On 11/15/2010 07:53 PM, g...@catking.net wrote:
> On 11/15/10 19:01, Ofnuts wrote:
>>> There was a project gathering usage statistics on an earlier version
>>>>   of Gimp, maybe they have some data on that?
>>>>   Or make the filers crash when used and see if anyone complains:-) 
>>>> :-)
>> I did that  a long time ago to clean up a disk full of obsolete
>> utilities. Got very few requests to put some things back:-)
> That is really a pretty perverted logic.
> Due to the all too common lack of repect for backwards compatibility in
> Linux world most people either conclude that a feature is
> broken/disappeared and live with it or they just conclude that they
> can't remember how to do it..

If you look at the 3.0 specs a lot more people are going to be surprised 
by the new UI than  by the absence of some filters. And I'm not 
advocating to remove anything either, just to move it to optional packages.

> The percentage of users that actually take the trouble to search for
> help, subscribe to a list and post a bug report is very small.  Hardly a
> useful way of polling the user base.
>>>>   As for, which filter to use on a photograph, it depends on the
>>>>   photograph, on the lighting that was used, on the subject matter...
>> Yes, proper filtering requires a lot of education. And there is little
>> pupose of giving people a whole toolbox (that they have to carry
>> around)  if they don't know how/why they could use some of the tools 
>> inside.
> Little "pupose" except _education_ . One sure way to make sure users
> stay uneducated and don't know how/why to use the tools is to remove 
> them !

See above about optional packages. And I am not convinced that the 
intractable VanGogh or the pre-cooked Alpha-to-Logo filters are very 

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to