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