On Monday 09 July 2007 05:18:23 Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 05:02:19 -0700, David Southwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > That would mean more developers, features and a bigger
> > and better community of users. IMHO gimpshop is a great idea. According
> > to some its developers have not behaved well -- my guess is there are two
> > sides to the story. The important thing is to look to what can be
> > provided not what can be stopped!!
> Unfortunately, more users does not automatically mean more developers
> and more features.  In some cases, this is even the opposite: some
> projects have seen their number of developers decrease as the number of
> users increased, because the community became worse (large number of
> conflicting user requests, unrealistic expectations, developer burn-out,
> etc.).
> You claim that there are "two sides to the story" regarding the
> development of Gimpshop.  This may be the case, but I encourage you to
> take a look at the archive of the gimp-developer mailing list and find
> the early discussions about Gimpshop.  Then see the suggestions about
> how to do it "right" and what happened since then (hint: Gimpshop is
> still a fork using modifications to the source code instead of being
> an add-on).
> As I wrote in my previous message, the GIMP developers are not opposed
> to some of the ideas included in Gimpshop, if only they were
> implemented in a correct way.  The developers are open to suggestions
> and are looking at alternative solutions whenever possible.  Just
> check the recent usability enhancements in SVN if you are not
> convinced about that.
> > Currently all I am suggesting is that people with a history of scores to
> > settle need to keep quiet and if others want to talk about gimpshop then
> > let them do so. Noone is saying any single individual should feel obliged
> > to contribute to those discussion.
> I don't think that I have a history of scores to settle with Gimpshop.
> If fact, I do not even remember contributing to previous discussions
> (I haven't checked, though).  But please be a bit more open yourself
> and consider what others have written in the last days.  Discussions
> about Gimpshop tend to create confusion on this list.  Even if we
> ignore the technical and political aspects of how Gimpshop was
> implemented, the simple fact that any discussion about Gimpshop on
> this list tends to generate noise should be a sufficient reason to
> avoid such discussions in the future.  This doesn't mean that Gimpshop
> is a taboo that should not be mentioned here.  But instead of
> discussing it here, it would be much better to point users to a more
> specific mailing list.
 I hear you but do not agree with you entirely. 

Destructive discussion about whether gimpshop discussion between consenting 
adults should be allowed or not is like  proposing the baby should be put out 
with the bathwater. 

There seem to be plenty of emotional reasons for doing so but no compelling 
logic for trying to ban it and it is the attempt to stamp it out that creates 
confusion.. not discussion between consenting adults. If discussion about 
gimpshop is left to those that want to discuss it then no harm is done but 
goodwill is earned by the gimp project. Such a simple step would show 
maturity -- anything else can be interpreted as an attack of  juvenile pique.

It seems to me that confusion on the list is created not by discussing 
gimpshop but by trying to rationalise an authoritarian approach to 
discussion. When all is said and done all that gimpshop does is create an 
alternative GUI for gimp. It does not do it well -- it could be done better 
but it is the best photoshop like gui that gimp has got. Until it gets better 
then the gimp community  take full advantage of it and the fact that the 
gimpshop development team is not exactly bursting with energy.

 I do not know the history of how gimpshop developers and gimp developers fell 
out with one another. Frankly I amd most users do not care about how that 
happened but I am more concerned about how the future. I would like to see a 
viable photoshop emulating gui for gimp and 16+bit per channel, decent raw 
file handling and   a far more easily  customisable working environment that 
builds on industry wide knowledge.

My guess is that if the code for gimp had been developed in accordance with  
MVC  guidelines then the arguments between developers might not have arisen. 

That poses the question -- how can gimp code be developed so that the creation 
of alternative GUI's are facilitated?

Thanks again

David Southwell

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to