On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 04:32:37PM +0200, Pierre-Alexis wrote:

I believe Gimp & it's Plugins may be compared to Firefox & it's Extensions (although it's maybe not implemented identically).

interesting.

could you expand on the comparison for me? i do not see any similarities and i am interested to see what similarities you see between the two separately licensed, separately funded softwares that do completely different tasks on my computer.

help me with this one ....

carol

Carol Spears wrote:

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 04:32:37PM +0200, Pierre-Alexis wrote:

I believe Gimp & it's Plugins may be compared to Firefox & it's Extensions (although it's maybe not implemented identically).

interesting.

could you expand on the comparison for me? i do not see any similarities and i am interested to see what similarities you see between the two separately licensed, separately funded softwares that do completely different tasks on my computer.

help me with this one ....

carol

it's like this carol.

firefox is expanded by millions of users worldwide by submitting themes, plugins, and extensions. i think pierre was talking about gimp should be the same. that it should also be expanded by users, since it is also open source.
the comparison is:
GIMP: open source app
is to
Firefox: open source app

GIMP's plugins is to
Firefox's extensions

i hope i helped. :)

erika

___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

yeah, i think that's gonna be great! though my prob is that i'm no developer. and that im sorry that i can't contribute plugins, brushes, patterns, and stuff. though i am pro to your decision. the only question is... who does all the updating and server paying? i dont think we can make GIMP pay it.

got any ideas?

erika

___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 07:50:31PM +0300, Erika De Jesus wrote:

Carol Spears wrote:

could you expand on the comparison for me? i do not see any similarities and i am interested to see what similarities you see between the two separately licensed, separately funded softwares that do completely different tasks on my computer.

help me with this one ....

carol

it's like this carol.

firefox is expanded by millions of users worldwide by submitting themes, plugins, and extensions. i think pierre was talking about gimp should be the same. that it should also be expanded by users, since it is also open source.
the comparison is:
GIMP: open source app
is to
Firefox: open source app

GIMP's plugins is to
Firefox's extensions

i hope i helped. :)

no, not really.

one is clearly gnu and the other is not so clearly mpl. there is a bunch of online discussions of the similarities between mpl and lgpl, so many discussions that the big question of "if they are the same, what is the reason for the existence of two documents".

one difference that just screams is the fact that gimp can make mng but the "open source browser" cannot display them and the nice developers that made a plug-in for this were scolded and it is no longer available.

millions of users with an mpl'ed voice, all working together ....

carol http://spamusement.com/index.php/comics/view/243

On Thursday 26 May 2005 01:16 pm, Carol Spears wrote:

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 07:50:31PM +0300, Erika De Jesus wrote:

Carol Spears wrote:

could you expand on the comparison for me? i do not see any similarities and i am interested to see what similarities you see between the two separately licensed, separately funded softwares that do completely different tasks on my computer.

help me with this one ....

carol

it's like this carol.

firefox is expanded by millions of users worldwide by submitting themes, plugins, and extensions. i think pierre was talking about gimp should be the same. that it should also be expanded by users, since it is also open source.
the comparison is:
GIMP: open source app
is to
Firefox: open source app

GIMP's plugins is to
Firefox's extensions

i hope i helped. :)

no, not really.

one is clearly gnu and the other is not so clearly mpl. there is a bunch of online discussions of the similarities between mpl and lgpl, so many discussions that the big question of "if they are the same, what is the reason for the existence of two documents".

one difference that just screams is the fact that gimp can make mng but the "open source browser" cannot display them and the nice developers that made a plug-in for this were scolded and it is no longer available.

millions of users with an mpl'ed voice, all working together ....

carol

=========
Hi Carol,
I'll try to clarify Pierre's & Erika's points, if I'm reading them correctly. You have obviously gone off in a different direction than I think either of them were heading, but you also make some good points. Is that being diplomatic enough? ;o)

They are not comparing the programs nor how they are wrote or what license they are under, but instead offering, I believe, a nice way for users to add things to their Gimps. The Gimp already includes several plugins, etc with each build and that's fine, those shouldn't be discarded. What they are suggesting, and Erika or Pierre correct me if I'm mistaken, is to make the plugins available like the extensions are available in Firefox. Have someone make a depositry of plugins available and fix Gimp so that from the menu, you can add or remove or update those plugins each user wants in their setup! This would allow more people to contribute to the plugins and also allow each user to decide which ones they want.

Now I'm not sure if the Gimp folks check all the plugins out before making them available or adding them, but it would seem logical to me for them to have control over that, so no harmful plugins would be submitted. Have a contributor send the plugins to someplace, let the developers check them out, then put them up for users to add to their Gimp setup. This, I think would make it much easier to add plugins as well as find them.

I think it would be a good idea to implement something of this nature. I hope I was able to clarify it a bit more and wasn't misreading the other's mails.

regards,
Patrick

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 07:50:31PM +0300, Erika De Jesus wrote:

Carol Spears wrote:

interesting.

could you expand on the comparison for me? i do not see any similarities and i am interested to see what similarities you see between the two separately licensed, separately funded softwares that do completely different tasks on my computer.

help me with this one ....

carol

it's like this carol.

firefox is expanded by millions of users worldwide by submitting themes, plugins, and extensions. i think pierre was talking about gimp should be the same. that it should also be expanded by users, since it is also open source.
the comparison is:
GIMP: open source app
is to
Firefox: open source app

Firefox has the support of Time Warner. I watched it get pushed on television.

it is like this. there is a really good chance that FireFox users are the sort of people who can install software and use it without the help of the operating system. this sets them apart.

it might also mean that it has a bunch of users that think "whee! it is free so it is cool".

gimp-users get savvy windows users who can find and install software on their own and idiot linux users who need the distribution to install it.

your enthusiasm for both the software is really nice and not misguided. the enthusiasm will change when you see how all of this stuff really works.

dollar for dollar, i prefer an environment where a ruling party cannot dictate what i put on carol.gimp.org. actually, i enjoy watching some of them try to tell me to remove something.

you are comparing free software with software that has received much funding and backing. it could be considered rude. please research the different communities and environments before making these comparisons.

i actually had the honor of chatting with one of the original developers from back in the day when the project was cool (Netscape3 and lesser versions). heh, in so many ways it was more fun to meet mitchell than it was to watch larry wall get tom christianson to ask for a waitress (but the difference is marginal depending on my mood). all that fund raising and asskissing of time warner old farts -- it would be rude to the people who are managing things at mozilla to suggest that gimp and firefox are the same or that they even work together to promote free software.

you are asking that the bastard child of gnu/linux live the life of the not bastard child of a free internet. i dont think that the bastard wants a different life. there is a lot to be said for people who work through things on their own. especially if you can say that about such a large group as we can only imagine the gimp-user base is.

i would rather you not compare gimp to other free software applications. hell, they cannot even talk about gimp on lugradio. how is that for being the bastard! Yay!

GIMP's plugins
is to
Firefox's extensions

well, how about showing me how it works so well by showing me how to display an mng in firefox? gimp faithfully makes them. mng is a lush format for animations that improved on gif in so so many ways (in case being a firefox user you have not heard about it). lush and free.

carol

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 02:23:23PM -0400, BandiPat wrote:

I'll try to clarify Pierre's & Erika's points, if I'm reading them correctly. You have obviously gone off in a different direction than I think either of them were heading, but you also make some good points. Is that being diplomatic enough? ;o)

thank you, and you are being diplomatic enough.

i had no idea what i was getting into when i started to spend some of my enthusiasm for great software and great ideas. i tried in another email to express my warnings in a different language.

there are so many reasons that the software does not compare.

gimp relies on people doing the right thing. the mozilla group has the option to do the right thing or not.

when i tried to make a plug-in developing environment like this, the gimp-developers themselves broke it and the attempt. perhaps it was so that i could see how it all works.

it is impossible to be diplomatic and share the experience maybe. there is so much about my experiences that i do not want to share with enthusiastic users nor have them endure. so i attempt to help with an email that says "please research before continuing".

gimp relies on people doing the right thing. if people dont do the right thing, it is difficult to find who to blame.

firefox has a method for doing the right thing. when they dont do the right thing, everyone knows what to blame.

from my point of view, i think maybe *zilla should not be centralized like that and see if they can survive like gimp.

in michigan, we had two newspapers. The Detroit Free Press and the Detroit News. The Detroit Free Press was dying. instead of allowing it to die therefore allowing a perfectly good and upcoming newspaper to fill its place, the two major papers joined. it was a spit in the eye of capitalism and of evolution. and they did it in the name of these ideals.

well, calling gimp and firefox the same thing would be like calling these two newspapers different newspapers.

now, hopefully the original poster on this thread will not loose all their stuff and friends. no diplomacy here. it is too late for this.

carol

Erika De Jesus wrote:

yeah, i think that's gonna be great! though my prob is that i'm no developer. and that im sorry that i can't contribute plugins, brushes, patterns, and stuff. though i am pro to your decision. the only question is... who does all the updating and server paying? i dont think we can make GIMP pay it.

got any ideas?

Do it BitTorrent-style.

HTH, Michael

Have someone make a depositry of plugins

http://registry.gimp.org

It isn't as easy to use as the Mozilla plugin system but I wanted to make sure you were aware of it.

Sincerely

Alan Horkan http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/

On Thursday 26 May 2005 04:07 pm, Alan Horkan wrote:

Have someone make a depositry of plugins

http://registry.gimp.org

It isn't as easy to use as the Mozilla plugin system but I wanted to make sure you were aware of it.

Sincerely

Alan Horkan http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/

______________________________________________

Thanks Alan, it's bookmarked now. :o)

Patrick

On Thursday 26 May 2005 03:36 pm, Carol Spears wrote:

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 02:23:23PM -0400, BandiPat wrote:

I'll try to clarify Pierre's & Erika's points, if I'm reading them correctly. You have obviously gone off in a different direction than I think either of them were heading, but you also make some good points. Is that being diplomatic enough? ;o)

thank you, and you are being diplomatic enough.

i had no idea what i was getting into when i started to spend some of my enthusiasm for great software and great ideas. i tried in another email to express my warnings in a different language.

there are so many reasons that the software does not compare.

[...]

carol

_______________________________________________

Ok, that's where you take a different turn from the intended ideas. Nobody is wanting or trying to compare the programs. That's just not even logical, because they are so different and you have mentioned several others already. What we all, I think all, are doing, is suggesting a feature to be added to Gimp, for plugins, like the feature Firefox has for extensions.

Adding, updating and removing plugins would become somewhat easier using this method for many using Gimp.

Oh Carol & Alan, no need to send two mails, I get the list mail also, so one to the list will do.

Hope that helps, Patrick

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 04:32:37PM +0200, Pierre-Alexis wrote:

Hi,

I believe Gimp & it's Plugins may be compared to Firefox & it's Extensions (although it's maybe not implemented identically).

And theres something I love with Firefox and it's extensions : the update system.

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

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

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

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

-Yosh

Hi,

BandiPat writes:

Now I'm not sure if the Gimp folks check all the plugins out before making them available or adding them, but it would seem logical to me for them to have control over that, so no harmful plugins would be submitted. Have a contributor send the plugins to someplace, let the developers check them out, then put them up for users to add to their Gimp setup. This, I think would make it much easier to add plugins as well as find them.

Speaking for the core developers of GIMP, I can only say that we don't have the resources to do that. That is the main reason such an update system doesn't exist yet. It has been proposed and discussed frequently over the past years but so far noone has spent the time to actually sit down and design such a system, let alone implement it. If someone wants to do that, that would be very much appreciated. But please don't count on the core developers to test, verify and maintain each and every plug-in that is submitted to it.

Looking at registry.gimp.org see what works and what doesn't will probably help in designing a next generation plug-in registry.

Sven

Carol Spears wrote:

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 07:50:31PM +0300, Erika De Jesus wrote:

Carol Spears wrote:

interesting.

could you expand on the comparison for me? i do not see any similarities and i am interested to see what similarities you see between the two separately licensed, separately funded softwares that do completely different tasks on my computer.

help me with this one ....

carol

it's like this carol.

firefox is expanded by millions of users worldwide by submitting themes, plugins, and extensions. i think pierre was talking about gimp should be the same. that it should also be expanded by users, since it is also open source.
the comparison is:
GIMP: open source app
is to
Firefox: open source app

Firefox has the support of Time Warner. I watched it get pushed on television.

it is like this. there is a really good chance that FireFox users are the sort of people who can install software and use it without the help of the operating system. this sets them apart.

it might also mean that it has a bunch of users that think "whee! it is free so it is cool".

gimp-users get savvy windows users who can find and install software on their own and idiot linux users who need the distribution to install it.

your enthusiasm for both the software is really nice and not misguided. the enthusiasm will change when you see how all of this stuff really works.

dollar for dollar, i prefer an environment where a ruling party cannot dictate what i put on carol.gimp.org. actually, i enjoy watching some of them try to tell me to remove something.

you are comparing free software with software that has received much funding and backing. it could be considered rude. please research the different communities and environments before making these comparisons.

i actually had the honor of chatting with one of the original developers from back in the day when the project was cool (Netscape3 and lesser versions). heh, in so many ways it was more fun to meet mitchell than it was to watch larry wall get tom christianson to ask for a waitress (but the difference is marginal depending on my mood). all that fund raising and asskissing of time warner old farts -- it would be rude to the people who are managing things at mozilla to suggest that gimp and firefox are the same or that they even work together to promote free software.

you are asking that the bastard child of gnu/linux live the life of the not bastard child of a free internet. i dont think that the bastard wants a different life. there is a lot to be said for people who work through things on their own. especially if you can say that about such a large group as we can only imagine the gimp-user base is.

i would rather you not compare gimp to other free software applications. hell, they cannot even talk about gimp on lugradio. how is that for being the bastard! Yay!

GIMP's plugins
is to
Firefox's extensions

well, how about showing me how it works so well by showing me how to display an mng in firefox? gimp faithfully makes them. mng is a lush format for animations that improved on gif in so so many ways (in case being a firefox user you have not heard about it). lush and free.

carol

C'mon, Carol. Tell us how you really feel.

Eric P

On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 02:26:07AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

BandiPat writes:

Now I'm not sure if the Gimp folks check all the plugins out before making them available or adding them, but it would seem logical to me for them to have control over that, so no harmful plugins would be submitted. Have a contributor send the plugins to someplace, let the developers check them out, then put them up for users to add to their Gimp setup. This, I think would make it much easier to add plugins as well as find them.

Speaking for the core developers of GIMP, I can only say that we don't have the resources to do that. That is the main reason such an update system doesn't exist yet. It has been proposed and discussed frequently over the past years but so far noone has spent the time to actually sit down and design such a system, let alone implement it. If someone wants to do that, that would be very much appreciated. But please don't count on the core developers to test, verify and maintain each and every plug-in that is submitted to it.

what you can count on is constant notification that they are too busy to help you until your life caves in on you. then they have time to destroy your group of people and your work.

my experience is that you can count on very eloquant apologies about destructive activities which someone else can take to the bank.

now, apparently time-warner has sanctioned a redefinition of the word luddite, as well.

carol