I've watched, somewhat intrigued, the discussions about abbreviations,
user interfaces, and whether it's more important to have elegant,
largely unused code, or massively popular code that perhaps isn't
I'd like to add my perspective as a user.
1) Making the interface "just like photoshop" seems like a fools
errand. Photoshop's interface changes from time to time, sometimes
quite significantly (friends who use it are currently expressing mixed
feelings about "Bridge").
2) Everything is a little different, even subsequent releases of M$
software. Folks learn to deal with that, provided they get what they
need, and can see that it's worth the change.
3) If developer resources are hard to find, of course you can't put
unbounded effort into lots of WIBNIF features.
4) Right now, there's only one compelling reason I use photoshop (yes,
sadly, I use both. I use GIMP for the bulk of stuff I do) and that's
color managment. I strongly suspect that there's very few photographers
or graphic artists who takes their work seriously who doesn't feel a
strong need for good color matching. Heck, even Costco of all mass
market places offers individual color profiles for their in-store
So, I'd like to offer my thanks to the developers: it's a fantastic
tool. I'd like to offer my encouragement too: you're doing a great job
with very limited resources. I'd like to offer my "vote" (I know I
don't have one really, but whatever) that you don't worry too much
about the UI, but that you don't forget about color management. I'd
love to shut down my little, ancient, overloaded and underpowered iBook
for the last time.
Great job developers, thanks.
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a
man is wise by his questions." Naguib Mahfouz
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Gimp-developer mailing list