[macintologist]

I'm neither going to confirm nor deny that I have ever pirated Adobe Photoshop, but for those of you who want to clean up your act a bit, there's a free open source Photoshop-clone called GIMPShop. It uses the GIMP back-end but rearranges the menus to make it conformable for a Photoshop user.

If I ran a school I'd install Linux on all the machines and use free alternatives to commercial software, like Open Office and GIMPShop to save the school lots of money on license fees!

Gimpshop! at Plastic Bugs

Here's an example screenshot comparison
Photoshop


GIMPShop

[voiceofra]

I used Gimp/gimpshop until it fell behind the current gimp version. It'd be nice if it was updated, there were several bug fixes in releases since 2.2.11...

[Gee4orce]

Mac apps do not:

* have a menu bar on each window
* have underlines in characters in the menu
* have graphics illustrating each and every menu option.
* spell out keyboard shortcuts ('Shift-Ctrl-v')

Grade: C- Must try harder.

[voiceofra]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce 

Mac apps do not:

* have a menu bar on each window
* have underlines in characters in the menu
* have graphics illustrating each and every menu option.
* spell out keyboard shortcuts ('Shift-Ctrl-v')

Grade: C- Must try harder.

Must be a Photoshop user.
I've seen some pretty damn good apps that don't follow the Apple HUI.
It's an X11 app, ported to Apple's X11.
It's FREE.
It's not meant to replace photoshop, but for the average user, PS has WAY too many features they will absolutely NEVER use. GIMP is a nice balance.
FWIW, I have both apps on my system and I use GIMP more than I use PS.
Having used teh gimp since its pre-1.0 days and having used it on Linux and FreeBSD and Windows AND Mac, I say it's pretty damn good.

[wataru]

Gimpshop is nice, but it's hardly news.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by wataru 

Gimpshop is nice, but it's hardly news.

It's news to me. Quit raining on my parade

[mduell]

Does GIMP support CYMK yet?

[voiceofra]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Does GIMP support CYMK yet?

No and it probably never will. The developers have stated as much.
Gimp is NOT a Photoshop replacement (the developers have stated as much). (is there an echo in this thread???)
There are other gimp forks that support or add features not present in Gimp (e.g. CinePaint)
If you look at my previous post, I stated that

It's not meant to replace photoshop, but for the average user, PS has WAY too many features they will absolutely NEVER use. GIMP is a nice balance.

CMYK is not among the needs of the "average user".

[analogika]

Call me when they make a Mac version.

That thing is ****ing ugly, and a Mac app, it is not.

[besson3c]

Are you guys willing to pony up money for Photoshop just to fulfill your sense of Mac ideology/religion?

A computer is a tool. It does tasks for you. Sometimes you pay money to do these tasks. That is it.

If the app is priced well, does what you need, works efficiently enough, why would anybody want to pay a significant amount of money just so they can admire how Mac-like the application behaves? Last I checked, Photoshop did cost a significant amount of money....

[wataru]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Call me when they make a Mac version.

That thing is ****ing ugly, and a Mac app, it is not.

More bullshit from the Cult of Cocoa.

It works. It's free. If you can't spare enough brain cells to work the interface then you deserve to shell out hundreds of dollars on Photoshop.

[voiceofra]

Originally Posted by wataru 

More bullshit from the Cult of Cocoa.

It works. It's free. If you can't spare enough brain cells to work the interface then you deserve to shell out hundreds of dollars on Photoshop.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by wataru 

More bullshit from the Cult of Cocoa.

It works. It's free. If you can't spare enough brain cells to work the interface then you deserve to shell out hundreds of dollars on Photoshop.

You can't even copy and paste into and out of it from other Mac apps...

[CaptainHaddock]

I think a Photoshop competitor is sorely needed, and Gimp isn't it. Photoshop isn't very Mac-like either; I have a book's worth of complaints and issues with it.

Although it's more of an Illustrator competitor, one up-and-coming program is Freeverse's Lineform. (website: Freeverse : Lineform) It's free to try, and cheaper than Photoshop.

I'm not associated with them, but using Lineform for the very first time, I managed to win their recent graphic contest; that should say something about its ease of use.

[wataru]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

You can't even copy and paste into and out of it from other Mac apps...

That's a lie. I copy and paste to and from Gimp.app and other X11 apps all the time.

And if you want a free Illustrator replacement, try Inkscape.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by wataru 

That's a lie. I copy and paste to and from Gimp.app and other X11 apps all the time.

And if you want a free Illustrator replacement, try Inkscape.

And an Excel replacement: Gnumeric, a Word replacement: Abiword. There is a fair amount of OSS that covers every category that many Mac users aren't hip to.

[alex_kac]

I tried GimpShop and even for bare web needs it fell short quite a bit.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And an Excel replacement: Gnumeric, a Word replacement: Abiword. There is a fair amount of OSS that covers every category that many Mac users aren't hip to.

Those 'replacements' aren't worth their price if they don't have all the functions you use in the 'original' apps.

OSS isn't an answer to every need and if you don't care about the Mac OS X look and feel, why use Mac OS X in the first place? There are OSS replacements out there

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by alex_kac 

I tried GimpShop and even for bare web needs it fell short quite a bit.

How so, just out of curiosity? I'm thinking of letting my copy of CS2 die by attrition and eventually moving my web stuff over to GIMP.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by JLL 

Those 'replacements' aren't worth their price if they don't have all the functions you use in the 'original' apps.

OSS isn't an answer to every need and if you don't care about the Mac OS X look and feel, why use Mac OS X in the first place? There are OSS replacements out there

I agree that OSS doesn't fulfill every need, I support software developers that want to make money selling their software. I have no problems with commercial software at all.

I just think that many Mac and Windows users are programmed into looking for commercial or shareware software to buy, rather than first perusing the OSS options that are available. In some cases, the OSS options are better than their commercial counterparts anyway, and it pains me when people without a large disposable income do something silly like buy FTP software (that only does FTP) unknowingly.

The Windows world seems worse off though, because there are a lot of super lame spyware infested poorly designed commercial/paid apps and utilities out there, and some OSS titles that are Linux/Unix only. (Of course, the converse is true, there are many great Windows only titles too).

I wonder what percentage of OSS software is Linux only, runs on Windows and/or OS X? I'm willing to bet that most OSS is designed for Linux, but I'm not sure of the breakdown between Windows and OS X. There is a lot of Unix stuff that doesn't compile in OS X, or people don't bother with since the Mac religious refuse to run anything in X11.

I do understand not wanting to run things in X11, but the rest of the world is not going to make you a Cocoa port just to cater to your desires, so that you can jump ship when some other clicky and shiny product comes along that is $20 and Mac-only The audience, in many cases, does not justify the effort, and focusing on Windows and Linux is a big enough target as it is.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by JLL 

OSS isn't an answer to every need and if you don't care about the Mac OS X look and feel, why use Mac OS X in the first place?

quoted for truth.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by wataru 

That's a lie. I copy and paste to and from Gimp.app and other X11 apps all the time.

Did I say you couldn't copy and paste to and from other X11 apps?

No, I'm pretty sure I said you can't copy and paste into and out of other Mac apps.

Try it - copy a graphic in some app using one of the standard APIs - Carbon, Cocoa, hell, even Classic - and pasting it into Gimp. It doesn't work, because X11 apparently doesn't use the same pasteboard as the rest of the OS. At least not on my machine.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by wataru 

More bullshit from the Cult of Cocoa.

It works. It's free. If you can't spare enough brain cells to work the interface then you deserve to shell out hundreds of dollars on Photoshop.

I'm surprised to hear usability and quality dismissed like this on a Mac forum. If you really prefer low-quality, user-hostile products whose only virtues are "it works" and being cheap, a Dell PC with Vista Home Basic sounds more like your cup of tea.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I just think that many Mac and Windows users are programmed into looking for commercial or shareware software to buy, rather than first perusing the OSS options that are available. In some cases, the OSS options are better than their commercial counterparts anyway

I can't think of a single example that's good for somebody other than geeks.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

and it pains me when people without a large disposable income do something silly like buy FTP software (that only does FTP) unknowingly.

Well, there is no good open-source FTP client.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Well, there is no good open-source FTP client.

I don't know about that - Cyberduck seems pretty good to me.

[Amorya]

Originally Posted by voiceofra 

Must be a Photoshop user.
I've seen some pretty damn good apps that don't follow the Apple HUI.

If GIMPshop was a damn good app, we might be more forgiving!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I don't know about that - Cyberduck seems pretty good to me.

Hrm, maybe I'll give it another try. Last time I used it, I recall it didn't impress me much and I went back to RBrowser Lite or something.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm surprised to hear usability and quality dismissed like this on a Mac forum. If you really prefer low-quality, user-hostile products whose only virtues are "it works" and being cheap, a Dell PC with Vista Home Basic sounds more like your cup of tea.


I can't think of a single example that's good for somebody other than geeks.

Ahhh... I see, you're into the ideology thing.

Well, I'm in it for myself, I don't really care about novice users. I think usability is important and I embrace usability ideals in the stuff I design as best as I can, but when it comes to the software I choose to use, I don't want training wheels holding me back. Why should I?

Well, there is no good open-source FTP client.

Cyberduck

[besson3c]

You know, I used to be into the ideology thing just like you guys... I used to shun software that has poor interfaces, even if it was very powerful. I used to think that everything needed a pretty Mac-like GUI, and I use to hope and hope and hope some more that the next version of Photoshop or Word or whatever I was using at the time would be more Mac-like, and that the rest of the world would pay attention to making things Mac like.

Then I woke up.

The computer industry is in it to make money. Sure, some developers are in it for a sense of ideology too (and guess what?? These are often selfless OPEN SOURCE programmers you guys like to criticize), but most of the industry is based around capitalism.

Until it is worth it to these businesses, making everything support all the latest shiny Mac features is simply not going to be worth their expense. I decided that instead of waiting around and enjoying the pretty GUIs I did have by just staring at them and marveling in the Mac way while not getting much done except for finding a kickass Desktop picture, that I want to learn about how to really make computers do useful tasks that are commercially viable, and robust in capability. This requires departing the land of iPhoto shininess, unfortunately, unless you have figured out how to make developing these sort of apps your business.

Running servers, developing software, making things run, providing network infrastructure, etc. all certainly fall outside of the realm of Mac world. Getting into these things requires geeking it out, and geeking it out requires poking around at applications and workflows that are not based around polished Mac GUIs.

I'm assuming that most of the Mac ideologues here are in the content creation field, which is cool. I design websites, but I'm far more of a programmer than a Photoshop monkey. Well, recognize that not everybody is a content creator and wants to limit their Mac experience to content creation. Recognize that people like myself are in it for themselves, just like you are.

[besson3c]

I use terms like "pretty GUI" and "usability" somewhat interchangeably because this seems to be the accepted semantic meaning around here. I don't agree that usability is simply all about aesthetics, but this by far seems to be the subject which garners the most attention and conversation, so I'm going with the flow

[slpdLoad]

You could always...you know....BUY software. Plenty of legal ways to get it for cheap through different dealers, espeically work places and universities.

And this is hardly news.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You know, I used to be into the ideology thing just like you guys... I used to shun software that has poor interfaces, even if it was very powerful. I used to think that everything needed a pretty Mac-like GUI, and I use to hope and hope and hope some more that the next version of Photoshop or Word or whatever I was using at the time would be more Mac-like, and that the rest of the world would pay attention to making things Mac like.

Then I woke up.

The computer industry is in it to make money. Sure, some developers are in it for a sense of ideology too (and guess what?? These are often selfless OPEN SOURCE programmers you guys like to criticize), but most of the industry is based around capitalism.

Until it is worth it to these businesses, making everything support all the latest shiny Mac features is simply not going to be worth their expense. I decided that instead of waiting around and enjoying the pretty GUIs I did have by just staring at them and marveling in the Mac way while not getting much done except for finding a kickass Desktop picture, that I want to learn about how to really make computers do useful tasks that are commercially viable, and robust in capability. This requires departing the land of iPhoto shininess, unfortunately, unless you have figured out how to make developing these sort of apps your business.

Running servers, developing software, making things run, providing network infrastructure, etc. all certainly fall outside of the realm of Mac world. Getting into these things requires geeking it out, and geeking it out requires poking around at applications and workflows that are not based around polished Mac GUIs.

I'm assuming that most of the Mac ideologues here are in the content creation field, which is cool. I design websites, but I'm far more of a programmer than a Photoshop monkey. Well, recognize that not everybody is a content creator and wants to limit their Mac experience to content creation. Recognize that people like myself are in it for themselves, just like you are.

Condescending much?

There's a difference between wanting all the "latest" and "shiniest" and wanting basic functionality like COPY AND PASTE. That might have been "latest" or "shiny" in 1984, but certainly not now. The problem with GimpShop is that since it isn't a native Mac app, any basic Mac functionality has to be emulated somehow. Take, for instance, being able to open a document by dragging it onto the app's icon, or being able to get to the Desktop without having to drill all the way from the root of the drive. These "latest" and "shiny" features (in 1991) weren't available with GIMP until quite recently, when the developers started doing stuff like wrapping it in a proxy app that lets you drag a document onto it and then forwards it to the real app.

On capitalism, making a buck etc: you're absolutely right that that is the focus of the companies that make software. However, you're forgetting something important: successful applications on the Mac tend to have pretty decent interfaces. Why do you suppose this is? It's because of the very interface snobbery you're complaining about - if a Mac app has a crappy interface, Mac users won't buy it, and thus it won't make money. For a company to make a buck on the Mac platform, they have to design software that meets at least a certain minimum level of quality in its interface. Yes, some applications that are sufficiently entrenched can get by this, but they're not immune to it, either - even Microsoft's been slowly improving the interface of their Mac products. And with Photoshop, I don't think anyone would deny that although it's not perfect, their interface is leaps and bounds ahead of an app which doesn't have to worry about making money from Mac users such as the GIMP.

As soon as Mac users stop being interface snobs, that will be when we start getting interfaces like Microsoft Word 6.0 from the big corporations, and junk like what you see on Windows from the shareware developers. Interface snobbery keeps the level up for everyone, even those like you who don't care about the interface. And for that, I'm grateful to every interface snob that exists on the Mac platform, and hope they never relinquish their snobbish ways.

[besson3c]

I didn't to mean to sound condescending, just feeling a little ranty.

There is nothing wrong with being an interface snob. In GUI and CLI environments, who would not want a nice interface? This is like asking who likes ice cream?

My point is that while it's good to push developers to develop good interfaces in general, pushing developers of cross-platform products to write good Mac interfaces is a hard fought battle. In the midst of this battle, in the here and now, there is all sorts of cool stuff going on in the world of computing that may go unnoticed.

As a for example, Mac users probably would not gravitate towards MythTV because it is outside of their usual world. MythTV is a product that runs best on Linux, with hardware that for the most part does not have drivers for the Mac. As a homemade PVR project, MythTV *kills* anything I've ever known of being available for the Mac.

It may or may not have the best interface in the world (since it's not really a Desktop application, I would imagine its criticism from Mac users would differ), but it exists, and it does something really cool. That's my point - there is a lot of cool stuff out there, and no amount of holding your breath waiting for a gorgeous Aqua interface is going to matter, at least in the short-term.

[Chuckit]

The main problem with MythTV on the Mac is not the lack of a decent interface; it's the fact that it doesn't work at all. I can hardly blame Mac owners for not using it for that reason.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The main problem with MythTV on the Mac is not the lack of a decent interface; it's the fact that it doesn't work at all. I can hardly blame Mac owners for not using it for that reason.

So we run into a little chicken and egg. Maybe if there was interest in getting it to run on the Mac there would be development? It's not as if the product would require a complete rewrite to get it to work on the Mac...

However, I digress... My point is that if it did exist on the Mac, it is likely that it would not pass the interface snob test. Better to use what is available today than to let the world whiz by...

Maybe a better example is Google Earth. Do you consider it a poster child Mac app?

[besson3c]

Here is a more personal example:

I prefer the interface of OS X Mail over Thunderbird. It is definitely more Mac-like. I like having the key bindings I'm accustomed to, I like its search capabilities, and I like how it handles signatures. I like its default fonts.

However, at the same time the app is brain-dead. It is missing some features even present in Outlook Express, and other features you'd expect out of a modern email client such as multiple identities and folder subscriptions. It is also missing indicating which folders you want to check for new mail and which folders to cache.

I tried a little proxy that attempted to handle folder subscriptions based on regular expression matching, but it didn't work so well, I tried using Thunderbird when I wanted to use a different identity, I was patient when it insisted upon wading through thousands and thousands of messages I didn't care about and didn't want to download (also tried disabling caching for a while), and patient while it pegged my CPU in the process.

Finally I just gave up and switched to Thunderbird. I miss things about Mail, but I got sick of holding my breath waiting for the world to change to match my vision of perfection. I used what was best for me, and that is really what it comes down to in my opinion. Not everything in such a capitalism centered world can align with your personal sense of ideology, you learn to deal with it.

[cakey]

Pixel image editor � Welcome

[mduell]

DailyTech - Adobe Photoshop to Go Online, Free

[aristotles]

It is crap. I've used gimp on windows and the mac. It is not a replacement for Photoshop.

The interface problems are not just a concern over appearance but usability, consistency and interoperability.

besson3c, I think you need to wake up. Mail is good because it is brain dead easy to use. Your desires are niche concerns which are not likely to get implemented. Have you ever heard of the KISS principle? Apparently not.

Seashore is a simple Cocoa image editor which is based off of some Gimp code. I would recommend it before I would recommend Gimp.

It's almost like people like you chase after whatever you think is new and exciting without stopping to consider how useful it is. I really hate that sort of reckless cause jumping.

[besson3c]

I disagree that multiple identities (in particular) are a niche concern. Many email clients and web based email clients provide this feature for a reason, and I don't agree that this feature would add to the complexity of Mail as an additional option any more than features such as "IMAP Path Prefix" do, which is built into Mail. I'd argue the same for folder subscriptions.

If you cannot make an argument directed at me without being insulting, please don't bother. BTW, I never really advocated GIMP in particular because I haven't used it enough, just advocating the principle assuming that the app can provide the desired capability. If it doesn't, fine...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you guys willing to pony up money for Photoshop just to fulfill your sense of Mac ideology/religion?

A computer is a tool. It does tasks for you. Sometimes you pay money to do these tasks. That is it.

If the app is priced well, does what you need, works efficiently enough, why would anybody want to pay a significant amount of money just so they can admire how Mac-like the application behaves? Last I checked, Photoshop did cost a significant amount of money....

If it doesn't have CMYK then it's JUNK to me. Junk I say!

I would call it a paintshop replacement maybe. Without CMYK support.

Like most open source applications that try to copy commercial ones, it falls very short of their goal.

But hey, you get what you pay for.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you cannot make an argument directed at me without being insulting, please don't bother.

Ah the irony....

BTW, I never really advocated GIMP in particular because I haven't used it enough, just advocating the principle assuming that the app can provide the desired capability. If it doesn't, fine...

In other words, Besson just saw it was a free .Nix alternative and felt the need to promote it because of it. Regardless of him not having a clue about the application. Even got a little smarmy and condescending to those that wouldn't us it.

Maybe you need to relearn your approach.

[cakey]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If it doesn't have CMYK then it's JUNK to me. Junk I say!

I would call it a paintshop replacement maybe. Without CMYK support.

Pixel image editor � Welcome

[Naaaaak]

iTWire - Photoshop online within six months

[besson3c]

Web based Photoshop, huh?

That would be interesting to see!

[wataru]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Did I say you couldn't copy and paste to and from other X11 apps?

No, I'm pretty sure I said you can't copy and paste into and out of other Mac apps.

Try it - copy a graphic in some app using one of the standard APIs - Carbon, Cocoa, hell, even Classic - and pasting it into Gimp. It doesn't work, because X11 apparently doesn't use the same pasteboard as the rest of the OS. At least not on my machine.

Making assumptions much? I wasn't talk about X11 apps to X11 apps. I was talking about non-X11 apps to X11 apps, such as, say SubEthaEdit to Gimp.app. I just copied and pasted text with no problems whatsoever. You may be right about non-text content; I've honestly never had the need for anything but text.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If it doesn't have CMYK then it's JUNK to me. Junk I say!

I would call it a paintshop replacement maybe. Without CMYK support.

Like most open source applications that try to copy commercial ones, it falls very short of their goal.

But hey, you get what you pay for.

Yeah, and if CMYK is worth hundreds of dollars to you, then whoop-de-freakin'-do. Go give all your money to Adobe.

For people who don't need CMYK, which is probably most people, and who aren't made of money, Gimp fits the bill just fine. Oh, unless you're a member of the Cult of Cocoa, that is.

[besson3c]

Kevin,

You need a new hobby to replace saving MacNN from me, so I've come up with something...

All you have to do is copy and paste one of these responses in response to my posts. You can select any of the following expressions, edit -> copy to copy it to your clipboard, and edit -> paste to paste the contents of your clipboard.

Awesome post!

The only thing ironic and hypocritical would be if I weren't to commend you on a fantastic post!

I know this hot girl who would like it if you would sign her ass, will you do this?

you kick ass, besson3c!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by wataru 

For people who don't need CMYK, which is probably most people, and who aren't made of money, Gimp fits the bill just fine. Oh, unless you're a member of the Cult of Cocoa, that is.

Dude, if you don't value usability or quality beyond merely working, that's your prerogative. Insulting people who do care about it as being "a member of the Cult of Cocoa" is quite unnecessary.

There's always a shitty, cheap option for everything, and some people will like that cheap option — but there are definite benefits to using an actually good solution, especially if you actually make money with this program.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by wataru 

For people who don't need CMYK, which is probably most people, and who aren't made of money, Gimp fits the bill just fine. Oh, unless you're a member of the Cult of Cocoa, that is.

People who don't use CMYK are usually people who don't work professionally in the business for the most part. These people SHOULD be using programs like GIMP and such. Photoshop would be an over-kill.

Most all professional pre-print work is done in CMYK.

I never said the Gimp wasn't usable. I was referring to those that claim it's a Photoshop replacement. It in no way can be called that.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Kevin,

 

I can use silly smilies to belittle people too besson!

[Chuckit]

More substance and less petty bickering please, gentlemen.