Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 11:12:35AM +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's confusing since the gimp stuff should come from one server not from > a bunch of differently named and hard to find places. Excuse me, plug-ins.gimp. org is difficult to find, especially when it's linked from the www.gimp.org site??? Where on earth are you living? Fact is, no link exists on www.gimp.org, and no dns alias exists either. But this just shows how HARD it is to get even the _most_ simple things done, when one wants to use the existing gimp.org framework. In the same timespan where NOTHING was done on the www.gimp.org pages a full new project was created on sourceforge. If everything in gimp development was so quick we would still be at gimp-0.0. No, thank you. BTW, I think it's faaar too late anyway. This whole thing was discussed quite often in the last year. Creating that project (or something similar) was already too late. > Huh? I'm sure that if a group of people volunteers to create something > useful and gimp-related and ask for access to the server, they will be > given that possibility. Well, I was told that doing it on gimp.org was a lot of work and sourceforge might be a viable alternative. And I actually agree. Why bother other people that already have no time? > That's my whole point: Why do you put the effort into sourceforge > instead of putting it into www.gimp.org where other parts of the website > might benefit from it too? Because sourceforge made it possible. On gimp.org it wasn't even possible to add a simple dns alias. There is no evidence that the current setup is confusing, especially if there were appropriate linkage (gimp-plug-ins has a lot of links to www.gimp.org, btw). So I don't think you have the right to critize the setup. I have seen how the way your described works (not). There are just too many ifs (if there were more people helping, if gimp.org was easier to administrate etc...). gimp.org is still in the "if's" state, while gimp-plug-ins already is in the "basic framework there" state. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 01:47:33PM +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Who did you ask then? Took me a little luck and a few minutes on irc > to get sven.gimp.org and freetype.gimp.org registered under the It took me two emails to not get anything registered under gimp.org. Maybe I just lack the luck or something... I am not mad about this or anything, it's just that the people having access to gimp.org are very busy, and getting them to do more work (even if it is 'just' adding a dns entry) is going to take some time. In the same time it takes to go to irc and ask somebody to do somehting for you you could have done it yourself using sourceforge And always asking other people to do something for you is definitely going to *suck*. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 10:58:35AM +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We have all the possibilities on gimp.org and we should use them. > > But who will do all the necessary work? > Aren't you facing that problem on every server ? On sourceforge, everyone can get access. With gimp.org only very few people have access. > > > IMHO the whole plugin project should move back to > > Well :( Then we will have to find somebody who does it first. > Yep. We need a crew of people interested in doing it... That's only the first step. The next step is to decide wether we actually want that. A http://plug-ins.gimp.org would fit very nice, and the sourceforge staff already helps a lot. Moving would certainly require _more_ work, and I am not sure wether it's worth it. I think the most unfortunate aspect was that first it was decided to go to sourceforge and now some people want to move it back... that won'T do any good to any project... -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
BUG: tearoff menu of closed window can't be closed
Hello, with 1.1.22 I have discovered the following problem: - (only one image open) - tearof an imagemenu (say filter) - close the image - try to close the menu with the triangle at the upper left - open another image - close the tearof same with more than one image open, but then you can change the active image and are able to close the tearof. yours Uwe Koloska -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rcswww.urz.tu-dresden.de/~koloska/ ---- right now the web page is in german only but this will change as time goes by ;-)
Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
Kevin wrote: > As long as things remain well-linked both from and to gimp.org, which implies that someone is actively maintaining the gimp.org site. If the few people interested and willing to do website design and website maintainance decide to perform their skills outside the gimp.org domain, noone is left to do the (sometimes boring) job of maintaining, updating and redoing the main site. That's the only problem I have with outsourcing gimp.org. Salut, Sven
Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 11:18:57AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: > > gimp.org helixcode.com gtk.org gimp-savvy.com gnome.org berkeley.edu... > > It's the wrong solution to a bigger problem. If you think that having all > those different sites is a problem, Well, actually, I'm not convinced it is a problem. As long as things remain well-linked both from and to gimp.org, I feel what domain name the sever falls under is pretty inconsequential. Remember, the American courts haven't made deep-linking illegal yet ;) -- Kevin Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | OpenPGP encryption welcome here Plug-ins: They make GIMP do stuff. http://gimp-plug-ins.sourceforge.net/ This list is archived at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gimp-developer To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
> > He asked this very mailing list. [See attached] For just > one link. And while only Dr. Bunks can authoritatively > state the response he received, apparently it was zip. It was never my point to say that the situation is perfect as is. The only reason why I spoke up was that I wanted to speak for gimp.org. If there's a chance to get new people, new ideas, new spirit into gimp.org then the time is now. > Perhaps only the IRC is the proper forum for gimp administrivia... Sometimes it is, perhaps it shouldn't be. Everything can be changed... > On the other hand, perhaps this is why we really, truly need > a gimp.org webmistress/master - or a group that can make the role > function - so as to realize requests such as this. That is the > true issue. As any number of posters have observed, bits can > live anywhere - who cares where they live. Sourceforge. gimp.org. > Anyplace is fine by me. I do not at all insist on staying with the gimp.org server, but I'd really like to see a more uniform namespace. And I do agree wholeheartly with you that we need a group of people feeling responsible for gimp.org. > > Original Message > Received: by u2.farm.idt.net for gosgood(with pop daemon (v1.21 1997/08/10) Thu Apr >13 20:35:10 2000) > > > > What do folks think of adding either of these two resources to the Gimp? > > /Xtns/Web Browser/Gimp-Savvy.com --> http://gimp-savvy.com/ > /Xtns/Web Browser/Grokking the GIMP --> http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/ > I think it's a very good idea and as soon as those routers decide that I may reach cvs.gnome.org, I will commit this change. Sorry, that the mail was silently ignored in the first place. Sometimes it's hard to follow each and every mail on the list... Salut, Sven
Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
Sven Neumann wrote: > Responding to what Carey Bunks wrote: >> My experience is that this does not work in practice. I spent a lot >> of time last summer trying to get Grokking the GIMP onto gimp.org and >> just could not convince anyone to allow me to do it. That's why I >> created Gimp-Savvy.com. > > Who did you ask then? Took me a little luck and a few minutes on irc > to get sven.gimp.org and freetype.gimp.org registered under the > gimp.org domain for example. He asked this very mailing list. [See attached] For just one link. And while only Dr. Bunks can authoritatively state the response he received, apparently it was zip. Perhaps only the IRC is the proper forum for gimp administrivia... On the other hand, perhaps this is why we really, truly need a gimp.org webmistress/master - or a group that can make the role function - so as to realize requests such as this. That is the true issue. As any number of posters have observed, bits can live anywhere - who cares where they live. Sourceforge. gimp.org. Anyplace is fine by me. It's indexing, so that the useful, high-quality, bits may be referenced in short order from a well-known starting point, that is what's really called for, IMHO. www.gimp.org is useful as a starting point to wherever the bits may be because the URL is well established in many peoples' minds, but the key is to have the site *run*. In part that means catching requests such as Carey's, having judgement that the offered link is of high quality, and simply putting the link there. The effort is not in writing an HTML anchor, of course, but having time to field requests, look at what's available, and exercising a discriminating judgement upon what's found. Now, to date, no one with the savvy to discriminate high- quality bits from cruft has come forward to make the site *run*. I presume its because anyone with such ability also realizes the time commitment required and few readers here are so immature as to volunteer for something they cannot undertake to complete. But isn't that how open source initiatives die, afterall, for want of initiative? Be good, be well Garry Osgood Original Message Received: by u2.farm.idt.net for gosgood(with pop daemon (v1.21 1997/08/10) Thu Apr 13 20:35:10 2000) What do folks think of adding either of these two resources to the Gimp? /Xtns/Web Browser/Gimp-Savvy.com --> http://gimp-savvy.com/ /Xtns/Web Browser/Grokking the GIMP --> http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/ Best regards, Carey Bunks Dr. Carey Bunks Senior Scientist BBN Corp. 70 Fawcett St, 15/2A Cambridge, MA 02138 tel: 617-873-3028 fax: 617-873-2918 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
Robert L Krawitz wrote: > >Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 11:12:35 +0200 >From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> So this might be a false alarm. I really don't think it looks as >> bad. Especially if you consider that such a thing as asked for since about >> a year, and we _still_ douldn't have even something remotely similar if >> there weren't that sourceforge project. > >Huh? I'm sure that if a group of people volunteers to create something >useful and gimp-related and ask for access to the server, they will be >given that possibility. That's my whole point: Why do you put the effort >into sourceforge instead of putting it into www.gimp.org where other >parts of the website might benefit from it too? > > Alternatively, why not put all of the Gimp on Sourceforge rather than > trying to duplicate their effort? That doesn't prevent www.gimp.org > from existing; you may even be able to DNS alias the appropriate > *.gimp.org site to Sourceforge, although I'm not positive about that. Hi, Oh no, please not. I really appreciate the great service provided by Sourceforge but for me it's *terribly* slow sometimes. There are even days where I don't get any connection at all (which does never happen with gimp.org). Maybe it's a problem with my connection or our university network which is my gateway but my theory is that Sourceforge can't serve all requests sometimes. Do others have the same experience with Sourceforge or am I the only one :) bye, --Mitch
Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 16:08:54 +0200 From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Alternatively, why not put all of the Gimp on Sourceforge rather than > trying to duplicate their effort? OK, probably I haven't enough experience with sourceforge. But could someone please explain me what effort you are talking about that would make it worse to use their service? Of course, provided the fact that you have a running web-service and DNS. Well, in response to Marc's comment about deficiencies with gimp.org, you suggested upgrading gimp.org to cope. I think that that's wasted effort that could better go into the software itself. Sourceforge is surely a great thing if you have a project and need a place on the web. But in our case we have a project and we have a place on the web. All we have to do is to find skilled volunteers, settle on a direction and do it. It's not just a place on the web; it's also hosting for the actual development effort, bug tracking, mailing lists, discussion forums, a build farm, and more goodies.
Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
Hi, > Alternatively, why not put all of the Gimp on Sourceforge rather than > trying to duplicate their effort? OK, probably I haven't enough experience with sourceforge. But could someone please explain me what effort you are talking about that would make it worse to use their service? Of course, provided the fact that you have a running web-service and DNS. Sourceforge is surely a great thing if you have a project and need a place on the web. But in our case we have a project and we have a place on the web. All we have to do is to find skilled volunteers, settle on a direction and do it. > That doesn't prevent www.gimp.org > from existing; you may even be able to DNS alias the appropriate > *.gimp.org site to Sourceforge, although I'm not positive about that. I'm sure that could be done. Salut, Sven
Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 11:12:35 +0200 From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So this might be a false alarm. I really don't think it looks as > bad. Especially if you consider that such a thing as asked for since about > a year, and we _still_ douldn't have even something remotely similar if > there weren't that sourceforge project. Huh? I'm sure that if a group of people volunteers to create something useful and gimp-related and ask for access to the server, they will be given that possibility. That's my whole point: Why do you put the effort into sourceforge instead of putting it into www.gimp.org where other parts of the website might benefit from it too? Alternatively, why not put all of the Gimp on Sourceforge rather than trying to duplicate their effort? That doesn't prevent www.gimp.org from existing; you may even be able to DNS alias the appropriate *.gimp.org site to Sourceforge, although I'm not positive about that. -- Robert Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/ Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project lead for The Gimp Print -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton
Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
Hi, > My experience is that this does not work in practice. I spent a lot > of time last summer trying to get Grokking the GIMP onto gimp.org and > just could not convince anyone to allow me to do it. That's why I > created Gimp-Savvy.com. Who did you ask then? Took me a little luck and a few minutes on irc to get sven.gimp.org and freetype.gimp.org registered under the gimp.org domain for example. Recently I decided that I want to move the site to the same server hosting www.gimp.org and I received an OK instantly. Olof and Karins book is under the gimp.org domain too, so I really wonder why you made such bad experiences. Remember, I do not say that the situation with gimp.org is perfect. IMO a lot of things should change. However moving stuff to other domains as a consequence is definitely the wrong solution. Salut, Sven
[Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)]
Hi, > if I'm informed correctly, there is some work underway for a new gimp > website. Who _is_ working on the new gimp.org site? I think it would be a good idea to have several people working on seperate bits of the site (i.e. someone sorts out the downloads, someones else the documentation, etc.) so that each person only has a small amount of work to do, this way it is more likely to stay up-to-date. > We have all the possibilities on gimp.org and > we should use them. IMHO the whole plugin project should move back to > gimp.org too. If that means that we need to overwork the > infrastructure of www.gimp.org, why don't we just for it?? I absolutely agree with you -- gimp.org is the obvious base for The GIMP and where users will go first GIMP stuff. I think that gimp.org has been neglected for too long, but this can change:) I also think that binary packages of stable gimp (and dev-gimp maybe) should be available from gimp.org, because that's what non-developers want. Also, gimp-win32 should be better integrated with gimp.org because no seems to know where it is!! Just IMHO, - Piers Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Re: [GTK+ 1.2.7]
> Does anyone know where I can find prebuilt packages of GTK+1.2.7 and GLib-1.2.7 for Redhat 6.2? Hi, I presume you mean RPM packages by this -- have a look at: http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/GByName.html rpmfind.net is always a good place to start if you're looking for any RPM packages. - Piers Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
> So this might be a false alarm. I really don't think it looks as > bad. Especially if you consider that such a thing as asked for since about > a year, and we _still_ douldn't have even something remotely similar if > there weren't that sourceforge project. Huh? I'm sure that if a group of people volunteers to create something useful and gimp-related and ask for access to the server, they will be given that possibility. That's my whole point: Why do you put the effort into sourceforge instead of putting it into www.gimp.org where other parts of the website might benefit from it too? Sven, My experience is that this does not work in practice. I spent a lot of time last summer trying to get Grokking the GIMP onto gimp.org and just could not convince anyone to allow me to do it. That's why I created Gimp-Savvy.com. Carey Dr. Carey Bunks Senior Scientist BBN Technologies 70 Fawcett St, 15/2A Cambridge, MA 02138 tel: 617-873-3028 fax: 617-873-2918 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
Hi, > I don't know. Graphics samples don't really fall under my vision of the > plug-in site, but they can go there if they need a home, I guess. I can > add it to the task list, and I'll give access to the web server (at > sourceforge) to anyone who wants to implement it and demonstrates half a > clue. They belong to www.gimp.org and of course people interested in working on that stuff can get access to the server (with similar restrictions to what you said: demonstrate half a clue...). > > Bah, it's hopeless, there's cruft at gimp.org, you got your gimp package > from Helixcode.com, or the "gimp toolkit" from gtk.org, users go to > gimp-savvy.com, developers get bug reports and CVS from gnome.org, and > mailing lists run under the berkeley.edu domain but they're archived at > who-knows-where. What's wrong with adding sourceforge, geocities, and > MSN into the lists of hosts too? > It's the wrong solution to a bigger problem. If you think that having all those different sites is a problem, why don't you help the gimp.org maintainers to change this to the better, but instead add another problem in the same spirit...? Salut, Sven
Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
Hi, > > stuff to sourceforge is a bad idea from the very beginning since it is > > confusing to the users. > > another thing: why is this confusing to users? Has anybody complained > to you? At least on this list (or the sourceforge lists) no sign > of confusion was in sight. The web-pages make it quite clear what > gimp-plug-ins is used for. It's confusing since the gimp stuff should come from one server not from a bunch of differently named and hard to find places. > So this might be a false alarm. I really don't think it looks as > bad. Especially if you consider that such a thing as asked for since about > a year, and we _still_ douldn't have even something remotely similar if > there weren't that sourceforge project. Huh? I'm sure that if a group of people volunteers to create something useful and gimp-related and ask for access to the server, they will be given that possibility. That's my whole point: Why do you put the effort into sourceforge instead of putting it into www.gimp.org where other parts of the website might benefit from it too? Salut, Sven
Re: Request for new, high-quality, brushes (and maybe patterns too)
Hi, > > We have all the possibilities on gimp.org and we should use them. > > But who will do all the necessary work? Aren't you facing that problem on every server ? > > IMHO the whole plugin project should move back to > > Well :( Then we will have to find somebody who does it first. Yep. We need a crew of people interested in doing it... Salut, Sven
