Subject: Re: Apache and GIMP
From: Scott Goehring <>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:57:44 -0500

"Russell" == Russell Nelson <> writes:

Russell> Scott, you ought to introduce yourself on the list.  Scott is
Russell> the President of WilburWorks, a brand-new FSB which supports
Russell> the GIMP. and

That's WilberWorks (with an 'e').
Otherwise correct. 

I'm terrible at introductions, so I'll let Russell's intro do for
now.  We've been planning this for months, but didn't actually do
anything about it until version 1.0 looked like an actual reality.  It
looks like our first major project is going to be getting the existing
Gimp Manual (a 400-page behemoth) printed.

On a related topic: I'm taking a lot of heat from some sectors on the
question of whether we should support and/or encourage a Windows 95/NT
port.  Some of Gimp's more ardent supports are steadfastly opposed to
the idea because "making Gimp available to Windows users undermines
the free software movement."  I think the idea is that we want users
to abandon Windows (in favor of Linux, I suppose) solely they can use
the Gimp.  From my point of view, this attitude seems a bit silly:
90+% of our potential target audience won't give us the time of day if
we don't support Windows, and the dent we can make in Microsoft's
market share this way is insignificant at best.  While I'm all in
favor of undercutting the Microsoft monopoly, I don't think this is
the right place to draw the battle line.  On top of that, our company
will have a much better chance economically if we support Windows,
simply because it will expand our customer base by possibly as much as
100x.  (A Mac port would be nice too: graphics design is still very
much a Mac world.)

Of course, nobody objects to supporting SGI Irix, Solaris, OS/2, or
Be, even though none of these is free.  

Did the folks at Cygnus or Cyclic (both of whom now have Win32
products) face this question?  Or is this particular albatross unique
to the Gimp's particular brand of visionary?