On 6/25/07, Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 24 June 2007, John Meyer wrote:
> > somebody actually puts together some numbers we're going to continue to
> > scratch our heads as to why the GIMP is not as well accepted as we think
> > it should be.
> I won't be scratching my head and wondering. I know why. Just a chunk of the
> mailing list wants to pretend it's something else.

And another chunk wants to pretend that anything will happen without
someone (not them!!!?!?!!) deciding to make it happen, rather than
flailing their fingers on the keyboard in order to properly(?) enjoy
beating a dead horse.
If you can't or won't make it happen, don't subject people to moaning
about the unsatisfactoriness of the situation.

The basics of this subject (which has been visited OVER and OVER and
OVER again) appear to be people disagreeing on what is normal (THEM,
of course. Aren't they normal, huh?). Doesn't the fact that it happens
repeatedly without any significant change suggest that no-one's got
any particularly compelling arguments? It seems plain to me that John
is correct: this discussion is futile until there is organized
evidence to point to, either way.

It does seem to me also, that there is a clear case to be made that
you should choose the good because it is good, rather than rejecting
the bad because it is bad. Protesters have never struck me as
effective in the slightest; certainly no-one respects them. People who
actually do something, OTOH..

In my view, the main thing that could be improved about the GIMP's
name is it's verbability -- 'gimping' is awkward to say. But I also
think that most good candidates have been taken already -- 'ixing' is
the only possibility I see in that area. (which is a bit of maths --
i(x) where i is an image and x is a modifier. With the advantage that
it could also be pronounced 'nine'.</silly>)
Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to