Re: Re: Performance
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Martin Weber wrote: I use SuSE Linux 6.2. I have 128 MB RAM. I use the default values for tile caching. I have a EIDE IBM 6,4 GB and 10 GB. I use on both a 128 MB partition as swap. You should definitely increase your tile cache size from the default 10mb. It should help performance. later, Andrew Kieschnick
Re: Plugins at Sourceforge
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Michael J. Hammel wrote: Thus spoke Marc Lehmann This is not at all a distribution issue. Linux is a *multi*-user system, so there is not much sense in tailoring the number of installed plug-ins to the needs of, say, the admin. Playing the devils advocate here, you could also say there is not much sense in tailoring it for a multi-user system if many of your users are using it on a single user box. It's a reasonable argument, but there isn't a good answer for it. From my point of view, Gimp is not a multi-user tool (even if it can run happily on multi-user systems) so should be packaged for single users. University admins would probably argue otherwise. Why yes, admins (like me) generally don't like things that are packaged for single users. I suppose I don't care much about whatever packaging changes are made, as long as I can still install the gimp (and plug-ins, and data, and whatever else) in some system-wide location, and as long as users can still put extra bits and pieces in their .gimp directory. Being an admin lets me see a variety of interesting things, such as the guy who ran gimp for the first time, and chose [Ignore] in the gimp installation dialog, and then told me that gimp didn't work right. Why is ignore an option? It doesn't seem to provide anything other than a quick way to make the gimp not work; unless it has some sort of use, it should probably be taken out. later, Andrew Kieschnick
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right, until now I haven't cared too much about those things... Sorry for any inconvenience No inconvenience. Anyways, I came across as rather rude/insulting in that last message; I didn't mean to - sorry about that. later, Andrew
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11 Nov, Andrew Kieschnick wrote: Hmm, that sure as hell looks like an LGPL to me. I seriously doubt your copy of gimp is different than mine... LGPL stands for "Lesser GNU Public Licence". Now do me a favour and count the word lesser in this COPYING file... Then do this again for the COPYING file in your Gtk distribution in the subdir gtk... LGPL previously stood for "GNU Library General Public License". It was changed to be the "Lesser GNU Public License" at some point not all that long ago. Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html if you'd like to know why its name was changed. LGPL version 2 is the GNU Library General Public License. LGPL version 2.1 is the Lesser GNU Public License. The COPYING file in libgimp is the LGPL, version 2. The COPYING file in gtk+-1.2.6 is also the LGPL, version 2. Its becoming obvious to me that you just don't know what you're talking about. later, Andrew
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9 Nov, Andrew Kieschnick wrote: libgimp and libgimpui are LGPLed, so that isn't a problem. Really? Not mine Serious: If it'd be LPGLed it would have had such a header in every source file and in the COPYING file which isn't the case... beelzebub:~$ head ~/gimp/libgimp/COPYING GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 Copyright (C) 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. [This is the first released version of the library GPL. It is numbered 2 because it goes with version 2 of the ordinary GPL.] beelzebub:~$ Hmm, that sure as hell looks like an LGPL to me. I seriously doubt your copy of gimp is different than mine... later, Andrew
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2 Nov, Andrew Kieschnick wrote: Gimp plug-ins are not linked into the calling program (they are run as separate processes), so you can call them from any program you like without violating the GPL. However you have to link Plug-ins against libgimp and possibly libgimpui and here you've got your problem. If you just have a Plug-in which computes everything internally and then just uses the standard way of exchanging data with GIMP you'll be on the safe side... libgimp and libgimpui are LGPLed, so that isn't a problem. later, Andrew
Re: Re: Tile Cache Size
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, David Bonnell wrote: On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Ewald R. de Wit wrote: Anyway, today I went over the Gimp sources and noticed how complicated the tile architecture makes things and I couldn't help wondering why the heck it was put in. All it seems to do is to give you an order of magnitude slower speed when dealing with large images. And large images were supposed to be the very reason for a tiling architecture. I'm afraid I have to agree with you on the performance WRT large images. I tried editing a couple of large images yesterday (10MB/600dpi) and it was painfully slow (Dual 300MHz PII, 128MB RAM). I've got a 20MB/1200dpi one I want to edit and I'm not looking forward to it! Hmm. Are you setting the tile cache size to something reasonable? It will definitely suck with the default 10mb tile cache... later, Andrew Kieschnick
