So, recently an article hit Slashdot about a new version of the GIMP that will provide statistics to assess its usability. Probably not a bad idea, but most of the comments complaining about the GIMP's user interface start with:

"I'm a Photoshop user and..."

Well, I'm from the camp that never used Photoshop before trying the GIMP; in fact, the first time I encountered the GIMP was bundled with Mandrake Linux. Granted, I don't use the GIMP much, but I've been able to find just about everything I needed after a few minutes of poking around, and there is a wealth of tutorials available anyway.

Therefore, the only argument anyone's really making with that preface is "the GIMP isn't Photoshop." I say rightly so. I think diversity in software is paramount. When you resign to one way of doing things, you are sacrificing the potential for another method to be better for a specialized task. Or even for that other method to be fundamentally better in light of new technologies. For instance, one user commented that the GIMP's multiple window layout makes it well-suited for multiple screens or multiple desktops. The argument against that was that Photoshop was better suited for single screens, and most people only have one available; but hey, I can plug a monitor into my laptop. I may find it convenient to use that capability if and when I start doing heavier image editing. And with Mac OS X Leopard's "Spaces" on the horizon, more and more people will be exposed to the multiple desktop paradigm.

In fact, the X Windowing System has a pretty long history of multiple desktops, and the GIMP being developed primarily under UNIX, its multiple window paradigm makes a lot of sense.

Inkscape, on the other hand, could use some improvements, but then, I'm really just interested in adapting it to touch-screen interfaces.