Adobe Photoshop Is Coming To Linux, Through Chromebooks

sfcrazy writes Adobe is bringing the king of all photo editing software, Photoshop, to Linux-based Chrome OS. Chrome OS-powered devices, such as Chromebooks and Chromeboxes, already have a decent line-up of 'applications' that can work offline and eliminate the need of a traditional desktop computer. So far it sounds like great news. The bad news is that the offering is in its beta stage and is available only to the customers of the Creative Cloud Education program residing in the U.S. I have a full subscription of Creative Cloud for Photographers, and LightRoom, but even I can't join the program at the moment.

Comments

Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

The year of linux on the Chromebox is at hand!

Re:Finally

[NotDrWho]

All you anti-corporate, pro-open-source Linux users can rejoice! Google has finally brought you the corporate-owned, closed-source Linux desktop of your dreams!

Re:Finally

[cayenne8]

I"d jump for joy at this...except I still refuse to RENT my software.

I still am not ready to buy into the Adobe CC thing, I don't like the idea that if I have a lot of PSD files, I've done work on, I may refer back to, say as templates for my business albums, etc...that if I quit paying rent, that I can no longer open and use my files I created.

I bought into the CS6 Production Premium Suite of tools...and so far, I've not see anything Adobe has done or added that is so groundbreakingly compelling that I would give up my standalone as long as I want them (in VM's if need be for OS changes) and use them.

I'm actually wondering if Adobe keeping the 'deals' running for so long is and indication that not quite as many have flocked to CC as they imagined. But regardless of that, I don't wanna rent my software, who's to tell when once they have you hooked, they start raising the prices? Also, what's to keep the fire lit under them to innovate once everyone is paying monthly and there is no stand alone option any more?

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

CS6 is the last version I'll be using. I'm going to move to Corel Photo Paint and CorelDraw.

Re:Finally

[ColdWetDog]

I still am not ready to buy into the Adobe CC thing, I don't like the idea that if I have a lot of PSD files, I've done work on, I may refer back to, say as templates for my business albums, etc...that if I quit paying rent, that I can no longer open and use my files I created.

If you have a .psd or better yet a .tiff file, you can open it up in all of it's glorious layered goodness in any one of a number of programs. Of course, if you are looking at a Photoshop specific manipulation or feature, you're unlikely to be able to do it in anything other than Photoshop. However, as you point out, there are not all that many late model Photoshop effects that are to-die-for.

I bought into the CS6 Production Premium Suite of tools...and so far, I've not see anything Adobe has done or added that is so groundbreakingly compelling that I would give up my standalone as long as I want them (in VM's if need be for OS changes) and use them.

I would agree. I have CS6 happily sitting on my hard drive, but also have a current subscription (hint: if you try to cancel, they give you the old price back. At $29.00 a month for the entire suite it can be a steal, depending on what you use).

I'm actually wondering if Adobe keeping the 'deals' running for so long is and indication that not quite as many have flocked to CC as they imagined. But regardless of that, I don't wanna rent my software, who's to tell when once they have you hooked, they start raising the prices? Also, what's to keep the fire lit under them to innovate once everyone is paying monthly and there is no stand alone option any more?

Hard to say. Adobe's SEC filings look pretty good. Other companies are jumping on the subscription band wagon which suggests that either it works or they're desperate. I suspect it's a little of both. It costs very little to add a customer (it's not like Adobe spends any money on customer support....). If they can get some rate of conversion to Endless Subscription, they've made some good money. If the user drops out after a while, well, they've made some money.

Remember, CS is professional software. They don't make much off us one of hobbyist / low grade professional shops. They make money on the big guys. And subscriptions make accountants happy for some weird reason. Further, Adobe, bless it's pointed little metallic head, really has made inroads into listening to professionals. You don't have to upgrade a version. Downgrading is easy. Running every version ever made (after 6) is easy.

Customer support still sucks, but it is Adobe.

Re:Finally

[jd659]

In my last several engagements, I purchased (on behalf of the clients) version of standalone Photoshop and CS specifically not to be tied to the CC model. Sure, the CC can tout constant updates, but what if I don’t need the updates? Who said that in 10 years the documents I create now can be opened with whatever CC updates get accumulated over the years? Those advocating newer is better, consider your Win7 machine gets automatically updated to Win8 when the company ships it and you’re in the middle of the project and a few things stop working. For critical tasks I want to preserve files, programs, not to be tied to some third party to hand me the critical tools.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

subscriptions make accountants happy for some weird reason

Tell me about it. Our company's purchasing department requires that we purchase service contracts with all printers even though I showed them an accounting of every repair every printer ever needed over the last ten years and it didn't even come close to costing as much as the contract, AND service was better when paying a fee for service. The contractor always tries to get out of providing contract service. To the point that one time they emailed us some PCBs and told us we had to take apart the printer and replace the boards because they were "user serviceable parts." Do I need to tell you how it went when the secretary tried to change the boards?

Re:Finally

[cayenne8]

Remember, CS is professional software. They don't make much off us one of hobbyist / low grade professional shops.

It seems they could offer both standalone along with subscription based and catch more of the crowd...

I mean for now, they still offer Lightroom as standalone or part of CC, why not PS, Premier, AI, etc?

Re:Finally

[chaosdivine69]

I had mod points but I had already commented on this article so I couldn't mod you up but this is gospel. Halle-fuckin-lujah brotha!

Re:Finally

[chaosdivine69]

Just so you know, Corel's doing this sneaky renting bullshit too but they're just doing in peace meal with individual features. Coreldraw X6 was the QR code generator. X7 introduced a Hide Object feature. Both are "greyed out" unless you're a standard or premium member. Standard members don't pay but preemies do - aka, RENT. They'll continue to tie in more features this way also over time. Corel's not getting off easy on this one by any stretch.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Free (and now unsupported, but...) Windows image manipulation software:

http://www.datapipe-blackbeltsystems.com/windows.html

70+ layer modes, morphing, warping, all manner of filters, animation, ray tracer, particle system, heightfield/texture generator, high end jpeg and gif rendering, plasma effects, warp layers(!), fractals, user toolboxes, splined animation (both area selections and effect settings) for all filters, preview filmstrip, color separations, scripting, multi-undo/redo, etc

Might be worth a look, depending on what you're doing.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

If you quit paying rent or property taxes, you eventually can't open your own front door.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you know $500 will get me CorelDRAW Graphics Suite X7 with no "rent".

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

I have more than 10 years to use photoshop, Gimp works just fine.
Also, there is no need that chrome-stuff covers. So, no point in using either.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Gimp does not work fine. Let me know when you do graphics work professionally and then we can talk, kid.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I need luck? Have you ever used a real graphics suite? Thought not.

How important is that at this point?

[damn_registrars]

I know that Photoshop is still the gold standard, but I'm not sure how many Linux users are concerned about it. I use GIMP for all my photo work in Linux and it meets all my needs. It seems that the overlap between people who need Photoshop (and are wiling to pay for it) and the people who are using Linux would be pretty small.

I know that Photoshop gets a lot of attention from the WINE community but that doesn't necessarily translate to people who want to buy licenses for running it in Linux.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[blackiner]

Take a careful look at what they released this beta for: Creative Cloud Education program. Chromebooks have gained a decent foothold in schools recently. This is Adobe looking out for their own interests, by trying to hook students at a young age. Which is totally acceptable, imo, plenty more people will benefit from this than just them.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[binarylarry]

The issue is that people learn Photoshop, they don't learn the fundamentals for the tool.

So they switch to GIMP and then find it's horrible because their skills don't transfer and they cry on the internet that "GIMP SUX" because they don't want to relearn anything. This is even worse in a business situation because relearning things pushes back deadlines and impacts quality.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Richard_at_work]

You ignore the fact that there have been many many in-depth criticisms of GIMP over the years, from people who have taken the time to ensure they understand that its the tool that is lacking rather than their understanding.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Penguinisto]

This, right here... and it ain't just Photoshop, either.

In the CG realm, you have people who learned "3DS Max", or "Poser", or "Modo", but few of them could tell you what a vertex really is, let alone half-edges, collision-detection, subdivision, and etc. A few folks do go out of their way to learn the fundamentals (which makes switching between tools less painful), but they're a distinct minority.

Part of the reason why you see so much of this is because every software house has their own oddball idea of what a user interface should do, and even how to approach a given task (NURBS modeling versus mesh extrusion for instance). It would positively scare you to learn one suite (say, 3DS Max) then get sat in front of another (e.g. Modo). The learning curve on each of them is astoundingly steep... Poser's ancient Kai Krause inspired interface, Blender's 48-mouse-button-inspired UI, Wings' (probably) EMACS-inspired sparse-as-hell interface... DAZ Studio's Qt-anchored one... they all approach most of the same things rather differently. It takes a lot of time to get comfortable with a given user interface, before you even take into consideration the behaviors and quirks.

Photoshop is no different in this regard, and that's why most folks who use it know Photoshop, but few of those users know the principles and concepts behind it.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[mwvdlee]

Same would be true for any other application, including GIMP.

FWIW, I prefer Photoshop. I can just about manage to get things done in GIMP, but it's not a pleasure; the UI is an utter mess. Not talking about it being different from PS, but about it being an utter mess all on it's own merits.

And I would love for old Paint Shop Pro to return instead of the crappy instagram-like PSP it's degraded into.
Seriously; why did they Corel mangle PSP so badly?
Old PSP was truely "Cheap Photoshop without the color management stuff few people need and even less people know how to use".

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still stuck with windows because of photoshop. All I'd need is a linux version of photoshop and I could make the switch. I'm using cygwin on my machine just so I have a sane command line.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[jedidiah]

No. He just doesn't take Lemming trolls at face value.

Most people whining about GIMP and putting Photoshop on a pedestal are amateurs and consumers that would never actually pay for a copy of Photoshop ever.

Photoshop is a lot of cost for questionable marginal benefit.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[swillden]

I can just about manage to get things done in GIMP, but it's not a pleasure; the UI is an utter mess.

On what platform?

I find that GIMP's UI is just fine with a proper window manager. On OS X it's very painful, though, and I would expect the same on Windows (dunno, I haven't used Windows in about 15 years).

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Photoshop is a lot of cost for questionable marginal benefit.

Spoken like a 100% amateur consumer. GIMP simply doesn't come close to Photoshop for professional photographic work.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[damn_registrars]

The issue is that people learn Photoshop, they don't learn the fundamentals for the tool.

I'm not sure how that would effect sales. Are people who learned Photoshop without understanding how it works really be likely Linux users? I think the overlap on those sets is vanishingly small.

So they switch to GIMP and then find it's horrible because their skills don't transfer and they cry on the internet that "GIMP SUX" because they don't want to relearn anything.

First of all, I can tell you that I have used a significant number of Photoshop tutorials in GIMP to do various functions and found that they work just fine.

Second, the most critical (by frequency of use) tools in Photoshop are the technical adjustments - color, levels, curves, etc. They work the same in GIMP and are even in the same menus. There is no significant relearning to do. My wife uses Photoshop and Illustrator (as well as InDesign) professionally on a daily basis. A while back we were traveling with only my laptop, which has GIMP and Inkscape but nothing from Adobe. She was able to get by just fine for a quick job while we were out; going well beyond the use level that I get from GIMP even though I use it almost daily.

This is even worse in a business situation because relearning things pushes back deadlines and impacts quality

I'm not sure how this applies. How many businesses are running Linux workstations and need Adobe on them? Again this seems to me like a likely very small set. I don't see the absence of Adobe software in Linux as being a critical impediment to Linux migration for businesses who want to do that, either.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a single window mode in GIMP these days, BTW.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Malc]

Maybe they find it horrible because the UI was designed by a two year old? Actually, that not fair, I haven't used it since 2006, but the horrible user experience was the driving force behind my disgust with it. In fact only early today I was using WireShark on OS X and remembering years of being annoyed by the terrible UI toolkit and total incompetence of the people who put the UI together. WireShark reminds me of the last time I used GIMP.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Jethro]

I used GIMP for many years. Since it came out, pretty much - I remember using version 0.54 in the '90s. When I started getting more into photography I used Gimp with the UFRaw plugin. Again, I was using the thing for well over a decade at this point.

Then I had a fairly big photography project and tried a trial version of Photoshop+Bridge+Adobe Camera Raw. It was /instantly/ easier to use AND more powerful than GIMP and any raw processor on Linux. My workflow with it is incredibly smoother and faster.

Nowadays I do occasionally have to use GIMP and let me tell you, it is PAINFUL.

So yeah, now that I can get a legal copy of Photoshop for $10 a month, why on Earth wouldn't I?

Re:How important is that at this point?

[jd2112]

You ignore the fact that there have been many many in-depth criticisms of GIMP over the years, from people who have taken the time to ensure they understand that its the tool that is lacking rather than their understanding.

Photoshop, although not as bad as GIMP, isn't exactly a pinnacle of user friendliness either.

Re: How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your anti GIMP sentiment has been noted and you have now officially been flagged as an Adobe shill.

Thank you for your participation.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Salgat]

This mode makes a huge difference for how easy it is to use GIMP. I have a theory that a lot of criticism stems from not knowing about this mode.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

all schools are going ipad anyway so I don't know why adobe is putting money into this.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Noah Haders]

oddly enough MS really upped there game with the Paint program in Win 7. next thing you know they'll revitalize minesweeper!

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Noah Haders]

you should try pixelmator.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[i kan reed]

Really, you think professional 3d modelers don't know what a vertex is? Really?

I mean, I can get that they might not understand how vertices are processed by a rasterizer, but that's not what they are.

Re: How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who notices the flaws in GIMP are adobe shills now? Slashdot gets dumber and more paranoid by the day.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Molt]

Hmm.. Minesweeper meets Minecraft. It suddenly all makes sense.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[nine-times]

While I agree that it's not fair to say "GIMP SUX" because it's a great program, I also don't feel that it's fair to say, "the only reason professional graphic designers aren't using it is because they don't learn the fundamentals of design and don't want to relearn."

I'm not sure what the current state of the GIMP is, but for a long time, it didn't even have proper CMYK support, which is tremendously important for doing professional print media. Also, I can tell you from a lot of testing a few years ago, Adobe's algorithms for optimizing graphics are (or at least were at the time) unmatched by any open source tools. For example, if you wanted to have a relatively large JPEG with a hard file-size restriction, Photoshop did a better job of compressing the image so that the JPEG compression looked ok. Or in the case of GIFs, it would do a better job of making the image look good with a limited number of colors. I've also seen some issues (admittedly a couple of years ago) where Photoshop provided better text rendering, specifically with regards to kerning.

And you can say that those are fringe cases that don't matter for most people most of the time, and those people can use GIMP. Fair enough. But those are just two examples where Photoshop actually might perform better in cases where professionals need that performance.

The UI is also pretty well designed, and the UI is an important aspect that shouldn't be dismissed. People who prefer a good UI aren't necessarily just failing to "learn the fundamentals" and are unwilling to learn. A better UI might enable you to work faster, with less frustration and confusion.

Now I really want to get into the middle of this argument, and I think we should just drop the whole thing. But if you're angry that people aren't using the GIMP, it may be better to ask why they aren't using it, rather than just assuming that they're stupid and lazy.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a graphics editing pro, and I can assure you that there is no comparison. I've used GIMP in the past for free classes I've taught for beginners (mostly just because it was free). But I stopped after I started getting complaints from users about the name (VERY unprofessional and immature, BTW) and about the shitty interface (and it is *epically* shitty, make no mistake about it) and the buggy implementation.

So GIMP is a joke for pros (don't even make me laugh by even beginning to compare it to Photoshop for professional use). And it's a joke for beginners (shameful name, shit UI, and buggy).

Just go Adobe. Don't let your political/social ideology, cheapness, and pride get in the way of your goddamn common sense.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Lumpy]

none really. The only photoshop holdouts need CMYK or are unable to learn a new interface.

I only use photoshop because of all the free plugins that do what I want without having any skill at all. Butt hen I also think that my horribly out of date CS3 is just fine.

IF there were a lot more free plugins for GIMP that made it easier for us poseurs without any skill look good, it would surpass photoshop quickly.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

As if there would be a need for new professional photos. There is no such thing as 'professional artist', you should call yourselfe 'professional bullshit creator'.

All hail for the amateur producer who can afford to do what he wants, which would be art by definition. And he obviously likes GIMP.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Noah Haders]

On a related note, they just released minecraft for ps4. Should I get it?

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were legitimately licenseable instead of this BS that they're running, yeah, it'd be worth acquiring for many. (In fact, while I know of a Krita user (Artist and Web Cartoonist...) that would probably still keep using it- they'd kill for a PS license that they didn't need to jump through flaming hoops to get the software to run for the things Krita just won't do for them and PS will...and there's a few things...)

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously; why did they Corel mangle PSP so badly?

The same reason the scorpion stung the frog. That's Corel's nature.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Givin billions to adobe is goddam common sense? I would call it crazy...

Re:How important is that at this point?

[binarylarry]

See you've just proved me correct.

  complaints from users about the name (VERY unprofessional and immature, BTW)
the shitty interface (and it is *epically* shitty, make no mistake about it)
  the buggy implementation.

These all scream "ME DONT WANT TO RELEARN ANYTHING"

Which is okay but it's not GIMP's fault that it isn't a Photoshop clone.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[LWATCDR]

Sorry but no you are wrong.
My wife has spent a lot of time learning GIMP, Photoshop, and Photoshop elements.
GIMP is much better than elements but is not as good as Photoshop.
She still uses GIMP for some projects and recommends it to people that are just starting out or do not have the money to spend on Photoshop but GIMP is not a good replacement for photoshop.
GIMP is actually a good tool and a great value for the price but it is not a replacement for photoshop. Your comments about lemmings is a good example of what is wrong with the FOSS community.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh..so why not just use Paint Shop pro (the old version) and be done with it? I have a graphic artist customer that swears by the old Macromedia XRes so ya know what? HE USES XRES, I know, actually using what you like! Crazy huh?

But ya see that is why its so awesome today, because thanks to the truly insane amount of CPU power we can get VERY cheaply its trivial to just run a VM and stick with what you like! Hell don't want to bother with a VM you can pick up a C2D box (or if you want something small the new AM1 quads) for a little of nothing, slap it on a KVM switch and put it on a VLAN...tada! Now you can run Win2K or whatever OS floats your boat that your old version requires and still use a modern OS with just a push of a button, easy peasy!

So there really is no point using software you hate anymore, not with all the cheap computing power we have at our fingertips. Oh as for the XRes customer he is using an old Athlon X64 system I got a hold of and paired with Win2K and 2GB of RAM this makes a perfect platform for the circa 1998 XRes. With a $10 2 port KVM and a VLAN set up for the old 2K box on the router he already had this is a really dirt cheap way of keeping your favorite old software while being able to switch instantly between old and new.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because iPads are consumption devices. You can't create much of anything with one and computer classes are still going to require real computers.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[iluvcapra]

3D modelers know what a vertex is, what I think he means is that, in some cases, perhaps they don't completely understand the mathematical formalism of the thing, and just have an intuitive feeling for what it is -- "the thing that's the corner of my thing."

Of course, there is the perspective that you shouldn't need to understand the "fundamentals" or nuts and bolts reifications of things, because that's what the software's for, to take all of these mathematical games and put them in a box, out of the way in a separated concern, so I can get the job done in whatever way I want. What's the point of having software if it doesn't enable people, even mathematically disinclined people, to create?

A sculptor has as much to say about 3D modeling as some voxel-counting dork from NVidia's demo team, more even, really. Saying that "vertices" or "bezier paths" form some sort of "fundamental" base for all visual art is constructivist, scientistic and naive.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

You rise a valid point; what is it with these graphics related programs, which have a obsession to create their own UI styles and widgets, random keyboard shortcuts and color schemes. How hard would it be to follow the OS' style guide, use ctrl-z for undo and even use left mouse button for selection and right for context menu? The gfx app is a tool for most of us, not some wonderful world of user experience experiment. I can go to any store and buy a pencil and start drawing, they have not tried to change the user interface just for the sake of being different. I use eg. Blender rarely enough that each time I open it, I need to spend hour or two of googling and wathcing tutorials just to find out how on earth even a simple task was done.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Kjella]

I'm not sure how this applies. How many businesses are running Linux workstations and need Adobe on them? Again this seems to me like a likely very small set. I don't see the absence of Adobe software in Linux as being a critical impediment to Linux migration for businesses who want to do that, either.

<consultant mode>
Well, I'd put it in a 2x2 matrix with low/high impact, low/high corporate usage. High/highs is stuff like your office suite, a lot of people use it and quite a lot. Low/high are things like time sheet recording, people need to do it but it's a very minor part of their work day. Both of these you generally need to have good solutions for since you'd be wasting so many people's time otherwise, the heavily used of course more so. Low/lows you don't really need to care much about, unless they add up to some extraordinary amounts. The killer is often the high/lows, basically the specialized tools a few in your organization use.

The (strike:problem) challenge is that these tools are different. For example, your graphics department might rely heavily on Photoshop. Nobody else in the business might care about that, but they again have their own tools they care about. Retraining, lost productivity and lower output quality can be significant costs. Existing workflows and procedures must be migrated. Forced migration may lead to employee dissatisfaction and higher turnover as they want to continue their career towards becoming a Photoshop expert. Those costs have to be considered relative to the gains of making a migration. I can do an in-depth study, if you got funding...
</consultant mode>

Seriously though, I think more plans about migrating to Linux dies from a thousand cuts rather than one fatal blow. I haven't done an OS migration but I've seen some others, the major issues are under control. It's all those minor "uh oh, we didn't think of that" issues with emergency band-aids and workarounds that tends to turn it into a fire fighting exercise.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Hamsterdan]

Not only that, but those people don't even know Photography basics. (I know a couple)

Re:How important is that at this point?

[ColdWetDog]

....

Photoshop, although not as bad as GIMP, isn't exactly a pinnacle of user friendliness either.

Photoshop's UI is abysmal. It is, however, consistent. A PS user from 1990 can pick up CS 2014 and get around pretty easily. It's also an efficient work flow. Especially if you like keyboards.

But easy it is not.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Richard_at_work]

User friendliness is one small part of why GIMP has been lambasted over the years.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

You ignore the fact that there have been many many in-depth criticisms of GIMP over the years

Thanks for listing some of them.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[iluvcapra]

complaints from users about the name (VERY unprofessional and immature, BTW)

They aren't the ones that named it "GIMP," which is a really well-known American idiom that could have been easily avoided if the developers weren't too busy smelling their own farts.

These all scream "ME DONT WANT TO RELEARN ANYTHING"

It's this presumption that everyone who doesn't use GIMP is stupid and lazy, or that making it more attractive would necessarily lead it to becoming a "Photoshop clone" exemplifies the FOSS general ignorance of creative use cases and users, and tends to explain FOSS's utter failure at even making a dent in these markets. As long as your attitude is "I'm doing this for free, so I don't have to meet you half way, art fag," people will happily pay $10 a month for CC.

[Signed, someone who drops $1k a year keeping his Pro Tools up to date and would rather not.]

Re:How important is that at this point?

[mark-t]

GIMP simply doesn't come close to Photoshop for professional photographic work

Care to run off a list of ways that "GIMP doesn't come close"? If it's really so bad, it shouldn't be that difficult to name at least a dozen or so...

I won't refute that GIMP still needs some work, both in terms of overall usability, and to be at least on feature-parity with commercial grade software like photoshop, but I expect when actually you try and explicitly list the alleged many shortcomings of GIMP, you might find that it's a lot closer to being fairly comparable to Photoshop than you first thought.

In actuality, I expect that enumerating the shortcomings of GIMP will not be in quantity, but in terms of a relatively small number of particularly desirable features that many may perceive as critically important in such software. And I'd be willing to bet that of these features, many may already be in the pipe, and slated for GIMP 3.0 (although there is no ETA on that... and it might still be a while yet)

Re:How important is that at this point?

[mark-t]

Damnit... hit submit instead of preview. The next major release of GIMP is version 2.10, not 3.0. My bad.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[cayenne8]

But I stopped after I started getting complaints from users about the name (VERY unprofessional and immature, BTW)

What's wrong with the name? Gnu Image Manipulation Program....what's wrong with that?

Re:How important is that at this point?

[cayenne8]

With the Adobe move to CC, I was really hoping someone out there with funds would take this opportunity to take GIMP, and either work with the current team or fork it, and really turn it into a full blown PS competitor.

A very solid product would see a huge uptake. If they could get the keyboard shortcuts pretty close to 1:1 with PS, that alone would have a lot of pros looking seriously at GIMP, since that is a huge part of the workflow if you're trying to move fast.

So many keyboard shortcuts are memorized and moved into muscle memory with heavy users of PS, that that aspect alone would be a major boon to GIMP adoption by those that are not that happy with the CC *rental* model.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is about not putting all your eggs in one basket. iPads might end up dominating the market, they might dissipate, or they might find a decent market share whilst not dominating. Smart companies will come up with business plans that work regardless of these outcomes, and that is what Adobe is doing here.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[cayenne8]

you should try pixelmator.

I just found Pixelmator, looks interesting. Know any good sites with comparisons between PS and PM? I might do the trial and see how it works...the thing that made me a bit apprehensive, is that on the PM site, they are showing off in tutorials all the "click and it is done for you" stuff predominately.

I had to actually DIG through the site to find out about curves, and layer masks, often the meat of a serious workflow...not one touch instagram filters.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[NanoGator]

Care to run off a list of ways that "GIMP doesn't come close"? If it's really so bad, it shouldn't be that difficult to name at least a dozen or so... In actuality, I expect that enumerating the shortcomings of GIMP will not be in quantity, but in terms of a relatively small number of particularly desirable features that many may perceive as critically important in such software.

Hi, professional artist here. Your latter point, at least from my perspective, is correct. I know Photoshop really well, but since I make my living doing this work I am not biased in a way that'd prevent me from using a free tool. Let me be extra clear: It would hurt me to be fanboyishly loyal to be any particular app. I do pick up and mess with GIMP from time to time, but it has two critical omissions from Photoshop that make it unusable in my field. First, it lacks adjustment layers. Second, it lacks Smart Objects.

These are both features intended to do non-destructive editing of imagery. Let's say you have a tree with green leaves. You can create a Hue/Saturation 'adjustment layer' that will turn all the green pixels beneath it blue. If you put a picture of a different tree below that layer, its leaves would turn blue, too. If you took that tree and made it a 'smart object', you'd effectively be snapshotting that image and every operation you do causes it to regenerate itself. In other words, if you shrank a Smart Object down, then scaled it back up again, you'd get all its original detail back.

If you're creating imagery it doesn't take long for these two features to change your workflow in such a way that you gain a HUGE time savings. In fact I have created several templates to speed up the generation of images I do that I just plain cannot do in GIMP. Realistically speaking that is enough man-hours lost that I'd actually make a greater profit paying for Photoshop than I would saving the cost of the license in favor of GIMP.

With that said, I'd be *very* happy if you told me that version 3 would add these features. I'd also be very happy if somebody could tell me what GIMP does that Photoshop doesn't. It's free. if it shaves man-hours off my work, then load me up with the tips. I ain't gonna switch, but I ain't above using both.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

> You can create a Hue/Saturation 'adjustment layer' that will turn all the green pixels beneath it blue.

This has those features, and many more, including some Photoshop does not have such as warp layers (put a warp on a layer, and it'll warp the layers (or just the previous layer, selectively) below, but remain movable and adjustable, etc), in fact there are over 70 layer modes and it's now free (and unsupported):

http://www.datapipe-blackbeltsystems.com/windows.html

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to run off a list of ways that "GIMP doesn't come close"?

GIMP's lack of adjustment layers pretty much makes takes it out of the running for me.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[TheNastyInThePasty]

Allow me to add one gripe. Creating an outline for text in GIMP requires creating a selection from the text, creating a new layer, growing the selection to the outline size, and filling the selection with the new color. WTF? What if I want to change the text now? I have to redo those steps all over again because the outline is in no way associated with the text. It's just a separate object. That's absurd.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been this way forever. GIMP has had a few hype cycles where it was supposed to take over the market it's in. It will never happen.

I mean if you don't want to be a Photoshop competitor, then you've got to be better both better then Photoshop to work in and easy to move to. The people creating GIMP refuse to acknowledge what it actually is, a crappy Photoshop competitor with a much worse user experience.

I mean screw Adobe and their monthly license crap, but people touting gimp as a replacement are delusional. The attitude that if you don't use it it's because you are too stupid or lazy to learn it is complete horseshit. Frankly you'd think if they wanted to compete at all they'd fix that to gain market share rather then berate people who explain exactly why using their tool sucks. Nope, instead you get GIMP fanboys her to tell every photoshop user they are lemmings for not loving GIMP.

It's been that way since the 90s. GIMP still sucks to use all on it's own. Then when you compare it to Photoshop it makes a good case about when paid software can actually be worth avoiding the headaches of a horrible, albeit free, user experience.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[mark-t]

If you are genuinely interested knowing what is in the pipe for the future of GIMP, you may be interested in taking a look at this for a summary of features that are slated for the next or upcoming versions of GIMP. You may notice that many tasks are dependant on completion of GEGL implementation (something that is definitely slated for being in the next release). Once GEGL support is fully in, significant features such as user-defined color spaces, non-destructive editing, and smart objects will become feasible, and are already planned for a future version of GIMP

As for things that GIMP will do which Photoshop doesn't, I can refer you to obvious fanboyish pages such as 10 reasons that GIMP is better than photoshop, but of course, if GIMP doesn't do what you actually need, then I can appreciate how any or even all of those points can be far from convincing. Ultimately, the only reason to use GIMP over Photoshop depends entirely on whether GIMP can do what you actually need. If it can, then the difference in price alone can easily be a determining factor. If it can't, well... then it can't. But that doesn't mean it never will. And you should use what you need, for now. I'd encourage anyone to keep an open mind for the future, however.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like a perfect opportunity for the GIMP folks to do a kickstarter campaign to pay for highly desired features.
List off all the features and have people donate to the specific features they want to see implemented. The features that raise the most cash get implemented first... hell you could even sub contract it to Adobe programmers to implement if open source guys can't figure it out (har har). Someone could also fork the project and create a new name. I am in the camp of hating the RENT SOFTWARE model. I primarily use Lightroom (which is still pay once afaik) for postprocessing digital images. I have tried to used GIMP which was buggy and difficult to use. I have tried to use Canon's DPP, which is much better than GIMP, but does not measure up to Lightroom. The difference in ease of use for a amateur photographer like me, is so big, that I had to pony up and pay for versions 3, 4, and 5.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[BronsCon]

Most people whining about GIMP and putting Photoshop on a pedestal are amateurs and consumer

Methinks the text you quoted was meant in the context of the text I quoted. So, you pretty much just made the point jedidiah was trying to make. Derp.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[mwvdlee]

Both Windows (7) and Linux (Ubuntu 14 and Crunchbang).
The problem with the UI isn't with window managers or other technical parts; it's the design of the UI.
The way an excessive amount of buttons are seemingly randomly slapped together in a toolbar.
The way dialogs and popups don't follow platform styling.
The way it defaults to a multi-window environment.
I prefer to use an open source alternatives (like Audacity and Inkscape) whenever I can and most are easy enough to use.
GIMP is so close yet so far away, all because of a very bad UI.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to run off a list of ways that "GIMP doesn't come close"? If it's really so bad, it shouldn't be that difficult to name at least a dozen or so...

I'm not a professional photographer. I'm a hobbyist.

The reason why I switched from GIMP to Photoshop is three words: "Adobe Camera Raw". Well, that and 16 bit image editing. I don't know if GIMP has anything like those these days, but I'm not in a hurry to move back even if it has because I have a paid-for Photoshop that I know how to use that fulfills almost all of my imagining needs even though it's a couple of versions old.

But seriously, if you are serious about photographing, get some image editor that has Camera Raw (Photoshop isn't the only one with it). Nothing that I've seen comes close to it as a photographing tool.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a professional, then paying for Photoshop is justified.

If you're a kid or an amateur, GIMP probably offers enough features to be useful.

No need to have some religious war about GIMP v. Photoshop. The vast majority of folks who like to noodle around in art don't need professional grade tools.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[LWATCDR]

I think you are going too far the other way. GIMP on windows and Linux are not bad at all. GIMP on OS/X is really hard to use probably because GTK for OSX really lags GTK for windows.

GIMP is good enough for a lot of people and it is much more powerful than photoshop elements.
If you need Photoshop then you need Photoshop. Gimp is a really powerful program and not terrible to use but it is not Photoshop.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[swillden]

Both Windows (7) and Linux (Ubuntu 14 and Crunchbang). The problem with the UI isn't with window managers or other technical parts; it's the design of the UI. The way an excessive amount of buttons are seemingly randomly slapped together in a toolbar.

Meh. I don't think it's that random and in any case I have no trouble whatsoever with finding the buttons I need on any platform.

The way dialogs and popups don't follow platform styling.

Who cares? Okay, so it's prettier if it follows the platform styling, but the style has no impact on usability.

The way it defaults to a multi-window environment.

This is only a problem if you lack a good window manager with proper focus-follows-mouse behavior. On Linux, I prefer the multi-window environment. It's much more flexible, especially if your workflow includes needing to interact frequently with other apps.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[mark-t]

You, and others who have responded, have illustrated my point... nobody's named more than two features that Photoshop has which GIMP does not currently, and nearly all of the desired features could be summarized simply as wanting non-destructive editing capabilities, which is something that is already on GIMP's development roadmap, primarily waiting on what amounts to a major feature/design change that will definitely be fully implemented in the next major release of GIMP (actually significant progress was made in this area even before 2.8 came out, but because of the extensiveness of the necessary changes to fully implement it properly, and ensuring that the software was not made unstable by such changes, it was postponed for the next version). Once those changes are finally all in place, expect some truly wondrous and amazing things to happen for GIMP.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

I'd argue that this one (from your link) is patently wrong:

"6. Batch processing through automated actions is far superior in GIMP. Because photographers often need to do repeatable actions to large groups of images, this feature alone is worth its weight in gold."

I am a photographer and although I use LightRoom heavily, I use the batch rules in PS for my concert work, I can get very detailed with little trouble in PS. I did try to switch to gimp (or more accurately, tried it out) and found this to be sorely lacking. Not to mention the batch actions in PS merge/link nicely with the plug-ins (specifically the Nik software for B/W work) so if I wanted to, and on occasion I have, I can do some *serious* transformations on a shot in PS with one click of a button.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Culture20]

I'd also be very happy if somebody could tell me what GIMP does that Photoshop doesn't. It's free. if it shaves man-hours off my work, then load me up with the tips. I ain't gonna switch, but I ain't above using both.

Programmatically accessible from command line scripts (if you're not hep to the ImageMagick fu):
http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/...
and other languages
http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/...

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to run off a list of ways that "GIMP doesn't come close"?

If you are genuinely interested knowing what is in the pipe for the future of GIMP, you may be interested in taking a look at this for a summary of features that are slated for the next or upcoming versions of GIMP. You may notice that many tasks are dependant on completion of GEGL implementation (something that is definitely slated for being in the next release). Once GEGL support is fully in, significant features such as user-defined color spaces, non-destructive editing, and smart objects will become feasible, and are already planned for a future version of GIMP

Well, I *was* going to run off a list of ways that GIMP doesn't come close to Photoshop, but it looks like you've gotten a good start all by yourself.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[NanoGator]

Thank you! You've given me reason to sit up and pay attention when 3 rolls around, I appreciate that.

I would recommend against showing the more diehard Photoshop fans that link, though. It won't get you anywhere because what it really needs to be is a list like this:

- GIMP has a plugin/feature for automatically generating normal maps from elevation data.

- GIMP has a perspective correction feature that is superior to Photoshops in that it...

- GIMP's 'save all layers' button saves all of the layers in your file into seperate files.

.. or something like that. In the list you gave me, points 1 through 4, and 7, are irrelevant if somebody already has Photoshop. Given its de-facto marketshare, that is likely.

5 is horribly overrated. Lots of artists can script, but few (if any) can make actual plugins or modify the source code. (Even if they do dig in to the code how do they maintain those features when a new version of GIMP comes along?) I do want to mention, though, that there's another reply to my original post that seems to have covered the scripting point. I haven't checked it out yet but given that scripting is something I do, I'm certainly interested in trying that out.

6 needs an extra line, something like: "its better than Photoshop's Batch feature because...."

10... actually this is a really good one. In fact, just before this thread started, I went and found the portable version and downloaded in. Why? Welp, if the scripting that Culture20 posted a link to turns out to be worthwhile for me, coupling that with a portable version of GIMP is *awesome*. What that means is I will be able to automate certain tasks AND keep a fresh install on my DropBox account so I can even use it off-site. This is 1 out of 9.5 (I gave partial credit to the source-code bit) and, as you can already see from other replies you've gotten, most are refutable.

I'm a little worried you might read my post and think that I'm trying to perpetuate the GIMP vs. Photoshop debate. I'm not, instead I'm trying to explain what needs to happen explanation-wise to get more Photoshop people to try GIMP out. I think there's this mentality that people should switch to GIMP and that's simply not true. If you got the professional Photoshop users to start using GIMP for certain tasks, you may find that some studios may find it worth their time to invest some development time into improving it. Given how Adobe has been dicking around with the licensing, this would be a good time to get that ball rolling. Start touting the unique features it has that shave man-hours off a project. If those features don't exist, then the team needs to start talking to people like me and finding out what else they need.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[SpankiMonki]

...nobody's named more than two features that Photoshop has which GIMP does not currently...

Dude, you've named more than two features yourself. Jesus.

Nobody's saying that GIMP isn't a capable program, but for certain things that are quite common & useful for pros (like adjustment layers) the GIMP ain't there yet. The lack of adjustment layer functionality BY ITSELF pretty much excludes GIMP from being used in pro workflows. And as you yourself point out, GIMP will not be able to implement many features until fully ported to GEGL - which is not a small task.

Further, features such as Filter layers, Layer effects, Non-destructive editing, and "Smart objects" aren't slated until after version 3.0 - IOW, not for years. Photoshop has those things NOW.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[mark-t]

Layer effects is actually a specific category of non-destructive editing.

And I'm not saying that everyone should use GIMP now if it doesn't meet your needs... I'm only saying that people who've been suggesting that GIMP is, in terms of the actual number of features, sorely lacking compared to photoshop are mistaken. The problem is not quantity, it is that the few features which *ARE* missing are critical to some people,

And that's okay.... I'm just pointing out that GIMP is getting there.

But hey.... if you want to continue to shell out hundreds of dollars every few years for an upgraded version of photoshop indefinitly, who am I to argue that you should keep your money?

Re:How important is that at this point?

[mark-t]

I named three.. And I readily admit GIMP is not perfect, nor comparable to certain other image editing software where you really might need such features that it offers. l My point, however, is that GIMP is lacking in this manner not so much in terms of the number of features, but in the overall critical importance of the relatively few features that it admittedly *IS* still lacking... and it's worth noting that there is really only one major thing that is holding almost all of them back, and that particular feature will definitely be fully integrated into the next major release of GIMP (significant work on it was being done even before the current 2.8 release, but owing to the extensiveness of the changes involved, they were postponed for the upcoming release).

Re:How important is that at this point?

[NanoGator]

Just wanted to thank you for the links. I was especially pleased to find that Python is supported!

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I named three

The road map you linked to lists far mre than three. See all that yellow and red? If you click through to the gegl matrix on the site, you'll see even more yellow/red. Almost all that stuff is currently avaliable in Photoshop.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[mark-t]

90% of all of that yellow and red is singularly dependant on GEGL... and GEGL support will be fully implemented in the next release.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[chmod a x mojo]

I've had this discussion on slashdot before, mostly the one thing that keeps me from GIMP as a semi-pro photographer is the UI. I've used PhotoShop since the 7.0 debut up to CS3 and a brief poke at PS-CC, so I know the UI and where I expect to find stuff for my workflow... hell I could do the tasks I need to while asleep by now. GIMP on the other hand - and if you will excuse the graphic ( pun fully intended ) description - looks like the UI designers chowed down on all the UI elements and threw up on the screen. I've also used Linux, and GIMP, for many a year now and remember how much the GIMP devs hate listening to the users... we asked for how many years before they finally implemented single window mode?

SO the main problem isn't that GIMP is lacking features, it's that the UI is horrid to long time users of PS, leading to the "experts" not using it and thus leading to no one teaching the newbies to learn the program / UI. That's the main reason PS is taught in schools, it's what is known and used by the "experts".
For the inevitable slashdot car analogy: you can have two cars that can get from point A to point B along the same route in relatively the same timeframe, one that costs a fair bit to use but is an industry standard car like all others on the road ( PS ), or a free one that does nearly the same as the paid car but has bicycle handle bars for a steering wheel, a manual transmission with a reversed standard H shift pattern, the fuel pedal is on the handle bars and the brake is where the gas pedal usually is on normal cars, and you have to enter and exit through the trunk.... You can guess what vehicle 99% of people who have ever driven a normal vehicle will take.

Other than that, there is the non destructive editing and smart objects mentioned. I personally think the workflow for working with layers, clipping masks, and paths in PS is easier and more streamlined as well, but that is a personal opinion due to my workflow.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

GIMP is gimped in it's lack of support for more than 8 bit color depth.
Done.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you mean that work can finally get started on 90% of yellow and red items once a port to GEGL is completed, then you would be correct. But if you think that ANY of those new features that rely on GEGL will be included in GIMP 2.10, you've simply lost touch with reality. Most, if not all, of the features discussed here won't be available until GIMP 3 (if then).

But I digress. The fact is that none of that stuff is available in GIMP today. All you seem to be arguing is that future GIMP might be as good as today's Photoshop.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[SpankiMonki]

Layer effects is actually a specific category of non-destructive editing.

So what? They are features that are listed separately on the GIMP road map, which I cut/pasted into my post.

But hey.... if you want to continue to shell out hundreds of dollars every few years for an upgraded version of photoshop indefinitly, who am I to argue that you should keep your money?

I am more than happy to shell out hundreds of dollars every couple of years for a product that saves me scores of hours of work compared to a free alternative, and I'm just a hobbyist. If you're a pro, it's really a no-brainer.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, Fuck Off, Larry. I've used half a dozen graphic programs on the Amiga and used both Paint Shop Pro and Corel Draw on the PC before finally making the transition to Photoshop when CS2 landed. Even after you learn to use GIMP, the interface is still a screen hogging piece of shit and the lack of adjustment/style layers, smart objects, and script less automation make it a joke besides the name. Not to mention GIMP is slower in almost every aspect, from startup to applying filters. Face it, you don't know jack shit about working with graphics on anything but a purely armature scale, yet get all pissed when someone tells you your tools are shit.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[mark-t]

I haven't been saying that you should be using GIMP today if it doesn't meet your needs. I've only been suggesting that it's not nearly as "nowhere close to photoshop" as some would think.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[mark-t]

As I said... most people will probably be able to easily come up with a small number of critical points that are major shortcomings of GIMP, and the perception that GIMP is "nowhere near photoshop" may be heightened by the invaluableness of those features, not by their actual number. But considering that virtually all of those needed features are waiting on but an important rewrite which is largely complete, and will definitely be part of the next version of GIMP, I'd suggest that GIMP being comparable is not as far off as some would say.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo, same reason MS and Apple offer steep student discounts. They don't want you to learn a generic solution that can be applied across the board, they want you to root memorize actions only applicable to their interface so that anything else will clash with your muscle memory and therefor "suck".

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

You, and others who have responded, have illustrated my point... nobody's named more than two features that Photoshop has which GIMP does not currently, and nearly all of the desired features could be summarized simply as wanting non-destructive editing capabilities,

You don't seem to know what Camera Raw is and what it does. The features that are in that weren't in GIMP when I last looked at it include:

* slider controls for tonality range adjustments for going from 16-bit to 8-bit color space (meaning that you can easily fix over- and underexposed parts of the image)

* point-and-click white balance adjustment

* slider control for high-radius low-intensity sharpening (the clarity control)

* image sharpening with automatic masks to restrict the effects to edges only.

* adjustable black and white conversion with split toning controls (though, I don't use that one anymore as I built an action that does this in more controlled way)

* lens distortion correction that can be profiled to specific lenses.

* it saves the changes to the RAW file itself (if the file format supports it) so there's less chance of misplacing the edits.

* automatic copying of edit settings to other images.

* a quick and convenient way of getting two RAW conversions from the same file for exposure fusion.

It has also other features that I don't use but that I suspect are not in GIMP.

Once those changes are finally all in place, expect some truly wondrous and amazing things to happen for GIMP.

So, I should stop using Photoshop now because sometime in the future someone might program the same functionality to a future version of GIMP that may or may not have all the necessary components in place?

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Penguinisto]

Really, you think professional 3d modelers don't know what a vertex is? Really?

They have an idea as to what it might be ('a mathematical point in cartesian space' would be the description given if you're lucky), but, say, how it behaves under subdivision and which SubD algorithm produces the best results for a given use case is another story entirely. That's why I put the word "really" in the sentence you took your question off of.

Let me give a more concrete example: Raytracing. Sure, they'll know how it would (mostly) behave in their given suite (depending on which render engine(s) they send it to regularly), but knowing how light (and more importantly, shadows and occlusions thereof) behaves, so as to produce a better result, especially when shooting for realism? A pro photographer likely has a better idea of how light works than most of the schlubs who push mesh around. ;) Put it this way - I can count a very small percentage of folks who have done a good enough job of it to fool all but the most experienced eye.

Re: How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I must have dreamt all the videos I made and edited with my iPad. Thanks for the heads up.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the fact that on a 1920x1080 monitor the brush sliders are 28 pixels high. Why the hell are they so bloated? Worse, if you narrow the panel enough to try to equal the work area size of Photoshop, the sliders get so compressed the text is clipped and buttons are covered up. PURE FUCKING STUPIDTY. Photoshop groups tools together in a logical fashion and uses expandable dialogs. They actually thought about how the UI should function, instead of just slathering a bunch of crap on the screen.

Re: How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and I bet they look absolutely fantastic and not like something that was shot on a shit CMOS sensor, then put into a "mash-up" with a Fisher-Price video "editor" that has like three functions.

I bet you also compare Instagram favourably against Photoshop.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that you aren't a graphics artist, you are not qualified to make that assessment.

I have been doing pro design work for over twenty years and I do say that there was never a time that GIMP was ever competitive with Photoshop. Not even close. You go up to any real designer and present them with GIMP and you're going to get derisively laughed at and pointed at.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what's miles better than GIMP and also free? Paint.NET

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

But considering that virtually all of those needed features are waiting on but an important rewrite which is largely complete, and will definitely be part of the next version of GIMP, I'd suggest that GIMP being comparable is not as far off as some would say.

You keep saying that like it's true. Did you even read the information from the link you provided? I guess not.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

GIMP feels like a graphics editor that was designed by programmers. Photoshop feels like a graphics editor that was designed by artists. That's one big reason why GIMP is crap.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[mark-t]

I guess you haven't heard my point, which is that how GIMP is "far from being comparable" is more of an issue of the critical importance of missing features more than sheer number, because many of the missing features can be categorized under a single much broader heading such as "non-destructive editing, and the relatively few distinct ones which remain will get done soon. If you happen to believe that they are not going to get done anytime soon (which is the only reason I can think of to suggest why you would disagree with what I've been saying), please consider how, exactly, it is that you think that you know that, and then reconsider what I've been saying. I suggest that all you'll be able to do at that point is fall back to saying that GIMP isn't necessarily comparable to Photoshop featurewise right now, because it doesn't do a relatively small number of things which are highly important to you, and which is not something I've ever disputed

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care what it's dependent on, just make it work. These are things Photoshop has had for many years.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

... please consider how, exactly, it is that you think that you know that, and then reconsider what I've been saying.

LOL, I *think* I know that from the GIMP dev page you linked to! It clearly shows that *none* of the features you are saying will be in the next version of GIMP will be available until ver 3.0+. Are you saying the GIMP dev page is incorrect?

I certainly agree with your praise of GIMP. I just don't understand why you need to misrepresent what features will be available in the next version to get your points across.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[mark-t]

First of all, GEGL will definitely be in the next version of GIMP... second of all, once GEGL is complete (which is again slated for the next version of GIMP), virtually all of those additional features will suddenly become feasible to implement where the previous architecture of GIMP made them untenable (and why no progress has been made so far, or often very little), and they will probably come into play quite quickly afterwards, You may be right that not very many may get in for the next version, but because of what GEGL opens up the possibility to do within GIMP, the release cycle between 2,10 and future stable versions that implement such functionality will be much lower than the time frame between 2.8 and 2.10.

In other words, not very far at all.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Blaskowicz]

Focus follows mouse is very rare, I'd say 1% of linux desktop users which themselves are 1% of desktop users. For the last 10 to 15 years focus-on-click has been the norm or at least the default (it even was on Motif Window Manager, which works like Windows 3.1 but with xterms in place of the Program Manager)

That said, on linux environments you have "focus of the scrollwheel follows mouse" and that's very handy, not only to scroll windows or tabs but to change global sound volume without clicking too. So for us stupid ignorant users we have a form of "improper" focus-follows-mouse.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Blaskowicz]

How is a VLAN "cheap"?, I guess you could do that because by chance he had the right specific model router and used the switch integrated to it. Also to me it's not clear. A Windows 2K box shouldn't have access to the internet (maybe that's what you done, I hope)

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, GEGL will definitely be in the next version of GIMP

The GEGL core update by itself brings no new features (user functionality).

You may be right that not very many may get in for the next version...

I may be right? "I" doesn't even enter into it. The GIMP dev page YOU LINKED TO indicates none of the features you are saying will be in GIMP 2.10 will be available until ver 3.0+. Either you're wrong, or the GIMP dev page is wrong.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh...nearly every router out there will let you set rules and set up devices which are not allowed to reach the outside, all you have to do is use 'em. For the record it was a $30 Trendnet so if I could set one up using that no name POS surely you can do so too?

And sorry if I didn't make it clear but that is the point of the VLAN, the 2K box can talk to the Win 7 box but CAN NOT reach the WWW, whereas the Win 7 box not only can reach the 2K but also the net.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Blaskowicz]

Thanks.
My solution would be to add a 2nd network card on the Win 7 or linux box.
In my country, seems to me that 99% people (well, those with wired broadband at home) use a router that is provided by the ISP. You always have stuff like DHCP ranges and port forwarding (to enable MORE connectivity not less) ; probably other consumer/"multimedia" oriented stuff like NAS function, print server, DLNA etc.

For additional networking options, yes the crappy consumer networking gear probably has more features.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[mark-t]

The GEGL core update by itself brings no new features (user functionality).

I don't dispute that point, but I do not think you realize just how much GEGL support being in will enormously accelerate the features that are currently on hold and waiting on it.

The reason things haven't really progressed very far, if at all, on many of the features that are waiting on the GEGL port to be finished is not because they are taking their time with them, it is because any work that might be started before the GEGL port was complete would likely to be entirely a waste of time, and because trying to implement it without GEGL being in would take a lot longer anyways, GEGL support would probably be in before it was complete, so there's no point starting on something that would have to be entirely thrown away before it's done, and can be relatively easily done once the underlying architcture has been modified to be amenable to it.

Consider when building a home, the most amount of time is spent making sure the foundation is properly in place. Once it is, a house can be built on a good foundation comparatively very quickly. Likewise, once the GEGL port is finally in and 2.;10 is out, you will doubtless be witness to vastly accelerated GIMP development of some of the most urgently desired features. Internally, for all intents and purposes, 2.10 will be almost an entirely new program.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[hairyfeet]

That is why it is always better to use your own gear and while i don't know where you're at here you can get a wireless router for like $20, a wired only for around $10 so its not like its any great expense to do.

The nice thing about doing it through the router is you have better fine grained control, for example on his setup he can transfer pictures to the Win2K box for working on from any laptop or phone with WiFi but the access is strictly local, the Win2K unit has zero access to outside the LAN. You can also set it up so that ONLY a single port is allowed, or only traffic going a single direction, so if it were required he could set up a remote link to the Win2K box using a VPN and access it from the field without opening it up to the WWW.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I, meanwhile, have had the opposite experience. The GIMP was the first extensively-featureful graphics editor that I ever used. When I later took some classes that involved using Photoshop, I found Photoshop's user interface to be completely illogical. Unfortunately it's been a while and I can't remember specifically what I found illogical, but I definitely found it difficult to locate things and some of the tools just weren't intuitive to me. A lot of things had silly names that didn't say what they meant; something I'm sure is echoed in The GIMP when a Photoshop user comes to visit.

Now, I'm not claiming that The GIMP's UI is perfect. It has several quite irritating flaws, but I don't think it's totally without logic. It's just that you get used to what you get used to, and thereafter everything else can seem a bit weird.

I think The GIMP probably lacks a few big features that lots of people want and then on top of that it lacks a spattering of little features that individually aren't very well used in Photoshop but each mean a lot to a few people. Features that probably 90% of users never use, but which each individual user can probably give at least one example of that they use every day.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is non-destructive editing a feature that should appear in a raster graphics package? Just prepare your images a little and do the rest in Inkscape, for goodness' sake.

Re:How important is that at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of two examples of user-interface improvements that GIMP has which are lacking in Photoshop:

1. Every selection (excluding free selection/lasso) has handles on the corners and edges which allow free selection transforming, so you can easily adjust your selection as required without having to manually right click and select transform selection every time.

2. You can pan using the mouse via middle-clicking on the canvas and dragging around. This is a common enough method for navigating an area in other applications but not Photoshop for some reason.

The most I tend to do with GIMP is manipulate images rather than create whole new images. Cleaning up images, modifying levels/hue, stuff like that. Seems to work fine for me but I'm not in the professional business and hence have the flexibility to use it as opposed to being forced to use (and pay for, short of pirating it) Photoshop.

Nice, but...

[Penguinisto]

...I went with GIMP years ago. I was able to use many of P-Shop's brushes and actions as-is, and I learned GIMP's actions and interface.

Mind you, I'm not a graphics pro by any means (though I am a heavy hobbyist in CG graphics, and GIMP is invaluable to me for postwork and touch-ups.) Even when I moved to using a Mac for most of my farting-around, the first thing I went for was GIMP for OSX. Just as most actual professionals stick with Photoshop (in spite of the brain-dead subscription model they have these days) because they learned on it, I do the same thing with GIMP... and it works just fine for me.

Now in the professional realm, PShop makes sense to have a Linux port. Strange thing though - a huge percentage of professional CG work is done in Linux nowadays, and has been for awhile, so I'm surprised that it's taken them this long to get around to it.

(now if only the hobbyist CG software shops (I'm looking at *you* Poser and DAZ|Studio!) would get off their asses and make a Linux port...

Re:Nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

(now if only the hobbyist CG software shops (I'm looking at *you* Poser and DAZ|Studio!) would get off their asses and make a Linux port...
 
Why don't you do it? After all, open source is use to copying the work of other people then trying to claim it as their own. Stop looking to others and take up the slack.

Re:Nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I never heard "Poser" or "DAZ|Studio!", and they are dead product, and stick with Photoshop because it is coming to ChromeOS!

Re:Nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like

Re:Nice, but...

[UnknownSoldier]

> open source is use to copying the work of other people then trying to claim it as their own.

Troll much?

Re-implementing an idea so it is free for everyone is far cry of trying to "claim it as their own."

Open Source has it problems -- hijacking software is not of them.

Re:Nice, but...

[jedidiah]

A lot of work is so old by now that it should be in the public domain. Copyright was never meant to be a new form of property or a means to extract tolls from end users until the end of time.

The point of both copyright and patents is to encourage the creation of ideas/inventions that EVERYONE can use.

"copying the work" is the intended ultimate result.

Re:Nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the point of copyright and patents are to offer a limited monopoly on an innovation so artists and inventors can make a buck off their work.
 
Your kind of thinking is why Slashdot fails so badly at understanding why the market is what it is.
 
And don't get me wrong, I agree that copyright needs reform. Patents? Maybe. It's questionable. But in either case your attempt to reframe the purpose of limited monopolies is not only wrong but illogical.

Re:Nice, but...

[MightyYar]

Actually, the point of copyright and patents are to offer a limited monopoly on an innovation so artists and inventors can make a buck off their work.

No, that is the mechanism. The goal (point) is to have people making stuff. There are lots of ways to do it, but the Founding Fathers felt that IP was the way to go.

Re:Nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

And I went with Krita. That ship sailed ages ago and they're *STILL* screwing around on things when you get to brass tacks. ChromeOS? Can't even lay your hands on it if you're using the Chrome/Chromium browser or have a ChromeBook, unless you're part of one of their special programs? Seriously?

Adobe quit wasting pretty much everyone's time.

As for Poser and DAZ Studio... Let's see...

MakeHuman gets pretty close there...

It might not get there for the rendering, but if you adjust your workflow a bit, you can use something like Blender for the gaps.

Re:Nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in it's current forms, sir.

How is effectively in perpetuity for Copyright and 20-ish years for Patent effectively limited times as described in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution?

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

It.
Isn't.

Therein lies the problem. Therein lies YOUR problem because you're making up shit to justify YOUR position.

Re:Nice, but...

[Kjella]

Now in the professional realm, PShop makes sense to have a Linux port. Strange thing though - a huge percentage of professional CG work is done in Linux nowadays, and has been for awhile, so I'm surprised that it's taken them this long to get around to it.

For computer generated graphics custom workflows and creating tools to animate things others can't have has been the driving force. There's plenty of complex interactions between models, textures, animations, physics simulations and various like creating a whole army from a few parameterized models and AI. No tool does everything well and often there's some secret sauce you want integrated into the workflow. Photoshop on the other hand mostly seems like a one-stop shop, you hand a skilled person the image and what you want done and he'll produce an end result. Efficiency seems to be the primary driver, not integration or customization.

Re:Nice, but...

[Penguinisto]

Why don't you do it?

Because it would involve asking DAZ or Smith Micro for the respective proprietary source codes first, then getting permission to release the results. Both applications are currently ongoing products (DS is at 4.6 now, and Poser at "Poser Pro 2013" last I checked.)

DAZ Studio is doable - I used to work for them as a dev back when 1.0 was released, and they IIRC still use C++ and Qt. Could likely pull it off the OSX branch with only a little effort.

Poser is not so doable; they use a wide variety of weird crap on top of C, including Adobe AIR and the nightmare libs spawned by Kai Krause if I remember right. Not even sure if Linux would accept half of it without a complete rewrite.

All that said, I don't really need to bother - both run just fine on OSX 10.9. I want to see them on Linux mostly for ideological reasons these days.

Re:Nice, but...

[MightyYar]

Ah, we are talking past one another. I'm on your side. Copyright indeed has been corrupted.

Re:Nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"a while" is TWO words, you American cretin...

"awhile" has a different meaning than "a while" - but then, you're (or should I say "your" - LOL) American...

Re:Nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the word "asshole" have the same meaning in British and American English?

Re:Nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

When I moved from linux to OS X, using the GIMP on OS X felt painful. Its fine to use -- such as it is -- in a real windowing system, but in Aqua? Meh.

Anyway, one of the things I have gotten a lot of mileage from in Photoshop is macros. Record some steps and then process a directory of images. This makes photoshop a very nice and flexible part of a CG work flow. Have a directory of a thousand images that need manipulation? Then batch is your friend. Now, I've used image magic to do batch manipulation on linux, but that doesn't touch what can be done in photoshop. It isn't perfect, but it is very powerful.

Someone above mentioned smart objects. I'm even more of a newb with photoshop than I ever was with the GIMP, but even I know and have gotten good use from that. There are some small, minor ways in which I find photoshop frustrating in part because the GIMP did it better. But the truth is, they are only vague recollections now and wasn't really ever that big of a deal.

Comment below about photoshop being a one-stop-shop and not fitting into professional workflows -- sounds like someone whose never been near a professional workflow. I'm an absolute amateur in the field in question but have "rubbed" enough virtual elbows to know that it is wrong and have some idea of why. Consider the batch capabilities, add in nifty things like having rendered object ids (an "image" where the "color" values represent the different objects), depth maps, etc., and pretty quickly you see how the amazingly flexible tool that is photoshop is not a good fit for typical home users that want to crop and resize, maybe fiddle with the color a bit, but is stupendous in the hands of a professional.

The GIMP is cool, very capable, and I cut my image manipulation teeth on it. But there's a reason photoshop is king for professionals.

Re: Nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Ass in British English is a donkey or a fool. Arse is the thing you sit on. Fortunately most Brits understand people on the otherside of the pond use a local version of the lingo and get the implied meaning. They don't start looking for holes with donkeys in or donkeys with holes in.

Isn't this streaming?

[Anonymous Coward]

I only looked at it quickly yesterday, but it seems like they're just streaming it, a bit like how they stream games on platforms that don't support them. Not so hot to work offline, but if its just an added service to existing subscriptions, it can have some use.

Re:Isn't this streaming?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, that's the catch. It's just a streaming version.

Re:Isn't this streaming?

[OopsClunkThud]

The bigger news is that by streaming photoshop to your desktop (linux or otherwise) you don't have to infect your local machine with adobe upgrade manager or any of the other crap they insist on loading. Or at least I would hope so.

Re:Isn't this streaming?

[dotancohen]

What does it mean to stream an application? Data can be streamed, but an application is interactive.

Re:Isn't this streaming?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like a remote desktop session. You don't need anything more than a data to run it.

Not Linux - just ChromeOS

[Anonymous Coward]

You won't be able to run that thing on Linux unless I've missed the part where you can run ChromeOS stuff on your Slackdora.

Proprietary shit comes to proprietary platform...

[jkrise]

how is this news for nerds?

Chromebooks do not run Linux, they run the Chrome OS, for God's sake!

When Adobe Photoshop truly comes to the plain vanilla distri, then we can start putting up articles on here.

Pulp Non Fiction

[Bob_Who]

Bring Out The Gimp!

Re:Pulp Non Fiction

[Meneth]

I think the Gimp is sleeping...

Re:Pulp Non Fiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I guess you'll have to go wake him up now, won't you?

In other words, not really coming to Linux

[NemoinSpace]

Unless you live in North America (but don't work for a Canadian hospital), are still in school, use a really crappy computer, and are willing to wade through months of red tape.
Seriously Adobe, is this some kind of plot to make Microsoft look open source friendly?

Re:Proprietary shit comes to proprietary platform.

[Ksevio]

What's really missing is that ChromeOS is made to be a lightweight almost terminal system with nothing but the basics installed.

The article even mentions that it will be "Streaming" Photoshop from the cloud - which makes more sense for a ChromeOS program:

Today, in partnership with Adobe, we’re welcoming Creative Cloud onto Chromebooks, initially with a streaming version of Photoshop. This will be available first to U.S.-based Adobe education customers with a paid Creative Cloud membership—so the Photoshop you know and love is now on Chrome OS. No muss, no fuss.

Even though Chrome OS is linux based, this version of Photoshop looks to be web based so it could run on anything that has a modern web browser.

There is no more Photoshop.

[Kenja]

At least not in the traditional sense of what we all think of when we speak of Photoshop. The new model is a web based subscription app. Which means I will no longer be buying Photoshop.

Re:There is no more Photoshop.

[Jethro]

I've been paying for Photoshop CC since it's been available, because I can finally get a legal copy of Photoshop (and for $10 a month). Yes, it's subscription-based, but it installs the actual software on your computer, so I don't know where you're getting the web-based thing from.

Re:There is no more Photoshop.

[tverbeek]

Half correct. Adobe's Creative Cloud software is subscription software, but it is not web-based. The "cloud" bit in the name is just buzzword bingo; the apps are installed and run locally as Windows/OS X executable binaries, just as they always have, with check-ins to confirm that you've paid your protection money this month.

Of course the subscription aspect is reason enough for many people to walk way from Adobe (as I have). I know many illustrators have turned to the Manga Studio for comics production, or the GIMP if they can accept its limitations (e.g. lacking CMYK support). Some people can likewise get by with Free software such as Inkscape or Scribus to replace Illustrator and InDesign, respectively. Serif (which currently has graphics apps for Windows) is undertaking development of a full-featured commercial Creative Suite replacement for OS X, and their Illustrator-substitute Affinity Designer (first piece of the puzzle) is nearly ready for release.

Re:There is no more Photoshop.

[chris_clay]

When it comes to making money off of its customers, Adobe is very creative (no pun intended). A subscription based model is the most ideal way for them to get regular income every month and I'm sure they are making even more money with this model than ever before because customers can't withhold from upgrading like they used to when they purchased specific versions of the software and had to re-buy upgrades at the time they actually performed the upgrades.

Re:There is no more Photoshop.

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe their making more money and maybe they aren't. Neither of us has looked at Adobe's financials to be able to make a judgement call. But I do know that at least some professionals -- the ones who dropped thousands on the master suite -- didn't jump at each upgrade. These same folks ducked CC *because* they would be locked into the payment cycle and not be able to make a business decision of upgrade-now-or-later. The problem for Adobe is that with the old perpetual licensing these users can keep going with the old software indefinitely. They have to come up with must-have features in an already feature-filled application. That's tough to do.

Adobe also used to make quite a bit of money off of the educational market, but when they did CC they screwed over the edus as well. Specifically, you used to be able to license per-copy (perhaps a few hundred lab systems), but under CC you have to license per-potential-user -- which even for a small school is in the thousands. The cost jump was too great and many schools dropped Adobe products from general use. The winner there was Corel who successfully negotiated a deal with a (large) group of edus for fairly priced licensing.

Consequently, as an outsider, it is far from clear to me that CC has been a win for Adobe.

Re:Proprietary shit comes to proprietary platform.

[mwvdlee]

"Plain vanilla distri" for debian or redhat?

Whatever happened to ...

[Rambo Tribble]

... "The first one's free, kid"? Any self-respecting pusher knows that drill; what's with these Adobe cretins?

hold on there neckbeards.

[nimbius]

As a free-as-in-speech dyed in the wool ocarina playing software song singing arduino hacking saint ignucius conjuring acolyte im here to temper your joy with nuggets of duh.

1. Adobe photoshop blobs and binaries are coming to chromium OS, which happens to use the Linux kernel.
2. Adobes longstanding track record of outright contempt for users and their work will be a part of this release.
3. Adobe products will be slow, and limited to what can be accomplished in an architecture of 2 gigabytes of ram, an integrated Intel video card, and 16 gb of storage (most of which will be used by the OS.)
4. your EULA will have been drafted and proofread by former east-bloc Stazi.

Nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gimp was good. Untill libgtk3. Gnome3. Incompatabilities
(gnome's fault)

Stay with libgtk2

Re:Proprietary shit comes to proprietary platform.

[Blaskowicz]

By streamed, does that mean it's a javascript version? (would be much slow, unstable, less feature complete), NaCL? (sort of native code, Google proprietary stuff, I don't know what APIs it uses)

Other? my first understanding was it's some thin client stuff instead!
So it would indeed run on the servers (as regular Photoshop x86-64 version) and you'd better have a fiber optics connection or be on a university LAN. Both for the latency and for the slow uploads and downloads of big image files.

But but

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's not open source! I want them to give it away for free or at least let me 3d print the media.

GIMP runs better then ever on Linux

[SpzToid]

Have you seen the new interface since, I dunno, the last few weeks (using Ubuntu 12.04)? It is radically different than before, and much more along the lines of something that a typical Photoshop/Elements user could adapt to as being similar without much hassle. All those past critisizms of GIMP that I've read here on /. no longer seem to apply. Sure, pros will want Photoshop for the hours they spend time with it, but if you've just got a handful of graphics to manage for the website or whatever, GIMP all the way baby. (And Inkscape too!)

No one is buying me a Mac with the Adobe suite, and then upgrading it next year, and then the year after that, and then...

And times change.

Re:GIMP runs better then ever on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

So, your argument for using GIMP is that the desktop UI looks simple even that even a playskool could use it?

Re:GIMP runs better then ever on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, really? GIMP finally has adjustment and style layers now? Didn't think so. You still have no clue what you're doing.

Re:GIMP runs better then ever on Linux

[SpzToid]

I'm a website developer. I crop images. Work on logos a bit. Try to improve the colors. I have also sold my work as a graphics professional for many years already; and I have an extensive portfolio. And I take pride in the fact that when I service a contract for a client, there's no need to add the cost of the Adobe CC suite to the budget, although on a short term contract basis this argument has been greatly diminished due to monthly cloud pricing. Mostly I get paid to code.

Glad things are working out for you. Have a nice day. I dunno, enjoy a beer and chill or whatever it is you enjoy. I'd buy one for you, but you know.

Re:GIMP runs better then ever on Linux

[UnknownSoldier]

Mod parent up.

While GIMP is fine for quick edits -- it lacks essentials features that Photoshop has.

Having to use a _plugin_ for Layer Effects is _lame_. It should work out-of-the-box!
http://registry.gimp.org/node/...

Re:GIMP runs better then ever on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

your argument for using GIMP is that the desktop UI looks simple even that even a playskool could use it?

Given that the usual argument against using GIMP is that its interface is too difficult for Photoshop users, this seems like a step in the right direction.

Re:GIMP runs better then ever on Linux

[Eravnrekaree]

gimp needs to stop being content with second best and instead be better than photoshop. The fact is, while Gimp has some features, most people who need a paint program with a more complete feature set. Right now Gimp really has little appeal to anyone, its far too weak to really replace Photoshop which is what most people need. The goal needs to be to be a full replacement for photoshop and even beyond that, rather than "not quite".

Re:GIMP runs better then ever on Linux

[Eravnrekaree]

It needed more features, it needed to actually exceed Photoshop and offer more features than Photoshop rather than being second best. Most people who need a Gimp like program have lots of graphics and dont need something that breaks when you try to do anything except for the most mundane task. Until Gimp stops being content with supporting "just some" of photoshops capability, its going to be useless for real users, and more like a useless toy.

Re:GIMP runs better then ever on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

GIMP doesn't have the workforce, funding, or userbase of Photoshop to drive them. They only have developers who want GIMP to be better, but don't necessarily have the time to make it better as quickly as others would like.

Some users understand this, and appreciate their efforts even if they don't use the product. Others just blindly and arrogantly tell GIMP they should be working harder, without offering so much as a "thank you", let alone developer time or even basic debugging help.

So in short, it's not that GIMP needs to try harder - it's that they need help to become better. Anyone who simply gets used to Photoshop and blindly asserts that GIMP is inferior without even checking recent versions of both out aren't qualified to make such statements, let alone qualified to demand more from GIMP's developers.

Re:GIMP runs better then ever on Linux

[Eravnrekaree]

I think that people who use GIMP SHOULD make a donation to GIMP development. So, I am not advocating people just expect this stuff to happen by itself.

Re:GIMP runs better then ever on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I crop images. Work on logos a bit. Try to improve the colors.

Wow, those points are so impressive you should put them on a PowerPoint slide so they really shine! If you were trying to make the case that you know what you're doing, it didn't work. But go on...

I have also sold my work as a graphics professional for many years already; and I have an extensive portfolio.

I would love to take a gander at your portfolio of cropped and level adjusted images. They must be breathtaking. If you've had experience adding text in anything else other than GIMP, you'd also know what a pain in the ass GIMP's text tool is. Or how slow it is when applying even the most basic filters (blurs, sharpens, ect.) Not to mention Photoshop still has the best JPEG compression around. Even with a few extra KB, GIMP's jpeg files look visibly worse in every case I tested. But, like you said, you're a coder. I've worked with your kind before. In one area you're adequate, but outside the box your perception just isn't up to par. Try creating a children's board game with 72 separate layers of bitmap, vector, and 3D objects in both Photoshop and GIMP. Then you'll have some credibility under your belt.

Re:GIMP runs better then ever on Linux

[SpzToid]

Here's a quote from my post you replied to:

Sure, pros will want Photoshop for the hours they spend time with it

Not everyone has requirements like yours while many others are still working professionally with graphics and require good tools. Meanwhile GIMP keeps improving and fixing its faults.

Re:GIMP runs better then ever on Linux

[SpzToid]

And since you AC care to challenge my career in publishing production let me give you some advice, that I realized and adopted for myself years ago.

There's the difference between print publishing and electronic publishing. You know it for what it is, but I'll elaborate, and to make my point, I'd have to say your photoshop work falls into the Print Category (for this example anyway), and there's nothing wrong with that. I've spent my time with the CLUTs and calibrations, before the technology of Lithography matured to what we know today. To clarify the difference between Print and Digital Publishing, (and you can figure out for yourself where you fit in), I'll define Print being dead tree, deadline then go to press stuff, *and* a Typo Stays(!).

Of course everyone did the best they could, including the proofreader, but it is impossible to remove the typo, or whatever error is that hypothetically just slipped past, and the cost of the print run to the client is huge. Jobs could be lost as a result of a typo. But typos can and do happen, every day. Some are just more important than others. The fact remains, typos and any other kind of error cause a lot of stress and risk. And life is short.

Now in Digital Media, we have all kinds of cool technology to solve our evolving problems, such as Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery. We have things like typos too! Except the Digital Publishing business model is so much better, because typos are totally excepted and are in-fact known as 'bugs', and we get paid to come back every day to fix them. And on Fridays everyone goofs off and drinks beer and goes home early.

Get off my lawn.

Photoshop alternative

[ArcadeMan]

If you have a Mac, Pixelmator is a very decent alternative to Photoshop.

Re:Proprietary shit comes to proprietary platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe a poor man's VNC with some clever FTP setup?

Re:Proprietary shit comes to proprietary platform.

[Jethro]

...nerds are required to run Linux now and not care about any other OS or platform?

Look, I run Linux on my desktop, and have since well before distributions or version 1.0 of the kernel came out. I run quite a few servers and all of them are running Linux. My media center PC is running Linux. All my computers except one run Linux.

Does that mean I can't think ChromeOS is a cool idea, or at least interesting? Does that mean I'm not allowed to use Photoshop when I'm indulging some of my other hobbies, because it's the best tool for the job? Am I less of a nerd because I don't /only/ use FOSS?

Re:Proprietary shit comes to proprietary platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

Android isn't Linux either. Boo hoo. Guess what, in five years time Linux will be forgotten as the full OS takes its place. Linux will go back to merely being a kernel.

Re: !mod up

[Anonymous Coward]

You had me at private sex parties! Sign me up!

Re:Proprietary shit comes to proprietary platform.

[armanox]

ChromeOS is Linux. It's just not a GNU based Linux.

renting software

[Anonymous Coward]

Still using creative suite because it's cheaper over time, and I don't lose access to my work if I don't pay the monthly bill.

I really hope Adobe goes back to selling software as opposed to renting it.

Some people like to own homes, others like to rent apartments. Give customers the choice.

If this is creative cloud only, I won't even consider it.

Re:Proprietary shit comes to proprietary platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I prefer OSS to FOSS. The 'F' stands for freetard.

Yawn... Not sure why we need it

[chris_clay]

I've abandoned Adobe software years ago except for Reader which I still need once a year to fill out a PDF form. I'll have to check but Evince may do this now. Otherwise, who needs Adobe? Adobe has abandoned GNU/Linux, so in a way it's helped to push me away from its proprietary and bloated products. I use GNU/Linux for my workstations and servers, and all of the software I need is there and works great, and doesn't come with all of the licensing hassle of proprietary software. I can't say how good it is not having to deal with re-buying software whenever I want to upgrade my computer's GNU/Linux OS. I click a button and I get the latest version of GIMP every time, which for me is the Photoshop replacement. PDF tools, video editing tools, you name it, it's there in most mainstream GNU/Linux distributions.

Re:Proprietary shit comes to proprietary platform.

[Jethro]

Fine, lets pretend I wrote F/OSS.

Now get Illy and inDesign and I'll convert

[chaosdivine69]

I'll hop on board the Linux train if Illustrator and inDesign make the switch too. I mean, Microsoft's doing its best to push me away from Windows so ya, if Adobe is going to put their flagship application on Linux, I'll seriously consider switching out. I'll even wear a Penguin t-shirt to prove my loyalty.

I do wish CorelDRAW would come over too though since I come from a sign design background and much prefer it over Illustrator but I would hunker down and take a few courses to really get good at Illustrator if I had to. It would be really sweet if Sketchup would do the same but there is Blender though so that is pretty freaking awesome.

Maybe this really is the year of Linux on the desktop after all? My curiosity is peeked.
 

Re:Now get Illy and inDesign and I'll convert

[chaosdivine69]

Oh and inb4 Inkscape...

Um, not natively...

[ndykman]

This isn't a port. It's streaming the application. It is actually running on their cloud, so you could do the same on Linux, Windows, whatever.

This is just another part of them moving to a cloud-based model. No big deal.

Proprietary garbage

[Eravnrekaree]

This is NOT good news AT ALL. This is a closed source application which means it is designed to take away your freedom, basically, you have no capability to read or to modify source code that runs on your computer if you want to do so. Worse, its a cloud application, which means that your data is stored, transmitted over the net even when you don't want it to be, which means you really dont have control or ownership of your own data. Its also not a port to real Linux, but instead, to Chrome.

Real Linux distros need real desktop applications. Yes, we need more feature rich programs than what is available right now , such as something more powerful than Gimp,, as does Inkscape and other programs, which need to take meeting and exceeding the capabilities of their closed source counterparts more seriously instead of being just second best.

Just pirate it

[loufoque]

As usual, the only option to be able to run software decently is to pirate it.
They won't even sell the damn thing, there is no other choice.

Change the name already!

[Tenebrousedge]

I don't always do graphics work, but when I do, I use the GIMP on Linux.

In my opinion, the open source community is practically perfect. Even with your once-in-25-years bug like Shellshock, I prefer having control over my systems, and access to the internals if I ever really need to. If I had unlimited power to direct the course of the open source community, and funds to match, I wouldn't change anything: just give me more of the same.

With one exception.

Can we start a petition for this? A Kickstarter? A lynch mob? The biggest embarrassment for open source isn't Shellshock, it's the name of the graphics editor. I suppose if nothing else it could lead to a profitable side business selling (Libre-) torches and pitchforks, but come on, people.

Re:Change the name already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you share some examples of your work?

better

[Anonymous Coward]

for 95% of people, GIMP is sufficient and free. I use it to process biological images. If you are unwilling to try something new and enjoy paying for software, fine. As long as you save the file as a photoshop .psd.... everything will be fine. Also, shout out to INKSCAPE, so much better than illustrator.

Headline is clickbait.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the big deal? It was already available for BSD systems (OS X).

Re:Proprietary shit comes to proprietary platform.

[Blaskowicz]

Maybe a rich man's VNC? well optimised, adequately compressed, using RDP or similar in the first place. Perhaps it's some "hybrid" setup, when cattering to one app you have full control of and you control the client too, you might be doing a few optimizations and adding a bit of logic. When clicking a menu, the pixel contents of the rectangular drop-down menu area might be cached or even pre-loaded, instead of doing simple VNC-style streaming every time.

For file transfer, I would think that HTTP (HTTPS) transfers are more appropriate these days than old FTP.

A few people here getting defensive...

[Anonymous Coward]

over GIMP compare to PS...