On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 04:06:38PM +0200, Dave Neary wrote:

As everyone knows (hopefully), the GIMP won an OSI award recently. Part of the results of that is that the GIMP is one of the candidates for the annual golden award (with a large cash prize) which will be presented to the winning project in Portland at the O'Reilly Open Source Conference in a couple of weeks.

awesome.

Is anyone here planning to go to OSCon already? And to answer the question before it's asked, there will be no cash to pay for travel or accommodation expenses. But if someone were already going they could be our official representative at the awards dinner.

who are the people who live in this area?

Alternatively, there are several GNOME developers going and presenting papers that I noticed - if no-one here wants to go, I suggest that we ask one of them to represent us and pick up the prize (if we get one).

lets look to find a gimp person first.

carol

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Dave Neary wrote:

Hi,

Quoting Carol Spears :

On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 04:06:38PM +0200, Dave Neary wrote:

Part of the results of that is that the GIMP is one of the candidates for the annual golden award (with a large cash prize) which will be presented to the winning project in Portland at the O'Reilly Open Source Conference in a couple of weeks.

awesome.

We're a long way from winning - we're up against the Valgrind guy, Pango, VideoLAN, GNU arch and a couple of other really good projects. We have a shot, though.

Heh, my vote is for Valgrind. :)

Rockwalrus

On Wednesday 14 July 2004 05:49, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Dave Neary wrote:

Hi,

Quoting Carol Spears :

On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 04:06:38PM +0200, Dave Neary wrote:

Part of the results of that is that the GIMP is one of the candidates for the annual golden award (with a large cash prize) which will be presented to the winning project in Portland at the O'Reilly Open Source Conference in a couple of weeks.

awesome.

We're a long way from winning - we're up against the Valgrind guy, Pango, VideoLAN, GNU arch and a couple of other really good projects. We have a shot, though.

Heh, my vote is for Valgrind. :)

Well, valgrind is a very nice and useful tool. (I know becuase I'm also using it extensively) However, I think that perhaps GNU Arch deserves to win because:

1. It's also supposed to be very nice.

2. Its main developer (Tom Lord) is desperately in need of cash, as he is currently unemployed. (or at least was the last time I checked).

This is despite the fact that I'm actually using Subversion where I can, and CVS where I must. Of course, Subversion was not nominated, and it has no problem of funds, because a large part of its development is sponsored by Collab-Net. (and it otherwise has plenty of volunteers who don't need to be supported).

Regards,

Shlomi Fish

2. Its main developer (Tom Lord) is desperately in need of cash, as he is currently unemployed. (or at least was the last time I checked).

Visit http://gnuarch.org/ for more information. While he is de facto unemployed, as you say, he puts it more brightly: -------
Are these "after hours hobby projects" or what? In fact, no -- since early 2002, these projects are what I do. I don't have a day job that subsidizes this work. Although I'm now working on developing some start-up projects, in the meantime...
--------

By the way: Tom Lord is also working on a new implementation of Scheme (Pika Scheme), supporting Unicode. Considering that we could use Tom's Pika Scheme instead of TinyScheme, and that he can work on Pika Scheme by living on donations that come from his Arch project, it follows that Arch is without a doubt a proper sub-project of the GIMP. I'm therefore all the more for GIMP to win.

Markus.

Hi,

Shlomi Fish wrote:

On Wednesday 14 July 2004 05:49, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:

Heh, my vote is for Valgrind. :)

Well, valgrind is a very nice and useful tool. (I know becuase I'm also using it extensively) However, I think that perhaps GNU Arch deserves to win because:

And what about the GIMP and its 10 years of being a core Free Software application? We were the first poster-boy application that said that Linux could be a desktop OS, the project which spawned GTK+ and arguably GNOME, and are still the best Free image manipulation program around, despite being 4 years behind the 2000 schedule for some major features. I think we deserve a good decent award.

Cheers,
Dave.

On Thursday 15 July 2004 15:30, David Neary wrote:

Hi,

Shlomi Fish wrote:

On Wednesday 14 July 2004 05:49, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:

Heh, my vote is for Valgrind. :)

Well, valgrind is a very nice and useful tool. (I know becuase I'm also using it extensively) However, I think that perhaps GNU Arch deserves to win because:

And what about the GIMP and its 10 years of being a core Free Software application? We were the first poster-boy application that said that Linux could be a desktop OS, the project which spawned GTK+ and arguably GNOME, and are still the best Free image manipulation program around, despite being 4 years behind the 2000 schedule for some major features. I think we deserve a good decent award.

I did not say GIMP does not deserves awards. It certainly does. I'm not trying to compare GIMP to arch or valgrind because it's like comparing hammers to toaster ovens - it's meaningless because they do different things.

The reason I think Arch should win the award instead of the GIMP is because of the financial difficulties its main developer is facing. I'm not aware of a similar financial difficulty within the GIMP core developers. (but would like to be shown otherwise).

And I think that while we can be motivated by winning or being nominated for winning awards, we shouldn't work hard just in order to win awards. We work hard to create good software, and to please the users and peer developers. Some of the greatest movies did not win the Oscar, and it did not matter in the long run, because people still remember them and not many of the films that did.

Regards,

Shlomi Fish

Hi,

Shlomi Fish writes:

The reason I think Arch should win the award instead of the GIMP is because of the financial difficulties its main developer is facing. I'm not aware of a similar financial difficulty within the GIMP core developers. (but would like to be shown otherwise).

The personal financial problems of a developer certainly shouldn't qualify a project for an award. If you believe that the OSCon jury thinks that it matters, please let me know. Mitch and me can then mail our account statements to them. That would most likely qualify us.

Sven

On Wednesday 14 July 2004 15:17, Markus Triska wrote:

2. Its main developer (Tom Lord) is desperately in need of cash, as he is currently unemployed. (or at least was the last time I checked).

Visit http://gnuarch.org/ for more information. While he is de facto unemployed, as you say, he puts it more brightly: -------
Are these "after hours hobby projects" or what? In fact, no -- since early 2002, these projects are what I do. I don't have a day job that subsidizes this work. Although I'm now working on developing some start-up projects, in the meantime...
--------

By the way: Tom Lord is also working on a new implementation of Scheme (Pika Scheme), supporting Unicode. Considering that we could use Tom's Pika Scheme instead of TinyScheme, and that he can work on Pika Scheme by living on donations that come from his Arch project, it follows that Arch is without a doubt a proper sub-project of the GIMP.

Another implementation of Scheme? Aren't the ones in:

http://www.schemers.org/Documents/FAQ/#implementations

enough? Or isn't any of them better suited as a starting point?

That's one problem in Scheme: there is a plenthora of different implementations, each of them different, and none of them as fully usable as Perl (along with CPAN), Python (along with the standard library and other libraries), etc. In these languages, the implementation is the standard, and instead of having a minimalistic and useless standard, and tons of developers with minds of their own creating competing implementations, there is one development team, many halo developers creating extensions, bindings, and support code, and generally a much better usability.

I'm not really a great believer in concentration of efforts when it comes to open-source projects. But the Scheme situation is ridiculous.

This is not the only problem with Scheme. Paul Graham set out to resolve the problems with the various LISP dialects, in creating Arc:

http://www.paulgraham.com/arc.html

From what I read about it, so far, it seems like it has the right direction.

It will also put LISP more up-to-par with the other agile languages. (Perl, Python, Ruby, etc.) However, there hasn't been a trace of an implementation or even a well-defined spec, yet.

I'm therefore all the
more for GIMP to win.

Do you mean that you're all the more for Arch to win? I doubt the GIMP prize money (assuming we win) is going to go to Tom Lord.

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

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, David Neary wrote:

Hi,

Shlomi Fish wrote:

On Wednesday 14 July 2004 05:49, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:

Heh, my vote is for Valgrind. :)

Well, valgrind is a very nice and useful tool. (I know becuase I'm also using it extensively) However, I think that perhaps GNU Arch deserves to win because:

And what about the GIMP and its 10 years of being a core Free Software application?

Hmm, perhaps you missed the "Heh" at the beginning of my mail. :)

Rockwalrus

On Thursday 15 July 2004 02:25 pm, Shlomi Fish wrote:

Another implementation of Scheme? Aren't the ones in:

http://www.schemers.org/Documents/FAQ/#implementations

enough? Or isn't any of them better suited as a starting point?

Please ask Tom, not me, because he is doing it, or visit his page for more information. His version could have advantages that others lack. Diversity is at most very rarely (never?) a drawback. Besides, I hear some people are implementing already available software just to see what it is like. There surely are thousands of other legitimate reasons why one would implement another version of Scheme.

Do you mean that you're all the more for Arch to win?

No, I did not.

Each of the nominated projects is very good (see Dave's post for some details about the GIMP). The Arch - GIMP relation was a joke, if you don't mind. The fact remains that Tom's Pika Scheme has Unicode support, which TinyScheme lacks, so it could be worth a look.

Markus.

On Thursday 15 July 2004 21:52, Markus Triska wrote:

On Thursday 15 July 2004 02:25 pm, Shlomi Fish wrote:

Another implementation of Scheme? Aren't the ones in:

http://www.schemers.org/Documents/FAQ/#implementations

enough? Or isn't any of them better suited as a starting point?

Please ask Tom, not me, because he is doing it, or visit his page for more information.

Well, the link on http://regexps.srparish.net/www/#pika is broken.

His version could have advantages that others lack.

Possibly.

Diversity
is at most very rarely (never?) a drawback.

Well, too much diversity is not too good. And Scheme suffers from too much diversity.

Besides, I hear some people are
implementing already available software just to see what it is like. There surely are thousands of other legitimate reasons why one would implement another version of Scheme.

I did not say they weren't legitimate. Anyone can go and write another editor or bug tracker or window manager, if he'd like. That's one of the rights that Liberalism gives you. But if someone wishes to embark on something like that I'd advise him to contribute to an existing project instead of starting a new one.

Do you mean that you're all the more for Arch to win?

No, I did not.

Each of the nominated projects is very good (see Dave's post for some details about the GIMP). The Arch - GIMP relation was a joke, if you don't mind.

Ah, sorry. I did not get it at first.

The fact remains that Tom's Pika Scheme has Unicode support, which TinyScheme lacks, so it could be worth a look.

Right. But Pika Scheme is so far not yet ready for prime time. And it is possible that adding Unicode support for TinyScheme will take faster than it will take for Pica Scheme to reach its 1.0 release.

Shlomi Fish (who once wrote a specialized program from scratch, distributed it as open-source and it became quite successful, and had some unique ideas.).

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

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Markus Triska wrote:

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:52:36 +0000 From: Markus Triska
To: gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Scheme [was Re: [Gimp-developer] OSCon attendance]

On Thursday 15 July 2004 02:25 pm, Shlomi Fish wrote:

Each of the nominated projects is very good (see Dave's post for some details about the GIMP). The Arch - GIMP relation was a joke, if you don't mind. The fact remains that Tom's Pika Scheme has Unicode support, which TinyScheme lacks, so it could be worth a look.

As there was some talk about the GIMP using Guile and if much work has been already done in that direction it it might also be worth mentioning that there is someone actively working on a Guile wrapper for Pika http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/pika-dev/2004-01/msg00067.html

- Alan

On Thursday 15 July 2004 07:12 pm, Shlomi Fish wrote:

Anyone can go and write another
editor or bug tracker or window manager, if he'd like. That's one of the rights that Liberalism gives you. But if someone wishes to embark on something like that I'd advise him to contribute to an existing project instead of starting a new one.

You should have told Tom Lord that he better contribute to one of the many existing versioning systems *before* he started writing Arch. That had probably left GIMP competing solely with Valgrind.

Markus.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Shlomi Fish wrote:

Another implementation of Scheme? Aren't the ones in:

http://www.schemers.org/Documents/FAQ/#implementations

enough? Or isn't any of them better suited as a starting point?

Yeah, really, Little Scheme (http://www.crockford.com/javascript/scheme.html) is all anyone could ever need :)

Rockwalrus