Warren Baird wrote:
> I didn't see a lot of direct answers to this question though --- what is
> Krita's reason for being?   What will differentiate it from things like Gimp
> or MyPaint
> 
> 5 years ago, there were a lot of gaps in the Gimp, and Krita seemed targeted
> to fill those gaps.
> 
> From my position on the outside, it really looks to me like the Gimp is
> gonna fill 'em itself before Krita 2 is stable enough to be used...  The
> Gimp already has relatively decent colour space support, and it sounds like
> higher bit depth support is coming down the pipes.
> 
> Maybe it won't have quite as flexible a brush model as Krita --- but is that
> a sufficient differentiator?
> 
> I'd be curious as to what people think the 'mission statement' for Krita
> ought to be.

As I see it, gimp = PS replacement, krita = painter replacement. At 
least I haven't seen the focus on real media in gimp that we are 
starting to see in krita.

> Or maybe that was already established and I missed it in my skim of the
> thread...

If it was, I think I missed it to, and I was pretty well 
reading-not-skimming.

-- 
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
-- 
I picked up a Magic 8-Ball the other day and it said 'Outlook not so 
good.' I said 'Sure, but Microsoft still ships it.'
   -- Anonymous (from cluefire.net)

_______________________________________________
kimageshop mailing list
kimageshop@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kimageshop