Slashdot Mirror


Novell Suggests Linux Program Replacements

An anonymous reader writes "As a result of over 14,000 votes since the beginning of January, Adobe Photoshop, Autocad, Dreamweaver, iTunes, and Macromedia Flash are currently the top 5 'most wanted' Windows/MacOS-only applications in Novell's online survey. From comments made by the survey participants, Novell has also listed suggested substitutes for each of the five. What do readers think of these suggestions?"

14 of 358 comments (clear)

  1. Dreamweaver and flash ... by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because then we linux fans can also churn out web pages that are an eyesore, full of bloat, proprietary ...

    Yeah ,,, whatever.

    1. Re:Dreamweaver and flash ... by Southpaw018 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IF you have Dreamweaver configured properly, and IF you're not trying to do anything too cute or fancy, and IF you're making a new webpage and not revising an existing one, Dreamweaver can output XHTML 1.0 Strict/CSS 2.1.

      Since those three conditions are only ever met under the best of circumstances, I suggest your favorite text editor as a replacement for it. Seriously. Hand coding your pages is just as fast as creating them in Dreamweaver, albeit with a higher learning curve, and what you can craft with the pure code is fantastic.

      --
      ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
    2. Re:Dreamweaver and flash ... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suspect most of the Flash-Haters hate it for what it does, and not because it could be replaced by another standards-compliant, but equally annoying technology. (In other words, you won't find anyone who suddenly enjoys "punching the monkey" just because the monkey is in SVG.)

      And, as per usual, any discussion about Flash tends to stereotype Linux users as stubborn, backwards types that hate everything that regular people like about computers. Great image to project about yourselves, guys.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
  2. CAD by rjstanford · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Autocad is, for better or for worse, the standard. Right now, there are no comparable products - its somewhat like suggesting that people use Write instead of Word. For simple stuff, yes, it works just fine (and indeed with just a few enhancements would probably be better than Word for most people). For anything more complex, like most real-world uses of AutoCad (as opposed to folk just doodling around in it), you need a full blown package.

    I'm sure there are people running small shops off of [insert your favorite linux cad program here] who can't wait to tell us about them. However, if you're running even a moderate sized shop, you probably need the real thing. Besides, one of the real strengths of ACAD are all of the add ons, like Land Developer Desktop, that you certainly can't get for just any random cad-lite package.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    1. Re:CAD by injunear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't expect to ever see Autocad for Linux, ain't gonna happen. Autodesk got involved in the *nix world a little too early on. Their (ugh) Xenix version was a failure, in spite of its promise, and the Sun versions fared little better. (Don't even let me get started on the Mac version.)

      The sad thing about this is that Autocad shines in the A/E/C, civil, and mapping fields, all of the others mentioned are solid modellers/mechanical design and drafting packages. Acad even made a decent GIS or FM with add-ons.

      I don't see much hope for a f/oss, generalized cadd solution on the horizon, either. Unlike OOo or Gimp, there is not enough of a potential user pool, and even less of a develloper pool to make it happenl

  3. AutoCAD by a9db0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the perspective of a home user / small business those may be options - I've not yet experimented with them all. But medium to large architectural and engineering companies usually have a large investment in training, tools, libraries, and licenses that they are unwilling to give up, especially if it means they might lose one micron of functionality or productivity.

    I for one would have no problem writing checks to AutoDesk for AutoCAD if it were ported to Linux.

    --
    -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." - R.A.H.
  4. So.... by Otter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Novell does this survey about "datacenter" usage, in which the "datacenter" needs a replacement not for SAP or Peoplesoft, but for iTunes and World of Warcraft. And their solution is to toss out a bunch of "replacements" with no regard for their functionality.

    No offense, but the Linux community already has thousands of 14-year-olds cranking out helpful information like this -- it hardly seems like Novell needs to join in.

    1. Re:So.... by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You noticed that too? I could only think that why would you offer up a replacement unless you knew the requirements? The replacements for AutoCAD for instance aren't even close to providing all the AutoCAD does and I recally one comment saying that they Linux alternative, "looked pretty slick". Get back to me when you can compare doing a complex task in both.

  5. this is SO going to be a troll-fest... by Draek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    this is so going to be GIMP-vs-Photoshop all over again, with doses of Flash-sucks, Vi-rules, and the usual dose of propietary-app-is-THE-standard and even worse, those OSS-app-must-behave-like-commercial-app trolls, which are the same OSS-doesn't-innovate trolls... for heaven's sake, can't we just have a WEEK without these flamewars? I think it was better when we had a new story every week hailing our new Google overlords...

    --
    No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
  6. the most desired are ones I never use by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To me this is kind of funny.
    The apps that the most people want are ones that I never use.
    On linux I already have IBM WSAD, Eclipse, and the standard dev tools.
    I've got Firefox (which I would use on windows if I used it)
    I've got Evolution (there is no good Windows equivalent of this)
    I've got GAIM so I can use all my IM's in one app
    I'm not a graphics person, and I'm really surprised that there are that many of them (so much for photoshop). I don't really do design (so much for autocad) and I'm really surprised there are enough people paying that much money to rank the proggram that high in the survey (unless there are that many pirated versions). As for HTML, the text editor in WSAD or MyEclipse is excellent (everybody knows WYSIWYG editors are evil).

    If these are the most desired apps for Linux, then I am very surprised that there aren't more people moving toward it. Seems the apps used 90% of the time by 90% of the population are Web/IM/email. Then again, for typical usage, the OS is really unimportant. Good Web/IM/email apps are available for just about every OS, and I'd bet most consumers probably don't care.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
  7. My opinion: by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Photoshop: No substitute is available. Even if we filter out all the whiny bullshit that some of the graphic artist weenies expect (I want all 4000 commercial photoshop plugins too!), we're still left with things that really matter that Gimp can't do. CYMK is the killer feature. And it's apparently nothing that can be hacked in so easily. There are still some usability issues that need to be addressed (though again, some of the weenies will never be happy unless it matched pixel for pixel). There are undoubtedly major issues that a non-photoshop user like myself aren't even aware of. For now we have Gimp, but it is no substitute.

    Autocad: No substitute is available. Again, it's a case of all the commercial plugins... if they really make photoshop worthwhile, well, then they basically *ARE* autocad. They make all the difference. This is going to be a tough act to follow, and worse, there are 100 graphic artist wannabees in open source for every engineer wannabe. I'm not familiar with any of those suggested by the article, but I expect they are pretty much to Autocad what Gimp is to photoshop. No real substitutes available.

    Dreamweaver: Nvu. It's pretty damn close. It could be Dreamweaver with not an incredible amount of work. But I hope that we don't do that. Mozilla/Firefox aren't just IE, they're better than it is. That's what Nvu should be, or some branch off of it (know it's Mozilla Composer at its core, but is it OSS or proprietary? I never really checked it out). The best part is, that it shares some heritage with Firefox and Thunderbird, and that means in theory, writing plugins for it should be possible. I think that could be really useful in an application like that.

    iTunes: Didn't we just see an article about Songbird here recently? The screenshots look pretty slick. Again, based off of mozilla code, I think this could end up being a replacement, even if it isn't yet. Though nothing would ever satisfy the mac weenies, I suspect.

    Flash: Inkscape. It's not there yet, animation isn't ready. They're actually trying to design the interface correctly, rather than just imitate all the other animation software we've seen over the years. Also, they do seem to sort of be waiting for software that can view it (for most purposes, this means browsers that support SVG/SMIL). This will probably be every bit as powerful as Flash... there will be those who disagree of course, but who wouldn't have laughed if you'd suggested that mozilla would be the superior of IE in the beginning?

    1. Re:My opinion: by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Photoshop: No substitute is available."

      Depends on the user. The GIMP probably isn't ready for most people doing graphic design, art book layout, and the like. However, the vast majority of Photoshop users barely touch its power. You've got people tweaking their family photos in Photoshop. They've never calibrated their monitor and printer. They aren't aware of the existance of the more suitable Photoshop Elements, and even if they were why would they buy it? They didn't pay for Photoshop, they're happily using their copyright infringing copy. They got Photoshop by borrowing the discs from work get having it installed by their geek friend. You've got people doing online work who will never need CMYK. You've got small town newspapers who've also never done calibration and rely on their reporters to prepare images for final output. (On the last one, I know such a reporter. She didn't like the GIMPs interface, but once she tried GIMPShop, she was perfectly happy. It does everything that Photoshop did for her.)

      I suspect that for the majority of Photoshop users that the GIMP is a suitable replacement. It shouldn't even bug Adobe since most of those users didn't pay for Photoshop in the first place.

  8. Un-Gimp the UI first. Examples follow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fix. The. UI. Then we can talk features, mmkay?

    Resize selections, please. Not by adding or subtraction, but by dragging, like in All Other Apps(TM).

    Not everything on right-click ,always. It's called a CONTEXT menu. Be selective. Present reasonable choices.

    Resize brushes by pressing buttons, remove limitations - I don't want to create new brushes to get a new size.

    And so on. This has nothing to do with imitating photoshop or anything, it's just common sense and removing frustrations. Just because the people who have been developing Gimp since the 90's are able to work *effectively* in it doesn't mean anyone else can.

    Others can help fill this list, then someone maybe, maybe dares file a bug or ask the list. Then again, Carol the Dragon *will* bite your head of for it unless one of the others get there first, so wear flame-safe suit.

  9. Re:Why? by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The cost of windows and photoshop may seem high to hobbiests, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to what you're gonna pay someone to use it.

    What about the cost of dealing with all the problems that Windows brings with it: viruses, worms, spyware, etc.? I know my (Fortune 100) company's IT department costs the company a fortune in not Windows licenses, but both license costs and personnel costs for dealing with all the security problems, and that doesn't count all the time wasted by normal employees due to having to do constant security updates (which means you can't use your computer, and have to reboot after every patch), and deal with the fallout from viruses and other malware.

    I'll agree: the cost of Photoshop really isn't a big deal to a company paying $x0,000 for someone to use it. But the cost of Windows most certainly is. A smart company would probably have their employees use Photoshop on MacOSX instead.