âAs a Krita developer, Iâm not too happy comparing Krita to Photoshop. In fact, I have been known to scream loudly, start rolling my eyes and in general gibber like a lunatic whenever someone reports a bug with as its sole rationale âPhotoshop does it like this, Krita must, too!â.â
âWe develop Krita for a specific purpose: for people to create artwork. Comics, illustrations, matte paintings, concept-art, textures. Anything thatâs not relevant for those purposes isnât relevant for Krita.â
âActually, Iâm not too familiar with Photoshop. The most recent version Iâve seen was CS2.â
Also, if you were present on IRC, when the campaign was launched, youâd see Krita team wondering if the reference to Photoshop was such a good idea. It was really just a PR move. And it worked.
Oh, good to know Krita developers can also be hypocritical by using Photoshop to promote the campaign. Very nice! I like the bad people!
I really give a damn the reason why OpenSource developers make OpenSource. Is not relevant to what I said, I still maintain what I think and I said from the point of view of the users and on topic with the subject we are discussing in this thread.
When your end goal is to be used in VFX studios and the like, itâs really not a bad thing to be like Photoshop. For example, here is an artist that calls Krita sort of like Photoshop, and plans on uninstalling Photoshop and putting Krita in its place. She doesnât seem to even see switching to Krita as a sacrifice. The horror!
Krita isnât a clone of Photoshop, but as a project it responds really well to artist feedback and adjusts tools and workflows to meet their needs â thus the tools wind up being similar to Photoshop anyway. The programs are still different, but one thing they wind up having in common is efficiency. That is all the artists are requesting in the first place.
Projects like GIMP and Blender do not handle artist feedback nearly as well. Often if artists do try to make certain workflow suggestions, theyâll just be accused of requesting a clone of âXâ software. Itâs the programmer equivalent of brushing off criticism by stating âMy anatomy isnât off; itâs just my style!â Since that type of artist feedback is ignored, hardly anything winds up working how artists would have designed them to. Especially in Blender. Thus you have recurring complaints about the UI and workflow for decades.
Blender is for Blender Users. GIMP is for people who canât afford Photoshop. Krita is for artists.
Well, Iâm sorry to hear that you get such an impression, but allow me to explain a few things.
First of all, GIMP developers deliberately reused some of Psâs concepts and even implemented nearly direct clones of some Ps features. Off-top of my head: healing brush, perspective clone (vanishing point). Why? Because they make sense, benefit users, and follow projectâs vision. So your point about refusing to act on user requests of the kind doesnât stand.
Secondly, there is a huge difference between 1) requesting a useful feature that would fall neatly into GIMP-based workflow and 2) requesting a useful feature that would be a clone of a Photoshop feature and provide an inconsistent user experience. I bet the very same applies to Blender with regards to Maya, Houdini etc.
Donât get me wrong: GIMP still has a long way to go in terms of providing consistent UX. Would you like it to move further towards that goal or would you like it to get actually worse?
Last but not least, Iâm uncomfortable with your choice of words. Iâve yet to see a GIMP developer who actually accused a user of requesting a clone of a Photoshop feature. However, Iâve seen quite a few users who spoke to the team along the lines of âI want that, now do as I sayâ. Needless to say, I do not believe that this kind of communication style is going to lead to mutual benefit. But thatâs just my opinion.
âpig vs boarâ
my favorite dish
:ba:
keep fighting⌠in the end i might take both
prudent sinners defending the church
Honestly. In my opinion, private use is a matter of an individual (and usually not prosecuted or not even illegal). Ideally, in public area (commercially) you have a free choice to use what you wish by legal standards, it is how one shows respect to society & itâs values (it is our common agreement), while governmental practice / public office should be based on open source code and as such should never be dependent on a closed source of any commercial company.
if i LIKE the movie i DO support it with my wallet and BUY a dvd
but if the movie is CRAP!!! like jj Abrams reboot if ST
â I am a BIG Star Trek fan - conventions and all
but the new movies are CRAP and i will NOT buy them
99.99% of what is coming out is CRAP
now i WILL buy " the Martian "
I have an interesting question. As I understand it a lot of developers hate the sale of used games because they donât actually get any money from the sale of used games.
Now if I buy a used game am I taking the bread off of the developers plate? Iâm using their product, Iâm not paying them and I might otherwise be paying them if the used version were not available. Am I stealing from the developer when I buy a used game?
Buying things secondhand has been going on for millenia.
In the 10th century a man bought a bucket from his neighbour, not paying the bucket maker from the next village for the bucket heâd originally made for that neighbour
Yeah, but thatâs not the point. The point is that buying a used game leaves the creator of that product in the same situation as if you had pirated it. To the developer it makes no difference if you bought it used or pirated it either way you have it and they donât get paid.
If someone sells on something, whether that be a game or a flowerpot itâs the makers hard luck. Itâs the nature of selling things. The difference is that the new buyer has a legitimate right to own it (the seller loses the right to own it) but the pirate does not. The seller may wish to set a price in the knowledge that it will be sold on with a potential loss of an additional sale, or they may think the price would then be too high to attract that original sale, thus losing out
Again thatâs not the point. If using a product without paying the creator of said product starves their family than used game sales cause as much hardship to the developer as piracy. Itâs not a question of legality, the end results are exactly the same. You have the product and did not pay the developer. You would otherwise pay the developer if the used/pirated product were unavailable. Therefore used games are as damaging to the industry as piracy, maybe even more so due to its perceived legitimacy.
In Blenderâs case, Iâm not sure if the situation is quite as bad as it was a few years ago.
We got nice improvements to the modeling tools, a series of long overdue features like the absolute grid snap, the work on the new widgets system that will reduce the need to push values in the last operator panel, other small features that just makes the workflow feel nicer, ectâŚ
To me, things appeared to start turning around when the Phabricator system replaced Fusionforge as the front-end for the developer website (combined with the creation of new rules on this forum to enforce civility and useful discussion). Thereâs still a bit of room for improvement, but itâs definitely not heading towards a cliff.
I have an interesting question. As I understand it a lot of developers hate the sale of used games because they donât actually get any money from the sale of used games.
it is called the " doctrine of first sale "
I bought this âbookâ therefor I !!! own !!! it !!! and can use it for toilet paper
or
sell it used
the same goes for a CAR
i OWN it and i can resell it
games however are a bit different â MOST of the time
you LEASE!!! a game ( for a one time payment)
You DO NOT!!! own it
this IS NOT!!! a sale !!! it is a leasing agreement
The thing to note is that the leasing aspect is a lot more practical with digital goods than physical goods (because digital goods can see an unlimited amount of copies created and destroyed instantaneously).
Itâs simply not practical with physical goods (the storage requirements and shipping costs alone would be astronomical if everyone had to return their item to you after a time). It also becomes downright impossible if the product in question is a consumable (which covers anything from a bag of chips to a decorative candle). I havenât even mentioned the issue of physical good wearing out or degrading over time (or at least falling out of a sell-worthy state).
Ah, apologies, but I wasnât trying to be inflammatory using the word accused. Most of what I wrote there I had Blender in mind anyway, as I pay a lot more attention to its development than GIMP. Iâve been accused 3 different times of requesting a Maya clone, despite never using Maya.
Anyway, I guess to try to restate it in a nicer way: Visions tend to be immutable and donât usually have much input from users/artists in the first place. If someone critiques my art, and I just state it isnât part of my vision, Iâm just going to repeat the same mistakes again until I actually address what Iâm doing wrong.
Most FOSS projects tend to be built via the devs vision. Krita is much more being built via the artists vision. I think that is why Krita is making such enormous gains.
Did you actually read what you written there? The point is if the software is bought, then itâs irrelevant if itâs been sent on second-hand. If you obtained a pirated copy of anything and then passed it along, then yes, the developer loses out twice. Itâs the same situation as thieving from a store on your local high street in that situation.
Again thatâs not the point. If using a product without paying the creator of said product starves their family than used game sales cause as much hardship to the developer as piracy. Itâs not a question of legality, the end results are exactly the same. You have the product and did not pay the developer. You would otherwise pay the developer if the used/pirated product were unavailable. Therefore used games are as damaging to the industry as piracy, maybe even more so due to its perceived legitimacy.
Youâve said âthatâs not the pointâ twice now without really explaining why. Youâre twisting the argument to make sense in your mind. The point theyâre making is that stuff gets bought all the time, and then gets sold on down the line (sometimes centuries ahead if you want to go down with artefacts) but the original seller / creator gets zilp. If the original item gets stolen, then itâs tough break and hopefully the law will help the sod get his items back, but itâs a tough break if it gets stolen, and gets sold on with no way of tracking either way.
How is it damaging the game industry anyway? They should be more concerned with making new products or make a living out of selling old ones like virtually every other business on the planet has to do. Look at Blockbuster; they did it with movies before they went bust.
You you had a group of 10 friends that needed a program, one of them could buy it and then they could sell it to each other whenever someone needed the program. That way all 10 could be using the program and yet the producer only gets paid once.
