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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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...

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.

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.

[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: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.

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?

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: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.