On Thursday 02 March 2006 08:19, Geoffrey wrote:
> > Because Gimshop has generated more excitement than the Gimp ever has and
> > certain people might be a little ruffled?
> Who are you kidding? Why don't you simply take your trolling elsewhere.
> I've been using gimp for years now, never had an interest in using it
> in a windows environment, never will. I'm not interested in seeing GIMP
> emulate Photoshop.
You don't like what I say, so it's trolling?
Are you that insecure? I have used Gimp for years, mostly in Linux, but also
in Windows. I even owned a school that taught Gimp in a class. So, you could
say that I am a bit of a cheerleader.
I don't give a rat's that you don't like my opinion, because it's something I
hear often...comparisons and wishes about it and PS.
> Then let them stay with Photoshop if their issue is such. They want
> their cake and eat it too. They want GIMP price, but they don't want to
> learn a better interface.
You say better...
I think we have reached the limit of your ability to converse thoughtfully in
> > fortunately or unfortunately. It's a shame that Gimpshop as a project
> > isn't really much in the way of structure, but why not rip it off and
> > inspire them to get better? Make fun of them until they change? Write a
> > guide for people to make Gimpshop "proper" for inclusion, and heck, even
> > I might give it a shot.
> You can not fix the way it was created. That is the issue at hand. As
> other's have noted, the creator of GIMPSHOP has created confusion by not
> following the accepted protocol for forking an application. He/she
> should have made reasonable attempts to work with the existing
> developers. As it is, it's a poor and confusing hack.
Oh well, it's done, so let's take what it generated and try to bring something
positive out of it. Trying to surf the wave of interest would be NICE.
Gimp-user mailing list