On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:19:46PM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:
> 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  
> >application.
> >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.
i am sorry if my "tone" suggested this.  if i start a project like
gimpshop on my own and wanted the help of the gimp developers, i would
probably talk to them about how to go about having this project.  it is
part of what i think working together is.  perhaps it is that i have
expanded the definition too much for todays standards.  going on with
this idea though, if i started a project without seeing how to work with
the existing developers, probably i would continue to not want them to
intervene.  especially, if i had modified the sources in such an
unmaintainable way.

"i borrowed your car and i gave it an automatic tranmission for you,
don't worry about thanking me!"

please, do not do that to my car.  i am not going to do this to your
car--and, you do not have to thank me for that.

please, read my comments with the tone of respect for the way the
gimpshop development team has opted to work.

> 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.
i think you read wrongly, however, i read different things and perhaps i
read the wrong information.

i am personally against making gimp look like photoshop at all.  i speak
for myself however.  some of the gimp developers are now involved with
all these crazy usability forums where everyone is a usability expert
and lord knows, i really speak for myself now.

reasons i have to be against letting gimp look anything like photoshop
are mostly involving personal experiences where the gimp user can show
the photoshop user how to make it work and not the other way around.

even when i accidentally chose two splash made by photoshop:
i saw words used that would be in my opinion a real problem to
translate.  the word "pond" for instance, to describe ripple size.  in
gimp, a similar tutorial would suggest the value or number for the
similar gimp plug-in.  the numeric value is much more translateable and
ultimately understandable.  gimp is a learning tool and more and more
designed for ease in translation.  

all of the "converted" photoshop users of gimp who refuse to get it
without the photoshop spoon attest to gimps success in what it does.

personally, i would be disinterested in making it easier for photoshop
users unless i could make some money from it.

> For me Gimpshop is a way for me to introduce the Gimp to other  
> volunteers that I work with at a local non-profit.   We take in old  
> computers, refurbish them, use them to teach under-served kids in  
> grades 4-8 how to use computers, and then give the computers to the  
> students at the end of the session which last about 8 weeks.  The non- 
> profit already has a tremendous amount of material for teaching  
> Photoshop (my guess would be some pared-down version).  Plus  
> Photoshop is something the existing volunteers are very familiar  
> with.  However, because of technical, legal, and financial  
> constraints, we have decided to migrate to using and teaching Open  
> Source.  The Gimp seems to be a natural choices for image  
> manipulation, with the Gimpshop providing a smooth migration path  
> given our existing Photoshop infrastructure.  Sure, eventually we'll  
> migrate completely to the Gimp.  But for now, it's baby steps.
half a step is silly.

baby steps are really not useful.

you do not teach open source unless you also teach how to work with
developers if there is problems with understanding.

call this a baby step in "sorry the gimpshop web site has not enough
bandwidth, please contribute to that team so you can continue to take
your baby steps."

if there is not a smooth translation of use from photoshop to gimp (as
there is from gimp to photoshop) it is not the blame of the design of

> For me Gimpshop is also a way to learn about image manipulation.  I  
> know nothing about Photoshop nor the Gimp nor Gimpshop nor any other  
> image manipulation program.  (Actually, I used to know PaintShop pro,  
> but that was over a decade ago, so it may as well be as though I know  
> nothing.)  So, I decided to take an on-line course on Photoshop.  But  
> instead of using Photoshop I'm using Gimpshop.  So far, it has been  
> working pretty well.  I can follow along pretty closely, although  
> Gimpshop does do some things a bit differently, which is OK.  What's  
> really pleasant is that the forums have a nice mix of neophytes like  
> myself and pros, who help out us neophytes.  And us neophytes can  
> come up with some pretty basic questions.  But that's OK, too.  After  
> all it is a beginning course on Photoshop.
gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image
manipulation.  one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a
problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is a problem -- wherein are
the gimp design problems?

i have no idea what neophyte means.

i do know that open source might mean more than just making it easy for
you.  lots more.  it means, work with the existing developers or go off
on your own.  not what you are doing right now, which is forcing gimp
developers to work with you.  this will end soon, btw.

> Which brings us to resources.  The only resource I know of that is  
> specifically about Gimpshop is the Gimpshop website, which appears to  
> be little more than a blog.  There do not appear to be any forums or  
> mailing lists or IRC channels or on-line courses.  Just a download  
> link and a blog.  But as far as I can tell Gimpshop is not about  
> image manipulation, but rather about putting a Photoshop-like skin on  
> top of Gimp.  By putting a Photoshop-like skin on the Gimp, all the  
> resources that one normally uses for Photoshop (books, on-line  
> tutorials, forums, courses, co-workers, etc.) all become available to  
> Gimpshop users.  In addition to the Photoshop resources, in only  
> makes sense (at least it did to me) that all of the Gimp resources  
> become available, too, given that underneath Gimpshop runs the Gimp.
well, one of the baby steps the gimpshop people might be in need of or
interested in is for the users to figure it out and get the resources to
make tutorials and help documentation for their user groups.

the power of open source is in not "highjacking" an existing project.
well, except the people who took over the gimp-web project, but this is
a different story.  instead it is in pooling the resources of the
existing and excited user base.  people who want to give back and learn
and share.

taking up a collection to give the gimpshop developers enough bandwidth
might be a good start.  more of those baby steps, please!

> 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.
you managed to get some help from this list.  however, the gtk/gimp
developer who read the thread had to demand that you answer my
questions.  that is not open source btw, that is "open says me".  it is
different.  that is not a baby step into the right direction.

your challenge, as an open source advocate and also gimpshop user is to
combine your collective energy and make a set of documentation and user
based tutorials that reflect this "better for you gimp version".

> In summary, I like Gimpshop and the Gimp and have come to understand  
> that this forum is perhaps not a friendly place to mention Gimpshop.   
> OK.  Fair enough.  Them's the rules.  In the future I will refrain  
> from mentioning Gimpshop and make sure my questions and any answers I  
> give only pertain to the Gimp.
that is really cool.  can i borrow your car?


Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to