Hi Carol, I/we are already users and contributors to the ImageMagick and GraphicsMagick projects as well as the GIMP. Both of those programs and the GIMP have certain key strengths and weaknesses with respect to each other, such that they are certainly not direct substitutes in *many* respects. That was certainly the case with our previous need regarding command line execution of a Gimp script under Windows. For another example, the GIMP can handle the size of our larger image files under Windows, while IM and GM still cannot. (IM and GM pixel representation in memory is always at least 40 bit (8x5), while the GIMP allows 8 bit memory representation, allowing roughly 5 times more pixels to be manipulated under Windows). It is utterly ridiculous that simply because I voiced concerns about and would like for the ability to have gimp scripts execute properly from the command line under Windows that you accuse me of "making the GIMP suck". The suggestions that I offered earlier this evening were only thrown out for consideration, and I didn't try to force those down anyone's throat. All that I asked was that GIMP developers try to give adequate consideration to the needs of Windows based gimp users rather than selecting an implementation that I was worried might have an adverse impact. Some bias towards Linux and other Unix based systems is completely understandable and acceptable to everyone. We all appreciate the deficiencies of Windows and its poor record of adhering to standards (though there are *many* similar examples in the *nix world as well). We also appreciate that the Linux community is making the biggest share of contributions to the GIMP development effort. What I don't appreciate, is your apparent lack of sympathy towards users who have *no* choice but to run under Windows (for any of numerous reasons) and who simply desire to use the gimp (just as you claim to), and to help enhance it to meet *their* needs, just as you enhance it to meet your own needs under Linux. The gimp is an open source product, and is also supported and developed by Windows users, not just *nix heads. So what gives you the right to presume that only *nix developers can own and control the GIMP (as your comments seem to imply), and to ignore the needs of Windows based users and the feedback and proposals of Windows based contributors? Your statements seem to imply that any user or organization who doesn't like the lack of certain GIMP features under Windows can just switch right over to Linux at a moments notice, and that simply is NOT the case in many situations. For example, in our own situation, we use several extremely complex, industry specific technical applications that simply do not exist for Linux. Other programs that we use do have Linux counterparts, but would require numerous man years of retraining, redevelopment of supporting applications, and data conversion in order to switch over, and many are *very* expensive applications that are *not* public domain, even under Linux, which we cannot afford to replace. Also, we can't afford a bunch of duplicate hardware to run both operating systems in parallel, nor can our work flows stand the wasted time of constantly rebooting to switch between applications running under the different operating systems. From an ideological standpoint, we would *love* to switch to Linux, immediately!!! >From a practicality and expense standpoint, we just can't do it, and there are many other folks in exactly the same boat. To presume otherwise is to assume that you know everyone else's business better than they do, and I guarantee that you do NOT. Our view seems to be quite different from yours. We believe that Windows based GIMP users should be able to make contributions (which BTW include comments and suggestions) that allow the gimp to work as effectively for us under Windows as it does for other folks under Linux, and *of course* at the same time not to do anything that would adversely impact Linux users. Apparently there are lots of other gimp users and contributors who feel the same way as we do. What doesn't seem right is that *some* Linux based developers don't seem to have any problem implementing features in such a way that it precludes effective use under Windows when it doesn't need to, or reject proposed development efforts by others that would benefit Windows users simply because there is no perceived benefit to the *nix community. I'm not saying at all that has happened in this specific instance regarding the issues that I raised earlier this evening and the subsequent discussion. What I am saying Carol, is that some of you appear to be having a rather knee jerk reaction against someone else who is merely trying to help the GIMP better support the operating system that they are using, no different than anyone else who might happen to be using some other OS. If the approach that I suggested won't work or will cause real problems under another OS, that's fine. But what isn't fine is to say in essence "we don't care about Windows users and contributors, and we're not going to listen to their input", which is basically what I got out of your reply. s/KAM ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol Spears" <carol@xxxxxxxx> To: "Kevin Myers" <KevinMyers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "GIMPDev" <gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 11:17 PM Subject: Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The Mark Shuttleworth offer) > On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 09:26:23PM -0600, Kevin Myers wrote: > > > > Admittedly, the Windows command prompt (not simply Explorer) is less capable > > than most *nix command shells. However, there are also a very large number > > of Windows based GIMP users, and one of the requirements of GIMP 2.x is that > > it should be as usable under Windows as it is on other operating systems. > > I'm not familiar with R5RS, and you could certainly be right in your opinion > > regarding that. However, as a Windows GIMP user (and much more rarely a > > GIMP bug, patch, fix, and enhancement contributor), I want to make sure that > > there isn't excessive *nix bias that inhibits or ignores usability needs > > under Windows. > > > TheGIMP only exists for Windows(TM) because at the time, linux and > scanners were not working so well together. The GNU/Linux bias is a > fact. It is the only reason it exists. > > > For example, in one past case, I wanted to run a simple GIMP script from the > > Windows command shell, and there wasn't one single person (Sven and everyone > > else included), who was able to tell me how to arrange the quoting to get > > the script to run along with the required parameters. That level of > > disfunctionality is not acceptable, and should be eliminated, even if it > > means doing something like "abandoning" (or modifying) certain *nix based > > standards for the Windows version of the GIMP. > > > To avoid problems like this, linux developers are fairly good at > following standards and all sorts of acronyms like api's and rtfm's -- > there are more, i cannot remember them. > > Writing web pages for internet explorer is very limiting and not fun as > they have not adhered to browser standards. Are you making TheGIMP suck > like this? > > > Obviously though, I do realize the strong need to minimize any such > > Windows-specific behavior, and that any such differences should receive a > > great deal of very careful consideration before implementation. In the past > > however, I feel that the scale may have been tipped slightly too far against > > Windows on such issues. > > > GNU/Linux is supporting scanners really well now. Perhaps you might be > more interested in helping the Image Magick project as they have been > running better from the command linue than from the GUI for years. It > is available on Windows(TM) also. > > carol > >
