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?"
Because then we linux fans can also churn out web pages that are an eyesore, full of bloat, proprietary ...
Yeah ,,, whatever.
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!
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.
Yep...there it is...another photoshop = gimp statement. And wait? Bluefish? Nvu maybe, but it too has its drawbacks. Basically if you are a company who is paying some graphics guy $40,000 a year plus overhead, why have them work with inferior products? 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. Even if gimp was 90% as good, it still might not make economic sense in the long run.
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.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
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.
No doubt that Photoshop has some features that GIMP lacks, and that professionals can't do without (CMYK color, higher color depth, etc.). The next generation of GIMP will be based on GEGL (Generic Graphical Library) which will provide the bulk of these features, but it's development has been a bit slow. Lend a hand and we can help bring GIMP on-par with photoshop.
http://www.gegl.org/
Todd
As of the most recent release (yesterday), WINE 0.9.8 has reportedly fixed PS7 to run in Linux (obviously x86 only).
UGS is also porting software. http://www.ugs.com/about_us/press/press.shtml?id=4 367
Personally, I'd like to see SolidWorks ported. Yes, I ditched Acad for solid modelers 12 years ago and would be very reluctant to go back.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Novell did the original survey. Desktoplinux.com (a ZD thing, apparently) is suggesting the alternatives.
If SVG ever becomes standard, we'll be able to do all the animation we want.
But does a solution involving SVG allow for synchronized audio? For instance, if I wanted to use SVG instead of SWF to make an animated series such as Homestar Runner or Weebl and Bob, would that work?
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
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?
I'm surprised that Rhythmbox didn't make the list of iTunes replacements. It looks like iTunes, it interacts with your iPod in a similar fashion, and it even supports DAAP. Other than the iTMS, it's almost a complete replacement.
-jagWhen all you have is a hammer, everybody looks like a Messiah.
The fifth, iTunes, is a proprietary DRM package that it would be best to stay away from (although it too, is popular in geekdom).
/.) who have never purchased any music from iTMS and have never had to use a DRMed file. Personally I've only ever bought two, out of a total library of close to 20,000. The Music Store is not iTunes' "killer feature." Ease of use, a basically seamless interface, and tight integration with the iPod are. The new automatic features for subscribing to, downloading, and maintaining Podcasts on an iPod are going to be more important as people realize how cool a thing it is.
If you could make a program which replicated everything that iTunes does, without the iTMS or DRM functions, I think you'd do what 90% of people want.
I know a lot of iPod owners (and I'm sure there are quite a few here on
But replicating the DRM functions isn't necessarily important in terms of coming up with a free alternative to iTunes, it's replicating that useability experience and other features that is.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Fix. The. UI. Then we can talk features, mmkay?
,always. It's called a CONTEXT menu. Be selective. Present reasonable choices.
Resize selections, please. Not by adding or subtraction, but by dragging, like in All Other Apps(TM).
Not everything on right-click
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.
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.