Slashdot Mirror

Steve Jobs' nightmare, the single greatest threat to Itunes on the Free Software platform.

Wow, that's really not saying much. I would have thought that a confessed clone like GNOME's RhythmBox would be more fitting.

A native QT style that faithfully imitates OS X eyecandy, aimed at new users coming from the Mac world.

What new users coming from the Mac world? The ones that don't exist. Poor imitations of the visual style do nothing but highlight how awful the interface itself is. "Skins" don't mean shit.

I'm sorry, but your list sounds like "Stuff I Use" instead of any kind of actual meaningful statement.

You can with GNOME, not sure about KDE.

There are a number of different title-bar styles that come default in XFCE, including some darker colored ones. Of course, you could always make your own :-D Also, by default XFCE uses GTK2 (I believe) for everything else so there are a plethora of application styles available. Gtk-chtheme is fun for playing with that.

Anyway, I'm not sure XFCE is really better than *box, but it is a bit easier to maintain and setup. Also, I really like GTK2, and XFCE is nice and speedy too...

I've always wanted to try out Google's desktop, but running it on wine on my linux box just doesn't convince me enough. Google has been labelling themselves a "Digital Services Infrastructure Company" (Stahlman) and provide a good number of services accessible through a browser. I do understand that facilitating a desktop search requires native access to the platform making a completely browser based solution unsuitable or insecure. However, it would be nice to see Google at least provide a framework or API if not actually write a portable application usable across platforms. Gnome users would probably be banking on beagle performing the same roles and KDE users may have to wait a while before a strong equivalent (Tenor) comes in.

While it is true that Google doesn't seem to have put a foot wrong yet, I do notice that many of their applications (Picasa et al) seem to be tailored for Microsoft platforms. For the moment this is in line with their attempt in becoming an all-pervasive "digital infrastructure" company. I wonder if many GNU/Linux enthusiasts find it a bit frustrating not to be able to try out these applications (or am I missing a link somewhere ..?)

Sun seem to be dropping GNOME as their Desktop

http://www.gnome.org/~gman/blog/02112005

Read more on above link!!!!

http://www.gnome.org/~gman/blog/02112005

http://www.gnome.org/~gman/blog/02112005

And the 5th result is:

http://www.gnome.org/

GNOME !!!!!

See this page for details.

See this page for details.

I've been using Umbrello quite successfully to create all sorts of UML diagrams in Linux.

There's also Dia, which also has a windows version, and it's not limited to just UML modelling.

the killers for me at least are Excel, Visio and Project. The OpenOffice version of the first doesn't scale near to where I need it

What you really mean is "I'm locked in but I can't be bothered to free myself from MS". Openoffice Calc is an excellent equavalent to MS Excel.

the second two still don't have any real equivalents in the Linux space.

Yes they do.
Visio -> Dia
Project -> Planner

What about Dia?

1. It is not illegal to use mono or to develop mono.
2. C#/.net libraries are ECMA standards

However,

1. Microsoft has the right to charge a RAND (reasonable and non-descriminatory) fee at any time for the use of these standards.
2. They have never, ever, stated in any binding way that they would not do so in the future.
3. *any* fee, even minimal would result in the instant death of any OSS project dependent on those standards.
4. RAND can (and frequently does in the proprietary software world) mean several dollars per download! Or requiring build licenses for all developers producing binaries (every end user of gentoo for example!) that are in the hundreds of $ range. These are all reasonable and non-descriminatory in that context!

Miguel De Icasa and Ximian/Mono people *know* this full well but don't want to admit how dangerous mono adoption is for the gnome community. They cite a BS casual mailing list post from the head engineer of .net as their claim that MS will never sue.

See how much crap this is for yourself (from official Mono faq):

http://web.archive.org/web/20030609164123/http://m ailserver.di.unip

http://www.go-mono.com/faq.html#patents

Jim Miller's off hand email is the *only* assurance anyone has ever received that MS would never charge a RAND fee! If this were truly MS's commitment then they could release a statement or legally commit themselves to that! This email is not not not legally binding people! Until MS makes a legally binding agreement to never charge for use of these standards, it is not ok to use mono!

See also Seth Nickels' blog on this subject "Why Mono is currently an unnacceptable risk":

http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/2004/May

The two main arguments against what I'm saying are realy crap also:

1. Java is also proprietary:

Yes but Sun has licensed Java in such a way that they are legally prohibited from charging *any* royalties at all for existing releases of Java. We know with 100% certainty that Sun will never try and collect any RAND fee. Ever. The situation with Java is totally different for this reason. Even if Sun changed its mind or was purchased by a less generous company (like MS for example), existing releases of Java and alternative implementations based on existing released specs would always remain free as in beer. The no version of the .net ecma standards ever has been comparably free.

2. You are always infringing somewhere, worrying about this is wasting your time:

True, there is always a danger of unknowingly infringing. However, in this case mono is knowingly using patented software. If MS decided to collect or sue, mono and gnome would have absolutely zero defense! Furthermore, MS is well known for destroying threatening companies when it suits them to do so! They have done this many times in the past. Remeber how they *lost* an anti-trust lawsuit? It is because they are agressive, unscrupulous and incredibly rich and illegal monopoly that used its power to destroy competition. They can and will crush gnome if gnome threatens MS! Mono is the ultimate submarine. We build it, integrate it so gnome can't live without it, then they kill gnome by charging for builds. Bam. Gnome is dead on that day.

Take Away: Mono is cool but way too dangerous. Smart people and companies are staying away from it (which turns out to be *most* companies by the way. That is why Redhat and others are pushing Java as an alternative). People who back mono either have motive (ximian), are misinformed (most of the people on this forum), or just dumb (people who are really drooling over the potential of mono so they are ignoring the risk, probably ximian and some gnome developers again)

Microsoft's recent actio

The OpenOffice version of the first doesn't scale near to where I need it

Its favorites feature also is an improvement over Firefox's classic-style of bookmarks which is just impossible to use when you get into hundreds of bookmarks. I like being able to tag bookmarks and search/browse them by tags.

Heh. You are defending evolution when you can't even spell moran right. I bet you also think you are decended from Charleton Heston.

I actually use centericq within a profiled gnome-terminal and ratpoison as "Window"-Manager. It is doing a fine job here. :)

Then after clicking a few links, I found Fernando Magariños, Ramón Morales López, and Mauricio Hernandez.

I'm sure there are countless others...

Then after clicking a few links, I found Fernando Magariños, Ramón Morales López, and Mauricio Hernandez.

I'm sure there are countless others...

From http://planet.gnome.org/

Bits of Tango clarification

Slashdot got it nearly right, but a bit wrong: the Tango Project is about unifying the Open Source desktop, but it isn't by Steven Garrity and Jakub Steiner alone. Steven and Jakub presented it at the GNOME Summit in Boston over the weekend, but Rodney Dawes, Tuomas Kuosmanen, Anna Dirks (site currently down), and myself all had a lot to do with making it a reality. A few others helped out along the way too, such as Trae McCombs.

In addition, Tuomas recently posted on his blog a bit more about Tango: Remember, Tango is not "yet another theme", what I am even more interested in is to really look outside our "Gnome/KDE/Whatever" sandbox and try to fix the overall user experience on "Linux Desktop" - we need to co-operate really. Unified look and feel is one step in that direction, and a logical one for me as an artist.

Quite some time ago GNOME released the GNOME Human Interface Guidelines.

It covers all aspects, included those that you gave in your examples, and I would credit it to one of the reasons why the GNOME desktop is so nice to use.

Give it a look sometime, especially if you are a developer.

Why is this desirable? Quite simply, having a unified look and feel makes switching between applications faster and easier. There is no need to figure out where quit is hiding when quit is always the last option under the file menu. There is no need to search for the folder button when the folder button looks the same in your applications as it does in your shell as it does in your browser.

In my understanding (and Miguel might correct me), one of the major goals of Mono is not just to be cross-platform w/respect to Windows, but also to simply provide a very easy way to write new GUI apps for Linux. So Gtk# makes it possible to create all kinds of cool Linux apps that might never have been developed otherwise.

Actually I can't imagine why I would need such a feature, that is propably because I have never used it. The GIMP developers might be in the same situation, I suggest you make a feature request.

1. It is not illegal to use mono or to develop mono.
2. C#/.net libraries are ECMA standards

However,

1. Microsoft has the right to charge a RAND (reasonable and non-descriminatory) fee at any time for the use of these standards.
2. They have never, ever, stated in any binding way that they would not do so in the future.
3. *any* fee, even minimal would result in the instant death of any OSS project dependent on those standards.
4. RAND can (and frequently does in the proprietary software world) mean several dollars per download! Or requiring build licenses for all developers producing binaries (every end user of gentoo for example!) that are in the hundreds of $ range. These are all reasonable and non-descriminatory in that context!

Miguel De Icasa and Ximian/Mono people *know* this full well but don't want to admit how dangerous mono adoption is for the gnome community. They cite a BS casual mailing list post from the head engineer of .net as their claim that MS will never sue.

See how much crap this is for yourself (from official Mono faq):

http://web.archive.org/web/20030609164123/http://m ailserver.di.unip

http://www.go-mono.com/faq.html#patents

Jim Miller's off hand email is the *only* assurance anyone has ever received that MS would never charge a RAND fee! If this were truly MS's commitment then they could release a statement or legally commit themselves to that! This email is not not not legally binding people! Until MS makes a legally binding agreement to never charge for use of these standards, it is not ok to use mono!

See also Seth Nickels' blog on this subject "Why Mono is currently an unnacceptable risk":

http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/2004/May

The two main arguments against what I'm saying are realy crap also:

1. Java is also proprietary:

Yes but Sun has licensed Java in such a way that they are legally prohibited from charging *any* royalties at all for existing releases of Java. We know with 100% certainty that Sun will never try and collect any RAND fee. Ever. The situation with Java is totally different for this reason. Even if Sun changed its mind or was purchased by a less generous company (like MS for example), existing releases of Java and alternative implementations based on existing released specs would always remain free as in beer. The no version of the .net ecma standards ever has been comparably free.

2. You are always infringing somewhere, worrying about this is wasting your time:

True, there is always a danger of unknowingly infringing. However, in this case mono is knowingly using patented software. If MS decided to collect or sue, mono and gnome would have absolutely zero defense! Furthermore, MS is well known for destroying threatening companies when it suits them to do so! They have done this many times in the past. Remeber how they *lost* an anti-trust lawsuit? It is because they are agressive, unscrupulous and incredibly rich and illegal monopoly that used its power to destroy competition. They can and will crush gnome if gnome threatens MS! Mono is the ultimate submarine. We build it, integrate it so gnome can't live without it, then they kill gnome by charging for builds. Bam. Gnome is dead on that day.

Take Away: Mono is cool but way too dangerous. Smart people and companies are staying away from it (which turns out to be *most* companies by the way. That is why Redhat and others are pushing Java as an alternative). People who back mono either have motive (ximian), are misinformed (most of the people on this forum), or just dumb (people who are really drooling over the potential of mono so they are ignoring the risk, probabl

Why do people even bother with Mono?

> bitstream-vera-1.10-169.noarch.rpm

These fonts are under a special license. It is fairly open and specifically allows for distribution; however, it may not have met Novell's licensing requirements for their "Open" SUSE version.

License for Bitstream Vera:
http://www.gnome.org/fonts/

Another hint: Bart Decrem is part of the Flock team and was also part of Eazel

Did you mean this?

be aware that thats great in europe where software patents don't apply yet but for the americas mono is a can of worms. see:

http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=11889&comm ent_id=32499 [osnews.com]

"1. It is not illegal to use mono or to develop mono.
2. C#/.net libraries are ECMA standards

However,

1. Microsoft has the right to charge a RAND (reasonable and non-descriminatory) fee at any time for the use of these standards.
2. They have never, ever, stated in any binding way that they would not do so in the future.
3. *any* fee, even minimal would result in the instant death of any OSS project dependent on those standards.
4. RAND can (and frequently does in the proprietary software world) mean several dollars per download! Or requiring build licenses for all developers producing binaries (every end user of gentoo for example!) that are in the hundreds of $ range. These are all reasonable and non-descriminatory in that context!

Miguel De Icasa and Ximian/Mono people *know* this full well but don't want to admit how dangerous mono adoption is for the gnome community. They cite a BS casual mailing list post from the head engineer of .net as their claim that MS will never sue.

See how much crap this is for yourself (from official Mono faq):

http://web.archive.org/web/20030609164123/http://m ailserver.di.unip [archive.org].....
http://www.go-mono.com/faq.html#patents [go-mono.com]

Jim Miller's off hand email is the *only* assurance anyone has every received that MS would never charge a RAND fee! If this were truly MS's commitment then they could release a statement or legally commit themselves to that! This email is not not not legally binding people! Until MS makes a legally binding agreement to never charge for use of these standards, it is not ok to use mono!

See also Seth Nickels' blog on this subject "Why Mono is currently an unnacceptable risk":

http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/2004/May [gnome.org]

The two main arguments against what I'm saying are realy crap also:

1. Java is also proprietary: Yes but Sun has licensed Java in such a way that they are legally prohibited from charging *any* royalties at all for existing releases of Java. We know with 100% certainty that Sun will never try and collect any RAND fee. Ever. The situation with Java is totally different for this reason.
2. You are always infringing somewhere, worrying about this is wasting your time: True, there is always a danger of unknowingly infringing. However, in this case mono is knowingly using patented software. If MS decided to collect or sue, mono and gnome would have absolutely zero defense! Furthermore, MS is well known for destroying threatening companies when it suits them to do so! They have done this many times in the past. Remeber how they *lost* an anti-trust lawsuit? It is because they are agressive, unscrupulous and incredibly rich. They can and will crush gnome if gnome threatens MS! Mono is the ultimate submarine. We build it, integrate it so gnome can't live without it, then they kill gnome by charging for builds. Bam. Gnome is dead on that day.

Take Away: Mono is cool but way too dangerous. Smart people and companies are staying away from it (which turns out to be *most* companies bye the way. That is why Redhat and others are pushing Java as an alternative). People who back mono either have motive (ximian), are misinformed (most of the people on this forum), or just dumb (people who are really drooling over the potential of mono so they are ignoring the risk, probably ximian and some gnome developers again)"

OpenBSD already has had W^X for at least 2 years. Further, sure, returning memory to the kernel might slightly slow things down, but you'd also end up with lighter memory consumption, and thus less swapping. For example someone in another thread above has pointed out that GNOME is trying to reimplement malloc with mmap, too, for this reason.

Besides... This solution is much faster than the current ones that people use to get the same result. Look at valgrind. That emulates a 386 just to trap these sorts of problems! Why do that, when you can have the MMU do most of the work? This makes malloc debugging faster than, well, using a malloc debugger.

Is it really true that the standard GNU/Linux heap implementation holds onto pages like this when it becomes fragmented? That sounds really primitive to me.

The gnome devs are working on it. http://live.gnome.org/MemoryReduction

I think you'll find that the desktop search tool Beagle, was in development long before Spotlight was even announced. So, if at all, it would appear both Spotlight and Tenor took their cues from Beagle.. not that it matters at all, of course.

Evolution port for OSX is already in progress according to Novell
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/evolution-list/2005 -March/msg00592.html
working with fink
http://primates.ximian.com/~aaron/doing/evo-osx.ht ml

While Tor Lillqvist and few others works on Windows port
http://evolution-win32.sourceforge.net/newsrss.php
screenshots
http://tml-blog.blogspot.com/2005/06/evolution-lim ps-along-on-windows-and.html

Use Dia http://www.gnome.org/projects/dia/ to create UML diagrams. Then use tedia2sql http://tedia2sql.tigris.org/ to create sql scripts for PostgreSQL, MySQL, Oracle or other RDBMS. For PostgreSQL you have pg_autodoc http://www.rbt.ca/autodoc/ to create diagrams and HTML documentation directly from database server.

I investigated Ubuntu on the recommendations of Planet Gnome when it came out. I had problems with Ubuntu detecting my video cards, on 2 out of my 3 computers. Not sure why. It just gets to X, and then reboots. (Lather, rinse, repeat.) I lost interest.

I'm not sure if it's a better Linux distro. (I think Knoppix CDs are cool, because they've worked on all of my computers.) But they get points in my book for being friendly and marketing themselves well, like Firefox. Something kind of overlooked in general.

1. It's hard to pin down how many Linux installations there are, let alone users (or desktop installs.) But, people are trying.
   
   
2. It's hard to find the fraction of Linux users that play games. Some work can be done to estimate that.
   
   
3. Given some (probably unreasonable) estimates of the above, however, you can figure it out yourself.
   
   
4. Whatever the customer base for a Linux WoW, it has come a long way.
   

You could try Gnumeric, it's currently got a 64K limit to match Excel, but if you compile it yourself you can up the limit by modifying a constant:

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168875

Doxygen is a good tool for many languages. It works best for C++, but it also has some limited support for PHP, which is in your list of requirements. There is also a fork of Doxygen called DoxyS. It generates prettier output for C++ but may not support the other languages as well as Doxygen. Another tool inspired by Javadoc is PHPDoc for PHP code. However, it does not seem to be actively developed anymore.

For plain C code, I prefer gtk-doc, which generates better output than Doxygen (IMHO, and for C only). You can see an example of the gtk-doc output by browsing the GTK+ API documentation.

Since you also mention Visual Basic, you could have a look at VBDOX. I haven't tried it myself so I don't know if it works well. There are some screenshots on their site, so maybe you should have a look and decide if you like the results.

Take a look at Evolution. http://gnome.org/projects/evolution/

If only there was a free alternative one could use on most any platform that matters. Why, those diagrams could be easily produced and updated without a great expenditure of time or effort.

"Nonsense. Mono is quite clean of Microsoft intellectual "property". There is no legal threat to the Mono project."

*said by a Novell representative* Oh, wait!

http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=11889&comm ent_id=32499

"1. It is not illegal to use mono or to develop mono.
2. C#/.net libraries are ECMA standards

However,

1. Microsoft has the right to charge a RAND (reasonable and non-descriminatory) fee at any time for the use of these standards.
2. They have never, ever, stated in any binding way that they would not do so in the future.
3. *any* fee, even minimal would result in the instant death of any OSS project dependent on those standards.
4. RAND can (and frequently does in the proprietary software world) mean several dollars per download! Or requiring build licenses for all developers producing binaries (every end user of gentoo for example!) that are in the hundreds of $ range. These are all reasonable and non-descriminatory in that context!

Miguel De Icasa and Ximian/Mono people *know* this full well but don't want to admit how dangerous mono adoption is for the gnome community. They cite a BS casual mailing list post from the head engineer of .net as their claim that MS will never sue.

See how much crap this is for yourself (from official Mono faq):

http://web.archive.org/web/20030609164123/http://m ailserver.di.unip.....
http://www.go-mono.com/faq.html#patents

Jim Miller's off hand email is the *only* assurance anyone has every received that MS would never charge a RAND fee! If this were truly MS's commitment then they could release a statement or legally commit themselves to that! This email is not not not legally binding people! Until MS makes a legally binding agreement to never charge for use of these standards, it is not ok to use mono!

See also Seth Nickels' blog on this subject "Why Mono is currently an unnacceptable risk":

http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/2004/May

The two main arguments against what I'm saying are realy crap also:

1. Java is also proprietary: Yes but Sun has licensed Java in such a way that they are legally prohibited from charging *any* royalties at all for existing releases of Java. We know with 100% certainty that Sun will never try and collect any RAND fee. Ever. The situation with Java is totally different for this reason.
2. You are always infringing somewhere, worrying about this is wasting your time: True, there is always a danger of unknowingly infringing. However, in this case mono is knowingly using patented software. If MS decided to collect or sue, mono and gnome would have absolutely zero defense! Furthermore, MS is well known for destroying threatening companies when it suits them to do so! They have done this many times in the past. Remeber how they *lost* an anti-trust lawsuit? It is because they are agressive, unscrupulous and incredibly rich. They can and will crush gnome if gnome threatens MS! Mono is the ultimate submarine. We build it, integrate it so gnome can't live without it, then they kill gnome by charging for builds. Bam. Gnome is dead on that day.

Take Away: Mono is cool but way too dangerous. Smart people and companies are staying away from it (which turns out to be *most* companies bye the way. That is why Redhat and others are pushing Java as an alternative). People who back mono either have motive (ximian), are misinformed (most of the people on this forum), or just dumb (people who are really drooling over the potential of mono so they are ignoring the risk, probably ximian and some gnome developers again)"

1. It is not illegal to use mono or to develop mono.
2. C#/.net libraries are ECMA standards

However,

1. Microsoft has the right to charge a RAND (reasonable and non-descriminatory) fee at any time for the use of these standards.
2. They have never, ever, stated in any binding way that they would not do so in the future.
3. *any* fee, even minimal would result in the instant death of any OSS project dependent on those standards.
4. RAND can (and frequently does in the proprietary software world) mean several dollars per download! Or requiring build licenses for all developers producing binaries (every end user of gentoo for example!) that are in the hundreds of $ range. These are all reasonable and non-descriminatory in that context!

Miguel De Icasa and Ximian/Mono people *know* this full well but don't want to admit how dangerous mono adoption is for the gnome community. They cite a BS casual mailing list post from the head engineer of .net as their claim that MS will never sue.

See how much crap this is for yourself (from official Mono faq):

http://web.archive.org/web/20030609164123/http://m ailserver.di.unip.....
http://www.go-mono.com/faq.html#patents

Jim Miller's off hand email is the *only* assurance anyone has ever received that MS would never charge a RAND fee! If this were truly MS's commitment then they could release a statement or legally commit themselves to that! This email is not not not legally binding people! Until MS makes a legally binding agreement to never charge for use of these standards, it is not ok to use mono!

See also Seth Nickels' blog on this subject "Why Mono is currently an unnacceptable risk":

http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/2004/May

The two main arguments against what I'm saying are realy crap also:

1. Java is also proprietary:

Yes but Sun has licensed Java in such a way that they are legally prohibited from charging *any* royalties at all for existing releases of Java. We know with 100% certainty that Sun will never try and collect any RAND fee. Ever. The situation with Java is totally different for this reason. Even if Sun changed its mind or was purchased by a less generous company (like MS for example), existing releases of Java and alternative implementations based on existing released specs would always remain free as in beer. The no version of the .net ecma standards ever has been comparably free.

2. You are always infringing somewhere, worrying about this is wasting your time:

True, there is always a danger of unknowingly infringing. However, in this case mono is knowingly using patented software. If MS decided to collect or sue, mono and gnome would have absolutely zero defense! Furthermore, MS is well known for destroying threatening companies when it suits them to do so! They have done this many times in the past. Remeber how they *lost* an anti-trust lawsuit? It is because they are agressive, unscrupulous and incredibly rich and illegal monopoly that used its power to destroy competition. They can and will crush gnome if gnome threatens MS! Mono is the ultimate submarine. We build it, integrate it so gnome can't live without it, then they kill gnome by charging for builds. Bam. Gnome is dead on that day.

Take Away: Mono is cool but way too dangerous. Smart people and companies are staying away from it (which turns out to be *most* companies by the way. That is why Redhat and others are pushing Java as an alternative). People who back mono either have motive (ximian), are misinformed (most of the people on this forum), or just dumb (people who are really drooling over the potential of mono so they are ignoring the risk, probably ximian a

In other words: http://glade.gnome.org/

"I though 16bit support was due in GIMP about now?"

Yes, for any given meaning of "now". :-)

GIMP 1.4 (later renamed to 2.0) was going to a reorganization of the code, with a better separation of core functionality and interface. Then the GEGL library was going to replace the graphics processing functions. Except that by 2.0, GEGL wasn't nearly ready yet.

In the meantime it had been decided that because of the many ideas for new features that had been on hold while waiting for 2.0, a version 2.2 would be brought out first that incorporated all these new features (better previews, live transformations, better dialogs, &c.).

GEGL was going to happen in 2.4, IIRC, but that plan also seems to have been given up. A mail on the developer list from June 5, 2005, titled "The GUADEC meeting", detailing a meeting of several developers, reads:

        "We would like to get GIMP 2.4 out soon. The plan is to finish what has been started in the development branch. This should be doable over the summer. This means that 2.4 will have color management but we aren't going to try larger changes such as adding support for higher bit depths."

        "We agreed though that 8bit is not going to get us much further and that we need to pick up on GEGL again. The GEGL source tree had been abandoned for a while, the last commit dating back to March 2004. We found that in order to make further plans, we first need to get an overview on the current state of the code."

There is also mention of reworked menus.

It doesn't say so in the e-mail message, but the colour management Sven is referring to probably does not entail true CMYK, because that was also planned for (and put off for) GEGL.

"There's always cinepaint, the new version sounds promising."

Last time I checked, Cinepaint was a one man show and fairly buggy. (Granted, that was a while ago.)

The gimp pretty much pisses all over the gnome HIG. I think it is very difficult to use for newbies and/or people used to use photoshop. They seem to completelly ignore all we know about usability and human computer interfaces.

This development and the reaction that people are having to it can be a wake up call for the gimp developers. They may realize their interface could use some work. Kind of like KDE is reacting now that GNOME is doing so well on usability. In my mind, this should benefits the gimp

I really hope they take a constructive attitude towards this one and take a look at why people are liking this.

If someone has time to spare, please consider addressing this user interface request. There are dozens of duplicates but no one seems to have time to implement it.

Sounds a lot like glade. Though glade AFAIK doesn't have 3D UI-components.