Well, I think that sending him to be a nanny for the Von Trapp's won't work...
Yes, but dare we deny ourselves the joy of seeing it happen by jumping to the conclusion that it won't work? All we have to do is tell him that he has confidence in himself...
Pro: He founded a software movement that revolutionized the computer industry.
Con: Having done so, he immediately hitched a ride on the short bus and drove it to Fruitcake City.
I have a solution: Let's declare the new Stallman 2.0, and say we only support the Stallman 1.0. Stallman 1.0 was the guy who was going to give us the whole, working GNU system - the most complete version of which (HURD kernel plus GNU tools with as little of anything else as possible) I got to download and review as a live CD. And damn incomplete it is, still, when the entire rest of the FOSS world has marched ahead. Then he bitches because his GNU software doesn't get enough credit, when everybody else is putting working systems together out of the bits and pieces they can grab out of the GNU system. Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, RMS is the person who wrote a damn good editor and compiler and a couple of usable licenses. The rest is schitzophrenia.
RMS hates everything! I still use his software and like his free software philosophy and will even be reviewing the HURD/GNU live CD tommorrow. Anybody using Open Source at all, be it from OpenSolaris, Linux, or BSD, would have to agree that he's the source of some damn fine software. But he gets loonier every year. He doesn't seem to get that the saying "That Government governs best which governs least." applies to renegade free-love commune governments as well. He's getting as bad as Theo and ESR.
Man, you should check out the lone pure GNU distro: made with Debian co-operation, but the tension is thick even there...and Debian should be one of RMS's best friends!
Hey, hey, whoa, wait a minute. I'm not the software engineer. Never said I was. I just write about it.
Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but I DID run Windows for a number of years, and it DID TOO have commercial software titles sold for it (read "games"!) which required extra packages not bundled with the software in order to run. Don't tell people they haven't seen what they've seen with their own two eyes and they won't flame you. Have you installed every single software program made for Windows onto Windows? Then how do you know? Have you tried every menu option in Gimp to do what you want? Then how do you know it can't be done? Hey, I have a bright idea, why don't you insist that other countries don't exist and then scream at anybody who tries to show you a map?
It won't help you get what you want, what you're doing in here, unless all you want is attention.
I was trying to explain some of the reasons why I preferred Photoshop over the gimp,
See, that's the gotcha. Prefer what you want, and $DIETY bless you. Use the right tool for the job, the one that works for you. Nothing wrong with that. But when you try to explain why to a person who's used it for years, and your reasons why are non-factual claims, you will of course not be believed and be criticized for spreading FUD, which serves the further error of discouraging other new users from learning new things themselves. Everybody gives up, because they've been told over and over again that it's impossible, and starts repeating the lies to the next generation without even knowing they're lies.
What if I said I liked Linux better than Windows? OK, now what if I said I liked Linux better than Windows because Windows is just a text mode terminal without graphics capabilities - would this not be wrong?
Look, what exactly in the hell DO YOU WANT? You wannna free Photoshop? So you're gonna scream down the effort to build a free Photoshop in public, pillowry it for not have the one bell to go with all it's whistles, spread FUD against it to discourage other people from trying it or learning it, and cuss out anybody who tries to help you. Does this help you get what you want? No, not unless what you want is attention. Have you tried EVERY OPTION IN THE MENU? Cuz it could be there, under a different name and a different form. But you'd never try that, because the way you're used to is inherently superior to everybody else's way, just because YOU found it FIRST. You could search for it, maybe you're not the only person on the planet with that particular problem, maybe a whole group of people wrote a new plugin for it, but you'd never do that because it would slaughter your ego to think that you weren't the Lone Persecuted Soul with Unique Problems That Nobody Could Solve. You could go to the Gimp development team and give them some input so they hear from as many like you as possible, and maybe one of them will either try to code it into the next release, or explain why it can't be so (rule of thumb: the only things the open source application can't do are patented), but to do so would be forcing yourself to admit that the Gimp developers weren't a pack of evil crackers but were actually rational human being like yourself. Can't have that!!!
Well, keep flaming Slashdot. I'm SURE that'll help you so much to achieve your goal. Sorry I couldn't help.
I've been using Linux on the desktop at work since 1998.
Jesus. I'm impressed. I'm awe-stricken. I'm perplexed why you don't also see that making live previews of curves should be a simple thing to do in a script-fu. I'm flabbergasted that you haven't learned, in these mighty 8 years of steady Linux patronage, the rule that for every one person with a problem, there are three other people who've had the same problem and one of them has written a fix for it, and all you have to do is Google. I'm astounded that you would expect everything to run from one program - maybe it'd be better done from Cinepaint instead? In fact, I am so incredulous that I think you're lying, and have never run Linux a day in your life, else you wouldn't have this If-They-Hand-You-The-Moon-Whine-Louder-Because-You -Dont-Have-The-Stars attitude.
Hmmmm, OK, it's hard to install on Windows. In the first place, you're installing a piece of cross-platform software (try installing a Windows program on Linux and running it with WINE sometime. Fun!). In the second place, I can remember plenty of programs on Windows that needed special versions of ActiveX or dll's that I had to go chase down. I have no idea why this is a specific problem that just Gimp has. I would definitely advise using live CD's (I can only think of about five Linux distros that *don't* include Gimp. Even FreeSBIE, a BSD distro, has Gimp.): no install problems that way, and you can save your work to writable media. But granted, the Gimp team should get their installer to do it in one whack... they're probably thinking too much of Linux package management, where it all gets installed from one command, regardless of what you have and what it depends on. Once again, Gimp is blamed for problems that it turns out are just as much the fault of the non-native host system.
Just about the rest of your refutations fall mostly apart. Alpha channel handling doesn't confuse me, regardless of whether it's in Gimp, Cinepaint, Image Magick, or SDL programming. It's termed "transparency" in the menus. You want to click with the left-mouse button instead of the right, is that it? Or you want that Gimp derivative somebody's writing that does the menus the exact way PS is laid out? (I forget what it's called, and I'm sick of Googling today. It was covered on Slashdot a while back.) And Windows COM scripting...you DO know that FOSS has programming languages Windows never even can dream of hosting, right? Meanwhile, if the FOSS world tries to make a move for DOM, either it will get patented (or is it already?), or GNU will get sued for another look-n-feel number, or they'll just add a new beanie feature and PS will be one feature ahead of Gimp again and then Gimp-vs-PS will rage on for another version because Gimp doesn't have beanies.
Don't tell me you want to get me started on the features missing in Windows and Adobe that GNU, Linux, BSD, Solaris, and even plan9 from Bell Labs have. I haven't that long to live! But thank you anyway. This tells me something: the problems with Gimp that everybody complains about are actually problems with the *Windows* port of Gimp. Here's a good catch-all: Try Mediainlinux, see if you can get that downloaded and burned and running. It includes more image-editing tools than even *I* can remember, it runs live so you have nothing to worry about on installing, and it will expose you to more than *one* FOSS program, so you can get a better idea of this Unix-based thing, which, by the way, was thriving for years before Bill Gates ever *touched* a computer. Consider that pictures like this, this, and this were done from scratch using only the same tools you get on Mediainlinux. Surely, *somebody* can get use out of these tools, eh?
Sweetheart, sit down... CMYK has lots and lots of patents involved. The *best* support you could get in Gimp is a work-around. If you want better than that, the people to complain to don't work for Gimp.
As for Cinepaint, I'm going out on an extremely short limb and guess that you've never run it. I have. I've run more programs than you could count. Cinepaint, included in say, for instance, MediainLinux IS Gimp, with fewer plugins and 8/16/32-bit support and a sexier name (since everybody harps on the name). Same interface, same menus, same multiple windows everybody harps on. I addressed all that you bring up in this post, and considered it too bleeding obvious to repeat.
You can get one point back if you can even tell me the origins of the term "LART".
It's always like this. People charge in going "Gimp can't draw straight lines! Gimp can't draw black-and-white pixels! Gimp can't count to two!" and we patiently point out the three simple menu steps they could have used to do it if only they'd thought to look there, and without missing a beat they go on: "Yeah, but it doesn't SMELL, FEEL, TASTE, LOOK, AND SOUND EXACTLY LIKE PHOTOSHOP!"
but it still doesn't approach Photoshop's ease of use or flexibility.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever. I suppose pointing out "Layers->Colors->Curves" isn't going to do any good, either, is it? I mean, what the hell is this? Are you people forced to use a computer with your hands cuffed behind your back or something? Right-click. That's what the right mouse button is for. Explore *every* submenu, in order. Open a test image and run *every* menu entry on it. You don't even need to open this free book or read any of my tutorials or read anybodyelse'stutorials. Everything's right there. If you don't like it, don't use it, but stop insisting that all the functions don't exist. It's dumb. You have just as much access to Google as anybody else, presuming you don't live in China. And then people wonder why we get frustrated.
As I've said before, I'm *dying* to see Photoshop ported. So *Adobe* can deal with you people instead of we GNU/Linux users.
Galileo also was warned by a Pope not to inquire too deeply into the nature of God's creation. Using a telescope, which he had constructed, Galileo had been able to confirm by observation that Copernicus had concluded correctly that the earth orbits the sun, and not the opposite as had been assumed during the dark ages.
But the Church had difficulty in accepting pluralism in Galileo's time. In 1542 Pope Paul III created The Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition. This institution was authorised to interrogate, if necessary by torture, and prosecute people for heresy. Galileo was never tortured, but in 1633 he was shown the instruments of torture twice.[ii]
As a result of his treatment Galileo recanted his support for Copernicus, and so avoided such torture on the rack, which might well have physically disconnected his mind and brain from his body. He was allowed to retire to his villa where he died a virtual prisoner in 1642. Sir Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day the same year.
The trial and conviction of Galileo sent a warning to scholars across Europe. It was unsafe to study the handiwork of God by direct observation, and doubly unsafe to draw inferences from such observations.
You're too smart. What are you doing posting to Slashdot? (-:
Incidentally, I just happened to have refuted the inaccuracies in the TFA here. Perhaps you can point some of these out to others in this forum? Or add to them over time? I, too, have experience with both (as well as with MGI-photosuite, Macintosh Draw, Windows Paintbrush, xfig, and Corel Draw, and more I've probably forgotten), and am absolutely baffled at how so much flat-out Bull gets spread about one little program. I'm getting to where I have a pet theory that Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is the source of all of it!
But anyway, you being a user of both, I would highly value any input you could provide in the comments sections of my blog's tutorials (scroll down the menu on the left, they're there). I'm fine with porting Photoshop. I'm *not* fine with the mythology going around.
it's also creating an interface that works the way the user expects it to work. If over 90% of your users are used to the way Photoshop does function X, then you sure as hell better implement function X the way Photoshop does.
This argument is the one I have a hard time wrapping my brain around. Tell me, why aren't toilets shaped more like diapers, since 100% of the users learning toilets graduated from diapers and are expecting the same interface? How did cars ever catch on, since 100% of users new to cars had grown up with horses and buggies and expected the same user interface. How do you suppose people getting trained to fly Stealth Bombers can ever manage, when the interface is so different from the cars they've been driving?
Speaking of spamming: for about the 1,000,000th time, Here's the CMYK plug-ins for Gimp. Yeah, one of those non-existant plug-ins the ignorant jackass in the TFA asserts do not exist for Gimp.
Of course, it also doesn't help that so many Linux people seem to take the attitude that the Linux desktop is fine, but artists and other non-technical types are just too stupid to use it.
Here.
What irks me, is that 90% of the complaints about Gimp are complete fallacies. And blowhards like Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols are working against those of us who simply want to educate people. By all means, I would like to see Photoshop ported. Of course, I could care less if people don't like the Gimp. It's a free world; use what you want. But I don't like the mythology that keeps people in the dark.
Those in charge of the GIMP dismiss such experienced users in the field as feeble-minded ignoramuses.
OK, I'll bite. Do you have a link to someplace where a Gimp developer dismisses experienced users in the manner in which you speak? By the way, I already refuted the TFA's ludicrous claims yesterday Mainly because as soon as I saw an anti-Gimp FUD hack job, I knew it was a sure bet it'd get posted to/.
I say again, I'd be only too happy to see Photoshop ported. Perhaps the Adobe people will see the demand and cave. But hating Gimp for reasons mentioned in TFA is like saying you don't like cars because they lack steering wheels, tires, and motors.
And I suppose the users of FOSS image editing tools in this article let their families starve.
So to recap: you come on as an anonymous coward to flame somebody for writing tutorials so the person who wants to learn *can* learn. Whose time is worthless, again?
I do. I'm a professional, not a hobbyist, and want to do my damn work, not fuck around with the interface.
What is it, exactly, that Photoshop does for you? Read your mind and draw the image on the screen while you sit back ten feet with your arms folded and meditate? So there's lots of little windows instead of one big one. So most of the functions are accessible with a right-click to the canvas. What's the big deal?
Before you go off saying I don't know what I'm talking about, I am a professional in that industry.
OK, I'll bite. What is so terrible about Gimp? What can't you do in Gimp? I've been writing about Gimp and making tutorials about Gimp at my blog (see signature) for a while, and inviting people to ask questions about it. Your input could help. Not flamage, mind you. Input.
You just demonstrated that you don't understand the "big problem" with color management.
Like with any of these plug-ins? By the way, perhaps next time we should be careful taking the word about FOSS from a site with Microsoft ads all over it.
third-parties won't write GIMP plugins until companies start using it,
Could somebody, anybody, anybody at all, explain how this absolutely insane misconception got started? Gimp has plug-ins. It has always had plug-ins. You can write more of your own plug-ins using the Scheme-like script-fu language. SEE?
No, I could care less about your karma. It's clear, for whatever reasons, that you're committed to screaming down all FOSS no matter what. Dime a dozen...
If not, I invite people to post in the comments for any other tutorials they'd like to see. Unfortunately, misinformation like the TFA actively undoes the work I try to do.
That said I'm giving GIMP a try every once in a while.
I've written a series of tutorials here. I did thing to address some of what you express. I've noticed that Photoshop has such a massive market share that people simply cannot concieve of doing it any other way, hence the "fog" you speak of.
It's obviously not made for print due to the lack of CMYK-support
I owe Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols a black eye. Here, despite the flat-Earth-misinformation, is a CMYK plug-in. For Gimp. It's a work-around, due to copyright issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but dare we deny ourselves the joy of seeing it happen by jumping to the conclusion that it won't work? All we have to do is tell him that he has confidence in himself...
Con: Having done so, he immediately hitched a ride on the short bus and drove it to Fruitcake City.
I have a solution: Let's declare the new Stallman 2.0, and say we only support the Stallman 1.0. Stallman 1.0 was the guy who was going to give us the whole, working GNU system - the most complete version of which (HURD kernel plus GNU tools with as little of anything else as possible) I got to download and review as a live CD. And damn incomplete it is, still, when the entire rest of the FOSS world has marched ahead. Then he bitches because his GNU software doesn't get enough credit, when everybody else is putting working systems together out of the bits and pieces they can grab out of the GNU system. Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, RMS is the person who wrote a damn good editor and compiler and a couple of usable licenses. The rest is schitzophrenia.
Man, you should check out the lone pure GNU distro: made with Debian co-operation, but the tension is thick even there...and Debian should be one of RMS's best friends!
Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but I DID run Windows for a number of years, and it DID TOO have commercial software titles sold for it (read "games"!) which required extra packages not bundled with the software in order to run. Don't tell people they haven't seen what they've seen with their own two eyes and they won't flame you. Have you installed every single software program made for Windows onto Windows? Then how do you know? Have you tried every menu option in Gimp to do what you want? Then how do you know it can't be done? Hey, I have a bright idea, why don't you insist that other countries don't exist and then scream at anybody who tries to show you a map?
It won't help you get what you want, what you're doing in here, unless all you want is attention.
See, that's the gotcha. Prefer what you want, and $DIETY bless you. Use the right tool for the job, the one that works for you. Nothing wrong with that. But when you try to explain why to a person who's used it for years, and your reasons why are non-factual claims, you will of course not be believed and be criticized for spreading FUD, which serves the further error of discouraging other new users from learning new things themselves. Everybody gives up, because they've been told over and over again that it's impossible, and starts repeating the lies to the next generation without even knowing they're lies.
What if I said I liked Linux better than Windows? OK, now what if I said I liked Linux better than Windows because Windows is just a text mode terminal without graphics capabilities - would this not be wrong?
Look, what exactly in the hell DO YOU WANT? You wannna free Photoshop? So you're gonna scream down the effort to build a free Photoshop in public, pillowry it for not have the one bell to go with all it's whistles, spread FUD against it to discourage other people from trying it or learning it, and cuss out anybody who tries to help you. Does this help you get what you want? No, not unless what you want is attention. Have you tried EVERY OPTION IN THE MENU? Cuz it could be there, under a different name and a different form. But you'd never try that, because the way you're used to is inherently superior to everybody else's way, just because YOU found it FIRST. You could search for it, maybe you're not the only person on the planet with that particular problem, maybe a whole group of people wrote a new plugin for it, but you'd never do that because it would slaughter your ego to think that you weren't the Lone Persecuted Soul with Unique Problems That Nobody Could Solve. You could go to the Gimp development team and give them some input so they hear from as many like you as possible, and maybe one of them will either try to code it into the next release, or explain why it can't be so (rule of thumb: the only things the open source application can't do are patented), but to do so would be forcing yourself to admit that the Gimp developers weren't a pack of evil crackers but were actually rational human being like yourself. Can't have that!!!
Well, keep flaming Slashdot. I'm SURE that'll help you so much to achieve your goal. Sorry I couldn't help.
Jesus. I'm impressed. I'm awe-stricken. I'm perplexed why you don't also see that making live previews of curves should be a simple thing to do in a script-fu. I'm flabbergasted that you haven't learned, in these mighty 8 years of steady Linux patronage, the rule that for every one person with a problem, there are three other people who've had the same problem and one of them has written a fix for it, and all you have to do is Google. I'm astounded that you would expect everything to run from one program - maybe it'd be better done from Cinepaint instead? In fact, I am so incredulous that I think you're lying, and have never run Linux a day in your life, else you wouldn't have this If-They-Hand-You-The-Moon-Whine-Louder-Because-You -Dont-Have-The-Stars attitude.
Hmmmm, OK, it's hard to install on Windows. In the first place, you're installing a piece of cross-platform software (try installing a Windows program on Linux and running it with WINE sometime. Fun!). In the second place, I can remember plenty of programs on Windows that needed special versions of ActiveX or dll's that I had to go chase down. I have no idea why this is a specific problem that just Gimp has. I would definitely advise using live CD's (I can only think of about five Linux distros that *don't* include Gimp. Even FreeSBIE, a BSD distro, has Gimp.): no install problems that way, and you can save your work to writable media. But granted, the Gimp team should get their installer to do it in one whack... they're probably thinking too much of Linux package management, where it all gets installed from one command, regardless of what you have and what it depends on. Once again, Gimp is blamed for problems that it turns out are just as much the fault of the non-native host system.
Just about the rest of your refutations fall mostly apart. Alpha channel handling doesn't confuse me, regardless of whether it's in Gimp, Cinepaint, Image Magick, or SDL programming. It's termed "transparency" in the menus. You want to click with the left-mouse button instead of the right, is that it? Or you want that Gimp derivative somebody's writing that does the menus the exact way PS is laid out? (I forget what it's called, and I'm sick of Googling today. It was covered on Slashdot a while back.) And Windows COM scripting...you DO know that FOSS has programming languages Windows never even can dream of hosting, right? Meanwhile, if the FOSS world tries to make a move for DOM, either it will get patented (or is it already?), or GNU will get sued for another look-n-feel number, or they'll just add a new beanie feature and PS will be one feature ahead of Gimp again and then Gimp-vs-PS will rage on for another version because Gimp doesn't have beanies.
Don't tell me you want to get me started on the features missing in Windows and Adobe that GNU, Linux, BSD, Solaris, and even plan9 from Bell Labs have. I haven't that long to live! But thank you anyway. This tells me something: the problems with Gimp that everybody complains about are actually problems with the *Windows* port of Gimp. Here's a good catch-all: Try Mediainlinux, see if you can get that downloaded and burned and running. It includes more image-editing tools than even *I* can remember, it runs live so you have nothing to worry about on installing, and it will expose you to more than *one* FOSS program, so you can get a better idea of this Unix-based thing, which, by the way, was thriving for years before Bill Gates ever *touched* a computer. Consider that pictures like this, this, and this were done from scratch using only the same tools you get on Mediainlinux. Surely, *somebody* can get use out of these tools, eh?
As for Cinepaint, I'm going out on an extremely short limb and guess that you've never run it. I have. I've run more programs than you could count. Cinepaint, included in say, for instance, MediainLinux IS Gimp, with fewer plugins and 8/16/32-bit support and a sexier name (since everybody harps on the name). Same interface, same menus, same multiple windows everybody harps on. I addressed all that you bring up in this post, and considered it too bleeding obvious to repeat.
You can get one point back if you can even tell me the origins of the term "LART".
but it still doesn't approach Photoshop's ease of use or flexibility.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever. I suppose pointing out "Layers->Colors->Curves" isn't going to do any good, either, is it? I mean, what the hell is this? Are you people forced to use a computer with your hands cuffed behind your back or something? Right-click. That's what the right mouse button is for. Explore *every* submenu, in order. Open a test image and run *every* menu entry on it. You don't even need to open this free book or read any of my tutorials or read anybody else's tutorials. Everything's right there. If you don't like it, don't use it, but stop insisting that all the functions don't exist. It's dumb. You have just as much access to Google as anybody else, presuming you don't live in China. And then people wonder why we get frustrated.
As I've said before, I'm *dying* to see Photoshop ported. So *Adobe* can deal with you people instead of we GNU/Linux users.
Galileo also was warned by a Pope not to inquire too deeply into the nature of God's creation. Using a telescope, which he had constructed, Galileo had been able to confirm by observation that Copernicus had concluded correctly that the earth orbits the sun, and not the opposite as had been assumed during the dark ages.
But the Church had difficulty in accepting pluralism in Galileo's time. In 1542 Pope Paul III created The Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition. This institution was authorised to interrogate, if necessary by torture, and prosecute people for heresy. Galileo was never tortured, but in 1633 he was shown the instruments of torture twice.[ii]
As a result of his treatment Galileo recanted his support for Copernicus, and so avoided such torture on the rack, which might well have physically disconnected his mind and brain from his body. He was allowed to retire to his villa where he died a virtual prisoner in 1642. Sir Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day the same year.
The trial and conviction of Galileo sent a warning to scholars across Europe. It was unsafe to study the handiwork of God by direct observation, and doubly unsafe to draw inferences from such observations.
Incidentally, I just happened to have refuted the inaccuracies in the TFA here. Perhaps you can point some of these out to others in this forum? Or add to them over time? I, too, have experience with both (as well as with MGI-photosuite, Macintosh Draw, Windows Paintbrush, xfig, and Corel Draw, and more I've probably forgotten), and am absolutely baffled at how so much flat-out Bull gets spread about one little program. I'm getting to where I have a pet theory that Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is the source of all of it!
But anyway, you being a user of both, I would highly value any input you could provide in the comments sections of my blog's tutorials (scroll down the menu on the left, they're there). I'm fine with porting Photoshop. I'm *not* fine with the mythology going around.
This argument is the one I have a hard time wrapping my brain around. Tell me, why aren't toilets shaped more like diapers, since 100% of the users learning toilets graduated from diapers and are expecting the same interface? How did cars ever catch on, since 100% of users new to cars had grown up with horses and buggies and expected the same user interface. How do you suppose people getting trained to fly Stealth Bombers can ever manage, when the interface is so different from the cars they've been driving?
Speaking of spamming: for about the 1,000,000th time, Here's the CMYK plug-ins for Gimp. Yeah, one of those non-existant plug-ins the ignorant jackass in the TFA asserts do not exist for Gimp.
Here. What irks me, is that 90% of the complaints about Gimp are complete fallacies. And blowhards like Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols are working against those of us who simply want to educate people. By all means, I would like to see Photoshop ported. Of course, I could care less if people don't like the Gimp. It's a free world; use what you want. But I don't like the mythology that keeps people in the dark.
Looks like you, too, could stand to have some misconceptions cleared away about the Gimp. Scroll down for the Gimp Info center halfway down on the left. Is this the LAB stuff you're talking about?
OK, I'll bite. Do you have a link to someplace where a Gimp developer dismisses experienced users in the manner in which you speak? By the way, I already refuted the TFA's ludicrous claims yesterday Mainly because as soon as I saw an anti-Gimp FUD hack job, I knew it was a sure bet it'd get posted to /.
I say again, I'd be only too happy to see Photoshop ported. Perhaps the Adobe people will see the demand and cave. But hating Gimp for reasons mentioned in TFA is like saying you don't like cars because they lack steering wheels, tires, and motors.
And I suppose the users of FOSS image editing tools in this article let their families starve.
So to recap: you come on as an anonymous coward to flame somebody for writing tutorials so the person who wants to learn *can* learn. Whose time is worthless, again?
What is it, exactly, that Photoshop does for you? Read your mind and draw the image on the screen while you sit back ten feet with your arms folded and meditate? So there's lots of little windows instead of one big one. So most of the functions are accessible with a right-click to the canvas. What's the big deal?
Does this help to at least clarify some of why it's that way?
OK, I'll bite. What is so terrible about Gimp? What can't you do in Gimp? I've been writing about Gimp and making tutorials about Gimp at my blog (see signature) for a while, and inviting people to ask questions about it. Your input could help. Not flamage, mind you. Input.
Like with any of these plug-ins? By the way, perhaps next time we should be careful taking the word about FOSS from a site with Microsoft ads all over it.
Could somebody, anybody, anybody at all, explain how this absolutely insane misconception got started? Gimp has plug-ins. It has always had plug-ins. You can write more of your own plug-ins using the Scheme-like script-fu language. SEE?
Have you tried this Gimp derivative? It has support up to 32-bit.
You mean like the serious image editors in the screen shots in this article? Or are movie studios not "serious"?
No, I could care less about your karma. It's clear, for whatever reasons, that you're committed to screaming down all FOSS no matter what. Dime a dozen...
Do any of these help?o rial-2-lines.html o rial-3-selection-and-filling.html o rial-4-gradients.html o rial-5-bump-mapping.html o rial-6-text-tricks.html o rial-6-text-tricks.html o rial-7-tiles.html
http://techn0manc3r.blogspot.com/2006/01/gimp-tut
http://techn0manc3r.blogspot.com/2006/01/gimp-tut
http://techn0manc3r.blogspot.com/2006/01/gimp-tut
http://techn0manc3r.blogspot.com/2006/01/gimp-tut
http://techn0manc3r.blogspot.com/2006/01/gimp-tut
http://techn0manc3r.blogspot.com/2006/01/gimp-tut
http://techn0manc3r.blogspot.com/2006/01/gimp-tut
If not, I invite people to post in the comments for any other tutorials they'd like to see. Unfortunately, misinformation like the TFA actively undoes the work I try to do.
I've written a series of tutorials here. I did thing to address some of what you express. I've noticed that Photoshop has such a massive market share that people simply cannot concieve of doing it any other way, hence the "fog" you speak of.
It's obviously not made for print due to the lack of CMYK-support
I owe Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols a black eye. Here, despite the flat-Earth-misinformation, is a CMYK plug-in. For Gimp. It's a work-around, due to copyright issues.