On Sun, 28 May 2006, Julian Oliver wrote:
> ..on Wed, May 24, 2006 at 09:34:25PM +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 May 2006, Paul Bloch wrote:
> > > Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 23:55:17 -0400
> > > From: Paul Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: GIMPUser <Gimpemail@example.com>
> > > Subject: [Gimp-user] Gimp bundled with Computer Arts
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > > So I don't know if everyone already knows this but I've seen Gimp bundled
> > > with Computer Arts magazine's (computerarts.co.uk) CD a few times now.
> > > For
> > > those of you who don't know Computer Arts is a very popular design
> > > magazine
> > > with awesome tutorials. Has anybody heard back from them or designers that
> > > have used the software? I'm willing to follow up and ask them about it.
> > > It
> > > would be great to hear from a large base of pro designers about Gimp.
> > "Pro designers" you mispelled "pro developers with patches or lots of
> > sponsorship money" :P
> > I'd be very surprised if readers of Computer Arts magazine had any new
> > comments that haven't already been discussed on the mailing list or
> > discussed.
> > Did they include any kind of a review? Based on their past comments I'd
> > expect lots of criticism for not being more like photoshop. Generally
> > they do complain about programs for not copying or doing better than the
> > market leaders.
> > They probably also neglected to mention features like PSPI which allows
> > Photoshop plugins to be used, and didn't mention the photoshop style
> > keybindings which can be found in psmenurc.
> Along with valid criticisms, like that of Gimp's focus model under,
> which (by default) continues to frustrate those that both have and
> haven't had experience with Photoshop. You know, where clicking on your
> maximised image instantly 'hides' the most critical component of
> application functionality, the Tools panel itself.
> I wouldn't be so hasty as to arrogantly flip-off criticisms from
> Computer Arts magazine.
If you are accusing me of being hasty or arrogant then you would be
totally wrong. Read my comments more closely. Then read my comments over
the past few years including regular suggestions things should more
closely follow photoshop.
Point is most things that can be said have been said already, and I doubt
Computer Arts have anything much to add since they last reviewed Gimp 2.x
between 12-18 months ago. It would be great if the original comment had
included some detail of whatever review/criticsm the magazine provided.
> If they are including the Gimp on their Magazine CD, then all the better
> for us.
Well yes and no. More developers is what is really needed. More users
are unlikely to say much that hasn't been said already (although some of
is worth repeating) and if they have comments and criticisms it would be
helpful if they would comment on the mailing list and file bug reports or
> Furthermore their criticisms are important whether you like them or not.
I largely agree with a lot of their criticisms and have been trying to
pass on the sentiment on various occasions. Their failure to publicise
features their readers would appreciate is only partly their fault, and
for example I would very much like for it to be possible to select the
psmenurc from within the preferences dialog and it would be great if PSPI
could be included by default (but licensing issues might prevent that).
> They have influence on the propogation of the Gimp amongst users
> otherwise unaware of it's presence altogether, free software hundreds of
> people have worked on.
The importance of open standards was discussed in another thread, in in
that case more users helps reinforce a standard. The other perceived
benefit of more users is more contributors but that doesn't seem to have
work out with the development team staying about the same size for many
years (hopefully the summer of code students will stick around after they
are finished their projects).
Gimp-user mailing list