Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: [FilmGimp] Which Gimp
On 16 Dec 2002 12:33:39 +0100, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RaphaXl Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This is wrong. The plan was that Film Gimp and GIMP would merge > > around version 2.0 (you can check the gimp-dev mailing list archives > > from 2000 for some statements about that). This did not mean that any > > project would cease to exist, but rather that one tool (or at least a > > common codebase) would support the features that are necessary for > > both projects. > > actually there was no plan to merge the two projects. Instead the idea > was to provide a framework for image manipulation that fits the needs > of both still image and movie editors. [...] Well, this is more or less what I meant when I wrote the statements above. I knew that the old Gimp16 (Film Gimp) core would not be merged into the current GIMP because the work had already started on GEGL. The "merge" that I had in mind would have involved the migration of the Film Gimp frame manager and film-specific plug-ins to the new GIMP core based on GEGL. And as I wrote above, this did not mean that any project would cease to exist. But as I have already explained in a previous message, the exact plans for Film Gimp and GEGL were not discussed on the mailing list. They were mentioned by non-developers, but not by those working on GEGL and Film Gimp (except for the mentions on the film.gimp.org home page in 2000). So I would have to check with Calvin Williamson or Caroline Dahllof and ask them what they had in mind for Film Gimp and the film-specific code and plug-ins when they started working on GEGL. But I doubt that they intended to drop all film-specific stuff once GEGL and GIMP 2.x would be ready, so they probably planned some kind of merge later. > This idea is however very different from the approach taken by the > current Film GIMP developers which seem to prefer to work on a > stone-old code base. In the first message that I posted to the filmgimp mailing list, I saw a great opportunity for Film Gimp to get closer to the current code base when I noticed that one of the top goals for Film Gimp was "Bring the codebase up from 1.0.4 to rendezvous with Gimp 1.2.3". I suggested to aim for 1.3.x instead of 1.2.3, because 1.2.3 is already a bit old and 1.3.x has a much cleaner code (more object-oriented, cleaner separation between user inteface and core, etc.) and has better support for multiple platforms thanks to the new GTK 2.0. Unfortunately, the result of this proposal and the discussion that followed was that the goal of bringing Film Gimp closer to GIMP was removed from the Film Gimp home page and some rather negative statements about the GIMP were posted on the public web site and on the mailing lists. This is exactly the opposite of what I was hoping for and I feel rather bad about this although I do not know how this mess could have been avoided. I am still hoping, though... There would be so much to gain for the Film Gimp users and developers by porting it to GTK+ 2.0 and aligning its core to GIMP 1.3.x or by aiming directly for GEGL and GIMP 2.x. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: [FilmGimp] Which Gimp
Hi, RaphaXl Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is wrong. The plan was that Film Gimp and GIMP would merge > around version 2.0 (you can check the gimp-dev mailing list archives > from 2000 for some statements about that). This did not mean that any > project would cease to exist, but rather that one tool (or at least a > common codebase) would support the features that are necessary for > both projects. actually there was no plan to merge the two projects. Instead the idea was to provide a framework for image manipulation that fits the needs of both still image and movie editors. The basis for this framework is supposed to be GEGL and the Pupus rendering pipeline. A rich set of widgets to build a user interface from should be provided as well as a plug-in architecture and other useful things. Several applications could be built on top of this architecture. Perhaps there would be one large customizable GIMP application, but I can imagine that some people might prefer to create a more specialized user interface and call it Film GIMP, Video GIMP or Icon GIMP. There's nothing wrong with having different applications for different needs. This idea is however very different from the approach taken by the current Film GIMP developers which seem to prefer to work on a stone-old code base. I see a lot of effort wasted here and will continue to discourage people to join this effort. The Film GIMP developers shouldn't take this as a personal offense; it's their choice and I will certainly not dictate what other people should do. It's just my very own personal opinion that we could be so much further towards GIMP-2.0 if more people would share this vision. Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: [FilmGimp] Which Gimp
Hi, Patrick McFarland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Second, I would like to ask when a either a GEGL enabled Gimp will > be released, or a version of either Gimp with spfp/channel support > _or_ Film Gimp with a working xcf plugin will be avalible. when it is ready. Sorry, we never give any time scales for releases. In this particular case, it migth take a while longer since we haven't even started to work on GEGL integration and are currently trying to push development towards the end of the 1.4 development cycle. Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: [FilmGimp] Which Gimp
Hi, RaphaXl Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > http://filmgimp.sourceforge.net/docs/which.gimp.html > > I think that some parts of this article are really inaccurate and are > likely to cause some unnecessary damage to the reputation of both > projects (GIMP and Film Gimp). It looks like you have a bad opinion > of the GIMP developers, but I hope that you will change your mind (and > the page). Raphael, thanks for writing this mail. I agree with all the points you made and would only like to add a few more words about the list of GIMP projects titled "Gimp projects are there?" This list gives the wrong impressions that there are separate ports of The GIMP to the Windows and Macintosh platforms. This is wrong. These projects use the same source code that is used to compile The GIMP for a large number of UNIX operating systems. The GIMP developers try very hard to write code that is platform-independent. All (or actually most of) the ugly details about different platforms are hidden in GLib and GDK. This is especially true for the current development version. The WinGimp and MacGimp projects (if there are any) are solely providing binary versions of the one true GIMP and I don't think they should be listed as separate GIMP projects. If you want to keep them in the list, you should also add GIMP for FreeBSD, GIMP for OpenBSD, GIMP for Debian Linux, GIMP for Solaris, GIMP for SuSE Linux, GIMP for AIX, GIMP for RedHat Linux, ..., ... and probably even GIMP for OS/2. The page at filmgimp.sourceforge.net also states: "GIMP and GIMP for Windows maintain totally separate mailing lists." It is true that there are different mailing-lists for users of GIMP on UNIX and users of GIMP for Windows. It turned out that this separation makes sense although I never liked the idea of making a difference between the same application running on different platforms. It is however wrong that there are different mailing-lists for the development of The GIMP. The sentence I quoted may however give this wrong impression. Overall, this new page on the filmgimp site is once more full of wrong facts that I have to try hard to suppress the feeling that Robin is knowingly and willingly spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt on The GIMP and I wonder what's the rationale of this. Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: [FilmGimp] Which Gimp
First, I would like to apologize to everyone on the list. It seems my poking and proding around for 16-bit per channel rendering (which later changed into 32-bit float (spfp) per channel rendering) started a flamewar between gimp and film gimp developers. Second, I would like to ask when a either a GEGL enabled Gimp will be released, or a version of either Gimp with spfp/channel support _or_ Film Gimp with a working xcf plugin will be avalible. -- Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." --Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989 msg03261/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: [FilmGimp] Which Gimp
On 11 Dec 2002, at 13:58, Raphaël Quinet wrote: [trying to refute ... what?] As to the distributions thing: www.gimp.org is the place where you get the source. Binaries distributed from that site are just a matter of courtesy. This is not favouring or hating Windows. If anything, www.gimp.org favours Tor's Windows build, as it is available from the site. That is much more than can be said for many Unix flavours. I am a Windows user, but I can understand the developer's decision to make the site a distribution point for the source, not for binaries. Distributing builds means commiting to these builds, supporting them, and as most developers are Linux users, that just is not feasible. As to the names WinGIMP and MacGIMP: these are the names of commercial products, both sold by Mat Caughron. His websites manage to totally confuse the issue, as he is suggesting somehow that his are the 'official' GIMPs--which in a sense is true, as he is repackaging and distributing the most popular Mac and Windows builds of the official source. However, he is not the source of the official GIMP. I think there are more than Tor's builds of the GIMP for Windows, though as far as I can tell, these are mostly for private use by the builder. A non-programming end-user who uses Windows will probable end up with Tor's builds, and a non-programming Mac user with the Fink build. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re: [FilmGimp] Which Gimp
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 01:40:05 -0800, "Robin Rowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > More docs. > > http://filmgimp.sourceforge.net/docs/which.gimp.html I think that some parts of this article are really inaccurate and are likely to cause some unnecessary damage to the reputation of both projects (GIMP and Film Gimp). It looks like you have a bad opinion of the GIMP developers, but I hope that you will change your mind (and the page). Here are some parts of your page that are incorrect (IMHO): "Many GIMP people have expressed the opinion that Film Gimp should cease to exist, that Film Gimp developers should instead all work on GEGL or GIMP." This is wrong. The plan was that Film Gimp and GIMP would merge around version 2.0 (you can check the gimp-dev mailing list archives from 2000 for some statements about that). This did not mean that any project would cease to exist, but rather that one tool (or at least a common codebase) would support the features that are necessary for both projects. Recently, I have asked for more cooperation between the two teams so that the projects do not diverge too much. I don't think that anybody has said that Film Gimp should cease to exist. I wrote that it would be nice if Film Gimp would try to converge rather than diverge so that both projects could benefit from the same features, but this is very different from what you wrote above. "The GIMP group has a reputation for being unfriendly to operating systems other than Linux." This is also wrong. Recently, a single user who had never made any significant contribution to the GIMP has been posting some flames to the gimp-developer mailing list and claiming that the GIMP should be a Linux thing only. Many developers have quickly replied to him, saying that he was wrong. So the developers are really open to all operating systems (otherwise, there would be no version for Windows, MacOS, FreeBSD, Solaris, IRIX and even the venerable OS/2). For example, I currently do most of my GIMP testing and development on Solaris and I try to support Windows users whenever I can (e.g., through Bugzilla). "For some time the GIMP site didn't mention the GimpWin project, but they reached an accommodation where GimpWin is mentioned in the GIMP downloads section and its files are hosted in a separate area of the GIMP site." The GIMP for Windows page from Tor Lillqvist has been mirrored on www.gimp.org since February 1999 (or maybe a bit earlier, but that's the earliest reliable timestamp that I found). At that time, the Windows version was still very unstable. Also at that time, the maintainers of the GIMP web site had stepped down, so the updates were very slow except for the news items taken from Xach's site. Despite the fact that www.gimp.org was almost unmaintained, a direct link to the GIMP for Windows page (http://www.gimp.org/win32/) has been featured on the front page of www.gimp.org since November 2000, according to the WayBack Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20001109165800/http://gimp.org/ In September 2001, I volunteered for maintaining the old web site while a new design was being worked on. At that time, I added an additional link to the Windows version on the download page, but it had always been mentioned on the front page. "GimpWin changes are incorporated into GIMP, but GIMP and GimpWin maintain totally separate mailing lists." There is no GimpWin (WinGimp is probably OK, though). GIMP for Windows and GIMP are the same program, using the same CVS repository for development and also using the same Bugzilla for bug tracking. Tor and other developers of the Windows version participate in the development of the GIMP in the same way as other GIMP developers. There are of course some issues that are specific to Windows (installer, different OS, etc.) so it is normal to discuss these on a separate mailing list. There were also some differences that were due to the fact that the Windows version had to use a hacked version of GTK+-1.3 instead of 1.2 (used by the other OS's), but most of these differences have been resolved with the move to GTK+-2.0. Anyway, the discussion about new features or major code changes that are not OS-specific are usually shared among all developers. So it is incorrect to present the Windows version as being totally separate from the other supported platforms. "Not much is known about the MacGimp group. They don't seem to have a public mailing list." It is true that the Mac version is not advertised as much as the other versions (although it is linked from the GUG page), but you can find a lot of information about it on http://www.macgimp.org/. "The GEGL project is working toward a future version of GIMP, that is, GIMP 2. Some GIMP developers also work on GEGL. GEGL is viewed as part of the GIMP project, even though the code is different." Yes, the code is different, but this is the goal of GEGL and GIMP 2. The goal is to re-write the l
