On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:00:41PM +0200, Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote:
> Le 03.06.2004 14:27:08, Sven Neumann a ?crit?:
> >it's about seven weeks since we branched the CVS tree and there is  
> >now
> >a first development snapshot of GIMP 2.1 available from ftp.gimp.org
> >and it's mirrors:
> >
> >   http://gimp.org/downloads/#mirrors
> >
> >This is an unstable development release. It certainly has bugs and
> >there are a number of unfinished hacks. We are nevertheless  
> >interested
> >in your feedback and would like you to file bug reports for crashes
> >and non-obvious problems.
> >
> [ ... ]
> I've built the cvs several time, just to see if I have everything  
> needed on my system.
> After the incoming of gtk-2.4 on Debian sid, everything went fine...  
> about compilation and run.
> I've anyway a couple of question :
> 1 - localization : I've not found the way the localization is done (if  
> done) with the new xml menu structure.
> 2 - gtk-2.4 file chooser : I've not found the way to enter a filename  
> from the keyboard but only a graphical, "mouse friendly" menu. Is there  
> a way to select a file in a classical way ? With the previous versions,  
> it was easy, even the gtk+ completion was fine.
still not fixed.

it is not easier.  it has some cool new features, yet this file selector
is dictating how people work.

any suggestions?

my suggestion is that configurability for the old way the file selector
worked be added.  since for whatever reason it needs to be "simpler" for
new users, this can be something that is added to the file selector via
editing the configuration files, the way a few different operating
systems used to do it.

a certain amount of expertise and the desire to have the old way working
again -- and the cool linux originated app would have its
configurability back.

also, it would make certain corporations look less responsible for
mangling perfectly good software.

better yet, everyone put the credit where it belongs and when changes
are made that are so against the overall nature of what made the
software strong and good to begin with, well, if it is so good, put your
own name on it and do with it what you will.  keeping the gimp's name on
a tool kit that spits in the eye of its origins is perhaps a sin?

it smells of lack of pride of the people who did it. i know the
individuals, and i think there is nothing wrong with them or the name.
they should be as proud of themselves as i am to know them and have
worked with them and put their own name on their software.

all this time, who should feel the shame?


Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to