Sam Gleske (sam.mxra...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I merely asked if one of the reasons for the creation of GEGL was to
> abstract graphical manipulation functions out of the GUI into a library.
Well, we already had an abstraction layer between the image manipulation
core and the GUI, so that question is
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine <
alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand why you are trying to insist on UI change as one of
> GEGL points.
>
> Yes, one could create an entirely new image editor based on GEGL. In
> fact, there's at least one such project.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Sam Gleske wrote:
> Right, it has features. Being that it's a library is it not to provide
> some abstraction and help simplify the implementation? As it is in a
> library, writing another GUI on top of it would be possible and
> considerably easier than previous
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine <
alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com> wrote:Oh, I don't know...
>
> 32bit per color channel precision?
> Graph-based non-destructive processing?
>
> :)
Right, it has features. Being that it's a library is it not to provide
some abstraction and he
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Sam Gleske wrote:
> Isn't the purpose of GEGL integration attempting to pull as much of the
> graphical functions out of GIMP as possible so that GUI could be switched
> but the underlying library has the same quality of image manipulation?
>
> If that's not the ca
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Michael Natterer wrote:
> Apple sucks and doesn't allow GPL in the App store.
>
Apple will unofficially allow it but as soon as much as a single
contributor toots the GNU horn about distribution restrictions and license
conflict they'll immediately pull it from t
