Actually, they aren't raising all their license costs. As I recall, server 2003 cut its license cost to fall in before the RedHat enterprise edition which offers phone support.
Some prices go up, some stay with inflation, and some go down.
The costs they are noting are due to forced upgrades, not more expensive licenses.
It looks like the G5 holds its own over the opteron and the 3200+ as well as against the P4.
The dual G5 lost 4 of 8 tests and won 3 of 8 against the single Athlon64 3200+. The SINGLE G5 lost all tests to all other processors
It also states that different CPUS did better at different things, not making one worse off than the other.
Yeah, sure. The G5's won exactly 0 of the tests. The dual G5 managed to beat the single Athlon64 FX+ on the photoshop benchmarks. That was their only victory, but they still got stomped by an Opteron in those. And that wasn't a dual Opteron.
If you compare the prices for the AthlonFX to the dual G5, you will see a similar price/ performance ration as well, don't forget that either!
Yes, you will see a price-performace ratio change. The Dual G5 tower, which was the only thing close to competitive, costs about 3.5 grand. So, it's twice the cost and way slower. It's even 200 dollars more than an Alienware AthlonFX box! Try just buying a Athlon64 in a standard box and its a clear victory on every front, just as with the expensive one, just by a heck of a lot more.
I can't say for certain, as I have not had cause to use it, but OpenGroupware.org looks pretty good. It can be used by a variety of clients, or from a web-front-end.
I bet it's worse than Outlook's stuff, but I've never used that before either, so I can't say as I really know.
It's a really young project, but seems to be coming along nicely. As you can probably tell from the name, it's designed to be part of the OpenOffice.org family of products.
Also, if you can't figure out the URL for OpenGroupware.org, I am very sorry for you.
I use Linux myself. Put the parent is right. Completely right. When I still had cause to use Windows, as I was in a Lan Clan, I ran XP. I had no issues. I'm careful. I suffered no hacks, lost no data, caught no viruses, etc...
It's really quite acceptable. The only reason I use Linux is for the convenience of being able to script everything (I happen to know BASH okay), the need to run servers (I host my own website because I want to use PHP and have an FTP server), and the ability to hack on things (I'm not much of a programmer, but I do bug-testing and doc-writing for friends who are).
The only point where Windows suffers is on features, viruses, and speed. Where it wins is useability and common use. That means, a girlfriend can use my computer, and I don't need to spend time setting it up to be so. However, I still use Linux because XP vs Linux is like a race between two sprinters, one carrying a hundred-pound pack, as I run BlackBox and do half my stuff at the console.
Is it just me but the interface looks very polished?
Yes, it is just you. Those screenshots look no better or worse than regular KDE, although the SVG scaling is nice. However, all it does is ICONS and FONTS. That's kind of missing the WIDGETS.
Is a pretty smooth talker. He managed to almost always sound like he was saying something, even though he wasn't on quite a few occasions. Also, he only repeated himself about ten or twelve times.
And that's not an insult, not by a long-shot. It's damn hard not to be repetitive in a situation like that, and he held out pretty good.
Also, if I recall correctly, he distictively said SCO wasn't going after end users and Linux developers, just after IBM:
P: The thing that we ask is that you just make it clear that you're attacking IBM, not us.
Darl(22:38): I appreciate what you're saying. OK.
P:Thanks.
Of course, it's a little vague, but it's something.
He managed to dodge all the questions about if running a specific configuration was in any way a violation (On a single proc? On a handheld?). Also, he seemed to imply that Debian was clean.
Darl(8:55): I can't... Again, when I look at Debian versus what we're talking about with enter... I would really draw the line on enterprise class Linux versus what you're talking about. Right? 'Cause I think that there's a huge difference. I mean, when I hear what you're talking about, the thing that is interesting is, I would argue the point which is that's not where we're trying to go. Okay. Because our real beef is where the thing has been highly commercialized. When you get a 64-way system, and my guess is that the one you're using at home is not a 64-way system, right? That is really where we have a lot of concern.
Also, the protestors were very level-headed, which was good. They had good questions and pushed hard without being rude.
I'm not American, but from what I've seen, I really don't care much for John Ashcroft.
Don't worry, he's not very American either. I believe we technically qualify him as a terrorist, for inspiring fear in otherwise innocent people by abusing every power he can find.
Except that the academy members already vote inconsistently. I recall hearing, after the last oscars, that only about half the members voted. Of course, I could be recalling wrong.
Section 2703(f) says in its entirety: "A provider of wire or electronic communication services or a remote computing service, upon the request of a governmental entity, shall take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in its possession pending the issuance of a court order or other process."
If you can afford a little extra partitions, try reiserFS. Although it is not natively a part of windows, there are tools which let you use it. This means you cannot install windows on it, but you could get read-write access with it.
This also made me feel a lot safer in using the systems: Neither ever mounted the other system's Root directory, so all that was actually shared was what I used as my home directory. No matter what I did on one system, even if data corruption happened, it would never be so bad that I couldn't boot it. (Note: I never had data corruption, it was just a mental comfort issue)
I know it's kind-of silly, but I always really liked having all green bills. It makes my money-wads look a lot less messy. I've had money-wads of multi-colored bills, and it just gets ugly. The mass of colors ends up so busy that its irritating to look at.
Of course, I'm a little obsessive compulsive and my favorite color is green, but it's alright to have a biased position.
"You see, in the Free Software world, any window manager worth it's salt provides window grouping so you can focus 'em all at once if you want to."
You, sir, are an idiot. What Window Manager might you be refering to? Lets see, I use KDE. Does it do that stuff. Actually, no. Even if you set it to group all windows always, it fails because it does not have an option to raise one window from a group and always assumes that the first in the list is the window you meant if you clicked on it, meaning that, although it may work marginally (although difficultly) for The GIMP, it causes all other programs to have broken behavior.
And, if you meant KDE "isn't worth it's salt," your an idiot. It's right up there for being the best window manager.
Furthermore, that's not even what I was talking about, but thank you for pointing out how badly broken it is.
As to what I WAS talking about, here is a short list of errors in the GIMP interface which cause significant problems. This is just what I can recall off the top of my head.
On Custom Painted widgets: Did you happen to notice that GTK is the GIMP ToolKit? They both have custom widgets. GIMP's widgets just suck. In fact, they have every failure they could for a raster editor widget set: 1) Big buttons: This means that all dialogs must be larger, generally clogging the screen. A raster editor NEEDS open space, and GIMP cannot have that. 2) Inaccurate Sliders: Although improved in 1.3.x, this is still bad in the stable and imperfect in the unstable. In the stable (1.2.x) they only have 100 points, which is horribly innacurate. However, they still do not have a defined center-point. This means that you cannot hit 0 on something from -100 to 100, even though it is an important point. 3) Only applying to 1.3.x: They do not guarantee that all buttons are visible. Open gimp and you will find (by default) that the tool options are an extension off of the toolbox. However, it starts 5 buttons wide and does not resize according to what is in it, and also doesn't get a scrollbar. Many tools have unreachable buttons, unless you resize it, which again takes up too much space. 4) Only applying to 1.2.x: Strangely resizing windows. Several windows, often open (tool options) resize depending on what you are doing, often drastically. This lets everything get seen, but makes it very hard to use. 5) Bad window sizes: The windows are all huge. They manage to convey about the same information (sometimes less and rarely more) yet are all large than the Photoshop windows. Also, they are all irregularly sized, so they do not easily fit together on the screen. On the other hand, Photoshop has carefully selected options so every sub-window is the same width and of one of four heights. What's more they are all small, yet still readable. 6) Issues with Hotkeys: In 1.2.x, they HotKeys aren't noted on the tooltips, a big mistake. 7) Hotkey Errors: Sometimes, hotkeys overlap. GIMP does not deal with this. Fire up GIMP 1.3.x, select an area, then hit any hotkey which uses SHIFT. In addition to switching which tool you are using, the mode of the rectagle select tool will be different next time you use it. It will be set to use additive select instead of replacement select. Hotkey overlap needs to be completely non-existent. 8) The Open/Save dialog is horrible. That is scheduled to change fairly soon (if I recall the GTK roadmap correctly) but it is still an error at the problem.
And, yes, I mean all of those as errors. They may be design errors, code errors, or other sorts of errors. They are all errors.
These were only things I could recall off the top of my head which are errors (mostly with the NEW version of GIMP) that do not occur in Photoshop.
Photoshop genuinely IS a better interface. GIMP has made much progress, but it still is not of the quality of Photoshop.
Photoshop doesn't run on xinerama, in part because it does not run on Linux. Note that xinerama is a Linux thing. And, yes, you can run Photoshop on multiple monitors with other systems. It isn't designed for it. However, people with three 22 inch monitors are a minority. A very small minority, even.
And, as to how Photoshop is a better interface, that's another matter. I responded to someone else as to why it is inferior, so you can look at that if you are wondering:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=81404&thresh ol d=0&commentsort=0&tid=92&mode=thread&cid=71579 02
Note that I am not talking about preference in this post, I am talking about a group of errors in GIMP. And, yes, they are all errors in design or code, but errors none-the-less.
If they only need to see it, they can use the Adobe Plugin or you can put it in a raster image as output.
If they want to edit it, tell them to use Adobe Illustrator. It edits SVG perfectly. Import, export, edit, whatever. Of course, it treats it like any other vector in it, so you have to avoid any features not supported by SVG, but those aren't many. (The only one I don't see support for is a gradient mesh)
"I'm sorry, GIMP's interface may not be perfect, but Photoshop's is 1000x worse. The reason people 'prefer' it is because it's what they are used to, not because of any inherent advantage to it. The only thing nice about Photoshop's interface is their custom-painted widgets. But if Photoshop isn't the only app running in your session, it's a pain to work with."
You are completely wrong. I do not have photoshop available (I use it at school, not at home) so I cannot be too specific, but there are some general differences which are obvious:
On Custom Painted widgets: Did you happen to notice that GTK is the GIMP ToolKit? They both have custom widgets. GIMP's widgets just suck. In fact, they have every failure they could for a raster editor widget set: 1) Big buttons: This means that all dialogs must be larger, generally clogging the screen. A raster editor NEEDS open space, and GIMP cannot have that. 2) Inaccurate Sliders: Although improved in 1.3.x, this is still bad in the stable and imperfect in the unstable. In the stable (1.2.x) they only have 100 points, which is horribly innacurate. However, they still do not have a defined center-point. This means that you cannot hit 0 on something from -100 to 100, even though it is an important point. 3) Only applying to 1.3.x: They do not guarantee that all buttons are visible. Open gimp and you will find (by default) that the tool options are an extension off of the toolbox. However, it starts 5 buttons wide and does not resize according to what is in it, and also doesn't get a scrollbar. Many tools have unreachable buttons, unless you resize it, which again takes up too much space. 4) Only applying to 1.2.x: Strangely resizing windows. Several windows, often open (tool options) resize depending on what you are doing, often drastically. This lets everything get seen, but makes it very hard to use. 5) Bad window sizes: The windows are all huge. They manage to convey about the same information (sometimes less and rarely more) yet are all large than the Photoshop windows. Also, they are all irregularly sized, so they do not easily fit together on the screen. On the other hand, Photoshop has carefully selected options so every sub-window is the same width and of one of four heights. What's more they are all small, yet still readable. 6) Issues with Hotkeys: In 1.2.x, they HotKeys aren't noted on the tooltips, a big mistake. 7) Hotkey Errors: Sometimes, hotkeys overlap. GIMP does not deal with this. Fire up GIMP 1.3.x, select an area, then hit any hotkey which uses SHIFT. In addition to switching which tool you are using, the mode of the rectagle select tool will be different next time you use it. It will be set to use additive select instead of replacement select. Hotkey overlap needs to be completely non-existent. 8) The Open/Save dialog is horrible. That is scheduled to change fairly soon (if I recall the GTK roadmap correctly) but it is still an error at the problem.
And, yes, I mean all of those as errors. They may be design errors, code errors, or other sorts of errors. They are all errors.
These were only things I could recall off the top of my head which are errors (mostly with the NEW version of GIMP) that do not occur in Photoshop.
Photoshop genuinely IS a better interface. GIMP has made much progress, but it still is not of the quality of Photoshop.
Bezier paths alone do not a vector graphics program make.
Re:SVG a Huge plus
on
GIMP goes SVG
·
· Score: 5, Informative
What would put GIMP on the map is an easier interface (although 1.3 is a vast improvement, it still ain't photoshop)
Also, if you want a good vector graphics editor for free, try SodiPodi. It's good. Especially for a 0.3 level program.
P.S. This isn't meant to be rude to GIMP. It's being compared only to THE BEST. They actually have a better interface than most other programs that compete with Photoshop (that is, programs that I've tried).
No, GIMP works like Photoshop with a bad interface. After all, Photoshop already imports SVG fine (or at least Illustrator, I think it does SVG as well). And, if it's like Illustrator+Photoshop, a full-featured vector editor, they just doubled the options in an already confusing program.
Three Questions
on
GIMP goes SVG
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
1) Did they waste time writing it all themselves, or are they interworking with SodiPodi? SodiPodi is an excellent piece of software if you want to edit SVG.
2) Does it just import them and make paths, or is it a full-featured SVG editor? Someone else commented on it now being Photoshop+Illustrator, but that's a whole different thing. Photoshop also supports importing SVG and AI format, it just doesn't edit them. (see question three)
3) Does it make this simple? I've tried to figure a way to do both Vector and Raster editing in one program before, and had some ideas, but nothing that would truly make it easy. The reason Illustrator and Photoshop are separate is not for the chance to sell two products (although I suspect that influences the idea a bit) but because there isn't a way to do vector and raster editing in a well mixed manner. At best, you end up with something that changes back and forth between being a vector editor and a raster editor depending on what is selected.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, they aren't raising all their license costs. As I recall, server 2003 cut its license cost to fall in before the RedHat enterprise edition which offers phone support.
Some prices go up, some stay with inflation, and some go down.
The costs they are noting are due to forced upgrades, not more expensive licenses.
Your quote agrees with the parent:
"The ITRON Project creates standards for real-time operating systems used in embedded systems and for related specifications."
All that says is that the project 'creates standards for real-time operating systems' not that it creates operating systems.
Did you even read the article?
The dual G5 lost 4 of 8 tests and won 3 of 8 against the single Athlon64 3200+. The SINGLE G5 lost all tests to all other processors
Yeah, sure. The G5's won exactly 0 of the tests. The dual G5 managed to beat the single Athlon64 FX+ on the photoshop benchmarks. That was their only victory, but they still got stomped by an Opteron in those. And that wasn't a dual Opteron.
Yes, you will see a price-performace ratio change. The Dual G5 tower, which was the only thing close to competitive, costs about 3.5 grand. So, it's twice the cost and way slower. It's even 200 dollars more than an Alienware AthlonFX box! Try just buying a Athlon64 in a standard box and its a clear victory on every front, just as with the expensive one, just by a heck of a lot more.
I can't say for certain, as I have not had cause to use it, but OpenGroupware.org looks pretty good. It can be used by a variety of clients, or from a web-front-end.
I bet it's worse than Outlook's stuff, but I've never used that before either, so I can't say as I really know.
It's a really young project, but seems to be coming along nicely. As you can probably tell from the name, it's designed to be part of the OpenOffice.org family of products.
Also, if you can't figure out the URL for OpenGroupware.org, I am very sorry for you.
I use Linux myself. Put the parent is right. Completely right. When I still had cause to use Windows, as I was in a Lan Clan, I ran XP. I had no issues. I'm careful. I suffered no hacks, lost no data, caught no viruses, etc...
It's really quite acceptable. The only reason I use Linux is for the convenience of being able to script everything (I happen to know BASH okay), the need to run servers (I host my own website because I want to use PHP and have an FTP server), and the ability to hack on things (I'm not much of a programmer, but I do bug-testing and doc-writing for friends who are).
The only point where Windows suffers is on features, viruses, and speed. Where it wins is useability and common use. That means, a girlfriend can use my computer, and I don't need to spend time setting it up to be so. However, I still use Linux because XP vs Linux is like a race between two sprinters, one carrying a hundred-pound pack, as I run BlackBox and do half my stuff at the console.
Is a pretty smooth talker. He managed to almost always sound like he was saying something, even though he wasn't on quite a few occasions. Also, he only repeated himself about ten or twelve times.
And that's not an insult, not by a long-shot. It's damn hard not to be repetitive in a situation like that, and he held out pretty good.
Also, if I recall correctly, he distictively said SCO wasn't going after end users and Linux developers, just after IBM:
Of course, it's a little vague, but it's something.
He managed to dodge all the questions about if running a specific configuration was in any way a violation (On a single proc? On a handheld?). Also, he seemed to imply that Debian was clean.
Also, the protestors were very level-headed, which was good. They had good questions and pushed hard without being rude.
The most level-headed thing I've seen on Slashdot in a while. Genuinely something intelligent. Thank you. I wish I could Mod you up.
Of course, you're replying to a '+4 interesting' which is horrible tripe. It's a damn shame.
Except that the academy members already vote inconsistently. I recall hearing, after the last oscars, that only about half the members voted. Of course, I could be recalling wrong.
I just read the article, about the reply from their First Amendment Department, and all I have to say is, "Oooo, Smackdown."
Uh, yeah, it's tested in Malaysia
Fucktard.
If you can afford a little extra partitions, try reiserFS. Although it is not natively a part of windows, there are tools which let you use it. This means you cannot install windows on it, but you could get read-write access with it.
Back when I still dual-booted, I had this layout:
5 gig NTFS WindowsXP partition
5 gig XFS Slackware partition
1 gig swap parition
45 gig reiserFS shared storage partition
This also made me feel a lot safer in using the systems: Neither ever mounted the other system's Root directory, so all that was actually shared was what I used as my home directory. No matter what I did on one system, even if data corruption happened, it would never be so bad that I couldn't boot it. (Note: I never had data corruption, it was just a mental comfort issue)
I know it's kind-of silly, but I always really liked having all green bills. It makes my money-wads look a lot less messy. I've had money-wads of multi-colored bills, and it just gets ugly. The mass of colors ends up so busy that its irritating to look at.
Of course, I'm a little obsessive compulsive and my favorite color is green, but it's alright to have a biased position.
"You see, in the Free Software world, any window manager worth it's salt provides window grouping so you can focus 'em all at once if you want to."
You, sir, are an idiot. What Window Manager might you be refering to? Lets see, I use KDE. Does it do that stuff. Actually, no. Even if you set it to group all windows always, it fails because it does not have an option to raise one window from a group and always assumes that the first in the list is the window you meant if you clicked on it, meaning that, although it may work marginally (although difficultly) for The GIMP, it causes all other programs to have broken behavior.
And, if you meant KDE "isn't worth it's salt," your an idiot. It's right up there for being the best window manager.
Furthermore, that's not even what I was talking about, but thank you for pointing out how badly broken it is.
As to what I WAS talking about, here is a short list of errors in the GIMP interface which cause significant problems. This is just what I can recall off the top of my head.
On Custom Painted widgets:
Did you happen to notice that GTK is the GIMP ToolKit? They both have custom widgets. GIMP's widgets just suck. In fact, they have every failure they could for a raster editor widget set:
1) Big buttons: This means that all dialogs must be larger, generally clogging the screen. A raster editor NEEDS open space, and GIMP cannot have that.
2) Inaccurate Sliders: Although improved in 1.3.x, this is still bad in the stable and imperfect in the unstable. In the stable (1.2.x) they only have 100 points, which is horribly innacurate. However, they still do not have a defined center-point. This means that you cannot hit 0 on something from -100 to 100, even though it is an important point.
3) Only applying to 1.3.x: They do not guarantee that all buttons are visible. Open gimp and you will find (by default) that the tool options are an extension off of the toolbox. However, it starts 5 buttons wide and does not resize according to what is in it, and also doesn't get a scrollbar. Many tools have unreachable buttons, unless you resize it, which again takes up too much space.
4) Only applying to 1.2.x: Strangely resizing windows. Several windows, often open (tool options) resize depending on what you are doing, often drastically. This lets everything get seen, but makes it very hard to use.
5) Bad window sizes: The windows are all huge. They manage to convey about the same information (sometimes less and rarely more) yet are all large than the Photoshop windows. Also, they are all irregularly sized, so they do not easily fit together on the screen. On the other hand, Photoshop has carefully selected options so every sub-window is the same width and of one of four heights. What's more they are all small, yet still readable.
6) Issues with Hotkeys: In 1.2.x, they HotKeys aren't noted on the tooltips, a big mistake.
7) Hotkey Errors: Sometimes, hotkeys overlap. GIMP does not deal with this. Fire up GIMP 1.3.x, select an area, then hit any hotkey which uses SHIFT. In addition to switching which tool you are using, the mode of the rectagle select tool will be different next time you use it. It will be set to use additive select instead of replacement select. Hotkey overlap needs to be completely non-existent.
8) The Open/Save dialog is horrible. That is scheduled to change fairly soon (if I recall the GTK roadmap correctly) but it is still an error at the problem.
And, yes, I mean all of those as errors. They may be design errors, code errors, or other sorts of errors. They are all errors.
These were only things I could recall off the top of my head which are errors (mostly with the NEW version of GIMP) that do not occur in Photoshop.
Photoshop genuinely IS a better interface. GIMP has made much progress, but it still is not of the quality of Photoshop.
Photoshop doesn't run on xinerama, in part because it does not run on Linux. Note that xinerama is a Linux thing. And, yes, you can run Photoshop on multiple monitors with other systems. It isn't designed for it. However, people with three 22 inch monitors are a minority. A very small minority, even.
h ol d=0&commentsort=0&tid=92&mode=thread&cid=71579 02
And, as to how Photoshop is a better interface, that's another matter. I responded to someone else as to why it is inferior, so you can look at that if you are wondering:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=81404&thres
Note that I am not talking about preference in this post, I am talking about a group of errors in GIMP. And, yes, they are all errors in design or code, but errors none-the-less.
Just tried that. That does a little, but not much. Some buttons get smaller, which is an improvement, but all other errors I noted still apply.
Thank you for the tip. That should be in the configuration options available in GIMP. It may be, I have not check 1.3, but I did not see it in 1.2.
If they only need to see it, they can use the Adobe Plugin or you can put it in a raster image as output.
If they want to edit it, tell them to use Adobe Illustrator. It edits SVG perfectly. Import, export, edit, whatever. Of course, it treats it like any other vector in it, so you have to avoid any features not supported by SVG, but those aren't many. (The only one I don't see support for is a gradient mesh)
"I'm sorry, GIMP's interface may not be perfect, but Photoshop's is 1000x worse. The reason people 'prefer' it is because it's what they are used to, not because of any inherent advantage to it. The only thing nice about Photoshop's interface is their custom-painted widgets. But if Photoshop isn't the only app running in your session, it's a pain to work with."
You are completely wrong. I do not have photoshop available (I use it at school, not at home) so I cannot be too specific, but there are some general differences which are obvious:
On Custom Painted widgets:
Did you happen to notice that GTK is the GIMP ToolKit? They both have custom widgets. GIMP's widgets just suck. In fact, they have every failure they could for a raster editor widget set:
1) Big buttons: This means that all dialogs must be larger, generally clogging the screen. A raster editor NEEDS open space, and GIMP cannot have that.
2) Inaccurate Sliders: Although improved in 1.3.x, this is still bad in the stable and imperfect in the unstable. In the stable (1.2.x) they only have 100 points, which is horribly innacurate. However, they still do not have a defined center-point. This means that you cannot hit 0 on something from -100 to 100, even though it is an important point.
3) Only applying to 1.3.x: They do not guarantee that all buttons are visible. Open gimp and you will find (by default) that the tool options are an extension off of the toolbox. However, it starts 5 buttons wide and does not resize according to what is in it, and also doesn't get a scrollbar. Many tools have unreachable buttons, unless you resize it, which again takes up too much space.
4) Only applying to 1.2.x: Strangely resizing windows. Several windows, often open (tool options) resize depending on what you are doing, often drastically. This lets everything get seen, but makes it very hard to use.
5) Bad window sizes: The windows are all huge. They manage to convey about the same information (sometimes less and rarely more) yet are all large than the Photoshop windows. Also, they are all irregularly sized, so they do not easily fit together on the screen. On the other hand, Photoshop has carefully selected options so every sub-window is the same width and of one of four heights. What's more they are all small, yet still readable.
6) Issues with Hotkeys: In 1.2.x, they HotKeys aren't noted on the tooltips, a big mistake.
7) Hotkey Errors: Sometimes, hotkeys overlap. GIMP does not deal with this. Fire up GIMP 1.3.x, select an area, then hit any hotkey which uses SHIFT. In addition to switching which tool you are using, the mode of the rectagle select tool will be different next time you use it. It will be set to use additive select instead of replacement select. Hotkey overlap needs to be completely non-existent.
8) The Open/Save dialog is horrible. That is scheduled to change fairly soon (if I recall the GTK roadmap correctly) but it is still an error at the problem.
And, yes, I mean all of those as errors. They may be design errors, code errors, or other sorts of errors. They are all errors.
These were only things I could recall off the top of my head which are errors (mostly with the NEW version of GIMP) that do not occur in Photoshop.
Photoshop genuinely IS a better interface. GIMP has made much progress, but it still is not of the quality of Photoshop.
Sorry. That sounded rude. I should think longer before I say things.
Bezier paths alone do not a vector graphics program make.
What would put GIMP on the map is an easier interface (although 1.3 is a vast improvement, it still ain't photoshop)
Also, if you want a good vector graphics editor for free, try SodiPodi. It's good. Especially for a 0.3 level program.
P.S. This isn't meant to be rude to GIMP. It's being compared only to THE BEST. They actually have a better interface than most other programs that compete with Photoshop (that is, programs that I've tried).
No, GIMP works like Photoshop with a bad interface. After all, Photoshop already imports SVG fine (or at least Illustrator, I think it does SVG as well). And, if it's like Illustrator+Photoshop, a full-featured vector editor, they just doubled the options in an already confusing program.
1) Did they waste time writing it all themselves, or are they interworking with SodiPodi? SodiPodi is an excellent piece of software if you want to edit SVG.
2) Does it just import them and make paths, or is it a full-featured SVG editor? Someone else commented on it now being Photoshop+Illustrator, but that's a whole different thing. Photoshop also supports importing SVG and AI format, it just doesn't edit them. (see question three)
3) Does it make this simple? I've tried to figure a way to do both Vector and Raster editing in one program before, and had some ideas, but nothing that would truly make it easy. The reason Illustrator and Photoshop are separate is not for the chance to sell two products (although I suspect that influences the idea a bit) but because there isn't a way to do vector and raster editing in a well mixed manner. At best, you end up with something that changes back and forth between being a vector editor and a raster editor depending on what is selected.