I/we are already users and contributors to the ImageMagick and
GraphicsMagick projects as well as the GIMP. Both of those programs and the
GIMP have certain key strengths and weaknesses with respect to each other,
such that they are certainly not direct substitutes in *many* respects.
That was certainly the case with our previous need regarding command line
execution of a Gimp script under Windows. For another example, the GIMP can
handle the size of our larger image files under Windows, while IM and GM
still cannot. (IM and GM pixel representation in memory is always at least
40 bit (8x5), while the GIMP allows 8 bit memory representation, allowing
roughly 5 times more pixels to be manipulated under Windows).
It is utterly ridiculous that simply because I voiced concerns about and
would like for the ability to have gimp scripts execute properly from the
command line under Windows that you accuse me of "making the GIMP suck".
The suggestions that I offered earlier this evening were only thrown out for
consideration, and I didn't try to force those down anyone's throat. All
that I asked was that GIMP developers try to give adequate consideration to
the needs of Windows based gimp users rather than selecting an
implementation that I was worried might have an adverse impact.
Some bias towards Linux and other Unix based systems is completely
understandable and acceptable to everyone. We all appreciate the
deficiencies of Windows and its poor record of adhering to standards (though
there are *many* similar examples in the *nix world as well). We also
appreciate that the Linux community is making the biggest share of
contributions to the GIMP development effort.
What I don't appreciate, is your apparent lack of sympathy towards users who
have *no* choice but to run under Windows (for any of numerous reasons) and
who simply desire to use the gimp (just as you claim to), and to help
enhance it to meet *their* needs, just as you enhance it to meet your own
needs under Linux. The gimp is an open source product, and is also
supported and developed by Windows users, not just *nix heads. So what
gives you the right to presume that only *nix developers can own and control
the GIMP (as your comments seem to imply), and to ignore the needs of
Windows based users and the feedback and proposals of Windows based
Your statements seem to imply that any user or organization who doesn't like
the lack of certain GIMP features under Windows can just switch right over
to Linux at a moments notice, and that simply is NOT the case in many
situations. For example, in our own situation, we use several extremely
complex, industry specific technical applications that simply do not exist
for Linux. Other programs that we use do have Linux counterparts, but would
require numerous man years of retraining, redevelopment of supporting
applications, and data conversion in order to switch over, and many are
*very* expensive applications that are *not* public domain, even under
Linux, which we cannot afford to replace. Also, we can't afford a bunch of
duplicate hardware to run both operating systems in parallel, nor can our
work flows stand the wasted time of constantly rebooting to switch between
applications running under the different operating systems. From an
ideological standpoint, we would *love* to switch to Linux, immediately!!!
>From a practicality and expense standpoint, we just can't do it, and there
are many other folks in exactly the same boat. To presume otherwise is to
assume that you know everyone else's business better than they do, and I
guarantee that you do NOT.
Our view seems to be quite different from yours. We believe that Windows
based GIMP users should be able to make contributions (which BTW include
comments and suggestions) that allow the gimp to work as effectively for us
under Windows as it does for other folks under Linux, and *of course* at the
same time not to do anything that would adversely impact Linux users.
Apparently there are lots of other gimp users and contributors who feel the
same way as we do. What doesn't seem right is that *some* Linux based
developers don't seem to have any problem implementing features in such a
way that it precludes effective use under Windows when it doesn't need to,
or reject proposed development efforts by others that would benefit Windows
users simply because there is no perceived benefit to the *nix community.
I'm not saying at all that has happened in this specific instance regarding
the issues that I raised earlier this evening and the subsequent discussion.
What I am saying Carol, is that some of you appear to be having a rather
knee jerk reaction against someone else who is merely trying to help the
GIMP better support the operating system that they are using, no different
than anyone else who might happen to be using some other OS. If the
approach that I suggested won't work or will cause real problems under
another OS, that's fine. But what isn't fine is to say in essence "we don't
care about Windows users and contributors, and we're not going to listen to
their input", which is basically what I got out of your reply.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carol Spears" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Kevin Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "GIMPDev"
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The
Mark Shuttleworth offer)
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 09:26:23PM -0600, Kevin Myers wrote:
> > Admittedly, the Windows command prompt (not simply Explorer) is less
> > than most *nix command shells. However, there are also a very large
> > of Windows based GIMP users, and one of the requirements of GIMP 2.x is
> > it should be as usable under Windows as it is on other operating
> > I'm not familiar with R5RS, and you could certainly be right in your
> > regarding that. However, as a Windows GIMP user (and much more rarely a
> > GIMP bug, patch, fix, and enhancement contributor), I want to make sure
> > there isn't excessive *nix bias that inhibits or ignores usability needs
> > under Windows.
> TheGIMP only exists for Windows(TM) because at the time, linux and
> scanners were not working so well together. The GNU/Linux bias is a
> fact. It is the only reason it exists.
> > For example, in one past case, I wanted to run a simple GIMP script from
> > Windows command shell, and there wasn't one single person (Sven and
> > else included), who was able to tell me how to arrange the quoting to
> > the script to run along with the required parameters. That level of
> > disfunctionality is not acceptable, and should be eliminated, even if it
> > means doing something like "abandoning" (or modifying) certain *nix
> > standards for the Windows version of the GIMP.
> To avoid problems like this, linux developers are fairly good at
> following standards and all sorts of acronyms like api's and rtfm's --
> there are more, i cannot remember them.
> Writing web pages for internet explorer is very limiting and not fun as
> they have not adhered to browser standards. Are you making TheGIMP suck
> like this?
> > Obviously though, I do realize the strong need to minimize any such
> > Windows-specific behavior, and that any such differences should receive
> > great deal of very careful consideration before implementation. In the
> > however, I feel that the scale may have been tipped slightly too far
> > Windows on such issues.
> GNU/Linux is supporting scanners really well now. Perhaps you might be
> more interested in helping the Image Magick project as they have been
> running better from the command linue than from the GUI for years. It
> is available on Windows(TM) also.
Gimp-developer mailing list