[CREATE] Focus:

[Yuval Levy]

ciao a.l.e

On August 29, 2010 04:42:12 pm a.l.e wrote:
> ciao yuval,
> 
> > a - the general public
> > b - graphics enthusiasts and professionals
> > c - users of PG (proprietary graphics software) who do not know about
> > LG
> > d - users of LG who do not know about PG
> > e - users of LG who refuse to use PG
> > f - users of PG who refuse to use LG
> > g - users of LG + PG
> > h - enthusiasts and professionals who do not yet use any graphics
> > software (e.g. newbies)
> 
> thank you very much for your very interesting contribution.
> 
> 
> personally, i'm really missing a website which talks to b (graphics
> enthusiasts and professionals) and c (users of PG who do not know
> about LG) and to
> 
> i - users of PG who have heard about LG
> j - users of PG who have already been using LG without knowing it and
> now want to check what else can the LG offer

I can't name any of these websites, but there are tons of them I bump into 
when I google for topics such as "layer masking tutorial".  They are of course 
very strongly biased toward PG tools, like most magazines are biased toward P-
ware (with the laudable exception of some German magazines.  After six years 
in Canada I almost forgot the venerable c't).

Users can be finer segmented until the alphabet is all used.  I was trying to 
keep the concept simple.

 
> k - professional users of LG

I made the mistake and introduced "professional" in the original categories.  
My mistake.  I'd like to take it back.  I feel the concept of "professional" 
has been watered down completely in many areas.  More appropriate IMHO is 
"commercial".  The typical example is the "pro" photographer sitting at 
Wal*Mart and waiting to take a passport photo for you, with "professional" 
equipment.  Asked if they are "trained professionals", they are instructed to 
answer that they are trained to use the professional equipment on the location 
(which means: they never studied photography or anything else; they are just 
minimum-wage people trying to make a living and have been taught which buttons 
to push without thinking.  Nothing against them, but to me the word "pro" is 
void of any other meaning than a purely marketing one.  I've seen amateurs 
mastering the tools and producing images that are gazillions of light years 
ahead of the crap produced by some commercials - because the masters invest 
themselves, take pride in their job, strive for excellence: while many 
commercials just look after their own bottom-line, and consider every extra-
effort to invest against the extra-revenue that it would generate.  No 
immediate revenue? forget about the extra effort.  End of rant. Sorry.

 
> presenting us as cheap copy of what people think are professional tools.

Repeat the rant about professional, this time applied to tools not to users.  
It is up to us how we present ourselves.  It has nothing to do with whether we 
list the other tools or not.  There are fine tools on both side of the divide.  
And there is crap on both sides too.  

Actually this runs deeper:  we should trust ourself more, and stop believing 
the story that some PG guys try to sell to justify their business model.  We 
are not cheap.  We are not copies.  I can point to plenty of examples where PG 
have actually copied LG.  And I don't need to remind anybody here that copying 
(with proper attribution and if applicable redistribution under same license) 
is what we encourage and they deterr.  Copy freely, copy lavishly.  If you 
copy me, please improve and give back.

Yuv
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/create/attachments/20100830/ac73c1fd/attachment.pgp>