Re: [Gimp-developer] OSCon attendance
Hi, Shlomi Fish wrote: On Wednesday 14 July 2004 05:49, Nathan Carl Summers wrote: Heh, my vote is for Valgrind. :) Well, valgrind is a very nice and useful tool. (I know becuase I'm also using it extensively) However, I think that perhaps GNU Arch deserves to win because: And what about the GIMP and its 10 years of being a core Free Software application? We were the first poster-boy application that said that Linux could be a desktop OS, the project which spawned GTK+ and arguably GNOME, and are still the best Free image manipulation program around, despite being 4 years behind the 2000 schedule for some major features. I think we deserve a good decent award. Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CV: http://dneary.free.fr/CV/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] OSCon attendance
On Thursday 15 July 2004 15:30, David Neary wrote: Hi, Shlomi Fish wrote: On Wednesday 14 July 2004 05:49, Nathan Carl Summers wrote: Heh, my vote is for Valgrind. :) Well, valgrind is a very nice and useful tool. (I know becuase I'm also using it extensively) However, I think that perhaps GNU Arch deserves to win because: And what about the GIMP and its 10 years of being a core Free Software application? We were the first poster-boy application that said that Linux could be a desktop OS, the project which spawned GTK+ and arguably GNOME, and are still the best Free image manipulation program around, despite being 4 years behind the 2000 schedule for some major features. I think we deserve a good decent award. I did not say GIMP does not deserves awards. It certainly does. I'm not trying to compare GIMP to arch or valgrind because it's like comparing hammers to toaster ovens - it's meaningless because they do different things. The reason I think Arch should win the award instead of the GIMP is because of the financial difficulties its main developer is facing. I'm not aware of a similar financial difficulty within the GIMP core developers. (but would like to be shown otherwise). And I think that while we can be motivated by winning or being nominated for winning awards, we shouldn't work hard just in order to win awards. We work hard to create good software, and to please the users and peer developers. Some of the greatest movies did not win the Oscar, and it did not matter in the long run, because people still remember them and not many of the films that did. Regards, Shlomi Fish -- - Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage:http://shlomif.il.eu.org/ Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] OSCon attendance
Hi, Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The reason I think Arch should win the award instead of the GIMP is because of the financial difficulties its main developer is facing. I'm not aware of a similar financial difficulty within the GIMP core developers. (but would like to be shown otherwise). The personal financial problems of a developer certainly shouldn't qualify a project for an award. If you believe that the OSCon jury thinks that it matters, please let me know. Mitch and me can then mail our account statements to them. That would most likely qualify us. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Scheme [was Re: [Gimp-developer] OSCon attendance]
On Wednesday 14 July 2004 15:17, Markus Triska wrote: 2. Its main developer (Tom Lord) is desperately in need of cash, as he is currently unemployed. (or at least was the last time I checked). Visit http://gnuarch.org/ for more information. While he is de facto unemployed, as you say, he puts it more brightly: --- Are these after hours hobby projects or what? In fact, no -- since early 2002, these projects are what I do. I don't have a day job that subsidizes this work. Although I'm now working on developing some start-up projects, in the meantime... By the way: Tom Lord is also working on a new implementation of Scheme (Pika Scheme), supporting Unicode. Considering that we could use Tom's Pika Scheme instead of TinyScheme, and that he can work on Pika Scheme by living on donations that come from his Arch project, it follows that Arch is without a doubt a proper sub-project of the GIMP. Another implementation of Scheme? Aren't the ones in: http://www.schemers.org/Documents/FAQ/#implementations enough? Or isn't any of them better suited as a starting point? That's one problem in Scheme: there is a plenthora of different implementations, each of them different, and none of them as fully usable as Perl (along with CPAN), Python (along with the standard library and other libraries), etc. In these languages, the implementation is the standard, and instead of having a minimalistic and useless standard, and tons of developers with minds of their own creating competing implementations, there is one development team, many halo developers creating extensions, bindings, and support code, and generally a much better usability. I'm not really a great believer in concentration of efforts when it comes to open-source projects. But the Scheme situation is ridiculous. This is not the only problem with Scheme. Paul Graham set out to resolve the problems with the various LISP dialects, in creating Arc: http://www.paulgraham.com/arc.html From what I read about it, so far, it seems like it has the right direction. It will also put LISP more up-to-par with the other agile languages. (Perl, Python, Ruby, etc.) However, there hasn't been a trace of an implementation or even a well-defined spec, yet. I'm therefore all the more for GIMP to win. Do you mean that you're all the more for Arch to win? I doubt the GIMP prize money (assuming we win) is going to go to Tom Lord. Markus. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer -- - Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage:http://shlomif.il.eu.org/ Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: Scheme [was Re: [Gimp-developer] OSCon attendance]
On Thursday 15 July 2004 02:25 pm, Shlomi Fish wrote: Another implementation of Scheme? Aren't the ones in: http://www.schemers.org/Documents/FAQ/#implementations enough? Or isn't any of them better suited as a starting point? Please ask Tom, not me, because he is doing it, or visit his page for more information. His version could have advantages that others lack. Diversity is at most very rarely (never?) a drawback. Besides, I hear some people are implementing already available software just to see what it is like. There surely are thousands of other legitimate reasons why one would implement another version of Scheme. Do you mean that you're all the more for Arch to win? No, I did not. Each of the nominated projects is very good (see Dave's post for some details about the GIMP). The Arch - GIMP relation was a joke, if you don't mind. The fact remains that Tom's Pika Scheme has Unicode support, which TinyScheme lacks, so it could be worth a look. Markus. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] OSCon attendance
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, David Neary wrote: Hi, Shlomi Fish wrote: On Wednesday 14 July 2004 05:49, Nathan Carl Summers wrote: Heh, my vote is for Valgrind. :) Well, valgrind is a very nice and useful tool. (I know becuase I'm also using it extensively) However, I think that perhaps GNU Arch deserves to win because: And what about the GIMP and its 10 years of being a core Free Software application? Hmm, perhaps you missed the Heh at the beginning of my mail. :) Rockwalrus ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: Scheme [was Re: [Gimp-developer] OSCon attendance]
On Thursday 15 July 2004 21:52, Markus Triska wrote: On Thursday 15 July 2004 02:25 pm, Shlomi Fish wrote: Another implementation of Scheme? Aren't the ones in: http://www.schemers.org/Documents/FAQ/#implementations enough? Or isn't any of them better suited as a starting point? Please ask Tom, not me, because he is doing it, or visit his page for more information. Well, the link on http://regexps.srparish.net/www/#pika is broken. His version could have advantages that others lack. Possibly. Diversity is at most very rarely (never?) a drawback. Well, too much diversity is not too good. And Scheme suffers from too much diversity. Besides, I hear some people are implementing already available software just to see what it is like. There surely are thousands of other legitimate reasons why one would implement another version of Scheme. I did not say they weren't legitimate. Anyone can go and write another editor or bug tracker or window manager, if he'd like. That's one of the rights that Liberalism gives you. But if someone wishes to embark on something like that I'd advise him to contribute to an existing project instead of starting a new one. Do you mean that you're all the more for Arch to win? No, I did not. Each of the nominated projects is very good (see Dave's post for some details about the GIMP). The Arch - GIMP relation was a joke, if you don't mind. Ah, sorry. I did not get it at first. The fact remains that Tom's Pika Scheme has Unicode support, which TinyScheme lacks, so it could be worth a look. Right. But Pika Scheme is so far not yet ready for prime time. And it is possible that adding Unicode support for TinyScheme will take faster than it will take for Pica Scheme to reach its 1.0 release. Shlomi Fish (who once wrote a specialized program from scratch, distributed it as open-source and it became quite successful, and had some unique ideas.). Markus. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer -- - Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage:http://shlomif.il.eu.org/ Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: Scheme [was Re: [Gimp-developer] OSCon attendance]
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Markus Triska wrote: Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:52:36 + From: Markus Triska [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Scheme [was Re: [Gimp-developer] OSCon attendance] On Thursday 15 July 2004 02:25 pm, Shlomi Fish wrote: Each of the nominated projects is very good (see Dave's post for some details about the GIMP). The Arch - GIMP relation was a joke, if you don't mind. The fact remains that Tom's Pika Scheme has Unicode support, which TinyScheme lacks, so it could be worth a look. As there was some talk about the GIMP using Guile and if much work has been already done in that direction it it might also be worth mentioning that there is someone actively working on a Guile wrapper for Pika http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/pika-dev/2004-01/msg00067.html - Alan ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: Scheme [was Re: [Gimp-developer] OSCon attendance]
On Thursday 15 July 2004 07:12 pm, Shlomi Fish wrote: Anyone can go and write another editor or bug tracker or window manager, if he'd like. That's one of the rights that Liberalism gives you. But if someone wishes to embark on something like that I'd advise him to contribute to an existing project instead of starting a new one. You should have told Tom Lord that he better contribute to one of the many existing versioning systems *before* he started writing Arch. That had probably left GIMP competing solely with Valgrind. Markus. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] New version of Tiny-Fu plug-in is available.
Greetings, everyone. Announcing the second public release of a tarball for the Tiny-Fu plug-in for the 2.1 version of GIMP. The tarball must currently be hooked in to a copy of the GIMP 2.1.x source tree by using the supplied gimp.patch patch file. As of last night (Wednesday, July 14) the new tarball is available for download from the web page at: http://www.interlog.com/~kcozens/software/gimp/tiny-fu.html Tiny-Fu is a plug-in for the 2.1 (and later) series of the GIMP. It is essentially a modified version of the Script-Fu plug-in but with some major differences. The main difference being the use of TinyScheme as its Scheme interpreter. Changes since the July 1, 2004 release: o Some minor changes and bug fixes to the main code. o 64 of the 96 scripts originally from Script-Fu are working under Tiny-Fu. o A set of Scheme-based definitions and routines has been added which provide some backwards compatibility with scripts written for the SIOD-based Script-Fu plug-in. Also included is a random number generator. o The marshalling code was changed to use vectors for all PDB *ARRAY types. This simplifies the conversion of Script-Fu scripts to Tiny-Fu. o A build of Tiny-Fu now compiles and installs the tsx run-time loadable extension for TinyScheme. This extension provides some time and additional file handling routines for scripts. Cheers! Kevin. (http://www.interlog.com/~kcozens/) Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172|What are we going to do today, Borg? E-mail:kcozens at interlog dot com|Same thing we always do, Pinkutus: Packet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]| Try to assimilate the world! #include disclaimer/favourite | -Pinkutus the Borg ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
