Ubuntu 23.10 Won't Be Shipping A GIMP 3.0 Snapshot

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Ubuntu 23.10 Won't Be Shipping A GIMP 3.0 Snapshot

With Ubuntu 23.10 shipping next month one of the changes expected on the desktop side was using a GIMP 3.0 snapshot for this open-source Adobe Photoshop alternative rather than sticking to the aging GIMP 2.10 series. But now it's been determined that this will not happen and GIMP 2.10 will continue to be used...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Ubuntu-23.10-No-GIMP-3.0

[ElectricPrism]

Anyone who wants to see what's going on or even lend a hand can find out here:

https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/activity

[sophisticles]

I am going to take a position that some are going to find controversial, I think Linux distros should not be shipped with anything other than a browser.

The one thing i always liked about Windows was that you got the base OS, kernel, HAL, APIs. some basic drivers, a basic text editor, some configuration utilities and that was pretty much it. You installed the drivers you want, the software you want, and would apply the upgrades you wanted with regards to drivers, APIs, and the software updates were the responsibility of the vendor.

With Linux that was turned on it's head, as each distro became its own self contained OS, each one shipped with its own kernel version, its own terminal version, its own DE release, they had their own maintained repository where all the software was build with different compile options.

With Ubuntu I just pick the minimum install, remove most of the stuff I don;t want and look for appimages of applications I use, such as Shotcut or Avidemux or Audacity, this way updates involve just the kernel for the most part.

[hyperchaotic]

I am going to take a position that some are going to find controversial, I think Linux distros should not be shipped with anything other than a browser.

The one thing i always liked about Windows was that you got the base OS, kernel, HAL, APIs. some basic drivers, a basic text editor, some configuration utilities and that was pretty much it. You installed the drivers you want, the software you want, and would apply the upgrades you wanted with regards to drivers, APIs, and the software updates were the responsibility of the vendor.

With Linux that was turned on it's head, as each distro became its own self contained OS, each one shipped with its own kernel version, its own terminal version, its own DE release, they had their own maintained repository where all the software was build with different compile options.

With Ubuntu I just pick the minimum install, remove most of the stuff I don;t want and look for appimages of applications I use, such as Shotcut or Avidemux or Audacity, this way updates involve just the kernel for the most part.

I think it's good there is a lot of variety and distros with different visions.

[partcyborg]

I am going to take a position that some are going to find controversial, I think Linux distros should not be shipped with anything other than a browser.

The one thing i always liked about Windows was that you got the base OS, kernel, HAL, APIs. some basic drivers, a basic text editor, some configuration utilities and that was pretty much it. You installed the drivers you want, the software you want, and would apply the upgrades you wanted with regards to drivers, APIs, and the software updates were the responsibility of the vendor.

With Linux that was turned on it's head, as each distro became its own self contained OS, each one shipped with its own kernel version, its own terminal version, its own DE release, they had their own maintained repository where all the software was build with different compile options.

With Ubuntu I just pick the minimum install, remove most of the stuff I don;t want and look for appimages of applications I use, such as Shotcut or Avidemux or Audacity, this way updates involve just the kernel for the most part.

This isn't controversial at all. This is exactly how distributions like arch and debian work. The install gets you a bare bones base system only and you install whatever you want

[Nocifer]

I am going to take a position that some are going to find controversial, I think Linux distros should not be shipped with anything other than a browser.

The one thing i always liked about Windows was that you got the base OS, kernel, HAL, APIs. some basic drivers, a basic text editor, some configuration utilities and that was pretty much it. You installed the drivers you want, the software you want, and would apply the upgrades you wanted with regards to drivers, APIs, and the software updates were the responsibility of the vendor.

With Linux that was turned on it's head, as each distro became its own self contained OS, each one shipped with its own kernel version, its own terminal version, its own DE release, they had their own maintained repository where all the software was build with different compile options.

With Ubuntu I just pick the minimum install, remove most of the stuff I don;t want and look for appimages of applications I use, such as Shotcut or Avidemux or Audacity, this way updates involve just the kernel for the most part.

I fully agree with the general sentiment, but I find what you've said very funny considering that Windows being bloated to the brim with not only useless but also non-user-removable applications, requiring users to use special post-install tools in order to be able to get rid of them, has always been one of its most infamous staples and was even one of the first things that pushed me to Linux back in the day, which has always been exactly as you described - provides a minimal install, allows you to easily and completely remove any remaining non-useful stuff, and you can customize the fine details to your heart's content. What's not to love?

[ElectricPrism]

I am going to take a position that some are going to find controversial, I think Linux distros should not be shipped with anything other than a browser.

The one thing i always liked about Windows was that you got the base OS, kernel, HAL, APIs. some basic drivers, a basic text editor, some configuration utilities and that was pretty much it. You installed the drivers you want, the software you want, and would apply the upgrades you wanted with regards to drivers, APIs, and the software updates were the responsibility of the vendor.

With Linux that was turned on it's head, as each distro became its own self contained OS, each one shipped with its own kernel version, its own terminal version, its own DE release, they had their own maintained repository where all the software was build with different compile options.

With Ubuntu I just pick the minimum install, remove most of the stuff I don;t want and look for appimages of applications I use, such as Shotcut or Avidemux or Audacity, this way updates involve just the kernel for the most part.

The issues I take with your opinion are:

1. Windows is a example of "good"

2. Assuming we will always have The Internet to get more things.

3. Arch, Gentoo, and Debian Netboot/Mini (IIRC) basically already do this.

--

I'm fine with the whole "Minimal" install thing as long as the distributed ISOs keep to the old 1990s and 2000s style of having a copy of the additional software ready to install on the fly -- 1. for Archival reasons it's nice to have the exact versions of software from that exact time incase you need to ever modify exact files from that time. 2. The internet or the distribution mechanisms we have now may collapse or become illegal or replaced (as as the case in a current EU struggle from what I hear).

As long as we don't become overly dependent on 1 method i think we will be okay. Diversity is strength.

[gotar]

With Ubuntu I just pick the minimum install, remove most of the stuff I don;t want and look for appimages of applications I use, such as Shotcut or Avidemux or Audacity, this way updates involve just the kernel for the most part.

I've got a couple of dozens apps installed (not only the ones for daily use, but also some required once in a year - like some PDF editors or CAD) - you think it's better to waste hundreds of hours to search for them in the wild web, veryfying each one's origin (if it's not some malware-site), waiting when it happens that some random web server is down or downloading with modem speed?

Last time I've been installing 7-zip for windows it took me a while to recognize if it is not some malware site I'm using. Just check it yourself: https://7-zip.org.pl/sciagnij.html - each language in different domain. This is suspicious as hell!

Every single app download for Windows requires web research (checking the authors, possible forks). Unless you're some IT-ignorant always-YES-clicking zombie, i.e. the disease of Internet (being the main component of botnets), in which case you'd be better off not using computer online at all.

[CochainComplex]

I am going to take a position that some are going to find controversial, I think Linux distros should not be shipped with anything other than a browser.

The one thing i always liked about Windows was that you got the base OS, kernel, HAL, APIs. some basic drivers, a basic text editor, some configuration utilities and that was pretty much it. You installed the drivers you want, the software you want, and would apply the upgrades you wanted with regards to drivers, APIs, and the software updates were the responsibility of the vendor.

With Linux that was turned on it's head, as each distro became its own self contained OS, each one shipped with its own kernel version, its own terminal version, its own DE release, they had their own maintained repository where all the software was build with different compile options.

With Ubuntu I just pick the minimum install, remove most of the stuff I don;t want and look for appimages of applications I use, such as Shotcut or Avidemux or Audacity, this way updates involve just the kernel for the most part.

It depends on how you are going to get the software you want. If its the windowsway by searching on the web ..that's a huge disadvantage as pointed out by gotar. But if you start with a very minimal install and then you just apt-get your way through the desired packages I'm on your side.

[Inopia]

2024 will be the year of GIMP 3.0