| ▲ | GIMP Development Update(gimp.org) |
| 86 points by lumpa 5 hours ago | 33 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | mimasama 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Zipped XML? Isn't that just OpenRaster? (which is already supported by GIMP anyway, but also supported by Krita and other image editors) |
|
| ▲ | dm319 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Non-destructive filter layers caught my eye, and has been something I've missed since moving off Windows/Photoshop to Linux. Looking around it seems like they introduced this in V3, which is great to see. |
| |
|
| ▲ | TiredOfLife 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I thought every developer of this moved to the Glimpse fork |
| |
| ▲ | dspillett 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | That effort didn't last long. I think this is the first I've heard about it since inception, the repo (assuming this is the right one, https://github.com/joshgiesbrecht/Glimpse, it was the only GIMP related thing that came up amongst a sea of unrelated projects with the same name) is hasn't seen a commit in 7 years and what appears to be the official site away from a forge (https://getglimpse.app/about/) is currently unresponsive. | |
| ▲ | herbst 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Pretty sure woke gimp was long discontinued | | |
| ▲ | clarionbell 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | https://itsfoss.com/news/glimpse-gimp-fork-archived/ Yep, it's dead. | | |
| ▲ | Lammy 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don't want to revel in the fork's demise for any reason besides relief that it didn't end up splitting GIMP's contributors and community in a way that would have harmed both projects. > we could not find contributors willing to step up and help with non-code tasks like moderating communication channels Gotta say though it feels ironic that they couldn't find enough people to be comment janitors considering the whole thing was based on wanting people to stop saying a particular word. > As a result, we struggled to scale the project to match increasing demand. ‘Glimpse didn't fail; it was actually too popular’? | | |
| |
| ▲ | ben_w 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm surprised it got that epithet, I'm used to "upset by weird sex stuff" as being a US-right position, and "woke" being a term that's used by US-right to denigrate US-left. Then again, I'm also old enough to have seen it shift significantly in meaning at least once, and I think I'm seeing it shift meaning again. | | |
| ▲ | SwellJoe 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Before the weird sex stuff, "gimp" was an insulting term for a crippled person. The fact that it's so long out of common use for that purpose that a lot of folks don't realize that is perhaps an argument for not taking it too seriously. On the other hand, disabled folks are certainly among the most oppressed and abused and in ways that aren't well-understood by most folks, so a decent person should be pretty careful about using language that could be demeaning. I dunno. It feels like an archaic term that ought not have any power today, but what do I know? | | |
| ▲ | ChocolateGod a few seconds ago | parent | next [-] | | [delayed] | |
| ▲ | TeriyakiBomb 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In the UK, it’s the sex one and would be used as a general “idiot” word but that seemed to have mostly faded away. It’s not a word I’ve seen used in that context for many years. Not refuting anything here, just adding some context from over here. Whichever way you slice it, it’s always been an awful name. | |
| ▲ | Lammy 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Personally I just prefer to avoid the debate and call it “GNU IMP” v(._. )v |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | roschdal 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Zipped XML sounds like a bad idea. It's slow and bad. I say XCF forever. |
| |
|
| ▲ | socalgal2 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Zipped XML. Welcome to 1999 designs |
| |
| ▲ | ACCount37 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Let's be honest, the real 1999 design would have been a custom binary format that happens to use the endian of the system it was developed on, and leaks bits and pieces of unflushed memory buffers whenever it writes to disk. | | |
| ▲ | flohofwoe 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | No that would be an early 1990s file format ;) 1999 is exactly right for the start of the XML hype, everything had to be XML, it would single handedly solve the software crisis (after OOP failed to do that) because everything would be able to talk to everything! |
| |
| ▲ | muhehe an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What would you consider good modern design? | | |
| ▲ | supriyo-biswas 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | SQLar[1], see [2] for some reasoning around why a database is preferred over zipped XML. Though, I'd be fine with a DBM-style database too as we only need the key-value part of it. [1] https://sqlite.org/sqlar/doc/trunk/README.md [2] https://www.sqlite.org/affcase1.html | | |
| ▲ | chungy 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | the SQLite archive format (it's probably worth linking to the main documentation[1], instead of the very old experimental repository) may not really be a good fit for something like GIMP's native file format. (To be clear, "SQLite archives" are not special compared to any other database: it's just a well-defined schema for an sqlar table, which the sqlite3 command line tool is able to create, update, and extract using syntax like the tar command.) That being said, SQLite would still be a good choice, especially as it's a format that's really intended to be modified in-place, and has good data integrity features (eg: keep WAL enabled so that mid-save crashes/shutdowns don't corrupt your file), neither of which are provided by Zip. You could even just run zlib on data (be it XML or what have you) if optimizing the on-disk size of the file is desirable. [1] https://sqlite.org/cli.html#sqlite_archive_support | |
| ▲ | flohofwoe 11 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The problem with using database blobs for load/save is that you usually need a full database client in the application. SQlite advertises that use case, but it is complete overkill. You never need to run any sort of complex SQL query on an image file format for instance. Using XML+ZIP in this day and age is also a strange decision, but at least that way the data is inspectable with unzip, a text editor and an image viewer (assuming they use a standard image format to store the raw pixel data). | | |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > You never need to run any sort of complex SQL query on an image file format for instance. Sure you will. Plenty of features that don't exist, or are implemented badly, because you can't easily do it. Quick mental translation table: if you think "iterate over every ..." or a `for` loop, that's your SELECT query. If you think about `if` conditions, that's the parts that go after FROM clause. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | elric 18 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Welcome to 2026 unfounded hot takes. Or less snarky: what's your gripe with zipped XML? It compresses reasonably well, has a useful structure, and has decades of mature tooling around it. | | |
| ▲ | x3ro a minute ago | parent [-] | | Thanks! I had the exact same question for various of these posts here. I know these may be different groups of people, but I always see people advocating for simplicity, and zipped-XML is as simple as it gets, needs barely any extra dependencies (none in GIMP I assume), and is proven to work well (Word etc). I also don’t understand why SQLite would be preferable here, considering you will likely also store large binary files alongside your document definition.. What does a db engine give me here? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | spider-mario 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > For instance, we’re quite proud that a XCF file made by a small company for their logo in 1998 still renders the same way in the latest version of GIMP How do they pronounce “XCF” such that it’s “a XCF file” and not “an XCF file”? “Xeceff”? |
| |
| ▲ | left-struck 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | In my mind it’s similar to exif | |
| ▲ | ajcp 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I find some word processors don't test for vowel sound, and only adhere to the actual vowel letter. | |
| ▲ | Choco31415 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The beginning of “XCF” sounds similar to the beginning of “Exit”. With “a” vs “an”, the pronunciation is more important than the spelling. | | |
| ▲ | spider-mario 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > With “a” vs “an”, the pronunciation is more important than the spelling. I know, hence my question about the pronunciation. If I had thought the spelling was more important, the “X” would have settled it so I wouldn’t have asked. | |
| ▲ | SwellJoe 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | You say "a exit"? |
|
|