Hi list,
answering this kind of questions and explainig why exactly we can not
support GimpShop is a waste of time and done again and again and again...
... This clearly is a F.A.Q, which should we be able to answer by politely
providing a link to an FAQ entry on gimp.org. This could save us lots
On Monday 09 July 2007 00:11:09 Axel Wernicke wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> answering this kind of questions and explainig why exactly we can not
> support GimpShop is a waste of time and done again and again and again...
> ... This clearly is a F.A.Q, which should we be able to answer by politely
> provid
On Sunday 08 July 2007 14:37:01 Manish Singh wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 02:42:22PM -0700, David Southwell wrote:
> > I rather gather there are those who disparage gimpshop and wish it to
> > fail and those who wish it to succeed but are afraid of offending some
> > members of the former group
David Southwell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On the first point my reaction to those adopting an authoritarian position
> is "come on guys loosen up". It gives the impression that a few people with
> an axe to grind want to freeze out gimpshop rather than encouraging any
> extensions of gimp, o
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 02:11:09 -0700
David Southwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me there are two issues which seem to be confused and
> rolled into one seeminly illogical construct.
>
> 1. Whether some contributors to this list should take it upon
> themselves to try and stop other con
On Monday 09 July 2007 02:05:43 Karine Delvare wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 02:11:09 -0700
>
> David Southwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It seems to me there are two issues which seem to be confused and
> > rolled into one seeminly illogical construct.
> >
> > 1. Whether some contributors to th
On Monday 09 July 2007 02:06:53 Simon Budig wrote:
> David Southwell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On the first point my reaction to those adopting an authoritarian
> > position is "come on guys loosen up". It gives the impression that a few
> > people with an axe to grind want to freeze out gimp
On Sunday 08 July 2007 14:37:01 Manish Singh wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 02:42:22PM -0700, David Southwell wrote:
> > I rather gather there are those who disparage gimpshop and wish it to
> > fail and those who wish it to succeed but are afraid of offending some
> > members of the former group
David Southwell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I suggest you treat gimpshop as an intermediate hack. Get the best out of it
> you can until someone is encouraged to dvevelop something more sophisticated.
That simply is impossible, since the "solutions" of Gimpshop are no
solutions. I tried to expl
David Southwell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> IMHO it is time to let go of anger and act in a mature and
> constructive way.
Ok, lets just open up this list and make it a gimpshop list as well. And
a Photoshop list. And a Paintshop Pro list. And a Krita list.
They all offer something that gimp urg
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 12:06:22 +0200, Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Southwell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I suggest you treat gimpshop as an intermediate hack. Get the best out of
> > it
> > you can until someone is encouraged to dvevelop something more
> > sophisticated.
>
>
< lots of snip >
>
> Build up a community that wants something better but uses gimpshop as a
> temporary hack. Learn from gimpshop what is needed and then draw development
> energy from the community to develop something better.
>
> My plea is for you guys to stop using your guts to think and
On Monday 09 July 2007 04:30:06 norman wrote:
> < lots of snip >
>
> > Build up a community that wants something better but uses gimpshop as a
> > temporary hack. Learn from gimpshop what is needed and then draw
> > development energy from the community to develop something better.
> >
> > My plea
On Monday 09 July 2007, Sven Neumann wrote:
> I just tried to help you by pointing out that gimpshop is a
> different application and that you should try to get support
> for it from the people who did the fork. If you did that you
> might have found out that there is no such support. You might
> t
David Southwell wrote:
"Currently all I am suggesting is that people with a history of scores
to
settle need to keep quiet and if others want to talk about gimpshop then
let
them do so. Noone is saying any single individual should feel obliged to
contribute to those discussion.
Let us be matur
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 05:02:19 -0700, David Southwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That would mean more developers, features and a bigger
>
> and better community of users. IMHO gimpshop is a great idea. According to
> some its developers have not behaved well -- my guess is
On Sunday 08 July 2007 14:37:01 Manish Singh wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 02:42:22PM -0700, David Southwell wrote:
> > I rather gather there are those who disparage gimpshop and wish it to
> > fail and those who wish it to succeed but are afraid of offending some
> > members of the former group
On Sunday 08 July 2007, David Southwell wrote:
> On Sunday 08 July 2007 12:07:55 Sven Neumann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 07:48 -0700, David Southwell wrote:
> > > I just want to make clear that people who are accustomed to be
> > > positively helpful deserve encouragement and othe
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 20:08:26 +0800, Leon Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then future queries can be answered like this:
>
> GimpShop is a different product to GIMP. Read about
> the differences and support issues here:
>
> http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/GimpShop
>
> I'd happily write u
Hi Brendan,
> David, it's just not worth it. The powers on this list are frighteningly
> short-sighted when it comes to discussions like you are proposing. Even
> though a large chunk of the list feels differently, they will moderate you
> eventually into the ground.
>
Well, "a large chunk" i
Em 2007/07/09, às 11:06, Simon Budig escreveu:
And in case you missed it, we are in a very intense process of looking
at the gimp user interface and improving it. People comparing the
current 2.3 development version with 2.2 tend to like the changes a
lot.
I prefer this way over just emulatin
On Monday 09 July 2007, Alex Feldman wrote:
> Hi Brendan,
>
> > David, it's just not worth it. The powers on this list are frighteningly
> > short-sighted when it comes to discussions like you are proposing. Even
> > though a large chunk of the list feels differently, they will moderate
> > you eve
On Monday 09 July 2007, Alex Feldman wrote:
> Hi Brendan,
>
> > David, it's just not worth it. The powers on this list are frighteningly
> > short-sighted when it comes to discussions like you are proposing. Even
> > though a large chunk of the list feels differently, they will moderate
> > you eve
On Monday 09 July 2007, David Southwell wrote:
> A gui that emulates photoshop is really needed.
If it were done as a "wrapper" idea over standard GIMP, and
integrated, I could easily agree with that. Much better again
if it were modular, so you could enable and disable PS-ish
chunks.
The current
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:20:12 -0400
Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I am only going on the "large chunk" of emails I got when I was
> talking about Gimpshop. All of them from list members.
Why doesn't this "large chunk" of users create a gimpshop mailing list
(or forum or whatever), instea
On Monday 09 July 2007, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> I have updated this wiki page
Excellent! Thank you!
> I have also added a short description of some technical
> problems related to the fork (code conflicts, breaking
> translations) and again, this section can be expanded
> if anybody feels like wr
[slightly reordering the quotes]
David Southwell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Really gimpshop is part of gimp.. the version of gimpshop running on
> my system depends upon the latest version of gimp.
This is backwards logic. We - as the GIMP developers - have no influence
on Gimpshop. Hence it can
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:43:40 +0800
Von: Leon Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
Betreff: Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp - not-gimpshop
> On Monday 09 July 2007, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> > Now I hope that we can get back to discussing GIMP
On Monday 09 July 2007 05:18:23 Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 05:02:19 -0700, David Southwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > That would mean more developers, features and a bigger
> > and better community of users. IMHO gimpshop is a great idea. According
> > to some its developers ha
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 05:36:44AM -0700, David Southwell wrote:
> On Sunday 08 July 2007 14:37:01 Manish Singh wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 02:42:22PM -0700, David Southwell wrote:
> > > I rather gather there are those who disparage gimpshop and wish it to
> > > fail and those who wish it to
1. Ability to work with and save files using CMYK color model.
1a. Use ICC profiles for viewing and exporting CMYK model files.
2. Clean up the code for exporting PostScript and Encapsulated
PostScript files. I have on occasion dug into the source code and
changed things like the unnecessary de
On Mon, 2007-09-07 at 07:55 -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Destructive discussion about whether gimpshop discussion between consenting
> adults should be allowed or not is like proposing the baby should be put out
> with the bathwater.
>
Look David, I'm a GIMP user and I don't appreciate
Manish Singh wrote:
> Please stop posting to the list, as all you can seem to do is post
> misinformation and assertions that you cannot back up.
I would take it one more step and request that no one respond to any
more posts on this discussion. David, you're a troll, please drop this
issue.
> I do not know the history of how gimpshop developers and gimp developers fell
> out with one another. Frankly I amd most users do not care about how that
> happened but I am more concerned about how the future. I would like to see a
> viable photoshop emulating gui for gimp and 16+bit per channe
* Michael Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [07-09-07 16:30]:
> It seems to me that with your needs and wants and attitude, you are
> better off just buying and using Photoshop. You must remember that
> with FOSS like the GIMP, sometimes you need to invest your own time
> into making it work in your workfl
Im going to go nuts - i do not understand the gimp work flow with
selections.
When I paste an element on to a layer, i can no access the area of the layer
not covered by the element. In on specific example, I moved the contents of
a layer slightly to the right. This left a small column of transpa
On 7/9/07, Tom Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Im going to go nuts - i do not understand the gimp work flow with
> selections.
>
> When I paste an element on to a layer, i can no access the area of the layer
> not covered by the element. In on specific example, I moved the contents of
> a lay
37 matches
Mail list logo
