IMHO the mere existence of GIMP has suppressed development of more broadly usable and cleverly intuitive graphics apps. I suspect many GIMP supporters consider the GIMP learning-curve a feature, not a bug.

nss0000
November 29th, 2009, 04:56 AM
GIMP makes no different plus-or-minus.

Ubuntu takes ~ 0.5% of the desktop-OS market. Evidently Ubuntu HAS NO current selling point. All of us ( Ubuntu users/posters ) do not even make a statistically significant fluctuation in the OS marketplace.

A new, truly brilliant Linux-only app WOULD generate extra market penetration ... GIMP is not that app.

hikaricore
November 29th, 2009, 05:08 AM
I suspect many GIMP supporters consider the GIMP learning-curve a feature, not a bug.

This is opposed to the photoshop learning curve?
Take a user who doesn't know anything about Photoshop and I bet he can't do a damn thing without a bit of tinkering.
The same holds true for GIMP and any other software.

Mindlessly spewing garbage about a learning curve simply based on the idea that GIMP is not Photoshop is beyond ignorant.

scaine
November 29th, 2009, 05:53 PM
Mindlessly spewing garbage about a learning curve simply based on the idea that GIMP is not Photoshop is beyond ignorant.

I think the suggestion was that an app is required that doesn't have such a learning curve. I don't use F-Spot (tried once, hated it), but I don't really "use" GIMP either. I mean, I can't - it's an incredibly obtuse interface and all I really needed was something that could lighten up a picture, or crop a bit out of it.

I use gthumb myself. It was dropped from Ubuntu a while back, but it meets my requirements. Not perfect, but it does the job...

23meg
November 30th, 2009, 06:22 AM
@ 23meg To your point 1 a tool tip mabye ?

Sure, and tooltips for toolbar icons as contextual help has been the status quo for more than a decade. Has it helped with the fundamental problem? I don't think so.

Let's cut to the chase: Having to manually tell content creation software to save your changes is a bad idea on its own. That it has virtually gone unquestioned for decades does not make it a good idea.

How often do you not want to save changes you made to a document? At the end of a conversation, do you explicitly tell your acquaintance to remember it, with the assumption that if you don't, she will have forgotten it next time you meet? Do you tell your notebook to "Save" your pencil strokes, with the strict distinction that you don't mean "Save As..."ing them? No, you naturally assume that the data you've put into any system will stay intact, unless you deliberately make a move to destroy it. Why assume equal odds that the opposite will be the case with software, which leads to versionless manual saving, and tiresome confirmation dialogs?

The default conduct of any piece of software dealing with content creation should be preserving your work, not rushing to trash it unless you make an explicit move to preserve it. Should there be cases where wanting to trash your changes will be more likely than wanting to keep them (such as a few accidental keypresses on an existing large document), the application should perhaps be designed to account for those and act accordingly too.


more generaly any learning process involves the possibility of error and your "new computer users" are going to have to learn something , atleast until we are all born borgs . To build a 100% "goof proof" OS is impossible ( although Apple tries ) .

Surely, and I'd rather people invested time and effort into learning to use systems that rewarded their intuition, rather than work against it in the interest of preserving technical traditions. The point is not to eliminate the possibility of error, but to make software actually work for whom it's intended for. If there are clear symptoms that some aspects of daily computing are failing for very large numbers of people (which there are; as a single example, managing four-digit numbers of files across multiple computers manually with a "file manager" in multiple use scenarios has "fail" written all over it), the solution should not be to teach people intricate technicalities that are absolutely specific to computers and have no equivalent in any other domain, but to devise new solutions that actually work, at the expense of abandoning old habits, metaphors, technologies etc. if that's what it takes.


to point 2, dosen't computer janitor take care of multiple bu files ? I don't know , I have my own method .


Computer Janitor is a piece of software that looks after other software. Regardless of how well it does it, people who use computers to get work done should have to deal with as little excise of that sort as possible.


to point 3 those "aging technical implementation specifics " you mention have persisted exactly because the work very well I would make very sure before I dumped them that it was the right thing to do .


They "work" at the expense of humans, their very users, having to suffer under extensive obligatory adaptation, cognitive load and manual labor. Preserving machine traditions at the expense of humans suffering is not my idea of a good way of benefiting from technology, or "works very well".

23meg
November 30th, 2009, 07:16 AM
There is certainly technical merit but there are also a couple of interesting ‘real world’ consequences arising from this approach.

Let me preface by clarifying my sense of "get rid of" in that post: it is, essentially, "get rid of as the default mode of interaction". There's no immediate reason to dispose of filesystems and traditional file management completely; there should be no harm in keeping them intact as long as higher level abstractions are the preferred way for high-priority tasks.


First in order to do (1) people must have a notion of ‘project’ or at least some unit of work that transcends a specific version of a specific file/result-on-disk. This essentially requires a different mindset because you quickly run into such questions as:
(a) Is this a throw-away experiment? And if it is should it be versioned _at all_?


Ideally, the technical cost of versioning as opposed to not versioning should be so low that the distinction should be completely possible to bypass.


(b) What constitutes a commit to the project? Mere file saving may not be enough if (a) applies.
(c) Deliberate different versions of the same file, aka branches of the project. And how to merge back if the data is not text? Typically the tools have a means of object manipulation that allows for high level merging that is not readily apparent from the data format (i.e. ripping/copying audio-streams from MPEG files is not as simple on the file-level/data-level as it is on the conceptual level when working with tool sets that understand the [entire] file format).

These are problems that can be solved with abstractions that are "high-level" enough, yet are compatible with a traditional file structure to be preserved. Surely easier said than done, and way out of scope of this discussion. Wizbit (http://www.wizbit.org) is an interesting example to look at.


For automatic versioning to work people must either work with a dedicated version control system; or their storage system must itself be a version control system. In the former case we are no longer quite the average user (there's an awful lot of concepts heading your way at alarming speeds at first when you do go down that road).

The low-level details of version control systems that aren't absolutely needed for daily tasks can be abstracted and hidden just as successfully as those of traditional filesystems, if not more. Non-technical users dealing with files with a file manager typically do not ever hear about transactions, namespaces, filesytem-specific terminology and the like; similarly, they can also not hear about rebasing, file locking, repository formats and the like.


In the latter case we end up with a generic system in which the user is unaware of the versioning and unable to influence it much (unless he/she delves into the technicalities but that is much like fiddling with mount options today).


I disagree with that; that's not necessarily going to be the case. It may look "black or white" now, since the field (of non-technical versioning) is largely unexplored, but I do see progress to be made. As a present example that does not apply per se, but illustrates my point nevertheless, compare the learnability of Bazaar Explorer (http://doc.bazaar-vcs.org/explorer/en/visual-tour-windows.html) to that of command line Bazaar.


Consequentially; in the latter case we have a very real problem: binary blobs cannot be treated efficiently, yet it are those blobs that the user is probably going to be most interested in: movies, audio clips, pictures (photo's).

There is no option but a full sized copy (yes: that is what typically happens when you commit a binary blob to versioning) and we still do not have a transparent portable means of identifying a commit -- a simple save is not always quite the same as a commit.

These are at the present technical challenges: not arguments why versioning is a bad idea. (Indeed I'd agree that versioning is a good idea.)

That is indeed a very real problem. I'd appreciate pointers to some existing work or literature that attempts to tackle it, if you know any.


Secondly a catalog and indexers... That sort of exists and makes good sense. But on the other hand completely doing away with ‘save’, ‘export’, ‘import’? The key here is that the world does not stop at the electronic door of my OS/computer. There is the wider world to comply with and the wider world might have very different opinions about data and formats and what makes sense in general. As such it would be impolite to send xyz files to people I know that they do not have a program for xyz; it would be only common courtesy to send them a common-format equivalent instead. E.g. export to JPEG or PNG files for ‘have a look; is this any good?’ type of e-mail.


My clarification at the beginning applies: I see no immediate reason to throw away what the rest of the world will certainly not be throwing away overnight. Windows has the concept of "Libraries", yet keeps files manually manageable. OSX treats iTunes as a repository for "your media", yet your files are there in Finder, manually manageable. I don't think our approach should differ at this point either.


Finally file/directory type serialization is much more portable than object serialization. Precisely because it leaves the task of object-serialization to the realm of applications that do know how to deal with the resulting file anyways. In a way or another we already have this ‘list of objects’: that is what a file is.


But then, delegating the task of indexing data to independent applications typically leads to applications that look like fenced gardens, each with their own data format and customs, unable to communicate with each other, and unable to transfer documents and settings across, not acting in a predictable way in terms of what they do to your data.


But storing raw objects also means having to store their interdependencies and relations which is not portable;

Why not, necessarily? I don't follow that.

ronacc
November 30th, 2009, 03:40 PM
@ 23meg Thank you for a well toughtout and insightful reply . My thinking in reference to both point 1 and 2 is that sometimes the behavior I want is contextual , even from the same program and I believe that is a human decision . To use your notebook analogy I do not " tell your notebook to "Save" your pencil strokes " but when I am finished making them I may tear the page out and deposit it in the "circular file" ,I may tear it out and go to my filing cabinet and deposit it in a rectangular folder , I may also leave it in the notebook for quick reference at a later date .

to point 3 , even in the "modern paperless office" you are almost certain to find both a trash basket ( and these days probably a shredder ) and a filing cabinet containing folders and files . These are the "aging technical implementation specifics " to which I was refering . The paradigm of directories , sub-directories and files ( the filing cabinet , folders and files ) has persisted precisely because it works so well .

Dragonbite
November 30th, 2009, 05:04 PM
Y'know.. I always seem to install Gimp on my systems (heck, my work Laptop running Windows XP Pro has Gimp on it.. and Paint.NET), and for some reason I almost never use it.

I may want to use it, but rarely do I actually use it.

I don't think it's such a bad idea to remove it, while making it an easy installation from the repos.

I just hope F-Spot will push for more intelligent features (up/download PicasaWeb folders would be great!).

The biggest thing I don't like is F-spots method of storing pictures by yyyy/mm/dd folders. I would rather it "watch" a folder, and when importing from a camera allow me to make an "album" folder or something to group the pictures in a human-legible naming format.

But that's just me.

Any of this going to coincide with Banshee replacing Rythmbox + Totem? That was brought up a while ago, but I don't hear anything now so I think it is on hold for now.

Merk42
November 30th, 2009, 05:48 PM
Any of this going to coincide with Banshee replacing Rythmbox + Totem? That was brought up a while ago, but I don't hear anything now so I think it is on hold for now.

As far as Lucid is concerned, it will still have Rhytmbox. It was brought up at the very end of the same default applications video that said they were removing GIMP.

Lucid+1 however may switch to Banshee.

Pisa
December 1st, 2009, 06:21 PM
Using GIMP is, just like the whole OS and PC things, PRACTICING.

Yeah if you are new and want to use Gimp you need to practice! So it will always be complicated at the beginning.

Dragonbite
December 1st, 2009, 06:45 PM
Maybe if they go with F-Spot and no Gimp for Lucid, and Banshee instead of Rythmbox in Lucid+1, they can port a good version of Paint.NET in Mono for image editing?!

hikaricore
December 1st, 2009, 07:10 PM
I was under the impression that paint.net was closed source now.

zekopeko
December 1st, 2009, 10:59 PM
I was under the impression that paint.net was closed source now.

This is true. You could take the last version that was open source and work from there.

23dornot23d
December 2nd, 2009, 12:25 AM
You could modify some Windows Software ..... if it was not so difficult .... to learn the 3 things in GIMP you need to do too ...... !!!

__________________________________________________ ______

Right click on your photo ....... open it into Gimp

1 .... Click on the very first tool in the Gimp tool box .... select a rectangle around the area you want

Press ctrl+c to copy ...... selected area

Press shift+ctrl+v ...... to paste as a new image

http://i50.tinypic.com/ig96d0.jpg



Save the file as whatever you want .............

That's to Crop a image .................... difficult to do ................ try it ......

2 .... if you then look for the rotate tool ......in the toolbox ...... you can rotate it too ...........
( when your mouse goes over the icons .... it tells you what they are for .... )

3 .... Filters Enhance ..... Red Eye Removal .... see if you can do it !!! that's if you have a photo you need to do it on ?
( how many photos do people have where they need to do red eye removal ...... but its here and it works ......... )
__________________________________________________ ___________________

When you have done your Mods to the relative pieces of software ,,,,, so you can remove GIMP

Let me know how much easier it is .....


Maybe modifying Photo.Net will make it much simpler to do ........... ? :D

Someone post a tutorial ..... it might be all that people need ......

BYe BYe GIMP .....

__________________________________________________ ___________________

That's the first positive thing I have seen written on here ..... to modify Paint.Net .......... maybe then include that on the Distro

Leed
December 2nd, 2009, 09:23 AM
Removing Gimp is a terrible step for Ubuntu, It's a great tool and even if people aren't total Photoshoppers, they can still draw simple things with it, after all there's not Paint.exe in Ubuntu. Also the simple fact that Gimp is there encourages people to try out image editing, my Girlfriend is no PC freak, but has already learnt a lot about image editing without me teaching her anything.

F-Spot however is in my eyes a totally redundant program. If I want to just look at pictures or organize them, I'll use EyeOfGnome because it's fast and does all I need. F-Spot to me is just simply annoying, I see no sensible reason to use it. Why should someone want to import photos into a program instead of simply copying them to their harddrive? I think if Lucid needs more space, then F-Spot should go first.

Besides there are enough other redundant programs:
-All those media players could be replaced by VLC that does it all better
-Why have two packet managers?

Merk42
December 2nd, 2009, 04:15 PM
The problem with the GIMP vs F-Spot thing is they serve two different purposes

It is absolutely correct you can't do a lot of advanced editing in F-Spot, but it's absolutely correct you can't organize a lot of photos in GIMP either.


Besides there are enough other redundant programs:
-All those media players could be replaced by VLC that does it all better
-Why have two packet managers?

I'm pretty sure there's codec legality issues from including VLC synaptic is planned to be removed in Lucid

Mr. Picklesworth
December 2nd, 2009, 05:07 PM
The problem with the GIMP vs F-Spot thing is they serve two different purposes

It is absolutely correct you can't do a lot of advanced editing in F-Spot, but it's absolutely correct you can't organize a lot of photos in GIMP either.



I'm pretty sure there's codec legality issues from including VLC synaptic is planned to be removed in Lucid

That's in Lucid +1 that Synaptic will hopefully be removed. In Lucid, Software Centre will be able to perform most of the jobs Synaptic is used for on a day-to-day basis and so it'll be possible to gauge what needs to be done to reach that goal.

VLC is not using GStreamer, thus an ugly detachment from the platform, and it is completely outside of the needs for a default media player. It has a very complex interface to accommodate its main feature (hint: VideoLAN).

BwackNinja
December 2nd, 2009, 05:07 PM
You could modify some Windows Software ..... if it was not so difficult .... to learn the 3 things in GIMP you need to do too ...... !!!

__________________________________________________ ______

Right click on your photo ....... open it into Gimp

1 .... Click on the very first tool in the Gimp tool box .... select a rectangle around the area you want

Press ctrl+c to copy ...... selected area

Press shift+ctrl+v ...... to paste as a new image


Save the file as whatever you want .............

That's to Crop a image .................... difficult to do ................ try it ......

2 .... if you then look for the rotate tool ......in the toolbox ...... you can rotate it too ...........
( when your mouse goes over the icons .... it tells you what they are for .... )

3 .... Filters Enhance ..... Red Eye Removal .... see if you can do it !!! that's if you have a photo you need to do it on ?
( how many photos do people have where they need to do red eye removal ...... but its here and it works ......... )
__________________________________________________ ___________________

When you have done your Mods to the relative pieces of software ,,,,, so you can remove GIMP

Let me know how much easier it is .....


Maybe modifying Photo.Net will make it much simpler to do ........... ? :D

Someone post a tutorial ..... it might be all that people need ......

BYe BYe GIMP .....

__________________________________________________ ___________________

That's the first positive thing I have seen written on here ..... to modify Paint.Net .......... maybe then include that on the Distro

This post actually makes me feel better about having to remove the gimp by default, considering you did not use the crop tool in the toolbox to, y'know, crop.

negativ
December 2nd, 2009, 05:33 PM
Remove GIMP because it's "too complicated" and "nobody uses it"...

... but shove GRUB2 down our throats.

Perfect.

And removing Synaptic?

Wow.

philinux
December 2nd, 2009, 05:33 PM
23dornot23d Odd Post

Select bit of image to crop. Then Image>Crop to selection.

Merk42
December 2nd, 2009, 05:38 PM
23dornot23d Odd Post

Select bit of image to crop. Then Image>Crop to selection.

Or even use the crop tool which was BwackNinja's point.

all of 23dornot23d posts are at least formatted oddly. I find it much more entertaining to read if I picture it being William Shatner.

Dragonbite
December 2nd, 2009, 05:40 PM
So F-Spot modifies the actual image, when you do any changes?

philinux
December 2nd, 2009, 05:42 PM
Or even use the crop tool which was BwackNinja's point.

all of 23dornot23d posts are at least formatted oddly. I find it much more entertaining to read if I picture it being William Shatner.

LOL.

I dont use gimp that much but I forgot about the crop tool. Must study the gimp tutorials. They are pretty good.

forcecore
December 2nd, 2009, 05:48 PM
Actually do not worry about Gimp because with UCK you can do custom Ubuntu .iso with Gimp very easy, and i am sure someone will make torrent from custom iso-s too.

[h2o]
December 2nd, 2009, 05:51 PM
Remove GIMP because it's "too complicated" and "nobody uses it"...

... but shove GRUB2 down our throats.

Perfect.

Not sure how many people "use" GRUB2 at all. I use it to switch between different operating systems installed at boot. It does this very well, without any difficulties in understanding how it works. And it works exactly the same as GRUB1 did in this regard.
If you are arguing that there are technical issues with GRUB2 I suggest filing bug reports and try to get them fixed before Lucid.

Mr. Picklesworth
December 2nd, 2009, 05:55 PM
Actually do not worry about Gimp because with UCK you can do custom Ubuntu .iso with Gimp very easy, and i am sure someone will make torrent from custom iso-s too.

Even better, if you are keen on having a multimedia production focused Ubuntu out of the box (which seems to be in the minds of those who complain about the change), install Ubuntu Studio.

They have a beautiful web site, it comes on a DVD and it's hosted by Canonical:
http://ubuntustudio.org/ :)

It isn't actually the thought process, but maybe consider this a move to differentiate the two products?

Ray()
December 2nd, 2009, 05:59 PM
That's in Lucid +1 that Synaptic will hopefully be removed.

Why?? Is there a better way to manage all the packages taht I don't know about or am I supposed to do that from the command line from now on? :(( The software center in by far not capable of handling all the dependencies and simply doesn't show you all the packages so you can't really install anything more specific...

Merk42
December 2nd, 2009, 06:05 PM
Why?? Is there a better way to manage all the packages taht I don't know about or am I supposed to do that from the command line from now on? :(( The software center in by far not capable of handling all the dependencies and simply doesn't show you all the packages so you can't really install anything more specific...

Currently the software center can't, but it will be able to when synaptic will be removed in Lucid+1 (I must have misread something somewhere saying it'd be Lucid).

But that's all off topic anyway.

There is a thread for discussing Ubuntu Software Center (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1341164)

Reiger
December 2nd, 2009, 06:22 PM
Let me preface by clarifying my sense of "get rid of" in that post: it is, essentially, "get rid of as the default mode of interaction". There's no immediate reason to dispose of filesystems and traditional file management completely; there should be no harm in keeping them intact as long as higher level abstractions are the preferred way for high-priority tasks.

Okay that makes more sense.



Ideally, the technical cost of versioning as opposed to not versioning should be so low that the distinction should be completely possible to bypass.

But realistically that is *never* going to be the case.Or at least at some point the old versions must be discarded if you want to sustain the new non-commit but versioned anyway ones: storage mediums still have fixed size and come in various flavors -- not just the terabyte or whatever-the-current-high-equivalent ones. I see there are some movements to have an automatic & practical approach to this type of problem in NILFS and similar log based data storage structures. So maybe the problem is if not non-existent then certainly more manageable when the algorithmic cost (having to compute diffs etc.) of versioning is negligible.



These are problems that can be solved with abstractions that are "high-level" enough, yet are compatible with a traditional file structure to be preserved. Surely easier said than done, and way out of scope of this discussion. Wizbit (http://www.wizbit.org) is an interesting example to look at.




The low-level details of version control systems that aren't absolutely needed for daily tasks can be abstracted and hidden just as successfully as those of traditional filesystems, if not more. Non-technical users dealing with files with a file manager typically do not ever hear about transactions, namespaces, filesytem-specific terminology and the like; similarly, they can also not hear about rebasing, file locking, repository formats and the like.

Yes but in order to take any advantage of versioning at all the user must understand ‘commit’ and ‘branch’ and ‘merge’ and ‘revision’ etc. etc. Otherwise it is exactly equivalent to a static backup.

Basically put versioning introduces a new model of ‘file state’: it is in some progress marked as a revision number which can be set against other revisions in various elaborate ways.

That is what I mean. In order for a user to take advantage of the Unix directory structure layout (a fast way to find whatever the file is you are looking for outside /home) he/she must understand it (the acronyms).
In order for a user to avoid the horror that is a mess of 5000 pics lumped in a single directory he/she must understand directories.

And likewise: in order to be able to revert to a previous version of your work without too much effort on your part you must understand what it is that versioning -conceptually- means & does.

If you are going to hide this from the user (near-completely) he/she will not be able to use the system more effectively than what he/she currently can do: save duplicates of a file to mimic versioning. Mock versioning inside real versioning is obviously a waste and arguably the only *good* solution is to expose the real versioning.

But that requires some effort on the part of the non-versioning-aware user who must subject himself/herself to the learning curve. It is not terribly big but it is real.

Which is why:



I disagree with that; that's not necessarily going to be the case. It may look "black or white" now, since the field (of non-technical versioning) is largely unexplored, but I do see progress to be made. As a present example that does not apply per se, but illustrates my point nevertheless, compare the learnability of Bazaar Explorer (http://doc.bazaar-vcs.org/explorer/en/visual-tour-windows.html) to that of command line Bazaar.

Is slightly too optimistic. The user that has problems grasping something as simple as how to wield a mostly-tree directed graph to organize his/her data is not going to have an easier time with version control.

Primarily because version control does not do spatial or structural organization outside of the relative advanced concept of branches of a project. It does temporal organization of your data: i.e. it sorts it by revision and allows you to examine it as such (by revision).

People who do technical support/helpdesk can probably attest to this: never underestimate the ability of people to fail to see the obvious.



That is indeed a very real problem. I'd appreciate pointers to some existing work or literature that attempts to tackle it, if you know any.


I don't (much). That's why I am more of a user asking you and not a developer pioneering these experiments. :p Pure blobs would benefit of course the most from good compression tech: mitigating their cost and producing a format that is typically slightly more tractable for a diff like program. (E.g. run length encoding and similar schemes convert data in such a way that you can start to efficiently compare sub-sequences of it for instance.)

But the real question is of course PNG/MPEG etc. data: it is meaningless to detect that 150 separate pixels are now 50% more blue -- what you want to detect is a filter which was applied. The only real way I'd see now, to do this is to ensure that your versioning environment can deal with the concept of ‘lapse of memory’ by which I mean that it should be possible for a program to mark a certain file as ‘for-versioning’ and others as ‘frozen’ and more importantly you must have a series of ‘rules’ to apply so you can pick up sensible defaults for various mime types. (E.g it makes sense to use versioning by default on text data but not so much on clips downloaded from the internet.)



My clarification at the beginning applies: I see no immediate reason to throw away what the rest of the world will certainly not be throwing away overnight. Windows has the concept of "Libraries", yet keeps files manually manageable. OSX treats iTunes as a repository for "your media", yet your files are there in Finder, manually manageable. I don't think our approach should differ at this point either.


You do realize that your examples is essentially the concept of a fancy directory or alternatively a very limited relational database -- i.e. a file itself? In any case both are concerned with the spatial/structural organization of data which is much closer aligned to the file/directory paradigm than versioning.



But then, delegating the task of indexing data to independent applications typically leads to applications that look like fenced gardens, each with their own data format and customs, unable to communicate with each other, and unable to transfer documents and settings across, not acting in a predictable way in terms of what they do to your data.

Yes. And no. There is still the concept of (industry) standards.


Why not, necessarily? I don't follow that.

Because dependencies must be available. Objects contain more than just their own data they also contain pointers to others.

For instance say you have an application which has a type of document and offers various templates to get you started with a new one. Now you might want to install new templates contributed by a comunity, right? And then you want to use these, right?

So far that is brilliant.

But now you have this equally brilliant file system that a programmer can use to dump an object to disk. Of course the programmer has been smart and designed his program in such a way that various kinds of templates can co-exist without interfering in the core-functionality of a document object.

So the document object holds some ‘pointer’ of sorts to a template or a ‘null’ pointer if no template is used.

Now you use that brilliantly designed program and want to save your experimental version with this new and stunning template you just downloaded. And now you want to take that document to some other machine.

And you don't have that same template on the other machine (yet). But that is no problem, because surely your document will contain that template?

... Will it?

A typical object serialization implementation would omit the template data itself from the stored object instead relying on a namespace URI to denote it. A typical file implementation would contain both template and document object data.

And there is thus the very real possibility that when you now save a ‘document’ and take it to some other place you do not have all of it with you: it is not portable.

negativ
December 2nd, 2009, 07:53 PM
;8426947']Not sure how many people "use" GRUB2 at all. I use it to switch between different operating systems installed at boot. It does this very well, without any difficulties in understanding how it works. And it works exactly the same as GRUB1 did in this regard.
If you are arguing that there are technical issues with GRUB2 I suggest filing bug reports and try to get them fixed before Lucid.

Compare the configuration of GRUB2's boot menu vs. GRUB menu.lst.

It adds perverse new layers of complexity that serve no good purpose whatsoever.

23dornot23d
December 2nd, 2009, 08:57 PM
The only thing odd about my posts are that I raise questions and get you to think.

If I wanted to preserve the integrity of this thread it would be difficult to do, there
are people on it that have added nothing to it, other than trying to rid themselves of one very useful piece of software,
no matter how much you try to make fun, rather than being serious.

The comedians are the ones THAT "THINK ? " that THEY will shape this Distro ....
it will be a little like this thread has become ... a waste of space ... DUE to them wanting to
become comedians ........ more than wanting a decent set of applications on your best Distro .....

__________________________________________________ _______________


http://i45.tinypic.com/5jvf2c.jpg

108 kb

( So GIMP do you want to be included in our Distro ..... we need simple ... understand SIMPLE .... )

or you may find yourself in the repository ,,,,

if we seclude you .... its for your own good ....


Your maybe missing the BIG PICTURE .....

The more simple the packages .... the more we can have on the DISK ..... understand now .... !!!
__________________________________________________ _


So if you end up with a funny Distro and no Graphics package ......

It may be almost as funny but as pointless, as your resident (one liner) comedians ..... :D


But I know from the votes that your funny remarks do little to sway the people that really matter, the USERS ......

__________________________________________________ ______________________

A future Distro to attract new users in my mind should include the following ......

One very good Graphics package replacement for .... Photoshop .....
One very good Desktop Publisher replacement for .... Word .....
One very good 3D package Blender replacement for ..... Any number of 3D packages DAZ 3D lets say ....
One very good Music Jukebox / Radio replacement for .... Not sure that there are any as good on the other systems ......

and a few more really good things could be added ......

.... but I would like to see you concentrate on the best ...... rather than bringing more smaller packages
onboard ....... there are already many in the repositories ......

Reason ......... they seem to go so far then die off .......

( not sure why .... maybe like with GIMP ... it may just get shoved out of the way because its not the flavour of the month )


I will continue to stick up for the best software that Linux creates ..... maybe one day F-spot will become that
but until then,

I feel far more confident with GIMP ...... even though when I take time out to show you how " I " use it
which keeps your original intact .... and can all be done from the keyboard ..... you point out the simple method of crop
which would have no doubt - raised comments about destroying the original image ........

But I am never too old to learn ..... and if I get secluded for my beliefs ..... its not because I do not try to help ....

looking back at the crop you so kindly added ..... although the way you mention works it will destroy the original if the user
does a save after doing it .... this is what a lot of this thread has focused on ...... to preserve the original.

( I am sure that would have been picked on too ..... ) and if you want a minimal Distro .... call it that ...... MINI UBUNTU

Here's another thread you could start .... Bye Bye OpenOffice ..... and replace it with a PDF viewer ...... its along the same lines
as what you have done here ..... see if you can pull someone into that one to fight to save it .......


Replacing GIMP with a photo viewer is exactly the same as

replacing ........

Open Office with a document viewer ....... ( which also would make very little logical sense )

__________________________________________________ ____________________

Conclusion .... the ones here fighting to remove GIMP realise how difficult cropping a photo was "NOT" .... which I suppose is a start ....

__________________________________________________ ____________________

Tutorials may be needed for F-Spot ..... but I doubt it ...... as very few people here seem to use it .....
with DigiKam and Gthumb being the ones I see used by the majority ..... they may be better replacements for F-Spot .....

Maybe you can do that next year ....... Bye Bye F-Spot .........

jitup
December 2nd, 2009, 09:17 PM
I love GIMP and use it all the time for graphic design, if anything it is just strating to become compareable to Adobe photo shop. If anything, I wish there was an application the would be as good as an alternative for Adobe Illistrator as GIMP is for Photoshop.

Dragonbite
December 2nd, 2009, 09:26 PM
I love GIMP and use it all the time for graphic design, if anything it is just strating to become compareable to Adobe photo shop. If anything, I wish there was an application the would be as good as an alternative for Adobe Illistrator as GIMP is for Photoshop.

Didn't Inkscape come out with a new version? There's also Xara Xtreme.

ceramicm
December 2nd, 2009, 11:32 PM
The comedians are the ones THAT "THINK ? " that THEY will shape this Distro .... [sic]

Aren't you trying to shape this distro by providing input about a pre-release version? :confused:


Didn't Inkscape come out with a new version?

Yes it did, version 0.47. It's been in development a while, I believe.

caryb
December 3rd, 2009, 04:05 AM
I personally think the poll questions were loaded with a agenda in mind!
Yes, I agree with developers that Gimp is too complicated
No, I think this is major step back for Ubuntu.

How about
Yes I agree with the developers we need the space on the CD for applications more people will use.
No Gimp is used by the majority & should be kept on the CD.

That to me would be poll worthy questions.


2c Cary

[h2o]
December 3rd, 2009, 09:41 AM
Compare the configuration of GRUB2's boot menu vs. GRUB menu.lst.

It adds perverse new layers of complexity that serve no good purpose whatsoever.

The number of users who have a need to edit their bootloader is minimal. If there was ever a definition of power user feature, you got one.
I for one dual boot and is quite comfortable getting around the innards of linux systems and I have very seldom had a reason to edit menu.lst.

Dragonbite
December 3rd, 2009, 02:47 PM
I personally think the poll questions were loaded with a agenda in mind!
Yes, I agree with developers that Gimp is too complicated
No, I think this is major step back for Ubuntu.

How about
Yes I agree with the developers we need the space on the CD for applications more people will use.
No Gimp is used by the majority & should be kept on the CD.

That to me would be poll worthy questions.


2c Cary

Agreed, the "Yes" and "No" statements are a bit leading.

I think it's alright to remove Gimp because of space considerations plus if most of what the 80% of users use is satisfied by F-Spot or something else.

gimptr
December 15th, 2009, 03:46 PM
I use Gimp a situation relevant to the habit altogether. What if the common practice onda. Pictures to follow normal default browser already exists. Gimp used to play with the picture.
A wrong decision. Other packages should be removed until Gimp e. As a result of people because it will tamper with the new gimp i see a distinct advantage.
In addition, today's computers, even at the lowest 1TB lık disk has begun to take place are discussed rather gimp floor covering. Also by default in the back of the Gimp program by working continuously to a program RAM is not as obvious when we think a decision unnecessary.

Dragonbite
December 15th, 2009, 03:51 PM
Recently, I needed to use Gimp because I scanned some images (Chinese Characters) at work and it saves the files as PDFs (which I then emailed to myself).

In KDE I could use Okular to capture the characters and paste them into a document, but on the Gnome system I needed to use Gimp.

Evince cannot do that at this point, so this is another feature of Gimp that could be integrated into an existing program.

aspiredfang
December 15th, 2009, 04:16 PM
I use GIMP quite a lot but, don't see the harm in taking it out of the default installation as it is quite a bit of overkill in many situations, people who need GIMP will get GIMP. So long as a program is put in its place for "basic editing".

Windows has paint, the closest thing I can find is http://code.google.com/p/paint-mono/ (http://ubuntuforums.org//http://code.google.com/p/paint-mono/), Krita would be a good substitute so long as it didn't need KDE...

That actually only leaves GIMP or maybe http://www.gnu.org/software/gpaint/? :p

Maybe this should be a discussion about what to replace GIMP with rather than simply saying, will it stay or will it go

ronacc
December 15th, 2009, 08:31 PM
At risk of being branded a troll I will ask the question that is probably on more minds than mine . USC ,gimp,dumbing down of the interface ,etc , sure most of it CAN be added back, but at what point do we ask why do I need Ubuntu in the first place if I have to completely rebuild it to make it suit my tastes .

Merk42
December 15th, 2009, 08:36 PM
At risk of being branded a troll I will ask the question that is probably on more minds than mine . USC ,gimp,dumbing down of the interface ,etc , sure most of it CAN be added back, but at what point do we ask why do I need Ubuntu in the first place if I have to completely rebuild it to make it suit my tastes .

Then maybe don't use Ubuntu?

I'm guessing your goals/visions of an OS are different than that of Canonical's. I'm not saying your goals/visions are wrong and theirs are right or even vice versa, just saying different.

qamelian
December 15th, 2009, 09:17 PM
Then maybe don't use Ubuntu?

I'm guessing your goals/visions of an OS are different than that of Canonical's. I'm not saying your goals/visions are wrong and theirs are right or even vice versa, just saying different.
Maybe our goals and Canonical's are the same, but we don't agree with Canonical's approach to achieving those goals.

ronacc
December 15th, 2009, 09:20 PM
I was not making a threat to leave Ubuntu , among other things it would be a toothless threat since the answer would be the one you gave . I was asking a question , which will have different answers from different people. I have been using Ubuntu a long time and have been active in the dev forums for a long time . some of the names I used to see posting frequently no longer do , have they answered the question ?

Gina
December 15th, 2009, 09:55 PM
I'm keeping an open mind ATM albeit a sceptical one. But there remains a distinct possibility of missing more names from these forums if things go the way many of us fear :(

ronacc
December 15th, 2009, 11:21 PM
I too have found the trends that have been evident over the last few dev cycles disturbing .

zekopeko
December 15th, 2009, 11:41 PM
Maybe our goals and Canonical's are the same, but we don't agree with Canonical's approach to achieving those goals.


I was not making a threat to leave Ubuntu , among other things it would be a toothless threat since the answer would be the one you gave . I was asking a question , which will have different answers from different people. I have been using Ubuntu a long time and have been active in the dev forums for a long time . some of the names I used to see posting frequently no longer do , have they answered the question ?


I'm keeping an open mind ATM albeit a sceptical one. But there remains a distinct possibility of missing more names from these forums if things go the way many of us fear :(


I too have found the trends that have been evident over the last few dev cycles disturbing .

Yeah it really is disturbing how Canonical still doesn't have mind-reading equipment. I have no idea what you are all talking about. Perhaps an explanation would be in order.

User3k
December 15th, 2009, 11:49 PM
Yeah it really is disturbing how Canonical still doesn't have mind-reading equipment. I have no idea what you are all talking about. Perhaps an explanation would be in order.

I thought they had Mind Reader Version .01 Beta? Oh wait, that is Google.

qamelian
December 16th, 2009, 02:04 AM
Yeah it really is disturbing how Canonical still doesn't have mind-reading equipment. I have no idea what you are all talking about. Perhaps an explanation would be in order.
Each of the people you have quoted have already expressed our concerns/objections in threads relevant to the areas that concern us. However, each time we raise an objection, we are essentially shouted down by other users. No mind reading is in order, so please don't pretend otherwise.

cariboo907
December 16th, 2009, 02:26 AM
I too am starting to wonder if I like the direction Canonical is taking. I understand what the goal is, but for some of us advanced users it seems like a step backward sometimes.

As long as all the tools and programs are still available I will stick with Ubuntu, but the minute they start dropping things from the repositories that I normally use, I'll start looking for a new distribution.

User3k
December 16th, 2009, 02:49 AM
I too am starting to wonder if I like the direction Canonical is taking. I understand what the goal is, but for some of us advanced users it seems like a step backward sometimes.

As long as all the tools and programs are still available I will stick with Ubuntu, but the minute they start dropping things from the repositories that I normally use, I'll start looking for a new distribution.

My grandmother use to have a saying. Never keep all your eggs in one basket... With that said. I have a few favorite distro's I have used, do use or can use if one of the Linux "eggs" breaks and I am not crazy about the direction things are going in. My love is for Linux first and what works for me the best. There is not one distro I hate.

Robin Nixon
December 16th, 2009, 08:38 AM
It sounds to me like there could be a place for a GIMP lite, with the basic editing features most users need, with maybe a button to upgrade to the full release if you need more functionality.

houseworkshy
December 16th, 2009, 09:17 AM
What's on the live cd matters most to people who are offline or have capped and or slow internet access because the others can simply add whatever is available in the repros. The people who rely on the postal service or a friend downloading or burning a disc for them are the ones who would be most affected. With this in mind the current cd is fairly well balanced, though the internet apps don't need to be there and something like kdenlive ( video editing ) would be good. Perhaps the best compromise would be to include Apt-get as a default ap and tben the offline tyes could tell their connected cd burning friends what applications they'd also like to have. It may even be posible to have some sort of automated "put your own applications cd together" type webpage such as Puppy uses.

Ubuntu was originally intended to be a free alternative for people who can't afford propriety operating systems and software. Such people are often on very old machines and Xubuntu seems to be getting fatter and fatter. While I'm on that one, and still on topic I think, here's a suggestion about the installation systems; could nessesary spec's such as "ram needed to run" be included in the software descriptions? Big decision if you've paid to be sitting in some internet cafe downloading software for an antique machine back home.

Gina
December 16th, 2009, 11:27 AM
Ubuntu was originally intended to be a free alternative for people who can't afford propriety operating systems and software. Such people are often on very old machines and Xubuntu seems to be getting fatter and fatter. While I'm on that one, and still on topic I think, here's a suggestion about the installation systems; could nessesary spec's such as "ram needed to run" be included in the software descriptions? Big decision if you've paid to be sitting in some internet cafe downloading software for an antique machine back home.I think that's a very good point :)

Although I do have more modern machines, I still have a very old PC I like to use for some things. With just 384MB of memory and an old graphics card, I am very limited. Live CDs won't run and I have had to resort to the minimal install to install a CLI system and then download and install just what I want. Even the minimal install CD has too much in its minimal GUI setup. Maybe Ubuntu has now become too big for these older systems. I'm currently running an older version of Xubuntu basically. Upgrading this machine is virtually impossible without hunting the tips for ancient parts. the RAM is PC100 and very expensive now even if you can get it. The graphics card is worse, using an obsolete type of card slot I forget the name of.

NCLI
December 16th, 2009, 12:52 PM
I think that's a very good point :)

Although I do have more modern machines, I still have a very old PC I like to use for some things. With just 384MB of memory and an old graphics card, I am very limited. Live CDs won't run and I have had to resort to the minimal install to install a CLI system and then download and install just what I want. Even the minimal install CD has too much in its minimal GUI setup. Maybe Ubuntu has now become too big for these older systems. I'm currently running an older version of Xubuntu basically. Upgrading this machine is virtually impossible without hunting the tips for ancient parts. the RAM is PC100 and very expensive now even if you can get it. The graphics card is worse, using an obsolete type of card slot I forget the name of.

Have you tried Lubuntu?

zekopeko
December 16th, 2009, 01:04 PM
Each of the people you have quoted have already expressed our concerns/objections in threads relevant to the areas that concern us. However, each time we raise an objection, we are essentially shouted down by other users. No mind reading is in order, so please don't pretend otherwise.

I'm only human. I read hundreds of posts by different users everyday. You can't expect me to remember every grievance you (specific) people wrote.

The only thing I know is that you think that GIMP is an essential program for you and has to be since you work off the live CD.

You also consider re-spinning the CD to suit your needs something you shouldn't do.

I'm sure ronacc shares your sentiments to a degree.

And that's all I know about how you feel/think on the direction of Ubuntu.

qamelian
December 16th, 2009, 03:33 PM
I'm only human. I read hundreds of posts by different users everyday. You can't expect me to remember every grievance you (specific) people wrote.

The only thing I know is that you think that GIMP is an essential program for you and has to be since you work off the live CD.

You also consider re-spinning the CD to suit your needs something you shouldn't do.

I'm sure ronacc shares your sentiments to a degree.

And that's all I know about how you feel/think on the direction of Ubuntu.

I honestly don't care what goes into the default install. I do care about the content of the Live CD because, myself and several others I know do in fact have reasons to work off the Live CD for one reason or another and, until now, the Live CD has provided as close to a perfect environment as I can imagine. The Live CD has also provided a wonderful showcase to usee in promoting Ubuntu top other potential users. The proposed changes make it less so. As I have mentioned, I have frequently found a need to use the Live CD to touch up graphics for clients. I can't imagine any scenario in which I would want to use a Live CD for either photo management or somethging as potentially resource intensive as even simple video editing. Both of those tasks are better left to actual installed OSes, as opposed to a Live CD environment.

In the past, the Ubuntu Live CD was perfect for my needs "as is". Remastering should not be necessary. If I need to spend as much effort on configuring a Live CD as I do to configure a completeinstallation, then the Live CD no longer serves a valid purpose for me. There are other distros that still provide Live CDs that are useful to me right out of the box. Why should a remaster a previoously useful Live CD distro, when it is easier and less time consuming to simply change to another distro?

I'm not just voicing my opinions either. I am also voicing the opinions of the home-users and commercial clients for whom I provide support. I don't know where Canonical is conducting there marketing studies, but the results they claim certainly do not reflect the attitudes of the Ubuntu users that I encounter and support in real life each and every day.

It really doesn't even matter to me that much any more. I'm tired of the decisions Canonical has been making and I'm tired of the attitudes of certain members of these forums who seem to have no better way to respond to people who disagree with these decisions than by mockery and verbal bullying. We have concerns that are just as valid as those of any other user.

Gina
December 16th, 2009, 03:50 PM
+1

I'll just add... that when I've been testing and made the machine I'm currently using unbootable, I'll just plug in the Live CD (on USB stick with persistence) to give me an immediately usable machine - just the startup time. That's just a personal preferred way of continuing.

However, I know several Ubuntu users, less experienced than me, that are not happy at the way Ubuntu is perceived as going.

ranch hand
December 16th, 2009, 03:52 PM
i honestly don't care what goes into the default install. I do care about the content of the live cd because, myself and several others i know do in fact have reasons to work off the live cd for one reason or another and, until now, the live cd has provided as close to a perfect environment as i can imagine. The live cd has also provided a wonderful showcase to usee in promoting ubuntu top other potential users. The proposed changes make it less so. As i have mentioned, i have frequently found a need to use the live cd to touch up graphics for clients. I can't imagine any scenario in which i would want to use a live cd for either photo management or somethging as potentially resource intensive as even simple video editing. Both of those tasks are better left to actual installed oses, as opposed to a live cd environment.

In the past, the ubuntu live cd was perfect for my needs "as is". Remastering should not be necessary. If i need to spend as much effort on configuring a live cd as i do to configure a completeinstallation, then the live cd no longer serves a valid purpose for me. There are other distros that still provide live cds that are useful to me right out of the box. Why should a remaster a previoously useful live cd distro, when it is easier and less time consuming to simply change to another distro?

I'm not just voicing my opinions either. I am also voicing the opinions of the home-users and commercial clients for whom i provide support. I don't know where canonical is conducting there marketing studies, but the results they claim certainly do not reflect the attitudes of the ubuntu users that i encounter and support in real life each and every day.

It really doesn't even matter to me that much any more. I'm tired of the decisions canonical has been making and i'm tired of the attitudes of certain members of these forums who seem to have no better way to respond to people who disagree with these decisions than by mockery and verbal bullying. We have concerns that are just as valid as those of any other user.
+1

ronacc
December 16th, 2009, 03:56 PM
+1

zekopeko
December 16th, 2009, 04:08 PM
I honestly don't care what goes into the default install. I do care about the content of the Live CD because, myself and several others I know do in fact have reasons to work off the Live CD for one reason or another and, until now, the Live CD has provided as close to a perfect environment as I can imagine. The Live CD has also provided a wonderful showcase to usee in promoting Ubuntu top other potential users. The proposed changes make it less so. As I have mentioned, I have frequently found a need to use the Live CD to touch up graphics for clients. I can't imagine any scenario in which I would want to use a Live CD for either photo management or somethging as potentially resource intensive as even simple video editing. Both of those tasks are better left to actual installed OSes, as opposed to a Live CD environment.

In the past, the Ubuntu Live CD was perfect for my needs "as is". Remastering should not be necessary. If I need to spend as much effort on configuring a Live CD as I do to configure a completeinstallation, then the Live CD no longer serves a valid purpose for me. There are other distros that still provide Live CDs that are useful to me right out of the box. Why should a remaster a previoously useful Live CD distro, when it is easier and less time consuming to simply change to another distro?

I'm not just voicing my opinions either. I am also voicing the opinions of the home-users and commercial clients for whom I provide support. I don't know where Canonical is conducting there marketing studies, but the results they claim certainly do not reflect the attitudes of the Ubuntu users that I encounter and support in real life each and every day.

It really doesn't even matter to me that much any more. I'm tired of the decisions Canonical has been making and I'm tired of the attitudes of certain members of these forums who seem to have no better way to respond to people who disagree with these decisions than by mockery and verbal bullying. We have concerns that are just as valid as those of any other user.

I can't agree with you because, from my perspective, you are ignoring limitation that are put on Ubuntu.
There are limitation of available men power, and the CD's 700MB limit.

Both actually have pretty good side-effects of focusing the development. Look at the other distros out there. They ship (or shipped) at least 2 applications for each task. Ubuntu tries to ship only one.
That's a plus in my book.

You also can't say with a straight face that GIMP is a widely used tool among average users. GIMP's developers them selfs have stated that they don't target those users.
I believe that the default CD should only be a gateway to the larger FOSS ecosystem and your needs.
This is where the USC comes into play.

Perhaps a good thing to do would be to create a brain-dead Ubuntu re-spin app that would simply allow you to customize the current system and put it on a CD/USB/DVD.
I use GIMP occasionally but I have no problem with it being gone from the CD. Because I know that it's a few clicks away in USC.



+1


+1

Guys it would help more if you could restrain your self from the +1's or at least provide your take on this.
It's not helping the larger discussion if you all +1 each other.

zekopeko
December 16th, 2009, 04:12 PM
+1


+1


+1

I'll just add... that when I've been testing and made the machine I'm currently using unbootable, I'll just plug in the Live CD (on USB stick with persistence) to give me an immediately usable machine - just the startup time. That's just a personal preferred way of continuing.

However, I know several Ubuntu users, less experienced than me, that are not happy at the way Ubuntu is perceived as going.

Could you state the general grievance of those users? Ubuntu is expanding in all sorts of directions.

ronacc
December 16th, 2009, 04:18 PM
we have all stated our "grievences" here about USC and in other threads about other issues , which you have also posted to , so please stop pretending you don't know what we are talking about .

Gina
December 16th, 2009, 04:19 PM
Have you tried Lubuntu?No, I haven't - I'll find it and try it. Thank you for the suggestion :)

zekopeko
December 16th, 2009, 04:25 PM
we have all stated our "grievences" here about USC and in other threads about other issues , which you have also posted to , so please stop pretending you don't know what we are talking about .

I don't and I will not search for them. I have no problem repeating my own from thread to thread since I realized that most people can't possibly remember what I said in a thread a weak ago about a specific issue.

And all the problems you mentioned here are either being fixed or are at least in the USC wiki specification, meaning that mpt has them in his sights and plans to fix them at one point.

ranch hand
December 16th, 2009, 04:49 PM
No, I haven't - I'll find it and try it. Thank you for the suggestion :)
The last time I tried it the installer was buggy.

You need to boot to the desktop and run in terminal;


sudo ubiquity

to get it to launch if this problem still exists.

Gina
December 16th, 2009, 06:25 PM
The last time I tried it the installer was buggy.

You need to boot to the desktop and run in terminal;


sudo ubiquity

to get it to launch if this problem still exists.Thank you :):)

qamelian
December 16th, 2009, 08:56 PM
I can't agree with you because, from my perspective, you are ignoring limitation that are put on Ubuntu.
There are limitation of available men power, and the CD's 700MB limit.

I am not ignoring the limitation. I am considering the marginal utility of the Live CD based on the usage patterns of people I actually know and interact with on a regular basis as opposed to faceless subjects of marketing studies.


You also can't say with a straight face that GIMP is a widely used tool among average users. GIMP's developers them selfs have stated that they don't target those users.

I can certainly say with a straight face that I know more users who USE gimp than F-SPOT. To be honest, I don't care what the GIMP developers think is appropriate. They aren't doing my work.


I believe that the default CD should only be a gateway to the larger FOSS ecosystem and your needs.

I agree with this which is another reason why I consider GIMP to be useful on the Live CD, and have no use for F-SPOT or a video editor. One can actually be used effectively from the Live CD in real-world situations. I still can't imagine any situation in which IO would even consider using the other two from a Live CD.


This is where the USC comes into play.

I have said before that I have no problem with USC on the condition that it eventually provides all the features currently available Synaptic and is as easy to use. Currently, I find USC too clumsy to even be bothered with, but I will give the benefit of the doubt and be optimistic that this will change over time.


Perhaps a good thing to do would be to create a brain-dead Ubuntu re-spin app that would simply allow you to customize the current system and put it on a CD/USB/DVD.

I don't need to go that route. The specific assortment of software on the Ubuntu Live CD was one of the points that kept me on Ubuntu. If the Live CD becomes less useful to too great a degree, I will simply move to another distro that does provide one that suits my needs out of the box. If I can reach out and put my hands on a perfectly good hammer, why should I build my own?


I use GIMP occasionally but I have no problem with it being gone from the CD. Because I know that it's a few clicks away in USC.

I wouldn't care if GIMP was gone if it was replaced by something even close to as useful. That isn't going to be the case though. The editing features that will be made available through F-SPOT are, for the most part, the tools that I use least.

Merk42
December 16th, 2009, 09:07 PM
qamelian, would you at least agree that "booting from a LiveCD in order to do photo manipulation" is a very limited use case?

I fear this thread is getting sidetracked and becoming be less about USC and more about "General Grievances".
...no not him, let's not side track this thread even more and end up in Star Wars.

ronacc
December 16th, 2009, 09:21 PM
booting from a liveCD in order to download pictures off my camera with Fspot would be an even more limited use case.

Gina
December 16th, 2009, 09:45 PM
Downloading Lubuntu ISO now and will try it shortly :)

Returning to the main topic regarding GIMP, I can see at least one use for having gimp on the Live CD. I have a friend who likes taking photos but who isn't very computer savvy but has a computer with Windows installed as usual. She hasn't got any decent photo editing software, can't afford to buy extra software and is too frightened to download software from the web (fear of viruses, spyware, and all that). I go to see her, she has her photos either still in her digital camera or on HD. I can boot from Live CD and edit her photos with the gimp - even show her how to do it - and save the edited photos back to the hard drive. Simple. Admittedly, gimp is not the most user friendly piece of software but there's nothing better ATM.

There are a vast number of people who have digital cameras these days, they're no longer expensive and are often given as Christmas presents (that's how my friend got her first one). People can run the Live CD without installing and risking upsetting their working computer system. Even WUBI frightens some people. I know of several people who have been using Ubuntu in this way for quite some time. When finished they can take the CD (or USB stick) out and the computer is back to exactly how it was before. The Live CD was one aspect of Ubuntu that impressed me vastly when I first became involved with it. Now every Linux distro seems to be doing it :lol:

ranch hand
December 16th, 2009, 09:50 PM
You could download gimp for MS, put it on a CD and install it on her machine.

More folks use gimp on MS than on Linux.

Dragonbite
December 16th, 2009, 09:54 PM
Or use Gimp as a Portable App (http://portableapps.com/apps/graphics_pictures/gimp_portable (http://portableapps.com/apps/graphics_pictures/gimp_portable)).

Looks like it is for Windows only.

Gina
December 16th, 2009, 09:59 PM
You could download gimp for MS, put it on a CD and install it on her machine.

More folks use gimp on MS than on Linux.That is quite true, of course. Now you come to mention it, I think I did do something like that some time back for one of my friends. And I was using gimp in XP a long time before I moved over to Ubuntu. I was very much into open source software even then.

But I still think the Ubuntu Live CD is a useful tool in it's own right and will not be improved by lacking a decent digital photo editor.

ranch hand
December 16th, 2009, 10:06 PM
I agree with you completely on the LiveCD. I think there is other stuff that would be better to remove.

The problem with that is they are generally smaller than gimp so it would takeseveral to get the same amount of space. Every one of those has its die hard fans.

Those of us that use gimp are flexible enough to work around it.

I just checked and gimp is just about a 5Mb download. On the dial up connection I was on on the ranch that would take a real good half an hour to download.

Merk42
December 16th, 2009, 10:11 PM
Bring in this point from the less relevant Ubuntu Software Center thread:

My main point about using the LiveCD to do photo manipulation being a limited use case is that I always took the liveCD to be a preview of how Ubuntu works. Not something to use to actually get any work done, unless it had to do with file management(partitions, virus, etc).

Or to put it another way
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Li...veCD%20Session

Gina
December 16th, 2009, 10:39 PM
Bring in this point from the less relevant Ubuntu Software Center thread:

My main point about using the LiveCD to do photo manipulation being a limited use case is that I always took the liveCD to be a preview of how Ubuntu works. Not something to use to actually get any work done, unless it had to do with file management(partitions, virus, etc).

Or to put it another way
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Li...veCD%20SessionYes, I agree with that but photo editing has to be a major activity for home users these days and to have a demo without that seems to me to be showing a great big hole. The Live CD will no longer be a showcase for Ubuntu as it will lack a major piece of software. That's how I see it. Personally, I can install what I like and be happy - but that's another matter. Though I do have uses for a Live CD for myself as I've said before

oldsoundguy
December 16th, 2009, 10:49 PM
Really can NOT understand all the pi**ing and moaning.

Just how difficult is it to go to synaptic and activate a program? Gimp will STILL BE in the repositories. They are not going to take it away from you!

Photo Shop does not load automatically with Windows, (and in that instance you have to BUY IT), why should an ADVANCED photo processing program load automatically with Ubuntu?

I don't see many complaining that only a bare minimum of Open Office loads with the install and if you want all of the bells and whistles, you have to spend 30 seconds loading the rest of it.

Spend some time trying to work out some REAL problems!

That is what it is all about ..... CHOICE!

phillw
December 16th, 2009, 11:00 PM
Win7 is about 2.25 GB, last time I had a quick look at it ?

I guess, there will come a time when Ubuntu has to split from a 'standard' CD and a DVD with 'extras' on it. I think the dvd will be very handy for those on slower i/net links, or are capped etc.

But, I guess that'd be a whole new discussion ;-)

I, too, use GIMP - Very basically, but cannot find anything similar to Photoshop SE which used to get given away with FlatBed scanners (It's how I got my copy). I think the people over at WINE have had some good success with PhotoShop SE, It is a shame that the GIMPShop appears to have fallen by the wayside.

Phill.

andrewabc
December 17th, 2009, 03:04 AM
My main point about using the LiveCD to do photo manipulation being a limited use case is that I always took the liveCD to be a preview of how Ubuntu works. Not something to use to actually get any work done, unless it had to do with file management(partitions, virus, etc).


I've used gimp on livecd lots.
When testing and something screws up I take screenshot, and then crop or add text/stuff to explain what happened. Makes others understand better what is going wrong.

Of course not all use it for that purpose, but it's one of many possible uses on a livecd. What if someones OS breaks and they need to quickly edit an image, well they'd have to install gimp (fspot no good).

Has there been any updates on new stuff in fspot on that blog?
Has gimp been removed yet from default cd? Or are they waiting for better reasons to ditch it?

qamelian
December 17th, 2009, 04:37 AM
qamelian, would you at least agree that "booting from a LiveCD in order to do photo manipulation" is a very limited use case?

I fear this thread is getting sidetracked and becoming be less about USC and more about "General Grievances".
...no not him, let's not side track this thread even more and end up in Star Wars.
After I reply to this, I really can't be bothered with this any more.

It may be a limited use case, but if that is your gauge for what should be on the Live CD, then neither F-SPOT not Pitivi belong on the CD either. So if that's the standard that determines inclusion on the live CD, let's do the logical thing and remove them as well. As I said, I can't imagine any situation ever in which I would choose a live CD in order to edit video or organize photos, but I have often had reason to make use of GIMP for graphics work. For the record, I don't use GIMP for photo manipulation. I use it to do commercial graphics for some of my customers. None of the planned changes to F-SPOT will make it a suitable replacement. Therefore, I stand by my assertion the the Live CD is being hobbled and made less useful.

Nuff said. We are obviously never going to find any common ground on this one and I have already selected a new distro whose Live CD does suit my needs out of the box and which will also live up to my clients' needs and expectations. If lucid plays out the way it appears right now, I certainly won't feel any need to stick around nor to recommend Ubuntu any longer. That's a shame because for at least two years, it's been the distro I recommended to more potential users than any other and I can't in good conscience do that any longer.

qamelian
December 17th, 2009, 04:48 AM
Bring in this point from the less relevant Ubuntu Software Center thread:

My main point about using the LiveCD to do photo manipulation being a limited use case is that I always took the liveCD to be a preview of how Ubuntu works. Not something to use to actually get any work done, unless it had to do with file management(partitions, virus, etc).

Or to put it another way
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Li...veCD%20Session

I often get accused of putting my usage of Ubuntu above the needs of other users, but in this assumption you are doing the exact same thing. Even if we assume that the Live CD is only meant to be a demo of sorts, doesn't it make sense to actually include apps that one could reasonably use from the Live CD to make an impression. I really can't see showing off a video editor on a live CD and making a great impression. On the other hand, I have demoed GIMP from a live CD and impressed several people into taking Ubuntu for a spin. A Live CD needs to actually be useful to give any kind of decent preview in my opinion.

zekopeko
December 17th, 2009, 04:54 AM
After I reply to this, I really can't be bothered with this any more.

It may be a limited use case, but if that is your gauge for what should be on the Live CD, then neither F-SPOT not Pitivi belong on the CD either. So if that's the standard that determines inclusion on the live CD, let's do the logical thing and remove them as well. As I said, I can't imagine any situation ever in which I would choose a live CD in order to edit video or organize photos, but I have often had reason to make use of GIMP for graphics work. For the record, I don't use GIMP for photo manipulation. I use it to do commercial graphics for some of my customers. None of the planned changes to F-SPOT will make it a suitable replacement. Therefore, I stand by my assertion the the Live CD is being hobbled and made less useful.

You would be right if the whole point of the LiveCD is to be run on the system in a read-only state. But you are wrong. The whole point of CD is for you to install it. LiveCD sessions are simply frostings on a delicious cake.
And once you install it it should cover the range of tasks of your average user. Advanced image editing isn't that task.


Nuff said. We are obviously never going to find any common ground on this one and I have already selected a new distro whose Live CD does suit my needs out of the box and which will also live up to my clients' needs and expectations. If lucid plays out the way it appears right now, I certainly won't feel any need to stick around nor to recommend Ubuntu any longer. That's a shame because for at least two years, it's been the distro I recommended to more potential users than any other and I can't in good conscience do that any longer.

This is the part where I really have to question your sanity. You will migrate your clients to a different distro just because Ubuntu doesn't ship GIMP by default? Must be some really flexible clients that value your computer knowledge and will listen to you when you tell them that Ubuntu isn't including GIMP on the LiveCD and you don't like that so you HAVE to switch the whole OS on the computer(s).
I call that type of client my mom.

Methuselah
December 17th, 2009, 05:31 AM
I voted that it is bad.
I do not think it is a MAJOR step back but I didn't see any other negative option with less extreme wording.

I do think there are many more important things to worry about than removing a useful program Ubuntu users have become used to having by default.
IOW, if it aint broke, don't fix it.

ranch hand
December 17th, 2009, 05:33 AM
I beg to differ with the assertion that the point of the LiveCD is to install rather than have people run.

This is not the way the Live CD is advertised. It is advertised as a good way to try out the OS on your computer. I don't know how you read that but to me it says "use this for a couple days to see if you like it".

It not only says that to me, it is exactly what I did. Yes it was slow. On the other hand it did not interfer with my computer and the "real" OS that was on it. I could see that it would be faster installed but if you are using the thing all day it speeds up as more stuff is loaded on to ram. It really is a good way for the non-trusting to try out the OS. It is better slow than to install and find you hate the bugger.

zekopeko
December 17th, 2009, 10:52 AM
IOW, if it aint broke, don't fix it.

That phrase is misused beyond reason.
It's the road to mediocrity.

florus
December 17th, 2009, 12:28 PM
I would vote for keeping Ubuntu 'lean and mean', but having a category in Software Centre for major applications like Gimp. Personally I regard it as an essential app and would never be without it.

ronacc
December 17th, 2009, 01:44 PM
You would be right if the whole point of the LiveCD is to be run on the system in a read-only state. But you are wrong. The whole point of CD is for you to install it. LiveCD sessions are simply frostings on a delicious cake.
And once you install it it should cover the range of tasks of your average user. Advanced image editing isn't that task.

the first choice on the boot screen of the liveCD reads
"try Ubuntu without installing"

And a real world example , for years before the advent of netbooks I carried a liveCD on trips rather than lug a notebook .That way I could run "my" system without disturbing someone else's computer .

zekopeko
December 17th, 2009, 02:46 PM
the first choice on the boot screen of the liveCD reads
"try Ubuntu without installing"

And a real world example , for years before the advent of netbooks I carried a liveCD on trips rather than lug a notebook .That way I could run "my" system without disturbing someone else's computer .

Notice the "try" part. I can understand having a system on a USB but then you can install GIMP or other "essential" software on it.
The liveCD should be used to see if stuff works or if you like Ubuntu at all or to fix a broken system automatically.

qamelian
December 17th, 2009, 03:01 PM
Notice the "try" part. I can understand having a system on a USB but then you can install GIMP or other "essential" software on it.
The liveCD should be used to see if stuff works or if you like Ubuntu at all or to fix a broken system automatically.
Wow, thanks so much for showing us the error of our ways. I feel much more enlightened now. Honestly, it is none of your business if some of us feel we have valid reasons for working off a live CD. As I said elsewhere, On some of the computers I work on at client locations, booting from USB is NOT an option, but booting from CD is possible. It's an option that works for us, and it's really to bad that you can't or won't understand that.

ronacc
December 17th, 2009, 03:25 PM
Notice the "try" part. I can understand having a system on a USB but then you can install GIMP or other "essential" software on it.
The liveCD should be used to see if stuff works or if you like Ubuntu at all or to fix a broken system automatically.

Oh I see now you are only allowed to "try" it once . and BTW not every box will boot off of a USB key and even if it did some people might get nervous about my messing with their bios to enable that function whereas almost every box defaults to cd/dvd as the first boot drive .

zekopeko
December 17th, 2009, 04:11 PM
Wow, thanks so much for showing us the error of our ways. I feel much more enlightened now. Honestly, it is none of your business if some of us feel we have valid reasons for working off a live CD. As I said elsewhere, On some of the computers I work on at client locations, booting from USB is NOT an option, but booting from CD is possible. It's an option that works for us, and it's really to bad that you can't or won't understand that.

Here is how I look at it: A minority of users uses GIMP to it's full potential. A fraction of those users use the liveCD to edit pictures with GIMP.
On the other hand you have a majority of users that take photos, remove red-eye, upload them to facebook/flickr or take videos, do simple editing and upload them to youtube.
So please do tell what you consider is a better and more rational option that would benefit Ubuntu considering the limitations of the CD?

I use Banshee, Docky, Gnome-Do , Global-menu, Chromium and various others apps that aren't on the CD. You don't see me being a self-centered person that only looks to have his needs met. That's a difference between you and me. I'm willing to endure minor inconveniences for the benefit of other people.


Oh I see now you are only allowed to "try" it once . and BTW not every box will boot off of a USB key and even if it did some people might get nervous about my messing with their bios to enable that function whereas almost every box defaults to cd/dvd as the first boot drive .

But they are ok with giving you unfettered access to their data and the ability to completely destroy said data? :rolleyes:

Do you tell them that the liveCD gives you that option?

You both are advanced users. Re-spin the CD to your liking. Easier for you then some newbie Ubuntu user.
But then again you aren't very rational in your demands from my perspective.

Now please lets stop bickering around a dead horse. This thread is for USC2 discussion.

Merk42
December 17th, 2009, 04:54 PM
mpt just made a nice post responding to a lot of our questions and comments regarding USC, but NOOooo ronacc had to come in here and mess it all up again

Please make your own thread regarding the LiveCD

ronacc
December 17th, 2009, 05:14 PM
I saw MPT's post and appreciate both his good work on USC and his taking his time to post here to keep us informed . I am sorry if I "messed it all up" that was not my intention .

seeker5528
December 17th, 2009, 08:53 PM
This is not the way the Live CD is advertised. It is advertised as a good way to try out the OS on your computer. I don't know how you read that but to me it says "use this for a couple days to see if you like it".

The key phrase here is 'a good way to try the OS', once you have tried the OS and verified everything that it seems to work, then you install it and install any additional applications you desire.

Did you ever try to use Synaptic or apt-get to install something while running from the live session?

Don't know what the difference is with the live session on the DVD, but the .deb files are there for everything in main, so you wouldn't even have to download Gimp if it's not in the live session.

Later, Seeker

ranch hand
December 17th, 2009, 09:16 PM
I have nothing against a DVD release at all. Mandriva uses that now.

I have used synaptic to download stuff in live session. I got the restricted stuff to play music and some other things when I "tried" the OS for 3 days with the LiveCD of Hardy.

I had a working, if hated, Vista on here that was pre-installed. I may have hated the sucker from about 2 hours into using it but it did work. I had never used Linux at all and my son told me to try this weird OS called Ubuntu, so I did. A few minutes was not going to get me to put it on the box. The sucker had to work for me and my wife and do what we needed.

Gimp was a selling point for sure, but the rest of it worked great (if slow).

Got a new HDD and installed it on that and just kept the other to swap out if something didn't work out.

That HDD is now in an external enclosure with 4 Linux OS' on it that I lone to people that want to try it. That is fast, as opposed to the LiveCD.

The Live CD is not a bad way to use the OS, though, without having to install something that you do not know. You can do it without an internet connection if you get the CD somewhere too. Pretty nice.

seeker5528
December 18th, 2009, 12:24 AM
I had the ISO for the Karmic DVD downloaded so I burned a copy and tried it.

Looks like the same live image as for the CD, if you go to 'system --> administration --> software sources' or in Synaptic to 'settings --> repositories' then go to the 'other' tab then tell it you want to add a CD, it makes that part of the equation easy, but....

It doesn't give you an option to tell it not to try to download from a server, so....

You have to edit '/etc/apt/sources.list' after to comment all the lines that point to a server or else when you try to update the package list and try to install anything it will try to get the stuff from the server and fail if you are not connected to the internet.

Later, Seeker

zengeos
December 18th, 2009, 02:30 AM
This entire discussion about GIMP seems a bit inane to me. Here is why I recommend Ubuntu over the dozens of other distro's I have tried. I recommend Ubuntu because on my half dzen or so computers, laptops, desktops, you name it, Ubuntu has installed with the greatest of ease of any...and required the least amount of adjustment.

While I understand some people here think GIMP should be an absolute requirement, those people are in the minority. The average home user wants his/her Internet applications and connectivity to work out of the box. The average user wants to be able to quickly and easily install his printers and other peripherals. The average user wants something easy to use and easy to install. The average user wants to be able to play his games.

Ubuntu takes care of all but the last item I listed with aplomb. For games...there's PlayonLinux/WINE or virtualization.

There are dozens of graphics programs available in the repositories. Rather than complain that GIMP is being removed, make constructive recommendations for a program to replace it on the LiveCD; a graphics program with an easier learning curve.

Just my two cents...hope they make some sense!

User3k
December 18th, 2009, 02:37 AM
While I understand some people here think GIMP should be an absolute requirement, those people are in the minority

So far the poll above is showing the opposite. Almost 100 more people think it is a step backwards.

When I think of GIMP I think of Linux, even when I was using GIMP in Windows. But if they remove it that is fine. Go with something simple, something like Microsoft Paint since being more like Microsoft seems to be the goal, even though Linux and Microsoft are two different OS's.

The way I look at it is like this. If people like Ubuntu then stick with it with the good and bad. If they don't there are many other Linux distro's out there. It would be nice to have an Ubuntu LiveCD that showed off a lot, but there are also other Distro's out there as well.

So bottom line is why argue. Ubuntu can do what it wants and users can do what they want. Both can choose what works best for them.

Seano911
December 18th, 2009, 02:47 AM
I think GIMP should remain on the CD, however I don't think that it's a major step backwards. I can always install it when I need to.

Methuselah
December 18th, 2009, 06:54 AM
That phrase is misused beyond reason.
It's the road to mediocrity.

What is more mediocre than replacing a useful program with less functional alternatives or no true alternative at all?
If you don't like the phrase I used how about this one:
"Removing the Gimp is gimping Ubuntu"
hyuk hyuk

I would accept the removal of Mono dependencies quicker than I'd consider that Gimp needed to be yanked from the LiveCD.
I've booted up a LiveCD to use Gimp on a few occasions but I have NEVER done so to use TomBoy.

Granted, I don't think removing it from the CD is the end of the world.
It's just a silly solution looking for a problem.

Vorian
December 18th, 2009, 07:18 AM
fwiw, I think it would be a mistake to get rid of GIMP.

TenPlus1
December 18th, 2009, 04:35 PM
It seems strange when GIMP has to be omitted because their is a lack of cd space available, when the mono libs and programs themselves take up 48.79mb and could easily be replaced by much smaller equivalents totalling 14.32mb instead... Also removing the GIMP help files would save a further 10mb and could be easily downloaded from the repositories...

f-spot (9175 kb)
Tomboy (10.1 mb)
Mono Runtime (29.52 mb)

gNote (4665 kb)
gThumb (9658 kb)

gimp help (8679 kb)

On a side note, their are also smaller equivalents available for other tools like Gcalc (8958 Kb) which could be replaced by Galculator (897 kb) ..and.. Eog (6967 kb) being replaced by GpicView (770 kb)...

Gina
December 18th, 2009, 07:03 PM
This entire discussion about GIMP seems a bit inane to me. Here is why I recommend Ubuntu over the dozens of other distro's I have tried. I recommend Ubuntu because on my half dzen or so computers, laptops, desktops, you name it, Ubuntu has installed with the greatest of ease of any...and required the least amount of adjustment.

While I understand some people here think GIMP should be an absolute requirement, those people are in the minority. The average home user wants his/her Internet applications and connectivity to work out of the box. The average user wants to be able to quickly and easily install his printers and other peripherals. The average user wants something easy to use and easy to install. The average user wants to be able to play his games.

Ubuntu takes care of all but the last item I listed with aplomb. For games...there's PlayonLinux/WINE or virtualization.

There are dozens of graphics programs available in the repositories. Rather than complain that GIMP is being removed, make constructive recommendations for a program to replace it on the LiveCD; a graphics program with an easier learning curve.

Just my two cents...hope they make some sense!Actually, yes they do - to me anyway. Until version 9.10, Ubuntu has been very good on my machines too (though fewer than yours). I can't say I've tried many others recently - Ubuntu has been perfectly adequate, and I don't have enormous amounts of spare time!

Yes, the ability to install and run all the hardware OOTB is by far the most important point and having the right applications on the CD is the icing on the cake. I have taken this as read when grumbling about the folly of removing gimp from the CD. There's a lot of work involved in clearing the myriad of bugs left over from Karmic.