On 9/27/05, Alan Horkan <horkana@...44...> wrote:
Comparing inkscape to other software is useful but I think it is more useful to compare it to commercial software with a large user base rather and see what might help bring Inkscape to the widest possible audience. Comparing to Xara has some benefit but it is a minor product which Corel lost interest in but still imitates many aspects of Corel software, and even Corel is far behind both Adobe and Macromedia in terms of market and overemphasising it (as you accuse me of over emphasing Adobe) threatens to marginalise Inkscape. If you are going to imitate, at least imitate the winnners not the also ran.
Of course I don't care much which commercial packages _you_ consider worthy or worthless. I can judge them for myself, thank you very much. I'm pretty sure there are Xara and Corel fans other than me to refute what you say above. I just wanted to point out that your "winner takes all" mentality seems to permeate many of your other opinions and assessments, making them much less useful.
Frankly, it baffles me that with all the rants about Illustrator's atrocious usability and clumsiness, both on this list and everywhere on the net, you still keep championing it as the sole example for us to measure against. I think I'd rather stop trying to convince you, it seems pointless by now.
You chose to make the Xara X into a long winded subjective diatriabe about all the things you thought were great about Inkscape.
You are wrong, and everyone can see this easily by going to that page. It's a long and detailed list of differences between the two programs, designed for those who want to make up their own minds:
http://wiki.inkscape.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Xara_X
Stop and ask yourself why people are ranting
In fact, I don't see anyone here ranting, except you. Where are all those rants that you're speaking about?
Gimp gets tons of them, and deservedly so. But we are not Gimp.
We are different.
-- bulia byak Inkscape. Draw Freely. http://www.inkscape.org