Re: [Gimp-user] Tiff-library not found for gimp 2.2

[Manish Singh]

On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:09:40PM +0100, Jogchum Reitsma wrote:
> This is what configure says:
> 
> checking for TIFFReadScanline in -ltiff... no
> checking for TIFFWriteScanline in -ltiff... no
> checking for TIFFFlushData in -ltiff34... no
> configure: WARNING: *** TIFF plug-in will not be built (TIFF library not 
> found) ***
> configure: error:
> *** Checks for TIFF libary failed. You can build without it by passing
> *** --without-libtiff to configure but you won't be able to use TIFFs then.
> 
> There are no more references to libtiff in the output from configure, as 
> far as I can see.

Check config.log for details for why the check failed.
 
-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Re: 2.2 splash screen competition

[Manish Singh]

On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 11:03:08AM +0100, David Neary wrote:
> Hi Joszef,
> 
> Jozsef Mak wrote:
> > Can anyone explain why I cannot create an account for the contest page? I 
> > tried every variations possible but nothing happens other than the same 
> > page reappears over and over again asking to create an account.
> 
> Once you have entered the details, the same page is redisplayed -
> it is your preferences page as well. You know you have
> successfully created an account when the top right corner says
> "JoszefMak" and not "UserPreferences". If you visit other pages
> then, you can modify them.

Don't bother with this, use: http://www.gimp.org/contest/contest.cgi

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Gimp-user] Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: 2.2 splash screen competition

[Manish Singh]

On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 03:34:04PM +0100, David Neary wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> After a false start, the GIMP Splash Contest is now officially
> open!
> 
> The contest runs until next Sunday, Midnight. Splash screens
> should be the same size as jimmac's logo and have a pale band
> across the bottom roughly the same size. Otherwise, knock
> yourselves out!
> 
> Competition entries should be attached to the live.gnome.org wiki
> page at http://live.gnome.org/GnomeArt_2fGimpSplashContest - you

This has been moved to:

http://www.gimp.org/contest/contest.cgi

Current submissions can be seen at:

http://www.gimp.org/contest/gallery.cgi

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Graphire3 flakiness in gimp (1.2.5 and 2.0.4)

[Manish Singh]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:27:25PM -0500, Mark D. Montgomery II wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > i think we are having some problems because i dont really understand how
> > gentoo works.
> > 
> 
> hehe.
> Basically, it uses a package tree system (similar to debian I believe).
> When you tell it to install a package, it downloads the source and
> specified patches from the gentoo archives and compiles the program.
> When the maintainers for the specified package in the tree (for instance
> gimp), deem a package to be properly stable on gentoo, they set it
> stable.
> Packages that are not quite deemed stable are masked, but you can easily
> tell the system to try to install it anyway.  This is what I did to go
> from 2.0.4 to 2.0.6.  A package that is in the tree, but not deemed
> stable enough to even try to install (probably very new or has not been
> tested yet or depends on something funny) will be hard masked (set to
> masked in a file).  To install these you need to unmask the package in
> the mask file and then tell it to install.

This seems rather arbitrary. Why is 2.0.4 considered more stable than
2.0.6? 2.0.6 is purely minor bugfixes over 2.0.4, so if anything, 2.0.6
should be considered more stable than 2.0.4. So this doesn't make any
sense.

> Gimp 2.2.0 is currently hard masked.
> 
> As I dug around (and tried compiling gimp2 from the stock source), I
> discovered that gimp 2.2.x require freetype 2.1.7 or greater.
> The current stable version in gentoo is 2.1.5-r1.
> 2.1.7 is not in portage.
> 2.1.9 is masked in portage because of problems with it and Mozilla and
> Firefox being compiled with older versions.
> To install 2.1.9, you must first uninstall Mozilla and Firefox.
> For me, however, they would not recompile afterwards (I'll have to try
> again later and see if it was just a fluke).
> 
> So the current state of gimp 2.2.x on gentoo seems to depend on the
> freetype/Mozilla issue.

Except there isn't an issue with freetype 2.1.9 and mozilla. Other
distros are working happily with this combination. Again, this doesn't
make any sense.

This didn't really clear anything up. It just looks like a bunch of
arbritrary rules not grounded in reality.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Window-Title - Meaning of %f

[Manish Singh]

On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 08:35:23AM +0100, Andreas Waechter wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> in Gimp, you can change the title of image windows (in File 
> - Preferences - Interface - Image Windows - Title & Status).
> 
> But I could not find any help about the meaning of the 
> letters which are used in combination with %.
> I could only derive a few from the given examples:
> 
> %% is a percent sign
> %z is the zoom percentag
> %t is the type (RGB/indexed/Grayscale)
> %f is the filename
> %m is the memory usage
> %d:%s is the zoom ratio
> %p and %i are some numbers, %i could be the number of the 
> view and %p the number of the image
> 
> Is there a complete list to be found somewhere?

Look at the gimprc manpage.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Default JPEG quality setting - where?

[Manish Singh]

On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:19:29PM +0200, Antti M?kel? wrote:
>   Hi,
> 
> Where can I set the default quality when saving JPEG images? The default 85
> is too low, I want to use 98. I could not find a suitable setting anywhere,
> either in config files or in menus.  Where is it hidden?

Open up jpeg.c, change #define DEFAULT_QUALITY to whatever, rebuild,
install, and you're done.

>   (No lectures on the default 85 being "enough", thank you - it is not
> enough, and I can clearly see artifacts on my edited digital photographs if
> saved with 85.).

You do get the lecture from the libjpeg documentation:

Quality values above about 95 are NOT recommended for normal use;
the compressed file size goes up dramatically for hardly any gain
in output image quality.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Trouble with layers from psd

[Manish Singh]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 01:27:40AM +, Eric Pierce wrote:
> One of the admins at my work purportedly uses Macormedia's Fireworks for
> raster image editing.
> 
> He told me that the default file format is png!  I called him a bold
> faced lier, but he swears up and down that png is the default format.
> I asked him about layers, and he said the pngs that Fireworks saves can
> DO LAYERS.  I haven't seen it firsthand... is there any truth to this!?

Fireworks does use PNG as its internal format, because PNG lets apps
define their own private chunks to store extra data in. See:

http://www.faqs.org/docs/png/chapter01.html#png.ch01.div.3.1

It doesn't look like the private chunks are documented, so it's not a
useful cross platform interchange format. It's probably highly Fireworks
specific anyway.

It looks like Fireworks stores a composited version in the standard
image chunk, so you can see a preview in standard png viewers.

-Manish
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Ghost Layer

[Manish Singh]

On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 12:24:21PM -0800, William Skaggs wrote:
> 
> Cristian David wrote:
> 
> > I downloaded the Picture "Eastern Hemisphere 2048 by 2048 pixels
> > (7.1 MB TIFF)" from
> > http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/ .
> >
> > After this I tried to put another layer over the black part. But
> > what ever I tried, the black part of the picture covers it. Another
> > strange thing is, that die black part is allways shown, even when
> > al* layers are deactivated.
> 
> Carol Spears wrote:
> 
> > the error message from gimp is somewhat revealing, however:
> > alpha channel type not defined for file
> > ~/.gimp-2.3/tmp/gimp_temp_157230.tif. Assuming alpha is not
> > premultiplied 
> 
> An even more revealing error message appears if you try to display
> this image using xv:  "Sorry, can not handle 6 channel images."

And gimp loads those extra channels fine.
 
> It looks like the GIMP tiff plug-in mishandles the image in a 
> way that causes data corruption in the core.

No data corruption, the black parts are the extra channel data. What the
data means isn't clear, since NASA didn't tell us what the data
represents.

They can safely be deleted from the channels view if one doesn't need
them.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp-2.2.x very slow to load image

[Manish Singh]

On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 09:57:54PM -0800, Jeff Trefftzs wrote:
> I recently upgraded to gimp-2.2.4 (and .3 before that), just after I
> installed Red Hat Fedora Core 3 as my new latest-and-greatest operating
> system.  I'm running it on an AMD K6 processor, 450 Mhz, 256MB of RAM,
> plenty of HD space.
> 
> Whereas in gimp-2.0.x images would load promptly, I find that with 2.2.x
> that there is an approximately 40 second delay between the time the
> progress bar says the image is ready and the time it appears on the
> screen.  I use the Gimp a lot for tweaking digital photos, usually
> loading the original photo and then immediately duplicating it so I
> don't mess up my 'negative'.  (I'm sure you can guess why).  But now I
> find that it takes 40+ seconds to load the original image (1600x1200 px,
> maybe a couple of hundred MB), and another 40 sec or so to duplicate it.
> 
> Eeek!  What's happened here?  I have tried boosting the tile cache t0
> 160Mb and stripping the executable, but with no result.  Has anyone else
> seen this problem, and have y'all any suggestions?  Since I haven't
> noticed anyone else having this problem, it's probably something I'm
> doing (or not doing), but I don't know what it might be.

Upgrade to the latest gtk2 in Fedora. GTK+ versions prior to 2.4.14 had
rather inefficient GtkUIManager code. The stalls you are seeing is the
time it takes the build the large number of menu items GIMP has with
its image windows.

Supposedly a GIMP package which actually has a hard dependency on
gtk2 >= 2.4.14 will show up in Fedora updates soon.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Re: GimpShop

[Manish Singh]

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:08:03AM +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
> 
> > Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 22:46:47 -0500 (EST)
> > From: Jonathan D Gibbons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
> > Subject: [Gimp-user] Re: GimpShop
> >
> > Now, what I think would be really wonderful along these lines would be a
> > setup whereby The Gimp can be easily "skinned" to a rearranged UI like
> > this.
> 
> That is a whole lot of maintainance work, way more than you might think.
> I would hope optimistically that things could be adjusted to work well for
> all kinds of users and I think it would be better to make efforts to
> improve the defaults first (but developers will spend time on whatever
> they are most interested in).
> 
> If it is possible to make these kinds of changes and enough people are
> interested it will probably happen (like it just did) so it makes sense to
> try and allow it (and do so in a way that can be maintained) rather than
> telling people to fork if they do not like the user interface.
> 
> I think the point about finding menu items is worth considering but we
> already deal with users in various langauges (and therefore different
> lables for the same things) and I think this problem could be reduced if
> the PDB Browser could be improved to allow users to search for things more
> easily.

Given that all the string changes in GimpShop occured in translatable
strings, one wonders why patching the source was needed at all. The only
other changes were to the menu files, which have been external since the
change to GtkUIManager.

In fact, with a slight change to GIMP to make the location for the menu
files locale aware, one could make a en_US.pshop locale and dist just
the .po and .xml files instead of having to track the entire source code
base.

Ironically, I note that gimpshop doesn't appear to use the ps-menurc
file by default.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Re: GimpShop

[Manish Singh]

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:03:13PM +0200, Michael Schumacher wrote:
> 
> > Given that all the string changes in GimpShop occured in translatable
> > strings, one wonders why patching the source was needed at all. The only
> > other changes were to the menu files, which have been external since the
> > change to GtkUIManager.
> 
> Maybe for the script-fus...

script-fu menu paths are translatable as well.
  
> > In fact, with a slight change to GIMP to make the location for the menu
> > files locale aware, one could make a en_US.pshop locale and dist just
> > the .po and .xml files instead of having to track the entire source code
> > base.
> 
> Yep, would be worth a try. Having a separate package for trying GimpShop
> would be much better than the current solution.
> 
> > Ironically, I note that gimpshop doesn't appear to use the ps-menurc
> > file by default.
> 
> Huh? Something gives me the impression that the GimpShop author hould have
> spent more time in #gimp...

Yeah, a little constructive discussion would've gone a long way to
produce something actually maintainable.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] file open with gimp 2.2.4 and AFS

[Manish Singh]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:22:32PM +0200, Reinhard Drube wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> is there a way to avoid that the whole file tree
> is accessed upon 'file open'? Running gimp on a
> unix machine with AFS client contacts every AFS
> cell around the world. That lasts >15 minutes
> for a simple file open! So I am looking for
> a gimmick at least to avoid access to path /afs.
> I think the same problems can occur with nfs mounted
> file systems.
> 
> Before that I operated with gimp 2.0.3 where only
> the path was scanned where gimp was started. This
> worked fine.

File a bug against gtk+. The old filesel special cased /afs and /net,
the new one doesn't appear to.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] file open with gimp 2.2.4 and AFS

[Manish Singh]

On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 01:27:24PM +0200, Reinhard Drube wrote:
> >>> > is there a way to avoid that the whole file tree
> >>> > is accessed upon 'file open'? Running gimp on a
> >>> > unix machine with AFS client contacts every AFS
> >>> > cell around the world. That lasts >15 minutes
> >>> > for a simple file open! So I am looking for
> >>> > a gimmick at least to avoid access to path /afs.
> >>> > I think the same problems can occur with nfs mounted
> >>> > file systems.
> >>> >
> >>> > Before that I operated with gimp 2.0.3 where only
> >>> > the path was scanned where gimp was started. This
> >>> > worked fine.
> 
> >> File a bug against gtk+. The old filesel special cased /afs and /net,
> >> the new one doesn't appear to.
> 
> I think this is not the fact. If I compile
> 
> gtk+-2.4.14/examples/filesel/filesel.c

That uses GtkFileSelection, not GtkFileChooser. Like I said,
GtkFileSelection (the old, deprecated widget) special cased things.
GtkFileChoose does not.

> this program works fast and fine. There you have a pulldown menu
> which contains the cwd and all supaths. But without inspecting them
> until I select them!
> 
> On the other hand the 'open file' of gimp 2.2.4 offers one clickable
> button per subpath. And as I see on the console these subpaths are
> inspected. That is absolutely nonsens.

The fact that the dialogs look *completely* different, as you noticed,
should've been a tip off that you were testing different things.
 
> So if some of you can tell me where is the source file I can change
> I will do.

If you feel like trying to fix it yourself, start with
gtkfilesystemunix.c. There isn't any special casing infastructure there
though, so if you were hoping for a one-line change, it's going to be
more work than that.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] gimp on 64 bit OS

[Manish Singh]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:12:13PM +0200, Ketil Froyn wrote:
> Thanks for the responses. I guess one major limiting factor could be the
> types used internally by the GIMP. For instance, if it does operations on
> uint32 type variables internally, I'd think the compiler needs to be
> pretty clever to make use of 64 bit operations. But now I'm getting into
> deep waters here here...:) I was hoping someone in the know could confirm
> whether there's any point going to 64 bit to make the GIMP faster, rather
> than just getting a faster 32 bit CPU.

As mentioned in other parts of this thread, amd64 processors have twice
the amount of general purpose registers, which means gcc can generate
more efficient code. It also uses sse and sse2 instructions for floating
point code, which is a big performance win over x87. But neither of
these are anything 64-bit specific, and *all* applications will benefit
without doing anything special.

The only 64-bit specific thing that GIMP will benefit from is if you
have > 4 GB of memory and you're dealing with very large images. Since
it can address that much memory directly, the image can be loaded
entirely into RAM without any disk swapping.

You have a misconception that using 64-bits for everything internally
will magically make things faster. In reality, this would make things
slower, since data units will be 8 bytes vs. 4 bytes, which means you're
using up more memory bandwidth and precious cache space. If your app
only needs 32 bits of precision, then it's a waste of space and a waste
of time to shuffle the extra bits back and forth.

Probably for this reason, amd64 has a default operand size of 32 bits,
even in 64-bit mode. As a result, code size isn't siginificantly larger
than x86 (you take a hit on the wider pointers, but that's offset by the
doubling of the registers; gcc can do more with less code).

So there isn't much in GIMP that needs 64 bit integers, especially not
in performance critical sections. There's the mmx, sse, sse2
acceleration for some functions, but those use 64-bit and 128-bit stuff
on both x86 and amd64.

To summarize, an amd64 platform will give you better performance over an
x86 platform, but mainly to due other aspects of its design, and not
much to do with 64-bit wide integer operations.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Very few of my posts show on the list...

[Manish Singh]

On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 12:15:15PM +0200, Rikard Johnels wrote:
> Thats just the point!
> I send a cc to the list at all times and have done so along our conversation.
> And they just dont show up

You have nodupes turned on in your list subscription settings. Turn it
off you don't like it (this isn't the default, so you must have turned
it on at some point).

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP Updates

[Manish Singh]

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 04:32:37PM +0200, Pierre-Alexis wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I believe Gimp & it's Plugins may be compared to
> Firefox & it's Extensions (although it's maybe not
> implemented identically).
> 
> And theres something I love with Firefox and it's
> extensions : the update system.

This has been proposed quite a while ago. If you search an archive of
the gimp-developer list you should find a discussion on this.

The idea is fine. Firefox's extension update system has a lot of holes
in it, so from an implementation perspective it's not really worth
looking at. Something like Debian's apt is a better inspiriation.

> So I was thinking : why not have such update system
> for the Gimp ? It would be really great ! One could
> update the Gimp very easily, without to have to wait
> for the next Gimp stable release...

This statement doesn't make sense. What kind of updates do you think
you'll get faster?

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] problem running GIMP on remote machine

[Manish Singh]

On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:47:06PM -0500, Rob van Riel wrote:
> I'm trying to get GIMP to work over remote X. All other programs I try to use 
> on the same setup work, but GIMP is stubbornly refusing.
> 
> I log in on the server using
> 
> ssh -X jarl
> 
> If I simply fire up xterm, it starts and displays on my local system. 
> However, GIMP gives the following output:
> 
> INIT: gimp_load_config
> Parsing '/etc/gimp/2.0/gimprc'
> Parsing '/home/rob/.gimp-2.2/gimprc'
> gimp_composite: use=yes, verbose=no
> Processor instruction sets: -mmx -sse -sse2 -3dnow -altivec -vis
> Adding theme 'Small' (/usr/share/gimp/2.0/themes/Small)
> Adding theme 'Default' (/usr/share/gimp/2.0/themes/Default)
> Writing '/home/rob/.gimp-2.2/themerc'
> The program 'gimp' received an X Window System error.
> This probably reflects a bug in the program.
> The error was 'BadWindow (invalid Window parameter)'.
>   (Details: serial 150 error_code 3 request_code 38 minor_code 0)
>   (Note to programmers: normally, X errors are reported asynchronously;
>that is, you will receive the error a while after causing it.
>To debug your program, run it with the --sync command line
>option to change this behavior. You can then get a meaningful
>backtrace from your debugger if you break on the gdk_x_error() function.)
> 
> 
> Does this make any sense to anyone out there?

http://www.openssh.org/faq.html#3.13

OpenSSH stupidly uses untrusted X11 forwarding by default. It uses an
extension that was speced 10 years ago, and badly needs revisiting for
modern times.

If ssh -Y works for you, that's your problem.

Most vendors turn ForwardX11Trusted on, so complain to your vendor (if
that's where you got ssh from) if this isn't the case.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Re: Multiple file scaling

[Manish Singh]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 09:15:51AM +0200, nuno alexandre wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 23:35 -0700, Carol Spears wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 07:56:27AM +0200, Andreas Waechter wrote:
> > > 
> > > 15 out of 17 mail lists I read have a reply-to header with 
> > > the list address, the only other list which has one is one I 
> > > only read and never reply - with those 15 mail lists, a 
> > > "Reply" goes to the list.
> > > 
> > 15 out of 17 of your mail lists are for windows software.  if you do not
> > like the way the list has always worked, please continue to steal or buy
> > your software and leave the free software developers alone.
> > 
> > and buy all means, leave it alone in the name of netiquette!
> > 
> > carol
> 
> heh :)
> All sourceforge, LKML and so many other lists act this same way.
> (reply goes to the list )

That's not true. LKML does not set Reply-To to the list. Neither do
the GNOME lists. And the two sourceforge lists I spot checked don't
either, though perhaps that is configurable per project.

> What does that have to do with free v non-free software ?

Because it's a stupid, Microsoftish argument. Many more people use
Outlook than Thunderbird, therefore everyone who uses Thunderbird
should switch?

Of course not, that's also a silly argument. It amazes me that people
try to use this false logic, rather than making reasoned arguments.

This has already been discussed to death, and the list is going to stay
how it is. If people want to know why, they are free to read the prior
discussion.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Making GIMP a little more tablet friendly, maybe?

[Manish Singh]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 10:51:49PM +0200, Francois du Toit wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:57:45 -0500
> "Tim E. Jedlicka - wrk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >   Sven> One is the user point of view: a cluttered preferences
> >   Sven> dialog makes it very hard to locate the option you are
> >   Sven> looking for.
> > 
> > Is a compromise possible? Looking at how firefox handles this,
> > there are menu based preferences, and then there are "customizations" via 
> > about:config. about:config is even somewhat searchable/filter-able. If 
> > something like this was implemented then gimp could "vouch"/test the menu 
> > options, but if you invoke a "customization" then Your Kilometage May Vary.
> 
> I wanted to suggest something similar. To not make gimp more configurable just
> because there's no space in the user interface seems silly to me. Make the
> feature configurable so the user can use gimp the way he/she wants to. If it
> clutters up the user interface then stick it in a config file where it won't
> bother anyone who doesn't want to change it.

It's ironic that Firefox's about:config is brought up as an example,
since there are several config parameters that simply don't work,
because the developers didn't notice it broke due to other changes being
made.

So there is a maintenance cost associated adding configuration options
which needs to be evaluated. I'm not passing judgement here on the
specific option in question, I'm just saying that just making it config
file option "won't bother anyone" is an oversimplification of the issue.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Re: Multiple file scaling

[Manish Singh]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 05:29:56PM +0200, Andreas Waechter wrote:
> Carol Spears wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 03:59:37PM +0200, Andreas Waechter wrote:
> >
> >>Carol (cite: "please continue to steal").
> >>
> >
> >it is very out of context now.  can you point to where i can download
> >any Windows operating system for free?
> 
> Ok, if you need your own sentence explained to you:
> Here is the full sentence:
> 
> if you do not
> like the way the list has always worked, please continue to 
> steal or buy
> your software and leave the free software developers alone.
> 
> According to that, there is free software, bought software 
> and stolen software.
> 
> I legally use some software that is not free and which I did 
> not buy *). Thus according to your categorization it must be 
> stolen software.

Please shut up. You screwed up, made a stupid illogical argument, and
now are trying (and failing) to save face. Be an adult and accept that
you screwed up.

Any more offtopic comments from you and I will remove you from this
list.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1

[Manish Singh]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 10:46:12AM +, John R. Culleton wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 June 2005 10:13 am, John R. Culleton wrote:
> > On Tuesday 14 June 2005 08:42 pm, Carol Spears wrote:
> > > mr. culleton, i am going to respectfully ask the reason that after all
> > > of this time you are not running a cvs version of gimp?  you seem
> > > overdue for this.
> >
> > With other packages there is an overnight snapshot of the CVS,
> > bundled as tarball. Does such a facility exist for Gimp?  Where?
> >
> > > if you find pygtk and get python running on gimp, i would like to have
> > > your feedback about my silly little script writing attempts.
> >
> > Still struggling with pygtk. More later.
> 
> Happy to report that they pygtk problem has bee ameliorated. I
> found pygtk-2.0 and installed it. Then after a little cut-and
> try I copied pygtk-2.0.pc to /usr/lib/pkgconfig. That bypassed
> the error messages. 
> 
> Why the pygtk make install didn't do this automatically I don't
> know.  

Because you're supposed to set PKG_CONFIG_PATH in the environment to
point to where the .pc file lives, instead of copying it.

This is mentioned in INSTALL, although the context is regarding gtk+
itself, not pygtk.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1

[Manish Singh]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 01:59:04PM +, John R. Culleton wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 June 2005 04:01 pm, Manish Singh wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 10:46:12AM +, John R. Culleton wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 28 June 2005 10:13 am, John R. Culleton wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 14 June 2005 08:42 pm, Carol Spears wrote:
> > > > > mr. culleton, i am going to respectfully ask the reason that after
> > > > > all of this time you are not running a cvs version of gimp?  you seem
> > > > > overdue for this.
> > > >
> > > > With other packages there is an overnight snapshot of the CVS,
> > > > bundled as tarball. Does such a facility exist for Gimp?  Where?
> > > >
> > > > > if you find pygtk and get python running on gimp, i would like to
> > > > > have your feedback about my silly little script writing attempts.
> > > >
> > > > Still struggling with pygtk. More later.
> > >
> > > Happy to report that they pygtk problem has bee ameliorated. I
> > > found pygtk-2.0 and installed it. Then after a little cut-and
> > > try I copied pygtk-2.0.pc to /usr/lib/pkgconfig. That bypassed
> > > the error messages.
> > >
> > > Why the pygtk make install didn't do this automatically I don't
> > > know.
> >
> > Because you're supposed to set PKG_CONFIG_PATH in the environment to
> > point to where the .pc file lives, instead of copying it.
> >
> Fine. so if I have 148 packages, then this environment variable
> is set to all 148 locations? Two facts intrude:

Well, if you configure all 148 packages into separate prefixes, then
yeah. But that would be silly.

On one of my development machines, I build HEAD versions of gimp, pygtk,
gtk+ and it's dependents. They go in *one* prefix, and PKG_CONFIG_PATH
contains *one* path to find them. They don't belong in /usr/lib since
I don't really want to use unstable libraries for the entire system.
 
> 1. 148  other files with the suffix .pc reside in the directory
> previously mentioned.

Which are installed by the system package manager.

> 2. The environmental variable you mention doesn't appear to exist
> on my machine currently. I used the "set" command with no
> parameters and it did not show up on the list. 

LD_LIBRARY_PATH doesn't exist on a system by default either, but that's
how you configure the runtime linker to look in non-default locations.
PKG_CONFIG_PATH is similar in concept, but for compile time stuff.

> Sorry folks, I am an old line pragmatist. The quickest and surest
> way to make something work is the one I will choose.  Instead of
> expanding the list of locations searched just for a single
> package used by a single application, moving the required  file
> to a place where the system will find it makes more sense to me.
> It is simple, it is sensible and it is robust. 

It violates the principle that stuff in /usr should only be controlled
by the package manager.

If you'd used a pygtk package for your system instead of building your
own (assuming one exists), the .pc file would indeed be in /usr.

If you're building stuff by hand, add the appropriate stuff to your
environment based on what --prefix you choose. It's not really complex.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.2 segfaulting

[Manish Singh]

On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 02:20:46PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Rikard Johnels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Did a apt- dist-upgrade on my SuSE 9.2 system last night.
> > And now i cant run GIMP at all.
> > It starts, but as soon as i press any of the buttons "File" , "Xtns" or 
> > Help 
> > to load files or anything it segfaults with a message sucha as:
> >
> > ~> gimp
> >
> > (gimp:26963): Gdk-WARNING **: Using Cairo rendering requires the drawable 
> > argument to
> > have a specified colormap. All windows have a colormap,
> > however, pixmaps only have colormap by default if they
> > were created with a non-NULL window argument. Otherwise
> > a colormap must be set on them with gdk_drawable_set_colormap
> 
> Looks like you are using an unstable development version of GTK+. That
> is your problem then, you should have known that this might cause
> problems. Downgrade to a stable GTK+ release.

IIRC, this is because the gtk-qt-engine for themes is doing naughty
things, and the rules are being enforced actively in development GTK+s.

You can downgrade to GTK+ 2.6.x like Sven suggested, or switch to a
theme that does not use gtk-qt-engine.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Howto create images with gimp-python non-interactive

[Manish Singh]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:03:55AM +0200, Martin Lesser wrote:
> Is it possible to create images with python-fu but without a GUI?
> 
> I tried
> 
> # PYTHONPATH=/usr/lib/gimp/2.0/python python
> from gimpfu import *
> img = gimp.Image(100, 100, RGB)
> 
> but this results in a glib-error:
> 
>   LibGimpBase-ERROR **: could not find handler for message: 5

As you found out, this won't work. Python-Fu scripts can only be invoked
from GIMP itself.

> How do I tell gimpfu to run in non-interactive mode from command-line or
> other scripts?

Write your script like any other python-fu script, and stick it in the
plug-ins directory:

#!/usr/bin/env python

from gimpfu import *

def do_stuff():
img = gimp.Image(100, 100, RGB)
print img

register(
"python_fu_do_stuff",
"Stuff",
"Things!",
"Me!",
"Me!",
"2005",
"/Xtns/Python-Fu/Do Stuff",
"",
[],
[],
do_stuff)

main()

Then invoke from the command line:

$ gimp -i -b '(python-fu-do-stuff 1)' -b '(gimp-quit 0)'

This will create an image and print "" to the
console if successful.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] run script located in an arbitrary directory

[Manish Singh]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 05:33:22PM -0800, Robert Kleemann wrote:
> michael chang wrote:
> >perl scripts with the GIMP module can be loaded just like any
> >executable script; for example, if I have a script that uses GIMP
> >called myfile.pl and I go to that directory and call ./myfile.pl, it
> >will run.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the idea.  I never thought of running the script as a 
> stand-alone program which uses gimp as a library.  This is exactly what 
> I am looking for.  I tried it with some code from one of my working 
> python plugins.  I removed the "register" code and inlined the relevant 
> gimp calls.


 
> Am I supposed to be able to call gimp from a standalone python program 
> like this?

No, this does not work. Python-Fu scripts must be invoked from within
GIMP. I wish michael chang actually would check his facts once in a
while instead of posting wrong information.

The perl bindings do the run from the command line trick by having
GIMP run a plugin that listens on a socket for commands to evaluate. The
script will proxy over commands to the server. If no GIMP is running,
the script starts one up.

You could code up similar functionality for Python-Fu. I don't know your
skill level, but it wouldn't be too hard for someone with reasonable
Python and GIMP clue, and if done right, worthy of being folded into the
distribution.

Another option is to code up a batch mode evaluator for python. Then you
could provide arbitrary code on standard input. This is less complex
to implement than the above.

You could write a simple proxy script that lives in the plugin dir that
imports your real script and runs it.

And finally, you could follow Carol's suggestion in her earlier mail,
that of defining another plug-in dir, and optionally selecting a
different config to only pull that in when you need it. This would
require no additional code at all.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp on OS 10.43

[Manish Singh]

On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 10:57:08AM -0500, Warren Baird wrote:
> BandiPat wrote:
> >
> >It's simple, Apple strangles the Unix that is on the machine.  If you 
> >had a straight install of Unix without anything Apple over or under it, 
> >you would see a dramatic increase in speed also.
> >
> >I read an article a few months ago about the problems associated with OS 
> >X on their machines.  I wish I could remember where it was, so I could 
> >point you to it.  It's just Apple's way of taking something really good 
> >and making it less than perfect with their add ons.  Every user I've 
> >talked to or article I've read remarks how much faster Linux is on the 
> >PPC than OS X.  It's a great cpu, sadly Apple didn't want it to appear 
> >that way.
> 
> Hmm.   I did see an article a while back talking about perf issues with 
> apache --- I think it had something to do with context switches taking 
> longer than on linux...   But that shouldn't affect the Gimp much...

Actually, it would effect GIMP, and is the most probable reason why GIMP
on Linux is so much faster on the same hardware. Plug-ins run as
separate processes, but as they run they talk to the main app quite a
bit, to get/put data, as well as calling image manipulation functions.
So there's a ton of context switching involved, which hurts you badly on
OS X. I/O is also much much slower compared to Linux.

Note I haven't actually profiled anything on OS X, but the poor context
switch performance is the first thing I thought of when I read your
earlier mails.

> And I'm not sure I buy the argument that Mac OS X is just slower --- 
> like I said, photoshop was about 15 times faster that the Gimp at doing 
> an unsharp mask on an 800 mhz g4 on mac os x.

Photoshop's plugins are not run as separate processes, so they aren't
affected by context switch performance. Unsharp mask in photoshop might
not even be implemented as a plugin even. Also, I bet they're taking
advantage of Altivec there. And like someone else in this thread said,
they may be also precomputing the result.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] "Add Glow" and "Center Layer"

[Manish Singh]

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 06:20:17PM -0600, Myke C. Subs wrote:
> Aaron Luptak wrote:
> >On 12/7/05, Myke C. Subs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Aaron Luptak wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>look at config.log - it found gimptool this time, but had another error.
> >>
> >>http://mykec.com/mykec/config.log
> >
> >Looks like you're missing glib.h - on my SuSE system, it's at
> >/opt/gnome/include/glib-2.0/glib.h .  I'd guess it's in the
> >glib2-devel package on SuSE.
> 
> OK.  glib2-devel wasn't installed on my system.  It is now.
> 
> A dependency required pkgconfig to also be installed - so I'm guessing 
> that that takes care of the missing pkg-config which Carol was telling 
> me about.
> 
> Thanks, we'll see what happens now.

So, with installing glib2-devel, did that work? If not, install
gtk-devel, pango-devel, and atk-devel as well.

It's rather disappointing that after all these years, SuSE still can't
get their package dependencies right.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] "Add Glow" and "Center Layer"

[Manish Singh]

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 05:22:10PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [12-09-05 17:05]:
> > Maybe Novell could consider rehiring some of their linux staff and
> > coming up with a distribution entitled "Professionally Enabled".  i
> > dunno, it has a certain flair and appeal to it, you think?
> 
> You keep referring to 'rehiring .. linux staff'.  I beleive what I
> read indicated that it was not the linux staff (SUSE) that was let go,
> but other divisions.

There were layoffs across all divisions, including the SuSE and Ximian
parts.

An investment bank came out with a report that recommended Novell treat
Linux as a growth market (which it is) and only make cuts on their aging
product lines. This, especially when coming from an investment banking
firm, is surprisingly good long term advice, I'm puzzled why Novell
didn't heed it.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] "Add Glow" and "Center Layer"

[Manish Singh]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 10:10:50PM -0500, BandiPat wrote:
> To Manish Singh:
> SuSE and YaST2 work as well or better than any other file install 
> utility at solving dependencies.  Thing you fail to realize is that 
> -devel files are not dependencies.  The main files don't need the 
> -devel files to operate, nor does the system.  They are only needed if 
> the user intends to compile things.  The best thing to do when 
> installing any Linux is to just include -devel files or add them at 
> install time.  

But one of Myke's problems was that he managed to get the gimp-devel
package installed without having glib-devel installed. This means that
despite the fact that *none* of the gimp header files work at all without
glib's header files, SuSE neglected to specify a dependency between the
two -devel packages. This has nothing to do with dependencies between
the application binaries and the libraries.

So either SuSE screwed up, which they have a history of doing
(glib-devel didn't depend on pkg-config for several releases, and I'm
not sure if it's fixed even now), or Myke used rpm --force (which I
doubt).

If you look at Debian or Red Hat, libgimp2.0-dev or gimp-devel have a
dependency on libgtk2.0-dev or gtk2-devel, respectively, which of course
lets apt/yum/yast/etc. do resolve things properly.

It sounds like you're the one who has failed to realize the -devel
packages both can and do have dependencies.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] "Add Glow" and "Center Layer"

[Manish Singh]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 10:14:29PM -0500, BandiPat wrote:
> On Saturday 10 December 2005 13:50, Manish Singh wrote:
> [...]
> > So, with installing glib2-devel, did that work? If not, install
> > gtk-devel, pango-devel, and atk-devel as well.
> >
> > It's rather disappointing that after all these years, SuSE still
> > can't get their package dependencies right.
> >
> > -Yosh
> > ___
> 
> Yosh,
> Those statements are just plain silly.  Obviously you know very little 
> about SuSE or didn't put much thought into those two sentences before 
> sending out the mail.

I put thought into it. As I pointed out in my other mail, it seems like
you're the one who didn't think things through before sending out
emails.

A gimp-devel package *must* have a dependency that either directly or
indirectly pulls in glib-devel. If it doesn't, the package's dependency
specification is broken.

SuSE has a history of being shoddy in this regard, other examples that
have affected gimp are glib-devel not requiring pkg-config, aalib being
linked against slang but not requiring slang-devel, and a few more I
can't recall off the top of my head right now.

Please next time actually read and comprehend what's going on in the
thread instead of sending out poorly researched knee-jerk defenses of
your pet Linux distro. 

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] "Add Glow" and "Center Layer"

[Manish Singh]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 01:27:17PM -0500, BandiPat wrote:
> On Sunday 11 December 2005 05:25, Manish Singh wrote:
> [...]
> > I put thought into it. As I pointed out in my other mail, it seems
> > like you're the one who didn't think things through before sending
> > out emails.
> >
> > A gimp-devel package *must* have a dependency that either directly or
> > indirectly pulls in glib-devel. If it doesn't, the package's
> > dependency specification is broken.
> >
> > SuSE has a history of being shoddy in this regard, other examples
> > that have affected gimp are glib-devel not requiring pkg-config,
> > aalib being linked against slang but not requiring slang-devel, and a
> > few more I can't recall off the top of my head right now.
> >
> > Please next time actually read and comprehend what's going on in the
> > thread instead of sending out poorly researched knee-jerk defenses of
> > your pet Linux distro.
> >
> > -Yosh
> > ___
> 
> Yosh, 
> I'm convinced you like whatever distro you're using as I do mine, but 
> I'm also very sure you haven't done much research into what you are 
> commenting about.

You're wrong, and you're again completly ignoring the technical content
of my posts again.

> Now there's no need for us to get into a distro war of words here, as 
> that is not why the list is here.  We are trying to solve problems 
> folks are having with Gimp not run down a particular distro we don't 
> use or like.  Well I am, but your responses take on a different tone.  
> You can't assume from a past experience or hearsay that what you say is 
> true now about SuSE.  Those of us that use it know how well it operates 
> directly.  Now let's move on to talking Gimp.

When distro people screw up and the support issues land here, I feel
justified to express my displeasure of having to clean up their messes,
especially since they actually charge money and have a support and QA
staff who have a job to do.

You're the one who is dragging this on, and being insulting and not
actually having any content in your attempt at rebuttals, so your tone
is far far worse than mine.

So yes, let's end this, and next time, stick to facts instead of your
emotional attachment to your distro.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] "Add Glow" and "Center Layer"

[Manish Singh]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 10:41:47AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 02:25:07AM -0800, Manish Singh wrote:
> 
> > A gimp-devel package *must* have a dependency that either directly or
> > indirectly pulls in glib-devel. If it doesn't, the package's dependency
> > specification is broken.
> 
> > SuSE has a history of being shoddy in this regard, other examples that
> > have affected gimp are glib-devel not requiring pkg-config, aalib being
> > linked against slang but not requiring slang-devel, and a few more I
> > can't recall off the top of my head right now.
> 
> For Open SuSE 10:
> 
> # rpm -q -R -p gimp-devel-2.2.8-6.i586.rpm
> gtk2-devel
> glib2-devel
> glibc-devel
> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
> rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
> rpmlib(PayloadIsBzip2) <= 3.0.5-1
> 
> # rpm -q -R -p glib2-devel-2.8.1-3.i586.rpm
> glib2 = 2.8.1
> pkgconfig
> glibc-devel
> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
> rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
> /bin/sh
> /usr/bin/perl
> libc.so.6
> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)
> libglib-2.0.so.0
> libgobject-2.0.so.0
> rpmlib(PayloadIsBzip2) <= 3.0.5-1
> 
> Are you saying the above is incorrect? How so?

That looks fine with regards to -devel package dependencies. The
original person who had the problem is using SuSE 9.2, which obviously
is missing some of the above.

However, gimp-devel should also depend on gimp itself, so yes, the above
has missing dependencies.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] "Add Glow" and "Center Layer"

[Manish Singh]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 03:28:32PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Manish Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [12-11-05 15:16]:
> > 
> > So yes, let's end this, and next time, stick to facts instead of your
> > emotional attachment to your distro.
> > 
> 
> So Pat offers his hand and you slap his face, cannot accept a graceful
> exit.  You present yourself as a pathetic, immature, classless individual.  

I complained about SuSE, not about anybody personally, and he replied
to say I was wrong with precisely zero facts to back him up, and also
calls me silly, and when I call him on his bullshit, he tries for a
"graceful exit" as you say instead of being apologetic and reflecting
upon his actions.

I'm unclear why you consider his actions justified and mine not. At
least I'm posting technical content to a technical list.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] "Add Glow" and "Center Layer"

[Manish Singh]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 01:27:17PM -0500, BandiPat wrote:
> On Sunday 11 December 2005 05:25, Manish Singh wrote:
> [...]
> > I put thought into it. As I pointed out in my other mail, it seems
> > like you're the one who didn't think things through before sending
> > out emails.
> >
> > A gimp-devel package *must* have a dependency that either directly or
> > indirectly pulls in glib-devel. If it doesn't, the package's
> > dependency specification is broken.
> >
> > SuSE has a history of being shoddy in this regard, other examples
> > that have affected gimp are glib-devel not requiring pkg-config,
> > aalib being linked against slang but not requiring slang-devel, and a
> > few more I can't recall off the top of my head right now.
> >
> > Please next time actually read and comprehend what's going on in the
> > thread instead of sending out poorly researched knee-jerk defenses of
> > your pet Linux distro.
> >
> > -Yosh
> > ___
> 
> Yosh, 
> I'm convinced you like whatever distro you're using as I do mine, but 
> I'm also very sure you haven't done much research into what you are 
> commenting about.

>From the rpmfind.net page for the gimp-devel package for SuSE 9.2
http://rpmfind.net//linux/RPM/suse/9.2/i386/suse/i586/gimp-devel-2.0.4-3.1.i586.html:

Requires

* rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
* rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
* rpmlib(PayloadIsBzip2) = 3.0.5-1 

That's it. No glib2-devel or gtk2-devel listed at all. This seems fixed
in SuSE 10, but not completely, as they still miss depending on GIMP
itself.

BandiPat, I expect a full and public apology from you for your personal
attacks and your own lack of research. 

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] "Add Glow" and "Center Layer"

[Manish Singh]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 03:54:33PM -0500, BandiPat wrote:
> On Sunday 11 December 2005 15:13, Manish Singh wrote:
> [...]
> 
> > When distro people screw up and the support issues land here, I feel
> > justified to express my displeasure of having to clean up their
> > messes, especially since they actually charge money and have a
> > support and QA staff who have a job to do.
> >
> > You're the one who is dragging this on, and being insulting and not
> > actually having any content in your attempt at rebuttals, so your
> > tone is far far worse than mine.
> >
> > So yes, let's end this, and next time, stick to facts instead of your
> > emotional attachment to your distro.
> >
> > -Yosh
> > ___
> 
> Well, again, I find fault with your research Yosh.  SuSE as Debian, or 
> any distro with resemblance/link to Debian, does have a freely 
> downloadable and open sibling.  Being stuck in the cave you live in for 
> so long, word might not have gotten to you yet.  Check it out, 
> OpenSuSE!  That, like any distro your mind tells you is "free", is 
> built with public input and participation.  You can even take it and 
> make your own, if you desire, just leave the names SuSE & Novell out of 
> your build.

The original problem was on SuSE 9.2. That said, OpenSuSE still has
missing dependencies on the gimp-devel package.

> You seem to want lay blame on the distro, when it could be something 
> else or the combination of other things.  Again, your research fails 
> you, yet you continue to want to blame and belittle a very good Linux 
> distro.  Has someone appointed you the Linux police while everyone 
> wasn't looking.  You don't need to point out anything to anyone, just 
> help with the problem, not add to it.

It *is* a problem in SuSE 9.2. You didn't do research. You are merely
arguing by assertion. Your mails completely lack technical information.
 
> I'll also ask you one more time to stop sending out two emails!  I know 
> Mutt can do it, but you seem to be unable too.  Just one email to the 
> list is all that is required.  Think you can get that right?

Fix your settings on your end. I told you how privately.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] "Add Glow" and "Center Layer"

[Manish Singh]

To recap:

OP is having trouble building gimp-perl. He's told to install the
gimp-devel package. Fine advice, and something a newbie may not realize
at first.

Installing gimp-devel should've been enough, but he got another error.
After further analysis, it became apparent that he was missing the glib
headers, and needed the glib-devel package. The OP then said that he'd
install that package and try again.

My first post to this thread was to ask if installing glib-devel helped
him get past the error, and if it didn't, he should try installing
gtk-devel and friends and see if that works. This was potential help to
the OP.

I also expressed my dismay about how SuSE still hasn't gotten their
dependencies right. For SuSE 9.2, which the OP is using, my complaint
was completely accurate, as evidenced by:

http://rpmfind.net//linux/RPM/suse/9.2/i386/suse/i586/gimp-devel-2.0.4-3.1.i586.html

RH and Debian have got the dependencies right from day one, meaning
more than 5 years ago. SuSE didn't with 9.2. Mandriva also has a history
of screwing things up too.

SLES9 notably doesn't have pkg-config has a dependency for glib2-devel.
This is harder to provide a reference for, as SLES9 is not publicably
available online. I used to use SLES9 as part of my job, so I've had
experience with it directly. I have many complaints about it, and I'm
pretty happy to not have to deal with it anymore.

In the SuSE 8.x days, a frequent compile error that people ran into when
building the aa plugin in GIMP was that aalib was built against slang,
but aalib-devel didn't depend on slang-devel, so the build failed. You
can find references to this on the gimp mailing lists in 2003.

Now, with SuSE 10 the -devel deps seem to be there, but there still is a
problem that the gimp-devel package doesn't depend on gimp itself, which
can lead to a problem that someone could upgrade the gimp package
without upgrading the gimp-devel package, and that being perfectly valid
in the package management system's view, but not even remotely valid
from a GIMP view.

Given SuSE's history, and gimp users having run into problems of this
nature for years and years, being unhappy with SuSE for still not
getting things right in 2005 is perfectly just.

BandiPat seems to think something in the above is "wrong", but is unable
to actually point out any specifics, and thus resorts to handwaving and
calling people silly instead of actually having facts. Until he realizes
that being stupid and stubborn and letting ego get in the way isn't the
right thing, he is persona non-grata on this list.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] gimp-python source wanted

[Manish Singh]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 12:47:43AM +0100, Tristan Miller wrote:
> Greetings.
> 
> I'm looking for the source package for the latest version of gimp-python. 
> The official FTP distribution site at
>  is rejecting connections.  If
> someone could point me to an FTP or HTTP mirror, that would be great.

It's distributed in the same tarball as the rest of GIMP, since, well,
before GIMP 2.0.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Re: gimp-python source wanted

[Manish Singh]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 03:16:18AM +0100, Tristan Miller wrote:
> Greetings.
> 
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manish Singh wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 12:47:43AM +0100, Tristan Miller wrote:
> >> Greetings.
> >> 
> >> I'm looking for the source package for the latest version of
> >> gimp-python. The official FTP distribution site at
> >> <ftp://ftp.daa.com.au/pub/james/pygimp/> is rejecting connections.  If
> >> someone could point me to an FTP or HTTP mirror, that would be great.
> > 
> > It's distributed in the same tarball as the rest of GIMP, since, well,
> > before GIMP 2.0.
> 
> Hm... one does not get that impressed by Googling for "gimp-python" and
> reading the first site that comes up
> <http://www.jamesh.id.au/software/pygimp/>, which purports to be the
> official distribution site.

Given that the page talks about GIMP 1.0 and 1.1 and not anything newer,
you could also have assumed it's a bit dated.

Google doesn't always give the right answer either. Remember that.
 
> I'll try downloading the whole GIMP tarball and seeing if I can build just
> the gimp-python part.  I'm using a SuSE 9.3 system with gimp-2.2.9
> installed via the official RPMs, which don't include gimp-python.  Neither
> can I find any SuSE gimp-python RPM.  ("apt-cache search gimp-python" and
> related searches come up empty.)

It isn't very straightforward to build things piecemeal like that,
though it is *possible* if you know what you're doing. Better to file a
bug with SuSE and get them to package it.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Problems compiling GIMP

[Manish Singh]

On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 06:05:14PM -0500, Scott wrote:
> > ..on Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 05:27:36PM -0500, Scott wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Actually the Intel version are faster IF your application is not running
> >> in emulation mode. That being said, there are not a lot of applications
> >> that are nativly supporting the Intel chip. Which is the primary reason
> >> I
> >> want to compile GIMP.
> >>
> >> I will say this IMac is faster then my P4 3ghz Suse Linux box at work
> >> when
> >> I am using applications that are native.
> >>
> >> 4x faster is unrealistic, I would say maybe 1.5 - 2x's faster then the
> >> G5.
> >>
> >
> > i guess i'm getting off topic here, but out of interest which
> > (native) applications do you have on both SuSE and the IntelMac to compare
> > their respective performance? very few of us have played with the IntelMac
> > so
> > i'm sure there'd be a few interested to know which applications are
> > faster on which platform.
> >
> At present GIMP 2.3.5, as anything newer will not compile due to rpath.
> OpenOffice, Firefox, and Thunderbird. Sadly the GIMP 2.2.10 package, which
> I think is PPC (gimp.org) performs better then my GIMP on my Suse box. And
> that is using Rosetta, or whatever the hell they call it.
> 
> There are various other small OSS installed, but mostly in support of the
> above applications. On most things my compile times are shorter, however
> on the Mac I do make -j3 and my Linux box a -j2.

Considering that you're not comparing it on the same hardware, this
isn't at all valid.

Linux is quite a bit faster given the same hardware than OS X. That's
the original point: if you're running OS X, you're not really caring
about raw speed.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Problems compiling GIMP

[Manish Singh]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:42:56PM +0100, Axel Wernicke wrote:
> 
> Am 11.02.2006 um 15:14 schrieb Scott:
> >I am sure I will eventually fix GIMP or come up with a work around, at
> >which point I will forward the info on for your consumption.
> 
> so, may be we should kick this issue to GIMP-dev and ask for help.
> May be even a bug should filed for this?
> 
> Hopefully somebody can bring some light into this.

As I told you on IRC, engage the libtool people about it. Unless you
feel like donating a decent OS X 10.4 machine to a developer, this isn't
going to be fixed by just sitting around and whining for it to happen.

You want it fixed, and you're the one who has access to the platform for
testing and investigation, so you have to do some legwork.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Clone Tool

[Manish Singh]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:21:16PM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:
> 
> On Feb 27, 2006, at 5:08 PM, Vytautas P. wrote:
> >>1) shortcut key: S
> >
> >Shortcut key for cloning is C. Although shortcut S you'll love to  
> >aply after
> >cloning for smudgeing.
> 
> Right, for Gimp.  I was referring to Gimpshop, which allows you to  
> remap the shortcut keys to Photoshop-like bindings.

This is one of the big reasons why Gimpshop is a horrible idea. By
changing all these things, it adds tons of confusion when trying to give
user support.

Robert, please answer Carol's question about gimpshop resources, instead
of rudely ignoring it. The gimpshop guy thought forking the project from
the get go instead of trying to interact with the community first, so
it's only fair that the users who approve of this also fork the support
base, instead of polluting the gimp community with confusion.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] blue + yellow = green

[Manish Singh]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:19:46PM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:
> 
> Hello Carol,
> 
> On Feb 25, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Carol Spears wrote:
> >first thing.  in keeping with the spirit of how gimpshop came to be, i
> >am curious if there are separate online resources for this  
> >application.
> >they opted (probably for really good reasons) to go on their own to
> >provide software for what is probably a large group of users.
> >
> >perhaps you could list gimpshop resources here so that the gimp users
> >can redirect the gimpshop questions to the proper place.
> >
> >personally, i do not want to interfer with them.  they filled a nitch
> >and did this without the gimp developers.  i suspect they had really
> >good reasons to do this.  it would be wrong, in my opinion, to  
> >start to
> >help them now -- keeping with the spirit of their project.
> 
> From your writing tone, I sense a bit of a rift between Gimp and  
> Gimpshop.  I find that odd given that I did not sense it at the  
> Gimpshop site.  While there I heard nothing but praise and references  
> back to Gimp.org, but admittedly I didn't set out to find animosity.

The guy who did Gimpshop decided to do his own thing, and didn't consult
the community at all before doing it. Since he didn't engage the
community and those who actually know the code best, he did it in a
completely stupid fashion technically. He forked the code.

Completely ignoring the developers and the community to begin with
generates a fair amount of animosity.

> From what I have read, Gimpshop is the Gimp with a "skin" to make it  
> a bit more like Photoshop.  From using it myself I would have to say  
> that is a fair assessment.  No question, Gimpshop is not Photoshop,  
> nor did I expect it to be.  I expected it to be the Gimp with a  
> twist, which, as far as I can tell, it is.

Nope. It's not a "skin". It's a code fork. It could have been a skin,
but either the Gimpshop guy didn't know how (and didn't bother to ask),
or he maliciously decided to make a name for himself on the work of
others, with doing very little work himself. Oh, and on top of that, beg
for money.

> As for providing help, that is entirely a personal choice.  If you  
> feel that by helping me you are helping them over at Gimpshop and you  
> feel strongly about not helping them over at Gimpshop for whatever  
> reason, then do not help me.  That's OK.  To me image manipulation is  
> just a hobby.  It's fun.  It's challenging.  It's something new for  
> me to learn.  It's something for me to show my family and friends.  I  
> enjoy Open Source for the same reasons.  It's fun.  It's  
> challenging.  It's a way to develop a community of users and friends.

Except Gimpshop divides this community. So by supporting it, you're
contributing to making the community not fun for other users and
friends. Is that what you want to do?

How about instead of promoting a someone who doesn't understand how free
software works, and doesn't actually understand what he's doing
technically, actually work with people who know what they're doing to
see something you desire? The idea of a photoshop skin isn't a bad one,
but the way Gimpshop went about was absolutely horrible.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Gimpshop (was: blue + yellow = green)

[Manish Singh]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:01:05AM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:
> 
> On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:54 PM, Manish Singh wrote:
> >The guy who did Gimpshop decided to do his own thing, and didn't  
> >consult
> >the community at all before doing it. Since he didn't engage the
> >community and those who actually know the code best, he did it in a
> >completely stupid fashion technically. He forked the code.
> 
> So, he forked the code.  You think he's stupid.  And this forum does  
> not want to help Gimpshop users.  Based on those comments I thought I  
> would go back and reread this section on Forkability[1] and this  
> section on Forks[2] in "Producing Open Source Software"[3].  Would  
> you consider Gimpshop a successful fork?

Considering Gimpshop can't even keep their own website online, I'd say
no.
 
> [2] http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/forks.html

>From the above page:

   Initiating a Fork

   All the advice here assumes that you are forking as a last resort.
   Exhaust all other possibilities before starting a fork.

For Gimpshop, it was all about forking from the get go. There was no
discussion, no proposal in any of the several places to discuss GIMP
development. No other possibilities were attempted.

The Gimpshop guy ignored pretty much everything in that "Producing
Open Source Software" document, which you seem to hold in high enough
regard to reference it here. Is this someone who rejects it so utterly
worthy of supporting?

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Gimpshop

[Manish Singh]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:01:12AM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:
> 
> On Feb 28, 2006, at 12:20 AM, Manish Singh wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:01:05AM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:
> >>Would you consider Gimpshop a successful fork?
> >
> >Considering Gimpshop can't even keep their own website online, I'd  
> >say no.
> 
> Then why the fuss?

The fuss is about the complete half assed nature of it. A successful
fork would be better, since a successful fork would maintain its own
support resources, like separate mailing lists, a separate bug tracker,
separate irc channels... all the stuff mentioned on that
producingoss.com site.

Forks aren't necessarily bad. All the major Linux distro vendors
effectively fork the Linux kernel. But they maintain proper support
channels to maintain the fork, and thus polluting the mainline kernel
resources isn't much of a problem.

Gimpshop slaps the people who know the code of gimp in the face, and
then expects gimp.org to take up the slack because they don't know how
to properly support a community. I don't see why the animosity is so
surprising.

BTW, Robert, you have a bad habit of not answering questions posed to
you here. I'm going to do the same thing to you, to illustrate how it
feels.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Gimpshop (was: blue + yellow = green)

[Manish Singh]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Selon Manish Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > For Gimpshop, it was all about forking from the get go. There was no
> > discussion, no proposal in any of the several places to discuss GIMP
> > development. No other possibilities were attempted.
> 
> Put things in perspective - the guy wrote a patch. It's a couple of hundred
> lines of a patch, which did something he wanted to do in the easiest way he
> knew how. He did a grep for labels in the source code, and changed them where
> he found them.
> 
> Yes, he could have done it differently, but what he did was useful for a bunch
> of people, and wasn't acceptable for integration into the main GIMP source
> code. So I have no problem with him coming out with the patched GIMP under a
> different name. If it was put in bugzilla, the patch would have been refused, 
> or
> we would have asked him to work on it. So why worry? I'm happy to see this 
> kind
> of thing happenning around the GIMP.

He didn't change the name even. All the windows still say "GIMP". It
only adds to the confusion already. Nearly everything about the way
Gimpshop came about makes me think "is it stupidity, or malice?"
Rejecting a project community without even trying is *not* the way
people should go about things.

This is the second time in a week that someone has misrepresented
Gimpshop's UI as GIMP. There's already enough misinformation out on the
internet, it's deplorable that Gimpshop has worsened the situation. Such
behavior should not be encouraged.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Gimpshop (was: blue + yellow = green)

[Manish Singh]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 11:48:06AM +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> Selon Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > > Von: Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > If it was put in bugzilla, the patch would have been
> > > refused, or we would have asked him to work on it.
> >
> > That's how things are handled in Bugzilla, so what is the problem?
> 
> The guy scratched an itch. Why should he go to a lot of effort to have that
> change integrated into GIMP CVS? What's in it for him? He scratched an itch,
> and moved on. Great! I'm happy for him.

Scratched an itch, and caused tons of confusion in a community.
Horrible.

> > > So why worry? I'm happy to see this kind of thing happenning around the
> > > GIMP.
> >
> > We are worried because some people don't make a distinction between Gimpshop
> > and GIMP.
> 
> And? He changed some labels and shortcuts - is it any less the GIMP for that? 
> I
> would say no.

You'd be wrong. Misinformation about the UI doesn't help anybody. It's
not even clear to people that they are using a patched GIMP.

Maybe I should take Fedora, rename it "Debora", but only on the CD
packaging, and rename the rpm command to "dpkg", and make 1/2 the
command line options to it match dpkg, and maybe changing some help text
here and there, and release it as something that eases the transition
from Debian to Fedora. And lag a couple months behind Fedora on all bug
fixes, so Debora users don't upgrade, even for security critical bugs.

Also, push all the support concerns onto Fedora proper, they'd be thrilled
to handle it right? And I'm sure Fedora users would love hearing about
"dpkg" on their lists and not be confused at all.

I'm scratching an itch. It's all good, right?

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Gimpshop

[Manish Singh]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 08:39:41PM -0500, Brendan wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 March 2006 05:46, Manish Singh wrote:
> > Gimpshop slaps the people who know the code of gimp in the face, and
> > then expects gimp.org to take up the slack because they don't know how
> > to properly support a community. I don't see why the animosity is so
> > surprising.
> 
> Because Gimshop has generated more excitement than the Gimp ever has and 
> certain people might be a little ruffled? Perhaps because Gimpshop fulfills a 
> need that has been ignored for a long time? Artists get used to a tool and 
> they don't want to learn a new one. Photoshop is usually that tool, 
> fortunately or unfortunately. It's a shame that Gimpshop as a project isn't 
> really much in the way of structure, but why not rip it off and inspire them 
> to get better? Make fun of them until they change? Write a guide for people 
> to make Gimpshop "proper" for inclusion, and heck, even I might give it a 
> shot.

Give it a shot. Make a proposal to the developer list, detailing what
you'd like to see and why it would help you. Actually detail what the
menus are in photoshop, and what the equivalents are in GIMP, and give
justification. Same for keybindings. Do not assume people reading the
list have access to Photoshop. Be prepared to defend your ideas.

The key thing being here is you're interacting with the existing
community, instead of insulting them by implicitly saying that they
don't matter by ignoring them completely.

I have to say, it is a little hard to believe that people are so set in
their ways that the naming of the menus makes such a huge difference,
but not set in their ways that the other *huge* UI differences aren't
such a big deal. Maybe people only *think* that it makes a difference,
and that perception is enough to get over some stubborness in their
brains? It'd be interesting to videotape someone using Gimp vs. Gimpshop
and see if it actually is a productivity enhancement. Perhaps all that's
really needed is the PS menu->GIMP menu mapping document in a proposal
as a cheat sheet.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp development

[Manish Singh]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:11:59PM -0500, Paul Bloch wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm an occasional Gimp user and prefessional graphic designer.  I was
> wondering where and how do I get involved with user-interface development.
> I have several ideas that I think would better the experience.  I'm planning
> on writing a longer article about usability for osnews.com and part of that
> is talking about Gimp.  However I didn't want any criticism I make to
> suggest I have any hostility torwards the community or the project.  And
> considering people's sentiment's torwards Gimpshop, I think it'd be best if
> I go about this "the right way", by speaking to the development team and
> community first.

The best advice is to do your homework. Don't just complain about the
current UI, but actually propose something to make it better. That
proposal should be well researched, and it shouldn't be something that
has been discussed to death and shot down already, which means reading
past discussion on the web, mailing lists, and the bug tracker, unless
you have well thought out rebuttals for all the reasons it was rejected
to begin with. You need to show that you've actually thought through the
issues seriously. Expecting developers to spend hours or days or weeks
implementing an idea you've only thought about for 5 minutes isn't a
realistic attitude.

Basically, designing good UI is *hard*. Just because you use computers
doesn't make you an expert on it, though lots of people like to think
they are. Often times people don't even know what they want themselves.
It all boils down to actually spending time to think about the problem.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Please Change the Derogatory Name

[Manish Singh]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 12:38:02PM -0600, Roland Hordos wrote:
> >> can you proove your claim?
> Sigh.  Try googling "is gimp a derogatory term".  If you read the
> sources at the first 10 hits and you still don't understand, then try
> the next 15000.

That is not proof. 

Search for just plain "gimp" on any major search engine, and the
majority of the links refer to this project.

In fact, changing the name of the project would hurt adoption more, by
giving up search engine presence, and having a fairly easy to remember
four letter name as a search term to begin with.

> Sven, coincidentally while I began to read your response I received a
> call from an engineering user here wanting to edit a scanned document
> with Paint or Photoshop.  I can't justify the cost of photoshop for 100
> desktops and paint is useless.  I would install the GIMP software for
> him in a heartbeat if I didn't worry that he might be offended by the
> reference.  Any corporate business environment has, or should have, this
> sense of decency.

Most corporate business environments would be in violation of their
terms of governence by rejecting potential cost-savings solely on
nebulous claims such as this. You probably should be reprimanded for
this behavior.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Please Change the Derogatory Name

[Manish Singh]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 05:32:46PM -0600, Roland Hordos wrote:
> Unreal.  Okay, here in Canada the google search I indicated brings up
> the following in order of top ranking:
> 
> 1)  The first is this link where someone with Cerebral Palsy is
> discussing the term Gimp and other "derogatory terms"
> http://www.flspinalcord.us/FSCIRC-Directors-Blog.cfm
> 
> 2)  The second link hits Wikipedia, with the very first part of the
> excerpt on the search indicating "Gimp is usually a derogatory term .."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimp_(sadomasochism)
> 
> 3)  The third link goes to The Linux Advocate blog where the author is
> comparing Gimp vs. Photoshop and what do you suppose is the first item
> on his list .. "The Name".
> http://thelinuxadvocate.blogspot.com/2006/08/gimp-vs-photoshop-what-stil
> l-needs-to.html
> 
> These go on and on, but perhaps it's only a North American cultural
> effect.  My point remains the same.

Irrelevant. Of course a search for "is gimp a derogatory term" will
bring up hits about derogatory terms, because a search for "derogatory
term" will bring up hits about derogatory terms as well.

Like I said before, a search for "GIMP" itself brings a majority hits
related to the project. You seem to have ignored that. Following your
claim that search engines have the pulse on cultural effects, that means
that the use of gimp as something insulting has very low usage, relative
to other usage.

You also ignored my point that changing the name would abandon current
search engine rankings and harm the project more than whatever gains
by bending over to the childish demands of people who only judge things
on names and can't actually think through things properly.

> Yosh, with an e-mail address at gimp.org I'd count you on the side of
> proud long term or regular contributor who is simply not going to see
> any other side.  If you can point out a single commercial product that
> has mass use in North America that has a derogatory term in it's title,
> I'll withdraw my critique and be gone.  I consider the quality of the
> GIMP on par with much commercial software, but it has an image problem
> (pun however you want it).

Nah, you'll be gone because you're an idiot who just wants to stir
trouble and pull claims out thin air, with no basis behind them
whatsoever.

The way you answered my mail illustrates that you can't defend your
ridiculous claims and choose to hide behind silly handwaving instead.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Please Change the Derogatory Name

[Manish Singh]

On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 01:58:57AM +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, Carol Spears wrote:
> 
> > Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:28:44 -0700
> > From: Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >  GIMPUser 
> > Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Please Change the Derogatory Name
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 02:39:46AM +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
> > >
> > > As I said before offering to accept patches which made it possible to
> > > rebrand the gimp in a clean maintainable way without the need to fork
> > > could bring this dicussion to screeching halt until someone shows some
> > > code.  Isn't that the Free Software way?  Look how Ubuntu has different
> > > versions which all work together promoting Ubuntu without suggesting those
> > > who have different needs should fork the project.
> 
> There were people who wanted to use Ubuntu to target different audiences
> so without changing what they were the found a way to cooperate and make
> Kubuntu and Edubuntu happen.  Different ideas but still part of Ubuntu.

This is not a valid comparision. You're suggestiong a wholesale name
change, which is would mean major community and brand fragmentation.
Somehow I don't think you'd be satisfied with "edugimp" or somesuch.
 
> > please also explain the reason that you target GIMP and not some of the
> > other perhaps better funded names of products that are as or more
> > offensive than this one here?
> 
> This question does not make sense to me.  I did not target the gimp, I did
> not even start this discussion.  All I am really asking is for developers
> to consider the possibility of making it easier to rebrand custom versions
> of the gimp for different audiences.  Is there not something a little bit
> more that can be done for those who have issue with the name?

You're the one continuing this ridiculous discussion. Right now there
are more people who have voiced objections to this thread than people
who have problems with the name.

If you really truly wanted to make GIMP more attractive to users, you'd
be encouraging people to make patches that have features that people
want, or fixing real bugs. That'd make much more of a difference than
any name change would.

So Alan, before you make anymore posts relating to this topic again, you
need to make a non-trivial contribution to GIMP yourself to justify all
the time you are wasting here.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Please Change the Derogatory Name

[Manish Singh]

On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 10:02:17PM +0200, Michael Schumacher wrote:
> Alan Horkan wrote:
> 
> BTW, there seems to be something broken with Marc's messages.
> 
> >> From: Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Although they are sent to the list...
> 
> >> Cc: gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
> 
> ...they don't seem to appear there.
> Maybe someone could clear this up - it it a problem on Marc's end, the
> list or on my system?

Marc posts from a different address than the one he uses to subscribe to
the list. It's up to him to fix this how he sees fit. (One option would
be to subscribe two addresses, and configure one not to receive mail)

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Please Change the Derogatory Name

[Manish Singh]

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:23:14AM +0200, Simon Budig wrote:
> Manish Singh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote (in reply to Alan Horkan):
> > So Alan, before you make anymore posts relating to this topic again, you
> > need to make a non-trivial contribution to GIMP yourself to justify all
> > the time you are wasting here.
> 
> Yosh has decided that Alans posts to this list will be moderated. Alan
> has asked me to bring this to your attention. If you are expecting an
> answer from Alan related to this topic you won't get it on list.
> 
> I am deeply troubled by this unilateral descision of yosh to control the
> content of the gimp-user list. While I do think that this thread is
> blown out of proportion and the topic gets stale for several years now,
> I want to make clear that I absolutely have a problem with this
> descision of yosh. While this discussion is inconvenient it is on-topic
> for gimp-user (although not likely to get a resolution).

The discussion was going nowhere, and several people called for the
thread to end. Alan is not the type to listen to such things though, and
feels his agenda trumps all else.

I will note that he posted not one, not two, but *three* posts on the
subject after I said he needs to stop. If he'd actually listened, and
contributed some real content to the list instead, complaining about
this would have much more merit that it does now.

> And I do not think that non-trivial contributions to the GIMP should be
> required to be allowed to post to gimp-user unmoderatedly. The "user" in
> gimp-user refers to people *using* the gimp, and Alan is a long-time
> gimp user and even *has* contributed to the Gimp source. A lot of the
> core developers might sometimes disagree with Alan, but that does not
> justify blocking Alan from communication via this list.

Contributions are not a requirement to post unmoderated, but they are
after egregious list abuse.

Alan isn't blocked completely, any posts which actually help GIMP users
will of course be allowed through.

> Also I'd like to see a short notice to the list with an explantation why
> someone is going to be moderated. Having clear guidelines on our
> webpages on what is acceptable and what not would make this easy.

Fueling the flames of a useless thread, that several people have voiced
as useless is bad. Being a repeat offender of this is grounds for
moderation. A 10 post thread isn't that big a deal, but continual
adding to an already 50+ posts thread that is clearly going nowhere is.

For people who say that you can just ignore things, I think forcing over
1000 people to take the time to reconfigure their mail software is time
sorely wasted.

I also feel that this topic is not really relevant to *using* GIMP, so
I'd like to ask that anyone who would like to follow up to do so
off-list, Ccing Simon and myself.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] editing an open image with python in interactive (console) mode

[Manish Singh]

On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 02:00:38AM +0100, xes garcia wrote:
> hi all
> I'm starting with python gimp related stuff
> i want to edit an open image with python console
> I've checked existing scripts and all of them are functions that are 
> first declared and then registered in gimp's plugin repository in order 
> to execute them but I want to edit an open image using the python 
> console in interactive mode
> I can do that if I myself create a new image:
> img = gimp.Image(width, height,RGB)
> disp=gimp.Display(img)
> but I can not edit a previously opened image
> how can I do that, if is possible?

gimp.image_list() will return a list of Image objects for all the images
GIMP knows about.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp vs. Photoshop

[Manish Singh]

On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:25:35AM -0600, Eric P wrote:
> I'm lazy, and I don't feel like reading this entire thread (it seems to show 
> up on a regular basis on the list).
> 
> Were any new, constructive insights brought up?  Anyone care to summarize 
> this thread on this exhausting topic?

Other than the idea of putting a webpage up detailing why a name change
is not viable, and such proposals are not welcome on this list,
none whatsoever.

As usual, this thread is started and mainly populated by people who
don't actually contribute to the project, probably because they don't
have anything to speak of in the talent or brains department,
and thus have to feel better about themselves by whining about
*something*. These people have of course not read prior threads, or
perhaps choose to ignore them, since several good reasons *not* to
change the name in prior discussions are left unrefuted.

Along with the webpage about why a name change isn't a good idea, it's
tempting to put a list of names of people who have started and dragged
on this sort of thread, with an explanation of how these people:

a) make snap judgements on software based on name, not on merit
b) think one or two anecdotes constitutes real research
c) are completely clueless about marketing, since they can't recognize
   the power of a well established brand
d) thusly, should never be taken seriously, let alone hired for
   anything

GIMP has pretty good google ranking, so the page should be ranked highly
for said people's names.

Pointing out idiots publicly is kind of mean though, so perhaps not.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] 2.3.14 compile - dbus error

[Manish Singh]

On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 08:58:52AM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > And it ends with this:
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> >   File "/usr/share/pygtk/2.0/codegen/codegen.py", line 1707, in ?
> > sys.exit(main(sys.argv))
> >   File "/usr/share/pygtk/2.0/codegen/codegen.py", line 1698, in main
> > sw.write(py_ssize_t_clean)
> >   File "/usr/share/pygtk/2.0/codegen/codegen.py", line 1340, in write
> > self.write_classes()
> >   File "/usr/share/pygtk/2.0/codegen/codegen.py", line 1437, in 
> > write_classes
> > instance.write_class()
> >   File "/usr/share/pygtk/2.0/codegen/codegen.py", line 283, in write_class
> > substdict['tp_methods'] = self.write_methods()
> >   File "/usr/share/pygtk/2.0/codegen/codegen.py", line 519, in write_methods
> > methods.append(self.methdef_tmpl %
> 
> Your copy of the Python Glib bindings are broken. There's a patch for it
> in Bugzilla. It's on the pygtk project if I remember correctly.
> Alternatively you can disable the Python plug-in when configuring gimp.

The latest pygtk release should work (it has the patch incorporated).

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] question

[Manish Singh]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:10:15PM -0700, Steven Howe wrote:
> pdb.gimp_get_image_list()
> returns a list of ids, which are 32bit integers, not a list of images. I 

Use gimp.image_list() instead, which returns a list of Image objects.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] seeking file path of open image

[Manish Singh]

On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:09:38PM -0700, Steven Howe wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm writing to this list a lot. Hope that's not a problem.
> I'd like to 'checkpoint' my work after each Python-Fu script is run. I 
> building a image with multiple layers, using the Antiquing guide I found 
> on the gimp site as a learning tool. Naturally I need store the image in 
> the XCF file format.
> I think I want to use pdb.gimp_file_save(), I'd:
> 1) get the / from the open active image (using what I 
> don't know)
> 2) get the filename, (using os.path.basename)
> 3) carve off the extension, and add '.xcf'  (using  ckptName='%s.%s' % ( 
> fname[:fname.rfind('.')] , '.xcf' ) ... and
> use the *pdb.gimp_file_save()*.
> 
> So the question is, how to get the full pathname for an image?

Use the "filename" attribute on the Image object. (It's just a wrapper
around gimp-image-get-filename)

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] gimp 2.2.9 compilation problem

[Manish Singh]

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 08:21:40AM -0700, steve kirby wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm getting this error in my gimp compile attempt:
> 
> gimp-composite-mmx.c:148: error: can't find a register
> in class GENERAL_REGS while reloading asm
> 
> Aside from a few WARNINGS, configure looked happy.
> 
> Can somebody clue me in on a fix?

Why are you building such an old version? That problem was fixed in
2.2.13 (2.2.14 is the latest release).

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Another GIMPTOOL question: If it's not in the GIMP development libraries, where is it?

[Manish Singh]

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 11:32:20AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Chris Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06-02-07 11:26]:
> > I think you should try it - it may be failing to initialize for some
> > reason, hence it's absence from the menu/tree.
> 
> I *stand* corrected.
> 
> I do get an error:
> 
> /home/pat/.gimp-2.2/plug-ins/GREYCstoration_gimp_pc_linux: error while 
> loading s
> hared libraries: libgimpui-2.0.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such 
> file or directory
> 
> but,
> 
> 11:30 wahoo:~ > locate libgimpui-2.0.so.0
> /opt/gnome/lib64/libgimpui-2.0.so.0
> /opt/gnome/lib64/libgimpui-2.0.so.0.200.14
> 
> 11:30 wahoo:~ > rpm -qf /opt/gnome/lib64/libgimpui-2.0.so.0
> gimp-2.2.14-1.guru.suse101
> 
> so why cannot gimp or GREYCstoration find "libgimpui-2.0.so.0"?

Probably because GREYCstoration_gimp_pc_linux is a 32-bit binary and you
have a 64-bit GIMP.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] No batch interpreter specified,...

[Manish Singh]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:40:14PM +0100, David Woodfall wrote:
> On (20:17 04/06/07), David Woodfall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> put forth the 
> proposition:
> > I get this error when I run a batch command. How do I specify the
> > interpreter?
> > 
> > No batch interpreter specified, using the default 'plug_in_script_fu_eval'
> 
> Ok I just RTFM or at least gimp -h and found I can do:
> 
>  gimp --batch-interpreter plug_in_script_fu_eval ...

Which is the default, so you don't need to specify it explictly.. that's
what "using the default" in the above message said...

> Now, the question is, what other interpreters can be used, and are there
> any (dis)advantages with them?

GIMP 2.3 has python-fu-eval which lets you send batch commands in python
instead of scheme.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp - gimpshop - newbie

[Manish Singh]

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.
> 
> Maybe gimp could benefit from a more catholic and generous approach being 
> espoused by everyone.

Maybe the creator of GimpShop should have respected the GIMP community
instead of rejecting it. He did not consult anyone on any of the GIMP
lists at all as to proper approaches, or even showed any interest in
actually making useful contributions.

Since GimpShop rejects the GIMP community, we respect that decision and
do not support it here. If you have issues with this, take it up with
the people who do GimpShop. They can't reject the community yet expect
simultaneously expect it to provide support.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp - gimpshop - newbie

[Manish Singh]

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 succeed but are afraid of offending some
> > > members of the former group.
> > >
> > > Maybe gimp could benefit from a more catholic and generous approach being
> > > espoused by everyone.
> >
> > Maybe the creator of GimpShop should have respected the GIMP community
> > instead of rejecting it. He did not consult anyone on any of the GIMP
> > lists at all as to proper approaches, or even showed any interest in
> > actually making useful contributions.
> >
> > Since GimpShop rejects the GIMP community, we respect that decision and
> > do not support it here. If you have issues with this, take it up with
> > the people who do GimpShop. They can't reject the community yet expect
> > simultaneously expect it to provide support.
> >
> This is a developer grudge centric response.
> 
> There are millions of trained photoshop users out there. Most modern software 
> seperates the view or (GUI) from the Model and the controller. This means 
> that developing alternative skins (gui's) becomes s straightforward process. 
> Maybe this discussion could be turned into examining the question -- How easy 
> would it be to focus on facilitating the development of alternative skins 
> (gui's) for gimp?
> 
> A gui that emulates photoshop is really needed .
> 
> Really gimpshop is part of gimp.. the version of gimpshop running on my 
> system 
> depends upon the latest version of gimp. 

Wow, everything you've said in this post is pretty much wrong.

Same thing goes for most of your other posts. You write a lot but
actually say very little. You clearly don't do any research before you
make your assertions.

I question that you have even used Photoshop, since you seem to think
the half-assed things GimpShop does to emulate Photoshop really makes
PS users comfortable.

Please stop posting to the list, as all you can seem to do is post
misinformation and assertions that you cannot back up.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp - gimpshop - newbie

[Manish Singh]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 08:24:36PM +0100, David Marrs wrote:
> Perhaps I'm in danger of starting an argument here but some of your points 
> surprise me a little.
> 
> Manish Singh wrote:
> > 
> > Maybe the creator of GimpShop should have respected the GIMP community
> > instead of rejecting it. He did not consult anyone on any of the GIMP
> > lists at all as to proper approaches, or even showed any interest in
> > actually making useful contributions.
> 
> Sorry, but surely the whole point of the free software movement is that it 
> quite 
> deliberately empowers users to do all of the things you've just objected to. 
> If 
> you're uncomfortable with people taking these liberties then maybe you should 
> consider releasing your code under a proprietary licence. And who says 
> GimpShop 
> is not a useful contribution? The contribution to the Gimp project may be 
> null 
> but to the free software community it clearly fills a niche.

Oh, they can totally take the code and do whatever the GPL allows,
that's fine. The GPL allows forks, but doesn't require the organization
that was forked from to provide support to the fork.

Red Hat has no obligation to provide support for CentOS people either.
Consequently, the CentOS people actually maintain their own mailing
lists and bug tracker, etc., so CentOS actually provides their users
proper service.
 
> > Since GimpShop rejects the GIMP community, we respect that decision and
> > do not support it here. If you have issues with this, take it up with
> > the people who do GimpShop. They can't reject the community yet expect
> > simultaneously expect it to provide support.
> 
> Well actually, maybe they can because at least one member of this list 
> provided 
> an answer that the OP found helpful. And, to be honest, if it had been left 
> at 
> that we'd have 3 replies in this thread instead of 30.

Numerous people have complained that GimpShop posts are just clutter
here, and it *does* cause confusion. It also clutters the bug tracker,
since the GimpShop guy doesn't actually upgrade the code in timely
manner.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] GimpShop list

[Manish Singh]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 05:16:56AM +0800, Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Thursday 12 July 2007, Manish Singh wrote:
> > The GPL allows forks, but doesn't require the organization
> > that was forked from to provide support to the fork.
> 
> True. However, I'm wondering if there's anyone here willing to
> moderate such a list, & what it would coist to run such at
> Berkeley?
> 
> The logic is that it would take such posts away from the main
> list (which you're reading now) & really be helping people.
> The downside is that it could be seen as supporting GimpShop
> despite the developer's entire unwillingness to join this
> community.
> 
> In answer to the second point, are are any other good, free
> (yeah, yeah, I know) list servers in action that you'd
> recommend someone independant started a support list on?
> 
> The idea behind that is to take the traffic away but still
> be able to monitor it, so that despite said developer's
> approach, good ideas could be captured for the benefit of
> *both* packages. And, who knows, bad ideas might even get
> a little slapping about before anyone implements them, so
> establishing a precendent.
> 
> If enough people here think the idea's basically a winner,
> I might ask Linux Australia to be a list host, with the
> idea of inviting a few others here along as moderators.

Why is this our problem? The initial response to the GimpShop question
was to ask the GimpShop people for support? How about everyone who likes
GimpShop to ask the guy who started it to have a mailing list or some
other support forum, and his own bug tracker? If he doesn't want to do
this, this is a gigantic reason *not* to use GimpShop.

Alternatively, the same people who like GimpShop could ask him why he
doesn't/didn't actually work contructively with the community.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] trace script-fu commands while using GUI

[Manish Singh]

On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 06:17:25PM +0100, Juergen Weber wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2007 12:05 AM, Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Greg wrote:
> > >> That isn't possible at this time. What you are asking for is along
> > >> the lines of what is asked for in GIMP bug #51937.
> > >>
> > >> See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51937
> > >
> > > Which was posted in '01.  Perhaps it's time to revisit this request?
> >
> > Reading the comments would be a good start if you want to give it a try.
> > They'll give you an idea of the difficulties that you'll encounter.
> >
> 
> Well, in http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51937#c14 Rapha?l
> Quinet says, he allready was working on the feature, whereas in
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51937#c6 Hans Breuer
> appended some code.
> 
> So the situation doesn't seem so bleak, does it?
> 
> If you have this great concept of a script-callable api, it seems
> tantalizingly close to use the api from a script recorder, too.

How is that close? The UI has to be refactored to use that API as well,
which is 80% of the work. It's a large job, and none of the code in bug
even touches upon that. You also have to solve the problem of
translating tool mouse movements into API calls efficiently.

It's pretty rude to imply that something is easy when you haven't even
taken the time to actually think through how much work is involved.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Script-fu gimp-file-save-thumbnail function

[Manish Singh]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 07:30:22PM +, Martin Bradley wrote:
> I don't want to try to get your code working because I know nothing
> about Python, I know it is a good language.  The other reason I'm not
> happy using it is that it adds another layer of software to a solution
> that should work on its own.

If you don't want to learn Python that's fine, but please don't spread
made up misinformation. PyGIMP and Script-fu both talk to the GIMP PDB
directly, there is no extra layer in the Python case.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Gimp-user] ANNOUNCE: GIMP 1.2.3

[Manish Singh]

Finally, at long last, GIMP 1.2.3:

ftp://ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp/v1.2/v1.2.3/

There are numerous bug fixes in this release, see the ChangeLog for details.

Also, in this release, all the binaries have been versioned (i.e., have a
-1.2 appended) so that both gimp 1.2 and 1.3 can coexist in the same prefix.
The default symlinks are controlled by the --enable-default-binary switch
to configure, which defaults to yes for the 1.2 series.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Gimp-user] ANNOUNCE: GIMP 1.2.5

[Manish Singh]

GIMP 1.2.5 has found it's way on to the FTP site:

ftp://ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp/v1.2/v1.2.5/

This is a minor bugfix release. Notably the build error in gimp-remote has
been fixed.

The following bugs were fixed (thanks to Dave Neary for compiling this list):

Bug #   Description
--  ---

17904   Off-by-one in selection boundary preview
69773   drawing slim lines with a 1x1 brush has issues
82763   xbm plugin emits malformed xbms
87687   ImageMap should use lowercase tags and escape attributes
104693  Scaling down a small image loses some pixel data
107402  Dissolve blend mode not consistent
110014  Display problems with selection border and image border
113425  Build fails at gimp-remote.c
113445  imagemap cannot re-read its maps
113610  Van Gogh plug-in always creates new image
113639  canvas shrinks when exporting PNG with 'save a copy'
113835  Layers can't be moved using the cursor keys if NumLock is
enabled
114225  Parameter settings in filters->render->pattern->grid swapped
114396  gimp_image_set_linked / gimp_image_set_visibility problems
114419  Script-Fu: Alchemy/Unsharp Mask produces incorrect results
114913  TARGA (TGA) 16 images with alpha channel are displayed strangely

Contributors: Sven Neumann, Raphael Quinet, Michael Natterrer, Adam Moss, Tor
Lilliqvist, Maurits Rijk, Pedro Gimeno, Henning Makholm, Yohei Honda.

More details, as usual, in the ChangeLog.

Happy GIMPing,
-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Re: gimp-ace plug-in halts during "./configure"

[Manish Singh]

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:56:31AM -0500, Edward Perkins wrote:
> >Sven Neumann writes:
> >
> > So, is gimptool in your path or not? That is, can you run
> > 'gimptool --version' ?
> >
> >
> > Sven
> > --
> 
> 
> Yes. And as I said, I have installed several other gimp plug-ins both of the 
> type requiring: ./configuremakemake install, and some that implement 
> the various options of the gimptool with no problems.

The configure script in that tarball is broken. Try:

http://www.yosh.org/gimp-ace-0.6.41-fixed.tar.gz 

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp

[Manish Singh]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:22:28AM -0700, Robin Rowe wrote:
> CinePaint won't go back to being Film Gimp and can't ever rejoin the GIMP
> project. That irreversible decision was made -- or not made according to
> Sven -- in 2000, long before I came on the scene. GIMP misplaced three
> man-years of Hollywood-funded open source work. That's an immense amount of
> time and money to lose, especially for an open source project. There can be
> no going back.

Please stop making stuff up and rewriting history to suit your own story.
You have no real idea what happened before you appeared. You have bits of
hearsay and you fill in the blanks yourself with "facts" that you pull out
of thin air.

Maybe if you spent more time coding and less time beating your own chest,
CinePaint wouldn't be perceived as the buggy, unstable piece of software
that it is. Maybe if you stopped letting your ego get in the way of things,
people wouldn't think you are hard to work with.

You refused to actually help further GEGL by choosing to promote CinePaint
instead. That's fine, it's your decision, but for someone who keeps on going
on about not having discussions in public you never actually explained that
one...

Stop clouding this list with this drivel and go code instead. You have your
own project and your own mailing list to write useless crap on.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Gimp-user] Re: [Gimp-developer] GimpCon 2004 (follow-up)

[Manish Singh]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 12:00:51PM +0100, David Neary wrote:
> I want to start a new thread to get this discussion (which I
> consider important) back on track.
> 
> LOCATION
> 
> So far there are 5 propositions in various stages of development,
> each of which has some + points and some - points.
> 1) GUADEC
> 2) Lyon
> 3) London
> 4) Dublin
> 5) Chemnitz
> 
> Are there others? We need volunteers. 

The OLS (http://www.linuxsymposium.org/) people would be willing to host too.
This would be July 18-19, in Ottawa, Canada. They've hosted the kernel
and gcc summits in the past, and are thinking of doing a freedesktop thing
this year too.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] png

[Manish Singh]

On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 06:13:47PM -0500, Bob Lockie wrote:
> On 12/08/03 16:57 Marco Wessel spoke thusly
> >On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 04:43:43PM -0500, Bob Lockie wrote:
> >
> >>KSnapshot: 34 108 bytes, 585x385, 24bbp, RGB, deflate.
> >>Gimp: 78 896 bytes, 400x263, 24bbp, RGB, deflate, compression 9.
> >>
> >>There are no options in KSnapshot so I don't know what the compression 
> >>level is (can it be higher than the highest in Gimp=9?).
> 
> The pics are on the web at:
> 
> http://www.lockie.ca/test/ksnapshot.png
> http://www.lockie.ca/test/gimp.png

As Marco speculated earlier (and you cut out):

> Anyway, if no one has said it yet, this is most probably caused by you
> scaling the image with resampling turned on. This makes images less easy
> to compress when using the types of compression that PNG and such use.

That's exactly what is happening. Zoom in on your gimp.png and you'll see
shades of gray around your letters. Since there's more color variance in
your scaled down picture, there's less common information to compress with,
so the picture is larger.

You can try setting the interpolation type to None, which will simply throw
out data instead of trying to interpolate the pixel data, but the results
are pretty poor. You do get a smaller file size though.

I will note, that loading ksnapshot.png and saving it in the GIMP (without
scaling) results in a smaller file size, so KSnapshot isn't doing as well
as it could. ;)

in a smaller
-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] gimp-remote -n not starting new instance

[Manish Singh]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:55:11AM +0100, Sven Burmeister wrote:
> 
> 
> Sven Neumann schrieb:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Sven Burmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>I am using Suse 9.0 and KDE 3.1.4 with gimp 1.3.2
> >
> >
> >If that's really version 1.3.2 you are using then an update would long
> >be overdue.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> thanks for the quick hint.
> 
> In fact un update was overdue as it seems, do not know why Suse still 
> supplies that old version.
> Anyway, using the 2.0pre I still have the problem that when I select two 
> files in Konqueror and open them with gimp-remote -n I get one gimp 
> instance and only one picture. If I select more than two e.g. 4 and open 
> them I get gimp, gimp<2>,<3>,<5> and only three images opened.
> 
> And still there is no option in the preferences to never open more than 
> one instance.

What's happening is that Konqueror is calling gimp-remote -n once for each
file, instead of listing all the files on a single invocation of gimp-remote.
Since gimp takes a while to start up, gimp-remote thinks there isn't one
there, so it starts new instances of the app.

Konqueror should be fixed to do the right thing, instead of doing contortions
in gimp-remote to fix this.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] gimp2.0pre & python

[Manish Singh]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:09:55AM +0100, Przemyslaw Gawronski wrote:
> Dnia Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:27:45AM +0100, Sven Neumann napisa?:
> 
> > It would certainly help if you could describe more precisely how the
> > scripts don't work.
> 
> Yes, sorry, about leaving that out.
> 
> Here it is:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] gawron]$ gimp-1.3 &
> [1] 4311
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] gawron]$ This is a development version of The GIMP.
> Debug messages may appear here.
> 
> gimp_composite: use=yes, verbose=no +mmx +sse +sse2 -3dnow -altivec -vis
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/home/gawron/lib/gimp/1.3/python/gimpfu.py", line 427, in _run
> extra_params = _interact(func_name)
>   File "/home/gawron/lib/gimp/1.3/python/gimpfu.py", line 239, in _interact
> import gimpui
>   File "/home/gawron/lib/gimp/1.3/python/gimpui.py", line 15, in ?
> pygtk.require('2.0')
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/pygtk.py", line 45, in require
> assert not sys.modules.has_key('gtk'), \
> AssertionError: pygtk.require() must be called before importing gtk
> 
> I've tryied to run from the main menu:
> 
> Extras->Python-Fu->Misc->Sphere
> 
> All other python scripts endup the same way.

Your version of pygtk is too old, you should use at least 1.99.15, or even
better 2.0.0.

I've updated the configure script to enforce this.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] menu font

[Manish Singh]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 06:41:23PM -0600, Eric Pierce wrote:
> To affect fonts in all GTK2 apps, I have the following in my ~/
> .gtkrc-2.0 file
> 
> style "user-font"
> {
>font_name="century 12"
> }
> widget_class "*" style "user-font"

The preferred way to do this is simply:

gtk-font-name = "century 12"

in ~/.gtkrc-2.0.

Note that this will be overridden by an XSettings manager, like gnome-session,
so if you're running that you need to change it in the Gnome preferences.

Also, a lot of people have a misconfigured dpi setting for the X server,
which you can override with the Xft.dpi XResource (or Gnome preferences,
again).

-Yosh
 
> Of course, you can change the font to whatever you want.
> > Hi,
> >
> > I use gimp2.0pre3 with debian/sid; the menu-font is too small but I cannot
> > find any knob to enlarge it.
> > Can I get any hint?
> > Thanks
> >
> > Peter
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] fontconfig and gimp

[Manish Singh]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 08:18:43PM +0200, johan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have something weard : i just installed gimp 2.0, once tried from
> .deb, once from source. When I open gimp i receive the following message
> : 
> gimp message : fontconfig version too old, The GIMP requires fontconfig
> version 2.2.0 or later.
> Installed fontconfig version is 1.0.2.
> 
> Somehow you or your software packager managed
> to install The GIMP with an older fontconfig version.
> 
> Please upgrade to fontconfig version 2.2.0 or later.
> 
> This is really strange, since i have version 2.2.2 of fontconfig
> dpkg -l fontconfig
> ii  fontconfig 2.2.2-2generic font configuration library
> 
> Anybody has an idea ? (I have Xfree4.2.1)

You have more than one fontconfig library on your system. The debian one
is in /usr/lib, you likely have another one in /usr/X11R6/lib or
/usr/local/lib. You can run ldd on the gimp binary to find the path of
the library it's using.

This message has been improved for 2.0.1 to clarify this situation,
because it seems quite some number of naughty people don't keep track of what
they installed on their system by hand..


-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP installation on Solaris

[Manish Singh]

On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 10:08:30AM +0100, Colin Bannister wrote:
> gtkimcontextxim.c:67: parse error before "XICCallback"

This has been addressed since GTK+ 2.4.2. The latest is 2.4.9. It's a
very good idea to use the latest version of things, unless you have a
very very good reason not to.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] gimp2 file selectors

[Manish Singh]

On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 07:43:29PM +0200, Simon Budig wrote:
> And you'd do yourself and your credibility a favor if you'd treat
> personal emails with respect and not publish them on mailinglists.

Actually, they are public emails, but miguel is not subscribed to this
list so they are trapped in the moderation queue by the mailman filter.

Miguel, I recommend you resend your postings.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] gimp2 file selectors

[Manish Singh]

On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 06:53:20PM +0200, Simon Budig wrote:
> Carol Spears ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > i guess it is time to decide what behavior we are to expect from the
> > corporate funded developers and the funded by the people developers.
> > 
> > gimp is still gnu, right?
> 
> Yes, although it has been funded by corporations. Probably more than
> you realize right now.

Though not to the degree Gnome has been funded, and no funding at all
from large, publically traded companies. GIMP still is by and large, a
volunteer supported project.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] gimp2 file selectors

[Manish Singh]

On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:55:59PM +0200, David Neary wrote:
> Getting something to the stage "where my grandmother would use
> it" is a proverbial way of describing making technology
> accessible to a larger public.
> 
> I am sure this was the sense in which Luis was talking when he
> said he wanted something his mother could use. That is not the
> reason things are simplified, but it is a soundbite describing
> the general goal of opening things up to a larger public.

And it is, when it boils down to it, a cop out fluff answer. Which is
Carol's point, that it was a non-answer, and that she expected a better
answer, more from a technical perspective.

Perhaps the assumption that making technology accessible to a larger,
untrained public should be revisited. There wouldn't be spam if nobody
bought from spammers.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] keybinding for File->Open Location

[Manish Singh]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 03:50:00PM -0600, Adrian wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:14:34 -0700
> Jakub Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote the words:
> 
> > On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 05:49 -0700, Carol Spears wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 12:08:41PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > > > Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks but we are not interested in your rants.
> > > > 
> > > define "we"
> > 
> > Carol, you're getting ridiculous even on your standards. Count me in
> > the"we" group.
> > 
> > cheers
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jakub Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> Sorry to pour gas on the fire, but I'm in the "we" group also.
> You need to calm down.

Why the hell do you people respond to 4 DAY OLD threads to only be
negative. You really aren't helping at all. It's total hypocrisy,
complaining about list noise, whereas all you do is provide *more* noise
on a silent topic.

This thread ended 4 days ago. Let it be.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user