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
Codeweavers doesn't make Wine!!
SURELY NOT!!!!!
I suspect that as things start moving more and more in this direction, WINE will become the new "windows" API, taking it from Microsoft. If I were working on software, I'd write something platform independent as I could, and if I had to use Windows API, I work with WINE to make sure it ran flawlessly under that environment.
Imagine Windows API not in the hands of Microsoft.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
What does Google get for this? Is this just a shot at Microsoft because Microsoft has been taking shots at Google?
They aren't fixing Photoshop itself, they are making Wine better able to run it. Personally I don't know why adobe don't just go ahead and release it, although which toolkit they'd use for the graphics is probably an open question.
That runs on Linux! http://picasa.google.com/linux/
Not that I've tried it in Linux, but this is not what's keeping me from making the switch - DirectX is.
Take off every 'sig' for great justice.
If a brick falls in redmond... does it make a sound?
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Finally, linux users can join in on the piracy of adobe products that the Mac and Windows people have been able to do. See, linux IS getting more like the other OS's every day! :^)
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.
But is there a list of these somewhere?
Google is hiring someone to fix and Adobe product? Isn't there some kind of rights infringement here?
Apparently... you... don't... read.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
Why not port it to Linux they have a win and mac version of it.
I can see this as valuable if it will allow a greater number of Windows applications to run on Linux and improve wine as a software program. Wine itself needs more funding since currently it does a dismal job of running many Windows programs. But the focus needs to be on improving compatability with all programs. If all this is going to do, is make Photoshop run better, it would be better to spend the money improving the performance of the Gimp and other open source programs. But making all Windows programs run on Linux, over 99%, would be a major accompishment that would hurry up the acceptance of Linux as a complete Windows replacement. There will also be those who say that it would be better to get people to use open source alternatives to windows programs than to use windows programs on linux, although, while we should improve open source programs, since having windows programs run on Linux would help many people move to Linux and would eliminate the main thing that keeps microsoft dominate, I think that improving wine to 99% compatability would also be very valuable as well. Remember as well, that a large number of Windows programs are custom apps for very specific purposes. I used custom windows only programs used by a company I worked for. These are not general purpose programs that I can just replace with open office. So its not necessarily just word processing programs and general windows programs one may need to run on linux that one can just get an open source replacement for, but highly specialised programs for which there is no Linux replacement and might only be used inside a company and no where else. I have had to have Windows XP in addition to Linux because of these custom special windows programs. I would just love to get rid of XP and run them all on Linux. The other major area that would be very useful is funding a compatability layer to support Windows hardware drivers on Linux, if we have millionaires reading this that want to fund something that would speed up Linux adoption, that would be the surest way of getting hardware support on Linux. I agree that open source drivers are always best but still this layer would be essential, especially until open source drivers are written, There is always a long lag between hardware becoming avialable and driver avialability on Linux because the drivers have to be written through back engineering and it takes quite a while, and there is always more resources put by companies on Windows. Linux is always on the back burner. This layer would also make it much eisier as well to backengineer hardware protocols by watching the communication between proprietary drivers and the hardware, a compatability layer for hardware drivers could speed up open source driver development
Is your reading comprehension that bad? Even if you read the summary, it's pretty clear that they're going to be working on making WINE run photoshop, not actually doing any work with photoshop code.
There's nothing wrong with what they're doing, because they're making one product (WINE) more compatible with another (Photoshop). It would be like Microsoft/Apple including a compatibility layer to help run legacy programs on a new version of Windows/OS X.
Allow me to introduce you to the Paragraph and the Full Stop.
That is all. Carry on.
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).
Why is google worrying with Adobe's products? Why not start closer to home and get sketchup to wrok properly on linux?
-q
It's certainly not the solution for everyone, but what I always do is run Photoshop within VMWare. It's cleaner and probably quicker. For some reason I feel icky when using Wine for native Windows apps, it feels like I'm using a ndiswrapper network card ::shudder:: ... but for some it is the only option. I am also wondering what if any compatibility problems Photoshop in Wine would have with pressure sensitivity with, for instance, Wacom tablets. Any thoughts?
CMYK plugin has been around for over a year now. It works about as well as Photoshop did in version 6 though.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
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.
For some values of dismal maybe. In my experience, most things work out of the box these days.
Not enough return on investment... (at least in the near future)
I predict if they get Photoshop running properly on Linux, Linux users will abandon the OS in favor of something even more obscure and difficult to use. Then they'll tote that operating system as superior to Windows and piss about how nobody adopts it.
I have nothing compelling to say
With all the nonsense of Vista, a WINE porting strategy makes sense.
Think of it like this: Microsoft is trying to push a product (Vista) that its customers do not want. The *only* reason that any consumer would buy it is because they have virtually no choice because of Microsoft's monopoly.
Step in Google, fund WINE, work to create a Windows execution environment that supports many of those XP programs that will not work under Vista. Linux already supports many of the hardware devices that Vista does not. A working WINE may be able to eat away at Vista adoption.
What is needed is a smooth integration of Windows executables with Linux execution code. Conceptually, windows programs are nothing more than binaries that need their own environment, similar to the way one runs GNOME applications of KDE and vice versa, or better still Java programs. (Yes, I know that Java is a tokenized interpretive environment with a JIT, but this is a discussion not a compsci course.)
IMHO, the programs that should work out of the box on Linux with wine is quicken, quickbooks, peachtree, and photoshop. This would open up so many home and small business users who would love to use Linux but can't.
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 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.
...try to release a version of Photo Shop for Linux...
...but they are probably afraid of chairs flying in their general direction.
--
sig. has left... may be back later.
Preamble: I'm a photographer needing to process tens of thousands of photos relatively swiftly. The functionality I need isn't all that advanced (curves, levels, an occasional straighten horizon (measure + arbitrary rotate), crop, unsharp mask, and sometimes an action to find edges, feather and apply unsharp mask on that), but being able to access and apply this functionality swiftly is an absolute must because of the volume of photos I deal with. Photoshop is optimized to perfection to allow a swift workflow, while the gimp seems optimized to perfection to hinder it. Focus is never where I need it, shortcuts to access tools don't work depending on which sub-window has focus, etc. So yes, I really need Photoshop.
I last tried Photoshop 7 under wine about a year ago. It was functional to an amazing degree (for someone who'd never seen or used wine before), but the rough edges were slightly too rough for me to be able to switch to Linux fulltime. I could trigger a dozen crashes in Photoshop at will just by resizing panels and doing other simple things like that, the program didn't feel native (alt-tabbing would keep the panels in the foreground, obscuring other programs), and focus sometimes strayed, amongst other lesser (but still annoyingly noticeable) issues.
I just tried the latest wine with these Google sponsored improvements, and wow. This is an amazing difference. Every single issue I saw a year ago is gone. Photoshop feels as responsive as it does under Windows (perhaps even more so), and I went through an hour long editing session without being slowed down or annoyed even once.
As far as I'm concerned, Linux is now ready to become my main OS.
Google: I don't like your lack of respect for my privacy, but for this work on Wine, I can say from the bottom of my heart: Thank you!
It's, " couldn't give a shit" meaning that they value, "open and free[sic]" less than fecal matter. Otherwise you are saying that they value it as much as or more than shit; Which, in most contexts I'm aware of, is saying some value above zero.
Don't see how spending money to offer people the choice of supporting someone you don't agree with is evil, but, it takes all kinds.
The only program I miss on my linux machine is Illustrator. The sole reason I keep a Mac account at work is to have access to this program. Yes in principal it should be the same as some combination of Xfig and Gimp but in practice the figures I make with AI have a professional appearance that I just can't duplicate with those other two. I'm not insisting it be free, but I want a version of it for my linux machine and I would gladly pay above the Mac price.
Since PS already runs fine on the Mac, wouldn't it be a lot easier to port that version to linux? It's my experience that nearly anything that runs on linux can be easily built to run on OS X...
Caveat Utilitor
Isn't that exactly what Wine is? It's a Windows API implementation, not an emulator.
CS3 is the last thing that keeps me dual-booting between Vista and Ubuntu regularly, and I presume that I'm far from the only one. The most recent release of Wine does mostly support CS2, but I'm loathe to sacrifice the niftyness of CS3. I'm thrilled to hear that some muscle is falling in behind getting Photoshop working under Wine.
I really hope they extend their efforts to the entire Creative Suite. Bridge + Photoshop = An excellent RAW photo processing work flow.
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
it's not Google spreading, it's their money. don't worry about that.
That's the simple answer, and what Adobe would say to their stockholders.
The correct answer is this: It's impossible to estimate the return on investment and so they're erring on the side of not doing anything - since it's hard to blame someone for *not* taking an action that could be portrayed as risky.
When it comes to raw return on investment, a Linux port of the Adobe creative suite would probably pay for itself pretty quickly - porting is damn cheap compared to what they charge for a copy of their software.
The real issue here is one of business complexity. Corporate executives *hate* complexity because it makes it harder for them to hold all the business details in their head. They're perfectly willing to throw away a percent or two of revenue just to avoid the staff required to maintain and support something like a Linux port. It's not the cost of the staff, it's the slots on the organizational chart that allow for more risk of mismanagement.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
This might be comparing apples and oranges, but Maya ports to Linux. Mainly movie houses use this, I am guessing because it must be better to use a Linux system and Maya (http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5235). It seems to me, Photoshop is kind of one of those core graphics applications this same audience would employ in their studio... I bet they would love to see Photoshop ported to Linux. I know I would make the switch to Linux if that was an option. Not to knock Wine, but running any kind of big app through an emulator sucks ass.
Also, I'm not a real technical person, but isn't OSX like built on top of Free BSD? How hard can it be to port to Linux (yes I know they are different)?
Lane Myer: I have great fear of tools. I once made a birdhouse in woodshop and the fair housing committee condemned it.
Actually, the return on investment is really easy to work out.
Photoshop is not, and was never intended to be, sold as a consumer application. It's market is professionals. At the moment, if you are a professional in one of a number of fields you use Photoshop. If you don't use Photoshop, you can't do professional work if only because you can't open the files your collaborators are sending and can't send the ones clients are expecting.
So, what is the market for Photoshop on Linux? Professionals who are more interested in Open Source principles than in earning a paycheque through their profession. I can tell you right now, that's a damn small group, and unlikely to buy it even if it was available. So, where is the payoff for Adobe here?
I installed and played Portal via steam at Christmas just fine with no problems in wine. What the hell are you talking about?
Just for the record, the OS X way:
use Cmd + Left/Right arrows to move from/to the starts and ends of a line.
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
One reason that many 3D apps have a linux version or history is that large render farms have traditionally been *nix based and professional animation has always needed large render farms.
HAHAH, yup oops
It sure feels like one though.
Lane Myer: I have great fear of tools. I once made a birdhouse in woodshop and the fair housing committee condemned it.
Well what?
Google should be just helping Adobe. If Adobe ported to linux (they already support Unix with the Mac, so it's not the biggest leap) then it would be the biggest coup ever. It would help Google do whatever it is they want to see Photoshop on Linux for... high end hardware vendors could sell high powered Unix work stations to the imaging pros... it would be awesome. Port Premiere and all the production tools, and we'd finally get good choices back into the pro-imaging hardware arena... it would be like back when SGI was the pro-imaging hardware solution. With their pro-tools on linux, the render farms doing the grunt work for Premiere and other hard chores.
For all the same reasons why Newtek should port Lightwave to Linux/unix too... better bang for the processing buck, get them farms set up dammit!
Linux would give more choice to an industry with few choices and truly hold-out zealots. Photoshop was the reason (ok, and Quark XPress maybe) why there even was a user base for Mac's to leverage when they had their renaissance. It's the reason why a lot of people aren't switching to linux, and a reason why pro-images are staying Windows. Would be great if the dependencies could be cut for more choice and a better/healthier market place for systems.
As many others have/will point out, Gimp is something of a joke. Hell, I find Paint.NET a better alternative to Photoshop than GIMP is. And it costs just as much! Sorry, but this is one case where FOSS severely lacks.
Hello, my name is Paragraph. I hope we can be friends!
"Nae Kin! Nae Quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willna be fooled again!"
Getting the windows API onto other machines seems to have once been a core part of Microsoft's anti-competition plan (go down to where WLM is mentioned). I'm not certain if this really removes control of the API from Microsoft. Possibly Google should have worked to move make the Gimp interface less confusing.
I'd like to see Lightroom work on Linux. It's the one app keeping me on Windows. And when I say "work on Linux" I mean that Adobe should sell a Linux version (not Windows version + Wine).
I tried F-Spot, and could live with most of it's rough edges, but I found it to be much slower than Lightroom and there was one rough edge (changing of EXIF timestamps on import) that I couldn't live with and I didn't have confidence it would be resolved (open bug / feature request has existed for years without resolution) and I'm not in a position to change that personally.
I tried to use sketch the other day. What a pain on Linux. It should not be that difficult to port to Linux, yet it has been quite a time.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Adobe: Why do that when another company and individuals are putting up the effort to make it work on Linux for us?
No sig for you!!
I don't do that much with pictures, but I recently made the switch to KDE from IceWM and used to use Gimp with the couple pictures I work with sometimes. I now did a couple things with Krita (wanting to try everything KDE has to offer) and I am amazed how well it works.
Since you seem to do a lot more with pictures, have you tried Krita yet?
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.
There are a good number of web designers and marketers and digital artists and so forth. But I honestly do not believe they are as many that NEED the full functionality of photoshop that people claim. Most things can be done on gimp and some amazing work has been done with gimp, inkscape and a number of applications. I do believe there are some that need photoshop to do what they need to do, others.. are just people who pirated the software and used it because it's popular and submit crap to Photoshop Friday's over at Something Awful or threads at fark or your site of choice and rare do anything they NEED to do with it anyways. I'm glad google did this for those that need it, but most of the online pirates who like adding captions to lolcat pictures should just suck it up and use free software.
Because too many Linux users have advanced computer skills and therefore will crack it and distribute free copies?
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.
No sig for you!!
It's highly unlikely that such a port would pay for itself. The costs would not just be for the initial port, but for the continued support of that additional platform into the future. That's one more platform that needs to be tested on and developed for every time any code is changed whether that's to add features or stabilize a product for release or release security fixes. Effectively, it means more people and longer timeframes for every modification made on the software.
Moreover, it's hard to believe that Adobe would sell any more copies of Photoshop. I imagine most users would just be switching from Windows or Mac. You'd actually have to get Linux users who don't currently use Photoshop to buy it.
Ggogle might also want to fund making another Adobe product, Framemaker, run well under Wine/Codeweavers. It's the best long-document application on the market and Adobe, for reasons of their own, dropped the Mac version and quit developing the Linux version.
I'm not going to get into the proprietary vs. open issue... but it seems to me that it would be easier to get the OSX version running on Linux rather than the Windows version via WINE.
You're forgetting a very common scenario:
Imagine you're a PHP coder. You currently dev/test/debug with Apache or maybe IIS on a Windows desktop. Everything you write ends up on a Linux server anyway, so you'd like to try coding and testing on a Linux desktop.
Unfortunately, you receive all artwork in Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator format... Sure, you could use a virtual machine or remote desktop or even two separate machines. Linux for PHP coding/testing and Windows for exporting text and images from the Photoshop/Illustrator documents. But why deal with all that complication?
So you just stick with Windows.
This is typical of a lot of professional PHP developers.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
OS X has roots in Free BSD, but that doesn't mean it would be an easy port. In particular, Photoshop is built on the Carbon API, which was designed by Apple as an easy way of transitioning Classic Mac apps over to OS X. UI, file I/O, threading, etc. are all specific to that API which doesn't exist outside of the Apple world. Even if they were using the more modern Cocoa API, there's nothing quite like that available on Linux or other UNIX-like systems with the exception of GNUStep which is just not ready for prime time.
Now if only we could have a Linux Paint.NET...
"We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
Yes, Yes, having photoshop would be nice. I see that.
But, for many more people I think the missing 'killer apps' for Linux are two things:
REAL CAD (2d and 3d, in particular AutoCAD)
Video Editing. Don't TELL me about Cinelerra. I've MADE a presentation quality video on Cinelerra. In the time it took me to do that, I could have gone to the dentist and had teeth pulled and made 6 videos in Vegas, and had a more enjoyable experience.
I have windows on my home machine SOLELY to run Vegas Video. For work the one windows-only app I used for a year was AutoCAD.
I want video editing software in linux that WORKS and is as EASY to use as Vegas. Or, perhaps when they figure out Photoshop they can figure out Vegas and even Premier. And AutoCAD.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
At one time Adobe offered a version of Photoshop that ran native on UNIX. It has not been on the markket for some time. But that would be ideal. The next best thing would be to develop Gimp so that it could do what Photoshopp does. All it needs is a much more streamlined and customizable interface and the abillty to handle color managed files, 16-bit color and color spaces other then just RGB. OK so it needs a total re-write.... Runing Photoshop in Wine is a band aid fix.
Google to hire Microsoft to port Office to Linux!
If you're looking for a Color-managed photo editing program (especially RAW processing) on Linux then you might want to give Bibble a try. While it doesn't offer all the features of Photoshop it is an excellent photo processing application. And best of all it is Color-managed on Linux.
Full disclosure: I work for Bibble Labs.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
A bit off topic, but I never liked the name "Pidgin". I would have rather they stayed with GAIM or better yet "gaim" (no acronym). Maybe AOL wouldn't have sued with the lower-case variant.
And Adobe would care how exactly? Rest assured, Adobe doesn't mind you working on windows.
Google doesn't own the source to Photoshop -- Adobe does.
Google *can't* port it to Linux, but they *can* fund work on WINE to make the Windows version work.
Abobe *could* port it, but they don't want to. So if Google really wants Photoshop to work on Linux (not 100% sure what's in it for Google) then funding WINE makes sense.
You've clearly only scratched the surface of those programs. After Effects is by far the best consumer-level motion graphics software available, but Photoshop is a much more powerful option for image editing. And video editing!? It'd be a nightmare to try to manage any real editing project in After Effects.
You should consider reading the documentation that came with the software. Knowing the appropriate program to use for each task could greatly increase your productivity.
So this is what's hindering Linux adoption? Seriously? Both? How many people out there need one of these never mind BOTH of them. Something like 0.000001%, I'm sure.
And anyway, why not spend money on a company that does provide CAD products for Linux, such as any of these. So now, the only thing hindering Linux adoption is video editing?
Well, I really can't comment about that, since I've never needed anything more than mencoder (just video encoding) can do. You know, like the majority of users who never make videos, don't need CAD pcakages aren't photogtaphic professionals, etc...
Now I'm ranting further and further from your post, but I'm sure that it used to be the case that the real thing hindering Linux adoption was the lack of audio tools. Since the creation of decent tools, and before that office suites. As more and more areas become available to Linux, the people focus on smaller and smaller segments, claiming they they're hindering adoption.
What next? Linux will never reach the destop until it has professional woodworking tools?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The thing is: there's a million things missing. When you look at discussions like these, what you see is:
"Linux only needs ONE thing to crush Windows: Exchange!!!"
Then later you see "Linux is getting Photoshop, its the one thing missing, Windows is doomed!!"
"The only reason to use Windows is games!!"
"the only reason to use Linux is autocad!!"
(add a bunch of Mac examples here too if you will).
And it goes on forever. And the way I end up seeing it is: there are a TON of things missing. Its just that the devil's in the detail...to you, its CAD and video editing, for others its something else...there are so many things missing, we'd never list them all. And its not just Linux thats like that: getting people to move away from an environment that they've been using for a while is always tricky, cuz whatever you bring to the table, its always missing -something-.
That's true. I'm just saying, demand for Photoshop/Illustrator on Linux is often underestimated.
Why don't they just give the money to Adobe, they already have the Win and Mac source and will make it running on Linux in a couple of months :)
Or probably they already have it for Linux but are waiting for the right moment to get it out.
Unlearning 20 years of finger memory is hard to do, especially if you still use Windows and Linux. It's a bit like having exactly the same keyboard layout except for having the S and D keys swapped around.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Let's face it, saying something has been "Gimped" sounds way cooler than saying something has been "Photoshopped"!
I use Avidemux for video editing and it works quite well, although the UI is a bit meh.
Will Wine run the cra--, er... unlimited demo version as well?
Move all sig!
See, demand (as in people would like to see it), yes. Lost sales? No. I suspect that for the limited PR boot it would give them, porting an entire suite of legacy programs onto a moving software target just isn't worth it.
I've always wanted PS running on a Unix-likes OS.
That's why I got a Mac with OSX. Works real nice and there are other benefits including the rest of the CS3 suite.
-X
Good point, that could present some problems, totally understandable.
:)
I've got a desktop solution set up as an "L," here; - A Leopard box "to the north" and an NT variant "to the east." - You just swivel the chair to change 'the compass needle,' and I've never had a problem with switching to or fro in an instant, which is the rule of process here. - But that might be an individual thing how easy it is to acclimatize / re-climatize, especially with only one system being truly different, as Macs can be.
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
I naturally didn't RTFA but, but if they are doing the work to get PS on Linux they really have to get Bridge working there as well. It has become essential to a lot of peoples PS workflow.
Then, of course, a functioning LightRoom would be a very nice thing, too.
-X
There's that, and then there's the Linux users who *do* currently use Photoshop and would be happy to buy the Linux version rather than having to deal with whatever complex scheme they have set up to run the Windows / Mac version.
A large percentage of Adobe's sales is existing customers buying new versions, and a Linux version would act a lot like a new version for some users.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Gimp is not at the same level as PS, so no, for quite a few people there is no alternative to PS. However, all the people I know - and I'm a Web & Design professional - would either a) do perfectly well with Gimp or b) don't use Linux as Desktop OS anyway. If this Google sponsoring really is true, it's completely pointless. Fact is: The current Gimp is quite close to PS. There is only a handfull of key features missing to rise to the same level and actually surpass it and Google would only have to sponsor a handfull of coding sprees to get those implemented. Higher bit-depths, solid CMYK, a protocol, a proper set of filters, layer effects and a bump-renderer that isn't total crap. And maybe a few more fileformats. It's not *that* much lacking in Gimp compared to PS.
I use PS for professional work (with PS filters & layer effects being it's last selling point over Gimp for me) but I actually find the newer Gimp interface much more intuitive and powerfull than the newer PS UIs. Since PS 5.5 - 7.0 it has become more and more difficult for Adobe to justify upgrades and it shows. AFAICT they're actually secretly *removing* functionality again to re-justify later upgrades. Google should spent a few hundred thousand $ on pushing Gimp past or up to PS. It would be a much better investment.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
It seems like if Google can get WINE to the point that Photoshop can run well, Adobe could at least make a winelib build.
Isn't it possible to get more native behavior by building a wine-aware binary that knows enough to not use drive letters, etc.
Or is Adobe convinced nobody'd use it even if they did. Presumably Google's done some research to determine that there's demand for this - unless they just want to help improve WINE.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I'm all for it, not that I use PHOTOSHOP but it is just another step in the right direction. The more apps for Linux the better off the user base will be. I'm sure the rest of adobe programs are not far off and that is a big deal for Linux users. We already have the greatness that is OPEN OFFICE but we lack a good PDF document program; however, I do hope that this does not slow down the hard working WINE team from putting out Wine 1.0 (I believe at this moment we are at Wine 0.9.55). Keep On Rocken In The Free World (open source)!!!!
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.
They are a major contributor, but they are by no means the only ones, nor did they initiate the project.
Gravitation is a theory, not a fact.
GIMP opens psd files already. I'm not an artist by any means, nor do I aspire to be one, but I haven't had any problems with it.
Actually, Kuickshow can open psds too, although Kuickshow doesn't support layers and other useful features, but it's quite sufficient if you only need to view psd files and not edit them...
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
I'm in the process of getting acquainted with Cinelerra and am reminded about how frustrating the gimp was to learn. I found that "scrubbing" a video would cause it to lock up, so I spent my first day trying to edit video clips together without using the viewer. My frustration was somewhat mitigated that I never lost a single change due to its near perfect and extremely fast "load backup" function.
Loading backups every 10 seconds is no way to live, so I sought out other alternatives, including Kdenlive (which instantly crashes on every click), and Avidemux and Kino which don't seem suitable for working with multiple clips. I even used Blender of video editing and it worked awesomely, but I couldn't help shake the feeling that I was using the wrong tool for the job. I also had my worries that the video editor in Blender would have the same steep learning curve as the rest of the interface.
Google helped me determine the cause and solution for Cinelerra's freezing. A "preference" check box called "stop playback locks up" was unchecked. What the hell does that even mean? Do they mean "prevent the playing-back of video from locking-up the program"? If so, why is that option in "Preferences"? Even the Gimp wouldn't classify such an cruel option as a preference... oh wait, judging by its name, it probably would.
"Follow me" the wise man said, but he walked behind.
Smart Google can be quite dumb at times. Why fund Photoshop's compatibility with WINE, when that should be adobe's problem and dollars? Google will eventually help Adobe earn some more dollars and strengthen their hold on people's pixels. But Photoshop is a wretched old software, ready to be tossed out so we can start fresh. why doesn't google fund some fresh thinking. If google contacts me, am willing to show them how this may be possible. Else what more will google do? port apple aperture, then ms outlook, and a whole lot of other 'popular' software to WINE? nah! the joy of foss is in having the freedom to re-think, start fresh, and push the envelope. regards niyam
When is SketchUp coming to Linux? It's a brilliant piece of software, and I'd even consider buying the Pro version, but it's not available!
That is really odd. Why would they have a port for IRIX and not Linux? Economically that makes no sense at all.
Caveat Utilitor
We had our cake and ate it all day long. Linux was great for someone like me to learn Unix. But it was something I tinkered with. Eventually, my time became worth something. Especially when I began billing by the hour for it. With OSX, I have a nice laptop that works. No driver XYZ issues with soundcards, videocards, wireless cards, it all just works. Software installs easily without dependancy hell. I dealt with a CentOS server last fall and ran across some things like no php5 build in the official repo. I took a step back and blinked with that "WTF" look and found away around it. Now people can say, try XYZ distro or ABC distro, and that's the problem I had with my first round with Linux in 2000 - 2003 with porting some software from Irix. (Long story short, we only support Red Hat, Linux was 3% of sales, around 20% of tech support request...mostly dealing with "WHY WON'T THIS WORK ON MY CUSTOM HACKED DEBIAN/SLACKWARE disto?". End of story: ported to OSX, dropped linux.)
All the photographers I know on the small and medium scale have gone to Apple this last upgrade cycle. Especially now that CS3 is out in Universial. Most replaced their desktops with MBP's and they all love them. Yeah, a few complained about the higher price up front, but once they are running batch jobs instead of virus scans, the start to see that they are a bit more productive, which the faster they work, the more they make (usually).
Unless Apple really screws up royally, I don't see that changing anytime soon. When I switched from desktop linux (SuSE 6.x series) to OSX it was night and day. Sound cards worked, wireless cards worked, and I never looked back. Most photographers are paid to produce photos, not worry about their IT infrastructure. It has to work, out of the box, and not require a geek to operate it. Apple does that.
Don't get me wrong, if Google wants to pay for better support/development of PS on Linux, go for it. But thinking that a lot of people are going to switch from Windows to Linux on the desktop still isn't going to happen anytime soon.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Why did they work to make sure Picasa works flawlessly (almost) under WINE? Sounds to me like they're just building favor among the geek community. It's great PR - they've been taking some hits recently, so it's time to get some pro-Google news on /. and the like.
You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
...is what you were looking for. It's been in the kernel for ages (at least since v. 1.2.x)
Yeah, that sucks.
Have a look at kdenlive. It's pretty simple to use and does a nice job. One caveat is it's not incredibly stable yet (occasionally crashes when you move an edit on my amd64 installation) but save frequently and it's nearly there - I'd rate it with Premier from 10 years ago. Another reasonable editor is LiVES which seems more stable but has a less easy user interface - it kind of expects you to know what your doing a bit more. Great for VJing and has jack support for audio.
I recently put a DVD together using kdenlive as the editing package and found it worked a treat, although having also used Lightworks and Avid, I wouldn't call it professional. Maybe a release from now I might say it's up with mickey mouse tools like Premier and Vegas.
What I would love to see is video and audio layers including alsa/jack midi and audio added to Synfig Studio. That would become the ultimate editing/compositing/mixing package. Seeing as I'm too busy these days to get involved, I'll just have to wish.
I don't therefore I'm not.
That, my friend, is one thing virtual machines are for. On a decent modern machine you can run a base OS and have virtual machines with all the operating systems and applications you need. No need to dual boot -- run them all at once. Try out Virtualbox for free to see what I mean. Once you've got your VMs set up you can do neat stuff with them. For serious work, consider VMWare.
It's time to retire this "App" does not work in "OS" meme. It is a relic of an age when you could only run one OS at a time.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Yet even with all of these apps that are "missing" and considered crucial to some, there are many people that have been very satisfied and productive using the tools that are available on Linux. My family and at least a couple dozen friends and acquaintances have been using Linux exclusively for many years. I just have to smile when people make these claims about "must have" apps. As others have noted, this may be the case for a very small subset of the population. But I think that for the vast majority, the Linux offerings are more than sufficient.
Open Source: I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
Thanks for the tips, seriously. It has been about 1.5 years+ since I've looked hard at Linux video editing, and I'm due to look again. I'm putting together a new box (soon) or maybe a laptop with a big HD, and I plan to dual boot. So I'll have a good platform to explore the latest packages at leisure. My first Linux experience was back at redhat 5.2 I've checked it out thoroughly 3 or 4 times and it has made leaps and bounds, IMO, in the last 2-3 years. Especially but not just Ubuntu.
I have a slightly older thinkpad set up with Ubuntu as a dedicated recording station at church, and it is fantastic.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
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.
I then need to separate layers, crop bits and save for web, that's about it...
Is this possible with the GIMP?
I don't mind a bit of a learning curve (especially if it means avoiding an eventual up/down grade to Vista), I just need to know that I'm seeing what the web designer intended.
The only other thing stopping me from moving over to 'Linux only' is a port of the IE rendering engine for firefox/opera/any Linux browser that doesn't require running an emulation layer that will unnecessarily slow down my, already struggling, PC.
Awesome links, thanks for the tips.
I guess one point of my mini-rant was that, in my opinion, gimp is so well known and so far along what's the point in getting photoshop working and not focus on CAD and video instead? Or, more fairly, CAD and video as well as photoshop?
Your links may indeed invalidate half of the point (I haven't checked out the native DWG and DXF packages from your link).
I found a commercial video package for linux about 1.5 years ago. It is done by MainConcept IIRC. It is very nice, had interesting features and promising ease-of-use. But there were fatal flaws. The demo was available in RPM and DEB. I was using Ubuntu. IIRC the RPM by alien was missing vital features, and the deb was unstable. So close. Yes maybe I could have recompiled but it's commercial software... Maybe it's worth another look at the demo again!
What I do with video is much more than home videos and shots of the dog doing funny tricks, I've basically worked up to the pro-sumer level and have pretty extensive projects in Vegas, putting video out to actual audiences (church) on a weekly basis, and TV in the next month or 2. - I'm probably a little picky.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
...could I get your boss to talk to my boss? I spend my free time in Scribus, Inkscape, and occasionally the GIMP, and my work time when the boss isn't looking, but I still have to do "real work" in InDesign. Not because I can't meet my objectives, but because no one else would be able to continue my work if I were to vanish off the face of the earth. The fact that the other folks in my office have little to no idea how I do my work (either way) does not enter in to the equation. Nor does the fact that I get more done in less time using OSS. Nor do financial considerations. Nor do open file formats.
We use what everyone else uses, because everyone else uses it. I can only assume everyone else uses it because we use it.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
Seriously, that would make my day. Photoshop likes to eat all the memory it can. While it renders superhuge things more efficiently than Gimp, I guess Photoshop would be more useful if it could access all 8GB of someone's Linux graphics workstation's memory, especially when you edit those 9000x9000 pixel photos.
People have been begging Google to make a linux version of Sketchup for years. Even a version that works with Wine would be great. Seems they just don't care, instead they focus on Photoshop, something completely irrelevant for them.
For a good part of the 90s, SGI ruled the graphics workstation world with it's IRIX Unix-like OS. Eventually, the x86 computers became so ridiculously powerful that all advantages of running SGI's MIPS-based dedicated graphics workstations was gone. Also a bunch of their engineers left and made nVidia, which specialized in processors for x86 systems. Adobe probably still has a bunch of engineers that port stuff to IRIX systems that they can't fire due to union regulations or something.
Interesting play by Google. For a token cost, there's one less reason to run non-Linux operating systems. Google probably saves enough from not having to buy OSX or Windows licenses in-house to pay for this!
:)
If a few more applications get ported over, switching to Linux will be that much easier. I'll laugh at the irony when Google finances the perfect WINE of MS Office (particularly Outlook).
It's an interesting enemy-of-my-enemy is a friend of mine kind of thing.
What's next? Microsoft releases a free web search engine?
Those of you who are complaining about lack of functionality need to look into Krita or ImageMagick.
> Furthermore, they used to have a IRIX and Solaris port (back in the Photoshop 2 and 3 days, I believe), so it's not like they didn't have the UNIX experience.
Fixed.
Max.
It does do automatic breaks unless you select HTML formatted.
/.'s commenting system is that if you post using "Plain old text" you can still use HTML, it just adds hard breaks whenever you insert a new line.
If you select HTML formatted then you should write HTML. What part of this is hard to understand?
No, the retarded thing about
> That, sir, is a period.
In America perhaps.
In some other places, it means something else which I don't much care to go into, but, if you're in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, it isn't a pleasant time (for either party).
Max.
I'm on Gimp 2.2 because 2.4 refuses to open my 100k-wide panorama images. 2.2 opens them, but isn't too happy about doing so. It seems it wants to put the whole image in memory or a temp location somewhere, and when I paste in a new part of the image (e.g.to fix up a person that got chopped in half by the automatic blender of my panorama tool), it sits there and thinks for a few minutes. I change to difference blending mode to position that layer correctly... thinks for a few minutes. again. Start painting.. ugh.
I really wish it would work more like XRes did. I think XRes absolutely had the right idea*. But I guess the suggestion nowadays is to just get a 64bit machine and stuff 32GB of RAM in, then call it a day. Bloody inefficient.
Every time somebody mentions being unable to run their favorite application on Linux, there are plenty of Slashdotters claiming that Wine is the answer. Apparently Google doesn't think so.
Wine is really a project that attempts to get specific Windows apps to run on Linux, it isn't a full Windows "emulator/simulator/whatever" and was never intended to be.
Gimp doesn't cost money and can be customised at home, you don't have to be one of the congregation to realise that these are nice merits. Gimp is an infinitely better tool for my $0 already, just imagine how much value for money it would have if it was as good as Photoshop in features and performance.
If it's all the same for Google, I'd much rather see work going in to something I can use without paying for it, proprietary software does nothing for me if I don't intend to buy it.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
It does have a price! But it was fair trade anyway.
.... to free software, we would have no alternatives to Windows (and OSX, which btw, is based in a lesser form of Free software).
The idiotic, deriding meme of Linux (or FOSS in general) as a "religious" movement is getting pretty tired.
Nobody calls Gates or Ballmer religious zealots for supporting with all their might, both intellectual and material, the development and commercialization of closed source software.
Linux is not as strong as many of us would like it to be, but it is substantially stronger than it was one, five or ten years ago. It did not depended on Wine or Crossover for that, there is no reason why the GIMP or some other application could not reach the refinement of Photoshop in the future (If I was Adobe I would release the source code or make a Linux version pronto).
As things are now the GIMP (and several other applications) covers the needs of many people, it is only the uber snobs with $1000+ SLR digital cameras that keep missing Photoshop in Linux. For the rest of us the existing applications to crop here and there a picture, change format, play a bit with brightness and some basic effects , are perfectly adequate.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You see, you just sound stupid because use the term religion as a term of abuse.
Religious people know that Linux of FOSS is not a religion, proponents of FOSS get annoyed because it clearly uses terminology from a completely different are of expertise that tries to derogate both the word and the people associated to it (by implying the worst traits of religion as descriptive of this people).
The problem is that people like you can muster the fact that there are people who have reached a logical conclusion about how they want the world to be. That is called principles buddy, if you sell yours to the higher bidder that is your problem, other people don't and the least they deserve should be respect for that, specially since people in the FOSS movement are not forcing anybody to join.
You don't like Linux or FOSS?: who the fuck is pointing a gun to your head to install the latest distro or to release under the GPL any software you write?
Don't like it, don't use it, show some manners and accord the most basic courtesy to people that don't agree with you but that are principled and consistent.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Where the absence of Photoshop is one of the most common complaints about takeup, why not address the native solutions? Gimp needs improvements in its high end and workflow processes, so why not finance them? That applies to Google, or anyone who is interested. That's what open source is about. If your business profits from Gimp and you want it to be improved, donate money and time to the project.
I think as always Google have an interest in improving Wine, and it seems that Adobe are reticent about committing to a Linux/Unix port, perhaps over licensing issues, perhaps over the amount of code that needs to be changed (I would hazard that the Mac OS version of CS probably hasn't changed a great deal since OS9 days, with Carbonisation being the majority of the porting work), so Photoshop on Wine is a compromise that has benefits in that Google gets improvements to Wine and Adobe keeps selling Photoshop licences.
"You obviously don't know who I am if you think I'm not "in the know". *rolls eyes*"
/bin/more)
Oh, so you _are_ in the know!
However, you're engaging in some circular reasoning here:
- First, you're stating that an operating system shouldn't have user apps.
- Then, the AC said to you that you're confusing operating systems and distributions.
- So, you answer was that Linux == operating system because that's how people call it.
- So suddenly the (Linux) OS has user apps, which it shouldn't.
What you're missing here is the GNU project. As in the Linux/Gnu operating system, I'm sure you remember that.
(Linux kernel + GNU project) == Linux OS
(Linux OS + user apps) == Linux distribution (and with user apps I mean, say, The Gimp, not
And please, if everyone says something wrong, it doesn't become right. In the case of these naming mixups people mostly understand what others say, but you can see that things don't get any clearer (even for kernel developers).
Who in the FOSS movement wants to attract investors?
You are setting up your own strawman, which look more like a dead horse, and are beating it up to dead.
Stop it buddy, give it a rest.
The FOSS ideals were not started in order to attract investors. That is your deluded view of the world, but ha s no basis in reality. Honestly, ask your shrink, not everything you think is true actually is.
Companies are moving to use open source for the obvious advantages it has (as a user you are freer to change providers or have input on how the software changes, if your provider goes bust you have a fighting chance to keep your software working, as a developer you get to stand in the shoulders of giants, and can use sophisticated tools for your work that would be otherwise too expensive for you to have), but they were lured by the positive points of the development model, not because geeks went begging to them for help.
If there is no Photoshop in Linux, well, shame, but alas, if you *really* need Photoshop (not as an intellectual masturbatory exercise, but in a professional capacity) then get yourself a Windows machine and be happy.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Paint, notepad and workpad are not part of the OS.
...).
Under no sane definition.
Take it from an expert (I know, I know, I should not use authority to push an argument, but really
Are there any Computing Engineers left in Slashdot?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Honestly, who *needs it* even in Windows?
People on this site often argue that Joe User is too stupid to use Linux (the usual nonsense about using the command line, GUI that is not "user friendly" whatever the heck that means) but as soon as it comes to applications needed, this archetypical simpleton uses Photoshop for his graphics needs!?!
Linux detractors simply can't have it both ways.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I think this may be the first and only time I've ever seen humility on Slashdot.
Be you mortal, or some kind of crazy angelic being, sent to save us from being up our own rectories? (Or some other $word =~ /rect/ )
There is no way to improve compatibility with Photoshop (or any other Windows application) without also improving compatibility with at least some other Windows applications. That's because the only kind of patches that are accepted in the Wine repository are those that make its behavior closer to that of the Windows API, and that's good for all applications.
WindowsGuy: "Well, earning an end-user's trust and respect isn't easy. Maybe it's your GUI, maybe you have poor online documentation, or perhaps there's some other problem with it that's more difficult to pin down. Perhaps there's some little flaw in the presentation that potential users find offputting, that gives out the wrong signals and makes them less likely to trust your program or to invest their time in it. Let me download it and take a look at it for you. What's this program called?"
LinuxGuy: "Cocksucker."
Eric Baird
I never said they did. That was a question, because some doofus (you) was trying to state that his operating system didn't come with Office or Photoshop. It had nothing to do with the comment you replied to, unless you completely ignore the context of it.
Do we seek to obsolete only the operating system, or all proprietary software? That was the question.
To be clear about this (there seems to be a great amount of confusion about this here today) there are programs which can be classified as part of the operating system. There are programs which cannot be classified as part of the operating system. It makes no difference, only if they are proprietary or free.
The proprietary ones need to go, be they operating system or userland it makes no goddamn difference to me.
IIRC, the IRIX port did the real work using the graphics h/w so it was intereactive compared to a pc. But I don't recall ever seeing it running, so I'm not sure.
I'm surprised to hear someone is still running it.
Max.
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"
It surprised me that no one on Slashdot actually asked this question. Why would Google want to use up its own resources that they themselves won't benefit from, not even indirectly IMHO. They can't stuff WINE'd products with their ads without enraging the community, there isn't any Adobe-Google allicance AFAIK, so why is Google doing this? Why not say "We are sponsoring WINE development." Why sponsor Photoshop on linux through WINE?
See Maya, Shake, Nuke, Houdini, Oracle, BEA WebLogic, DB2, Adobe Acrobat (Reader), Maple, Mathematica, Matlab, and VMWare.
Professionals aren't afraid to use proprietary software. They just want the damn things to work.
So... they won't listen to the "customers" who tell them how to improve their product for free, but they will pay someone to tell them the same thing? LINUX IS FINALLY READY FOR THE BUSINESS WORLD!!!!
You see, you just sound stupid because use the term religion as a term of abuse.
Really? Have you read a majority of the posters replying to me? "We want to destory proprietary software." Without thinking of the consequences, just a blind irrational hate. Can't think of something that describes a religon better.
The problem is that people like you can muster the fact that there are people who have reached a logical conclusion about how they want the world to be. That is called principles buddy, if you sell yours to the higher bidder that is your problem, other people don't and the least they deserve should be respect for that, specially since people in the FOSS movement are not forcing anybody to join.
And much like religon, your "principals" are threatening how I want to live my life. You're not peacefully coexisting, you're trying to force everyone to convert to your philosophy. Again, much like various religons. And yes, there's a large group that is trying to force such a conversion; go read others that have replied to me.
You don't like Linux or FOSS?: who the fuck is pointing a gun to your head to install the latest distro or to release under the GPL any software you write?
I never said I didn't like Linux or OSS. I don't think its a viable way for people who really enjoy software development AND want to make a living at it. How many contributors are there to OSS that do it at night after they get home from their day job creating closed, proprietary software? I suspect many. I like that I can make a living building software; its something I want to do anyway, and because someone is willing to pay me to write software, I get to spend MORE time doing what I love.
Don't like it, don't use it, show some manners and accord the most basic courtesy to people that don't agree with you but that are principled and consistent.
I never said I didn't like it. I said there are economic problems with supporting OSS, namely that developers need to eat too.
Oh of course. Since the article was about photoshop, I was mostly refering to "anyone who uses their PC for something else than browsing, email and light word processing". Linux will always be a top notch choice, regardless of apps, if you don't -specifically- need Windows (or Mac). I personally used Linux exclusively for years, but then switched direction in many things... now, the amount of Windows exclusive things I need is so great, I don't expect to be able to switch back to Linux for at least 5-8 years if that (thats the other extreme end of the story). In the end, one just need to use what suits them best. Things like this article shows that people want to fit a round peg in a square hole.
Just because GIMP can open the file doesn't mean it doesn't lose a lot of file information (layer effects, type effects, layer groups, and so on). On anything other than a damn simple Photoshop file GIMP gimps it so much as to be unusable. It's not like I'm expecting GIMP to open CS3 files or anything, just anything after Photoshop 5. It's so far behind Photoshop's current file formats that it might as well not allow you the option to open them.
I'd be willing to take on the learning curve of GIMP if it could just deal with text in a halfway decent manner.
steampunk web design
"Tell them how"? More like "do it for them", and likely do a significantly better job than they could on their own.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Am I just being stupid in thinking that this would be a better solution than (in essence) hiring a team of emulation developers to fix their emulation?
Admittedly, it would probably make wine better, but still... why aren't we pushing Adobe towards making a linux product, instead of paying someone to kludge it in?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Photoshop isn't a great name, but your criticisms have an air of exaggeration and contrived misunderstanding to make it seem as bad as "Gimp". I'm not personally aware of any real life "photo shops", but it could(?) be a reference to a photo lab type operation in some areas.
If not, it could still be a play on "print shop", which in addition to being a legitimate business was also the name of an early DTP package that was still popular when Photoshop came out.
And it's a damn good reason for the Gimp developers to ignore the needs of PS users. Some things being *done* by PS may be worth picking up, but because PS has shown how it can be used or misused, NOT because some weiner complained Gimp was a toy. I don't think anyone would argue that something should be done on the basis of *one* person's criticism. But even if the GIMP developers shouldn't automatically jump to include everything that PS users wanted (which would probably just turn it into a copy of PS anyway), there are legitimate criticisms mixed up with problems of image. And with respect, your slightly petulant attitude smacks of taking your ball and going home, which won't fix GIMP's image problem (justified or otherwise) and won't make it a better package.
I have to agree with you about the lack of an "undo" feature though. I'd always wondered why the "standard" undo combination in PS CS2 only gave one-level undo, and the "normal" undo required ctrl-alt-Z. I mean, no proper undo- WTF?!
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
As for the photoshop undo feature it was added in several versions into the program which may be why the interface is different. It appears that only one level of undo was implemented at first and then the second multi-level undo we all like came a few years later. It was really a pain trying to learn how to use the thing without undo coming from autocad that had undo all the way to the start of the session and gimp with a few levels of undo.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Sorry, should have pointed out that I live (and was brought up in) the UK.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
http://gimp-brainstorm.blogspot.com/> The main criticism has always been that Gimp has a horrible layout. Well, Google should help them with it's design, and layout preferences/options/plug-ins could be added to the Gimp so that users can have the layout be the way they prefer, while work is done to make the default layout be ideal for most users. I'm a little ashamed of Google for not trying..
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
I would personally prefer dreamweaver but if we made an open source competitor to dreamweaver, something better than Kompozer/Nvu, something more usefull and functional than Bluefish (like bluefish with a GOOD wysiwyg editor) we wouldn't need this. Besides if we put more support behind FUSE we could see seamless support for network editing without having to code each app for it. (i mean fuse-smb fuse-loginftp fuse-sftp) so i don't have to depend on gnome vfs.