Modern source projects (was Re: difference between Quick

Well, I am no expert when it comes to image manipulation, but I like to think I'm a decent photographer (both film and digital). I've messed around with all three of these applications, and there is no comparison. Both Aperture and Photoshop are worlds better. I find it hard to believe that Gimp will ever be on par with either one. Further, not everyone has the skill (or desire) to dink with the source when they run into a problem. There's that whole time = money factor, and even if I do have the skill to fix a bug on OSS, it might be fruitless when I can buy the commercial app that's better and be done with it. ________________________________ From: Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org Sent: Wed, April 13, 2011 3:15:35 PM Subject: Re: Modern source projects (was Re: difference between Quick I have no idea. As is well-known, I do not own a digital camera. Yes I would, actually. Having the source code means I can fix it (or find somebody to fix it) if soemthing goes wrong. I would much rather had that than have to do battle with some commercial software company (I have had the misfortune of doingthat a number of time). Give me the choiuce between the ability to fix something myself (having the source code, shcemaitcs, etc) or unlimited manufactuer 'support' and I will pick the former every time. And I suspect I will have many fewer problems I've had plenty of problems with commercial C compilers, I've never had one with gcc.... -tony