Submitted by Boudewijn Rempt writes about the KDE image manipulation program Krita. He writes about Flake support and various features regarding image rendering quality like a new fast scaler. Zack Rusin writes about the ongoing effort to port WebKit to Qt4 for possible inclusion in KDE 4. A new issue of the KDE Commit-Digest has also been released, telling us about various topics like NetworkManager support in KDE 4 or the installment of techbase.kde.org. In addition, this document [.pdf] presents what has been accomplished in the Nepomuk-KDE project so far.
Can’t wait for the final, stable build to come out. It’s gonna be a lot to port to the new QT.
I haven’t used Krita at all, and barely used GIMP (still enough to realize that I don’t like it and that it is very far away from even Photoshop 5 or 6).
I was wondering how does Krita stack up against GIMP. Is it powerful enough to replace it, is it far from replacing it, is it something to be taken seriously any time soon? What is the state of things?
Krita is as limited as GIMP. I personally feel more comfortable with Krita’s GUI than with the GIMP’s, because it makes more sense to me, but both of them are terribly limited. Remember that the GIMP doesn’t support bold text if you don’t have the specific bold TTF file.
I’ve never like the Gimp. I find it unintuitive and hard to use, but to be fair I’ve never really given it a fair shake either.
I’ve looked at some screenshots of Krita and it looks much nicer as far as layout goes. I mainly use Photoshop for web layout work and some minor photo work. What I’m looking for personally is something that I can be happy with for such things and a good solid replacement for dreamweaver. Thus far I haven’t really found anything that I like.
With that said KDE 4 does sound like it shaping up to be an awesome update.
What I’m looking for personally is something that I can be happy with for such things and a good solid replacement for dreamweaver. Thus far I haven’t really found anything that I like.
I’ve found a collection of tools that to me are much better than dreamweaver. I use bluefish together with firefox with the webdeveloper extension, the view source chart extension, the edit css extension, the firebug extension, and the html validator extension. I don’t even use firefox as my main browser but you can almost develop websites with it alone.
I’ve tried bluefish and Quanta. I didn’t like either. I liked nVu, but it crashed constantly and now they are moving development back into seamonkey.
My biggest problem is that most of these web editors have crappy CSS support. If I wanted to remember every CSS and HTML tag I would use something like notepad and a browser. What I like about dreamweaver is that is has a very nice CSS editor that can work with linked CSS docs and not just inline styles.
To put it simply I want something very similar to dreamweaver on Linux, but better.
My biggest problem is that most of these web editors have crappy CSS support. If I wanted to remember every CSS and HTML tag I would use something like notepad and a browser. What I like about dreamweaver is that is has a very nice CSS editor that can work with linked CSS docs and not just inline styles.
Hmm. That’s interesting. I don’t use inline styles at all. I only use linked CSS and I haven’t had a problem developing with bluefish and firefox. Of course I am a hand coder so I guess it depends on your style of development. It isn’t very difficult to develop linked CSS with bluefish though. Just open another tab with your CSS file and use the CSS editor on that document.
I may have to try bluefish again then. My memory may not be serving me correctly.
Krita is as limited as GIMP. I personally feel more comfortable with Krita’s GUI than with the GIMP’s, because it makes more sense to me, but both of them are terribly limited. Remember that the GIMP doesn’t support bold text if you don’t have the specific bold TTF file.
Besides that comment on TTF, what makes GIMP so terribly limited? I’m no graphic artist, but I’d like to know anyway.
On the other hand, Krita does have CMYK support, wich you won’t find in GIMP. And yes, I also find Krita’s UI more friendly.
There are 400 feature requests, most of which have not been addressed for years.
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?product=GIMP&bug_status=NEW&b…
400 feature requests? Dear lord! Such terrible news. Let’s look at KDE.
http://bugs.kde.org/weekly-bug-summary.cgi
Oh my! Over 12 THOUSAND feature requests! I can only recoil with horror at the mere thought of how limiting KDE must be.
And you’re right, 12,000 feature requests is huge. If you think about it, KDE is very rough around the edges, it’s usable, but it can be greately improved, compared to, say, Windows Vista.
I believe the point is, the number of feature requests isn’t such a good measuring stick for quality. It probably has more to do with the size of the userbase (particularly relative to the number of devs) than the (in)completeness of the program. Plus, not all feature requests are good ideas.
Well, sure KDE could use *some* ideas from Vista, but there is a lot more in KDE which Vista could use 😉
Though if you look closer, you’ll see that there are only 3 applications in all of KDE with more than 400 requests – konqueror, kmail, and kopete. Admittedly, they have a lot more. Still, the typical app seems to be down around 50. Krita has 52. I think what is more important is the speed at which requests are granted – the point is that those Gimp requests have been sitting around forever, while Krita has seen heavy development.
Right now, I’d have to agree that the Gimp is still a more powerful app if you can stand the UI, but I’m not sure if that will still be the case or not by the time KOffice 2 is released.
You do know that the reason the GIMP has more feature requests is that people are actually using it? Krita is nice and has lots of potential as a paint program (and that’s its only capacity I’m interested in) but right now you probably would not chose it over GIMP.
Think about it for a second, why does Konqueror of all apps have more then 400 feature requests? Apps that get used get more feature requests.
Besides did you actually look at those requests for the GIMP? The first one was a new splash screen for 2.4 and there where a lot of brush related requests in there, some mutually exclusive (if you switch to a vector format for brushes importing old pixel brushes from the competition is a mote point).
The GIMP bashing has to stop, it’s a good app for what it does and it has started to listen the usability complaints that people have. If you can actually wait for 2.4 you’ll see.
Edited 2007-02-26 22:12
> Remember that the GIMP doesn’t support bold text if you don’t have the specific bold TTF file.
Why would you want emulation of a bold font face that will never be as good as a real font?
Krita is a much younger program (practically at least) and thus at least to me doesn’t feel as finished as the GIMP, this being said it also seems much faster moving and to be based on a technically superior framework and is adding features at a very fast pace. It also doesn’t have the GIMP’s distinct and controversial UI (which I happen to like personally, the GIMP being probably the only GTK app that I like the UI of but that may be just because I know it.) Krita seems slow to me but that may be because I run linux on PPC which Krita might not be optimized for (I don’t blame the developers if it isn’t) For right now if you don’t have an issue with the GIMP’s UI I think that the GIMP is still the better app, but I would guess that it will be usurped very quickly by Krita if things keep going the way they are.
Does anyone else find it kind of sad to think abut KDE moving towards WebKit which people associate with Apple, when WebKit is just a fork of KHTML.
Yes. http://osnews.com/story.php/17160/KHTML-3.5.6-is-the-Most-CSS3-Comp…
That story was about KHTML after all, not webkit. I’m rather surprised KDE would move to use an engine not fully under their control. Is KDE/Apple communication flowing any better since the whole Acid2 episode?
From what I understand, there are some KHTML developers who want to switch to Webkit, and some who don’t since like you say it’s mainly controlled by Apple. I don’t know if anything has been decided for KDE 4.
From what I understand, there are some KHTML developers who want to switch to Webkit, and some who don’t since like you say it’s mainly controlled by Apple. I don’t know if anything has been decided for KDE 4.
I do think there’s an inherent risk in adopting Webkit if it’s controlled by Apple, but in fairness Apple has improved relations significantly, some of the devs even have cvs access now.
As well, Webkit is being adopted by other players, like Nokia and Adobe, for their web platforms, so theoretically there’s far better opportunity for collaboration than if KDE uses KHTML as a purely inhouse project.
I’m not as adverse to the idea of Webkit as I would have been a few months ago, but I can understand the trepidation and think it needs to be evaluated carefully.
WebKit’s main advantages IMHO are these two:
1.) While KHTML supports CSS3, WebKit’s “glitch mode” (for badly programmed pages) seems better.
2.) WebKit has paid developers.
Krita […] doesn’t feel as finished as the GIMP, this being said it also seems much faster moving and to be based on a technically superior framework and is adding features at a very fast pace. […] I think that the GIMP is still the better app, but I would guess that it will be usurped very quickly by Krita if things keep going the way they are.
This is nearly a microcosm of the entire KDE/GNOME dilemma, at least as I see it. KDE’s still not quite as usable, consistent, and polished as GNOME, but it’s certainly based on a technically superior framework, and it’s certainly progressing at a faster rate. I’m still on GNOME, but it sure doesn’t seem that this will be the case a year from now.
Krita IS a bit slower than Gimp, tough they’re working on that of course. I’m really looking forward to KOffice 2, as that might set KDE/KOffice/Krita ahead of the competition in such a way they won’t even be able to catch up
Does someone know a simple paint program for Linux? I do not need the features of GIMP, I only need the equivalent of MS Paint — just a simple and fast program for basic image editing.
Does Krita qualify?
Try Kolourpaint…
http://kolourpaint.sourceforge.net/
> Does Krita qualify?
Yes, no problem.
Krita is overkill. KolourPaint is what you want.
KDE comes with a program that looks to me quite like MS Paint. It’s called KolourPaint:
http://kolourpaint.sourceforge.net/screenshots.html
EDIT:
Oops, late.
Edited 2007-02-26 18:27
Thanks to everyone! Kolourpaint was just what I needed. It looks a bit TOO like MS Paint, but I asked for it
“Does someone know a simple paint program for Linux? I do not need the features of GIMP, I only need the equivalent of MS Paint — just a simple and fast program for basic image editing.”
If you don’t mind using a non-KDE application, xpaint might be worth a try.
One big advantage Krita has over the Gimp right now is that the GIMP still lacks the CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black) color model. This is what prof. printers and photo artist need/use. The Gimp tam has been promising/working on this for ages right now but still do not deliver. Krita does support this color model and does it reasonable well…
I can’t wait for KDE4 and the new Koffice with Kexi and Krita. Something really nice is coming..
Edited 2007-02-26 19:55
True, and add to the fact there is Scribus, which is already being used by a newspaper (can’t remember the name); like all KDE applications it’ll all integrate nicely together; make something in Krita, and bring it accross to Scribus and throw it in there.
Hence the dismay I have when I see so much wasted effort by companies pumped into the various GTK/GNOME based applications that seem to be going no where fast and failing to actually address Joe Average’s issues with software.
The GIMP GUI is a known problem, and yet, all the GIMP people can do is claim ‘oh, its different, get used to it’ – well, those of use who don’t want to ‘get used to it’ will vote with our bandwidth and wallets and use Krita; if Gimp wants to win me back, how about merging all the GUI changes made in GIMPShop ( http://plasticbugs.com/?p=241 ) by Scott.
The UI feels crowded. The approach to working is most definitely different than Photoshop, GIMP, PaintShop Pro that people are familiar with and nothing about it grabs me as being “truly intuitive.”
Truly intuitive software like TIFFany (on Openstep) saw many of it’s features copied and added to Photoshop.
GIMP took about a week to get comfortable. Krita’s startup window is downright annoying: I’m not interested in selecting RGB or CMYK or Grayscale at predefined dimensions or just a custom Document. If I want an intelligent New/Open modal window I’d suggest Krita draw upon Scribus for inspiration. They are both Qt based applications but with completely different feels and I use KDE 3.5.6 daily. Kile is indispensible.
On a Pentium D 805 Smithfield with 2 Gigs of PC5300 RAM and a 320 Gig SATA II 16MB Cache drive Krita is damn slow on large images. GIMP 2.3.14 Debian Sid screams.
The Effects options aren’t intelligently grouped nor very diverse–this is to be expected since GIMP has so many years of usage to drawn upon.
It strikes me more as a primitive objects editor.
I’ve got a great one for that: Inkscape.
How about porting GIMP to QT and KDE and then adding custom capabilities to the KDE version that leverages other KDE services?
I’ll keep tracking Krita in hopes that it will challenge GIMP to being better and learn from each other.
A clean UI that is intuitive should want to leverage some of TIFFany’s presentation:
http://www.macuarium.com/macuarium/actual/especiales/2002_02_19_caf…
On OS X another fantastic application to use is Create from Stone Design. I’ve used it since ’96 and it continues to just get better.
I have it completely opposite, I can’t stand GIMP’s UI.
My main problem is the overuse of windows (more then one), which makes it difficult to navigate to the functions I need to edit images. The windows tend to get in the way of each other. GIMP overflows my taskbar with windows and I really dislike grouping, for the same reason I don’t like many windows, it is bad for navigation.
Krita on the other hand, has one window and has the tools available right where in the interface for quick access.
The only thing IMO GIMP’s UI does better for me, is creating a new image, their dialog for that purpose is a lot easier then krita’s.
// How about porting GIMP to QT and KDE and then adding custom capabilities to the KDE version that leverages other KDE services? //
Besides that Krita is already pretty good, I think it would be a total waste for ressources and would (without having looked at the GIMP source) be more sensible to start from scratch or just improve kritas few UI problems.
//I’ll keep tracking Krita in hopes that it will challenge GIMP to being better and learn from each other.//
Me too.
//A clean UI that is intuitive should want to leverage some of TIFFany’s presentation://
Although it does look cleaner, it also have the same UI design flew that makes me dislike GIMP: to many windows.
Many KDE devs now have access to the WebKit SVN, and actively work on the core code and the QT bindings. See for yourself: http://webkit.org/blog/
here is my reason for trying krita and my experience:
* colour accuracy and fidelity
gimp has an 8-bit per channel (rgb) underlying colour model. this used to be the case with adobe paintshop too but may no longer be the case. if you’re post-processing images then you start to do more irreversible damage to images the more cycles to apply. for example, if you pump up a level from 254 to a maxumim 255 and then later want to reduce it you possibly can’t. if the underlying pixel depth was larer you may have moved from 65510 to 65520 but can move back again (less quantization errors).. using larger pixel depths (16, 32 bits) or even floating point representations works better in these scenarios. peopel doing RAW photography also like this idea.
krita has support for larger and different colour models. i tried it and liked it.
others may chose krita for other reasons:
* newer non-legacy UI
* integration into kde applications and desktop
* better “paint” tools a la Corel Painter – though not there yet
my experience so far has been that krita shows a lot of promise. the UI is nicer, intuitive and more flexible. the natural media painting tools will be great when they’re implemented.
for now i am going back to gimp-2.2.13 from kria-1.6.1 because at the moment, krita i slow! appling filters is too slow. even scaling is slow! i’m sure these will be fixed soon.
you may also be interested in cinepaint.org – cine paint, formerly filmgimp has a following in the film post-production studios for its colourspace and depth support, and its support for industrial strength file formats (hdr, openexr, ..)
Edited 2007-02-27 01:00
I tihkl this with strigi is going to make KDE 4 special.