Slashdot Mirror
Google Funds Work for Photoshop on Linux
S point 2 writes "Google has announced that they have hired Codeweavers, maker of the popular Wine software to make Photoshop run better on Linux. 'Photoshop is one of those applications that desktop Linux users are constantly clamoring for, and we're happy to say they work pretty well now...We look forward to further improvements in this area.' It is unknown whether or not the entire Creative Suite will be funded for support, but for the time being it seems Photoshop-on-Linux development is getting a new priority under Google."
It's called The GIMP! I use that program all the time, it does most of the stuff Photoshop does. First post :)
The GIMP sucks! Stop bringing it up in every discussion about Photoshop.
"I am not a number! I am a free man!"-- The Prisoner
If I were working on software, I'd write something platform independent as I could
There are plenty of open libraries and APIs that can be used to build native ports of software if the company wanted to do so, I'm pretty much sure most of them are either LGPL or BSD-like in terms of licensing. Not saying each platform doesn't have it's own quirks that needed to be ironed out, but a native port > wine emulation any day. Not saying WINE aspirations are without merit, but I see WINE as nothing but a crutch for developers who can say "This product runs on Linux" but skate around making a native port because WINE is there.
The GIMP might be very powerful and feature packed, but the learning curve to get into it is cliff shaped. That makes for a vey significant barrier for newbies.
Most people don't want to do hugely complex photoshopping, just remove red eye from phots and a few other simple effects.
I've tried to use GIMP a few times, without using the manuals, but after a few minutes of getting nowhere I've fired up a Windows box and used photoshop (also without a manual).
Perhaps this exercise will give the GIMP people a bit of motivation to make the software more newbie-friendly.
We're getting to the stage where Linux is almost simple to use. "It was hard to write, so it should be hard to use" no longer cuts it.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Why not port it to Linux they have a win and mac version of it.
But please, do not forget that we'll need proper tools and device support for colour management. The only reason for me having Windows on my PC is that there aren't good enough tools colour management. Without calibrated colours you can not do anything even if you had the best tools in the universe to alter your images.
...I've tried to use GIMP a few times, without using the manuals, but after a few minutes of getting nowhere I've fired up a Windows box and used photoshop (also without a manual).
The wine project had always been a double-edged project and it seems to me that google is using the bad edge.
1. One of the arguments that wine devs had is that not every compagny have the ressources to port their applications under *nix, but Adobe certainly doesn't fall in that category.
2. The picassa road is not definitively the best one : just bundling wine to a windows application and label it linux (or other unix) compiliant is near anything but nonsense. We choose unix because of freedom, but also because we believed in its superiorical technical merit (*be it true or not*), not to rely on some win32/directX implementation. We don't eat that food (oh, and if we could forget about this mono thing, many people would sleep better).
Even if i'm amazed by the work done by the wine team, and I'm thankful to them for allowing me to play some games under linux, I don't see them taking more importance as a good thing. This is not this kind of solution which will improve our systems.
Linux is not just about having "another" system -- it is about open source, and for several legitimate reasons... though admittedly, sometimes the arguments come off sounding and being carried to the extremes of religious zealotry. But why Google would choose to fund a proprietary piece of software, when funding GEGL would help propel GIMP to the functionality inherent in Photoshop, as well as enable other parties (such as Google) to create offerings utilizing that codebase (GEGL stands for Generic Graphics Library), strikes me as a bit foolish. I think their monies would be better spent on GEGL/GIMP -- but the funding for Photoshop on Linux is still a good thing. But here's to looking a gift horse in the mouth! :)
I've thought that, but I think they won't and that it'll be for the same reason why they probably won't bring out a Google phone - they don't need to. Why bother putting the effort into stuff like that (especially selling physical hardware - I know they provide search appliances but that's not quite the same as selling to the great unwashed as Apple etc does)) and dealing with customer support etc, when they know they can provide the tools, APIs etc and let people get on and do it for them. As long as they're providing the service(s), they're in business. There might be a preferred Linux distro used internally, but..well, who cares what they use internally!
I think this has value if it will help improve Wine so it can run all Windows programs. That really should be the focus here. I do think funding Wine would really help along Linux adoption and help end the dreadful Microsoft monopoly. So, this is not necessarily just about photoshop, but making all Windows programs run on Linux. and it is the fact that so many programs run only on Windows, which keeps Windows dominate. If we have millionaires reading this who would like to speed up adoption of Linux, funding work on developing a way to run windows hardware drivers on linux would also be a huge help. There is always a lag between hardware being released and running on Linux because companies always spend less time on Linux. While open source or native windows drivers are best, it is not realistic to expect Linux to be adopted when people cannot run their hardware for years perhaps because there is no driver. This would allow as well the hardware to be used with Windows drivers until a native linux driver is produced.
I think its less hassle to buy an academic copy of creative suite than to pirate it. All the apps work, take updates and the licensing snoop doesn't deactivate them.
I kind of wish Adobe and/or other app vendors would sell the same app for cheaper but lock out the number of hours per month or something you could use it; unlocked for business would cost the usual outrageous prices, but time-locked to 10 hours a month or something would cost much less.
I think the reason Adobe doesn't release Photoshop for Linux, is that it would be another platform that users would expect to have the entire suite run-upon. If it is just Photoshop, and none of the other (less used) products, to the buyer would seem inferior, and to the expert, not have all the tools on a common platform. (No need to convert to Linux if I have to boot up Windows or hop on my Mac when I need Illustrator).
.NET programmer to pay the bills).
With their acquisitions (Macromedia, et.al.), and having to convert their applications to Cocoa (from Carbon) to expect to run on Mac OS X 10.6, they have their hands full without trying to broaden their platform appeal. Adobe was instrumental in causing Apple to do as much "Classic" compatibility in OS X, and provide Carbon to OS 9 to bridge the gap between OS 9 and X. If Apple didn't hold such a significant portion of their customers at the hardware/operating system level, I would have imagined that they'd stopped Mac development to since they have such a broad portfolio of products that don't (aside from some print-features in the Mac OS) have a lot to do with operating system stuff (security/authentication such as AD/LDAP integration), Adobe would really benefit from platform monoculture.(Disclainer, I'm a lifelong Mac user and
I'd love to see Photoshop on Linux, and even more, a native recode of the Creative Suite, however, for the reason mentioned above, the GPU manufacturers lackluster support for Linux at the driver level, and the common perception (amongst PHBs and users whoever "heard about" Linux)that "free as in speech means free as in beer" makes Adobe's shot at a commercial Photoshop port very difficult, as much as I would love to see it.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
Dispite the many claims, I really doubt that photoshop is seriously hindering Linux adoption. I mean, really, what percentage of users out there are photographic professionals?
Listening to the comments, one could get the impression that the number was close to 100%, as opposed to something around 0%.
So, I have a few comments. Firstly, I've introduced quite a number of people to the Gimp, for photo editing.
1- Noone complained about the name or even mentioned it.
2- They're not photographic prefessionals, and GIMP has frankly more than enough functionality for them.
3- They're staying all digital (ie photos stay on the computer), so they do not need CMYK seperation. Actually, the first bit isn't strictly true, but since they're not photographic professionals, they don't even know what CMYK seperation is. If they did, they don't have the calibrated monitors and printers required to make it really useful. Same goes for spot colours or whatever non RGB space you're talking about. See point 2.
4- Their cameras save pictures as 8 bit JPEGs, so the poor high bit depth support of GIMP doesn't matter. See point 2.
5- They're all people with too much time on their hands to bother pirating software. Or they need it at work for the odd basic task, where piracy is not an option.
6- None of them got free photoshop with a camera/scanner.
7- None of them had in fact ever uesd photoshop, so having a non-photoshop interface didn't matter. See point 2.
Finally, I fit happily in to the categories above. I've never used photoshop, GIMP does pretty much what I need in an easy, simple manner. I have never needed CMYK seperation. And FINALLY, I have a proper window manager which supports sloppy focus and focus-does-not-raise, and you know what? GIMP's interface actually works really, really, really well. Oh, and by the way, see point 2.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Why do topics like that always end up in the old flame war of proprietary vs free software? What about the freedom of choice?
I'm a professional photographer, meaning, I make a living of it.
I use Gimp on Linux for this, and I'm just fine with it. Especially since version 2.4 I haven't thought once of going back to PS. On the rare occasions I need to convert an image to CMYK for offset printing, I use Krita to do that. For other things I need workarounds, but I'll live.So, that's my choice.
But:
I happen to be lucky enough that, apart from being an artist, I also understand computers, meaning I could figure out on my own how the Gimp works.
Most professional photographers I know aren't. They get taught to use Photoshop when they are just starting out, and I'm sure everyone agrees that that the Gimp interface is quite different from the Photoshop interface, and also that re-learning always is harder than learning something new.
So, if the less tech savy people choose to use Photoshop because they know how to do that, what's wrong with that?
And if improvement for Photoshop on Linux is being worked on, Linux can only benefit.
You obviously don't know who I am if you think I'm not "in the know". *rolls eyes*
Linux is an operating system, whether you like it or not. There's a generally accepted set of core pieces that are shared by pretty much all the usable distros that most people think of as being "Linux". Nobody uses the term "Linux" to refer to the Linux kernel. They call that the Linux kernel. I have never in a single conversation with anyone heard someone use the term "Linux" to refer to the kernel without adding the word "kernel" after it.
From a purely pedantic technological perspective, you are correct. However, language is defined based on how it is used, not based on how an academic says it should be used. As such, Linux is generally used to refer to the Linux kernel plus collectively your choice of Linux distro. See there? I called it a Linux distro. If it were not an operating system, I couldn't call it a LInux distro. I'd have to call it an Open Source OS Distro Based on Linux, or at best, a Linux-based distro. For that matter, you used the term, too.
That said, my primary OS hasn't been Linux-based for a while now, and to be fair, even it has a handful of pieces that my purist approach says should probably be add-on pieces (though it does provide the option to not install them, IIRC). It does not, however, provide a paint program....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
There isn't "no one" to use Free, Libre and OSS. As long as the people who use it continue to be able to be part of it by having the same freedom on it as the original author, and make it grow, it will grow, that's the point !
;) people saying "merde! there is no game, it sux!" now use their proprietary game under wine, etc...
;)
People who a few years ago were "achh! there is no decent graphical interface, it's pointless!" are now drooling using compiz-fusion... people saying "crap! there is no multimedia! it will never work!" now use vlc, mplayer, amarok, songbird, etc... (and gnash soon
You can spend energy today telling everyone how it will fail, how it will never interest anyone, but someday it might be ready and comfortable enough for you.. and then you might realize the true value of Freedom. (hint: it has no price.
- 16-bit-per-channel color
I would like to get that too for those few special cases when it's needed.
- Native CMYK
I'm good with current CMYK support, enough for offset printing.
- Better floating palette support for users who don't want to enable focus-follows-mouse.
Who need that? I have everything just like on photoshop, even better, i have more control of GUI than photoshop allows me to have.
What is last version of GIMP what you have tryed?
- Adjustment layers
Would do things little easier, it's currently possible to go "around" that. So not "must have" option for me.
- Free transform tool
I like how Gimp currently separates tools, but i think it wouldn't harm if there would be for photoshoppers same kind tool.
- Recordability of action scripts
This should be much easier to do, but possible.
- Better scripting language
2.4 brought python to gimp.
- Full support for all PSD files (e.g. supporting adjustment layers, for example)
I think this is #1 important thing if GIMP user want to work together with photoshop user.
- Human interface cleanup---organize menus more logically, make tools more visually distinguishable at a glance, etc.
Have you tryed 2.4 version? It has much better menu than Photoshop. But if you have already familiar with photoshop menus, any other applications menu structure is always "bad". I like GIMP menu structure way more than photoshops what does not always have a logic, but it's because Photoshop is not just for photographers, it's made for art and printing users too, and there are these typical terms what are different and workflow is different so photoshop is just somewhere "middle" of everything.
Oh well, Adobe admits it's GUI is not so usefull as it should be and next versions will bring better GUI and better menu structure.
That was the sound of a sweeping generalisation.
How about the same group who got FilmGimp produced and for the same users? Big-name hollywood studios who are removing Windows because of licensing costs and need at the moment windows purely for photoshop?
That's a small market but a large fraction of the market for the full price version of PS CS3.
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 41 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"