Talk:GIMPshop

Second paragraph

The second paragraph from this article was copied directly from the project's webpage. Clearly, this should be rewritten. Jickler

Bug Section

This distro is nitorious for bugs, we should point this out.--68.126.252.7 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

These bugs are only in the Windows executables because of the way they were compiled. The base code is nearly the same as Gimp, save some changed text strings. -Tues. Oct. 31 (Scott Moschella)

Regardless, they still exist and should be pointed out. I finally switched to the original GIMP recently due to the plethora of bugs. I was unable to even create a new image due to the bugs, and switching to another window and coming back caused many of the pannels to turn completely grey. This is definately worth noting. --Slavik262 14:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bugginess is subjective. IMO, a mention as to GIMPshop's bugginess should only be added if a reference to it can be found in a notable source. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 11:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Direction of GIMPshop

Does anyone know whether GIMPshop's GUI redevelopment will ever make its way into actual GIMP or will just exist as a separate project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.130.76 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 December 2005

The short answers is no. GIMP might adopt a few of the changes incidentally but the developers seem to like things the way they are. My understanding was GIMPShop was hacked up as an experiment in the hope the GIMP would adopt it, rather than with any intention of starting a seperate project. (As far as I know you aren't supposed to use talk pages for these sorts of question though.) Horkana

That's a real shame. GIMPshop makes GIMP usable. Is there a GIMPshop community that should or could be linked to from this article? This is such a huge improvement over GIMP, I am sure there is an active, thriving user community for it out there somewhere. --148.128.243.8 17:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

I think that the page on Scott Moschella should be merged here. Apart from writing GIMPshop, the only real notable thing about Moschella seems to be the fact that he works on Attack of the Show!. This, along with generic bio stuff (birth year, etc) could easily be put into one or two paragraphs in this page. If this goes through, I plan on rewriting the this page, both to expand it and to make it a bit cleaner.

Help

The help files for Gimpshop are not included with the latest install. Does anyone know wehre I can get these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkline (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2007 January 4 (UTC)

His homepage has a (tiny) bio. I also found two interviews with him (G4 interview. OSDir.com interview). Bowmanjj 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• I propose that all discussion pretaining to this proposed merger be kept in Talk:Scott Moschella. -- Mikesc86 01:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Solaris download

I changed the link for the Solaris download. The previous link to here led to a page where you had to type "GIMPshop" into the search box, and then that took you to the page where you could download GIMPshop. this link is much more direct ~ Anya Prynn 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Official Gimpshop site?

What is the official Gimpshop website? gimpshop.com is listed as "website" in the overview? And gimpshopdotnet.blogspot.com is listed as the official site. From Gimpshop dot net: "I am not Scott Moschella, creator of GIMPShop, nor have I done anything related to the making of GIMPShop.." What about plasticbugs.com which is Scott Moschellas site about Gimpshop. Is this the offical site? It dosent link to any neither Gimpshop dot net or gimpshop.com. Tl-lomas 19:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

plasticbugs.com is the official site. See this post on GIMPShop dot Net. --Onejaguar 21:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

gimpshop.com is the official site. Plasticbugs.com is Scott Moschella's (developer) personal blog, but gimpshop.com is the official site with downloads in more variations than plasticbugs, forums, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehnidiah (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Gimpshop.com is not the official site. There is no more official site, since the software is currently on hold (or, more likely, abandonware at this point). Just to reiterate the contents of the link below: Scott Moschella and GIMPshop are not associated with gimpshop.com. In fact, as per Moschella's words, gimpshop.com is "a shady, profiteering copy-cat website taking credit". The MetaFilter link shows Moschella (using the username plasticbugs) asking for legal ways of "taking the Gimpshop.com domain or preventing this guy from profiting from my name and work".—Wrathkind (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

http://ask.metafilter.com/144788/What-are-my-intellectual-property-rights-here

"Just a fan", "fan-site". Can we get confirmation of that? 71.136.250.106 (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparison Screenshots

It would be really nice to see a screenshot of standard gimp and gimpshop side by side to demonstrate the differences if anyone can get them. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.152.115 (talk) 09:00, 2007 June 12 (UTC)

GIMPshop 2.6.11 for Windows

Would someone confirm whether or not this version is a legitimate update to GIMPshop? I'm not someone who can read the underlying code, but I'm thinking this isn't even GIMPshop at all. I think this is simply GIMP 2.6.11 for Windows (taken from Sourceforge), but wrapped up in an InstallIQ software that attempts to install extraneous and superfluous programs alongside "GIMPshop" (as noted in the last paragraph of this review).

I can't find any changelog for this "update", nor can I find out any information on who released it. I think this is actually a form of malware that tricks people into thinking this is GIMPshop when it actually isn't. The InstallIQ installer is likely designed to install extra programs for profit/promotion/or other more malicious reasons. Would someone please confirm? Thanks! — Wrathkind (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I installed GIMPshop before I read this article. I have antivirus and anti-spybot software and they do not detect a threat. However, I think this is also the program I installed that asked to install 6 different toolbars and such.(I was trying out serveral other programs around the same time) I declined every one of them and it still installed the gimpshop program, hopefully nothing untowards still got installed. I was hoping these issues were resolved and everything was legitimate, but now I'm not so sure. I will be uninstalling GIMPshop and installing the Gimp for Win from sourceforge after I port the work I have already done to make sure I can still access it. Fozforic (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I will update the status in the article to reflect 'current version' issues but I think GIMPshop is now irrelevant as GIMP for Win has made significant progress in its GUI and GIMPshop is just a name. Someone with greater experience in GNU licensing should review what is being offered by the GIMPshop site. Fozforic (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• I removed Fozforic's edit out of the article. Due to the way he formatted his edit, the lack of verifiable citations, and the edit's overall tone of conjecture, I feel it is not appropriate for this paragraph to be in the article. If there are reliable sources that definitively confirm whether or not the issues between Moschella and gimpshop.com are resolved, and whether or not gimpshop.com simply repacks Gimp for Win, then such sources should be cited. — 173.60.134.88 (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Project "on hold"?

This article states that the project is on hold. If I consult gimpshop.com (be it the official site or not), I note that it claims to offer gimpshop 2.8 (based on Gimp 2.8). What is actually correct? --Narayan (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoever is running gimpshop.com is merely using the program to gain advertising revenue. Superficially, the program appears to be kept up to date with actual GIMP, but without doing research first-hand, who knows for sure? The actual creator (Moschella) seems to have abandoned it (because of the website mentioned). You're probably better off just using regular GIMP. — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 00:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Whoever runs gimpshop.com doesn't provide the source code (required for open source software) without giving them your email address. If you do plug in an email address you simply get an error message stating, "Mailing List Not Active—This mailing list is not currently active. Please push the 'Back' button and notify the website owner." Essentially, you can't actually get the source code for this "new version" in order to examine whether or not it's actually GIMPshop and not just a rebundled GIMP for Windows.

Furthermore, there is no way to identify or contact the current developers allegedly handling this project. Where is the repository for this software? Who leads development and maintenance on this version? How do you submit bug-fixes? Are these "developers" simply wrapping GIMP for Windows inside an ad-ware bundle in order to profit off of the GIMPshop name and the GIMP project?

Unless there is proof that GIMPshop 2.8+ is actually an existing fork with a dev team, this article should not link to it with the implication that this is a vetted version. GIMPshop.com harvests emails and monetizes its downloads, but in exchange it doesn't offer the code for inspection. Until someone can provide relevant links to the current developers and the source code, this article should continue to mark GIMPshop as on hold or abandoned. — 173.60.134.88 (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

merge?

Why actually do we keep this as a separate article? As GIMPshop is long dead and misused by someone, I suggest to merge this with the actual GIMP article. --Narayan (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

GimPhoto has taken up the mantle, think it might be better to merge with that or change this article so it leads readers to there. -- 109.76.152.79 (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Are GIMPshop and GimPhoto related in any way other than what they attempt to achieve? If they aren't related would it be more appropriate to list it in the See Also section? --Gnepets (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Naryan. I'm Agreed. I posted a longer reply in the GIMP article. The only condition of merger I would propose is that a lot of content would need to be removed from the article as it isn't particularly relevant anymore (it could be done after merge, to make the process easier). --Gnepets (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ycombinator post

This may or may not be of interest to this article's contributors:

I originally created Gimpshop, but I'm not the jerk who owns that domain and add... (posted March 27, 2014) 75.28.104.84 (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

copy of link at the web archive, just in case. -- 109.76.152.79 (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

couldn't you change the name and buy your own domain?AndyPKU (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Asking for a Miracle

Photoshop has been the number One in photo editing for decades. Gimp has always been the alternative that could never push Photoshop from it's throne, despite being free of charge. However, potentially Gimp should be able to knock Photoshop of it's throne. But there are three reason is never has. Those reasons are: "interface", "interface" and "interface". Most people in the industry are used to the Photoshop interface and those who want to get into the industry need to learn the Photoshop interface (By this power alone Adobe has always been able to refuse porting Photoshop to the Linux environment and maintain it's steep pricing). Than one day in 2006 Gimpshop emerged. Scott Moschella created a Gimp version with Photoshop look and feel. It blew us all right out off the water. Downloads of Gimpshop really skyrocketed, thus proving the viability and deer need for a product like this. A product that not only can knock Photoshop off it's throne, but that could get rid off Photoshop alltogether. It was the turning point of a possible total triumph for the free software movement. Using the interface of leading propriatory software opened up new horizons for other free software. However, than some greedy bastard nicked the gimpshop.com url, and used it to make money on Scott's achievement. This frustrated Scott so much that he stopped updating Gimpshop for later Gimp releases. A beautiful flower was broken. You would think the Gimp society would have picked up on this, however it never happened. Million's of people are still waiting for the miracle to happen again. Will it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.216.11.121 (talk) 14:25, 2015 July 27 (UTC)

"Million's of people are still waiting for the miracle to happen again." CallMeSalticidae (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on GIMPshop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150506232824/http://tml.pp.fi/gimp/pspi.html to http://tml.pp.fi/gimp/pspi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GIMPshop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090216053600/http://plasticbugs.com:80/?p=241 to http://plasticbugs.com/?p=241
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100212051421/http://www.strayprocess.com:80/blog/gimpshop-snow-leopard to http://www.strayprocess.com/blog/gimpshop-snow-leopard

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Project dates

Hello,

According to [1], the first version was delivered in March 2005.

According to [2], the latest version (2.2.11) was delivered in December 2011.

It would be great to indicate those dates in the GIMPshop page, as well as Comparison of raster graphics editors. Before doing it, I'd appreciate if some of you could confirm that the dates I found are correct.

Thanks,

JeromeJerome (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GIMPshop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125202414/http://osdir.com/Article7278.phtml to http://www.osdir.com/Article7278.phtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tml.pp.fi/gimp/pspi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)