[slightly reordering the quotes]
David Southwell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Really gimpshop is part of gimp.. the version of gimpshop running on
> my system depends upon the latest version of gimp.

This is backwards logic. We - as the GIMP developers - have no influence
on Gimpshop. Hence it cannot be a part of the Gimp.

If at all it is the other way around: Gimpshop needs Gimp to work, hence
(a specific version of) Gimp is part of Gimpshop.

> A gui that emulates photoshop is really needed .

I don't think so. If people want to have a GUI that behaves like
Photoshop, then they should simply use photoshop. It might surprise you,
but we don't actually have a problem with people making that descision.

> There are millions of trained photoshop users out there. Most modern
> software
> seperates the view or (GUI) from the Model and the controller. This
> means
> that developing alternative skins (gui's) becomes s straightforward
> process.
> Maybe this discussion could be turned into examining the question --
> How easy
> would it be to focus on facilitating the development of alternative
> skins
> (gui's) for gimp?

We already have two "gui"s - the classical Gimp user interface and a
commandline tool, which does not even link against GTK+ (the library for
displaying the buttons/windows/menus on the screen).

Granted, the latter is not exactly an exiting interface, but it shows,
that the image manipulation core and the GUI are pretty well separated
at the moment.

So, the separation you want is there. However, the largest chunk of code
in the GIMP deals with the User interface. If one wants to exchange this
against another user interface he would have to write an awful lot of
code. Not exactly easy. And for a separation inbetween through the GUI I
don't see an obvious "cutting" point.


              [EMAIL PROTECTED]              http://simon.budig.de/
Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to