Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP for Windows 1.2.3?
On Tue, 2002-03-12 at 21:31, Tino Schwarze wrote: > > So, to over-simplify, what would be the point in porting software to > > Windows that intends to provide you with an emulation of software (for > > Windows) you already got with the camera? > > Uhm. Maybe because you get a consistent interface in Win* as well as in > Linux? Or maybe you don't need to rely on crappy, cheap > shipped-with-camera software? Or maybe gphoto will evolve while the > shipped-with-camera software will not? > > I can imagine several reasons for a gphoto port to Win*. It's always > nice to have a choice! That, and often, the windows software doesn't give access to all features of the camera, doesn't use the full download speed, doesn't let you capture images (because the vendor wants you to buy additional software), or simply does not run on Windows because it has been designed for Windows only. Lutz -- +--+ \|||/ | Lutz Müller+49 (7156) 34837 | (o o) | +---ooO-(_)-Ooo---+ | Hans-Sachs-Strasse 5 | | 71254 Ditzingenhttp://www.topfrose.de | | Germany[EMAIL PROTECTED] | ++ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP for Windows 1.2.3?
Hi, On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 10:14:25PM +0200, Tor Lillqvist wrote: > > [...] the same features as the proprietary digital camera programs > > for Microsoft Windows and MacOS that usually are shipped with the > > camera. > > So, to over-simplify, what would be the point in porting software to > Windows that intends to provide you with an emulation of software (for > Windows) you already got with the camera? Uhm. Maybe because you get a consistent interface in Win* as well as in Linux? Or maybe you don't need to rely on crappy, cheap shipped-with-camera software? Or maybe gphoto will evolve while the shipped-with-camera software will not? I can imagine several reasons for a gphoto port to Win*. It's always nice to have a choice! Just my 2 EUR-Cents... Tino, not owning a camera at all. ;-) -- * LINUX - Where do you want to be tomorrow? * http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/linux/tag/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP for Windows 1.2.3?
Lutz Müller writes: > If some Windows guy steps forward to port gphoto2 > (http://www.gphoto.org) to Windows, you would even have digital > camera support _in_ the GIMP through gtkam's plugin (i.e. capture > from within the GIMP, download directly into the GIMP, etc.). Umm, the gPhoto site says about why gPhoto is needed: > [...] the same features as the proprietary digital camera programs > for Microsoft Windows and MacOS that usually are shipped with the > camera. So, to over-simplify, what would be the point in porting software to Windows that intends to provide you with an emulation of software (for Windows) you already got with the camera? --tml ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP for Windows 1.2.3?
On Tue, 2002-03-12 at 17:42, Branko Collin wrote: > And, as I said, for us it would not be bad to ride the wave of the > digital camera. If some Windows guy steps forward to port gphoto2 (http://www.gphoto.org) to Windows, you would even have digital camera support _in_ the GIMP through gtkam's plugin (i.e. capture from within the GIMP, download directly into the GIMP, etc.). Lutz -- +--+ \|||/ | Lutz Müller+49 (7156) 34837 | (o o) | +---ooO-(_)-Ooo---+ | Hans-Sachs-Strasse 5 | | 71254 Ditzingenhttp://www.topfrose.de | | Germany[EMAIL PROTECTED] | ++ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP for Windows 1.2.3?
On 12 Mar 2002, at 9:27, Tor Lillqvist wrote: > Branko Collin writes: > > I have not seen any announcement on www.gimp.org or this list, that > > is why I am asking: is GIMP for Windows 1.2.3 official? > > Umm, define "official"? Is GIMP for (pick your random Unix system) > official? Which of the prebuilt GIMPs for Solaris (I assume there are > several) is official? IMHO, the official GIMP release is the source > release. : 'And you?' she said, turning to Sam.'For this is what your folk : would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly : what they mean; and they seem to use the same word of the : deceits of the Enemy. But this, if you will, is the magic of : Galadriel. Did you not say that you wished to see Elf-Magic?' (Galadriel to Sam in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings) > I am just a person who makes prebuilt binaries available for Windows, > and somebody else then makes an installer out of them. (I also happen > to be the guy who did most of the porting to Windows, but that's > irrelevant IMHO.) There are dozens of GIMP packagings for typical > Linux distributions, for instance, and none of them is "official" > other than from *that distribution's* point of view. Thus, *my* > prebuilt GIMP builds are official for *me*. As if that meant anything? Erm, yes, you're right, and I should have known that myself. Yet, to the millions of Windows users, terms like build, distribution, source, binary et cetera are completely opaque and they do see things in terms of 'official' and 'unofficial'. For them, it is handy to know that _your_ version (the only one a non-programmer can use, as far as I know) has left beta. That is as official as it gets. So even though I was wrong, there is still value in announcing your latest version as being 'ready' (whatever that may mean). > > Also: does this mean the GIMP for Windows' bugs that were still > open > are now resolved? I filed the snoise bug report, but have not > seen > that bug report closed in Bugzilla. > > Sorry, I know I am a bit lazy in checking bugzilla. That is fine, it just added to the confusion. ;-) > The problem you > were seeing was caused by that described in Bug#67386, and yes, that > has been fixed. (That fix, however, is not in CVS, as it is somewhat > ugly, or at least the comments I got about that bug report indicated > it might be frowned upon, and I didn't want to take the chance of > delaying the official GIMP 1.2.3 (source) release any further back > then when I did it. See the link to the diffs from > www.gimp.org/win32/downloads.html.) > > > If so, I would like to send out a press-release about this to > digital > photography magazines. > > Please do, but tell them it's their job to determine how useful the > software is to users... They can't just expect some > marketing-department-created press release praising the software and > listing its features, from which to copy-paste ;-) How can I tell grown-ups what to believe and what not to believe? My biggest challenge will be to come up with a news worthy fact to center such a press release around. But the GIMP has not been much in the press lately, and I do not think it would harm to point out the increased stability and user-friendlyness of the 1.2.x branch at this point. And, as I said, for us it would not be bad to ride the wave of the digital camera. I will put up my press release somewhere for all gimpsters to comment on before I send it off. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP for Windows 1.2.3?
Hi, Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Branko Collin writes: > > I have not seen any announcement on www.gimp.org or this list, that > > is why I am asking: is GIMP for Windows 1.2.3 official? > > Umm, define "official"? Is GIMP for (pick your random Unix system) > official? Which of the prebuilt GIMPs for Solaris (I assume there are > several) is official? IMHO, the official GIMP release is the source > release. > > I am just a person who makes prebuilt binaries available for Windows, > and somebody else then makes an installer out of them. (I also happen > to be the guy who did most of the porting to Windows, but that's > irrelevant IMHO.) There are dozens of GIMP packagings for typical > Linux distributions, for instance, and none of them is "official" > other than from *that distribution's* point of view. Thus, *my* > prebuilt GIMP builds are official for *me*. As if that meant anything? well, a news entry on the GIMP website wouldn't hurt. Tor, do you want to set up a few lines or should we paste from your web-site ? Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] GIMP for Windows 1.2.3?
Branko Collin writes: > I have not seen any announcement on www.gimp.org or this list, that > is why I am asking: is GIMP for Windows 1.2.3 official? Umm, define "official"? Is GIMP for (pick your random Unix system) official? Which of the prebuilt GIMPs for Solaris (I assume there are several) is official? IMHO, the official GIMP release is the source release. I am just a person who makes prebuilt binaries available for Windows, and somebody else then makes an installer out of them. (I also happen to be the guy who did most of the porting to Windows, but that's irrelevant IMHO.) There are dozens of GIMP packagings for typical Linux distributions, for instance, and none of them is "official" other than from *that distribution's* point of view. Thus, *my* prebuilt GIMP builds are official for *me*. As if that meant anything? > Also: does this mean the GIMP for Windows' bugs that were still open > are now resolved? I filed the snoise bug report, but have not seen > that bug report closed in Bugzilla. Sorry, I know I am a bit lazy in checking bugzilla. The problem you were seeing was caused by that described in Bug#67386, and yes, that has been fixed. (That fix, however, is not in CVS, as it is somewhat ugly, or at least the comments I got about that bug report indicated it might be frowned upon, and I didn't want to take the chance of delaying the official GIMP 1.2.3 (source) release any further back then when I did it. See the link to the diffs from www.gimp.org/win32/downloads.html.) > If so, I would like to send out a press-release about this to digital > photography magazines. Please do, but tell them it's their job to determine how useful the software is to users... They can't just expect some marketing-department-created press release praising the software and listing its features, from which to copy-paste ;-) --tml ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] GIMP for Windows 1.2.3?
It would seem that GIMP for Windows 1.2.3 is now official, as any suggestion of it being beta has disappeared from Tor's page, having been replaced by 'Current release: (GTK+ 2.0.0, GIMP 1.2.3) 2002-03- 10'. I have not seen any announcement on www.gimp.org or this list, that is why I am asking: is GIMP for Windows 1.2.3 official? Also: does this mean the GIMP for Windows' bugs that were still open are now resolved? I filed the snoise bug report, but have not seen that bug report closed in Bugzilla. If so, I would like to send out a press-release about this to digital photography magazines. Digital Photography has really taken off since last year, and I think we could harvest some users in that field. The dedicated magazines seem to assume that all their users will gleefully steal their Photoshop copies, but I think there may be some users who want to be legit and still use more sophisticated tools than those that come with their cameras. My philosophy is that more users will beget more developers. (I may be entirely wrong.) -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
