Hi Raphaël!

I wasn't really serious as I wrote about the "evil pho****" ;-))

My intention was just to point that a lot of dev. don't like to hear 
"photoshop can this and it does that - why is there still any difference 
between PS and GIMP????"

but stop - let's concentrate on important things like 2.4...

Best Regards


Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:04:08 +0200, Danko Dolch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 01. Yes good idea (but never speak out the evil word pho***o* - dev. are 
>> a bit sensitive to it ;-)
> Just a little thing that I would like to clarify: mentioning Photoshop
> or other products on this list is perfectly OK.
> If anybody on this list feels offended of feels compelled to react
> strongly when someone mentions Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, Windows,
> Adobe, Microsoft or some other proprietary products or companies,
> then they do not belong here.  Feel free to have constructive
> discussions and to compare GIMP with other products here.  Other
> programs also have great features, so describing these features and
> their pros and cons can be a nice way to make GIMP even better.
> However, there are some things that you should avoid:
> - Assuming that everybody knows what you mean when you talk about
>   some specific feature of another program.  I do not have a copy of
>   Photoshop (*) and most GIMP developers do not have one either.  I
>   have not seen nor used any recent version of Photoshop.  So if you
>   mention some specific feature of another program, please be sure
>   to describe it precisely instead of just saying that we should
>   implement this or that like in Photoshop.
> - Assuming that we want to have the same features as another
>   program.  With the help of Peter, we have developed a vision for
>   GIMP: http://developer.gimp.org/gimpcon/2006/index.html#vision
>   Features that do not fit in the GIMP vision will probably not be
>   implemented.  Among other things, GIMP does not try to copy
>   Photoshop or MS Paint.
> - Assuming that we will implement some useful feature in the same
>   way as another program.  There is often more than one way to
>   implement something.  Each solution has advantages and
>   disadvantages.  We should always try to implement the solution
>   that fits best together with other GIMP features.  So when you
>   describe a feature, try to describe its purpose (what does it
>   do? why is it useful? to whom?) before describing how it works.
> Most of the comments on the list that were complaining about a
> message mentioning Photoshop were due to one of the reasons given
> above.  The complaints that were not due to one of these reasons
> can probably be ignored.  So feel free to mention other products
> or programs here, as long as you provide useful information.
> By the way, there is no need to censor or change the name of a
> product or company when you mention it (Ph*t*sh*p, Windoze, ...)
> We can speak like grown-ups.  Or try to.  ;-)
> So these were just my 2 cents to avoid spreading misconceptions
> about what is OK and what is not OK on this list...
> -Raphaël
> (*) I might still have a CD with Photoshop 4.0 LE for Windows 95
>     that that came with my scanner.  But my old Win95 PC has not
>     been booted since a very long time.  And a 10 years old copy
>     of Photoshop is probably irrelevant for most comparisons.
> _______________________________________________
> Gimp-developer mailing list
> Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
> https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to