From: Bryce Harrington <bryce@...69...> Reply-To: inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net To: inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Inkscape-user] My impressions on Inkscape Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 01:12:33 -0800 (PST)
These people are _more than welcome_ to continue using Adobe software. Adobe puts out good products and, while expensive, they're very capable and much more powerful than what's available in Open Source today. If the artist has invested their education into Illustrator, then _no one_ is asking them to change. It's never been Inkscape's goal to clone Illustrator, nor to try to win over their userbase (well, maybe one or two).
However there are still others for whom Illustrator is not an option, either by preference (such as users of software that Illustrator has pushed to the sidelines), availability (it doesn't run on Linux), or principle (some people believe strongly in Open Source). These are the types of people Inkscape shoots for.
We recognize that a lot of people know Illustrator, so we will occassionally adopt an approach that is similar to it, but we try to keep that to a last resort. Inkscape was founded for the purpose of exploring new ideas in drawing tools, not to merely clone something.
Designers have no choice but to learn what is available. As I said before, the overwhelming majority of schools offer nothing but adobe stuff. I myself too studied adobe but later I learned Freehand, which is much better thought out program. Most of the reviews, I read about it confirm this. Freehand is a more recent application than illustrator; when it was created the developers took a good look at adobe (I assume this) and they decided what is worthy for adapting and what is for discarding. This way they created an awesome application, which is distinct but still easy to adapt even for those who use adobe. Inkscape, in some ways, is in a similar situation as Freehand was a few years ago. It is new, it doesnt have to worry backward compatibility issues and free to think out a development strategy which can make it flexible (in terms of usability) and in the mean time it can devise its own character. In my view, it makes lots of sense to take a good look at the commercial programs, adapt what is great in them, and discard the rest. This way of approaching to developing Inkscape would not make it a clone; far from it. This is just a smart way of taking advantage of the technology, which is already available for use. Take as an arbitrary starting point the ancient Greek art. The Romans came, took from the Greek art what fitted to their cultural tradition, enriched it and further developed it, in line with their social and empirical aspirations. This way they developed a distinct roman style. Then the Christians came, took the roman art and transformed it into what we now call Christian art. (This is a bit simplified description of the events nonetheless it shows my point) None of these styles can be called clones. This is how things work in life. Even the graphical desktop evolved along this line. Say, first was the Mac desktop. Then Microsoft took (stole?) the idea and made Windows out of it. Now, it is Linux that strives to measure up (at least in terms of usability) to Windows. And I think when the dust settles the Linux desktop too will develop into a very distinct graphical interface.
Regard, jozsefmak
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user