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 Danko 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 Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
