On Monday 09 July 2007 00:11:09 Axel Wernicke wrote:
> Hi list,
> answering this kind of questions and explainig why exactly we can not
> support GimpShop is a waste of time and done again and again and again...
> ... This clearly is a F.A.Q, which should we be able to answer by politely
> providing a link to an FAQ entry on gimp.org. This could save us lots of
> time which could be much better spend in further GIMP developement.
> So how about we put together the top ten arguments to the ten questions
> that is the most time wasted on the list(s)? This way we could shorten the
> "discussions" about "Why the GimpShop is not GIMP", "What we think about
> the Single Window Interface", "Why GIMP is proud of its name" and so on...
It seems to me there are two issues which seem to be confused and rolled into 
one seeminly illogical construct.

1. Whether some contributors to this list should take it upon themselves to 
try and stop other contributors, who either wish to discuss gimpshop issues  
from doing so.

2. Whether gimpshop should be declared as being officially supported by the 
list owners.

On the first point my reaction to those adopting an authoritarian position 
is "come on guys loosen up". It gives the impression that a few people with 
an axe to grind  want to freeze out gimpshop rather than encouraging any 
extensions of gimp, of which gimpshop is one, to mature.  

A failure to encourage imaginative inititiatives and development discourages 
expanision of a vigourous development community.

IMHO what gimp needs, for its future growth, is much more energetic 
development community capable of bringing gimp to the point where it supports 
current technological requirements and standards.

When one considers hao far behind the curve gimp is in supporting current 
needs and standards, (no 16 bit per channel support, flaky printing, no built 
in support for camera raw files, a clumsy gui that is not at all easy to use 
(especially for those trained in photoshop) and which does not compare 
favourably with standards set by photoshop. In such circumstances 
discouraging gimpshop developers and users seems to be irrational, 
dictatorial and counterproductive.

2. Whether to declare gimpshop as being "officially supported" is quite 
another matter. IMHO no user of this list is entitled to "expect support" 
even for the basic gimp.  

So my conclusion is to encourage negative thinklers to just back off. If 
anyone does want to discuss gimpshop issues and others care to join in (and I 
have evidence that they do) then those who do not want to do so would make a 
vaulable contribution to gimp by remaining silent.

Lets work together to make the community larger and therefore stronger. Gimp 
needs to mature. It suffers from feature starvation in many crucial areas 
(one of which gimpshop has begun to solve) and anyone willing to work on or 
test such extensions should not IMHO be discouraged.

my two pennorth

David Southwell

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to