On Thursday 29 March 2007 07:22, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
>    We already direct users to recomendeded binaries, and as long as
> we continue to be clear that we don't build those binaries
> ourselves, why should we not make it easier to reach those?
> Because whatever disclaimers etc. you use, users will see the
> binaries as coming from the GIMP project, and will blame you if
> there are any download problems or corrupted (or trojaned!)
> binaries.

Just then - who will they blame if a binary from gimp-win crashes? 
The names and e-mails for complaint may be the ones in the gimp-win 
page, but on the users mind, the program that failed is the GIMP.

Back on the thread topic - when lecturing about the GIMP, the 
instructions I give for windows downloading are something 
like "google for Gimp Windows Download". 

Having a download link straight from GIMP .or gmaybe could be a nice 
thing, but it is not the most important. There is the issue of 
needing to download the GTK+ installer as well - and the instructions 
ofr that - so it is not only linking to the GIMPwin installer from 

However - (I am reviewing now), a user trying to download the GIMP for 
windows now, starting from gimp.org has to go through:

And then grab the gtk+, and gimp win binaries. And all those pages are 
in English only - (most people in my target audiences are not 
proeficient enough in English - so, just imagine all those pages are 
in some language you don't understand, and you will see it is rather 
unprobable that one would click on the correct links at each of then)

Regardless of providing a direct link to the binaries, I think that a 
direct link from gimp.org/downloads to a page with the same 
instructions and links that live currently live in 
gimp-win.sourceforge.net/stable.html is a must. 

Discussing the i18n of some or all of these pages would be OT here, 
but that is of concern to me as well.


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to