This is a follow-up on an irc discussion we had last week on where we want to 
go with Krita.

The situation is this: right now, MyPaint is a better ArtRage replacement than 
Krita and Gimp is quite quickly becoming a better Photoshop replacement than 
Krita.

MyPaint is fast, uses 16 bits/channel, supports ora, has a nice brush engine 
(although it's not too hard to make a paintop for krita that uses MyPaint's 
brush lib, it's definitely going to be _slow_). There are a couple of issues 
with its user interface, especially for tablet users since it relies on 
keyboard shortcuts a lot, but nothing really problematical. I actually use 
MyPaint myself more often than Krita nowadays!

Gimp now has layer groups, is integrating gegl, going to get a single-window 
interface in the next release and with all the work being done by Peter 
Sikking, the user interface is getting really polished. There are even people 
working much better brush dynamics for Gimp.

So -- what is the story about Krita? What can make Krita compelling to the 
artist? I think it makes sense to individually identify why we are personally  
working on Krita and what we want to get out of it in the first place, and to 
use that to develop a vision for Krita that we can work towards.

It also makes sense to identify the really big problems in Krita, both in 
relation to that vision (so that will have to wait) and problems we know about 
right now, like:

I'll try to formulate my own thoughts tomorrow.

-- 
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org
_______________________________________________
kimageshop mailing list
kimageshop@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kimageshop