Hi all,

The 2.0 release is getting closer, and there are still some thing missing from the press pack we want to send out.

- Could native english speakers who have a few minutes please look at the "What's new in GIMP 2.0" page (http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/WhatsNew) and correct any grammar problems?

- high-res screenshots of The GIMP showing new features are welcome. Examples of the kind of screenshots which are interesting are here: http://jimmac.musichall.cz/stuff/private/gimp-2/html/index.xhtml http://developer.gimp.org/screenshots.html

- If anyone would like to donate an article on The GIMP 2.0, it is most welcome (this might also be a source of revenue for funding if magazines re-print it).

Thanks a lot, Dave.

Hi again,

Dave Neary wrote:

- If anyone would like to donate an article on The GIMP 2.0, it is most welcome (this might also be a source of revenue for funding if magazines re-print it).

Speaking of magazines, that reminds me of one thing we have not done.

I have started a new page in PressPack, MagazineAddresses. Could people add the following information:

- Magazine name - editor's e-mail address
- postal address if available

for all Linux, digital photography and image processing magazines in their country? We should split this by country.

Thanks very much to Branko Collins for getting this list started with UK and Dutch contacts.

An alternative method would be to have volunteers volunteer to send out the press pack for their country to all relevant magazines. It would be a brilliant thing for LUGs to do to cut CDs of The GIMP 2.0 plus all of the extras for cover CDs.

Cheers,
Dave.

Hi again,

Dave Neary wrote:

- If anyone would like to donate an article on The GIMP 2.0, it is most welcome (this might also be a source of revenue for funding if magazines re-print it).

Speaking of magazines, that reminds me of one thing we have not done.

I have started a new page in PressPack, MagazineAddresses. Could people add the following information:

- Magazine name - editor's e-mail address
- postal address if available

for all Linux, digital photography and image processing magazines in their country? We should split this by country.

Thanks very much to Branko Collins for getting this list started with UK and Dutch contacts.

An alternative method would be to have volunteers volunteer to send out the press pack for their country to all relevant magazines. It would be a brilliant thing for LUGs to do to cut CDs of The GIMP 2.0 plus all of the extras for cover CDs.

Cheers,
Dave.

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Dave Neary wrote:

Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 13:31:53 +0100 From: Dave Neary
To: Gimp Developer ,
GIMPUser
Subject: [Gimp-user] Press pack requests

Hi all,

The 2.0 release is getting closer, and there are still some thing missing from the press pack we want to send out.

- Could native english speakers who have a few minutes please look at the "What's new in GIMP 2.0" page (http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/WhatsNew) and correct any grammar problems?

The document starts with a TODO note that hopefully will be removed

User Interface section of the document http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/WhatsNew#head-d2a749c5087fa0d474be006f8799a732aae0e9b5 (hrrm relative link doesn't seem to work).

"Be careful, though, not to use existing keyboard accelerator sequences. [OR WHAT WILL HAPPEN?]"
What will happen is that you will get the new keybinding you have requested and the old one will quietly and without warning be removed and no longer have that keybinding.

(the next sentence 'probably' needs to be changed and as it mentions replacing the menurc it would be much more helpful if it clearly stated what exactly you replace it with and how, that is you can replace it by removing menurc and renaming ps-menurc to menurc)

The section 'Other Improvements' has an item [WHAT OTHER IMPORTANT THINGS] that should be removed. Perhaps replace it with a link to the full changelog?

I cannot see any grammatical errors but that doesn't mean there aren't any all that is really needed is a little editorial cleanup.

However as a user I'm fascinated by part of the closing statement "Gimp can already do many things that are difficult or impossible with Photoshop" and I would love if the author or anyone else could elaborate on this. It would make a very good pulicity piece to accompany the release notes.

- high-res screenshots of The GIMP showing new features are welcome. Examples of the kind of screenshots which are interesting are here: http://jimmac.musichall.cz/stuff/private/gimp-2/html/index.xhtml http://developer.gimp.org/screenshots.html

weird. mozilla (at the top of the browser tab) says the following screenshot is PNG
http://developer.gimp.org/screenshots/gimp-text.jpeg

- Alan H

Hi Alan,

Alan Horkan wrote:

- Could native english speakers who have a few minutes please look at the "What's new in GIMP 2.0" page (http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/WhatsNew) and correct any grammar problems?

The document starts with a TODO note that hopefully will be removed

Eventually :)

Thanks for your updates, I've integrated them now. By the way, you can do that yourself by clicking on the "EditText" link at the bottom of the page. I have left in the "Other stuff" section, though, since there are lots of really nice features in there.

However as a user I'm fascinated by part of the closing statement "Gimp can already do many things that are difficult or impossible with Photoshop" and I would love if the author or anyone else could elaborate on this. It would make a very good pulicity piece to accompany the release notes.

I'm not sure what Raymond had in mind. Raymond? Que dis-tu?

weird. mozilla (at the top of the browser tab) says the following screenshot is PNG
http://developer.gimp.org/screenshots/gimp-text.jpeg

Yup, it's a png.

Cheers,
Dave.

Hi Alan,

the idea of a Wiki is that you edit the page directly. I think that would be easier and more helpful than commenting on it. Perhaps we should have made this clear...

weird. mozilla (at the top of the browser tab) says the following screenshot is PNG
http://developer.gimp.org/screenshots/gimp-text.jpeg

I'll have a look at why this happens.

Sven

Le lun 08/03/2004 à 17:38, Dave Neary a écrit :

However as a user I'm fascinated by part of the closing statement "Gimp can already do many things that are difficult or impossible with Photoshop" and I would love if the author or anyone else could elaborate on this. It would make a very good pulicity piece to accompany the release notes.

I'm not sure what Raymond had in mind. Raymond? Que dis-tu?

I did'nt write this. I often avoid to speak or compare Gimp to Photoshop. The Chapter "11.Coming soon" is a new Chapter added by someone on the Wiki.

What I wrote is : Historiquement Gimp 2.0 devait apporter la touche « professionnelle » qui lui manque, à savoir le support natif du format CMJN et le 16 bits/canal pour la vidéo. Il n'en sera rien, il y a déjà quelques années le choix des développeurs de Gimp s'est porté sur un projet à moyen terme de librairies graphiques de nouvelle génération, projet nommé GEGL. Mais comme dans le monde du libre les projets n'avancent pas forcément à l'allure souhaitée, les librairies GEGL ne seront finalement intégrées qu'au cours de la vie de Gimp 2, pour la version 2.4. --- translated by Eric in :
Initially, Gimp 2.0 would include the "professionnal" touch that the previous releases are missing: native support for CMYK and 16 bits/channel for video editing. This features will not appear now, as Gimp developpers choose to work on a medium-term project; this project is new generation graphical libraries called GEGL. But in free software, projects have planning of their own, and GEGL will be included during Gimp 2 stable cycle, maybe release 2.4.

an it was in the introduction not at the end of the document.

@+ Raymond

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Dave Neary wrote:

Hi all,

The 2.0 release is getting closer, and there are still some thing missing from the press pack we want to send out.

- Could native english speakers who have a few minutes please look at the "What's new in GIMP 2.0" page (http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/WhatsNew) and correct any grammar problems?

There weren't really any major grammar problems, at least when I got to it, but there were some punctuation problems and some awkward sentences, which I improved. I didn't make any stylistic changes; perhaps someone like Bex should take a look at it and make the style consistent. I'm just a computer programmer, no mas.

Rockwalrus

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Dave Neary wrote:

Hi all,

The 2.0 release is getting closer, and there are still some thing missing from the press pack we want to send out.

- Could native english speakers who have a few minutes please look at the "What's new in GIMP 2.0" page (http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/WhatsNew) and correct any grammar problems?

There weren't really any major grammar problems, at least when I got to it, but there were some punctuation problems and some awkward sentences, which I improved. I didn't make any stylistic changes; perhaps someone like Bex should take a look at it and make the style consistent. I'm just a computer programmer, no mas.

Rockwalrus

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, raymond ostertag wrote:

Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:49:03 +0100 From: raymond ostertag
To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Press pack requests

Le lun 08/03/2004 à 17:38, Dave Neary a écrit :

However as a user I'm fascinated by part of the closing statement "Gimp can already do many things that are difficult or impossible with Photoshop" and I would love if the author or anyone else could elaborate on this. It would make a very good pulicity piece to accompany the release notes.

I'm not sure what Raymond had in mind. Raymond? Que dis-tu?

I did'nt write this. I often avoid to speak or compare Gimp to Photoshop. The Chapter "11.Coming soon" is a new Chapter added by someone on the Wiki.

What I wrote is : Historiquement Gimp 2.0 devait apporter la touche « professionnelle » qui lui manque, à savoir le support natif du format CMJN et le 16 bits/canal pour la vidéo. Il n'en sera rien, il y a déjà quelques années le choix des développeurs de Gimp s'est porté sur un projet à moyen terme de librairies graphiques de nouvelle génération, projet nommé GEGL. Mais comme dans le monde du libre les projets n'avancent pas forcément à l'allure souhaitée, les librairies GEGL ne seront finalement intégrées qu'au cours de la vie de Gimp 2, pour la version 2.4. --- translated by Eric in :
Initially, Gimp 2.0 would include the "professionnal" touch that the previous releases are missing: native support for CMYK and 16 bits/channel for video editing. This features will not appear now, as Gimp developpers choose to work on a medium-term project; this project is new generation graphical libraries called GEGL. But in free software, projects have planning of their own, and GEGL will be included during Gimp 2 stable cycle, maybe release 2.4.

an it was in the introduction not at the end of the document.

@+ Raymond

I was asked to edit the document, so I have.

Raymond said he didn't write that section and no one else has said anything so I dont think it is appropriate to add things to the English translation that he didn't say. I couldn't quite figure out how to get Wiki to tell me who wrote it so for the time being I have deleted the contentious paragraph.

I would be interested to know what features the GIMP has and what the GIMP can do that is _impossible_ to do with Photoshop. Obviously the GIMP if free and has source freely availalbe and I'm sure it isn't difficult to find plently of things the GIMP does differntly and better than Photoshop but I think making over the top claims is bad and disingenous marketing and the GIMP project is better than that. Again I would love to see a table of comparison, I just dislike bold assertions without any facts to back it up.

- Alan

PS I've included the deleted paragraph here in case anyone really feels the need to start another wiki page and make those comparisons:

"What is not in the plans is for Gimp to turn into a clone of Photoshop. For one thing, the resources of a large corporation like Adobe far outmatch what any free software team, working for the joy of programming, can contribute. Furthermore, the GIMP developers would prefer to create a program that works the way they feel is best, and not simply mimic some other, flaws and all. But, on the other hand, Gimp can already do many things that are difficult or impossible with Photoshop, and given the very accessible plug-in architecture of Gimp 2, its capabilities are ultimately limited only by the collective imagination of the community of free software contributors."

Hi,

Alan Horkan writes:

PS I've included the deleted paragraph here in case anyone really feels the need to start another wiki page and make those comparisons:

"What is not in the plans is for Gimp to turn into a clone of Photoshop. For one thing, the resources of a large corporation like Adobe far outmatch what any free software team, working for the joy of programming, can contribute. Furthermore, the GIMP developers would prefer to create a program that works the way they feel is best, and not simply mimic some other, flaws and all. But, on the other hand, Gimp can already do many things that are difficult or impossible with Photoshop, and given the very accessible plug-in architecture of Gimp 2, its capabilities are ultimately limited only by the collective imagination of the community of free software contributors."

I really like this paragraph, especially the last sentence and would like to see it resurrected. I agree that it could be rephrased and that it's bad to claim things you can't proof but it should have been sufficient to change that one sentence then. Can we perhaps put this back in?

Sven

Such things should only be stated if proven by comparison :). In other case it sounds like a boast :-)

Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

Alan Horkan writes:

PS I've included the deleted paragraph here in case anyone really feels the need to start another wiki page and make those comparisons:

"What is not in the plans is for Gimp to turn into a clone of Photoshop. For one thing, the resources of a large corporation like Adobe far outmatch what any free software team, working for the joy of programming, can contribute. Furthermore, the GIMP developers would prefer to create a program that works the way they feel is best, and not simply mimic some other, flaws and all. But, on the other hand, Gimp can already do many things that are difficult or impossible with Photoshop, and given the very accessible plug-in architecture of Gimp 2, its capabilities are ultimately limited only by the collective imagination of the community of free software contributors."

I really like this paragraph, especially the last sentence and would like to see it resurrected. I agree that it could be rephrased and that it's bad to claim things you can't proof but it should have been sufficient to change that one sentence then. Can we perhaps put this back in?

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

Hi,

Sven Neumann wrote:

"What is not in the plans is for Gimp to turn into a clone of Photoshop. For one thing, the resources of a large corporation like Adobe far outmatch what any free software team, working for the joy of programming, can contribute. Furthermore, the GIMP developers would prefer to create a program that works the way they feel is best, and not simply mimic some other, flaws and all. But, on the other hand, Gimp can already do many things that are difficult or impossible with Photoshop, and given the very accessible plug-in architecture of Gimp 2, its capabilities are ultimately limited only by the collective imagination of the community of free software contributors."

I really like this paragraph, especially the last sentence and would like to see it resurrected. I agree that it could be rephrased and that it's bad to claim things you can't proof but it should have been sufficient to change that one sentence then. Can we perhaps put this back in?

I don't like the paragraph at all for a press release. Perhaps just the "limited by the collective imagination..." part, but it's a bad idea to start comparing ourselves with photoshop at all in a press release. Plus, this isn't even positive language for the most part. We should just drop it, I think (except for the last half of the last sentence, which I've just added to the press release).

Cheers, Dave.

Hi,

Dave Neary writes:

I don't like the paragraph at all for a press release. Perhaps just the "limited by the collective imagination..." part, but it's a bad idea to start comparing ourselves with photoshop at all in a press release. Plus, this isn't even positive language for the most part. We should just drop it, I think (except for the last half of the last sentence, which I've just added to the press release).

OK, I'm fine with that.

Sven

On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 17:21, Dave Neary wrote:

I don't like the paragraph at all for a press release. Perhaps just the "limited by the collective imagination..." part, but it's a bad idea to start comparing ourselves with photoshop at all in a press release. Plus, this isn't even positive language for the most part. We should just drop it, I think (except for the last half of the last sentence, which I've just added to the press release).

I second that. A paragraph like the above mentioned doesn't look good in a press release - it would probably cause us more trouble than it will do us good.

I think we should keep the text around, though - it might be well suited for an explanation of what the GIMP _isn't_ on the web site...?

Brix