> The code is open, if you want your tools to do
> something different you are welcome to change it.
So there I was, deadline from the client looming and my publishing piece still wasn't finished because using Scribus takes way longer than using InDesign since it lacks key features, UI polish, and usability. Rather than purchasing InDesign and get the job done so I could get paid, I decided to take several years off work, learn software development, and improve Scribus.
Wait... do people consider that a serious argument? Have they been drinking the open source kool-aid a little too much?
It was merely listed as an advantage. You have the option of changing Scribus or paying someone to change Scribus for you. You do not have that option with InDesign.
The possibility that Scribus is a cumbersome mess (I haven't used it) is irrelevant to this point.
this is mainly a comparison to closed source - if it's not in the corporation plan - you won't ever see the change you want. And I also think that everyone should learn programming too ;) but that's another story!
I'm actually both into development and photography, and also have sort of a history in the opensource movement in my city, so I stumble into this way of thinking pretty much. I actually call it "anti-humanist" software development, because for me it serves as an excuse for developers to stop thinking about how their software affects other people with the excuse that "well they should fix it themselves... it's not that i'm an evil corporation that doesn't release source code".
> this is mainly a comparison to closed source - if it's not
> in the corporation plan - you won't ever see the change
> you want.
Replace corporation for open source project benevolent dictator and you have a counter-argument. I don't know how much experience you have interacting with Gimp developers, but they are consistently conservative and anal when it comes to interacting with actual users of their software.
Also, it's not that closed source design applications are a walled garden, Photoshop supports plugins since way before Gimp was released. I beleive it was a feature the Knoll brothers worked on from the first version.
> And I also think that everyone should learn programming
> too ;) but that's another story!
I don't beleive it's another story. Yes, basic programming should be in the curricula of secondary or maybe even primary education, in fact I beleive it is in most developed countries... But that doesn't mean everyone should be able to understand, even less modify, the code for complex tools like a raster image editing software.
> this is mainly a comparison to closed source - if it's not in the corporation plan - you won't ever see the change you want.
The thing is, that corporate plan is driven by profitability, and profitability is driven by what people want. It's just basic economics at work.
In contrast, the FOSS approach is to rely on either charity or an alternative business model. When it comes to doing the nasty but necessary hard work to make good software, neither of those has proved as reliable an incentive as being able to pay the rent.
There's a reason Adobe is so entrenched in this market -- The products are actually good. They include new features that take the OSS alternatives years to implement, if they ever do.
If someone made a Photoshop equivalent except faster, more stable, with only the core functional elements (thus, no need for slew of filters, 3d, video layers) and intuitive UI, I'd switch. And I've used Photoshop for... god it must be like 12 years.
BTW, I'm not saying it's easy I'm just saying what would get an entrenched person like me to change. There are plenty of designers I know who feel the same.
At one point last year I went all-out open source and dumped my W7 machine w/ photoshop and illustrator to switch over to GIMP and inkscape. I stuck with this configuration for about 9 months or so.
After getting through the UI differences and learning curve, I was still disappointed. Most of these apps feel like they've only been handled by causal users.
The worst memory was in GIMP working with layer sizing and floating objects, so many things were fixed and required hunting through menus or googling shortcuts to get them to resize or to place an object out of edit mode. The equivalent in photoshop is the enter key, or automatic layer boundary resizing, etc. The application does a much better job of staying out of your way.
If you're noodling about with a few photos its no big deal but the first major file I had to tackle with a few dozen layers and objects burned me out completely. I literally stood up, went to the shops, purchased a copy of windows and got my old setup back.
The secondary issue in the background of all this was the time invested to work around rendering speed issues, video drivers, wacom compatibility etc; none of which earns me any coin but needed to be resolved before doing any work. Unfortunately this will always be measured against the ease of getting Windows setup on a machine (less than half a day to a production ready box versus a solid week of problem resolution under the Ubuntu/Suse/Gimp combo).
I aim for open source usage whenever I can, and the quality is there, my main gripe always seems to be workflow. If more professionals start using it and providing feedback, yes, it will mature. However I think at this point to claim they are a straight replacement (in the case of Gimp and inkscape) is a bit short sighted when you consider the workload some of these tools support.
I just can't take anyone seriously when they call Gimp "a really solid image retouching and photo editing software".
And it's not about features (apart from the retarded "layer size" micromanagement Gimp forces on you), but the UI is so confusing and inconsistent even Photoshop 5.0 is lightyears ahead.
I'm not parent, but I learnt GIMP before Photoshop (actually really got into Photoshop in CS1) and I agree with him. GIMP just really doesn't cut it. It's kind of cute the first week or so you are into it, with it being opensource and sort of fun, but really a usability nightmare after that first impression. Also, its handling of big raster images (like 500mg tiffs which I handle really often) is really disappointing.
Disclaimer: My main use is photography. I have friends more into drawing that have different opinions.
Thank you. It tells me there is a significant enough difference.
You mentioned a technical issue, the handling of big raster images. Does it run out of memory quickly in comparison to Photoshop? What is the issue? I thought I remember gimp not being able to handle 16-bit tiffs or something along those lines.
> You mentioned a technical issue, the handling of big
> raster images. Does it run out of memory quickly in
> comparison to Photoshop? What is the issue? I thought I
> remember gimp not being able to handle 16-bit tiffs or
> something along those lines.
Its memory usage gets high enough for Windows to start trashing on my box with 4 gigs of RAM, and brings everything to a halt. It's not only GIMP's problem BTW, I have to disable thumbnails on the folders with big TIFFs because Windows itself trashes. I don't know how Photoshop avoids this lame behaviour but it does.
I haven't tried on Linux but was told it has the same problem. I won't try it because color management in Linux is a PITA even if you are only interested in calibrating your monitor, which is my only need as a hobbyist without money for a decent printing setup.
I believe support for 16bit TIFFs is already built into yet-unreleased GIMP 3, but yes, having only 24 bit colour is also another huge problem with GIMP, and totally a dealbreaker once you get serious with photography. Most prosumer flatbeds or DSRLs already take measurable advantage of 48bit colour. I didn't comment on that because the original post was on usability.
Please please remove the clouds, they detract from the reading experience.
What I'd really like to see from the Open Source Community is a Fireworks alternative. It has just the right blend between bitmap and vector editing in a speedy lightweight package.
I've been a pretty heavy GIMP user for the last 10 years or so, and I love it.
Or loved it.
A few years ago, they decided to drastically change the UI without any apparent way of changing it back (2.6 vs 2.4 -- the way the windows are layed out has changed).
I think this was probably done to make it easier for people to transition from photoshop to GIMP, but what the gimp people are neglecting is that there are lots of people, like me, who grew up using GIMP. I've probably put about an hour of photoshop time in in my entire life, all of it happening while I'm sitting at the photo shop waiting in line to talk to a tech (they have a huge wacom tablet there to play with as a demo).
Same goes for inkscape, same goes for scribus.
I think what's important to understand is that the OSS solutions aren't just for people transitioning away from adobe. There are a lot of us who have been using them all along. When the maintainers make changes to these things to make it easier for new users, they're also making it harder for us.
Yes, these programs have existed for a number of years, slowly improving and getting better. But every time I try to use them.. they feel clunky. There is just too much friction when I try to do the simple things. Maybe it's because I'm used to PS and AI, but I think Gimp and Inkscape would both be much better received if they invested more into being easy to use/ good-looking. Much like Sketchup did for 3D, where building basic models is easy and complex models possible.
While it may be possible to use these tools as a solo designer, if you work in a larger context then file interchange is a requirement. Good luck getting corporate clients to download, install, and use this stuff. Instead, they'll be asking why you can't deliver according to their specs.
Every time there is a major release I'll download it & try it out but it always ends the same.
The UI is clunky. The workflow with complex documents (lots of layers & shapes, etc) is a byzantine & obscure click-a-thon. Wacom support is glitchy. Users of the Mac version (some graphic design types run macs, btw) get to enjoy the fun of x11 non-nativeness & all the weird behaviour that brings (my 'favourite' being having to click each UI element twice: once to gain focus & then once to actually click the desired item. Grrr).
The whole thing feels disjointed & I find it hard to just get down to making images. I hate that this is the case as I would love for gimp to be a world beating graphics tool (OSS FTW, and all that), but there are just too many rough edges for it to be considered best of breed.
The problem is, who is working on an alternative open source graphics app that's better? Guess we're stuck with photoshop…
Should we compare technology with or without the ideological context in which it exists?
What if humankind got better results with an unethically (to some) produced program. Would it then be unethical to promote software or technology that would hinder our advancement, just because it doesn't promote certain ideologies that this person believes in? (This applies to any technology). Should the ideology of software be more valued than what the software itself does?
its not the cloud graphic but how you implemented it..I think what yo u meant was to use CSS to float the cloud and left middle of screen..which would have been perfect.
thanks for the idea - I guess, my design and creativity get under a lot of pressure when you get 2000 visits - I'll keep that idea in mind since i also like the idea of smooth animated background
What the hell is that floating moving group of penises? I can't read the article, my eyes keep moving to look at it. Waiting for the lasers to shoot something.
For the 100th time, GIMP is not a Photoshop replacement. Not even close. I've tried to switch to GIMP like 10 times now, and every time I download the latest version, I give up within an hour.
Wait... do people consider that a serious argument? Have they been drinking the open source kool-aid a little too much?