* Maureen [03-28-09 17:56]:
> Gimpshop keeps crashing on me before I even get started. It gives me an
> error message about not being able to set up a font and then terminates. I
> have installed it again, but still no luck. How do I get around this so I
> can use the product?
Not supported here.
FYI - I have written up some instructions on how to get the gimp to run again
in Hardy Heron when gimpshop is also installed.
If your are having problems getting the Gimp to run in other distros where
gimpshop is installed, give these instructions a try. They should work but you
might need
> Akkana writes:
> It's a fairly well known problem, at least among people who maintain
> both a locally built gimp and the one installed from their distro.
>
> The current 2.5 release notes have a reasonable description of what's
> happening (which also apply to gimpshop or any version of gimp
Robert Kennedy writes:
>
> After more testing and investigation, it looks like AWN is NOT to
> blame in breaking the gimp in Hardy Heron
[ ... ]
> But then I did a "sudo ldconfig". Then gimp stopped working. (But
> gimpshop still worked). If you did a "ldd `which gimp-2.4`", you would
> see the gi
On July 12, 2007 04:13:16 pm Chris Mohler wrote:
> On 7/12/07, John R. Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyone can set up a list at yahoogroups. I see some with three
> > members. The owner of the list can set the rules, allow anyone to
> > join or requre preapproval, prescreen or not presc
On 7/13/07, John R. Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 12 July 2007 19:13, Chris Mohler wrote:
[...]
> >
> > Yahoo Group messages are nastily formatted HTML. I hear the Google
> > Groups has added mailing lists -- I wonder if that's any better?
> >
> On [EMAIL PROTECTED] we ask for
On Thursday 12 July 2007 19:13, Chris Mohler wrote:
> On 7/12/07, John R. Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyone can set up a list at yahoogroups. I see some with three
> > members. The owner of the list can set the rules, allow anyone to
> > join or requre preapproval, prescreen or not pr
On 7/12/07, John R. Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anyone can set up a list at yahoogroups. I see some with three
> members. The owner of the list can set the rules, allow anyone to
> join or requre preapproval, prescreen or not prescreen posts, set up
> assistant moderators and so on. I
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 17:16, Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Thursday 12 July 2007, Manish Singh wrote:
> > The GPL allows forks, but doesn't require the organization
> > that was forked from to provide support to the fork.
>
> True. However, I'm wondering if there's anyone here willing to
> moderate s
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Manish Singh wrote:
> Why is this our problem?
Our list & our community is being distracted by it. That gives
us a facet of the problem. We can reduce that facet by simply
saying "That's a GimpShop problem, please take it http://here/";
in response.
Hopefully, this will
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 05:16:56AM +0800, Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Thursday 12 July 2007, Manish Singh wrote:
> > The GPL allows forks, but doesn't require the organization
> > that was forked from to provide support to the fork.
>
> True. However, I'm wondering if there's anyone here willing to
>
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Manish Singh wrote:
> The GPL allows forks, but doesn't require the organization
> that was forked from to provide support to the fork.
True. However, I'm wondering if there's anyone here willing to
moderate such a list, & what it would coist to run such at
Berkeley?
The
Am 05.03.2006 um 06:41 schrieb Brendan:
On Saturday 04 March 2006 09:07, Geoffrey wrote:
You couldn't do this war on private pm instead of the list? Could you?!
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkel
On Saturday 04 March 2006 09:07, Geoffrey wrote:
> I've heard very little about GIMPSHOP, yet you claim it's 'generated
> more excitement then the Gimp ever has.'
Amongst artists I know, yes, it has.
> How about backing up your statement with some facts? Google:
>
> gimp: 30,600,000 hits
> gimps
Brendan wrote:
On Thursday 02 March 2006 08:19, Geoffrey wrote:
Because Gimshop has generated more excitement than the Gimp ever has and
certain people might be a little ruffled?
Who are you kidding? Why don't you simply take your trolling elsewhere.
I've been using gimp for years now, never
On Thursday 02 March 2006 08:19, Geoffrey wrote:
> > Because Gimshop has generated more excitement than the Gimp ever has and
> > certain people might be a little ruffled?
>
> Who are you kidding? Why don't you simply take your trolling elsewhere.
> I've been using gimp for years now, never had
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Ross Brown wrote:
> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 02:45:28 +
> From: Ross Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: GIMPUser
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Gimpshop
>
> Sorry for jumping in half-way through a conversation that I haven't
> been entirely privy
Brendan wrote:
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 05:46, Manish Singh wrote:
Gimpshop slaps the people who know the code of gimp in the face, and
then expects gimp.org to take up the slack because they don't know how
to properly support a community. I don't see why the animosity is so
surprising.
Beca
Paul Bloch wrote:
> To take an example that would also apply to Gimp, when showing us
> different methods she came across a tool that didn't allow you to
> "preview" the effect and she simply said,"This is pretty useless, you
> can't see what you're doing." So there is a functional and productive
Hi,
I'm also just jumping in to this conversation. To be honest when I heard about Gimpshop I got excited about using Gimp again. I've downloaded it and have used it and having the familiar menus made it far easier for me to use the program. I think that there is a larger question that needs to
Manish Singh wrote:
> Give it a shot. Make a proposal to the developer list, detailing what
> you'd like to see and why it would help you. Actually detail what the
> menus are in photoshop, and what the equivalents are in GIMP, and give
> justification. Same for keybindings. Do not assume people re
Ross Brown wrote:
> If Gimp is to become a replacement for Photoshop then, whether it
> appears to be "good practice" or not, it has to accommodate its
> potential users and work as they are used to working (in the short
> term at least). I'm sure there are many people who will argue - and
> possib
Sorry for jumping in half-way through a conversation that I haven't
been entirely privy to - but I just wanted to make a suggestion/point
that is (I hope) relevant.
On 2 Mar 2006March2, at 02:33, Manish Singh wrote:
Perhaps all that's really needed is the PS menu->GIMP menu mapping
documen
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 08:39:41PM -0500, Brendan wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 March 2006 05:46, Manish Singh wrote:
> > Gimpshop slaps the people who know the code of gimp in the face, and
> > then expects gimp.org to take up the slack because they don't know how
> > to properly support a community. I
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 05:46, Manish Singh wrote:
> Gimpshop slaps the people who know the code of gimp in the face, and
> then expects gimp.org to take up the slack because they don't know how
> to properly support a community. I don't see why the animosity is so
> surprising.
Because Gimshop
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 06:01, Manish Singh wrote:
> Scratched an itch, and caused tons of confusion in a community.
> Horrible.
Oh well, it's done. Bitching now isn't helping, so why not try to resolve the
situation?
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 11:48:06AM +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> Selon Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Von: Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > If it was put in bugzilla, the patch would have been
> > > refused, or we would have asked him to work on it.
> >
> > That's how things
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Selon Manish Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > For Gimpshop, it was all about forking from the get go. There was no
> > discussion, no proposal in any of the several places to discuss GIMP
> > development. No other possibilities
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:01:12AM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2006, at 12:20 AM, Manish Singh wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:01:05AM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:
> >>Would you consider Gimpshop a successful fork?
> >
> >Considering Gimpshop can't even keep their own website onli
JC Dill wrote:
Michael Schumacher wrote:
JC Dill wrote:
So when someone asks you to tell them how wonderful "this forum" is,
you can assume they are inviting comparison with all other forums on the
topic, not just other mailing lists.
Well, this is a mailing list. Anyone who uses it via a di
Michael Schumacher wrote:
JC Dill wrote:
So when someone asks you to tell them how wonderful "this forum" is,
you can assume they are inviting comparison with all other forums on the
topic, not just other mailing lists.
Well, this is a mailing list. Anyone who uses it via a different access
v
JC Dill wrote:
> So when someone asks you to tell them how wonderful "this forum" is,
> you can assume they are inviting comparison with all other forums on the
> topic, not just other mailing lists.
Well, this is a mailing list. Anyone who uses it via a different access
vector should be aware of
Michael Schumacher wrote:
Von: Robert Citek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
But enough trash talk about Gimpshop. Tell me how wonderful this
forum is. What makes this forum shine?
Well, I'd be more happy to answer this if you drop "forum" and use "list"
instead.
fo·rum Pronunciation (fôrm, fr-)
n
Selon Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Von: Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > If it was put in bugzilla, the patch would have been
> > refused, or we would have asked him to work on it.
>
> That's how things are handled in Bugzilla, so what is the problem?
The guy scratched an itch.
> Von: Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If it was put in bugzilla, the patch would have been
> refused, or we would have asked him to work on it.
That's how things are handled in Bugzilla, so what is the problem?
> So why worry? I'm happy to see this kind of thing happenning around the
> GIMP.
> Von: Robert Citek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Feb 28, 2006, at 12:20 AM, Manish Singh wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:01:05AM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:
> >> Would you consider Gimpshop a successful fork?
> >
> > Considering Gimpshop can't even keep their own website online, I'd
> > say no.
Hi,
Selon Manish Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> For Gimpshop, it was all about forking from the get go. There was no
> discussion, no proposal in any of the several places to discuss GIMP
> development. No other possibilities were attempted.
Put things in perspective - the guy wrote a patch. It's
On Feb 28, 2006, at 12:20 AM, Manish Singh wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:01:05AM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:
Would you consider Gimpshop a successful fork?
Considering Gimpshop can't even keep their own website online, I'd
say no.
Then why the fuss?
But enough trash talk about Gimpsho
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:01:05AM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:54 PM, Manish Singh wrote:
> >The guy who did Gimpshop decided to do his own thing, and didn't
> >consult
> >the community at all before doing it. Since he didn't engage the
> >community and those who actual
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Pierre-Alexis wrote:
> Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 19:28:23 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Pierre-Alexis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Tom Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GimpShop
>
> Maybe GimpSh
On Samedi 02 Avril 2005 19:28, Pierre-Alexis wrote:
> Maybe GimpShop should become an option in the Gimp
> preferences ?
>
> You choose the interface you want when you install The
> Gimp, and you can change it in the Preferences...
This is really a good idea. Instead of having an other version, I
Maybe GimpShop should become an option in the Gimp
preferences ?
You choose the interface you want when you install The
Gimp, and you can change it in the Preferences...
PA.
--- Tom Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> wayne wrote:
> >
> > One thing good about GimpShop is that I am now
> able t
wayne wrote:
One thing good about GimpShop is that I am now able to run Gimp 2.2.4. Have
not been able to install a RPM successfully till now.
Wayne
:)
Peace...
Tom
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.ed
On Friday 01 April 2005 05:06 pm, Tom Williams wrote:
> Eric Pierce wrote:
> > I tried it and didn't see any changes to the interface. GimpShop only
> > rearranges the menu structure to emulate Photoshop's a little closer.
> >
> > It's really meant for a PS user who is transitioning to the Gimp.
Eric Pierce wrote:
I tried it and didn't see any changes to the interface. GimpShop only
rearranges the menu structure to emulate Photoshop's a little closer.
It's really meant for a PS user who is transitioning to the Gimp. If you're
familar w/the Gimp, there's no need to use it (correct me if
I tried it and didn't see any changes to the interface. GimpShop only
rearranges the menu structure to emulate Photoshop's a little closer.
It's really meant for a PS user who is transitioning to the Gimp. If you're
familar w/the Gimp, there's no need to use it (correct me if I'm wrong).
Eric
Those who crave a PhotoShop interface almost "finally" have it. :)
Thanks for the link. I will pass on this..
Peace...
Tom
wayne
47 matches
Mail list logo
