On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 10:44:52AM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:

I'm slowing getting familiar with gimp/gimpshop. And so I thought I would try a couple of toy problems. One toy problem is to create a venn diagram. The resulting image would look something like a Visa logo, except the colors of the circles would be blue and yellow, with the intersection being green. Here's an SVG version[1] which is close to what I'm looking for. Notice, though, that the intersection is the wrong color. (Modified from the Mozilla website on SVG[2].

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.

carol

Robert Citek writes:

I'm slowing getting familiar with gimp/gimpshop. And so I thought I would try a couple of toy problems. One toy problem is to create a venn diagram. The resulting image would look something like a Visa logo, except the colors of the circles would be blue and yellow, with the intersection being green.

Using layer modes, you can get an effect similar to what you're describing: you can make overlapping areas of layers turn colors that reflect the addition or subtraction of the two colors. Unfortunately, blue and yellow don't combine to make green in either addition or subtraction mode; they make white. Think about the RGB values of the colors to understand why -- if you don't know the RGB values of colors off the top of your head, watch the sliders in the color chooser dialog when you select the colors to see how red, green and blue combine to make each color. Blue is 00F, yellow is FF0, and adding them makes white, FFF, instead of green, 0F0.

To get a better feel for how colors combine, try this exercise: make a black background layer. On top of it, make three circles, each in its own layer, one colored red, one green, and one blue. Move the circles so that they overlap each other partially but not completely. Now, in the Layers dialog, set each of the three circles to Addition mode and watch how they combine. Play with circles of different colors in different layer modes to see what happens.

To clarify, I'm not looking to select the intersection based on color and then fill the selection with green, but rather have gimp/gimpshop imitate what one would do in the real world with color filters, e.g. acetate[3], and a white light.

Subtract mode does basically what colored filters would do to a white light (do the circles exercise I described, but start with a white background instead of black). Addition mode is what you would see if you shone lights of different colors (e.g. a blue light and a yellow light) onto the same surface. Unfortunately, in neither mode will blue and yellow combine to make green, even though that is the combination you'd expect if you're used to mixing paints.

...Akkana

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

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:19:46PM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:

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.

i am sorry if my "tone" suggested this. if i start a project like gimpshop on my own and wanted the help of the gimp developers, i would probably talk to them about how to go about having this project. it is part of what i think working together is. perhaps it is that i have expanded the definition too much for todays standards. going on with this idea though, if i started a project without seeing how to work with the existing developers, probably i would continue to not want them to intervene. especially, if i had modified the sources in such an unmaintainable way.

"i borrowed your car and i gave it an automatic tranmission for you, don't worry about thanking me!"

please, do not do that to my car. i am not going to do this to your car--and, you do not have to thank me for that.

please, read my comments with the tone of respect for the way the gimpshop development team has opted to work.

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.

i think you read wrongly, however, i read different things and perhaps i read the wrong information.

i am personally against making gimp look like photoshop at all. i speak for myself however. some of the gimp developers are now involved with all these crazy usability forums where everyone is a usability expert and lord knows, i really speak for myself now.

reasons i have to be against letting gimp look anything like photoshop are mostly involving personal experiences where the gimp user can show the photoshop user how to make it work and not the other way around.

even when i accidentally chose two splash made by photoshop: http://ircd.gimp.org/~carol/splash/river/ http://ircd.gimp.org/~carol/splash/sun2/ i saw words used that would be in my opinion a real problem to translate. the word "pond" for instance, to describe ripple size. in gimp, a similar tutorial would suggest the value or number for the similar gimp plug-in. the numeric value is much more translateable and ultimately understandable. gimp is a learning tool and more and more designed for ease in translation.

all of the "converted" photoshop users of gimp who refuse to get it without the photoshop spoon attest to gimps success in what it does.

personally, i would be disinterested in making it easier for photoshop users unless i could make some money from it.

For me Gimpshop is a way for me to introduce the Gimp to other volunteers that I work with at a local non-profit. We take in old computers, refurbish them, use them to teach under-served kids in grades 4-8 how to use computers, and then give the computers to the students at the end of the session which last about 8 weeks. The non- profit already has a tremendous amount of material for teaching Photoshop (my guess would be some pared-down version). Plus Photoshop is something the existing volunteers are very familiar with. However, because of technical, legal, and financial constraints, we have decided to migrate to using and teaching Open Source. The Gimp seems to be a natural choices for image manipulation, with the Gimpshop providing a smooth migration path given our existing Photoshop infrastructure. Sure, eventually we'll migrate completely to the Gimp. But for now, it's baby steps.

half a step is silly.

baby steps are really not useful.

you do not teach open source unless you also teach how to work with developers if there is problems with understanding.

call this a baby step in "sorry the gimpshop web site has not enough bandwidth, please contribute to that team so you can continue to take your baby steps."

if there is not a smooth translation of use from photoshop to gimp (as there is from gimp to photoshop) it is not the blame of the design of gimp.

For me Gimpshop is also a way to learn about image manipulation. I know nothing about Photoshop nor the Gimp nor Gimpshop nor any other image manipulation program. (Actually, I used to know PaintShop pro, but that was over a decade ago, so it may as well be as though I know nothing.) So, I decided to take an on-line course on Photoshop. But instead of using Photoshop I'm using Gimpshop. So far, it has been working pretty well. I can follow along pretty closely, although Gimpshop does do some things a bit differently, which is OK. What's really pleasant is that the forums have a nice mix of neophytes like myself and pros, who help out us neophytes. And us neophytes can come up with some pretty basic questions. But that's OK, too. After all it is a beginning course on Photoshop.

gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is a problem -- wherein are the gimp design problems?

i have no idea what neophyte means.

i do know that open source might mean more than just making it easy for you. lots more. it means, work with the existing developers or go off on your own. not what you are doing right now, which is forcing gimp developers to work with you. this will end soon, btw.

Which brings us to resources. The only resource I know of that is specifically about Gimpshop is the Gimpshop website, which appears to be little more than a blog. There do not appear to be any forums or mailing lists or IRC channels or on-line courses. Just a download link and a blog. But as far as I can tell Gimpshop is not about image manipulation, but rather about putting a Photoshop-like skin on top of Gimp. By putting a Photoshop-like skin on the Gimp, all the resources that one normally uses for Photoshop (books, on-line tutorials, forums, courses, co-workers, etc.) all become available to Gimpshop users. In addition to the Photoshop resources, in only makes sense (at least it did to me) that all of the Gimp resources become available, too, given that underneath Gimpshop runs the Gimp.

well, one of the baby steps the gimpshop people might be in need of or interested in is for the users to figure it out and get the resources to make tutorials and help documentation for their user groups.

the power of open source is in not "highjacking" an existing project. well, except the people who took over the gimp-web project, but this is a different story. instead it is in pooling the resources of the existing and excited user base. people who want to give back and learn and share.

taking up a collection to give the gimpshop developers enough bandwidth might be a good start. more of those baby steps, please!

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.

you managed to get some help from this list. however, the gtk/gimp developer who read the thread had to demand that you answer my questions. that is not open source btw, that is "open says me". it is different. that is not a baby step into the right direction.

your challenge, as an open source advocate and also gimpshop user is to combine your collective energy and make a set of documentation and user based tutorials that reflect this "better for you gimp version".

In summary, I like Gimpshop and the Gimp and have come to understand that this forum is perhaps not a friendly place to mention Gimpshop. OK. Fair enough. Them's the rules. In the future I will refrain from mentioning Gimpshop and make sure my questions and any answers I give only pertain to the Gimp.

that is really cool. can i borrow your car?

carol

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:01:30PM -0800, Carol Spears wrote:

gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is a problem -- wherein are the gimp design problems?

this sentence makes no sense, sorry. allow me to fix it:

gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is not a problem

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

Hi,

Selon Manish Singh :

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.

Cheers, Dave.

--
Dave Neary
Lyon, France

On Tuesday 28 February 2006 06:17, Carol Spears wrote:

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:01:30PM -0800, Carol Spears wrote:

gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is a problem -- wherein are the gimp design problems?

this sentence makes no sense, sorry. allow me to fix it:

gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is not a problem -- wherein are the gimp design problems?

sorry.

carol

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

I cant help but add a few of my personal thoughts on this topic..

I use GIMP because it ISNT PS. AND the fact that PS doesn't readily run on my favorite OS. Where as GIMP runs on at least 3 different ones... This in it self add conciderable to my choice. I can have three different "studios" running Linux, Windows and OSX and still have a homogenous image manipulating software. (BIG plus in my book)

Second; If changing from PS to GIMP is a bigger hurdle than changing the other way around, its not GIMP's "fault". Its a problem behind the keyboard. I have never liked PS cluttered layout, and have found GIMP's interface alot easier to handle. So in MY case changing TO GIMP never was much of a question.

There are all kinds of talks about PS being more advanced, have lots more plugins etc.
So? If a commercial software thats been around for so many years as PS, DIDN'T have more "bells and whistles" than a "uncommercial" piece that only been around a few years, I'd be more then surpriced. GIMP started very small and has, in a short few years grown conciderable.

So back to the topic... WHY would you want to make GIMP look like PS?? WHY would you change layout to something, in my mind, inferior? If i want to have PS i'd run PS.

I run GIMP because it more then fits my needs. I run GIMP because i find it easier to use. And i DO run GIMP because it's free for me to use. I dont want to, and dont have the money to spend on new versions and releases.

Now mind you, i do NOT slight those who want to take babysteps. Bus as Carol said. Its not very smart.

Getting from A to B is one step. Sure it might be a big one. But why cut it up in small steps?
Its like exchanging your softwarebase in steps. First lets take out the database. and Learn a way of making the old and new software work in unison.
Then lets exchange the reporttool. And get more problems as the new system doesn't talk to the clients.
And as last step (after lots of headaches and patching scripts) lets exchange the clients.
Now the only thing we have to do is educate the users a third time to make everyting work again.
And thus ending up at B as planned from the beginning.

Bottom line, why change a program into sometingelse just cause its looks and handles as the old one?
Wouldn't it be better to stay with the old in that case? And the parts of forking. Its sure is easier to steal an idea and fiddle with it so it looks as it mine, than it is coming to an agreement of a certain way of operation. But is it "fair play"? Is it "well done"?

I think not.

These are my own personal thoughts on the matter. So don't go flaming the community for what i write here.

Any complaints will be duly read, and answered to if i find them relevant.

With a sincere thanks to the developers, maintainers and people working and improving GIMP...

Von: Robert Citek

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?

Because you seem to be discussing it.

But enough trash talk about Gimpshop. Tell me how wonderful this forum is. What makes this forum shine?

Well, I'd be more happy to answer this if you drop "forum" and use "list" instead. The most shiny thing is that you got a lot of people here who are experienced with both GIMP and communicating over a mailing list (the latter is something that's quickly becoming rare).

Tell me how this forum recruits new users/volunteers to test software,

The development releases and their features get mentioned if someone asks a question that touches this topic.

file bug reports,

Bug reports are referenced, and users are encouraged to search bugzilla or file bugs for things that seem to be strange.

and write docs and tutorials.

We reference our docs, and there has the occasional hint to contribute to them.

That is, how does this forum grow the gimp.org community and enable it to blossom?

Well, first the list does exist and it is found among the first results when searching for various terms related to gimp. That's one aspect for "blossom". I don't see a mailing list as the primary way for growing a community, though. Maybe there are some papers about this.

HTH, Michael

Von: Dave Neary

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?

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.

HTH,
Michael

Selon Michael Schumacher :

Von: Dave Neary

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.

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.

Cheers,
Dave.

--
Dave Neary
Lyon, France

Rikard Johnels wrote:

On Tuesday 28 February 2006 06:17, Carol Spears wrote:

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:01:30PM -0800, Carol Spears wrote:

gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is a problem -- wherein are the gimp design problems?

this sentence makes no sense, sorry. allow me to fix it:

gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is not a problem -- wherein are the gimp design problems?

sorry.

carol

Von: Bram Kuijper

Do I hear "I don't care about Photoshop/Windows Users that want to transfer to GIMP?"... then why was GIMP compiled for windows at all, just for a bunch people that were patient enough to learn it?

FYI, it was compiled for windows because someone wanted to use his scanner (which did only come with Windows drivers) with it.

And it is not a good idea to make the developers reconsider why something is still being maintained for a particular platform :)

HTH, Michael

Bram Kuijper wrote:

Sure? Again, doesn't it say something about general usability of GIMP's GUI? A good GUI is characterized that it is 'understandable' by the great majority of users, inexperienced, experienced using other software platforms and experienced using GIMP. I work with GIMP daily and I try to convince other people that GIMP is a good choice. But I see also that all these users have larger difficulties to learn GIMP compared to other graphical software, because they have been already 'poisoned' with general Windows GUIs (eg., GUIs in which menu's are always within the program interface and not separate 'windows', a standard set of shortcut keys, file menu handlers that are different from the GTK ones). If GIMP developers just ignore that, it sounds to me as if they just deliberately confine their software to a particular (and small) group of people. That is a big pity, because I believe that the more people use GIMP, the better the program becomes and the bigger the chances are that such OSS software stays on and remains in development.

(snip)

Nope, I think he/she wants GIMP to be "more usable" for a wider range of users than it is now. It just happens that a large amount of users that think of switching to GIMP are PS users. Geez, how strange that people then propose improvements of the GIMP GUI that are inspired by PS's GUI? Are those wishes just totally ignored by people that claim to have a 'better' idea how software has to work?

I disagree with you on these two points. A friend of mine fairly recently started using Gimp for her own photo manipulation (resizing and other basic functions). She's running Windows XP and Windows is *all* she knows (meaning she has no Mac or *nix experience whatsoever). I'm not sure if she had seen PhotoShop or not before but Gimp was her first "hands-on" experience with any tool of it's nature. She obviously didn't know what any of the tools or functions were simply because she had never used a tool like Gimp before.

Given that, she's gotten her head wrapped around the tool such that she understands how to use some of the functions it performs and can manipulate her images mostly as she wants (she's still learning how to do things, as am I). The point being, she had definitely been "poisoned" by the general Windows UI and that wasn't a factor in her Gimp experience. Gimp looking exactly like PhotoShop or even MS Word didn't change the fact she had no idea what a layer was or what a "crop tool" was. This brings me to the second point.

PS users wanting Gimp to look and affectively act like PS simply want Gimp to be a "free" PS, so they can use it legally without having to pay a boatload of money or without having to pirate a copy. PS users are very familiar with the PS UI (which is as overwhelming and user UN-friendly as people can argue Gimp is) and aren't willing or aren't capable of opening their minds to a different way of doing things. This is like a Windows user who complains about not being able to make Mac OS X or Linux behave just like Windows or the Windows user who can't differentiate between a word processor and "Word" (in this case, they think ALL word processors are Word and assume everyone with a computer has Word).

I think those who focus their expertise on the functions being performed will have an easier time using ANY kind of PS-like app since it will be a matter of finding or learning how any given app performs those functions. Those who focus their expertise on learning the UI get "programmed" to the point of not having any chance of being productive if the UI they are used to isn't around.

By virtue of the fact Gimp was chosen as the basis of Gimpshop, that proves Gimp is very functional and does work. The problem for PS users is they simply can't let go of the PS UI and Gimpshop was born.

Now, I believe (could be mistaken) it's been the position of the Gimp developers that Gimp is not intended to be PhotoShop so why change the entire UI to look/act like PhotoShop? It's not like attracting 50,000 PhotoShop users will result in tremendous donations to the Gimp development effort or anything. Of course, it would make those PhotoShop users very happy since they get to almost have their cake and eat it too. :)

I think a PhotoShop compatibility mode, that is integrated in Gimp, would be a good compromise. That way people still use Gimp first and foremost and can simply have it look like PS instead of trying to change Gimp into something it's not necessarily wanting or trying to be.

My $0.03... :)

Peace....

Tom

Michael Schumacher wrote:

Von: Robert Citek

But enough trash talk about Gimpshop. Tell me how wonderful this forum is. What makes this forum shine?

Well, I'd be more happy to answer this if you drop "forum" and use "list" instead.

fo·rum Pronunciation (fôrm, fr-)
n. pl. fo·rums also fo·ra (fôr, fr)
1.
a. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business. b. A public meeting place for open discussion. c. A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program. 2. A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation. 3. A court of law; a tribunal.

Robert was apparently using the term "forum" in the context of 1b - a public meeting place for open discussion. On the internet, "forum" is frequently used as an umbrella term that collectively refers to the different online discussion methods. Mailing lists (both those with and without webpage interfaces), usenet and non-usenet newsgroups, BBSs, web forums (in the sense of 1c, a specific medium), Tribe "tribes", Orkut "communities" etc. are all forums in the sense that they are all public meeting places (on the internet) for open discussion of various topics. So when someone asks you to tell them how wonderful "this forum" is, you can assume they are inviting comparison with all other forums on the topic, not just other mailing lists.

The term "forum" is especially useful for discussion forums that take multiple forms at the same time. Some people see usenet groups as "newsgroups" (read with a news reader) and others see it as "this site" (because they view it thru a web interface such as google groups, or a gateway website). A similar problem exists for Yahoo Groups which are both "mailing lists" and "this site" to different users. The term "this forum" will be correct for all users, where using "this newsgroup" or "this list" or "this site" can be confusing for users who don't understand the various ways the discussion forum is made available.

jc

JC Dill wrote:

So when someone asks you to tell them how wonderful "this forum" is, you can assume they are inviting comparison with all other forums on the topic, not just other mailing lists.

Well, this is a mailing list. Anyone who uses it via a different access vector should be aware of this - mailing lists, like newsgroups, have more formal requirements to the message style than e.g. a web forum.

For example: proper quoting, character encoding, addressing, ...

But this should be discussed in a new thread if we want to continue with it.

HTH, Michael

Michael Schumacher wrote:

JC Dill wrote:

So when someone asks you to tell them how wonderful "this forum" is, you can assume they are inviting comparison with all other forums on the topic, not just other mailing lists.

Well, this is a mailing list. Anyone who uses it via a different access vector should be aware of this - mailing lists, like newsgroups, have more formal requirements to the message style than e.g. a web forum.

For example: proper quoting, character encoding, addressing, ...

All of that is irrelevant to the context of how "forum" was used. It was used as an umbrella term to include "this list" as well as "all other lists, forums, usenet groups, etc." that could be compared with "this list".

jc

JC Dill wrote:

Michael Schumacher wrote:

JC Dill wrote:

So when someone asks you to tell them how wonderful "this forum" is, you can assume they are inviting comparison with all other forums on the topic, not just other mailing lists.

Well, this is a mailing list. Anyone who uses it via a different access vector should be aware of this - mailing lists, like newsgroups, have more formal requirements to the message style than e.g. a web forum.

For example: proper quoting, character encoding, addressing, ...

All of that is irrelevant to the context of how "forum" was used. It was used as an umbrella term to include "this list" as well as "all other lists, forums, usenet groups, etc." that could be compared with "this list".

I think we have beat this horse sufficiently. It is dead, please let's move on to relevant subjects..

I have some raster images that I need to combine. Each raster is in tiff format grayscale. What I want to do is load each file into a channel to create a color image. The problem is, I can't figure out how to get an image, or layer, into a channel. I can load a single image, and convert it into RGB which copies the data into all 3 channels, but then I can't figure out how to edit the 2 channels I don't want into black. I'm assuming if I could do this on all 3 images, I could then load them as layers and then compose them somehow. It seems like there should be an easier way. This is gimp 2.2.10.

scott s. .

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

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +0100, Dave Neary wrote:

Hi,

Selon Manish Singh :

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

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 11:48:06AM +0100, Dave Neary wrote:

Selon Michael Schumacher :

Von: Dave Neary

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

On Wednesday 01 March 2006 06:01, Manish Singh wrote:

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

Oh well, it's done. Bitching now isn't helping, so why not try to resolve the situation?

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.

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

Sorry for jumping in half-way through a conversation that I haven't been entirely privy to - but I just wanted to make a suggestion/point that is (I hope) relevant.

On 2 Mar 2006March2, at 02:33, Manish Singh wrote:

Perhaps all that's really needed is the PS menu->GIMP menu mapping document in a proposal as a cheat sheet.

When Adobe launched InDesign, it was taking on a dominant market leader in Quark XPress. People like me who had used XPress for years were used to a certain way of working and innately knew a load of keyboard shortcuts etc for doing our jobs. What Adobe did was inspired: yes, you could, out of the box, use InDesign as Adobe intended or, with the flick of a preference button, InDesign was set- up to recognise and use the XPress shortcuts that people were used to.

If Gimp is to become a replacement for Photoshop then, whether it appears to be "good practice" or not, it has to accommodate its potential users and work as they are used to working (in the short term at least). I'm sure there are many people who will argue - and possible quite rightly - that the Gimp is not a Photoshop replacement but, for many, many people, it is and as more people make the move from Photoshop, surely the Gimp's relevancy, exposure and quality can only improve.

As I said, I might be speaking out of turn (if so, I apologise) but, if I'm understanding the thread correctly, I hope this point is relevant.

RB

Ross Brown wrote:

If Gimp is to become a replacement for Photoshop then, whether it appears to be "good practice" or not, it has to accommodate its potential users and work as they are used to working (in the short term at least). I'm sure there are many people who will argue - and possible quite rightly - that the Gimp is not a Photoshop replacement but, for many, many people, it is and as more people make the move from Photoshop, surely the Gimp's relevancy, exposure and quality can only improve.

I think you make a great point but I don't think improvements in Gimp's quality or relevance is based on or related to PhotoShop user acceptance at all.

Peace...

Tom

Manish Singh wrote:

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.

Walks by nonchalantly, whistling.

Here are some screen shots of "me working in" Adobe(R) Photoshop(R) CS. http://umich.edu/~hnarayan/PS_Screens/

Notes: 0. 000_all.zip in the above URL gives you all files. 1. They just happened to be lying around. 2. The colours, if off, are because of needing to use rdesktop. 3. There are some perks to being at the uni. 4. I cannot believe how much I missed the right-click menu on the images, and I was barely doing anything. I love the GIMP.

Harish

Hi,
I'm also just jumping in to this conversation. To be honest when I heard about Gimpshop I got excited about using Gimp again. I've downloaded it and have used it and having the familiar menus made it far easier for me to use the program. I think that there is a larger question that needs to be posed: What kind of beta testing is done by professional designers? I met a beta tester for Adobe, she's a professor at the School of Visual Art in NYC, and it was quite interesting to hear her talk about some of her experiences and how she talks to Photoshop developers. The relationship is pretty simple: developers cater to the needs of designers. To take an example that would also apply to Gimp, when showing us different methods she came across a tool that didn't allow you to "preview" the effect and she simply said,"This is pretty useless, you can't see what you're doing." So there is a functional and productive criticism. Designing is a visual process obviously, if I can't see the effect, be it transforming or using a filter, it makes my job a whole lot harder and consumes more of my time via guessing, undoing, and reapplying the filter. It's like drawing with a blindfold. Anyway to make a long story slightly longer I think part of moving forward for Gimp would be to start to beta test with real professional designers, the ones who's work you admire.

I think that Gimp's market potential isn't as an adobe REPLACEMENT, not at this point anyway, it is more of a SUBSTITUTE (there is a difference). I think it would serve better as filling the niche for those people who don't actually own a legit copy of photoshop. If people discover they don't have to break the law because there is an adequate substitute that performs similarly to photoshop people will use Gimp in droves. And to add to that what Gimp can allow for is a program that can fully cater to the experience of a user.

I think it would be awesome if you could specify gimp to hide tools that wouldn't be used by the user ie. my 4 year old niece. Maybe there could be different skins or profiles dependent on the anticipated use of the user. You could set the programmer to "beginner" and it would resemble MS Paint. Anyway, these are all ideas. I think the main thing is to think creatively about who Gimp's audience actually is. Right now, in all honesty, it isn't a pro designer. GImp isn't something that people in my office could use everyday. In fact, using it once they'd probably never touch it again.

It's funny because I just signed up on this email list because I wanted to talk about this subject! As it so happens I've written a critique of some of the features from a designers/usability perspective. Where would be a good place to post it?

All the best, Paul
openartist.net
wie.org (senior designer for the magazine)

PS: Gimp has the potential to rival Adobe Photoshop, perhaps not in features or in the number of pro users, but in the number of "lay users" (unregistered pirates).

PPS: I also just thought of the the use that students could have for GImp. Teachers could recommend it as a free photoshop-like alternative for finishing homework in the event they don't have a copy of it themselves. DRM techcology is going to keep getting better so it will be harder for students to obtain illegal copies in the future.

PPPS: Does anyone ever talk about how GImp literally means "lame"? From a branding perspective that's the worst name you could ever use. Your brand and logo is your chance to make that good first impression and rather boldly you tell potential users that you're handicapped before they even find out for themselves!

On 3/1/06, Tom Williams wrote:

Ross Brown wrote:

If Gimp is to become a replacement for Photoshop then, whether it appears to be "good practice" or not, it has to accommodate its potential users and work as they are used to working (in the short term at least). I'm sure there are many people who will argue - and possible quite rightly - that the Gimp is not a Photoshop replacement but, for many, many people, it is and as more people make the move from Photoshop, surely the Gimp's relevancy, exposure and quality can only improve.

I think you make a great point but I don't think improvements in Gimp's quality or relevance is based on or related to PhotoShop user acceptance at all.

Peace...

Tom

Paul Bloch wrote:

To take an example that would also apply to Gimp, when showing us different methods she came across a tool that didn't allow you to "preview" the effect and she simply said,"This is pretty useless, you can't see what you're doing." So there is a functional and productive criticism. Designing is a visual process obviously, if I can't see the effect, be it transforming or using a filter, it makes my job a whole lot harder and consumes more of my time via guessing, undoing, and reapplying the filter. It's like drawing with a blindfold. Anyway to make a long story slightly longer I think part of moving forward for Gimp would be to start to beta test with real professional designers, the ones who's work you admire.

I think this is a great idea. Ideally, the pro designers would be able to focus on the usability of Gimp *outside* of the context of PhotoShop. That way, we could minimize bias based on familiarity. With all of the talk of wanting Gimp to look/feel like PhotoShop, there hasn't been much discussion of PhotoShop's UI being considered "good". I had this kind of discussion with someone else who slammed the Gimp UI and much to my surprise he slammed the PhotoShop UI as being about as bad. :)

I think the intent should be to strive for a solid UI that is intuitive, not necessarily to mimic one that is basically familiar and that's about it.

I think that Gimp's market potential isn't as an adobe REPLACEMENT, not at this point anyway, it is more of a SUBSTITUTE (there is a difference). I think it would serve better as filling the niche for those people who don't actually own a legit copy of photoshop. If people discover they don't have to break the law because there is an adequate substitute that performs similarly to photoshop people will use Gimp in droves. And to add to that what Gimp can allow for is a program that can fully cater to the experience of a user.

The thing is, Gimp serves that purpose today. I can't comment on the "droves" part. :)

People don't have to break the law if they use Gimp. People don't use PhotoShop primarily because they like the UI, they use it for what it can do with digital images. People learn the PhotoShop UI so they can do interesting things with those images. People can do interesting things with digital images using Gimp, but they do those things in a different way. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I think the main thing is to think creatively about who Gimp's audience actually is.

This is a good point and one issue I see is those who are screaming for a PhotoShop interface feel THEY are Gimp's actual audience when I'm not even sure what Gimp's audience actually is.

Peace...

Tom

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?

Who are you kidding? Why don't you simply take your trolling elsewhere. I've been using gimp for years now, never had an interest in using it in a windows environment, never will. I'm not interested in seeing GIMP emulate Photoshop.

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,

Then let them stay with Photoshop if their issue is such. They want their cake and eat it too. They want GIMP price, but they don't want to learn a better interface.

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.

You can not fix the way it was created. That is the issue at hand. As other's have noted, the creator of GIMPSHOP has created confusion by not following the accepted protocol for forking an application. He/she should have made reasonable attempts to work with the existing developers. As it is, it's a poor and confusing hack.

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Ross Brown wrote:

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 02:45:28 +0000 From: Ross Brown
To: GIMPUser
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Gimpshop

Sorry for jumping in half-way through a conversation that I haven't been entirely privy to - but I just wanted to make a suggestion/point that is (I hope) relevant.

relevancy never stopped anyone on the internet

Perhaps all that's really needed is the PS menu->GIMP menu mapping document in a proposal as a cheat sheet.

When Adobe launched InDesign, it was taking on a dominant market leader in Quark XPress. People like me who had used XPress for years were used to a certain way of working and innately knew a load of keyboard shortcuts etc for doing our jobs. What Adobe did was inspired: yes, you could, out of the box, use InDesign as Adobe intended or, with the flick of a preference button, InDesign was set- up to recognise and use the XPress shortcuts that people were used to.

psmenurc is a file which contains Photoshop style keyboards shortcuts, and if you use it to replace the standard menurc you get something similar to what you suggest, although but not the easy at the ~flick of switch part~.

- Alan H.

On Thursday 02 March 2006 08:19, Geoffrey wrote:

Because Gimshop has generated more excitement than the Gimp ever has and certain people might be a little ruffled?

Who are you kidding? Why don't you simply take your trolling elsewhere. I've been using gimp for years now, never had an interest in using it in a windows environment, never will. I'm not interested in seeing GIMP emulate Photoshop.

You don't like what I say, so it's trolling? Are you that insecure? I have used Gimp for years, mostly in Linux, but also in Windows. I even owned a school that taught Gimp in a class. So, you could say that I am a bit of a cheerleader.

I don't give a rat's that you don't like my opinion, because it's something I hear often...comparisons and wishes about it and PS.

Then let them stay with Photoshop if their issue is such. They want their cake and eat it too. They want GIMP price, but they don't want to learn a better interface.

You say better...
I think we have reached the limit of your ability to converse thoughtfully in this conversation.

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.

You can not fix the way it was created. That is the issue at hand. As other's have noted, the creator of GIMPSHOP has created confusion by not following the accepted protocol for forking an application. He/she should have made reasonable attempts to work with the existing developers. As it is, it's a poor and confusing hack.

Oh well, it's done, so let's take what it generated and try to bring something positive out of it. Trying to surf the wave of interest would be NICE.

Brendan wrote:

On Thursday 02 March 2006 08:19, Geoffrey wrote:

Because Gimshop has generated more excitement than the Gimp ever has and certain people might be a little ruffled?

Who are you kidding? Why don't you simply take your trolling elsewhere. I've been using gimp for years now, never had an interest in using it in a windows environment, never will. I'm not interested in seeing GIMP emulate Photoshop.

You don't like what I say, so it's trolling?

From wikipedia: In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants.

I've heard very little about GIMPSHOP, yet you claim it's 'generated more excitement then the Gimp ever has.'

Are you that insecure?

Now that is funny.

I have used Gimp for years, mostly in Linux, but also in Windows. I even owned a school that taught Gimp in a class. So, you could say that I am a bit of a cheerleader.

I don't give a rat's that you don't like my opinion, because it's something I hear often...comparisons and wishes about it and PS.

How about backing up your statement with some facts? Google:

gimp: 30,600,000 hits gimpshop: 447,000 hits

Wow, that's a lot of excitement alright.

Then let them stay with Photoshop if their issue is such. They want their cake and eat it too. They want GIMP price, but they don't want to learn a better interface.

You say better...
I think we have reached the limit of your ability to converse thoughtfully in this conversation.

My ability extends well beyond your understanding.

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.

You can not fix the way it was created. That is the issue at hand. As other's have noted, the creator of GIMPSHOP has created confusion by not following the accepted protocol for forking an application. He/she should have made reasonable attempts to work with the existing developers. As it is, it's a poor and confusing hack.

Oh well, it's done, so let's take what it generated and try to bring something positive out of it. Trying to surf the wave of interest would be NICE.

Just because something has 'happened' doesn't mean you accept it.

I personally don't want to start seeing confusing posts regarding interfaces because someone is posting about gimpshop on a gimp list. They are not the same, and the creation of gimpshop was not done in a respectable way with regard to the original work. It was not done in a way that respects the years of work that the developers have put into the GIMP.

I'd suggest that someone create a GIMPSHOP list and post questions regarding that charade there.

On Saturday 04 March 2006 09:07, Geoffrey wrote:

I've heard very little about GIMPSHOP, yet you claim it's 'generated more excitement then the Gimp ever has.'

Amongst artists I know, yes, it has.

How about backing up your statement with some facts? Google:

gimp: 30,600,000 hits gimpshop: 447,000 hits

Those are facts?

Wow, that's a lot of excitement alright.

447 THOUSAND hits? Yeah, you're right, it is. I am surprised it was that many...Thanks for supporting my point.

You say better...
I think we have reached the limit of your ability to converse thoughtfully in this conversation.

My ability extends well beyond your understanding.

Wow, I'm impressed, Obi-Wan.
Who's the troll now, tough guy?

Oh well, it's done, so let's take what it generated and try to bring something positive out of it. Trying to surf the wave of interest would be NICE.

Just because something has 'happened' doesn't mean you accept it.

The point is: you don't have to accept or not accept it...USE it to further your own goals...

I personally don't want to start seeing confusing posts regarding interfaces because someone is posting about gimpshop on a gimp list.

Of all the things to worry about...I'd be glad that it was that popular to even cause a problem. Let's jump off that bridge when we get to it.

I'd suggest that someone create a GIMPSHOP list and post questions regarding that charade there.

I'm sorry, but your huffy-puffy attitude reminds me of those Grey Poupon commercials.

Am 05.03.2006 um 06:41 schrieb Brendan:

On Saturday 04 March 2006 09:07, Geoffrey wrote:

You couldn't do this war on private pm instead of the list? Could you?!