The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter KÃhlmann
> <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:34:46 +0100
> <eq0781$e85$00$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Jeanette Russo wrote:
>>
>>> Hans Schneider wrote:
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Make the world your palette.
>>>>> Make it on your favorite OS.
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | The movie industry has shown high demand for such software to be
>>>>> | ported and, after a long wait, companies such as Autodesk and
>>>>> | Softimage have ported fully supported Linux versions of their
>>>>> | applications for their dedicated customers.
>>>>> `----
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.jeffreyjonesgraphics.com/
>>>>
>>>> I am thinking this post is a troll one?
>>>>
>>>> It say Gimp is finished:
>>>>
>>>> "The GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program) has been the most successful
>>>> replacement for a high-end image editing application but ever since
>>>> development slowed in the project, the application has had no real
>>>> improvement"
>>>>
>>>> Also it means that photoshop will never be happens on Linux:
>>>>
>>>> " Even after such bold moves by other companies, however, there is
>>>> still
>>>> no indication that we will ever see the popular Photoshop ever selling
>>>> on the Linux market"
>>>>
>>>> And this pixel is what in terms of prices? it is not free. But what it
>>>> gives us that Gimp does not?
>>>>
>>>> I am confused. Why is this good for the Linux artists when they can use
>>>> gimp?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It seems he is saying gimp development is stagnant. This application is
>>> easier to use for someone who is used to photoshop.
>>>
>>> Also it appears to do cmyk something Gimp is not able to do.
>>>
>>
>> Gimp can do CMYK since quite some time
>
> Yeah, but don't tell the Wintrolls that; it'll confuse them. Or
> was it the Applesauce crowd? ;-)
>
I find it hilarious that those nimwits still have the audacity to repeat
that crap. After all, the CMYK for Gimp is not that new. And their dumb
claim has been refuted several times here in cola, yet they are stupid
enough to still repeat it. Guess Erik F has imbred way more than one could
have known
--
Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.
|
|
