On Tuesday 28 February 2006 06:17, Carol Spears wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:01:30PM -0800, Carol Spears wrote:
> > gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image
> > manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a
> > problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is a problem -- wherein are
> > the gimp design problems?
> this sentence makes no sense, sorry. allow me to fix it:
> gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image
> manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a
> problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is not a problem --
> wherein are the gimp design problems?
> Gimp-user mailing list
I cant help but add a few of my personal thoughts on this topic..
I use GIMP because it ISNT PS. AND the fact that PS doesn't readily run on my
favorite OS. Where as GIMP runs on at least 3 different ones...
This in it self add conciderable to my choice. I can have three different
"studios" running Linux, Windows and OSX and still have a homogenous image
manipulating software. (BIG plus in my book)
Second; If changing from PS to GIMP is a bigger hurdle than changing the other
way around, its not GIMP's "fault". Its a problem behind the keyboard.
I have never liked PS cluttered layout, and have found GIMP's interface alot
easier to handle. So in MY case changing TO GIMP never was much of a
There are all kinds of talks about PS being more advanced, have lots more
So? If a commercial software thats been around for so many years as PS, DIDN'T
have more "bells and whistles" than a "uncommercial" piece that only been
around a few years, I'd be more then surpriced.
GIMP started very small and has, in a short few years grown conciderable.
So back to the topic...
WHY would you want to make GIMP look like PS??
WHY would you change layout to something, in my mind, inferior?
If i want to have PS i'd run PS.
I run GIMP because it more then fits my needs.
I run GIMP because i find it easier to use.
And i DO run GIMP because it's free for me to use.
I dont want to, and dont have the money to spend on new versions and releases.
Now mind you, i do NOT slight those who want to take babysteps.
Bus as Carol said. Its not very smart.
Getting from A to B is one step. Sure it might be a big one.
But why cut it up in small steps?
Its like exchanging your softwarebase in steps.
First lets take out the database. and Learn a way of making the old and new
software work in unison.
Then lets exchange the reporttool. And get more problems as the new system
doesn't talk to the clients.
And as last step (after lots of headaches and patching scripts) lets exchange
Now the only thing we have to do is educate the users a third time to make
everyting work again.
And thus ending up at B as planned from the beginning.
Bottom line, why change a program into sometingelse just cause its looks and
handles as the old one?
Wouldn't it be better to stay with the old in that case?
And the parts of forking. Its sure is easier to steal an idea and fiddle with
it so it looks as it mine, than it is coming to an agreement of a certain way
of operation. But is it "fair play"? Is it "well done"?
I think not.
These are my own personal thoughts on the matter.
So don't go flaming the community for what i write here.
Any complaints will be duly read, and answered to if i find them relevant.
With a sincere thanks to the developers, maintainers and people working and
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web : http://www.rikjoh.com
mob : +46 (0)736 19 76 25
------------------------ Public PGP fingerprint ----------------------------
< 15 28 DF 78 67 98 B2 16 1F D3 FD C5 59 D4 B6 78 46 1C EE 56 >
Gimp-user mailing list