OpenOffice

[strobe]

Not only is GIMP NOT a photoshop competator, it's not free. It costs blood, sweat, and tears. I'm not going to entertain suggestions that GIMP is a photoshop editor without references to specific applications, not a vague reference to so-called professionals. I sent a GIMP user a smoke image and he coudln't even see it. Woops, I guess color calibration has it's uses, even for professionals (good grief). No denying that it's a "worthy contestant"? I deny it!

If by native you mean it has been compiled for Mac OS X, then it's already native. If by native you mean it can be considered a mac app, that will never happen. If by native you mean it doesn't use X11, that is a really weird definition which serves no purpose but to muddle issues. GIMP is as native as it'll ever get.

As for Aqua widgets, you completely lost your bain on this one...

Example 1: "From what I've seen all you'll end up with is the same interface the X11 version " --You posted this.

Example 2: "The best you'll have is GIMP with Cocoa windows which is hardly the same thing. Same old GIMP interface with possibly different widgets. " --You posted this as well...

On both these examples I explain that all you will end up is CRAP and thus don't BOTHER!!! Aqua widgets without the expected behavior of that appearance is counter-productive, therefore all you would end up with is a total waste of energy. If you interpret those statements to mean I advocate use of Aqua widgets, you've lost it completely.

As for porting Photoshop, it's no more complicated than Illustrator. However Illustrator was put on the fast track despite it's craptitude because Macromedia and Deneba were porting competing products. Photoshop has no competator, so they have little incentive to port it unless they could charge money for it.

 

[c.i.t]

Originally posted by strobe
Not only is GIMP NOT a photoshop competator, it's not free. It costs blood, sweat, and tears.

Ha..uhh..i'm not even going to try to touch that..heh..blood sweat and tears...heh..

I sent a GIMP user a smoke image and he coudln't even see it. Woops, I guess color calibration has it's uses, even for professionals (good grief). No denying that it's a "worthy contestant"? I deny it!

So you are backing up your claim that GIMP is not a compeitor on the fact that it [at times] has trouble opening up Photoshop files? That is a point, but it is weak. There are many other aspects that make two pieces of software compeitors other then compatability.

If by native you mean it has been compiled for Mac OS X, then it's already native. If by native you mean it can be considered a mac app, that will never happen.

Sigh..by native I mean fully carbonized/[cocoaized?]. Who would say it is native because it is considered a mac app? your really not making any sense here...

If by native you mean it doesn't use X11, that is a really weird definition which serves no purpose but to muddle issues. GIMP is as native as it'll ever get

How is that a weird definition? It is native for it uses the quartz graphic layer, and not the xfree86 layer. Issues are only getting "muddled" because you are not actually listening to my arguement..I have recognized your points and discussed them, but for some reason I have to keep on saying my points over and over again.....

As for Aqua widgets, you completely lost your bain on this one...

Example 1: "From what I've seen all you'll end up with is the same interface the X11 version " --You posted this.

Example 2: "The best you'll have is GIMP with Cocoa windows which is hardly the same thing. Same old GIMP interface with possibly different widgets. " --You posted this as well...

On both these examples I explain that all you will end up is CRAP and thus don't BOTHER!!!

And by citing these examples I was showing that the only person that mentioned (not recommended) the use of aqua widgets is you! No other user in this post even said that they would want to use them...only you dude...but once again, you have completely missunderstood me because of your stubborn outlook on this whole thing...once again..a forum is to discuss ideas...don't reject an idea once it is proposed because it conflicts with yours...

Aqua widgets without the expected behavior of that appearance is counter-productive, therefore all you would end up with is a total waste of energy. If you interpret those statements to mean I advocate use of Aqua widgets, you've lost it completely.

Here we go again..no. I did not interpret the statements to mean that you advocate the use of Aqua widgets..once again, you have totally took my arguement and made it do a 180 turn...no no no. I did not inerpret the statements to mean that you advocate the use of Aqua widgets.....

As for porting Photoshop, it's no more complicated than Illustrator. However Illustrator was put on the fast track despite it's craptitude because Macromedia and Deneba were porting competing products. Photoshop has no competator, so they have little incentive to port it unless they could charge money for it.

I have talked to a friend who works at a company that consults Adobe in the porting of their apps to OS 10. He has told me that it is more complicated then Illustrator...I'm sorry, but I am sure that he has more of an idea then you....I agree with you on the advantage of porting Illustrator first to compete with Macromedia and Deneba. Just to note though, Adobe is going to charge for their os 10 upgrade, thus they do have an incentive....

Once again...you misunderstood a majority of what I said..and I know its not because of my writing, I have shown this post to many other of my friends and they have understood what I was saying...its just that you don't seem to grasp it..So basically I'll try to make this clear:

-I am for the fully carbonized/cocoa_version of GIMP. Not the X11 port.
-I am not for the use of an Aqua look on top of X11. (no aqua widgets)
-I do think that it is possible for GIMP to be fully carbonized/cocoaized (heh..). If you disagree, look at my points in my above arguements..

There. Hope that cleans it up!
(just a note: it would be easier to read your posts if you used the quote and bold tags...just an idea.)

Later strobe

 

[strobe]

There is no point to carbonizing/cocoa-ising an app if it behaves exactly the same as it did before. What exactly would you be using Cocoa or Carbon for?! What is the POINT? So you can call it 'native'?

Just linking to Carbon or Cocoa doesn't make it any more native. Gee, I guess loginpanel.app isn't native by YOUR definition.

If an application used a new API to actually gain features there would be a point. So far all I see is a lot of programmatic gymnastics.

As for the smoke file, he could open it, but he couldn't SEE it.

 

[soellman]

Originally posted by strobe
Not only is GIMP NOT a photoshop competator, it's not free. It costs blood, sweat, and tears.

Heh.. I agree, most of the software from the 'free software' movement is not in fact free. Of course it depends on your definition of free, but if the definition extends past money, then the words of jwz ring true:

linux is only free if your time is of no value

 

[c.i.t]

Originally posted by strobe
There is no point to carbonizing/cocoa-ising an app if it behaves exactly the same as it did before.

Yes there is. Once again, I'll restate what I said in other posts..
--So you don't have to install Xfree86. Don't tell me that it is easy to install and whatever. Not having to install an extra graphic layer to run an application is good. Think about it, do you enjoy loading up Classic every time you have to run a specific application? This is a more extreme case though, for to run this you have to install another graphical layer which has little optimization. Today I installed the latest Binary of Xfree86 and the latest version of XDarwin. Then I installed GIMP. Window dragging is really slow, try windowshading one of the windows, you can see it move up slowly, piece by piece.

What exactly would you be using Cocoa or Carbon for?! What is the POINT? So you can call it 'native'?

I would be using Carbon or Cocoa so you wouldn't have to run the app through the xwindows system.

Just linking to Carbon or Cocoa doesn't make it any more native. Gee, I guess loginpanel.app isn't native by YOUR definition.

Uh...this is full of misunderstandings.

1. What do you think my definition is?
2. What do you mean by linking? If you mean simply creating a front end for the app, I am against that. If you mean doing a re-write, then yes, I am for that.

If an application used a new API to actually gain features there would be a point. So far all I see is a lot of programmatic gymnastics.

Ok. Yes. It does gain a feature. The feature is that it does not need Xfree86 to run. This is good for
1. <stated above> Xfree86 is not fully optimized...
2. Graphics pro's, who don't have the time to install and download all these extra files then install them all, can have a nice streamlined program that acts the way they are used to. **

** if Xfree86 gets a nice streamlined GUI installer (graphic pro's won't sit and install it through the CLI..) and optimization is increased, then my arguements will hold little water. But until then, they are the con's to using GIMP via Xfree86..phew...

There. More mis-understandings...I recommend if you don't understand one of my points to ask, so that we don't have to keep on going back and forth like this...

 

[foo]

What about Corel Photopaint? It may not be the photoshop we are used to, but it does the same stuff with CMYK support.

 

[acidjux]

Originally posted by c.i.t

Think about it, do you enjoy loading up Classic every time you have to run a specific application?

I don't enjoy running the Classic system each time....its a good point..

Ok. Yes. It does gain a feature. The feature is that it does not need Xfree86 to run. This is good for
1. <stated above> Xfree86 is not fully optimized...
2. Graphics pro's, who don't have the time to install and download all these extra files then install them all, can have a nice streamlined program that acts the way they are used to. **

I agree...the fact that an application requires me to run/setup another separate layer would deter me from using the application..if it were carbonized...that would be a different story

Strobe, I think you have been misunderstanding most of C.I.T's statements..

 

[strobe]

Please don't compare XDarwin with Classic. Classic has to boot a complete OS and takes forever. XDarwin launches in virtually no time.

Thus the only problem is the XDarwin installer. I'd rather tackle that than try to pick up a dead project like OpenOffice Carbon which Sun dropped a long time ago.

Trying to map OpenOffice's living-in-a-vaccuum drawing and widget code to HIToolbox is not an easy task. If you're going to go through all that trouble you might as well strip OpenOffice for all useful code and write a new app. And what do you end up with? The same app youc oudl have had with rootless X11. And what do you avoid? Trying to make an easier XDarwin installer.

THAT is MY point. I hope everybody gets it now.