On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, GSR - FR wrote:

> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:48:23 +0200
> From: GSR - FR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject: [Gimp-developer] [iso-8859-1] D?j? vu? (Re: Why be c[iso-8859-1]
>     ryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions')
>
> Hi,
> [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. ;]
> http://seashore.sourceforge.net/

The web pages do say last updated February 2006 and for Mac addicts who
absolutely must have the standard Mac style menubar it might still provide
something useful and it looks like they may have kept things largely
compatible.

> Personally, I am pretty much tired of all the UI/change name/cosmetic
> games,

Could more be done to allow these cosmetic changes without forks being
necessary?  I recall work was done to make it easier to make menu changes
without needing a recompile and this was a great idea but Sven point
blank rejected even the possibility of accepting patches which might
rebranding easier.

It was a shame people rushed to brand Gimpshop a fork, as opposed to an
interesting hack (which is how the author described it) and an opportunity
to get attract another developer to help out.  Perhaps it is not too late
to encourage him to remake the changes in a more maintainable way rather
than continuing to berate the author for his efforts.

This doesn't even include the patches and changes distributions make to
their version of the GIMP which I doubt they really want the extra hassle
of maintaining.

> 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

Looking at the GIMP, the GIMP Animation Package, gimp-perl, gimp-python,
gimp-data-extras, pspi and the wealth of third part plugins out there
people could already create lots of quite different installations of the
GIMP or different distributions, setup by default to serve lots of
slightly different audiences.  (Does the windows version of the gimp
include exactly the same plugins?  I think it used to include one or two
extras like the Resythesizer plugin.)

Would doing a Firefox on the GIMP be a good move?  If mainline
GIMP was slimmed down further would that be a good thing?  (Just in terms
of disk usage GImpressionist, Gfig and Gflare add quite a bit of extra
bulk.)  Maybe this would be more hassle than it is worth?

> 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):
> http://www.infernal-iceberg.com/gimp/tmp/hs129-layers-and-miniview.png

Sorry, I'm not sure exactly what detail in this screenshot you are
pointing out.

Later

Alan H.
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to