Le lundi 27 Juin 2005 00:59, John A. Lind a écrit :
> At 04:11 PM 6/26/2005, Manuel Viet wrote:
> >The Gimp is not Photoshop, it's different. If you don't like it, buy PS.
> > But nobody has any interest whatsoever to have another PS (bad) clone.
>
> Yep, docs are "thin" but for something that's **totally** free under
> GNU/GPL/LGPL, I cannot complain . . . and never having used PS, I don't
> have any benchmark about comparative complexity.
>
> There are some fabulous GNU/GPL/LGPL apps out there . . . OpenOffice . . .
> Firefox . . . Thunderbird . . . etc.
You're preaching a convert ; I use Linux daily since 1998, and made a policy
to run only free software at home.
My point wasn't to say that The Gimp is bad. The Gimp is fine *as it is*,
because it's *not* PS. Those who criticize The Gimp really want PS, but free.
And that's not a good idea, because if programmers twisted The Gimp to look
like PS, it would remain an inferior copy of the original. The Gimp follows
its own path and address some needs not fulfilled by PS ; it's pure luck that
it's suited to photography editing, as The Gimp main purpose was to be an
improved Deluxe Paint II. And it does so much better on a unix platform than
on windows. I must admit there are some weaknesses in The Gimp when it comes
to colorspace handling, and the lack of Pantone support, but the origins of
this situation are rooted in the stupid patents some companies were allowed
to secure, blatantly showing how much software patents are a threat to
innovation (patenting colors is really patenting some wavelengths,
superficially looking like patenting water or fresh air). Until those issues
are sorted out, The Gimp won't be able to compete with PS on a fair level.
--
Manuel Viet
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|