CMYK is pretty important to people that actually send jobs to printers for flyers, brochures, marketing materials, etc.
True, but if you are doing that, then you are probably, well, making money from Photoshop, like the previous poster said.
There seems to be this strange mindset with the Gimp developer community that RGB is the only game in town
It's not so much that as it is that there are issues with licensing and patents, especially regarding Pantone.
Glad to see you agree; GIMP isn't a replacement for Photoshop, it's a replacement for Elements.
The problem is that people use Photoshop, a complete and mature set of editing tools designed for people who know what a wratten number is (which is why I've never needed a photoshop class/book, though I've no doubt I would benefit from one), often used at levels between Elements and MS Paint. And that is the user the GIMP developers code for. And the reason otherwise bright people claim that GIMP is a replacement for Photoshop; they conflate poor use of software with the software itself.
There are pieces in my (well, one) fine art portfolio that one simply can't make in GIMP. Claiming that it's "limitless" (not directed at parent - he sounds like he knows what he's talking about) is intellectually dishonest. I would love real competition for Adobe, but alas.
or we start treating it like a war
instead of a police action
It would be a lot easier to treat what is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan like a war instead of a police action if they were actions conducted between states with distinct geographic bases rather than an efforts to suppress the elements of populations which are dissatisfied to the point of violence with the regimes established over the regions in which those populations exists.
I doubt we could have won WW2 under the rules we use now
Yes, its generally difficult to win an interstate war if you treat it as a counterinsurgency action. Of course, the reverse is also true. Applying the methods used to win WW2 to the operations in Afghanistan or Iraq wouldn't end the insurgency in either place.
...AND it would promote the
.NET platform to a wider audience who might then be more willing to try other .NET apps after having a good experience with Paint.NET.
If they know what that means. Everybody that I tell about the software is intially confused.
Me: "It's called Paint.NET."
Them: "Oh, so www..."
Me: "No, sorry, it's not a website. It's a program you install."
Me: "It's built on a thing called the
Me: "But it's really good!"
How about I develop a game that caters EXACTLY what the Chinese government would like, and then they use their overpowered censorship and propoganda to promote it and only it...
GIMP isn't ready for serious users because its called GIMP.
I'm not familiar with the negative association you mention, but I do have a negative association with the word "Gimp": it's slang for a crippled person. Just what I need: software that hobbles along!
One thing that Linux seriously needs to get over is the need to name everything with acronyms. Mozilla didn't call their browser the Standard Link-browsing Universal Gui, because SLUG is a horrible name for a browser. And GIMP is a horrible name for... well, anything.
Then the icon is this crazed badger or something. I'm confused from the get-go.
The complete lack of marketing savvy is one thing that gives Linux the "not ready for prime time" public image. At least Ubuntu makes software that doesn't scare people.
That won't work. The problem starts at step 2. If the top layer isn't reflective, then as it "boils away" it will convert incoming energy from the laser into heat efficiently enough to destroy any reflective layer that might be under it.
Even if that weren't the case, you'd still have a problem at step 3, because your reflective surface will still absorb too much energy. An expensive mirror that's new, clean, and in perfect condition would still absorb 5% of the energy hitting it in lab conditions. In the air, in combat conditions, coated with goo from the stealth paint that just got burned off of it, the reflective layer wouldn't last even a measurable fraction of a second.
You've been Berkeley'ed!