On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:06:29 -0800, "Robin Rowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It looks like you have a bad opinion
> > of the GIMP developers, but I hope that you will change your mind....
> Although it doesn't improve my opinion that you lead with a personal attack
> misrepresenting my throughts, I do not in general have a "bad opinion" of
> GIMP developers. I do find some highhanded in seeking to direct me, who am
> not a GIMP developer, in how I spend my time.
I am sorry that you took this as a personal attack, because this
was definitely not my intention. I am usually more careful when I
post something, but I was probably a bit too fast when I wrote my last
message. But I hope that you can understand my reaction, since the
original version of your page gave a rather negative image of the GIMP
developers (this may not have been intentional, but that is the
feeling that I had after reading the page). Thanks for updating the
page. Actually, I should also thank you for creating that page in the
first place (I should have thanked you in my previous message already)
because it contains some useful information for those who are not
aware of the existence of the various versions (GIMP, Film Gimp and
GIMP+GEGL) or ports (Windows and MacOS).
> > This is wrong. The plan was that Film Gimp and GIMP would merge
> > around version 2.0 (you can check the gimp-dev mailing list archives
> > from 2000 for some statements about that).
> I wasn't there, and only have the word of the original Film Gimp developers
> to go by. I have searched the archives and, except for complaints about it
> being difficult to locate or build, have found nothing about the HOLLYWOOD
> branch or Film Gimp.
> If you can produce any message from the archives to support your contention
> I would be interested to see it.
Hmmm... It looks like I was wrong. The message that I had read
before writing that paragraph was from Adam, but he did not mention
anything about merging the projects; he just said that GIMP 2.0 would
have 16-bit support (and made a fun comment about the release date):
: Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:55:42 +0100
: From: "Adam D. Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Subject: Re: 16 bit Gimp and 1.2 codebase
: Since no-one else has replied I think I'd just have to say
: "ain't gonna happen". The 1.1.x codebase has drifted from the
: HOLLYWOOD GIMP to an unreconcilable degree -- 16-bit support
: will be part of GIMP 2.0 (ETA summer 2009) or would have to be
: reimplimented from scratch or otherwise hacked up for 1.3 (unlikely).
So I was wrong on that part. I thought that I had also seen something
about this in the reports from GimpCon2000, but this is not the case
either. My last chance to keep a straight face would be some
discussions on IRC or some medium that is not archived. ;-) But
maybe not... I still have a chance! :-) I found several messages
posted in 2000 and 2001 claiming that Film Gimp (which was also called
Gimp16 until June 2000) was already based on GEGL. Although this is
not correct, this was repeated a few times. For example, in a message
by Jon Winters on the gimp-dev list in June 2000 or in a message
posted in comp.graphics.apps.gimp last year. Also, the film.gimp.org
page has mentioned GEGL since June 2000, saying that it was the future
of the GIMP, but without saying that it was not used yet by Film Gimp.
This is probably what caused the incorrect interpretation of the
following messages regarding GEGL, GIMP and Film Gimp.
> > Recently, I have asked for more cooperation between the two teams so
> > that the projects do not diverge too much.
> Film Gimp forked at GIMP 1.0.4. When you say "not diverge too much" do you
> mean to suggest that GIMP has changed little since 1.0.4?
No, but on the previous version of your Film Gimp home page, one of
the top goals was to bring Film Gimp in sync with GIMP-1.2.3 (this has
been removed now). Since some GIMP contributors (including myself)
suggested that you aim for 1.3.x instead of 1.2.x, I was hoping that
the two projects would be closer to each other in the not-too-distant
Actually, it is that goal on the Film Gimp home page (getting closer
to 1.2.3) that prompted me to start this thread for encouraging
exchanges between the two projects. When I saw 1.2.3 as your target
and I saw that your list of goals contained some features (Windows
port, macro recorder, GUI redesign) that were also planned or already
done for GIMP 1.3.x or 1.9.x, I thought that it would be better to
suggest that you try to move closer to 1.3.x so that the work on the
development of these new features could be shared by both teams
instead of being implemented differently in each project.
But now I regret this, because I see that the only result of my
suggestion is that the goal of being closer to GIMP-1.2.3 has been
removed from the Film Gimp page, and there were some explicit
statements on the Film Gimp mailing list saying that a merge between
both projects will never happen. This is probably due to some
misunderstandings on each side and some discussions that were not
diplomatic enough, but the result is unfortunately exactly the
opposite of what I was hoping for.
> > I don't think that anybody
> > has said that Film Gimp should cease to exist.
> Not in those exact words, rather that we should stop wasting our time on it
> and get behind GIMP instead.
Maybe you understood it in that way, and maybe this is the feedback
that you got from some people. But my suggestion was to move Film
Gimp closer to the GIMP (since you already had a similar goal on your
page) and try to share a common codebase in the future, even if the
user interface could be different. On the other hand, I also wrote
that moving towards GIMP-1.3.x would give you the Windows port for
free and that re-doing the port from the older codebase was a
duplication of effort, but this still does not mean or imply that I
would like Film Gimp to cease to exist.
There was unfortunately some misunderstanding and over-reaction on
both sides. :-(
> > "The GIMP group has a reputation for being unfriendly to operating
> > systems other than Linux."
> > This is also wrong.
> GIMP has documented no official position on what operating systems it
That's right. The official position is probably along the lines of:
"we should try to support any OS that is supported by GTK+". This has
been mentioned several times, for instance in a message posted by
Mitch in July 2000 about the MacOS X version.
> I don't want to misrepresent individuals by reporting a subjective
> impression of a group, and have rectified that. Regarding your comments
> about the Windows version of GIMP in the same paragraph, I am checking
Thanks! I think that the sentence describing some GIMP developers as
being "very hostile to Microsoft users" is inaccurate because I did
not see any hostility from any actual developer (only from some
users), but this is better than the previous version.
> > So the developers are really open to all operating
> > systems (otherwise, there would be no version for Windows, MacOS,
> > FreeBSD, Solaris, IRIX and even the venerable OS/2).
> Are the FreeBSD, Solaris, IRIX and OS/2 efforts truly internal to GIMP,
> treated more like a cousin as with GimpWin, or totally independent efforts
> like MacGimp and Film Gimp?
The OS/2 version has not given any sign of life recently (since
1.1.25). But the other operating systems such as *BSD, Solaris, IRIX
and others have always been supported as well as Linux (well, at least
I can speak for the Solaris version because I have been using all GIMP
versions since 0.54 on Solaris). They are built from the same source
code, using the same build system.
The Windows port is also built from the same source code, but it has
some specific parts. One of the advantages of moving to GTK+ 2.0 is
that some OS-specific parts are now handled by GTK+ and do not have to
be implemented differently in the GIMP.
> I only find Linux, Solaris, and Windows binaries on ftp.gimp.org. Where on
> the GIMP Web site is the documenation for Solaris, FreeBSD, Mac, IRIX, and
Well, there is no documentation for Linux either. ;-) The pages
"About The Gimp" and "System Requirements" only mention the need for a
Unix-like operating system, so this includes several of the systems
mentioned above. The ports to OS/2 and MacOS X are also mentioned on
these pages (with some links).
> > It is true that the Mac version is not advertised as much as the other
> > versions (although it is linked from the GUG page), but you can find a
> > lot of information about it on http://www.macgimp.org/.
> No, I couldn't find any. The "about" link was broken when I checked, and is
> now gone entirely. In looking again I did find the mailing list for them
You are probably refering to the "about" link on macgimp.com, not
macgimp.org? In any case, it is true that several of their links are
broken (on both sites) and it is not easy to find a good summary of
the information about the MacOS port. When I mentioned that you can
"find a lot of information about it", I was refering to the news
articles on macgimp.org and the XDarwin forum that is linked from that
> > So Calvin
> > Williamson and Caroline Dahllof started to work on GEGL in order to
> > support 16 bits per channel and floating-point channels. This will be
> > used as the core code for pixel operations in GIMP 2.0. That has been
> > planned since the beginning, and it was summarized in December 2000
> > when Sven and Mitch posted their "future plans" to the gimp-developer
> > mailing list. A copy of that message can be found here:
> > http://developer.gimp.org/gimp-future
> There is no mention of the HOLLYWOOD branch or Film Gimp in that document.
> GEGL is not Film Gimp.
Correct. That part of my reply was related specifically to your
description of the relation between the GIMP and GEGL, so I mentioned
GEGL only, not Film Gimp. However, you should also keep in mind that
GEGL was developed by some of the same people who worked on the
HOLLYWOOD branch and that before GimpCon2000 (during which Caroline
Dahllof gave more information about both projects), several people
were confusing the two projects.
Thanks for updating the page and for discussing these issues. And
again, please accept my apologies for my previous message, which was
probably sent too quickly.
P.S.: The last 3 messages that I sent to the filmgimp-developer list
have not appeared on that list, although I get the other
messages. Do you know what could be causing that and how I
could fix it? I would have prefered to send my reply to you on
the filmgimp list only, but once again it looks like only the
copy that I CC'ed to the gimp-dev list was delivered.
Gimp-developer mailing list