Re: Linux Photoshop

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

With what specific "other programs" that are not plugins do you _want_ to
use GIMP?

DCRAW, CUPS, LCMS, Imagemagik, Tex, Emacs, etc. etc.

Please give an example of how you would "use GIMP" with Emacs.

As for interfacing to other programs there are standard hooks in Windows
to allow this and any program that uses those hooks can interface to any
other
program that uses those hooks. Many Windows applications do use them.
Look up OLE and COM.

Yes, it can be done. No it is not typical of Windows applications to do
it well.

Seems to work fine for me.

What sort of "cooperation" would you like to see that cannot be handled by
OLE/COM?

I repeat the question.

That is related to the same way that typically Windows users run
whatever program they are using in full screen mode;

I still can't figure out what you're on about here. Why would one _not_
want to see as much of the image one is editing as possible? In any case,
it's one click to go from full screen to window and back.

A typical Windows mindset. I can't imagine why one would not
want more than just one program visible. Granted that I do use
two monitors, but even the one dedicated to a working
application is not used full screen. (Maybe 95% though... ;-)

Well, when I'm editing an image I'm generally more interested in editing the
image than in what programs are visible. I can't figure out why one would
want the screen cluttered with extraneous bull***.

while
people who grew up with X tend to never run anything in full
screen mode...

And I still do not understand why you attach such great importance to
this.

It is indicative of the way people look at computer usage.

No, it is indicative of individual preferences.

and Windows users make little use of multiple
desktops, making several of them available is standard practice
for a unix desktop.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with application design so again I
cannot figure out why you are on about it.

Again, it is very indicative of the way people view computer
usage. If you do it one way, your concept of application design
correctness will be aligned with that, and if you do it another
way your concept will differ.

Give an example of how this affects "application design".

It's just an indication of an overall philosophy of how to use
computers, and there are more than one such paradigms available.

Again, show how there is a real difference.

Also note that the basic filesystem structure of Windows tends
to be used in a way that to execute a particular application one
should to be in a particular working directory, with a different
directory for each major application.

And I have not the _foggiest_ notion what you are on about here. Would
you be kind enough to clarify?

In a unix environment each user as a "home" directory. From that
directory a user might (or not) make subdirectories for individual
projects. Hence, there might be a subdir for letters, another for
this and a third for that. In each of those subdirs would be the
user's data files, but there would *not* be any trace of any application.
And in any of those directories a user might invoke any application
available to the user.

The traditional structure with MS-DOS was to have a directory for
each major application. There were no "other" users, and no notion
of a "home". When the user wanted to run the spread***, the
user went to the directory where the spread*** was located. It
might not even be able to run from any other directory.

That perception of a directory structure is used with Windows,
and still influences how applications are designed and
used.google.com/search?q=exif&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
However, both systems have of course rubbed off a bit on the
others, and both have picked up some of the characteristics of
the other, often by developers that have moved from one platform
to another and who want to implement what they were formerly
comfortable with.

Uh, what part of "My Documents" are you having trouble with?

(On unix a user generally
has a directory for each major project, and may invoke a dozen
or more major apps from that directory. Projects are not
restricted to a single major application, or allowed to mix
applications only when using some sort of "integrated package.
On a unix box *everything* is an integrated package to some
degree.)

So? This is a choice a user makes. Again I fail to see what it has to do
with anything.

It has a very significant effect on how applications are
designed and implemented, and even more so on a user's workflow.

How does the location in which someone chooses to put documents affect the
design of an application unless it is designed to _enforce_ such
organization?

As with other differences, the Windows way is easier for
non-geeks to use, simply because it does not require indepth
understanding of computers. But the unix way is significantly
more flexible, assuming the user is knowledgeable.

Please provide an example of "the Windows way" and "the Unix way".

One of the, IMHO very unfortunate, results of Microsoft products
being so universal in the PC/Desktop world is that many (most?)
users tend to think that the way MS does things is necessarily
the "right" way, the best way or even the only way!

Actually, they don't. They often complain about having to keep their
documents in a user directory instead of putting them in the application
directory or the root directory or any other place they please.

Your supporting comment has nothing to do with that..

What "supporting comment"?

You also talk about spending hundreds of dollars to try a new
package--in fact most vendors of decent Windows software, including
Microsoft, have free trialware available.

Try using it for six months on your "free trialware".

Most Microsoft apps have 180 day time bombed versions.

Exactly. And then it bombs!

So? That's your six months.

Of coursegoogle.com/search?q=exif&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
one could also restructure that argument as simply stating that
to license a Microsoft product one has to spend big dollars.

For certain values of "big". Everything except the games and the
developer tools can be had with no time bombing and with multiple licenses
for $300/year with the only caveat being "no commercial use unless you are
a computer dealer".

Everything??? Regardless, why should anyone pay them $300 a year???

To get just about everything, with support, with packages delivered four
times a year? If you don't want to continue getting new stuff delivered
then stop paying the 300 bucks.

Microsoft itself has just been fined $350 million dollars for
unfair trade practices that reduce competition for their
products. While that of course does not apply directly to
Photoshop, indirectly there is little question that all such
products cost more because Microsoft stifles competition for
Windows software.

We were discussing Photoshop, not the politics of Microsoft.

Photoshop, and *everything*, is influenced greatly by Microsoft
politics.

That then would include GIMP.

If GIMP and Linux work for you then that's the tool to use. If
Photoshop
works for you that's the tool to use. If Photopaint works for you
that's
the tool to use. If something else works for you that's the tool to
use.

So you agree with *exactly* what I've been saying all along.
Nice, but why try to act as if you are telling me something new?
That's deceitful.

You're determined to find something to complain about.

Still being deceitful I see.

In what way have I decieved anyone?

Well, now, I've told you several things earlier that you still don't seem
to understand because you've repeated them again in this post and quite
frankly I think you need to give your tone-arm a nudge.

You can repeat misguided perceptions all day or all week, and
that still won't make them right.

You have not shown that any of those "perceptions" were "misguided".

Interesting that you say I don't understand, yet half of your
post was made up of "I don't understand this...".

What I don't understand is what you are on about. It like the Windows you
use was designed on Mars or something, because it has very little
resemblance to the one with which I am familiar.

But what I am seeing is that you are a typical ignorant software bigot, and
you may have the last word because it's clear that all you can do is repeat
your litany.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
.