Slashdot Mirror
The Gimp from the Eyes of a Photoshop User
Eugenia writes "Many in the F/OSS community are raving about the Gimp, however pros who have actually used Photoshop think differently: This Mac professional designer goes through the steps of getting Gimp 2.0 up and running on his Mac, only to get baffled by the chaotic interface in general and its non-standard UI compared to other Mac apps, its slowness to open large files and to apply filters, the unintuitive tools that accompany it and its very visible bad quality of text and lines/shapes. That designer even bought a 'supported' version of MacGimp by an OSS-Mac company, Archei, but he never heard back for his support requests (free Gimp for Macs here). I think that's one of the best-written articles I've ever read about the reality of most open-source geek-driven projects vs their equivelant professional/proprietary ones. Personally, before I get persuaded to use Gimp again for my photography projects, I would need --in addition to the author's peeves -- full 16-bit per channel support, high-quality scanning/printing drivers with integrated GUI (a'la SilverFast), and a 'crop and rotate' feature (as seen in PS/PSE). Besides, both Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop Elements cost bellow $100 (with PS Elements getting bundled with most scanners/printers/digital cameras, albeit without the much needed 16bit support either)."
In the price comparison I think she's missing one of the major points of the gimp - it's open source. I don't think many of the developers are working on it so I don't have to shell out some money for paint shop pro, they're more likley developing it because there's a gimp shaped hole in the open source comunity that needed filling.
Everything will be taken away from you.
I am Photoshop certified and use the app every day in my work. I have also enthusiastically installed and am a sometime user of GIMP (on Mac) and I've gotta say this guy is right on target.
Enthusiasm for the GIMP reminds me of Samuel Johnson's famous comments on women preaching.
Historical sexism aside, his point was that when we see something hard being done by someone unexpected, we sometimes fail to notice how poorly it's actually being done.
In the OS community, everyone gets so excited about having a "free" (as in beer) app which potentially replaces an expensive commercial app, that we get a bit carried away in our enthusiasm.
Its like the do-it-yourself TiVo's that aren't really anywhere near as convenient or feature rich as the real deal.
GIMP gives us a glimpse of the tremendous potential of Open Source software, but anyone who thinks its "as good as PS," isn't a serious Photoshop user.
"...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
A lot of people who think photoshop is great forget that they didn't pay for their copy BECAUSE IT IS EXPENSIVE.
You get what you pay for. It's that simple. And considering The Gimp is free it's a GREAT DEAL!
If they would be honest A LOT of home users SHOULD use the GIMP instead of using an illegal version of Photoshop.
This article re-illustrates something that serious graphic designers have been pulling their hair out in trying to tell the GIMP community for years: the GIMP - though a nice project - is completely and totally off in a little world of its own.
There are some major beefs that graphic designers and Photoshoppers have with the GIMP:
(1) The interface sucks. Nobody likes working with 16 different open windows
(2) The interface sucks. Nobody likes menus in different windows and toolbars
(3) No 16-bit/channel color support
(4) No [good] CMYK support = will never be used in prepress[1]
(5) Repeat (1) and (2)
(6) [Lack of] Speed
(7) Dependencies (GTK+, etc.)
Most importantly, I think, the GIMP community needs once again to have its teeth kicked in for its idiocy in choosing the name 'GIMP.' Yes, we here on Slashdot all know that it stands for GNU Image Manipulation Program, and we've all heard how it's "just an acronym" and not supposed to mean anything. But for reasons of political correctness, common decency, etc. the program's name will continue to be a major reason that it never sees any serious adoption.
So, GIMP developers, clean up the interface and change the product name, and your program has a decent chance of seeing the light of day in the real world.
[1] In the GIMP developer's defense, most/all of the CMYK process is patent protected.
[..] UNIX has this wonderful habit of trying to protect users from their own stupidity without recognising its own. [...]
... now it sounds rite ... Unix doesn't hide anything, and thats where the power is (and the great ability to screw up the entire system).
s/UNIX/OS-X
Yeah
Sunny Dubey
It's great that FreeType exists, but it's still missing the point. You shouldn't need to scour the web looking for plugins to make your program do the (simple) things you want it to do. If we were talking about something only a small set of advanced users would ever need, I wouldn't see a problem... but text rendering? Everybody needs that!
If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
4. Buy Photoshop and earn your paycheck.
It is not his job to know what open source is, he is an artist. He doesn't have to know.
All he does need to know is how to do his job: designing.
and Gimp failed on this, so whatever you say, it's useless. The guy is a pro designer, and found the Gimp inadequate. Deal with it.
And write "Photoshop is immediately intuitive to the vast majority of computer users who sit down at it. The GIMP is NOT." 100 times.
The "subjective intuitivity" argument is a very valid response against people complaining "but it's not what I'm used to". But this is not what is happening here. The "subjective intuitivity" argument cannot be used as a shield to protect applications that-- rather than unfamiliar-- are simply poorly designed.
No, there is technically no such thing as a naturally intuitive interface. However, there is such a thing as a naturally unituitive interface. The Gimp is one. Just because some amount of learning is requisite in using an application like Photoshop (in that it requires a basic familiarity with the graphical computer interfaces popularized in the last 20 years) does not change the fact that the GIMP's UI blows goats.
I have to agree on this one.
Read one of the above complaints that mentions not liking "menus in the windows". I hate to break it to you, but that's not a GIMP paradigm--that's a is-not-a-macintosh paradigm.
I also don't buy the right click thing. I use right click religiously and find it infinitely more useful that having to go all the way up to the top of the window just to select a menu option.
The interface (in those respects) doesn't suck, it's just different.
As for CMYK, patents aside, it's scheduled for next release, we'll see about it all then.
Also, if you haven't tried it since 1.0, look again. 2.0 uses the new GTK and it's a hell of a lot smoother. I really think next version will be serious-production-useful.
That said, I use it more or less daily and can vouch for one thing it does well that Photoshop (even with the right plugins) does horribly--Scripting.
If anyone read the comments in the article about Scribus, they noted one of the QuarkExpress guys raving about how it could autogenerate their catalog based on a database.
Gimp does this sort of thing insanely well. Between Gimp-Perl and Gimp-Python (and Script-Fu in general), you can automate processes in Gimp in insane ways. Automated photo-processing can be awesome.
As for "people who prefer Gimp to PS aren't serious PS users", I'd have to call BS on this one. After working with PS on OSX (even with OSX's crispy Unixness) actually seems to crash more. It also has issues of not really being able to tweak extensions (in OS9 you could turn them on and off in the extensions folder, now you can't, that can suck).
Similarly, I have problems getting PhotoShop, OSX, Postscript, and HP Designjets to kick out the correct colors. It does badness.
In short, PS has its share of problems as does Gimp. I would also argue that PS's interface has some serious suckage to it as well. The only thing I miss about it is the space-bar as a shortcut key--that was handy.
I think with the completion of 16-bit buffers and CMYK, you'll see a lot less complainers next version.
The thing to remember is that it's free (not beer-free, freedom free). That means that every advance it makes stays with it. It can't go out of business or get "phased out" with the next release. It's there for you, as long as you need it. When Microsoft buys the DOJ, SEC, and FCC and then Adobe, the PS people will have a rude awakening about exactly why Open Source is good. For that matter, if Apple bought Adobe, they might find out as well...
In parting, I'd remind all of you PS users that Adobe themselves pioneered the legal doctrine that copying look and feel is not copyright violation. If we reskin GIMP to look EXACTLY like PS, would that make you happy?
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
You forgot option #4: Declare that it's not as good as the alternative and go use that alternative. If you're going to base your livelihood on the use of a class of application, you can't settle for second best and you can't wait around for second best to catch up with the leader. Right now there is no reason at all not to use Photoshop in a professional environment unless you have a philosophical objection to commercial software which is more important to you than your salary.
I just got my latest eWeek mag and it had an enterprise case study for upgrading from MS Office 97/2000 to OpenOffice.org vs. upgrading to MS Office 2003. OOo held its own with most users.
OSS isn't always harder to use than commercial software. The Gimp has ALWAYS had its UI as a major complaint. KDE isn't harder to use than Explorer. Kopete isn't harder to use than ICQ. VNC isn't harder to use than PCAnywhere.
The Gimp is damn hard to learn and use.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
Did anyone catch the part where the reviewer said it's not worth the money to get the Gimp at $30 or $50? I doubt he/she would think it's worth the price at free, either.
The bar chart at the end should be a wake-up call to developers; the reviewer rates the 'features' at 80%, yet the 'value' is 10% and the 'must-have factor' at 1%. It doesn't matter how many features you've crammed in, if you hide it in a confusing interface and the overall product takes up more time than saves, it's just not worth bothering with.
No, that is not the point. You know what I do if I want to install gimp?
apt-get install gimp
That's it. That covers installation and download. I don't need to start some nonstandard installer program or reboot my machine like on Windows (I guess on MacOS I would have to drag and drop something, as that seems to be the way Apple likes to do everything). If that's not "ready to roll" I don't know what that is.
Open source developers primarily support the platforms they work with -- mainly Linux and FreeBSD. If you use a proprietary platform like MacOS then don't whine that there are no ready-made binaries for whatever you want to do.
The point of open source (or free software) is freedom - even if you never touch the source code, you know that no single company has control over what you can or cannot do, can decide to suddenly remove certain features or add certain requirements -- if that happens, and the majority of the community doesn't agree, then the program will be forked, i.e. someone will create THE BLIMP, the truly free alternative to THE GIMP. This is what just happened with X-Window, and it could never happen if a single company had control over the source code. If you don't care about freedom, don't use open source software.
Opening MacGimp for the first time was like stepping out onto the surface of an alien planet
That's because that is exactly what you are doing. MacOS is not Linux, it has its own proprietary desktop. If you take software that was developed under completely different conditions - one key condition being that the programmer doesn't know and doesn't need to know what underlying desktop the user works with (there's that pesky freedom again) - and you thrust this software into a proprietary environment where these choices do not exist, then yes, that's like stepping on an alien planet.
Most of the complaints of the author are the result of two things:
The few complaints that are valid (chaotic menu structure, lack of previews) can only be addressed through contributing money, code, or detailed ideas. Whining about open source software is like complaining about the quality of a Wikipedia article.
So: Mac user rambles about obscure GIMP port to MacOS not being like other MacOS applications. Nothing to see here - move along.
In the long run, there is no question, what will prevail. Photoshop is 14 years old, the gimp 7 years. Photoshop 2 was already a good project and I preferred photoshop 3 for many years since it was much faster then the photoshop 4/5 hogs under the old Mac OS. Having seen Adobe pulling Premiere from the Mac platform, I would not even bet on whether Photoshop will exist on the Mac in 10 years. The sudden death of closed source projects makes me nervous. The sudden disappearance of applications like Adobe dimension or Canoma is something which should make you think. I have more faith in open source projects. The gimp steadily improves while photoshop essentially stagnated.
Yes, the Gimp has a different user interface, but this is a minor issue. What is important for me is that the application is stable, also with memory intensive tasks, that it starts up fast and I'm done quickly also with working on hundreds of files at once "gimp *.jpg" My experience is that the gimp on linux starts a multiple times faster then photoshop or the macromedia fireworks on a mac with a similar CPU. The slower Gimp OSX performance might be related to the fact that X applications still run way too slow on the Mac. But this is steadily improving.
First of all, the main problem is that you are running on a mac. Seriously, macs rock, I'm on one now, but they only run "big" X11 apps so well. First of all, running under X11 makes it slower than running natively under linux. Run it under linux and see what you think. The toolbars issue... well, that's a Linux/Windows thing, Mac users just aren't used to having menus show up in application windows. That's a reflection of what you're used to, not the fault of the app.
Having to click on buttons several times to active is also a symptom of running under X11. I have GIMP2 on my powerbook and it's *horrible* to work with because of the way that focus works in a mac so each time you click from window to window in the gimp you have to click once to give the window focus, and then again to activate the menu/tool/etc.
Tools probably aren't grouped in the best way, but they are grouped with reasonably. The selection tools, manipulation tools (rotate, scale, etc), fill tools, and drawing tools. Again, they aren't perfect, but they are definately not "thrown down".
The open dialoge is standard GTK and if you were running in GNOME under linux, would look the same as the rest of your desktop. It doesn't look like your standard open dialoge because it's GTK, not aqua!
Some of the performance issues again are no doubt due to the emulation, again, same with the font handling. Try it on a real linux computer.
Also, GIMP isn't trying to be photoshop, I don't think, it's the poor man's photoshop. Hopefully now that 2.0 is out the devs will be able to concentrate on polishing the UI, adding in some of the niceness that is in elements, etc.
It's great that FreeType exists, but it's still missing the point. You shouldn't need to scour the web looking for plugins to make your program do the (simple) things you want it to do.
:)
Very true. The problem with articles like this falls under not understanding the material under review (e.g. expecting it to be a Photoshop port to Linux) and not doing research before proudly exclaiming that "Gimp Sux0rs!"
A competant review includes things like "There was a plugin for it which I found eventually, but it's a bit silly that the default text tool is so poor."
I feel that Gimp has a long way to go, but with script-fu it has some serious potential and can already make a lot of sweet images. Photoshop is still better for professional work I'd venture, but Gimp surely does not suck.
And I still fail to see why the user interface is perplexing. Confusing for a new user, sure, but if you can't understand anything that isn't presented to you in the same fashion as every other app you use, I won't feel any pity, especially when you're dealing with such a powerful tool. Powerful tools can justify (and often require) a non-standard interface to be useful.
That's my rant.
Cheers
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
It doesn't look like the author was out to bash an open-source program just for kicks. :-)
Why not take such reviews as constructive criticism? It's actually good for programs like gimp that professionals or people who can influence the professionals have started to pay attention to free software.
So don't take it personally, guys. It's a good sign
MDI has got to be the lamest interface idea ever. And what is MDI anyway? It's Microsoft's workaround to put the menu bar where it belongs: At the top of the screen, for all windows in a single application.
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
There's essentially two factors deciding how good an OSS project will be:
1. The total users for that tool
2. The fraction of users developing that tool.
Everybody needs a basic kernel, word processor, spreadsheet, drawing program etc. Many users, low percentage develops but still many developers.
Geeky stuff like a regex parser may have few users, but relatively many developers.
A professional class graphics tool? Few people need it, the "professional class" at least. Few geeks are really great artists, and so relatively few developers. A low-low score = bad.
The only reason Photoshop comes up more often than other software is that users need the basic features, and well - if they're first going to pirate something, they go for the top product.
Yes, if I was doing graphics professionally, I would most likely get a professional tool, just as if I was doing movie editing, audio editing, 3d modeling or just about any other job.
If that is what you do for a living, simply do the math. How much time would it save you, or how much would it increase the quality and value of your work. If it's above sales price, buy.
I don't expect a bunch of programmers to sit down and make something for me that they don't need themselves - or well if they did, it would be because I'm paying them, which is indirectly what I do when I buy software. Obvious, isn't it?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
That being said, I feel that any GUI application with a well-designed interface should be fairly intuitive and I should be able to get up to speed in a few minutes (I learn quickly). ...
My experiences with other peoples' work proves that The Gimp is capable and powerful. My experiences with my own work proves that The Gimp has a steep learning curve mostly due to its odd interface.
I think you're confusing "easy to learn" with "easy to use". An interface that is simple and intuitive can often get in the way of productivity. Often used functions that are easy to find may take several mouse clicks to use when a keyboard command, while not intuitive, would make it much easier to do the same thing. Blender is a great example of this. "Intuitive" is the last thing I would call the interface, but once you learn it it's incredibly productive. Whether or not Gimp falls into this category, I don't know as I'm not a graphic designer nor do I have much experience with either Photoshop or Gimp. But how easy it is to learn should not be the sole, or even primary, metric on judging an interface. For serious work, where someone is going to take the time to learn the application beyond the hobby user level, how easy it is to perform common tasks is going to trump easy to learn every time.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
it's made by open source programers for open source users.
:) We want to be able to use ourcomputer quickly and efficiently. IE: I Hit record in photoshop, do some coomands hit stop and I can now use that macro for anything.
Honestly Graphic Designers are NOT programers. There visual people who like pretty things and easy to use GUI's - thats why Apple is a great platform for us
Theres no need for me to write a script or make sure I have some other dependency programs/file sinstalled. The Program works exactly like the other programs I use in the print industry Illustrator, Photoshop, Indesign - they all use a similar UI.
Theres no reason for a graphic designer to touch linux ever. Maybe a windows machine, always an apple, but never linux.
The makers of GIMP are open source programmers who know nothing about graphic design in the professional world. Look at the prettines of their site compared to adobe's. The GIMP could have millions of dollars of money put into it and never be as good as phhotoshop, because they don't know or understand that CODERS ARE NOT GRAPHIC DESIGNERS and vice versa.
Ave Molech Setting
Open Source software is brillliant... it's wonderful, and the beauty of collaborative invention is somethign profoundly important today in a world that seems to be committed to singular interest and personal competition as a natural form of self expression.
That said... OS projects involving the arts, need to get more artists to participate. More right brained thinking folks involved who will ultimately be using the applications. The kind of people who write code, typically want tools who's UI is consistent with the environments they use. These prople have tremendous mental muscles in those linear skills usually associated with coding and designing software. In applications whose ultimate user base will be artists, those considerations are second to having a tool which elegantly allows them to visualize, create, give birth to artistic expression. Powerful file handling features are great for somebody intending to perform batch operations on a slew of graphics files... however more photographers are looking for ways to get a clear sense of their work, and how to improve it. Most don't care what algorythms the programmer chose to operate on the graphic... they just want to see the operation quickly so they can compare this or that.
WIRED did a great article on OS last November... at OS as it's beginning to influence law and science. We need to have a fair representation of all human endeavors involved in this movement, so they can cross pollinate and create the kind of tools, resources, and infrastructure needed to grow a distinctly different kind of culture. One that is more interested in the common good, the general benefit to all, than the need to control or own one another. A shift from the an 18th century mentality to a truly third millinium mindset. I look forward to the evolution of OS... I see it as an underlying force for expressing what's best in being human.
Genda
Half of UI design is simply forgetting what you know about computers in general, and your bit of software in particular. You'd think it'd be easier to forget than to learn! You just have to step back and ask questions like: what's the user trying to do here? What mindset will they start off with? What will they expect? How can we make it easy for them? How little do they need to learn to do it?
Yes, sometimes coming up with the right UI will involve lots of UI experience, having learned techniques and tools, or having that mindset. But I reckon half the time it's simply down to caring about the UI, stopping for a moment and asking whether this whizzy bit of code you're keen on is really the best thing for the user, or whether something simpler or less clever will be better.
The other thing you need is discipline. Sometimes providing two different ways to do something is worse than just providing one, especially if neither do it properly. Sometimes you need to keep things simple and uncluttered -- having to shoe-horn stuff together that doesn't naturally fit is often a sign of deeper problems in your underlying model. Sometimes you need to restrict what your users can do. After all, it's better to do one thing really well than several things badly. And sometimes you need to respect platform/system/community standards, even if you don't like them.
As usual, I've rambled too long. But if all developers cared about their user interfaces, and had the discipline to do what was needed, then all software would benefit.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
is the lack of 16-bit per channel support. Everything else is incidental. It's meant to be an image manipulation program. Text and vector stuff isn't really within its core remit; albeit it makes some effort in that direction there are far better tools for working with text/graphics combinations or with vector graphics.
But to be able to cope adequately with scanned images it really really needs 16-bit depth support. I know filmgimp supports it but the interface on that is really clunky (yes, even by GIMP standards!) and I've never managed to get xsane working happily with it. I don't care about ELQ's proposed spiffy scanner interfaces - xsane does everything I'll ever need, though I wish some of the ranges would revert to +/-400% rather than +/-100%. lcms colour management would be nice, but for home users (ie most users) it's not a can't-live-without feature. 16 bits-per-channel support is; I know there are plans to support it in future releases via libGEGL, but progress on this seems achingly slow. There seem to be plans to polish gimp-2.0 and release a 2.2 later in the year; I'd far rather that was shelved and the developers worked on libGEGL as the basis of a new GIMP core.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
The Gimp is free in terms of money. It is most certainly not free in terms of things like time spent configuring and downloading it, or wasted time spent trying to get used to its interface before realizing it just can't be done. The article we are responding to notes the Gimp to be monetarily free and then gives it a "value for money" score of 10%. I would be inclined to agree.
I made a concerted effort to start using the Gimp, beginning with the assumption that anything about the interface that didn't feel right to me was merely becuase I wasn't used to it and that once I got used to its idiom I would be as efficient with it as I would be with Photoshop. This turned out not to be the case.
What I would consider an acceptably designed tool is that once you are familiar with it, it just melts away into a comfortable sort of overlay where what you find yourself thinking of is what you're doing, not thinking about how to make the tool do what you want. It turns out that the Gimp interface, with its tools which do not work in logical or naturally synergistic ways and its interface consisting entirely of totally unrelated features scattered over a huge mess of heirarchal menus that seem to have the features sorted into them in random order, was just something I cannot get into a comfortable state with, no matter how much time I spent fighting with it. In fact, it was bad enough I couldn't actually manage to complete a single attempt at an image, no matter how small, to my satisfaction. The interface just got in the way too much. I would posit that this is the Gimp's fault, not mine.
Now, given, this was Gimp 1. The new Gimp that came out a couple weeks ago, I haven't used. But to be firmly honest I see no reason why I should. These people have given me no reason to believe they can design a useable interface. Installing this software would be a mere matter of typing "sudo emerge gimp" into my Gentoo box at home before I go to bed and letting it grind for the next day and a half. However, it would require a large investment of time in terms of learning, testing and playing with the Gimp2 interface, and I simply lack any reason to believe that there will be any sort of worthwhile payoff for this cost of time. I would prefer to continue with my current situation of using imagemagick to convert formats and only being able to edit images while in a computer lab on campus. To be honest, while I am somewhat embarrased to be saying this, if I DO eventually try out Gimp2, it will be for the sole reason that once I do so I will be able to respond to Slashdot discussions about it like this one in an informed manner. The software program itself simply does not offer anything I am interested in using.
If they would be honest A LOT of home users SHOULD use the GIMP instead of using an illegal version of Photoshop.
I disagree. There are other free and inexpensive alternatives to the Gimp that perform their jobs far better. One that comes to mind is GraphicConverter, a very cheap shareware graphics app for OS X that I used for years (though I haven't used it much since the OS X switch) that while by no means professional is totally acceptable for a large variety of applications. It doesn't have as many OH SUPER LEET TEXT EFFECTS as the Gimp does but I or anyone else could sit down, immediately understand how to do what they want, and perform tasks of relative complexity without being stymied by the interface. The same is not true of the GIMP. I am not familiar with windows freeware but I would imagine a similar situation exists there.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
A GIMP user with a lot of experience with the program, may have the same problems when migrating to Photoshop
...) nothing works like the rest. If that is the price for writing a portable app, then they might as well forget about the portability. For a normal Windows user, The Gimp is a step back of 15 years in terms of UI.
I seriously doubt that and find this argument a little boring, to be honest. Everytime someone talks about usability of an open source software, the OSS community unite itself under the voice of "That's because you're not used to it".
I didn't have to get used to Photoshop, I just found all the stuff I needed naturally.
Now The Gimp is another matter altogether. I don't know anyone that got used to its clumsy 12 windows that fill in your task bar. None of the user interactions are standard (Like Esc to simulate "Cancel", Tab, Space, Enter,
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Starting from the bottom, I'll first mention that while Acrobat is simply a reader, which many hundreds of alternatives exist for, it's primarily the .pdf files that it's based around that are so important. I'll admit pdf's aren't an exclusive Acrobat format, but they are very handy to export data to, as a universal file format. While most printer's will accept just about any files you need, the reproductions stand a chance of being wrong if opened on the wrong software. Pdf's are extremely versatile, which has led me to use them anytime I send anything to the Newspapers or Printers. So, yes Acrobat itself isn't that great, but the native file format is.
As for AfterEffects, I've seen plenty of competition, even from Premiere, as well as many apps for the Mac, not just Motion.
I agree wholeheartedly that Quark is InDesign's rival, and would go a step further to note that Quark has been the industry standard for many years, but I have never met one person who actually liked it. It's a terrible program that has far outlived its usefulness, especially since InDesign has now become the favorite of most every print designer, and kicks so much ass.
I've heard from several people I respect that they prefer Freehand to Illustrator, and I don't doubt that it is the best for them. But those people are almost always Macromedia people, the ones who publish to the web and interactive cd's more than to print. While I also use most of the Macromedia products, I still prefer Adobe for any use I can get away with, which brings me back to my original point.
Adobe has made excellent products that work with each other in an intuitive fashion, and it is extremely easy to get to know it in a way that makes you never want to use other programs, regardless of near-equal rivals.
All this article tells us is that the author is too inflexible to make an informed or useful comment. If this were to be taken seriously, all the people who have been coming up with great ideas for desktop usabilility should just hang up their keyboards and let Redmond dictate what we are supposed to like.
Put another way, no one is really 100% concerned with what the masses want, since some of the desires of the public are at cross purposes, but they will certainly want to know what the public wants so that they can emphasize those areas where their will and those of the masses coincide. These become obvious areas of strength.
Photoshop is clearly one of the killer apps of all time. It was even ported to one or two kinds of Unix (likewise, FrameMaker) due to the fact that there was no (and still is no) superior product, and at the time Unix workstations were more powerful than PCs. Those days are gone, and so there is little to no motivation to develop new versions of Photoshop for Unix systems. On the other hand, Linux market share is growing, and people are starting to demonstrate a willingness to pay for software which runs on Linux. Not just corporations mind you, but also individuals and small businesses.
So, not only is it a waste of your time to complain about people complaining about the one last thing missing from Linux, but your will actually runs counter to the companies pumping money into Linux, or put another way, the hand that's feeding you.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Never?
Linux already has a market share the size of Apples (OS wise). At some point, there will be enough graphic design folks who have migrated from the windows side that Adobe will make a linux native version of Photoshop.
I think it would be **foolish** to ask someone to wait for that day. Because it won't be soon. But that day is comming.
Linux is not going away. Windows holds 95% of the market. But only 10% of the world is using computers. China, North Korea, Brazil have all decided Linux is the way to go. If in the next 5 to 10 years, 2 out of every 3 new computer users outside of the developed western nations chose Microsoft, and the other 1 chooses Linux. We will soon be living in a world where Linux will hold 10-25% marketshare.
Unless Adobe is going out of business, I would not say "Never"
vi +
Ah, thank you for missing the main point of my post. My aim was to simply discuss the single-menu Macintosh interface and Microsofts MDI. Instead you seemed to have reacted to my little $0.02 comment at the end and have even quoted parts of my post out of context. Lovelly. Well since you brought it up, here's a little rant about interfaces.
People should never forget:
Intuition n. (power of) knowing without learning or reasoning.
Intuitive adj., intuitively adv.
I think people often get mixed up when they talk of intuitive interfaces. I know you didn't mention the I word, but it sounded like you were coming close. When people talk about something being intuitive, they really mean that it's familiar. They've already used something that looks or acts like this new thing and they can carry over their experience. That's all. The human brain is a wonderfully flexible thing. Just look at how far our science and technology has advanced in a few thousand years with little to no biological evolution. I seriously doubt there's anything hard-coded into our hunter-gatherer brains that prefers MDI over multiple top-level windows. Or any other GUI element over another. How can it be anything else than preference and experience? Unless things are very different in your part of the world, there's nothing else in real-life that looks or operates anything like an image window. Or a drop-down menu. Or bucket fill. Or scroll bars. Or even a mouse for that matter. People developed these things over time and we learned how these things operate. Get over it.
</rant>
On a more constructive note: Can people be a little more constructive and descriptive in their criticisms of The Gimp? Saying that PS is a more positive experience or somesuch doesn't really help. For me, all the negative posts here just sound like a bunch of whingers. wah, it's not like PhotoShop! To hear a lot of people complaining with little or no detail doesn't help. Not one bit. Provide some constructive help or STFU.
Actually, the nipple is not intuitive at all. I'm sort of tired of seeing this trite sentence all over the place. If you had been a parent, especially a mother, you'd know that breastfeeding is all but easy the first time around. Both mum and baby both must learn how to make it work. It can take a few days, and in some cases longer.
The only things that dont need to be learned in a baby are crying, peeing, pooping and sleeping, and I'm not sure about the last item.
As a bonus, just for jrockway, here is something else you might think works better than photoshop. It is pretty crappy for graphics, but you can see the source code. ;-)
In the real world, when your living is on the line, the best tool you can afford is the one you use. Whether you can see the source code or not doesn't even come into the picture. 99.999% of computer users can't do anything with the source code anyway.-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.