[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2006-03-23 at 1032.39 +0200):
> Brendan writes:
>  > Please, oh Lord, someone fork Gimp.
> I can imagine the scenario: (This is a parody, not a flame)
> Someones forks GIMP, sets up a project on (say) SourceForge. He spends
> lots of effort on the project's web page. (He is a c00l web designer.)
> It has a long list of features that this forked GIMP will have. The
> small print at the bottom says "looking for developers".

Someone did it... but failed to fulfill completly your prophecy this
time, it seems they are already providing working code. ;]

Personally, I am pretty much tired of all the UI/change name/cosmetic
games, as what I see is lack of some interesting (oh, maybe I should
had said useful, otherwise the chat will spread even more into "that
is not needed" "yes it is" blah blah) features... yeah, other apps
have them, no, having those features does not mean copying the other
apps like a photocopier, yes, there a lots of bug reports filed or
people at least know about them (compositor graph, real media paint
tools, high bit depths...), and yes, it will probably make GIMP less
simple, but things can be streamlined to have no more complexity than
the necessary, no, there are no people working on it heavily, yes,
there is a sense of lack of staff and scaring away new people with
"new" ideas... see, the same rants over and over again. Boring.

It would be nicer if all these mails were about testing better paint
tools or 100+ layer images files (over 500MB memory usage) as I have a
stuck image that fits, and catching webs cos every time I look at it,
I wonder how I managed to get there, and then decide I am not in
masochist mood so move to something else. :]

I just remembered I had a small shot of the image in which one can
guess the layer stack size (yes, that is 1.2, last sessions were in
different machines, some had 2.x and one was still going with 1.2):

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to