ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

GIMP dropped from default Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx installation

By | November 19, 2009, 7:25am PST

Summary: Image editing tool GIMP is to be dropped from the default installation of Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx.

Image editing tool GIMP is to be dropped from the default installation of Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx.

There are a number of reasons cited for this change:

  • the general user doesn’t use it
  • its user-interface is too complex
  • it’s an application for professionals
  • desktop users just want to edit photos and they can do that in F-Spot
  • it’s a photoshop replacement and photoshop isn’t included by default in Windows…
  • it takes up room on the disc

I’m guessing that Ubuntu’s ISO footprint was a big reason for the drop, because the more you add to the OS, the more megabytes are eaten up, and when you need that ISO to fit onto a CD, something might have to give.

I don’t see this being much of a problem though, as it’s a pretty straightforward task to download and install applications. And for those folks that don’t need GIMP, there’s always F-Spot there to pick up the slack.

Do people use GIMP, or is it too complex?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

62
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Interfaces are subjective
Ole Man Updated - 23rd Nov 2009
I try to view them as my "clients" would. They wouldn't care if the Gimp isn't installed by default. That's what they have me for.

As far as playing DVDs go, Linux will play any DVD that your Microsoft wares will play, as long as it isn't crippled (by DRM) to prevent it from playing. And anyone who purchases crippled media gets what they deserve in my book.
0 Votes
+ -
Understandable
dchase@... 19th Nov 2009
The reasons make sense to me, although I use GIMP and
rarely use F-Spot. Of course, its easy enough to add
gimp to my new install setup script and I'd imagine the
majority of people who use it won't find this to be much
of a concern either.
Imagine all of the disk space taken up with GIMP, and all of the bandwidth for updates to versions of GIMP that were never used.

Installing applications under Ubuntu is soooo easy, this is a really smart move.

0 Votes
+ -
Personally I love it....
DevJonny 19th Nov 2009
...it's a great app.

Most people say that it's not as full featured
as Photoshop, and yes they are probably right
(I've never explored all features of both and
made a comparison). For the someone who doesn't
need every nook & cranny of Photoshop, but wants
more than basic cut & paste it's a great app.

I am assuming they are not going to replace it
with anything? Just means a quick trip to
Software Install section to get it back post-
install, so 5 mins work.
0 Votes
+ -
The basic Gimp install
Ole Man 19th Nov 2009
is probably (and I say probably because I haven't used it extensively) Photoshop Lite.

http://www.fullandfree.info/software/adobe-photoshop-cs3-lite/
Description:
This is a rip of Photoshop CS3 Extended and includes all Plugin-Ins and Presets. Stuff that was ripped from Photoshop include: Help, Samples, Fonts, and Activation files. Tested and working on a clean install of XP and Vista in VMware.

As I said, I haven't used Photoshop to any extent, but I have watched a real professional Photoshop expert put it through its paces. It is simply amazing what it can do. Would take a full 12 month course to even begin to learn ALL about it. NO average computer user would ever utilize all the features. Just as they would never use all the Gimp's features, with all its add-ons. Too bad we don't have a few Gimp experts to demonstrate the amazing wonders of the Gimp.

The biggest problem with the Gimp is, the perceived interface is different from Photoshop's, and most users are accustomed to the Photoshop interface. With all possible addons, I beleive the Gimp will do practically anything Photoshop will, but as with Photoshop, the average user will never utilize every feature in the Gimp.

Basic, and I mean very basic, photo editing is all I have need of, and either Photoshop or the Gimp would more than fulfill my needs. But then Photoshop won't run natively on Linux, will it?

YMMV
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe a bit different - but it's no more complicated than switching from Win XP to Ubuntu, which I do all the time. So does my Win 7 hating wife, for that matter.... ::shrug::

With that said - a minor pity Ubuntu's removing GiMP, but not a world-ender. Maybe somebody will make an Ubuntu "Extra Swell Stuff" download that will include GiMP and some DVD player with ::cough:: illegal codecs so we can point newbies at it...?
0 Votes
+ -
Interfaces are subjective
Ole Man Updated - 23rd Nov 2009
I try to view them as my "clients" would. They wouldn't care if the Gimp isn't installed by default. That's what they have me for.

As far as playing DVDs go, Linux will play any DVD that your Microsoft wares will play, as long as it isn't crippled (by DRM) to prevent it from playing. And anyone who purchases crippled media gets what they deserve in my book.
0 Votes
+ -
I use GIMP sometimes and with the tutorials I have been able to obtain good results, but this is not an application to use everyday (at least for me) and since it is really easy to install I dont have issues with Canonical taking it out of the ISO.
0 Votes
+ -
As a user I don't care about the political in-fighting between the open source and proprietary community. Although I whole heartedly support the open source concept, I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. If something works, I am willing to pay for it; so don't make it so difficult for the average user to plug in proprietary apps that they give up and go back to Windows.
PS: I've tried and love Ubuntu, but gave up on it since it does not support Windows media files.
0 Votes
+ -
AFAIK ...
Ludovit 19th Nov 2009
... no Linux Distro supports Windows Media files by default, but it's quite simple and easy to install the needed files to make that happen ...

Ludo
however, the Ubuntu distros I've tried make this so difficult and convoluted I've given up.
This is my main gripe. Ubuntu leaves you out in the cold to fend for yourself in this issue.
Not a good way to win friends and influenc new users.
0 Votes
+ -
Not difficult just different.
Jabryl 19th Nov 2009
Installing proprietary codecs is very easy on Ubuntu. They are available through the software center.
and that Ubuntu could bend just a bit on proprietary apps if it wants to attract a more mainstream user base. As is, if you're not doing much more than Netbook-level stuff it's quite good - but if you want to go further, you have to be a "Linux-Head" to figure out most of this stuff, and it's missing a few popular proprietary applications that really really limit adoption (like a commercial DVD player and iTunes, which is why my wife will never consider Ubuntu on anything other than her Netbook!).

I'd love to see somebody offer "End-User Level Tech Support" for Ubuntu - even paid would be worthwhile. And a little bending on the "non-proprietary" front would be welcome as well....
0 Votes
+ -
Agreed.
CobraA1 19th Nov 2009
Agreed. Frankly, I think it be good if both ideas worked together, rather than it being such a divisive battle.

The cost structure of proprietary software simply works. People are willing to buy stuff (and in fact may prefer it). You don't have to make everything free of charge.

Why would people actually prefer to buy software? Here's why:

-They can hold the developers accountable. There is no "voting with your wallet" with free software.

-They get support. Not stupid forums where the only thing you ever accomplish is a flame war. Real, actual support.

-They get the confidence that the software will continue to be developed. They know it's being created by paid employees where creating the software is the job of the devs.

Not some part time pastime of somebody who will stop developing as soon as boredom kicks in (I see that so much in smaller open source projects).

Open source is fine in principle, and is great for developers.

But IMHO it loses track of the users and makes them feel powerless.

The single biggest reason people are willing to actually pay for software?

It makes them feel like they have some power.

They have a way to vote for what software they want.

A way that directly affects those who create the software.

Open Source is "for the devs" - the devs will generally design for what they want, not for what the users want. There are some exceptions, but that's the general rule.

Proprietary is "for the users" - the devs design for what the users want, because they won't get paid if they don't.

Hence users tend to flock to proprietary. Because money ensures they have the power to say "no, we don't want that in our product." And if the devs say "**** you, we're doing this for ourselves, not you! So go away." The users can say "fine, no money."

I see soooo much of that "we're not doing this for you" attitude in open source. It's no wonder people don't like it.
0 Votes
+ -
I Have to Disagree
Fevrin 19th Nov 2009
None of your points as to why you feel people flock to proprietary software truly damns open-source software.

Sure, when one doesn't pay for their software there's no "voting with your wallet," but even with pay-for software, it takes quite a few of dissatisfied customers (or the perception thereof) to truly affect software development (especially for the programs developed by the bigger companies). Not to mention that not all proprietary software comes with a price tag.... Conversely, if one doesn't like something about a piece of open-source software, they can always appeal to the developer or find some other equivalent. If they are skilled enough, they could code the desired functionality (or take away undesired functionality) themselves. They could also hire someone else to do it for them.

One perk of smaller development teams is bane of the larger ones: the programmers are that much closer to their user base; thus, they're usually more willing to work together (and it's easier to please a smaller base). I find that's the case for both proprietary and open-source software. Still, it's true that some developers are out there to create software for their own use, but that software tends to be very niche and not advertised to the typical user. I wouldn't say it's a common issue in the open-source community.

I find it funny that you say proprietary software instills confidence that it'll be continuously developed. The fact that the coders are paid to do so when the company goes bankrupt as a result of outside forces (not lack of quality). Then where does that leave the codebase? In too many cases, it means that you can kiss that software goodbye. On the other hand, it's very true that many open-source projects get abandoned; however, if someone likes the idea behind the project enough, he or she could build upon the existing code since the source is publicly available.

I know that bankruptcy tends to happen more to smaller companies (just as it's the smaller open-source projects that tend to be deserted). However, just as the bigger proprietary companies tend to do well and have strong customer bases, the bigger open-source projects tend to experience the same. The difference is, of course, that anyone with the know-how or money can mold the open-source software to their liking or use bits and pieces as part of a different project.

*I* think the single biggest reason people buy proprietary software is because they either are unaware of alternatives, or the proprietary software has functionality that alternatives do not.
0 Votes
+ -
Think about Sun
daengbo 21st Nov 2009
If OpenOffice, Sun Java, and MySQL were freeware, they'd be dead about now. Open Source allows them to live on.
0 Votes
+ -
Have you read your "EULA" lately?
Ole Man 19th Nov 2009
It could be a sobering excercise.

You do sound rather inebriated on the Microsoft coolaide.

Proprietary is NOT "for the users". Proprietary is for the money. Documented to be Microsoft in 90% of the cases. Not very good odds in my book.
0 Votes
+ -
Hint:
Fevrin 19th Nov 2009
Direct all your proprietary software grievances toward the software's developers, as they are the ultimate gatekeepers for their own product. There are a couple of solutions for those wishing to use Windows-based software under Linux, such as WINE, or a virtual machine like VirtualBox to run Windows. But don't expect your favorite proprietary apps to run flawlessly without the help of their creators.
0 Votes
+ -
Mint seems to have no problems playing WMV files. Have you tried that?
0 Votes
+ -
Ubuntu does support windows media files
richard.e.morton@... 23rd Nov 2009
Just a correction, Ubuntu does support windows media files; just install w32codecs from medibuntu repository or VLC.

Linux generally doesnt support DRM protected files especially those with proprietary containers like windows media files; this affects such a small proportion of people. Most peoples music is in M4A, MP3 or self ripped, in which case, re-rip to something a) higher quality disk space is cheaper now and b) without DRM to protect the longevity of the file from the whims of M$.

DRM is dangerous full-stop. How many file formats are no fully longer readable on modern PCs... imagine if your music collection was suddenly unplayable after an OS upgrade cause M$ decided to remove support for the (now) "obsolete" audio file format?

To protect your media; RIP to an audio standard that is well documented in the open (MP3; MP4/M4A, OGG Vorbis or FLAC) - check the devices you buy support the format you choose; most new devices now support MP3, M4A and OGG Vorbis such as iRiver, Creative and Android based devices - most others have players/plugins for these filetypes readily available
0 Votes
+ -
I use it, but agree it's complex.
CobraA1 19th Nov 2009
I use it, but agree it's complex. If I could afford Photoshop, I would certainly prefer it over the GIMP.

The whole "dozens of floating windows" thing doesn't really appeal to me.
GIMP is supposed to be an example of how OSS can provide an equally good (some even claim better, lol) experience than, say, on Windows.

So can't you people "tell" why Linux has less than 1% desktop marketshare...? Do we need to draw you a little picture?
0 Votes
+ -
I at least wouldn't be bragging about it.

Software of any kind can do nothing on its own. It must have a "user" (otherwise known as an operator). If the operator can't figure out how to cause it to do its intended function, is it the fault of the software?
Not specifically about GiMP, which I don't find any harder to use than I found PS when I first tried it decades back - but about OSS in general.

Many of us don't want to become "adepts" at programming - We Want It To Just Work. I've used Ubuntu fairly steadily for the last five years, but it's not my primary OS because outside of Netbook-level apps (e-mail, Web surfing, word processing, basic media viewing and simple arcade games), it often doesn't work unless you're some kind of programmer. You clearly are based on your contempt for anybody who isn't, but 99% of the population is closer to Qbt, or me, than to you - and we just want to get on with our lives.

With that said - Qbt IS a Ballmer-Sucking Troll and as arrogant in his ignorance as Glenn "The Closeted Hypocrite" Beck.... >:)
0 Votes
+ -
LOL, you guys are funny...[nt]
Qbt 21st Nov 2009
.
So, it's not on the CD and I like the fact that I don't need to download a DVD.iso every time a new release becomes available.

It's simple and really a non-issue.

sudo apt-get install whateveRRRR or just run Ubuntu Software Center or Synaptic
0 Votes
+ -
The only issue would be
Michael Kelly 19th Nov 2009
knowing that it's there to download. The advantage of having it already installed was that it gave you the opportunity to play around with it and decide if you like it or whether it's too much for you. The disadvantage of not having it installed is that you have to be aware of its availability, and to have that awareness you have to at least have the initiative to look for it.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, I understand what you are saying....
D T Schmitz 19th Nov 2009
but I see Ubuntu Software Center taking on a more active role to guide new users to different software 'on demand'.

That way, Ubuntu can load their basic OS with one CD - and extras like GiMP and a better media player and maybe even (oh, please!) some proprietary apps like a commercial DVD/Blu-Ray player and iTunes optimized for Ubuntu for those who'd find Synaptic confusing.
In the Software Centre, you could even have a Suggested
Applications list or a Windows Alternative list to advertise Linux
applications. The possibilities are many.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't mind either.
clfitz 19th Nov 2009
I've played with it some, can't say I use it. I have a Windows machine, too, with Photoshop 6, and I use that when I need more than basics. Once I get GIMP figured out (which is going to take a while) I'll probably switch to it. I don't do much more than minor retouching and some scanning.

So--No big deal.
So what can we determine from this? That Linus Torvalds is right in that linux is becoming more and more bloated and scary since Ubuntu has to actually drop applications to make everything work on one CD. Also, I'm sure it was a mutual agreement between the two. Ubuntu became overly bloated, and GIMP saw that linux is going nowhere so they decided that dropping support for Ubuntu would be a good thing too. I expect more and more application developers to do the same thing and drop support for linux. Its starting with the GIMP, who knows where it will end. And the real winners of all this is anyone who doesn't use linux.
0 Votes
+ -
Hallelujah!
Lovehog Dorkson Updated - 19th Nov 2009
I've seen the light! Thank you, thank you, thank you, my brother, for enlightening me about the evils of Linux!

Come here, let me kiss you, my soulmate!
0 Votes
+ -
Please do me this favor.
maskman01 19th Nov 2009
Name me another modern OS that comes on a single DVD with applications (i.e. latest version of Firefox, OpenOffice, etc).
0 Votes
+ -
Correction...Single CD
DevJonny 20th Nov 2009
0 Votes
+ -
Bow before the man
The Mentalist 19th Nov 2009
Loverock Davidson is a skilled worker, several M$ certifications attest his competence on all things Linux.

Also those M$ certifications have proved very useful in landing him a steady job as port-a-potty cleaner assistant.
0 Votes
+ -
You are certainly
Viva la crank dodo 19th Nov 2009
entitled to your uneducated and unsupportable self-servingly spun opinion as well as far out interpretation.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh yes, Ubuntu's much more bloated than Windows
LeonBA Updated - 23rd Nov 2009
When's the last time a Microsoft OS has fit onto a CD? XP, right? Eight years ago? And those Vista and Windows 7 DVDs won't include an equivalent to GIMP or Photoshop either.

What really do you get from trolling on these sites, dissing an OS you (judging by your comments) haven't really tried since ca. 2000? Windows has changed an awful lot since then--has it occurred to you that Linux might have done the same? In 2000 I would have agreed with a number of your points, but they're way out of date now.
0 Votes
+ -
But what about the competition?
Loverock Davidson 19th Nov 2009
I mean if Ubuntu loads one app they should be required to load all other apps from other vendors! Or better yet give the user a ballot box and they can select what imaging software they want to install. It only seems fair to do it this way then let Ubuntu dictate what can and can't be installed by default.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes! Linux is a horrible, stifling monopoly.
Lovehog Dorkson 19th Nov 2009
Somebody should take legal action quickly. Instant jail for all Linux developers, that's what the common good requires.

And Linux smells, too. Yikes.
0 Votes
+ -
There is a ballot box
Michael Kelly 19th Nov 2009
it's called Ubuntu Software Center. There's another called Synaptic and yet another called apt-get.
0 Votes
+ -
Because...
UsernameRequired 19th Nov 2009
they are not trying to capitalise a different market by leveraging their
dominance in another. Don't pretend that you don't understand this you
idiot.
0 Votes
+ -
You are being presumputuous
Viva la crank dodo 19th Nov 2009
that he doesn't understand this. I am starting to believe he really is so steeped in bias that he is ignorant.
0 Votes
+ -
YHBT
daengbo 21st Nov 2009
He's a troll. Don't feed the trolls. Geez!
0 Votes
+ -
Not surprised at GIMP being dropped
nilotpal_c 19th Nov 2009
MEPIS , the distro I use on my Laptop, already does not include it by default. Most people do not need GIMP, but would be happy with something less full featured (sadly, F-spot just does not cut it for me, Picasa for Linux is just more intuitive). I do use GIMP for processing pictures and have not found it very difficult (I think a large portion of the reason why it is disliked is because it is not Photoshop, well GIMP also does not cost more than the per capita income of my country!), but I also think that what Linux needs is something equivalent to Paint.NET for most people.
0 Votes
+ -
Me too.
root12 20th Nov 2009
I think there are more important things to put on the limiting size
of the CD.
0 Votes
+ -
Doesn't matter
eMJayy 19th Nov 2009
I probably use photo editing software about once every six months. It's a non-essential feature for the vast majority of computer users, especially now that there are so many photo-sharing sites that provide photo management tools right in the web page. At least, if I ever need Gimp on 10.04, I just have to put a tick in a checkbox and it's installed.
0 Votes
+ -
No surprise. Good decision.
BillDem 19th Nov 2009
Those who still want GIMP already know where to get it. New Linux users would only be confused by GIMP.

And they're right about the poorly-crafted GIMP interface. I tried it for a bit. It looks like it was designed by bad programmers for other bad programmers to use. Heck, I AM a programmer and I was scratching my head at some of the design choices they made. I don't think the interface has changed in a decade. Using GIMP for a few weeks was instrumental in convincing me to spend the $1800 on CS4 Production Premium. I'm still trying to grow back the hair I pulled out during those weeks. wink Maybe Adobe should distribute GIMP as a sales tool for convincing people to buy Photoshop. grin
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, $1800 for CS4 IS a good deal
Ole Man 19th Nov 2009
For anyone with more money than computer expertise, or common sense.

Luckily for me, I couldn't afford it, and wouldn't have paid that much for it anyway, especially when a perfectly good free alternative is available, requiring only familiarization with the interface.

To each his own. I can only be thankful that we have a choice other than Microsoft's (or Adobe's, or Apple's, or ________ fill in the blank) most expensive ones.
0 Votes
+ -
Free alternatives? Give me a break!
crazydanr@... Updated - 20th Nov 2009
The Adobe Creative Suite includes Illustrator, InDesign, and Flash. Please show me any free application that can even come close to the features and capabilities of CS4. They are the industry leader for graphic & web design, and for creating print media.

$1,800 is nothing if you're making hundreds of thousands a year selling products and services. The engineering software in my company costs tens of thousands per user. AutoCad is also extremely expensive, but these are the costs of doing business.

Is everyone posting on this site living with their parents and eating peanut butter from the jar??

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix