Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

On 12/28/24 12:04 PM, chrisv wrote:

186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
 

chrisv wrote:

>
Farley Flud wrote:

>
The Photoshop lackeys are always the instigators.  They seem greatly
distressed by the fact that some folks do not worship their idol.

>
And, golly gee, the free product isn't as good as the expensive
product.  What a "tragedy".

>
   LibreOffice beats the crap out of anything M$ offers
   these days.

 I wouldn't know.  Both are more than sufficient for my lightweight
use.  Obviously I choose to use the cheaper one.

In a manner of speaking, it doesn't really matter too much for casual users, for most of the productivity gain is through becoming practiced with the UI and its underlying workflow design philosophy.
When there's a steep learning curve present for actions beyond the most basic, there's going to be user-based preferences to stick to the known, even if it isn't theoretically ideal...and pragmatically, that 'muscle memory' is going to be hard to beat from a productivity/throughput standpoint.

Word processing and spreadsheets are examples of highly mature
technologies.  FOSS excels in these areas.

Hopefully, they've gotten far better:  I had a horrific experience with a contractor using {not-MS}office some years ago, which ended with their contract being terminated.  I'd have to search the archives for the specifics, but it was some glitching with the FOSS spreadsheet not charting the project's performance data correctly ... and it didn't help that a pair of PhD's didn't notice that the glitch resulted in their amplifier design having negative gain.  No, not negative feedback, but negative *gain*:  if that's what was what was being paid for, we would have simply bought an attenuator off-the-shelf.

GIMP is basically as good as PhotoShop.

 Again, I wouldn't know.  I've assumed that PS is better, based upon
its popularity and price.  I would expect evolving technology would
favor the payware, when it comes to outright performance.

Which is fine, but then attempts to compare products for assessing things like value should therefore be deferred to those who actually have relevant experience with the tools in question.
-hh