Sven Neumann wrote:
> In my opinion we should stick to this rule. It would make a lot of sense
> to make it easier for the user to locate our recommendations for binary
> packages. If user agent detection helps to remove one or two clicks,
> then I am fine with that. But if there's a download button on the
> front-page that directly instantiates the download, then we are
> effectively providing binary packages. It doesn't matter if the packages
> are hosted elsewhere. To the user it will appear as if we would provide
> the binaries.
I think opening in a new window/tab would be a strong indication that the user
is leaving the gimp site. Whether or not I agree with linking to direct
downloads will depend a lot on how fool proof and reliable the said binary turns
out to be. But if it does (as I'm sure it will) turn out to be solid, then I
don't really see a problem. Otherwise, I agree that cutting down on clicks is
still a good compromise.
We already get Gimpshop users coming to the mailing lists asking for help and,
far from being linked to, I don't think it's even mentioned on the website, so
I'm not sure the support thing is really in issue. You could paint it in red
letters on the front of the website and someone won't read them.
At the end of the day, we can always remove the links if they turn out to cause
Gimp-developer mailing list