Re: [Gimp-user] CinePaint and Film Gimp
Eric Pierce wrote: Robin, there is really no point in being personally offended here. Sven, no need to apologize. I said I wasn't offended. So the merge is on? Perhaps, a year ago, if someone had proposed re-merging the extra colordepth code from cinepaint into the gimp, with the idea that it would eventually be replaced by gegl post-2.2, it might have happened for 2.0. However, that didn't happen, and as we can see there has now been some personal animosity (if not offense) that has built up between the 2 projects (or at least, between key people on the two projects). It definitely is not something that's on the cards before 2.0, and 2.2 should be a stabilising release with some feature additions, but nothing as major as a code merge from a project which actually doesn't share that much code with us any more from what I can see... if we were to attempt such a merge, it would definitely delay 2.2, and would thus delay the merging of gegl into the GIMP (which is due to happen, if all goes well, after 2.2). Given that, I'd say it's unlikely. Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] CinePaint and Film Gimp
Hi, I know I should stop actually this thread but since Robin didn't get the point again, I will comment to some of the more personal attacks included in his former reply. Perhaps this can help to get rid of some misunderstandings. Robin Rowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your name isn't listed as the project manager of GIMP. Not then. Not today. In fact, in checking Authors at http://www.gimp.org/the_gimp_about.html you aren't listed at all. Contacting you didn't occur to me because I had never heard of you. I am not the project manager and I never claimed to be. There is no such role as the project manager in The GIMP development. Like most free software projects The GIMP is being developed by a bunch of hackers and other contributors who together form some sort of community. There is no leader elected and there's no spokesman neither. If you want to get in contact with the GIMP developers, you need to address them all and use the developers mailing list. There is no point in talking to a single person and there is also no point in taking a single person responsible. I don't give shit about my name listed on the GIMP website. If you want to know who is actively working on a free software project, you don't look at it's web-site, you take a look at the source code and the ChangeLog. You cannot apply the rules you learned from corporate software development to free software projects; it won't work. If you want to work with us, try to respect us and the way that things work here. My name, on the other hand, was everywhere. Although I didn't know of you, you should have known of me from the very start. I was prominently in the press and posting to GIMP lists regarding Film Gimp. You could have contacted me seeking my cooperation as soon as you learned of my involvement in Film Gimp, but instead you waited. Your approach has been to attack me from a public pulpit on the GIMP mailing lists. Your invective remarks are not addressed to me, but advise third persons against me. Yes, I noticed the selfishness with that you spread your name all over code that other people wrote. And I also noted that you are constantly trying to blame the wrong people for things that went wrong in the past. You even tried to change history (or the perception of it) by claiming obviously wrong facts. This is the point when I had to speak up and tell people how I remembered the story you just told them. For you to suggest today that the problem was me not communicating enough shows real cheek. The person out of the loop is you. You have admitted you have no clue what happened to Film Gimp in 2000 when it was killed or in 2002 when it was resurrected, but that doesn't stop you from publicizing a negative opinion of it and me. Yes, I have a negative opinion on the code and there is nothing going to stop me from stating this as my very own personal opinion. I have no interest in telling anyone my opinion on you though. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Scripting font hinting
I've just moved some of my 1.2 scripts to 1.3 and I notice that text layers are created with font hinting toggled on. Looking at DB browser, hinting is not an option in gimp-text-fontname so how can this be set from a script? -- John Green ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Scripting font hinting
Hi, John Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've just moved some of my 1.2 scripts to 1.3 and I notice that text layers are created with font hinting toggled on. Looking at DB browser, hinting is not an option in gimp-text-fontname so how can this be set from a script? It cannot be set since you are using the compatibility API. There are no new PDB calls for the text tool yet but I plan to add them when the time has come. If you absolutely need to turn off hinting, you will have to wait for the new API, compile freetype w/o hinting or patch the GIMP. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
Interesting comments Marc. Unfortunately, I couldn't disagree with you more. On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 20:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We should also consider that xfree86 currently falls aparts exactly because of the board (and wrecks for quite some time already). Interesting, if clouded, view of this situation. The board (which is actually made up of the core developers) has been closed minded about its development efforts in the past. The recent turmoil was a way of letting fresh air into the process. The board remains. XFree86 remains. Advances continue. Exactly where has XFree86 fallen apart? Did you discuss your opinion with any of the core developers or are you just stating the opinion without gathering any facts on the situation first? And many other projects live fine without boards, too. And some live fine with them. KDE, GNOME and Debian come to mind. They don't appear to be falling apart either having established definitive goals, target audiences, rules for interaction with outside vendors or even *gasp* establishing release schedules. GCC (one of the largest free software projects) did fine, too, for a very long time. Indeed it has. Of course, it does have the Free Software Foundation (and no less than Stallman himself) as a guiding force behind it. But I guess that doesn't count as a board in your opinion. Apache probably has less problems because they try very hard not do decide things over the heads of other people. If by this you mean the board doesn't try to snatch control away from the developers then that's probably true. In fact, that's what a guiding board should do - offer guidance on direction. If the developers remain open minded, they'll consider that guidance seriously. In Apache's case, it appears to work. Boards are a concept alien to free software projects, since boards work like we decide, you do the work, which might work in corporate structures, but doesn't work at all in free software environments. You see the world as black and white, Marc. Not all boards are so manipulative. But there are many projects who could use an authoritative voice to keep the project moving. Miguel was such a force for GNOME, and that project (even without a board, but with an authoritative figure at its helm) has done quite well. doesn't work at all in free software environments isn't even close to the truth here. You sound like you speak more from hate of anything that smells of authority than from research of the facts. As for boards being alien to free software, well, I've given a number of examples to the contrary. There are many more. Non-profit organizations are, on the other hand, often seperated from the project itself (esp. for the Gimp, as the developers feel afaics strongly against handing over the rights to the code to such an organization, which means it would have no rights at all to the gimp). No one is going to get the rights to the code if its under the GPL. This sounds like FUD. But developers may feel disinclined to handing over the direction and control of the *project* (not the code itself) to another group or individual. That's a fair feeling considering the efforts the developers have given to this point. Because of this, any authoritative leadership must have the support of the developers group or it wouldn't be of any use. If the GIMP developers are happy without such leadership, then there really isn't any point in trying to establish one. It is my assertion that such leadership is missing and would help extend GIMP's value to both the developers and the user community. Please note that when I say leadership is missing I say that with Sven's acknowledgment that he is not the central authority and that such central authority does not exist. I do not mean to imply that the work Sven and the others have done to this point was without value. To the contrary: The GIMP developers have done very well without central authority. I feel they can do even better with it. Recently I hear a lot about target audience and have to work with the industry and similar ideas. You'll hear a lot more as open source catches on in the real world. In my opinion, this has exactly zero relevance. And you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how far removed from reality it might be. The question to ask is: how would a board/non-profit-org help the _developers_. By lighting the fire of interest in the non-technical community that often sparks motivation and interest in the project itself. Getting the word out about the GIMP and it's plans and direction (and having helped establish both) may help bring in new developers, which in turn *could* (but is not guaranteed, of course) help to speed the process of development. It could also generate funding for hardware. Perhaps even small scholarships for students participating in the project. Most importantly (in my opinion, which is worth as much as your own), it can help
Re: [Gimp-user] CinePaint and Film Gimp
can we stop this thread? there is a good chance that i am responsible for the bad blood between filmgimp and gimp. i was writing to Robin and i might have said something rude. as far as how free software works, i remember when Sven started to take over. i read the developer mail and kept thinking just where does this asshole get off and other similar eh, impressions. when i actually took the time to see what he was talking about reflected in the software improvement, my impression turned more from that asshole at least knows what he is doing. and the rudness became more entertaining and gimp so much better. i have disagreed with him a few times, i have my theory that this disagreement was a set up however. there are good ways and bad ways to build free software. i think the gimp community takes only the best from both of those ways. Sven Neumann is an asshole. and a creep. he might even have stinky armpits, i dunno. gimp is really shaping up nice though :) so i am sorry for whatever i said in that long ago exchange that pissed you off. also, i am sorry you have such old widgets to work with. my real reason to want gimp-gap to work is to force the software companies to upgrade their consumer level software. i really think that gimp-1.2 was responsible for photoshop so quickly putting two of their software packages together. with gimp-gap, we can run the same experiment with the film software. did you see how much better all the software in the world got when gimp-1.2 came out? ohmigod! who has time to be an ass kisser. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Scripting font hinting
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 03:19:42PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: It cannot be set since you are using the compatibility API. There are no new PDB calls for the text tool yet but I plan to add them when the time has come. If you absolutely need to turn off hinting, you will have to wait for the new API, compile freetype w/o hinting or patch the GIMP. Thanks, I wondered why I couldn't find anything. It's just that a font I was using looked pretty ugly with hinting on. So I just used a different font. -- John Green ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:33:39AM -0500, Michael J. Hammel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 20:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We should also consider that xfree86 currently falls aparts exactly because of the board (and wrecks for quite some time already). Interesting, if clouded, view of this situation. I think I have a very clear view of the innards of xfree86. The board (which is actually made up of the core developers) Was. Just ask them. The president abused his unlimited power to silence everybody and expell most core developers from the board. letting fresh air into the process. The board remains. XFree86 remains. Advances continue. Exactly where has XFree86 fallen apart? Well, I can't argue with you, sicne you are supposing something about the future, on which I disagree. xfree86 is falling apart because developers leave it and no fresh blood is joining. Did you discuss your opinion with any of the core developers or are you just stating the opinion without gathering any facts on the situation first? As a matter of fact I discussed it with quite a few current and previous board members and core developers. I think it's pretty representative. XFree86 might be somewhat exceptional, as a single person holds all the power, but if you look around, that is how boards work usually. And some live fine with them. KDE, GNOME and Debian come to mind. They don't appear to be falling apart either having established definitive goals, target audiences, rules for interaction with outside vendors or even *gasp* establishing release schedules. However, there is a distinctive difference there: There is no need to negotiate with the industry. And since this is your original idea behind a board, these boards are pretty irrelevant. Even worse, you could at least have made your homework and look wether these projects even have a board. That's not the case, so I guess your agrument is (again) not backed up by facts. It doesn't help you to accuse me of not basing my opinions on fact, and I think that's pretty low of you. GCC (one of the largest free software projects) did fine, too, for a very long time. Indeed it has. Of course, it does have the Free Software Foundation (and no less than Stallman himself) as a guiding force behind it. But I That's just plain bullshit (sorry, but what are you trying to achieve with spreading such misinformation??). It's you who is making claims that are badly researched and shed a bad light on what you say. The guiding force behind gcc is purely the developer community. Even if you take the steering committee (which has power and says it guides), it only does so when the community can't make a decision. Neither of these is the FSF. The FSF has absolute power over gcc (the name), but as history has shown, it doesn't have power over gcc (the project). The current state of gcc is *exactly* the result of a board (of the FSF in this case) trying to force decisions. guess that doesn't count as a board in your opinion. Of course not, because it isn't a board. That is independend of my opinion, but a fact. Why do you get this personal? [apache] If by this you mean the board doesn't try to snatch control away from the developers then that's probably true. That's what I meant, yes. Boards are a concept alien to free software projects, since boards work like we decide, you do the work, which might work in corporate structures, but doesn't work at all in free software environments. You see the world as black and white, Marc. Not all boards are so manipulative. Well, if a board doesn't have any power, there is no need to create one in the first place. It serves no purpose if it cannot do anything. But there are many projects who could use an authoritative voice to keep the project moving. That is exactly the problem: an authoritative voice. Gimp already has authoritative voices. If your assumption is that authoritative voices and boards are the same thing, then you are mistaken. And if you think that boards and auth. voices are not the same thing, then it has nothing to do with this discussion. In other words: boards are not necessarily autoritative voices, and you don't need boards to have that. What _are_ your arguments for such an institution? for GNOME, and that project (even without a board, but with an authoritative figure at its helm) has done quite well. So that proves that boards aren't necessary, right? Boards are not even necessarily productive for a project. doesn't work at all in free software environments isn't even close to the truth here. Well, I disagree. The only counterexamples are boards without any power or voice. I wouldn't oppose those and agree they work fine with free software projects. You sound like you speak more from hate of anything that smells of authority than from research of the facts. Obviously I did my homework better than you for example. No, I don't hate boards.
