On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, GSR - FR wrote: > Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:48:23 +0200 > From: GSR - FR <famrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [iso-8859-1] Déjà vu? (Re: Why be c[iso-8859-1] > ryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions') > > Hi, > tml@xxxxxx (2006-03-23 at 1032.39 +0200): > > Brendan writes: > > > Please, oh Lord, someone fork Gimp. > > I can imagine the scenario: (This is a parody, not a flame) > > Someones forks GIMP, sets up a project on (say) SourceForge. He spends > > lots of effort on the project's web page. (He is a c00l web designer.) > > It has a long list of features that this forked GIMP will have. The > > small print at the bottom says "looking for developers". > > Someone did it... but failed to fulfill completly your prophecy this > time, it seems they are already providing working code. ;] > http://seashore.sourceforge.net/ The web pages do say last updated February 2006 and for Mac addicts who absolutely must have the standard Mac style menubar it might still provide something useful and it looks like they may have kept things largely compatible. > Personally, I am pretty much tired of all the UI/change name/cosmetic > games, Could more be done to allow these cosmetic changes without forks being necessary? I recall work was done to make it easier to make menu changes without needing a recompile and this was a great idea but Sven point blank rejected even the possibility of accepting patches which might rebranding easier. It was a shame people rushed to brand Gimpshop a fork, as opposed to an interesting hack (which is how the author described it) and an opportunity to get attract another developer to help out. Perhaps it is not too late to encourage him to remake the changes in a more maintainable way rather than continuing to berate the author for his efforts. This doesn't even include the patches and changes distributions make to their version of the GIMP which I doubt they really want the extra hassle of maintaining. > as what I see is lack of some interesting (oh, maybe I should > had said useful, otherwise the chat will spread even more into "that > is not needed" "yes it is" blah blah) features... yeah, other apps > have them, no, having those features does not mean copying the other Looking at the GIMP, the GIMP Animation Package, gimp-perl, gimp-python, gimp-data-extras, pspi and the wealth of third part plugins out there people could already create lots of quite different installations of the GIMP or different distributions, setup by default to serve lots of slightly different audiences. (Does the windows version of the gimp include exactly the same plugins? I think it used to include one or two extras like the Resythesizer plugin.) Would doing a Firefox on the GIMP be a good move? If mainline GIMP was slimmed down further would that be a good thing? (Just in terms of disk usage GImpressionist, Gfig and Gflare add quite a bit of extra bulk.) Maybe this would be more hassle than it is worth? > I just remembered I had a small shot of the image in which one can > guess the layer stack size (yes, that is 1.2, last sessions were in > different machines, some had 2.x and one was still going with 1.2): > http://www.infernal-iceberg.com/gimp/tmp/hs129-layers-and-miniview.png Sorry, I'm not sure exactly what detail in this screenshot you are pointing out. Later Alan H. _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
