On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Christopher Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:
>> I'm actually Ok with this. But we have to agree what we mean by "peer
>> applications" - I'd say gimp and inkscape are, for example, and not gimp
>> and photoshop.
> So your argument is that on the "Software Spectrum" GIMP is not a
> graphics application but is first a GNOME application. For the people
> who want, you know, to create GNOME. It just happens to create GNOME
> using graphics.
> That's sarcasm of course - you say that primary platform trumps
> application domain, and GIMP is GNOME because that's where it's
> hosted; a rather myopic and user-hostile view, IMHO. Most people
> don't care one whit about GNOME or where GIMP is hosted.
Let's start with the fact that Inkscape isn't a GNOME application
(though it uses GIO, AFAIK).
Now, there is nothing bad about following UI conventions set by
umbrella organization such as GNOME as long as they make sense. Do we
have agreement on that?
Furthermore, collaborating with Inkscape *instead* makes a lot of
sense, because GIMP + Inkscape are a usual combo. Blindly reusing
shortcuts from old Adobe products doesn't make a lot of sense. I'd
have to look at Ps again to make sure nothing changed, but Illustrator
carries around somewhat inconsistent shortcuts exactly because old
habits die hard. I'd say that the idea of reusing shortcuts from an
application where they had been stacked on top of each other over
years without review is a bit on the crazy side.
The very same "many people" who don't care about GNOME want GIMP to be
a drop-in Photoshop replacement. Needless to say, this is not the
point why GIMP exists and is being worked on. One would have to lose
all self-respect and joy of life to work on a free drop-in replacement
for *any* software project.
Gimp-developer mailing list