Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:09:05 +0200 From: Martin Nordholts <enselic@xxxxxxxxx> I don't see why providing links to recomended binaries on the front page would put any more responsibility on us. We already direct users to recomendeded binaries, and as long as we continue to be clear that we don't build those binaries ourselves, why should we not make it easier to reach those? Because whatever disclaimers etc. you use, users will see the binaries as coming from the GIMP project, and will blame you if there are any download problems or corrupted (or trojaned!) binaries. The content of a website should be organized in such a way that the most usable information should be the most reachable, and I am pretty confident that most visitors on gimp.org looks for binaries, hence we should have binaries on the front page. I don't see why we would have to also host the Win32 FAQ etc because of this. Just link to those external pages. Sure, coherency is important but let's not take it to the extreme, let's focus on providing a pragmatic gimp.org. Martin Nordholts les, just link to themourselves Sven Neumann skrev: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 00:29 +0100, David Marrs wrote: > >> Sven indicated that this idea has already been considered and rejected by the >> team and that I should bring it up for discussion here before proceeding any >> further. > > We haven't really discussed and rejected this particular idea. The point > here is just that the current rule is that the GIMP team only provides > the source code. The creation, distribution and maintainance of binary > packages has been left to other parties. The current website tries to > explain this point and only gives recommendations for binary packages. > > In my opinion we should stick to this rule. It would make a lot of sense > to make it easier for the user to locate our recommendations for binary > packages. If user agent detection helps to remove one or two clicks, > then I am fine with that. But if there's a download button on the > front-page that directly instantiates the download, then we are > effectively providing binary packages. It doesn't matter if the packages > are hosted elsewhere. To the user it will appear as if we would provide > the binaries. > > If we decided that we want to do this, then we should probably really > provide the binaries and we would have to move things like the Win32 > user FAQ (http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/faq.html) and the gimp-app > bug-tracker (http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimp-app) to gimp.org and > to our bug-tracker. I don't think we are prepared to do that. _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
