[bad_user]

     it shouldn't be compared to Photoshop.

But it is compared to Photoshop.

     However, it is NOT a Photoshop killer.

I don't think anybody here was talking about that. I also never argued against Photoshop having some advanced functionality that Gimp lacks or more resources available (it's a defacto standard after all). I don't like it when people are putting words in my mouth.

[activedecay]

That last comment wasn't directed at you specifically, just look at how many times the phrase "photoshop killer" is used in the comments on this article.

Yeah okay, you never argued against Photoshop having more resources available, but you criticized someone for saying there should be no comparison between GIMP and Photoshop because of "bullshit and lack of substance" while at the same time serving up your own steaming pile of bullshit: "The difference between Gimp and Photoshop is that while Gimp gives you all the tools you need, it doesn't have an idiot mode, so it expects of you to know what you're doing." I was just pointing out that there's a lot more differences than "idiot mode".

[bad_user]

It was a reaction to the parent claiming that GIMP is a toy. You can say many things about GIMP (unpopular, hard to use, ugly), but I don't think it classifies as a toy no matter the perspective.