On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, raymond ostertag wrote: > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:49:03 +0100 > From: raymond ostertag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Press pack requests > > Le lun 08/03/2004 à 17:38, Dave Neary a écrit : > > > > However as a user I'm fascinated by part of the closing statement > > > "Gimp can already do many things that are difficult or impossible with > > > Photoshop" and I would love if the author or anyone else could elaborate > > > on this. It would make a very good pulicity piece to accompany the > > > release notes. > > > > I'm not sure what Raymond had in mind. Raymond? Que dis-tu? > > > I did'nt write this. I often avoid to speak or compare Gimp to > Photoshop. The Chapter "11.Coming soon" is a new Chapter added by > someone on the Wiki. > > What I wrote is : > Historiquement Gimp 2.0 devait apporter la touche « professionnelle » > qui lui manque, à savoir le support natif du format CMJN et le 16 > bits/canal pour la vidéo. Il n'en sera rien, il y a déjà quelques années > le choix des développeurs de Gimp s'est porté sur un projet à moyen > terme de librairies graphiques de nouvelle génération, projet nommé > GEGL. Mais comme dans le monde du libre les projets n'avancent pas > forcément à l'allure souhaitée, les librairies GEGL ne seront finalement > intégrées qu'au cours de la vie de Gimp 2, pour la version 2.4. > --- translated by Eric in : > Initially, Gimp 2.0 would include the "professionnal" touch that the > previous releases are missing: native support for CMYK and 16 > bits/channel for video editing. This features will not appear now, as > Gimp developpers choose to work on a medium-term project; this project > is new generation graphical libraries called GEGL. But in free software, > projects have planning of their own, and GEGL will be included during > Gimp 2 stable cycle, maybe release 2.4. > > an it was in the introduction not at the end of the document. > > @+ > Raymond
I was asked to edit the document, so I have. Raymond said he didn't write that section and no one else has said anything so I dont think it is appropriate to add things to the English translation that he didn't say. I couldn't quite figure out how to get Wiki to tell me who wrote it so for the time being I have deleted the contentious paragraph. I would be interested to know what features the GIMP has and what the GIMP can do that is _impossible_ to do with Photoshop. Obviously the GIMP if free and has source freely availalbe and I'm sure it isn't difficult to find plently of things the GIMP does differntly and better than Photoshop but I think making over the top claims is bad and disingenous marketing and the GIMP project is better than that. Again I would love to see a table of comparison, I just dislike bold assertions without any facts to back it up. - Alan PS I've included the deleted paragraph here in case anyone really feels the need to start another wiki page and make those comparisons: "What is not in the plans is for Gimp to turn into a clone of Photoshop. For one thing, the resources of a large corporation like Adobe far outmatch what any free software team, working for the joy of programming, can contribute. Furthermore, the GIMP developers would prefer to create a program that works the way they feel is best, and not simply mimic some other, flaws and all. But, on the other hand, Gimp can already do many things that are difficult or impossible with Photoshop, and given the very accessible plug-in architecture of Gimp 2, its capabilities are ultimately limited only by the collective imagination of the community of free software contributors." _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
