GIMP Still Has Many Lofty Features To Develop

[Ancurio]

Ancurio, sadly this happens on almost software. Few people work, a bunch of people just act like vampires.

That's true. I think Linus Torvalds himself said that the kernel with its thousands of developers is a singularity in terms of contributors among the open source world. Almost all other projects struggle to even get more than 10 people on board.

[jagoly]

You're right. I think I'm going to go and give them $30 right now.

[mether]

You're right. I think I'm going to go and give them $30 right now.

Excellent. More GIMP users, especially those complaining about how open source "Foo" lacks some features from "Bar" should donate more to compensate the existing developers better and just a way of saying thank you.

[staalmannen]

Excellent. More GIMP users, especially those complaining about how open source "Foo" lacks some features from "Bar" should donate more to compensate the existing developers better and just a way of saying thank you.

I think a combined micro payment crowd funding and bug/feature request voting system could be interesting. The number of votes for a specific change is then directly proportional to donations requesting that change.

[ssam]

I think a combined micro payment crowd funding and bug/feature request voting system could be interesting. The number of votes for a specific change is then directly proportional to donations requesting that change.

Most of the devs seem unconvinced by the idea of users funding work, the slow rate of donations on the symmetry painting fundrasier possibly proves their point. If they can't raise enough for a small feature, how could they raise enough for larger tasks. On the other hand krita have been very successful at raising money.

[mike4]

+1 for non destructive editing. I remember editing an image and it was so blurry afterwards I needed to go back to photoshop.

[Micket]

Most of the devs seem unconvinced by the idea of users funding work, the slow rate of donations on the symmetry painting fundrasier possibly proves their point. If they can't raise enough for a small feature, how could they raise enough for larger tasks. On the other hand krita have been very successful at raising money.

I didn't even know of that fundraising campaign until it was posted in this thread. And I've actually looked into the funding alternatives for open source. This is a serious problem, to many alternatives, no centralized way to check up on them...

We have, Flattr, catincan, indiegogo, and now http://funding.openinitiative.com
I'm not sure alternatives is a good idea here. Especially considering how few and/or obscure the projects are on the sites.
On OpenInitiative, there only seems to be 4 projects.. one with a french description, 2 that doesn't seem to be for software development.
catincan also seems to have way to much obscure stuff that kind of puts me off signing up for them.
I don't trust the sites enough to sign up everywhere and donate money. I want to stick to something known.


So, two problems as I see it;
1. People just don't know about these fundraisers.
2. There are to many obscure fundraising sites nowdays.


I kind of like flattr, but its hardly ideal for fundraising a specific feature.

[devius]

...the slow rate of donations on the symmetry painting fundrasier possibly proves their point.

OTOH, maybe not so many people are interested in that particular feature as opposed to all the others that have been mentioned here and that's why that particular fund raiser isn't advancing fast enough.

...combined micro payment crowd funding and bug/feature request voting system.

Now that would be interesting

[Bucic]

Two key aspects:
1. Time to arrival of a particular improvement.
2. Purpose of donations.

Long story short - I'm reluctant to give them any money because with GIMP you wait 2 years to get any major features introduced (because feature 1 just CAN'T be without feature 1, apparently) and your donation funds what GIMP devs feel is needed, not what you need. And so, I donated only $5 this year while it could have been $50 if there was an option to specify "for non-destructive editing only" and "non-destructive editing will be available as soon as it's ready, not at the next major milestone i.e. in 1 year best".

It is sooo simple.

[dee.]

Two key aspects:
1. Time to arrival of a particular improvement.
2. Purpose of donations.

Long story short - I'm reluctant to give them any money because with GIMP you wait 2 years to get any major features introduced (because feature 1 just CAN'T be without feature 1, apparently) and your donation funds what GIMP devs feel is needed, not what you need. And so, I donated only $5 this year while it could have been $50 if there was an option to specify "for non-destructive editing only" and "non-destructive editing will be available as soon as it's ready, not at the next major milestone i.e. in 1 year best".

It is sooo simple.

The level of entitlement here is simply amazing... so sorry that the people who work their asses off to produce a image editor FOR FREE aren't working fast enough for your specific needs...