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 Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
