Image on front page of ubuntu.com has Adobe metadata in it

[PatrickMay16]

Hey guys.

I just noticed that the image on the front page of ubuntu.com (the one with the smiling people, and the guy with 'DELL' on his shirt) has adobe metadata in it. This means it was made not with free open source software such as GIMP, but with Adobe Photoshop or something similar that is made by adobe, which is closed source and non-free.

Should ubuntu be, as they say, eating their own dogfood? What do you think about this?

[PryGuy]

So what?

[karellen]

??
and this should mean...:confused:

[Rinzwind]

Hey guys.

I just noticed that the image on the front page of ubuntu.com (the one with the smiling people, and the guy with 'DELL' on his shirt) has adobe metadata in it. This means it was made not with free open source software such as GIMP, but with Adobe Photoshop or something similar that is made by adobe, which is closed source and non-free.

Should ubuntu be, as they say, eating their own dogfood? What do you think about this?

So what?

Oh and you do not know who made it (maybe it was a Dell employee that sent it to a Canonical employee).

[fuscia]

shouldn't there be a fat guy with a system76 teeshirt in that pic?

[Sidster]

methinks they photoshopped the "dell" in afterwards. Those look like the regular Ubuntu models...

I gotta go with PatrickMay16 on this. I think its just bad business... :(

[23meg]

You may want to file a bug and see how it's received.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website/+bugs

[fuscia]

Those look like the regular Ubuntu models...


they all look like apple employees.

[PryGuy]

So what?

Oh and you do not know who made it (maybe it was a Dell employee that sent it to a Canonical employee).Or the site is maintained by a third-party company

[mrgnash]

It's not that big a deal, but I can't see why they wouldn't use Gimp :(

[PatrickMay16]

To people thinking 'so what', I understand how you feel. However, one way of looking at it is they're using competing stuff rather than their own stuff. People could think 'Isn't the stuff you're trying to promote good enough?'. It's like Microsoft promoting their windows server technology but hosting microsoft.com on Red Hat with Apache.

[PrimoTurbo]

Yeah I also think this forum needs to use open source also, not vbulletin.

[guitarmaniac]

Yeah the "Dell" logo has only been on there a little while.
The Feisty CDs have the same pic on the front and the Asian dude in the blue v neck does NOT have a dell logo on his shirt there.

[Babbage]

I agree, of course they should have used open source software to alter the image. Practice what you preach, as they say. I'd like to know what are the people in the photos, models, friends or employees? Who are these people? Personally I was surprised at the Dell logo inserted on the t-shirt. I think it takes away from Ubuntu's web site home page; far too corporate and impersonal for me.

[Simran]

shouldn't there be a fat guy with a system76 teeshirt in that pic?

Agreed !

[Adamant1988]

Hey guys.

I just noticed that the image on the front page of ubuntu.com (the one with the smiling people, and the guy with 'DELL' on his shirt) has adobe metadata in it. This means it was made not with free open source software such as GIMP, but with Adobe Photoshop or something similar that is made by adobe, which is closed source and non-free.

Should ubuntu be, as they say, eating their own dogfood? What do you think about this?

I don't blame them for using Adobe's photoshop/whatever to edit and improve those photos.. the gimp is terrible..

[mozetti]

To people thinking 'so what', I understand how you feel. However, one way of looking at it is they're using competing stuff rather than their own stuff.

Last time I checked, Canonical was making an OS alternative and not image editing software. Ubuntu is giving more people the choice of another OS; GIMP gave more people the choice of another quality image editing program.

Sure, ideally everyone at Canonical would use only FOSS to be 100% promoting that concept. But the bottom line isn't forcing everyone to use FOSS -- that would be the same as forcing everyone to use closed-source software. The bottom line is having the ability to choose the right tools for you -- if that tool is Windows XP or Adobe Photoshop, then so be it.

Put me in the "so what" crowd, because this is a little bit ridiculous.

[kanem]

The bottom line is having the ability to choose the right tools for you -- if that tool is Windows XP or Adobe Photoshop, then so be it.
If XP or Photoshop are the "right tools" for Cannonical, then they are being deceitful. Because they've been telling us for over two years that an Ubuntu desktop is the right tool.


Put me in the "so what" crowd, because this is a little bit ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is that a salesman would try to convince you that a product is worth your time, when they don't believe it's worth theirs. You can't sell Pontiacs while driving around in a Ford.

I don't think this is something to get too worked up over, but it is a faux pas.

[shen-an-doah]

It's like Microsoft promoting their windows server technology but hosting microsoft.com on Red Hat with Apache.

Or maybe like Hotmail being hosted on servers running BSD...

:lol:

[mozetti]

Because they've been telling us for over two years that an Ubuntu desktop is the right tool.

No they haven't. They've been telling us it is a tool that you can use, and in many cases it can be the right tool. AFAIK, they've never said Ubuntu is the OS for everyone and everything. And again, how does using Photoshop (a program) equate to believing Ubuntu (an OS) is not worth their time?

[karellen]

this discussion is rapidly declining to a pointless debate

[zugu]

I would choose Launchpad anyday over Bugzilla.
I would choose VBulletin anyday over PhpBB.
I would choose Photoshop anyday over GIMP.

Each one is better that the open source competitor, that's how I feel about them. Maybe the Canonical guys feel the same.

[awakatanka]

Edit : Was all ready posted by some0ne else........

[kanem]

No they haven't. They've been telling us it is a tool that you can use, and in many cases it can be the right tool. AFAIK, they've never said Ubuntu is the OS for everyone and everything. And again, how does using Photoshop (a program) equate to believing Ubuntu (an OS) is not worth their time?
First paragraph on Ubuntu's site (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu):

Ubuntu is a community developed operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. Whether you use it at home, at school or at work Ubuntu contains all the applications you'll ever need, from word processing and email applications, to web server software and programming tools.

Saying truthfully that Ubuntu has "all the applications one ever needs" and using software that isn't available to Ubuntu are mutually exclusive actions. Again, I don't think it's that big of a deal, but still. If I led a company and were considering using Ubuntu, I'd really want to know why their product isn't good enough for them to use for their own website.

[karellen]

First paragraph on Ubuntu's site (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu):


Saying truthfully that Ubuntu has "all the applications one ever needs" and using software that isn't available to Ubuntu are mutually exclusive actions. Again, I don't think it's that big of a deal, but still. If I led a company and were considering using Ubuntu, I'd really want to know why their product isn't good enough for them to use for their own website.

have you ever heard of marketing & advertising? you should know that NO os contains all the applications you will every need. it's plain obvious. and speaking of using photoshop for that image...why not use something better if you can?

[rickyjones]

Wow... No offense, but some people need to relax a little here.

The whole "you must use this opensource application at all times otherwise we don't like you" mentality is one of the reasons I feel that people are afraid of Linux and Opensource in general. Just my thought on it.

[Babbage]

this discussion is rapidly declining to a pointless debate
True, then again this is the cafe..:)

[.Morpheus]

Yeah I also think this forum needs to use open source also, not vbulletin.

Dude...

vBulletin is THE BEST forum software around. What you want them to use? phpBB? We would get hacked in no time. And to the first guy..So?

Ubuntu is linux for Human Beings Not Linux for *nix/FOSS/GNU nerds. Who cares if its open source or closed source. Photoshop is better than GIMP, I even install it on my ubuntu using Wine.

Honestly, I don't care if they used Frontpage to make this site. As long as Ubuntu is better than Windows and easier to use than other distros (Arch, Slackware), I will use it.

[karellen]

Dude...

vBulletin is THE BEST forum software around. What you want them to use? phpBB? We would get hacked in no time. And to the first guy..So?

Ubuntu is linux for Human Beings Not Linux for *nix/FOSS/GNU nerds. Who cares if its open source or closed source. Photoshop is better than GIMP, I even install it on my ubuntu using Wine.

Honestly, I don't care if they used Frontpage to make this site. As long as Ubuntu is better than Windows and easier to use than other distros (Arch, Slackware), I will use it.


The whole "you must use this opensource application at all times otherwise we don't like you" mentality is one of the reasons I feel that people are afraid of Linux and Opensource in general. Just my thought on it.

I'm on your side guys :)

[PatrickMay16]

Wow... No offense, but some people need to relax a little here.

The whole "you must use this opensource application at all times otherwise we don't like you" mentality is one of the reasons I feel that people are afraid of Linux and Opensource in general. Just my thought on it.

I understand what you mean. I'm not against the use of non-open software; my feeling here is that the fact that ubuntu.com themselves aren't using ubuntu themselves is not a strong testimonial for ubuntu.
Like Kanem says, it is a faux pas.

[Brunellus]

Yeah I also think this forum needs to use open source also, not vbulletin.
The forums run Vbulletin because there are certain features--notably the mailinglist gateway--that apparently only Vbulletin offers.

[zekopeko]

It's like Microsoft promoting their windows server technology but hosting microsoft.com on Red Hat with Apache.

didn't microsoft use linux as there web server OS because Win NT sucked? i think they only switched after Win 2000.

[Anthem]

this discussion is rapidly declining to a pointless debate
It started as a pointless debate. I'm not sure it declined at all.

Even if we assume that Canonical is morally obligated to use GIMP (which I would never say), what makes us assume they did all of the artwork themselves?

[mech7]

Who cares there is no replacement for most of Adobe software.. Gimp is still awfull

[forrestcupp]

Well, here's another branch that's still on topic: How do you view the metadata? I tried just looking at the properties, and didn't see anything about Adobe.

[matthinckley]

I understand what you mean. I'm not against the use of non-open software; my feeling here is that the fact that ubuntu.com themselves aren't using ubuntu themselves is not a strong testimonial for ubuntu.
Like Kanem says, it is a faux pas.

How do we know they are not using ubuntu? I thought photoshop would install in ubuntu under wine

[Hex_Mandos]

I'm not outraged, but it irks me. Ubuntu's brand relies heavily on the Free (and not just Open Source) philosophy (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/67)(unlike other desktop Linux offerings lilke Linspire or Xandros).


Richard Stallman is the man I admire most in the free software world. Nobody else has so clearly articulated, so beautifully argued for the freedom to change your own software and the freedom to share it. I’m absolutely convinced it is free source, not “open” source, which is at the heart of the innovation that will carry free software to ubiquity.

SABDFL has criticized Red Hat and Novell as having an business plan based on "offering Free Software in essentially proprietary terms" (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/77): I'm just thinking, why not have binary drivers installed by default when Canonical is using a proprietary program (most likely running on a proprietary OS) for their website? PS is definitely better than Gimp for professionals, but Gimp is good enough to modify that pic.

I wouldn't make a scandal over it, as it's a very minor issue. But it's completely contrary in spirit to many things said by SABDFL in the past. It's probably just a minor slip, but it IS a slip.

[Lux Perpetua]

Well, here's another branch that's still on topic: How do you view the metadata? I tried just looking at the properties, and didn't see anything about Adobe.
If you view the file in a hex editor like GHex from the repositories, you'll see the text "Adobe" near the beginning. You'll also see "JFIF," probably indicating the format, and "Ducky," signifying I don't know what. I can't read any more of it.

[PatrickMay16]

Well, here's another branch that's still on topic: How do you view the metadata? I tried just looking at the properties, and didn't see anything about Adobe.

I don't actually know of any programs that would show the metadata... However, there is a hacky way of seeing it.

Save a picture off ubuntu.com, like the one with the guy who's got the DELL shirt. Then

cat file.jpg | less

And you will see amongst the garbage characters 'Adobe'.

[notwen]

This wouldn't be an issue if we only knew the type/flavor of dog food of which Ubuntu may or may not be eating. *nod*

[forrestcupp]

I don't actually know of any programs that would show the metadata... However, there is a hacky way of seeing it.

Save a picture off ubuntu.com, like the one with the guy who's got the DELL shirt. Then

cat file.jpg | less

And you will see amongst the garbage characters 'Adobe'.

So why did you go to all the trouble of doing this in the first place without even knowing?

[A_POET]

um who cares about metadata?


im new to ubuntu (kind of) and i use 'adobe' products...in ubuntu using vmware. how do you know they didnt do the same?




how many users are going to check/care for metadata?


i know i dont care. people who come up with these oh it has adobe metadata so this is wrong etc are the same weirdo evangelists that give linux a bad rep. just because you can live in your own farty smugness doesnt mean you have to scorn those who want to use adobe products. i mean, the company you buy the computer charges you for hardware right? adobe products are like hardware components to me, tools for specific jobs. albeit if i think adobe is fairly priced, you open up another can of worms.....



instead of worrying about adobe metadata in jpegs on a website, go help the gimp developers ;)

[PatrickMay16]

So why did you go to all the trouble of doing this in the first place without even knowing?

WTF. It's not exactly troubling to post stuff on a forum. Someone on 4chan.org's tech board posted the DELL shirt pic thinking it was funny, and another guy commented that it had adobe metadata. I thought that was interesting so I started this thread. And I did check for the metadata before posting the thread; by looking at the file in a hex editor, and seeing the 'Adobe' text.

[forrestcupp]

WTF. It's not exactly troubling to post stuff on a forum. Someone on 4chan.org's tech board posted the DELL shirt pic thinking it was funny, and another guy commented that it had adobe metadata. I thought that was interesting so I started this thread. And I did check for the metadata before posting the thread; by looking at the file in a hex editor, and seeing the 'Adobe' text.

That's cool. I just thought you were the original guy that found this out and posted it. That's why I was wondering why you were looking at the metadata to begin with.

[troymcdavis]

.

[daynah]

It's bad business if people on 4chan are making a deal out of it. It doesn't matter whether it's about choice or not, or whether onr actually is better or not. If someone points at Gore and makes a big deal over his lifestyle, it honestly doesn't matter whether he's using a lot of energy or not, he's got to cut back to help his career. Similarly, this should prove to Canonical that there are people with no lives and thus they should be paranoid of such people.

[BuffaloX]

I would love to one day be able to say Gimp is better than Photoshop.
But it seems that day will never come.

Gimp is good enough for most people, but Pros use what gets the job done, and they convert slowly, because they know their tools inside and out, and it takes a lot of time to learn a new tool at similar level.

[Burgundavia]

The website (ubuntu.com) was done internally. However, the artwork is stock photography and stuff from outside agencies. This means that the Adobe metadata may actually merely from the outside photo agency, rather than from the Canonical.

Corey

[zugu]

Nice to see 4channers here :) Anyone on /b/ ?

[PatrickMay16]

The website (ubuntu.com) was done internally. However, the artwork is stock photography and stuff from outside agencies. This means that the Adobe metadata may actually merely from the outside photo agency, rather than from the Canonical.

Corey

However, Adobe metadata is also found in "ubuntulogo.png", which appears on the top left corner of ubuntu.com. Specifically, it seems the program being used is Adobe ImageReady.

http://www.ubuntu.com/themes/ubuntu07/images/ubuntulogo.png

[saulgoode]

However, Adobe metadata is also found in "ubuntulogo.png", which appears on the top left corner of ubuntu.com. Specifically, it seems the program being used is Adobe ImageReady.

http://www.ubuntu.com/themes/ubuntu07/images/ubuntulogo.png
Actually, all of the files in that directory were created with ImageReady.

[CarpKing]

Nice to see 4channers here :) Anyone on /b/ ?

First rule et cetera.

Anyway, while my feelings on this aren't too strong, it would be nice to hear some assurance that they are at least trying to switch to open-source solutions.

[tengil]

The website (ubuntu.com) was done internally. However, the artwork is stock photography and stuff from outside agencies. This means that the Adobe metadata may actually merely from the outside photo agency, rather than from the Canonical.

Ah, but then Canonical should seriously consider changing agency :-) I think it's bad for business both the image/adobe thing and the vbullitin. I also think the Dell logo shouldn't be there in the first place...

[spamzilla]

Honestly, does it matter?

Who's to say Ubuntu even made the image? I expect someone from Dell made it and gave it Ubuntu.com to use...

[bruce89]

I remember the distribution logo SVG was 374KB in size, lots of JPEG data in it for some reason. It was made with illustrator.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tangerine-icon-theme/+bug/40549

[EdThaSlayer]

Maybe the guy who made that picture was rushed, so, you know, he forgot to change to Ubuntu on his dual-boot system. Never mind. :(

[freakboysystem]

It probably isn't canonical that supplies and maintains the website probably some web developer. God U People!

[Ebuntor]

I remember the distribution logo SVG was 374KB in size, lots of JPEG data in it for some reason. It was made with illustrator.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tangerine-icon-theme/+bug/40549

Seems you're right. All the .png logos on the Artwork wiki (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Official) are also made with Adobe ImageReady.

That's just so hypocritical, even the official Ubuntu logo, no less, was made with ImageReady, non-free software. :? I see no reason why the logo couldn't have been made with a open source application.

I don't understand why everyone is talking about the GIMP. It doesn't matter if Photoshop, ImageReady or whatever app is better than the GIMP, it has to do with the fact that it's really hypocritical. Especially with Mark Shuttleworth talking about the advantages of free software at just about every speech he gives yet the logo of his the product he's promoting is the opposite of what he's talking about.

Of course I'm not saying it's Mark's, Canonical's or the webmaster's of ubuntu.com fault. And it isn't obvious at all but it's the idea behind it.

It's the same as Al Gore flying around in his jet telling everyone they should stop using so much energy.

The only excuse I can think of is that the artist(s) wasn't working for Canonical.

[ticopelp]

ZOMG panic.

[Anthem]

It doesn't matter if Photoshop, ImageReady or whatever app is better than the GIMP, it has to do with the fact that it's really hypocritical.

. . .

It's the same as Al Gore flying around in his jet telling everyone they should stop using so much energy.
It's not even remotely hypocritical. Al Gore says it's immoral to do something that he himself does. Mark has never said that it is immoral to use closed-source software, he's said that Free software will always be superior over the long haul because of its many advantages. His take is remarkably similar to that of Linus Torvalds:


The thing is, at least to me personally, Microsoft just isn't relevant to what I do. That might sound strange, since they are clearly the dominant player in the market that Linux is in, but the thing is: I'm not in the ''market.'' I'm interested in Linux because of the technology, and Linux wasn't started as any kind of rebellion against the ''evil Microsoft empire.'' Quite the reverse, in fact: from a technology angle, Microsoft really has been one of the least interesting companies. So I've never seen it as a ''Linus versus Bill'' thing. I just can't see myself in the position of the nemesis, since I just don't care enough. To be a nemesis, you have to actively try to destroy something, don't you? Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
I can't believe we're discussing this. The whole concept of this thread is ridiculous.

[shen-an-doah]

The only excuse I can think of is that the artist(s) wasn't working for Canonical.

This seems the likely explanation. Making a logo is pretty much a one-time thing, they probably just hired an artist and that's it. There wouldn't really be a justification to have a graphic artist on staff...

[Ireclan]

I usually don't comment on threads over a page in length. I think I'll make an exception for this one.

If Canonical was given the image in question, then I suppose it's OK that it was made with an Adobe product. When you collaborate with someone, you try to be as accommodating as possible, which DOESN'T mean forcing your collaboration partner to use software that they may be unfamiliar with (ie the GIMP). It would seem, however, that even if this were the case, Canonical still needs (not MUST, but NEEDS) to answer for the apparent presence of Adobe's handiwork on their distribution logo and PNG images in the Artwork Wiki. I find it unacceptable that Canonical would promote free software and then turn around and use a proprietary package. That is hypocritical. If you promote free software, you should also use free software, unless their is no other alternative or the alternative lacks the features you need (in the case of the proprietary forum software we use). I myself have not used the GIMP, so I cannot say whether it could handle the job of producing the images in question. But it is of at least one person's opinion that it could have.

In summary, I think this should be looked in to. You can't promote something you are not willing to use. Canonical needs to realize this, and either change their software or their stance.

[Ebuntor]

It's not even remotely hypocritical. Al Gore says it's immoral to do something that he himself does. Mark has never said that it is immoral to use closed-source software


I agree, if you did read my post carefully I didn't say Mark ever stated it is immoral to use closed-source software. I said he's promoting it.

EDIT: And it doesn't have to with being immoral or not to use free/open or property/closed source software. (as I already explained in my previous post) It has to do with Mark promoting this concept while the logo of the product and the pictures on the website of that product are the opposite of that very concept.
That by definition is hypocritical. (Note: I'm not saying Mark or Canonical are hypocrites. (on the contrary))

However this doesn't seem to be the case at all, as shen-an-doah already stated it prolly has to do with an artist who was hired. :) Makes sense when you think about it. I'd prolly hire an professional artist for making a product logo too.

[RAV TUX]

they all look like apple employees.

Those models don't look human at all.

[23meg]

In summary, I think this should be looked in to. You can't promote something you are not willing to use. Canonical needs to realize this, and either change their software or their stance.

See post #7 (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=2711211&postcount=7).

[Ireclan]

Since no one else has bothered, I filed a bug out of concern. The link is https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website/+bug/118559, and comments about its wording and tone are welcome!

[DoctorMO]

Who cares if its open source or closed source.

I'm not sure you understand what such a candid middelist approach your taking. It isn't a factor of if you personally should use the best tool; it's really weather you care about the people around you enough to not want to have your hands tied when it comes to helping your neighbours.

Personally I think anyone who promotes proprietory software is either woefully ignorant, middelist extremist or a heartless jerk.

As for the OP, it's a faux pas and they should correct it but only out of their own volition since we can only point out how hypocritical this small problem is.

[Ebuntor]

Since no one else has bothered, I filed a bug out of concern. The link is https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website/+bug/118559, and comments about its wording and tone are welcome!

I was meaning to write a bug report but I see I couldn't have done it any better. :)
The explanation is of the problem is excellent as well as your conclusion however I just have a few comments:

In the line: "According to these members, this would indicate that these images were made not with the GIMP program, but with Adobe Photoshop and related products."

Photoshop should be Imageready. We know for certain it was made with Imageready from the hexadecimal data.

I'd replace all the comments regarding the GIMP with "open source software", "open source image manipulation software" something like that.
It's not specifically that the GIMP should have made the pictures, any open source app would suffice. (of course they'd used the GIMP but that's besides the point)

[Ebuntor]

I'm not sure you understand what such a candid middelist approach your taking. It isn't a factor of if you personally should use the best tool; it's really weather you care about the people around you enough to not want to have your hands tied when it comes to helping your neighbours.

Personally I think anyone who promotes proprietory software is either woefully ignorant, middelist extremist or a heartless jerk.

As for the OP, it's a faux pas and they should correct it but only out of their own volition since we can only point out how hypocritical this small problem is.

Couldn't have said it any better myself. :) Wish there was a karma system on the forums.

[Ireclan]

I was meaning to write a bug report but I see I couldn't have done it any better. :)
The explanation is of the problem is excellent as well as your conclusion however I just have a few comments:

In the line: "According to these members, this would indicate that these images were made not with the GIMP program, but with Adobe Photoshop and related products."

Photoshop should be Imageready. We know for certain it was made with Imageready from the hexadecimal data.

I'd replace all the comments regarding the GIMP with "open source software", "open source image manipulation software" something like that.
It's not specifically that the GIMP should have made the pictures, any open source app would suffice. (of course they'd used the GIMP but that's besides the point)

I would modify the bug report as you suggested, but unfortunately, I don't see an option to do so, only one with which to post comments and attachments...

[23meg]

Click "Edit description/tags" in the "Actions" menu on the left.

[Ebuntor]

A reply was posted on the Launchpad page:

Hi -
I have been asked to comment on this bug as I was involved in its creation and selection.
The image was commissioned by and created for Canonical. We encourage use of open source tools and open standards by all of our suppliers and contractors, but we do not insist on it. Philosophically we support and encourage and have a strong preference for open source software, but at the same time we are not "anti-propriety". We do make requirements of our suppliers in terms of the format in which materials are delivered to us (so that we in turn don't have to use proprietary software), but just as you should be allowed to choose the software you want to run, so should our suppliers and contractors (as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on our choices).
The image in question is an open format (jpg), and is used on a website which does not require viewers to run any proprietary software. In no way has the process of commissioning, creating or displaying the image infringed on the rights of the Ubuntu community to make their own choices regarding their use of free and open source software.
I hope this helps - let me know if further questions.
Cheers,
Jane
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website/+bug/118559

He clearly states: "The image was commissioned by and created for Canonical." So that would probably imply it was made by an artist. Glad he explained it so thoroughly. Case is closed for me. :)

[init1]

Yes, rather ironic.

[SoulinEther]

I can't believe you guys got in such an uproar over this, lol. To play "devil's" advocate, if Canonical made it, maybe the person who created the artwork was new to the team and new to GIMP and decided to go with more familiar and more trained territory (Adobe products).

I've used both Photoshop and GIMP. I defintely think Adobe is easier to use but that doesn't mean GIMP is much worse. I also think there is better training available through higer levels of education in Photoshop than in GIMP, so it wouldn't surprise me that this happened anyway.