Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sun 9th Jan 2011 12:39 UTC, submitted by RichterKuato
Graphics, User Interfaces "GIMP 2.8 has been talked about for more than a year and back in January there was a GIMP 2.8 release schedule by Martin Nordholts that had set the final release for the 27th of December. That date has now passed and, sadly, this major update to this leading open-source graphics program is still not close to being released."
Permalink for comment 456747
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

The US is the largest software market for $0 software as well. Financial contributions to open source projects are disproportionately from the US. Why risk losing contributions from the largest source?

I'm afraid the message didn't get through. Let me try it once again, for the last time: the issue is not in amount of donations and where they come from. It's in communicating requirements of the project to its user base. This is No.1 priority to fix.

Thus far the project was worked on by people who are attached to it whatever the name is. And this is exactly what the project needs: dedicated contributors, people who do things. I've been watching the project for a little over a decade and I've yet to see someone who argued about the name and still contributed to the project.

Which only proves that there are people who talk and argue, and there are people who do. If some people can't let go of self-inflicted offense, there's not much there can be done for them.
What is the gain from keeping the current name?

The question is not about gain. It never was, it never will be. There is a whole infrastructure around GIMP: websites, books and so on. There's no gain in messing the whole thing up just because some people are undereducated to know what an acronym is.

I see that you are set in your views, I don't think you'll be able to see the point I'm making.

Edited 2011-01-10 05:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1