> "And Gimp's fonts are worthless."
> Um, TrueType fonts? The *EXACT SAME FONTS* used on Windows? How,
> exactly, are they worthless?  They are the exact same fonts!  And I
> don't mean, "clones to look the same" or "copies" -- Linux uses the
> exact same TrueType font files that Windows uses.
>
> "Now maybe Gimp is good for doing some small things.  But it in no way
> compares to Photoshop/Illustrator."
> Actually, it in every way can compare to Photoshop.  It in no way
> compares to Illustrator. Maybe you don't know the difference, and if
> that is the case, then why do you think you are qualified to comment on
> any of this?

This post is not in reference directly to your post, JDS, but just a
general comment:

Somewhere earlier in these threads are a reference (which I'm not willing
to look for) regarding GIMP's User Interface.  I have to agree with the
assertion that the GIMP's original user interface was difficult (or at
least not as user friendly) as I would like.  But for quite some time
there has existed a 'hacked" version of the program, called GIMPShop.

The user interface has been redone, and it now can look like, and act very
much like PhotoShop.  Here are some links for anyone interested:

http://freshmeat.net/projects/gimpshop/ http://www.gimpshop.net/
http://plasticbugs.com/index.php?p=241
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/17629
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPShop




Regards,

Valentin

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]