3 ms·
I'm glad people are being so critical. Back when I started using The GIMP (v1.x), when people (including me) said Photoshop (v4) had a superior interface, peopl
by imd 17y ago
I'm glad people are being so critical. Back when I started using The GIMP (v1.x), when people (including me) said Photoshop (v4) had a superior interface, people rushed to The GIMP's defense. The GIMP has gotten more Photoshop-like since then, and no one's complained, so apparently the defenders were blind apologists. Not everything should be like Photoshop, but I think doing it Photoshop's way would be better than this way.
- jcl 17y agoFrom the minutes of a GIMP developer conference meeting not too long ago: The user scenarios would be written down in advance. These scenarios should not be changed afterwards because it would lead to too much discussion. The goal is to cut down all this discussion. The product vision is to be used as a filter. For example: If someone comes with the request that the UI of GIMP should be like Photoshop, we can simply state: We are not trying to be like Photoshop, because we have a different product vision. http://developer.gimp.org/gimpcon/2006/index.html http://developer.gimp.org/gimpcon/2006/index.html I think defining their software in terms of "not being Photoshop" hurts their software. Photoshop is free to add any features which they think will help users edit images, while the Gimp limits itself to the features that Photoshop has not already chosen.