> I strongly disagree. It is a lot more convenient to pick a
> brush of the right size from a list of brushes than to 
> always scale the brush.

I guess we have drastically different usages of brushes though.
I NEVER use a "brush of exactly 17 pixels". In fact, a brush of
"exactly 17 pixels" is pretty much useless to me. Most people
go by a visual cue instead of specific values, and you can't
see the exact size of the brushes in the list in the first place.

> Also we simply can't remove the standard brushes
> because that would
> break lots of scripts. As long as there's no way to
> resize brushes from
> scripts, we have to keep the standard brushes with their
> names.

This is a whole different reason though. 

> > The advantage of a good default is a good first-time
> impression,
> > and offering greater out-of-the-box functionality to
> those who
> > don't know better.
> Sure, that's why we keep asking for someone to improve
> the collection of default brushes collection in GIMP 
> for some years now. So far there hasn't been much interest. 
> We also don't have a maintainer for the gimp-data-extras package.

It's not going to help if you oppose every attempt to help
instead of welcoming at least a step in the right direction.

Goodbye. I'm making my own ideal distribution and replacing
the default one with it with every new install.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to