Or, you know, you could not drive so fast that it would warrant a speeding ticket in the first place... and then the number of speeding tickets you get in any type of car would all be identical.

I guess you haven't heard my point, which is that how GIMP is "far from being comparable" is more of an issue of the critical importance of missing features more than sheer number, because many of the missing features can be categorized under a single much broader heading such as "non-destructive editing, and the relatively few distinct ones which remain will get done soon. If you happen to believe that they are not going to get done anytime soon (which is the only reason I can think of to suggest why you would disagree with what I've been saying), please consider how, exactly, it is that you think that you know that, and then reconsider what I've been saying. I suggest that all you'll be able to do at that point is fall back to saying that GIMP isn't necessarily comparable to Photoshop featurewise right now, because it doesn't do a relatively small number of things which are highly important to you, and which is not something I've ever disputed

You need contact/exchange of body fluids.

Right... *CONTACT*... this includes things like sweat, which can happen anywhere on the skin, so yes, it can be transmitted simply by touching someone who has it.

As I said... most people will probably be able to easily come up with a small number of critical points that are major shortcomings of GIMP, and the perception that GIMP is "nowhere near photoshop" may be heightened by the invaluableness of those features, not by their actual number. But considering that virtually all of those needed features are waiting on but an important rewrite which is largely complete, and will definitely be part of the next version of GIMP, I'd suggest that GIMP being comparable is not as far off as some would say.

I haven't been saying that you should be using GIMP today if it doesn't meet your needs. I've only been suggesting that it's not nearly as "nowhere close to photoshop" as some would think.

90% of all of that yellow and red is singularly dependant on GEGL... and GEGL support will be fully implemented in the next release.

I'd suspect that even if they didn't limit it to just data and SMS, you wouldn't even notice it any more than you notice other peoples conversations in the cabin unless you were paying particular attention to listen for it.

I expect that if I am able to use my phone on a plane, I will probably not be spending more than 5 minutes on it for an entire flight. I do not want to use a phone on a plane because I want to spend most of the flight talking to somebody who isn't with me, and I highly doubt that's how it would be for most people. Most people these days are content to simply text anyways, so I doubt people talking on their phones would actually ever be a problem on a plane.

I named three.. And I readily admit GIMP is not perfect, nor comparable to certain other image editing software where you really might need such features that it offers. l My point, however, is that GIMP is lacking in this manner not so much in terms of the number of features, but in the overall critical importance of the relatively few features that it admittedly *IS* still lacking... and it's worth noting that there is really only one major thing that is holding almost all of them back, and that particular feature will definitely be fully integrated into the next major release of GIMP (significant work on it was being done even before the current 2.8 release, but owing to the extensiveness of the changes involved, they were postponed for the upcoming release).

Layer effects is actually a specific category of non-destructive editing.

And I'm not saying that everyone should use GIMP now if it doesn't meet your needs... I'm only saying that people who've been suggesting that GIMP is, in terms of the actual number of features, sorely lacking compared to photoshop are mistaken. The problem is not quantity, it is that the few features which *ARE* missing are critical to some people,

And that's okay.... I'm just pointing out that GIMP is getting there.

But hey.... if you want to continue to shell out hundreds of dollars every few years for an upgraded version of photoshop indefinitly, who am I to argue that you should keep your money?

You, and others who have responded, have illustrated my point... nobody's named more than two features that Photoshop has which GIMP does not currently, and nearly all of the desired features could be summarized simply as wanting non-destructive editing capabilities, which is something that is already on GIMP's development roadmap, primarily waiting on what amounts to a major feature/design change that will definitely be fully implemented in the next major release of GIMP (actually significant progress was made in this area even before 2.8 came out, but because of the extensiveness of the necessary changes to fully implement it properly, and ensuring that the software was not made unstable by such changes, it was postponed for the next version). Once those changes are finally all in place, expect some truly wondrous and amazing things to happen for GIMP.

If you are genuinely interested knowing what is in the pipe for the future of GIMP, you may be interested in taking a look at this for a summary of features that are slated for the next or upcoming versions of GIMP. You may notice that many tasks are dependant on completion of GEGL implementation (something that is definitely slated for being in the next release). Once GEGL support is fully in, significant features such as user-defined color spaces, non-destructive editing, and smart objects will become feasible, and are already planned for a future version of GIMP

As for things that GIMP will do which Photoshop doesn't, I can refer you to obvious fanboyish pages such as 10 reasons that GIMP is better than photoshop, but of course, if GIMP doesn't do what you actually need, then I can appreciate how any or even all of those points can be far from convincing. Ultimately, the only reason to use GIMP over Photoshop depends entirely on whether GIMP can do what you actually need. If it can, then the difference in price alone can easily be a determining factor. If it can't, well... then it can't. But that doesn't mean it never will. And you should use what you need, for now. I'd encourage anyone to keep an open mind for the future, however.

Damnit... hit submit instead of preview. The next major release of GIMP is version 2.10, not 3.0. My bad.

GIMP simply doesn't come close to Photoshop for professional photographic work

Care to run off a list of ways that "GIMP doesn't come close"? If it's really so bad, it shouldn't be that difficult to name at least a dozen or so...

I won't refute that GIMP still needs some work, both in terms of overall usability, and to be at least on feature-parity with commercial grade software like photoshop, but I expect when actually you try and explicitly list the alleged many shortcomings of GIMP, you might find that it's a lot closer to being fairly comparable to Photoshop than you first thought.

In actuality, I expect that enumerating the shortcomings of GIMP will not be in quantity, but in terms of a relatively small number of particularly desirable features that many may perceive as critically important in such software. And I'd be willing to bet that of these features, many may already be in the pipe, and slated for GIMP 3.0 (although there is no ETA on that... and it might still be a while yet)

Except that rebuttal is only what Steier *SAID*, and part of what he was saying isn't even actually true (it's true that he said it, of course, but what he was alleging is untrue) so the rebuttal is not logically valid.

It is true that Tesla was offering test drives. This is not illegal.

It is true that State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and that Tesla does not have a license to be a dealer in Iowa.

What is *NOT* true is that by offering test drives, Tesla was acting like a dealer, because no provision in Iowa requires that one *BE* a dealer to offer test drives.

You keep quoting what Steier said, except that what he was alleging about Tesla "acting like a dealer" is not valid because no provision requires that one be a dealer to offer test drives. Repeatedly quoting somebody who has been clearly shown to be factually incorrect about this point does not make it any more true.