On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Joao S. O. Bueno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 24 July 2008, Robert Kennedy wrote:
>> So it does look like a packaging issue. The gimpshop package should
>> be modified to show a conflict with gimp. But since the gimpshop
>> project appears to be dead that is not likely to happen.
GIMPhoto is similar and not dead. However, it's based on the same
idea. Providing alternate user interfaces for an entire program only
serves to confuse the user and make GIMP look like a Photoshop-clone,
which it is not.
So, you can possibly use GIMPhoto sometime in the future (author is
working on compiling it in Linux), just be aware the the GIMP
developers do not support it in anyway (except, as Joao says, in
supporting it's removal from existence). I'm actually a little
surprised that the first replier didn't say something like 'drop it,
we don't care about gimpshop cause it's bullshit, stop using a
f***ed-up hack of gimp if you want things to work in a non-f***ed-up
way.'. Joao was a little more polite.
> Indeed. the right thing to do would be modify the gimp-shop package
> to "non-existent' - retroactively.
Gimp-user mailing list