[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice
Subject:    Re: KOffice:: Krita TRUNK vs. Eigen
From:       James Richard Tyrer <tyrerj () acm ! org>
Date:       2008-09-14 6:06:51
Message-ID: 48CCA9FB.7010303 () acm ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:09:20 am James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>> Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> ...
>>> James and I go back a long time. He's been telling me I was 
>>> coding the wrong application, and worse, an application he didn't
>>>  have any use for, since 2003, in mail, on mailing lists, on the 
>>> dot and on every website he could find that discussed Krita.
>> Interesting rhetorical device to distort what I said so that you 
>> can claim that you are right and I am wrong.
> 
> I don't see any such "rhetorical device". What I see is Boudewijn 
> presenting your words accurately but in the worst possible light, 
> which is not the same as distorting them.

Seems to be the same to me.

> It may not be entirely fair, but nor is it dishonest.

Rhetorical does not mean dishonest.  But, yes, he is being intellectually
dishonest when he seeks to take what I said as negative when it was not
said as negative.

> Sometimes the most unfair thing somebody can do is to accurately
> summarise your own words back at you.
> 
If he is being unfair, then the summary is not accurate, and it isn't.
> 
>> What I said were three things which are still true:
>> 
>> 1.	Most users of an office suite have little use for an application
>>  such as Krita.  What they need is a basic paint and drawing 
>> application to do basic design.  I guess that this does mean that 
>> Krita is the wrong application for what many users need.
> 
> How do you know what "most users" need? Intuition? Convenience survey
>  of a few friends? Random surveys of users? How many people, and what
>  sort of users?
> 
I don't think that most office work flow requires that type of artwork 
that BR wants an application for.

> It's probably telling that Microsoft Office only includes the most 
> primitive graphics applications, and OpenOffice only a relatively 
> rudimentary vector graphics app. But is this because users have no 
> need for such an app, or are users not demanding such an app because 
> they lack experience with such apps?
> 
Not just MS-Office and OpenOffice but others as well.  They include an 
application for the type of graphic artwork usually needed in the 
office.  Not really surprising, is it?  As BR admitted in his latest 
interview, Krita isn't really the type of app you would find in an 
office suite.
> 
>> 2.	Krita will not do what I need.  I need a drawing application 
>> that allows total digital control of all operations like the old 
>> and outdated Xfig does.
> 
> Do you get any use out of Krita? Why are you using a bitmap painting 
> application if what you need is a CAD-like vector application like 
> XFig?
> 
Up until recently, it has been too unstable for me to use.  I use The 
GIMP and it has served me well.  If another application has more 
features that I find useful, I might switch.
> 
>> 3.	I see no reason to have two separate applications (Krita & 
>> Karbon).  It would be more useful to me to have a single 
>> application that would do both pixel and vector graphics.
> 
> Pixel and vector graphics programs have been separated into different
>  applications since at least 1984 when Apple brought out the first 
> Macintosh with MacPaint and MacDraw. There are some graphics packages
>  that combined the two, like the obsolete SuperPaint and the still 
> existing Canvas. The two are different-but-related, like text editing
>  and word processing.

Actually, KOffice already has the code for both, it is just that it is 
in two separate applications -- that is in my point.

> I can see advantages to including a rich set of vector graphics on a 
> pixel canvas. Doing it the other way around is generally less useful,
> but still a feature worth offering. However, the complexity cost for
> both the developer and user is significant: a full-featured 
> pixel+vector graphics program would have the complexity of Photoshop 
> and Illustrator combined (or if you prefer, Gimp and Xfig, although 
> hopefully not with the UI of either of them). To present that in a 
> single consistent UI without overwhelming the user would be 
> challenging, to say the least, and it would be a application aimed at
>  power-users. Whether such an advanced tool belongs in an office 
> suite is open for debate.
> 
While I see your point.  You didn't get mine which is that the reason 
you would use vector graphics functions in a pixel application is the 
same reason that people use both Xfig and The GIMP to draw pixel 
graphics.  The reason is that it is very awkward in The GIMP to draw 
things.  This has improved in recent versions, but it would still be 
much easier to be able to draw paths with digital control and then 
stroke and/or fill them for anti-aliased pixel rendering.

-- 
JRT

____________________________________
koffice mailing list
koffice@kde.org
To unsubscribe please visit:
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]