Hi,

On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 00:29 +0100, David Marrs wrote:

Sven indicated that this idea has already been considered and rejected by the team and that I should bring it up for discussion here before proceeding any further.

We haven't really discussed and rejected this particular idea. The point here is just that the current rule is that the GIMP team only provides the source code. The creation, distribution and maintainance of binary packages has been left to other parties. The current website tries to explain this point and only gives recommendations for binary packages.

In my opinion we should stick to this rule. It would make a lot of sense to make it easier for the user to locate our recommendations for binary packages. If user agent detection helps to remove one or two clicks, then I am fine with that. But if there's a download button on the front-page that directly instantiates the download, then we are effectively providing binary packages. It doesn't matter if the packages are hosted elsewhere. To the user it will appear as if we would provide the binaries.

If we decided that we want to do this, then we should probably really provide the binaries and we would have to move things like the Win32 user FAQ (http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/faq.html) and the gimp-app bug-tracker (http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimp-app) to gimp.org and to our bug-tracker. I don't think we are prepared to do that.

Sven

I don't see why providing links to recomended binaries on the front page would put any more responsibility on us.

We already direct users to recomendeded binaries, and as long as we continue to be clear that we don't build those binaries ourselves, why should we not make it easier to reach those?

The content of a website should be organized in such a way that the most usable information should be the most reachable, and I am pretty confident that most visitors on gimp.org looks for binaries, hence we should have binaries on the front page.

I don't see why we would have to also host the Win32 FAQ etc because of this. Just link to those external pages. Sure, coherency is important but let's not take it to the extreme, let's focus on providing a pragmatic gimp.org.

Martin Nordholts

les, just link to themourselves Sven Neumann skrev:

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 00:29 +0100, David Marrs wrote:

Sven indicated that this idea has already been considered and rejected by the team and that I should bring it up for discussion here before proceeding any further.

We haven't really discussed and rejected this particular idea. The point here is just that the current rule is that the GIMP team only provides the source code. The creation, distribution and maintainance of binary packages has been left to other parties. The current website tries to explain this point and only gives recommendations for binary packages.

In my opinion we should stick to this rule. It would make a lot of sense to make it easier for the user to locate our recommendations for binary packages. If user agent detection helps to remove one or two clicks, then I am fine with that. But if there's a download button on the front-page that directly instantiates the download, then we are effectively providing binary packages. It doesn't matter if the packages are hosted elsewhere. To the user it will appear as if we would provide the binaries.

If we decided that we want to do this, then we should probably really provide the binaries and we would have to move things like the Win32 user FAQ (http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/faq.html) and the gimp-app bug-tracker (http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimp-app) to gimp.org and to our bug-tracker. I don't think we are prepared to do that.

Sven

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:29:26 +0100, David Marrs wrote:

It was suggested on the gimp-web mailing list that we could provide direct links to binary packages for popular platforms such as Windows or Mac, based on user agent detection. The link would be provide from the home page - see http://next.gimp.org/ for a taster. I liked the proposal (presuming reliable packages for 2.4 are made available) and can provide the necessary code.

Sigh! That reference to next.gimp.org should not have been mentioned outside the gimp-web mailing list. It's not a secret (anyone is free to join the gimp-web list or the discussions on IRC) but we should make sure that the new design is not discussed too early on various blogs or web sites, otherwise this would ruin the effect for the 2.4 release. So if you have visited that site and you want to comment on it, please limit your discussion to the gimp mailing lists or IRC channels, but do not spread this URL before 2.4 is released. Thanks!

-Raphaël

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:20:58 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

[...] But if there's a download button on the front-page that directly instantiates the download, then we are effectively providing binary packages. It doesn't matter if the packages are hosted elsewhere. To the user it will appear as if we would provide the binaries.

I don't think that it would be a problem. Over the years, Jernej's installer has evolved into something that can only be described as an "official" package for Windows. Regarless of what we state about it, I bet that most users consider it as "the" GIMP for Windows. Providing a one-click download button is unlikely to cause more problems or confusion.

The situation may be different for Mac users or users of other platforms, but then again if the web site statistics are still the same as when I last looked at them, then the majority of our visitors are using IE on Windows. It is reasonable to think that a fair number of these visitors are interested in getting "the" installer for GIMP on Windows.

If we decided that we want to do this, then we should probably really provide the binaries and we would have to move things like the Win32 user FAQ (http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/faq.html) and the gimp-app bug-tracker (http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimp-app) to gimp.org and to our bug-tracker. I don't think we are prepared to do that.

Moving the Win32 user FAQ to www.gimp.org may or may not be a good idea. I think that Jernej should state his opinion on that.

Regarding gimp-app, I am not sure because we do not (or did not) get too many Mac visitors and I do not know to what extent they perceive the gimp-app package as "official". This may change if the native GTK+ port evolves, but for the moment I am not sure that we even need to have a direct download button for Mac packages.

-Raphaël

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:09:05 +0200 From: Martin Nordholts

I don't see why providing links to recomended binaries on the front page would put any more responsibility on us.

We already direct users to recomendeded binaries, and as long as we continue to be clear that we don't build those binaries ourselves, why should we not make it easier to reach those?

Because whatever disclaimers etc. you use, users will see the binaries as coming from the GIMP project, and will blame you if there are any download problems or corrupted (or trojaned!) binaries.

The content of a website should be organized in such a way that the most usable information should be the most reachable, and I am pretty confident that most visitors on gimp.org looks for binaries, hence we should have binaries on the front page.

I don't see why we would have to also host the Win32 FAQ etc because of this. Just link to those external pages. Sure, coherency is important but let's not take it to the extreme, let's focus on providing a pragmatic gimp.org.

Martin Nordholts

les, just link to themourselves Sven Neumann skrev: > Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 00:29 +0100, David Marrs wrote: >
>> Sven indicated that this idea has already been considered and rejected by the >> team and that I should bring it up for discussion here before proceeding any >> further.
>
> We haven't really discussed and rejected this particular idea. The point > here is just that the current rule is that the GIMP team only provides > the source code. The creation, distribution and maintainance of binary > packages has been left to other parties. The current website tries to > explain this point and only gives recommendations for binary packages. >
> In my opinion we should stick to this rule. It would make a lot of sense > to make it easier for the user to locate our recommendations for binary > packages. If user agent detection helps to remove one or two clicks, > then I am fine with that. But if there's a download button on the > front-page that directly instantiates the download, then we are > effectively providing binary packages. It doesn't matter if the packages > are hosted elsewhere. To the user it will appear as if we would provide > the binaries.
>
> If we decided that we want to do this, then we should probably really > provide the binaries and we would have to move things like the Win32 > user FAQ (http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/faq.html) and the gimp-app > bug-tracker (http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimp-app) to gimp.org and > to our bug-tracker. I don't think we are prepared to do that.

On Thursday 29 March 2007 07:22, Robert L Krawitz wrote:

   We already direct users to recomendeded binaries, and as long as we continue to be clear that we don't build those binaries ourselves, why should we not make it easier to reach those?

Because whatever disclaimers etc. you use, users will see the binaries as coming from the GIMP project, and will blame you if there are any download problems or corrupted (or trojaned!) binaries.

Just then - who will they blame if a binary from gimp-win crashes? The names and e-mails for complaint may be the ones in the gimp-win page, but on the users mind, the program that failed is the GIMP.

Back on the thread topic - when lecturing about the GIMP, the instructions I give for windows downloading are something like "google for Gimp Windows Download".

Having a download link straight from GIMP .or gmaybe could be a nice thing, but it is not the most important. There is the issue of needing to download the GTK+ installer as well - and the instructions ofr that - so it is not only linking to the GIMPwin installer from gimp.org/downloads.

However - (I am reviewing now), a user trying to download the GIMP for windows now, starting from gimp.org has to go through: www.gimp.org
www.gimp.org/downloads
www.gimp.org/windows
gimp-win.sourceforge.net/
gimp-win.sourceforge.net/stable.html

And then grab the gtk+, and gimp win binaries. And all those pages are in English only - (most people in my target audiences are not proeficient enough in English - so, just imagine all those pages are in some language you don't understand, and you will see it is rather unprobable that one would click on the correct links at each of then)

Regardless of providing a direct link to the binaries, I think that a direct link from gimp.org/downloads to a page with the same instructions and links that live currently live in gimp-win.sourceforge.net/stable.html is a must.

Discussing the i18n of some or all of these pages would be OT here, but that is of concern to me as well.

js ->

On 3/29/07, Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris wrote:

And then grab the gtk+, and gimp win binaries. And all those pages are in English only - (most people in my target audiences are not proeficient enough in English - so, just imagine all those pages are in some language you don't understand, and you will see it is rather unprobable that one would click on the correct links at each of then)

Which reveals another question -- whether new gimp.org is supposed to be i18n enabled (a question, not quite related to this list, so I would appreciate offlist answers).

Alexandre

On 3/30/07, David Marrs wrote:

We already get Gimpshop users coming to the mailing lists asking for help and,

Would it be a good idea to embrace these users as well? Gimpshop may be a non-supported hack, but hosting a Gimpshop-specific list may provide insight into a larger user base with applicability to the One True GIMP. IE: They're beating at the door, would it be a loss to let them in if only to lend an ear?

Chris

Christopher Curtis (ccurtis0@gmail.com) wrote:

On 3/30/07, David Marrs wrote:

We already get Gimpshop users coming to the mailing lists asking for help and,

Would it be a good idea to embrace these users as well? Gimpshop may be a non-supported hack, but hosting a Gimpshop-specific list may provide insight into a larger user base with applicability to the One True GIMP. IE: They're beating at the door, would it be a loss to let them in if only to lend an ear?

I don't think hosting a gimpshop-specific list is a good idea, it would imply that we'd support gimpshop. Since we know that it is a badly executed hack and its author apparently is not interested in cooperation, I believe this would be a bad idea.

Bye, Simon

Von: Simon Budig

I don't think hosting a gimpshop-specific list is a good idea, it would imply that we'd support gimpshop. Since we know that it is a badly executed hack and its author apparently is not interested in cooperation, I believe this would be a bad idea.

Isn't maintenance of GIMPshop handled by someone else now? At least I do recall that the original author doesn't (didn't?) maintain it anymore.

IMO we should clearly state that GIMPshop isn't supported on the GIMP lists - then people can still asks questions, but they do know that they cannot expect answers, simply because there's no knowledge about this changed distro.

The worst part of the "badly executed hack" is that GIMPshop is distributed as a full-blown installer package. If someone would distribute only the changed parts (menus, translations, ...) which could be used as a removable overlay over an existing GIMP, keeping it up to date might become much easier.

Michael

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:39 +0200, Raphaël Quinet wrote:

I don't think that it would be a problem. Over the years, Jernej's installer has evolved into something that can only be described as an "official" package for Windows. Regarless of what we state about it, I bet that most users consider it as "the" GIMP for Windows. Providing a one-click download button is unlikely to cause more problems or confusion.

In my opinion it would. Users wouldn't know where to get information about the installer they just downloaded or where to report problems with it. I strongly agree that it makes sense to streamline the download procedure on the web-site. But we would IMO go too far if there was a button on the front-page that would download the installer without providing any further information.

We should IMO keep a Download button and we should try to figure out the user's operating system to make it as simple as possible to get to the page where we explain that the GIMP team only provides the source code and where we point people to the binary installer. We should also encourage Jernej to provide a single installer for GTK+ and GIMP.

Sven

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:34:45 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:39 +0200, Raphaël Quinet wrote:

Providing a one-click download button is unlikely to cause more problems or confusion.

In my opinion it would. Users wouldn't know where to get information about the installer they just downloaded or where to report problems with it.

Why wouldn't they know? They visit www.gimp.org to get their software, so it makes sense that they also look around on that same site if they want to get information or to report problems about what they just downloaded.

Currently, even if they download the binary package from SourceForge, they will anyway have to go back to www.gimp.org if they want to get the information about how to use Bugzilla to report bugs. And since we discussed previously the opportunity to move the installer FAQ to gimp.org (if Jernej agrees), the users would find everything they need on the web site.

We should IMO keep a Download button and we should try to figure out the user's operating system to make it as simple as possible to get to the page where we explain that the GIMP team only provides the source code and where we point people to the binary installer. We should also encourage Jernej to provide a single installer for GTK+ and GIMP.

Regardless of what we say about it, people do not care if the team provides only the source code. As I mentioned previously, the Windows package built by Jernej is considered as "the" GIMP package by most users and they probably do not know that the only official package from the team is the source code. And IMHO, they shouldn't even have to know.

Most Linux users know that when a new package is released (GIMP or any other software), this usually means that a new version of the source code is out and they either have to build it on their own or to wait for their favorite distro to update their package. Windows users and MacOS X users do not have the same expectations: they expect to be able to download and install the software immediately. If the Windows binary package is not available, then the software is not released yet.

Since Firefox was cited as an example at the beginning of this thread, I think that we should follow the same example and try to have installers for Windows and MacOS X (if possible) ready when we announce a new stable release. Other packages that are less popular than GIMP or Firefox follow the same model, so why couldn't we help our users in the same way?

I know that this is a change compared to our current policy and it also raises some practical problems if we want to have packages ready on time (more pressure on Jernej...) but I think that it would be better for the (Windows) users than sticking to the current policy "we only release the source code".

-Raphaël

Although I made the first suggestion of the direct download link in the home page alla Mozilla, I can see why it would be problematic. Maybe it would be better if the link with OS detection redirects to a better organized and minimalistic download page, based on the information of the browser and OS.
Then, in that download page, the user will read the information about that specific package, and all the kinds of disclaimers needed. If the locale of the browser is also readed by a proper script, that page could show the download link of the localized help file, and could list the most appropriate mirrors for that location.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:20:52 +0200, Guillermo Espertino wrote:

Although I made the first suggestion of the direct download link in the home page alla Mozilla, I can see why it would be problematic. Maybe it would be better if the link with OS detection redirects to a better organized and minimalistic download page, based on the information of the browser and OS.
Then, in that download page, the user will read the information about that specific package, and all the kinds of disclaimers needed. If the locale of the browser is also readed by a proper script, that page could show the download link of the localized help file, and could list the most appropriate mirrors for that location.

I think it's wise not to get too exited about browser sniffing.

First have an entry point with multilanguage choice (flags whatever) then ask the user what OS they want to download for.

I find most sites that think they are being super clever jumping the gun on what I want to do generally get in the way.

A typical problem is sites like google.com redirecting me to google.es just because I happen to be abroad. This is about as helpful as your mate switching your mobile phone to Russian while you're not looking.

I may also actually want to grab a windows installer while working on linux system, for dual boot or while grabbing some useful software to burn for a freind.

The number of platforms supported is not going to scroll down two pages so lets not overdo the geeky "I can tell what browser you're using" routine.

/my2c.

I think it's wise not to get too exited about browser sniffing. ...
A typical problem is sites like google.com redirecting me to google.es just because I happen to be abroad.
This is about as helpful as your > mate switching your mobile phone to Russian while you're not looking. ...
The number of platforms supported is not going to scroll down two pages so lets not overdo the geeky "I can tell what browser you're using" routine.

/my2c.

Well, that's your experience... I have no problems downloading a windows binary from mozilla (for instance) because the browser detection is accompanied by clear information about alternate procedures: right below the download button suggested by the browser sniffing, there is an "other systems and languages" link.
It's not a matter of being "too exited" with an "I can tell you" routine: is about how smart you are using that routine, and if it gives a plus to your site or not.
If it's used properly, it will give a benefit to the less experienced user, if it's used "just because the hype", it will suck. Let's try to be smart then... :-)

Hi,

On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 19:20 -0300, Guillermo Espertino wrote:

Although I made the first suggestion of the direct download link in the home page alla Mozilla, I can see why it would be problematic. Maybe it would be better if the link with OS detection redirects to a better organized and minimalistic download page, based on the information of the browser and OS.
Then, in that download page, the user will read the information about that specific package, and all the kinds of disclaimers needed. If the locale of the browser is also readed by a proper script, that page could show the download link of the localized help file, and could list the most appropriate mirrors for that location.

That's exactly what I had in mind. Two thumbs up.

Sven