On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 01:57:29PM +0100, Julian Oliver wrote:
> thanks carol, for your verbose response.
> yes of course the splash can be changed, but when software's being evaluated
> i guess uni's like to take what is offered, on the surface.
> i for instance run gimp with --no-splash option, as the splash itself isn't
> that important to me.
> "FOSS" or not (your distinction seems a bit muddled there), what i'd
> like to see is students increasingly trained in free and open-alternatives,
> so they can legally afford to pursue work in the graphic design field.
> that they can do this on the Linux operating system and have the right
> to contribute patches and scripts is even better.
an application that starts life to be an almost seamless replacement for
existing applications is different than one that started because the
original code writers did not want to steal and had access to the same
algorithms to manipulate pixels (and other things) with are two
different things. OSS tends to be used to talk about a pool of
software, many of which are very different than gimp. the distinction
was already muddled in the acronym FOSS before i used it in this mail.
your complaints are part of the muddling that happened before this email
is exchanged. if you would like to unmuddle it for me, feel free to do
really, for some projects a phrase like "this works just like
_other_appliction_name_here_" is a compliment. for gimp, it is an
accident (usually) and never intended. OSS does not differentiate
between the two.
> at some point, within a university structure, this does mean that the
> software needs to be offered up as a valid alternative to existing
> proprietary tools. "which software will we spend hundreds of hours
> teaching kids to use?", is the question that is asked.
well, if we can ever make it easier to install gimp than it is to steal
photoshop, it will be a step in the right direction. teaching kids how
to work starts long before they get to the university.
> i know Gimp is a valid alternative, and more than just an alternative;
> i switched from Photoshop to the Gimp around 7 years ago.
> those that don't know this however will tend to rely on superficial
> impressions, as within the proprietary software world, such impressions
> are often sadly a measure of good software from bad. even after
> demonstrating the software and going through the Gimp book, several
> still arrived at the conclusion the Gimp "doesn't look like something
> professionals use".
well, if they do not like the splash there is a chance they will not
like all of the online documentation or the gui or the _fillinthisblank_
either and should just keep on stealing photoshop. it is a personality
> a great advantage of open-source software is that it doesn't rely on
i would like to know if there are any instances of people being paid to
*not* work on gimp.
> for it's success in distribution; lipstick on the packaging just isn't
> necessary for wide appeal.
> regardless, open-source software as good as the Gimp inevitably comes up
> as an alternative to it's proprietary peers - the 'look' of the
> application would not normally matter if it weren't for the fact it's
> competing (passively) in the posh art and design arena. like it or not,
> that is where a large chunk of Gimp's future, and current, userbase lies.
interesting. can you define passive?
you know, you could have sold gimp to me so easily this way:
me> yuck! what is up with that splash
you> yeah! you think that is bad, you should see the tutorial the guy
submitted with it (then show this url with the quote at the
me> awesome! how do you install it
the winning splash was made by a complaining twit! it was perfect on so
many levels! two developers had to email personally and request that
the tutorial requirement be fullfilled. this gallery is full of real
artists that way. every last one of them is a pita to deal with. it is
all there. and with gimp, somedays, it is the best you are going to
the suit. the clean professional splash, all that -- it means "don't
talk to me or question me?" or what?
> perhaps i should ask the question from another direction:
> do you see any harm in users being let into the voting process? or, do you
> think that
> this might result in a Splash that doesn't represent the Gimp the way
> you think it should ("everything being made to look so clean and sharp").
> surely that would make the contest even more fun ;)
there was so much discussion elsewhere about how adding the requirement
for the tutorial ended all fun and enthusiasm, it is difficult for me to
think that being able to vote for splash would have overcome all of that
fully justified critisism.
this is a special splash and a special release. it was picked by people
who have been involved for almost the whole ten years. how many
applications can have a celebration for 10 years like that?
i fully admit, i probably had the most fun of anyone with this contest.
it involved a lot of not fun activities as well but overall, the way this
group of people always has worked is to take what we got and use just that
with no promises that cannot be lived up to.
> .. you'd probably get a alot more entries too.
i am going to let you in on a staff secret. the rules of this contest
and the way it worked were devised so that we would not have more than
20 or 30 things to look at. we failed. instead we got over eighty
entries and mistakes were easier to make. as it is, i still have about
60 little archives there to look at.
did you miss the whole celebration?
Gimp-user mailing list