Absolutely that’s an issue. But we’re not talking about that here. We are talking about a base os from where we can progress. I don’t care much for Google phones, even though I must admit they are nice phones. Google can not un-opensource AOSP. They can, to a certain extend, stop open sourcing changes, but that’s about it. Doesn’t mean we need to follow their os. Also doesn’t mean we can’t, slowly but surely, develop Android to be more of a Sandbox ontop of a newer Linux kernel than it is right now. Utopian, I know, but if Google stops AOSP developmentz what would we rather do?

Logic is simple: Actually have something 10 years from now.

I don’t actually see that though, taken a look at their repo, they only seemed to remove branding and easter eggs to distance themselves from the GIMP project. They even went so far as to linger on versions and not merge features from GIMP, so they were actually behind. That would be what I mean by hate fork. Nothing technically good has been done with the repo.

Edit: I think they wanted to change the UI abit too for better accessibility, which would actually be a technical change for once, but other than that I don’t see anything contributed to better software.

Sorry, badly phrased. If they actually changed stuff technically in their fork, then I see no reason why one would criticize that. That is literally what a fork is for.

You got the name of the fork? I’d be interested.

If they did change stuff technically whcih wouldn’t be adressed otherwise, then I don’t see a reason. Sounds like bad actors.

I did not even talk about harassment, that was you. But I agree, you shouldn’t harass people for this. Does not change that I am against hate-forks, which this did sound like at first.

What I meant by “when the time comes to fork, let’s use another name” was not “let’s fork it for the sole purpose of rebranding”. For me a good reason to fork a project would be governance. “Hate forks”, whatever the fuck that made up phrase may be, cause division, so I absolutely understand why people would be against this. That being said, malicious branding is more often than not connected to bad governance, so that would be interesting to find out.

This seems to be quite the nuanced issue, so this will be the last I said, but I would be hella interested to see some more viewpoints on this.

I mean I don’t know which law that would be since the Internet is specifically public. You can film in public too in most places on earth.

Thank you. I get that this can be problematic, but as a non english-native, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. GIMP is a transnational project after all and as I understand they try their best to be (all)inclusive. Getting hung up on the very well established name and outright demanding (in another comment), seems a bit silly to me. Were it a more serious slur, one that may be more timely relevant, I would feel the same, but given what I just described, I don’t feel that harsh about it.

Very hot take: I actually prefer it having that name, because it can lead to that term not being recognized as a slur by newer generations. When being asked “Whats a gimp?” they might then answer “An image processor.”. Would eliminate a whole slur. And with time it might even go so out of fashion it gets eliminated from dictionaries. Instances of this exact phenomenon happening include, in developing order: Dude, Yankee, Nerd. Or if you want a devolvement: Bully, which used to mean sweetheart. Language is like that. Let the slur die.

That aside, I do not feel that Krita is better than GIMP technologically. I prefer both.

Perhaps when the time comes to fork the project we can avoid a slur as a name? That would be nice.

Are you yourself affected by this? Maybe I, as a non affected person, am misjudging.

Matrix is convenient, not perfect security in any way.

Could you please explain what you mean by “professional ableist name”?

Since you are so about unreasoably insulting people, I drew a picture of you.

Get your act together. There are issues out there to be solved but they won’t be solved by infighting, especially not by you.

Also, the Telegram billionaire is a lying piece of shit. Anyone barely literate about privacy will avoid that platform, for their private messages, with a 10 foot pole.

They probably get to a very good 80% and then never finish it, just like their kernel. 😫

Not necessarily. It would provide an attack vectore for sure, that being the data connection between profiles, but if it is implemented in a controllable manner (See qubes os), it’s fine. The only issue I see with GrapheneOS in this scenario is: There is no uncompromised host for verification, so I don’t really know myself how something safe could be implemented, however I would also think devs don’t really want to, since there are ways which OP has already described some of.

Yeah, slightly charred.

*beans

And those mainframes once had my dick in it.