... the Gimp's interface is no ugly or badly designed... it's just different to what people are used to. Further, if a badly designed Photoshop interface is added to the Gimp then they will like it? Methinks they complain too loudly!
Methinks the AC complains too loudly! The original poster was in no way berating the Gimp for its features, he was merely saying he can't use it due to it's keyboard shortcuts. Now that he knows he can change them, he should be OK.
I agree. I find the irony of Windows users screaming for ports of Linux software quite amusing, considering that it was only a few years ago that the situation was quite different (Linux users were screaming for Windows ports of software).
I was more responding to the original poster who seemed to think it was his God given right to have a port done for Windows. My response is that people who run Windows should do the port, not people who don't even run that operating system!
C'mon already. If a Linux user said that to a person who solely compiles an OSS app in Visual C++, what sort of answer do you think they would give them? Personally, I think it's pretty good that they have stuff already.
I can't understand the argument that people who write free software (free as in beer and free as in speech) should HAVE to do a port to Windows! They don't get paid for it, they don't have a responsibility to any of you! It's a priviledge, not a right to have this stuff.
This is true. However, they are allowing their developers to spend quite a bit of time on OOo. I think that one of their developers is working on a macro converter for Word. If that ever gets done then it will be a major breakthrough for OOo and a major win for Novell!
You are not an expert. Do you know anything about colour management? Those things certainly slow things down, but they are not the be all and end all of colour management. Depending on how you do things, you can just get a profile connection space, get an profile for your input device (scanner, camera, whatever), transform it into a wider colour space like CIE-LAB (etc), then on the screen apply a screen profile to see what you image looks like or if you want to print the image/document/whatever apply an output profile and spit out the data. None of these things are patented.
I suppose my original question was stupid, to be honest. Really, some type of colour management should be applied at a different level - like into GNOME or KDE in a similar way that Apple does their colour management via ColorSync. Still Adobe has their own colour management engine. They spend money on them and probably patented various things, but I see no reason why Gimp couldn't have SOMETHING. But then again, I'm not a developer. Oh, and this isn't a whinge - I'm VERY happy with Gimp and the developers should be congratulated on a mighty fine application.
They are doing tons of good work for OpenOffice and have a very nice corporate distribution. Not to mention they own Ximian, which made Ximian connector for Evolution. What's not to like?
You think that all of colour management is about Pantone? How then, may I ask, does LCMS use ICC profiles? I was not aware that these had been patented, nor had the process of doing colour-space transformations been patented. Are profile connection spaces patented? Have device profiles been patented by Pantone? I don't think so.
Doesn't have proper colour management. One of the best things about Photoship is the CM, and softproofing is pretty cool really. Being able to use a proper colour management workflow with ICC profiles in Photoshop gives it a BIG advantage over the Gimp.
Well, considering that it was a Mac user who did this, and then a Linux user ported it, I think the question should be: why aren't Windows users bothering to port it themselves?
Don't just expect people to do this for you. Those who run Linux and OS X have no real need for Windows. It might be frustrating, but, well, tough.
According to the article, this was merely social engineering at work, as "the person guilty of changing the grades fraudulently obtained passwords using personal information of faculty members who have access to the grading system, Desruisseaux said."
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for answering my original question!
... the Gimp's interface is no ugly or badly designed... it's just different to what people are used to. Further, if a badly designed Photoshop interface is added to the Gimp then they will like it? Methinks they complain too loudly!
Methinks the AC complains too loudly! The original poster was in no way berating the Gimp for its features, he was merely saying he can't use it due to it's keyboard shortcuts. Now that he knows he can change them, he should be OK.
I agree. I find the irony of Windows users screaming for ports of Linux software quite amusing, considering that it was only a few years ago that the situation was quite different (Linux users were screaming for Windows ports of software).
Payback sucks, huh?
No way. Gimp 2.0 has a very clean interface. What interface elements don't you like exactly?
I was more responding to the original poster who seemed to think it was his God given right to have a port done for Windows. My response is that people who run Windows should do the port, not people who don't even run that operating system!
C'mon already. If a Linux user said that to a person who solely compiles an OSS app in Visual C++, what sort of answer do you think they would give them? Personally, I think it's pretty good that they have stuff already.
I can't understand the argument that people who write free software (free as in beer and free as in speech) should HAVE to do a port to Windows! They don't get paid for it, they don't have a responsibility to any of you! It's a priviledge, not a right to have this stuff.
Hence my sheesh.
This is true. However, they are allowing their developers to spend quite a bit of time on OOo. I think that one of their developers is working on a macro converter for Word. If that ever gets done then it will be a major breakthrough for OOo and a major win for Novell!
You are not an expert. Do you know anything about colour management? Those things certainly slow things down, but they are not the be all and end all of colour management. Depending on how you do things, you can just get a profile connection space, get an profile for your input device (scanner, camera, whatever), transform it into a wider colour space like CIE-LAB (etc), then on the screen apply a screen profile to see what you image looks like or if you want to print the image/document/whatever apply an output profile and spit out the data. None of these things are patented.
I suppose my original question was stupid, to be honest. Really, some type of colour management should be applied at a different level - like into GNOME or KDE in a similar way that Apple does their colour management via ColorSync. Still Adobe has their own colour management engine. They spend money on them and probably patented various things, but I see no reason why Gimp couldn't have SOMETHING. But then again, I'm not a developer. Oh, and this isn't a whinge - I'm VERY happy with Gimp and the developers should be congratulated on a mighty fine application.
They are doing tons of good work for OpenOffice and have a very nice corporate distribution. Not to mention they own Ximian, which made Ximian connector for Evolution. What's not to like?
And yet they still complain. Figures.
See History and development of Mozilla Firefox. Might be useful to compare against this article.
Which patent are you referring to?
You think that all of colour management is about Pantone? How then, may I ask, does LCMS use ICC profiles? I was not aware that these had been patented, nor had the process of doing colour-space transformations been patented. Are profile connection spaces patented? Have device profiles been patented by Pantone? I don't think so.
So Windows users should go ahead and do it then!
Doesn't have proper colour management. One of the best things about Photoship is the CM, and softproofing is pretty cool really. Being able to use a proper colour management workflow with ICC profiles in Photoshop gives it a BIG advantage over the Gimp.
Why not? Apple have copyrighted their OS X interface didn't they?
Well, considering that it was a Mac user who did this, and then a Linux user ported it, I think the question should be: why aren't Windows users bothering to port it themselves?
Don't just expect people to do this for you. Those who run Linux and OS X have no real need for Windows. It might be frustrating, but, well, tough.
When is Linux going to get proper colour management?
Pop under ads!!!!
According to the article, this was merely social engineering at work, as "the person guilty of changing the grades fraudulently obtained passwords using personal information of faculty members who have access to the grading system, Desruisseaux said."
The Borg. Yow!
Links to a Last Measure troll site. If you want to hear "I look at Gay Porno!" then be sure to follow that link. You have been warned.
That links to a last measure site.
Someone might actually be trying to raise the general quality of comments on slashdot by (gasp!) posting well-written and well-thought out comments.
We can't have that. Burn him at the stake!
Will someone mod that down? That's not funny.