3 ms·

Yes, the noticeable difference is Gimp sucks!! Hats off to the Gimp development team for pulling off so many features and above all having an open-source produ

Yes, the noticeable difference is Gimp sucks!! Hats off to the Gimp development team for pulling off so many features and above all having an open-source product out there. But the problem is PhotoShop has set the expectations way too high. And I'm afraid, a non-commercial product will never be able reach that level.

sgift 16y ago
Are there any arguments why a non-commercial product (not necessarily Gimp) will never be able to reach "that level"? This looks suspiciously like "open source software is always worse than closed source!!!!!" which has been refuted more than once.
- arethuza 16y ago
  I don't think anyone doubts that for things like OS kernels, database engines, web frameworks, browsers, libraries, editors etc. FOSS software easily wins. But for end-user applications where you pay for the competition and where the typical end-users are not developers, or similar, (e.g. MS Office, PaintShop, most games) then FOSS versions seem rather poor by comparison.
  - atesting 16y ago
    Have you ever tried MyPaint? IMO a good example of a software which does its tasks very well (I'm no (digital) painter, but I've heard about graphic artists seriously thinking about switching to it... if it only had a Mac version...).
tintin 16y ago
I agree Photoshop sets the expectations high. But I don't agree that a non-commercial product cannot reach that level. Take a look at Blender.
- jkahn 16y ago
  That's probably not the best example, as Blender was initially closed-source until the creators went bankrupt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    But it's been open source for 8 years and under active development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)#Development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)#Development There can't be a huge amount of the original source left, surely?
jarek 16y ago
Just because Photoshop might have set the bar high doesn't mean the GIMP "sucks!!".

sgift 16y ago

Are there any arguments why a non-commercial product (not necessarily Gimp) will never be able to reach "that level"? This looks suspiciously like "open source software is always worse than closed source!!!!!" which has been refuted more than once.

arethuza 16y ago
I don't think anyone doubts that for things like OS kernels, database engines, web frameworks, browsers, libraries, editors etc. FOSS software easily wins. But for end-user applications where you pay for the competition and where the typical end-users are not developers, or similar, (e.g. MS Office, PaintShop, most games) then FOSS versions seem rather poor by comparison.
- atesting 16y ago
  Have you ever tried MyPaint? IMO a good example of a software which does its tasks very well (I'm no (digital) painter, but I've heard about graphic artists seriously thinking about switching to it... if it only had a Mac version...).

tintin 16y ago

I agree Photoshop sets the expectations high. But I don't agree that a non-commercial product cannot reach that level. Take a look at Blender.

jkahn 16y ago
That's probably not the best example, as Blender was initially closed-source until the creators went bankrupt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)
- anthonyb 16y ago
  But it's been open source for 8 years and under active development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)#Development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)#Development There can't be a huge amount of the original source left, surely?

jarek 16y ago

Just because Photoshop might have set the bar high doesn't mean the GIMP "sucks!!".