#Alternative gimp linux how to#
#Alternative gimp linux Patch#
#Alternative gimp linux full#

It wasn't until later that the two really diverged, with KDE having the 'make it as configurable as possible' philosophy and Gnome having the 'we're UI experts and know what's best for you little users' philosophy, borrowed from Apple but without the well-funded team of real UI researchers.Īnyway, even with the different philosophy towards users, that could have been done in a single project (i.e., Gnome3 can be a KDE skin), or two closely-related projects (i.e., Gnome3 is a fork of Plasma but otherwise shares the same libraries), reducing a lot of duplicated effort. Other than that, the two projects were largely very similar, except that Gnome insisted on using C instead of C++ (and then replicating all of C++'s features in C). There were no social or cultural barriers when the KDE/Gnome war started. In the KDE/Gnome fiasco, many of the devs there were employed full-time by companies like RedHat to work on it. Here again, it's frequently not the case. >merely an observation that when people work on project for the enjoyment of it, rather than for a living The KDE/Gnome fiasco, for instance, all started because of an argument about a license. This is understandable, but frequently not the case.

#Alternative gimp linux Patch#

>if I have strong feelings on how a particular piece of software should work, and it's made clear that the project leads disagree and any patch to implement such will be rejected Wayland didn't come about until later, and even then, *it was made by the same people*. For many, many years, X.org was the only real display server that anyone used, after they all abandoned XFree86 for good reason. There's nothing 'ironic' about it at all. >It's somewhat ironic that you've included X.org in that list given (a) its history, and (b) how much time and effort has been spent in recent years on creating something to replace it.

#Alternative gimp linux how to#

GIMP could learn a bit from the commercial products it competes with about how to present itself to the rest of the world. Having good politics/aspirations is very important, but before you can turn people into contributors you need to turn them into enthusiastic users. I get that GIMPists are very proud of how community-driven it is, but the quality is extremely variable to the point of weakening the project.

#Alternative gimp linux full#

The landing page declares it's great for 'High Quality Photo Manipulation, Original Artwork Creation, Graphic Design Elements, Programming Algorithms' - but none of these categories lead to their own pages full of compelling examples. There are good screenshots in the Release Notes, but that's not somewhere new users are likely to head to immediately. I find it equally strange that there are almost no screenshots on the website, outside of the docs and tutorial section, and those tend to be partial screenshots for highly specific exemplar purposes. There's some sort of weird inferiority complex when your graphics software is 27 years old and you're still saying 'look we used it for one of our website assets.' It's like telling people at the birthday party that you dressed yourself. To celebrate this nice birthday illustration (fully drawn within GIMP