Well, I didn't ask, ``Why don't all Photoshop users switch to the GIMP?'' The comment I originally replied to seemed to indicate that the GIMP isn't as good as whatever-is-the-best simply because---according to the original commentor---the GIMP developers copied features from other programs. That is, it sounded like, ``Don't use this; it has features like this other program,'' which doesn't come across to me like a valid reason to not use software. Of course, there's a good possibility that I totally misunderstood the original commenter.
The crack about Photoshop's price being a ``feature'' not to be copied was meant only as an attempt at a funny ha-ha---an attempt which apparently failed.
What's wrong with copying features as long as they're useful and the copyist doesn't claim inventorship (is that a new word?) of said features?
How much does PhotoShop cost? If it's > 0, then I hope that's one ``feature'' the GIMP 2.0 developers didn't copy.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, I think you're confusing Clarke with another author.
. . .to leave Europa alone? I mean, all these worlds are ours! How greedy can we get? Waah!
The crack about Photoshop's price being a ``feature'' not to be copied was meant only as an attempt at a funny ha-ha---an attempt which apparently failed.
What's wrong with copying features as long as they're useful and the copyist doesn't claim inventorship (is that a new word?) of said features? How much does PhotoShop cost? If it's > 0, then I hope that's one ``feature'' the GIMP 2.0 developers didn't copy.
Aw, crap! I forgot an apostrophe up there! I hit submit instead of preview. Waaah!
At least kids have an excuse---theyre kids.