Such things should only be stated if proven by comparison :). In other case it sounds like a boast :-)

Sven Neumann wrote:


Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

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."

I really like this paragraph, especially the last sentence and would
like to see it resurrected. I agree that it could be rephrased and
that it's bad to claim things you can't proof but it should have been
sufficient to change that one sentence then. Can we perhaps put this
back in?

Sven _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]

With respect
Alexander Rabtchevich
Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to