Not sure if anyone is looking for new scripts but if you are, I came across a site that has working scripts for gimp 2.8.6. The site I came across was: http://www.gimphelp.org/script28.shtml

So far, I haven't had any problems with these scripts and gimp hasn't crashed.

Oh, feel free to remove this post if it doesn't belong here.

Paul Sherman does a great job of supporting all the software he distributes and, if you're going to install a large collection of GIMP scripts, I'd recommend getting them from him.

Then it's a good thing I found his site, huh? I was actually looking for a glass plugin to try out a sketched glass tutorial. The user had the script, but the title of the script said it was for 2.4, so I wasn't sure if it had been updated or not so I didn't load it to gimp. The script I'm referring to is: http://kward1979uk.deviantart.com/art/G ... 4-30316704

Download updated filter from here
http://gimpscripts.com/2011/09/glass-text-script/

I would highly recommend not using this collection of scripts because the person who packaged the scripts renamed them from the original authors' names. This is the same kind of stupidity that occurred in the disastrous release of the FX-Foundry package, which has caused problems from the start and is still causing problems to this day.

It's OK to repackage and re-redistribute OP's scripts but it is NOT OK to rename them.

For example, suppose you install one of my scripts that has been renamed and later on, I update the script. The new updated script doesn't work for you and you don't know why. Well, it's because you have a renamed version of the same script installed that is conflicting with the new update. You'll need to go through your scripts folder and try to figure out where the problem is. Most people would never know what the problem is and they would need to contact the original author or post on a support board to try to find out why it's not working. It becomes a support disaster and a waste of time for everyone involved.

If you must use these scripts, I'd recommend that you rename them back to the original names before installing. Better yet, just avoid any script collection that has been renamed and save yourself, and others, the time, energy and hassle in dealing with problems that arise from people who misguidedly package and distribute renamed scripts.

Working 2.8 scripts that have not been renamed..
http://gimpscripts.com/tag/gimp28/

I am going to partially disagree with GNUtux. But first, I would state that downloading a collection of scripts is not the best idea (and I think Mr GNUtux would agree). Take the time to get each script from the original author of the script; from their own website or from a website to which they themselves have uploaded the script.

When you download a large collection of scripts from a third-party, you are relying upon that third-party to provide support for and to maintain those scripts. If you encounter problems then the first place you should go for help is to that third-party.

As to the issue of whether the scripts in such collections should be renamed, I think they should be renamed; but also that the names of the globally defined function within the script should also be renamed. The problem that FX_foundry had was that it renamed the files containing the scripts, but it did not rename the functions. This is what led to conflicts should the original script ever be installed alongside the one from the collection.

As near as I can tell, Mr Sherman has made the effort to avoid such conflicts -- if he modified a watermark script, he would not only change the name of the file but would also change the function definition within from "script-fu-watermark" to "FU-watermark". This should avoid the conflict which GNUtux mentioned.

I would note that Mr Sherman's efforts may not always be complete, nor successful. I did not look at but a small sampling of his scripts but I notice that my own Calendar script would conflict with the one provided by Mr Sherman's collection, but this would be a somewhat exceptional case as I had more global definitions than just the two functions provided in the menus (a typically unsound thing to do on my part, but I had my reasons). I imagine Mr Sherman would be happy to change this should I request.

For myself, if someone does modify a script that I wrote then I should hope that they would change the name (I follow a naming scheme of placing my initials in the name which I think facilitates this). I have no problem with people changing my scripts and distributing them, but I don't wish to deal with the problems that might arise. I'd personally rather not have my scripts included in collections but as long as I know that they are not my own supported version*, at least I can avoid wasting my time debugging some subtle change that was made by someone else.

Obtaining your scripts directly from the author, or from GIMPscripts, is preferable to getting them from a collection, but if your going to download a collection of scripts then Mr Sherman has a good track record of supporting what he supplies.


* All of my own scripts which I actively maintain are available here. I have submitted a couple of scripts to GIMPscripts and am committed to supporting those as well.

Hmm... well, I think I'll keep the scripts since they work. I think he changed the names of the scripts for the updated version of gimp & updated the scripts. That's just my guess though. I found the glass script, and it works. I just have to add a new layer on top of what ever I make in order to use it. I check out gimpscripts.com when I need to.

Thanks for your help everyone. I appreciate it.

Graechan, it is not on my site* because I really don't wish to maintain it. The script was a Scheme adaptation of a Perl script written by Ky McPherson about a decade ago and the code is a bit messy owing mainly to my ignorance at the time (and to some extent, working around limitations in early Script-fu). A total re-write is probably called for but I just can't seem to get motivated to do so (I don't really care about animated GIFs).

To be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with your adopting the script, improving it, and responding to all the questions that may arise from it. I think that is great and I thank you.


* It actually is uploaded there, along with a bunch of other files. But I only have dedicated pages for the ones I intend to keep up to date.

I remember to have some problems with the letter drop script , both versions , some with the original script were quickly solved by Saulgoode, others remained but showed only randomly.

Anyway i didn't find any problem (yet ? ) with the animated LOTR, at least till now

About the discussion on rename scripts, i agree that Paul Sherman did a much more accurate work then FX foundry, yet modify the script names , when the only changes were to update to newer gimp version, looks to me a very bad idea, because make harder trace clones.

But the very bad idea for me is install pack of scripts:
not only because makes so easy install clones that conflict
but mainly because many excellent scripts are of not any utility if installed without knowing for what are for and how they work.. (yes ,in same cases that may be guessed but often not ) they just overcrowd the menu

Just a example Saulgoode wrote a quite handy script to extend layers at image size, it works really well,
but if installed without taking time to read how work, may give puzzling frustrating results, because his effect will be completely different if there is no selection, or if there is a selection,( including all selected, ... usually the effect of "select all" and " no selection are equivalent but not in this case)

That is very functional, is clearly explained in the script comment, but would be very hard to guess from who just installed the script from a big pack and would never open a script to read the author comment ..