5 years since development ground to a halt.
Pity really, it was hijacked by a group of people with 'certain ideas' of how everything must be, and no willingness to compromise with the general user base.[...]Compare it with Blender, [..] a continuous flow of real and useful new features
I'm actually happy that the Gimp is resilient to changes just for the sake of changes. I does what it has to do and it does it very well. It has great support for various file formats. Never crashes. Can do all kind of neat tricks and if it can't you can write or download a filter to do it.
And best of all: it doesn't bother me to learn `new improved` interface. The Gimp of 2015 is about the same as 10 years ago, with only minor conservative changes - for better or for worse - to the user interface. While i partly agree that save/export should have been combined in same menu, it's also a very minor inconvenience and actually a good habit to save your work before you export to some format that looses information.
So, if you are happy with an alternative, sure. Not everybody willing to pull a thousand $ for software and a mac. I - and many others - are very happy with Gimp just as it is and regard it as a properly maintained project. It requires some learning to unlock all abilities and know all tricks, but that's with all feature rich software.
A car without electronics.
`My` (family owned) car hits 27 years of age, diesel, runs 1:21 to 1:23 (around 51 mile per gallon). And it actually makes that number.
Admittingly it has no fine-dust filter. But i also believe it's far less polluting simply because it's efficiency, and a 1.3 liter engine, which is small for a diesel. It's no speed monster, yet it comfortably reaches 150km/h.
The only electronics in the car is the radio playing my mp3's.
I believe regulations lead to this 'cheating'. We had fine and pretty clean engines 25 years ago! Apart adding catalysators (whats your USA word for it) and dust filters, there's not much to improve on it. Yet, govs want to because they think and believe like economists do: that technology can always improve.
Well, it simply can't. You have to achieve a good combustion. Of course electronic timing and fuel pump control / injection control may help, but it will be very marginal. We had excellent engines without any electronics, and the added electronics will only help improving the last few percent that mechanic solutions can't.
Off-topic: this car was made by VW...
So Occam's razor says he is an editor.
Valid points - however, most European countries have some form of national TV.
When i am abroad, i'm often annoyed with the dutch public TV digital online channels not being available, due to whatever IP issue causes it. Which i find quite absurd, since it's available for free within my country.
I would welcome a situation where i can watch British, German, French, Italian, Belgian and Dutch television stations online. If all countries open op public stations, i see it as win-win for everyone.
Commercial thinkers should realize i can only watch one TV channel at a time. The BBC will obviously put up the argument that 'everyone speaks English and not everyone speaks French or German, hence their audience is bigger and thus the market is skewed'. And while their may be some truth in that, the British tax-payer will not pay a penny more or less if half Europe watches their shows, since the cost is in creating them, not in distributing.
Likely, IP issues only play with purchased shows (overseas content, sports, etc). Everything produced by public broadcasters themselves - payed by taxpayers - will only profit from a bigger audience in my view.
Sorry, phone call.
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]