On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:19:46PM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:
> Hello Carol,
> On Feb 25, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Carol Spears wrote:
> >first thing. in keeping with the spirit of how gimpshop came to be, i
> >am curious if there are separate online resources for this
> >they opted (probably for really good reasons) to go on their own to
> >provide software for what is probably a large group of users.
> >perhaps you could list gimpshop resources here so that the gimp users
> >can redirect the gimpshop questions to the proper place.
> >personally, i do not want to interfer with them. they filled a nitch
> >and did this without the gimp developers. i suspect they had really
> >good reasons to do this. it would be wrong, in my opinion, to
> >start to
> >help them now -- keeping with the spirit of their project.
> From your writing tone, I sense a bit of a rift between Gimp and
> Gimpshop. I find that odd given that I did not sense it at the
> Gimpshop site. While there I heard nothing but praise and references
> back to Gimp.org, but admittedly I didn't set out to find animosity.
The guy who did Gimpshop decided to do his own thing, and didn't consult
the community at all before doing it. Since he didn't engage the
community and those who actually know the code best, he did it in a
completely stupid fashion technically. He forked the code.
Completely ignoring the developers and the community to begin with
generates a fair amount of animosity.
> From what I have read, Gimpshop is the Gimp with a "skin" to make it
> a bit more like Photoshop. From using it myself I would have to say
> that is a fair assessment. No question, Gimpshop is not Photoshop,
> nor did I expect it to be. I expected it to be the Gimp with a
> twist, which, as far as I can tell, it is.
Nope. It's not a "skin". It's a code fork. It could have been a skin,
but either the Gimpshop guy didn't know how (and didn't bother to ask),
or he maliciously decided to make a name for himself on the work of
others, with doing very little work himself. Oh, and on top of that, beg
> As for providing help, that is entirely a personal choice. If you
> feel that by helping me you are helping them over at Gimpshop and you
> feel strongly about not helping them over at Gimpshop for whatever
> reason, then do not help me. That's OK. To me image manipulation is
> just a hobby. It's fun. It's challenging. It's something new for
> me to learn. It's something for me to show my family and friends. I
> enjoy Open Source for the same reasons. It's fun. It's
> challenging. It's a way to develop a community of users and friends.
Except Gimpshop divides this community. So by supporting it, you're
contributing to making the community not fun for other users and
friends. Is that what you want to do?
How about instead of promoting a someone who doesn't understand how free
software works, and doesn't actually understand what he's doing
technically, actually work with people who know what they're doing to
see something you desire? The idea of a photoshop skin isn't a bad one,
but the way Gimpshop went about was absolutely horrible.
Gimp-user mailing list