[CREATE] Focus:

[a.l.e]

ciao yuval,

> 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.

i'm not talking about what is better or worse, who as copied what.

but if you write that gimp is like photoshop, most people will open it
and check if they can do their tricks just the same way as in photoshop.
they are already deceived if they can't find TEH icon because it's read
instead of blue.

i won't start discussing what happens when the LG (or any software
which is not called photoshop) does the same task in a slightly
different way or misses some features.

my stand is: we should take the effort to describe what our software
does, independently of which other packages do something similar.

it helps us to avoid deceiving our potential users and helps us find a
clear direction for the future development of our own software!


this discussion started in a very promising way, but i have the feeling
that this thread is going nowhere...
it's a lucky hazard that you, yuval, in your next mail say more or less
exactly what i wanted to write and you do it in a brilliant way...
i guess i should start to read (and answer) my mails from the bottom up!


ciao
a.l.e