Slashdot Mirror
Photogenics To Be Released For Linux
Frank Brockway writes "Photogenics, on of the best paint/image manipulation programs for the Amiga, will be available soon for Linux. Not much details as to which disto/cpu it works under, but this is definently a commericial program. The programmer, Paul Nolan, originally wrote this program in 1993 as a young teenager, and at the time, it was one of the best pixel pushers on any platform. Looks like The Gimp has some serious competition now. "
Looks like Linux is really hitting the big time! LOL
No. No. No. "Free Software" has nothing to do with price.
"Open Source" is a meaningless term, the real red herring, and a force to redistribute wealth in the technology sector from "those who can" to "those with means". People like Linus Torvalds, Eric Raymond and others are willing accomplices in this and if they want to continue to act as the mouthpieces for "Open Source" software maybe they should make public disclosure of the companies that have given or otherwise made stock available to them so that we can judge just how tainted their opinions are.
While Linus deserves any reward that should befall him, ESR stands to make a lot of money acting as the "corporate concience" for VA Systems and the OSS 'movement'. If that doesn't sound like a conflict of interest to you than I guess the OSS movement is just filled with "fame seekers" and brain-damaged technologues.
/Tyrannus - who doesn't have a problem with proprieraty software, and will pay for it if it is worthy.
Paul is a cool guy and doesn't want to limit himself to one platform, some thing will suffer because of that.
I don't mind, I'm glad that Amiga users will still be able to get new versions of PG4,
you should be too.
There is nothing wrong with proprietary applications for GNU/Linux that fill specific needs and niche markets. In many cases, developers of free software don't have any interest in or need for certain applications. It's better to see those needs fulfilled (even for just an interim period) by a proprietary software product than not at all.
Oh no, people are actually using Linux when logged on as Root! Lock up your servers!
Geez, there are more important things to worry about.
Word Perfect 8 for Linux is a pretty good piece of software. If only it had decent Word import filters. Plain text with headings and stuff comes across fine. However, as soon as you try to import something with bulleted lists or diagrams, you are hosed. Also, I often have the need to embed charts from Excel into Word, which obviously won't ever transfer over into WP8.
Star Office has better import filters than WP8, but still mangles some Word documents. That's close to what I need, but not close enough. Besides, in every other respect Star Office is a disaster. It's huge, slow, bloated, and buggy; all the things I used to complain about regarding Office. It also takes over my desktop and replaces it with a MS Windows desktop clone. Why can't I just run an individual SO application on its own? In comparison, MS Office looks lightweight, fast, and stable.
Even if Corel released the whole Word Perfect Suite for Linux (even if they charged for it), I still wouldn't use it because I need to share files with MS Office users. What good is a word processor, spreadsheet, or presentation graphics application these days if you can't share the documents with others? Who uses an office application to create a document, chart, etc. just for the printer and doesn't send it to anybody? About 95% of the time I use an office application, I am working on something that is going to get emailed around for other people to read, revise, modify, collaborate on, include in something else, etc.
In my case, unless an office application has near perfect MS Office import (and export), I can't even consider it. At this point, I don't see my Windows drive ever going away.
First off I love linux OS/etc so don't flame me for asking about a Windows product I know how great linux is (and isn't).
Any idea if this program (or any other) would be a viable replacement for ACDSee?????
I take thousands of digital photos and I have yet to find a jpg viewer that works as quickly as ACDSee on low end hardware.
On my Pentium Pro, all of the linux picture viewers are significantly slower.
Honestly it's one of the two things (ECCO Pro being #1) that keeps NT on my home systems.
trikster2@hotmail.com
You say: ..."
"... but I'm a bit skeptical that many Linux users will shell out $99 for this software
This argument about Linux users not shelling out money for s/w is becoming more and more irrelevant as Linux goes more and more mainstream. For me, GIMP has major problems, while Photoshop is a more mature product which I don't see a lot of in the Linux world. The Linux community had to get the commercial world of Oracle, Corel, and others to buy into its system. Now, it's time to pay them back with supporting Linux by buying their products, if they're any good and there's nothing better that's free.
I for one would like to see as much amiga stuff ported to linux as possible. The amiga was a wonderful computer - not "just good enough" like a PC is. There's a wealth of GPL'd and open source software on the aminet. There's still stuff thats slicker in the AmigaOS than anywhere else. BTW, there's now an MUI clone on linux here The AmigaOS provided a sound learning environment for today's linux programmers: particularly in Europe, mnany of today's best open source coders are ex-Amigans. The AmigaOS had much more in common with UNIX than MS-DOS/Windows.
WINE is NOT an Emulator. They are a set of libraries that help the developers port it to Linux. It will be a native app.
agreed, one other reason i think free software has a disadvantage over commercial software is that commercial software has to GO 4 GOLD and be GREAT to survive and be the best it can, but free stuff failing competition or any commercial monotary threat, can just idle along . It has no, "DO THIS FEATURE" in 3months or die attitude. It can idle along and do nothing for 12 months (slackware) and then trickle in stuff... no one is gona go out of business but it can trickle along, yes free stuff is good, but you should never soley DEPEND on it. No one built NewYork for arts sake, they got paid.
Ahem...
,users are at the mercy of the dumbass developers who refuse to implement a normal menu system. And don't give me that crap about implementing it myself. If I had the time I would, but I don't so I use Photoshop.
With GIMP
If GIMP is *SO* much better, then why the hell do they refuse to implement a normal menu system? It sure makes it a real pain in the ass to try to use.
So where can I sign up to pay someone to do it? And yes, I did pay for Photoshop, and even though it is version 4.0, it still better than GIMP well be for quite some time.
>Let's face it, how many of us are willing to shell out
>$99 for whatever difference exists between this and
>the Gimp?
After using both, and being frustrated by just how fiddly the GIMP is to use compared to Pgs, I am. I've been waiting for a Linux port of this software for a long time.
You have never used Photoshop right? Only morons would say that The GIMP is on par with Photoshop.
www.cosource.com
Photoshop is not designed to draw a picture fram scratch. Photoshop is used to rectouch picture, mainly scanned pictures. Corel Draw or something like that is the proper drawing tool !!!!
> If I had the time I would, but I don't so I use Photoshop.
Then you obviously aren't using Linux, so why did you bother to post?
It's version Three I believe, I have insalled on an HP 710 at work.
At one time corel/wp were very good to Unix, then they turned their back.
Hope this trend does not continue with their new love for linux.
Heh heh, maybe it's what was used to make the screen shot. A missing feature perhaps?
(mxv) is a free .wav sound editor for Linux. There are also a few other ones available, search for them on freshmeat.net.
This is the correct link for mxv.
These will never be ported nor will exact workalikes be developped - you'll have to learn to work differently or continue to use NT (my wish for you is that you don't have to do continuous bi-annual hw/sw upgrades at 3000$ a pop). Even if you use NT/MacOSX you'll still benefit from the existence of good free linux/*bsd apps ... software prices are going to fall (not just due to the competition but lets face it they could be half what they are now and the companies would still rake in profits). The gimp already has a lot Kai's Power Tool functionality. Five years from now Gimp might be pretty amazing - especially if more and more commercial graphics firms start getting involved and devoting developer time (because they see the benefit). This has happened already. But as far as commercial quality color printing etc some good non-proprietary standards that printer manufacturers begin to implement are needed first (and this will likely take 10 years - when you buy a 20,000$ printer you try to use for a good longwhile). None of the commercial/proprietary color palette stuff is *ever* going to be made free - it will take the involvement of some big company like Kinko's to create an opensource color standard. And with the licenses they pay for software Kinko's and other big rich companies *should* be getting in to bed with Red Hat et. al.
I used this on the Amiga and liked it, but wish it had some of the features that PhotoGenetics has-- note I'm talking about photogenetics, not photogenics. Check out www.photogenetics.com for more info.
Give me a good reason why one app could not
be good for both.
Evil.. 3D Studio Max? You call yourself a graphics whore? =) j/k. As far as I remember, isn't Lightwave making the jump to *nix?
Also, AFAIC, with the exception of Photoshop (with addons installed), Adobe software isn't that amazing. Page[Mill/Maker]? Ew. Illustrator? Don't make me laugh.
My, that was contructive. As for Linux being inherently unbeatable: Nonsense. Give me a big enough stick and a place to stand and I can beat anything.
At least for me, it chokes on a lot of the files from my Kodak DC210Plus
If you don't understand why it's broken, then it's you that's broken.
Have you used PSP 6.0? It is simply amazing. And as a bonus, it supports many photoshop API plugins.
I'm shaking in my boots.
:)
This is a pretty good modern paint package, which currently runs on the Amiga, and is closed source.
The programmer would like to sell copies to Linux users, so he has ported it to Linux...
The only comments against Gimp in this thread have been the classic "I love MDI, Gimp isn't MDI => MS Paint is better than Gimp" stuff and various rants about Proprietary vs Free software.
At the end of the day, I wandered around the site for this product for ages, looking for the "killer feature", and all I see is the same old stuff.
Of course, maybe he hasn't tried Gimp 1.1.x - in which case he's in for a big surprise when Gimp 1.2.0 goes out the door
$69 is a preferred price point for me.
Have any other strawman arguments?
While it looks similar Compupix is abismal on low end hard ware (like the ppro).
4.6 can take 2 seconds+ to display a 200K jpeg full screen. Does not sound like a lot but if you are flipping through a couple hundred Jpegs, it gets annoying.
Also simple things like the help screens feel very slugish.
The most glaring problem with compupix vs. ACDSee is that compupix does not allow zooming or file deletion while in slide show mode, two features I frequently use in ACDSee.
Keep on Keeping On
What the hell is going on at Slashdot? Yet another commercial thing. There's no place for software like this in the Linux world man. Release it for free and with the sources. It's not Windows. BTW, you paid $100 to get an announcement here? :P Yes, GIMP rules. Qt rules too!!!
I Most ceertainly can beat a GIMP I did so last week!!!
You're probably best going with the Motif (and also GNOME) drag and drop system - it's been pretty much UNIX standard for years, netscape uses it, and KDE will support it pretty soon. (Beleive it or not, most KDE and GNOME people are working together for better integration between the two - it'll soon be just "use whichever you're more comfortable programming with")
It might be worth seeing if Cloanto (publishers of the Amiga Forever Amiga-badged version of UAE), would release their PPaint 7.1 for linux.
I'm all in favor of more programs being ported over from the Amiga, or any other operating system. I'd love to see a low-prices desk top publishing system, like Pagestream from Softlogic, which was written for the Atair but took off on the Amiga and migrated to the Mac. The Atari version was easy to use and very powerful. I one regret in leaving the Atari for a Wintel machine was that I couldn't take Pagestream along with me and haven't been able to find anything comparable at a decent price. (beb01@sprynet.com)
I cant get my password, im not that anonymous coward, im hagge. So.. now u knows... Well. The best program for drawing images is DeluxePaint or PersonalPaint, they are avaible for the Amiga to. Get an A3000 with PPC and GFX card. Then you should have a nice UN*X box to...(Running Linux/BSD for PPC)
Allan Cox.
The important part here is: No mess with lots of windows everywhere. Tools, the palette, and brushes were all available on a narrow band on the right hand side of the screen (and as I mentioned, it could be toggled on and off with one of the F-keys), but you could also bring up windows with a more verbose interface if needed.
It's simple, elegant, and effective.
Well, I've messed with gimp, and the main thing I don't like about it is that it seems mostly menu-driven. The GUI for photogenics is very intuitive and IMO, one of the best. I can't wait!
You know as long as you stick with *doc and *.xls you'll never escape. And we all know that MS's promise to make Word's default document format XML is pure bull shit. If you can't handle alpha/beta stuff now look into koffice in a while - scriptable in python (and python has great xml/html modules) and with a completely ascii doc format. For 15 years Applix Framemaker etc all have decent easy to modify and convert document formats. I use sed/awk shell scripts I got off the to do fancy things with Applix documents. Break free and insist on receiving documents in a non-proprietary format. Send documents in RTF or HTML.
This is pretty good! Its quick, and it seems to be written in python, wow.
:)
I'd rate it at about the corel 3-4 stage, although it has some nifty features that I've wanted for Corel for a long time
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
I dont actually use CorelDRAW in windows, but I accept that my favourite app, CorelXARA will probably never make it to Linux
If you dont mind running windows, CorelXARA (aka Xara Studio) is really nice, see Xara.co.uk for a feature list etc.
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
a nice vector graphics app for X. I can get by with the Gimp, but it doesnt suit my way of working as well as Xara Studio (Now CorelXARA). I wish corel would hurry up and port CorelDRAW to X, I'd probably buy it, assuming I can speak nicely to my bank manager :)
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
These days I only need Windows for 1.5 really big reasons: Graphics and Games. I can now adays run Unreal Tournament and Quake 3A under Linux, so my FPS needs are taken care of (but see, we still need games like HomeWorld for Linux. FPS isn't everything) and I think in the next year it'll get to the point where I'll only have one really big reason I have to keep a Windows box around: Graphics.
Quite simply I need either the following tools or tools on their level to available on Linux before I can stop using MS Windows: Adobe PhotoShop, Adobe Indesign, Adobe Ilustrator, the Kai's Tools, 3D Studio Max, Poser, Bryce, and any of the random neato new entries in the drawing/design/photo/3D fields that get pumped out for Windows every month.
Looking at that list I see Adobe is weighing in heavily. They used to have PageMaker and PhotoShop for SunOS and other Unices. Maybe its time we let them know there would be paying customers that would rather use Linux than Windows or MacOS. (But that would mean we'd actually be willing to pay instead piss and moan about being charged for the best software in the industry.) Hmmmmm.
"The price for the Linux version has yet to be set in stone, I`m open to feedback on this."
$99 seems an OK price to me. It's not cheap, but it's not a price that one looks at and goes "Yikes, I can't afford that!"
"agreed, one other reason i think free software has a disadvantage over commercial software is that commercial software has to GO 4 GOLD and be GREAT to survive and be the best it can"
Except that money isn't good for motivating someone to do quality work. Money and quality don't correlate too well. Is there free stuff of high-quality? Yes: Linux, the *BSDs, Apache, the GNU versions of the Unix utilities, TeX. Are there commercial products of mediocre or lower quality? Yes:Microsoft Word (screwed up centering of figures, applied a character to text without asking me or allowing me to revoke it), Applixware 4.3.7, (the import of an Applix Spreadsheet into Applix Words simply failed), Corel WordPerfect 7 suite under Windows 3.1 (screwed up the import of graphics from Quattro Pro into WordPerfect).
"It has no, "DO THIS FEATURE" in 3months or die attitude. "
Actually, that attitude tends to both bloat software and reduce its quality. If you try to stuff 6 months or more of work into three months, you generally get slipshod work in which corners had to be cut to make deadline. Look at Fred Brooks's "The Mythical Man-Month". It talks extensively about this subject.
Some people feel that Linux is gaining popularity not because of its Freeness, but because of hype.
Others, who have adopted Linux because of its Freeness, have apparently forgotten why proprietary software is bad. That's not to say that it should never be used; it's simply to be avoided when possible and practical.
Remember these bad things about proprietary operating systems:
- The user is at the mercy of the vendor for bug fixes
- The user is at the mercy of the vendor for continued development
- The user is at the mercy of the vendor for support
- The user cannot use the software however he/she wishes; he/she must use it within the confines of the EULA
- The user cannot share the software with others
Well, these all apply to individual programs as well as operating systems, folks.So, the question isn't whether one should use proprietary software on a Free operarting system when it is most practical (i.e., if there were a proprietary Quicken for Linux, and one needed online banking functionality). The question is whether one should use proprietary software when a perfectly good Free alternative exists.
For me, the answer is no. I may not agree with RMS on everything, but I do think he's right about the direction we should be moving. And I'm never going to move back in the direction of proprietary software.
For a refresher: http://www.gnu.org/
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
But my almost 6 years of Photoshop experience is something I can't throw out unless there's a very compelling reason to do so.
.PSD is a known format, and of course GIFs, JPGs, etc. can all be imported to Photoshop from other programs.
You know, I don't know of any carpenters who only use a chisel and no other tools. So why just use one computer tool? If Photogenics does something that Photoshop doesn't do, use it, and then use Photoshop for what it does well.
You do run in to the problem, of course, that unlike carpentry tools which all leave the wood as wood, computer tools output their own special "wood" -- different file formats. But I think
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Considering [Photogenics] was started a long time ago and he still continues to work on it means that the man LOVES his work.
And if he gets hit by a bus tomorrow? (john Carmack talks about putting his life on the line when driving his F-50, one tire flaw at the wrong time and we might never have had Quake.) Of course, I hope Mr. Nolan lives a long and healthy life. But the only way the GIMP could die is if people lose interest in improving it.
This goes to the heart of why Photogenics isn't competition for the GIMP, although the reverse may be true. The GIMP doesn't need a huge pool of uses to keep going. The only thing the GIMP is competing for is developer mindshare, and Photogenics isn't likely to affect this.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
And actually the same holds for Photoshop, provided people still buy it, the company will still develop it. People stop buying it, Adobe go out of business. How is this different from GIMP?
Photoshop is looking for customers to continue, while the GIMP needs developers. The two sets overlap slightly, but not much. And the GIMP's required number of developers is much, much smaller.
Also, just having customers may not be enough -- look what happened to OS/2, for example.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
True, but we're discussing bitmap editors here, not the whole box of tools (e.g., vector, 3d, video editing, page layout, batch conversion, etc.). Chisels only, in other words.
I don't know about you, but I own more than one chisel...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
There are plenty of people out there -- like me -- who would migrate to Linux in the blink of an eye if they could get all the necessary software, even if it is commercial. I need Photoshop (no, Gimp does not cut it), I need CorelDraw (the only version available for Unix is an antique v3.5), and I need something that reads and writes MS Word and Excel well. Until these materialize (and I expect it's only a matter of time), I'm stuck on NT.
There is no point to switching to GNU/Linux 'just because'. There are a bunch of good reasons to use GNU/Linux (or one of the other very good free OSs), like efficiency, stability or configurability (to name a few). You will either choose one of those OSs or you won't. But the real reason to use a free OS is freedom, which you don't seem to get (e.g., you want an MS Word reader).
Consider this. Your life's work (Word files, Excel files, Photoshop art, et c.) hangs on the thin thread of a vendor's whim. What if Corel goes out of business? What if MS decides to change the Word format, again, to force you to upgrade at a cost of $400? What if Adobe stops supporting your platform of choice (any lonely Irix users out there?)? You get the idea.
This is why some people don't want commercial software on otherwise free systems: they draw users and developer interest away from free solutions, and the network effect then locks out users of free applications ('Please send your resume in Word format.'). As everyone knows, the OS doesn't matter -- the applications do. Free applications are even more important than free kernels. This is what really matters, and userland is where the fight for software freedom is taking place.
More important than migrating to GNU/Linux is that you spend the 2 hours it takes to get the basics of (La)TeX down. (Try LyX, it's a WYSIWYG interface to LaTeX and very nice.) Ditching Word is more important than ditching NT.
Well, we'd love to help you. :)
I'm curious, specifically what do you need from PhotoShop that The Gimp doesn't do?
A more recent version of CorelDraw that runs under Linux should be released, but I wouldn't be too surprised if CorelDraw for Windows ran under Wine.
WordPerfect 8 and StarOffice are both free for non-commercial use, and do a pretty good job. I like WordPerfect better from a resource utilization standpoint, but StarOffice does a good job of replacing the Office suite of programs.
I wouldn't mind seeing more commercial programs for Linux, it's just more incentive for the free people to write free replacements, and the non-free people to switch to Linux.
I'd love it if The Gimp incorporated some of the functionality of Fractal Image Painter, which it looks like this Amiga program does. Maybe that's why it's $99...
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I'll grant that GIMP has weaknesses, lack of CMYK pretty much locks it out of publishing. If you're doing web graphics or dealing strictly with online stuff I have yet to hear a good reason why GIMP doesn't cut it other than the parochial "it's not from Adobe" line and if you're thinking that way then Linux isn't really for you in the first place, is it?
Please list the gimp short commings other than a brand name. So far you've said that Kai's plugin's aren't there.
Both free and commercial software are double edged swords. Both have different motivations and both systems have produced gold and crap. There are disadvantages to rushing to meet a 3 month deadline: bloat and bugs. xv and slackware are examples of idling you mention but gimp, kde, gnome are total opposites. They may be implementations of functions and features originally perfected by others but it's still impressive in how close they are to their commercial cousins in their version 1.0 releases. In fact no one was holding a gun to the heads of the gimp developers to have multiple undo in version 1. Hey, where in hell is Amiga? Where is it going? Maybe GPLing the Amigo OS and putting it in the hands of the die-hard users could be the best thing for it. The commercial caretakers of Amiga don't seem to get anything done. They're changing the 3 month feature deadline every 2 months. That said, I think commercial software porting to Linux is very welcome. The world is obviously not going to be open source only. I saw the screenshots of Paul Nolan's software and it looked good. I with him the best of luck. This can only enrich Linux. sincerely narbey
-- "The evil stops here" -Petr
There is an insistence that software should be Free.
/mill - who doesn't have a problem with proprieraty software, but won't pay for it
Why do you want to muddle the distinction between Free and gratis like you do in the last paragraph?
"Open source" got nothing to do with price and still you are attacking "open-source bigotry" using price as an argument. Red herring.
Huh?
/mill
Are you saying Linus Torvalds and/or ESR are bought? Is there a conspiracy you know and we should know about?
Lets have some facts or at least an explanation.
Umm, who decided the name? Why can't RMS claim it should be called GNU/Linux (which at least acknowledge the kernel Linux) if you claim that it should be called just Linux (which includes GNU, X, et al)?
/mill - who is pretty much indifferent about the name(s)
I don't care if it has yet another toolkit or set of protocols. I just want that the program works.
Okay, it's a bit confusing to use Yet Another New Toolkit. But it's just a matter of getting used to it, anyway. Take Blender's user interface - granted, it might have been cool and the executable smaller if it had used GTK+, but since it works, I don't care that it uses toolkit that's not used elsewhere.
I would, however, have flinched if they had said the program uses Athena widgets. But even then, I would have used the program. =)
Discriminating programs based on the widget set is just silly.
And what comes to Drag'n'drop, I'm sure they haven't come up with something silly like things that are completely incompatible with the status quo.
**bong** argumentum ad hominem. And our next contestant...
BTW, when DeluxePaint will be ported to Linux? The local former Amiga users seem to really want that ported. =) I, too, have hard time 'cuz DeluxePaint 5 doesn't always run properly in UAE...
This may get marked down as "flamebait," but I think it's a valid opinion/argument. Here goes: I totally agree. Some people may want to be compensated for their time and effort. It's fantastic if they release their source under a GPL-type license but still sell the product for money. It's even better if they want to give away there product free of charge in addition to releasing the source. I have much respect for Richard Stallman and all of the FSF crew. Stallman's oft-quoted statement "free as in speach, not beer" is apt here. Stallman has said himself (correct me if I'm wrong) that he is not opposed to someone creating something and selling it. If anything is going to ruin the Free Software/Open Source/whateveryouwannacallit movement, it is going to be this type of bigotry. "Linux people" are already seen as being a bunch of fanatics. Why must we continue to perpetuate this seething hatred of anything not FREE? or anything Microsoft for that matter? If we expect to bring more people over to our way of thinking, I really don't think this is the way.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
At $99, I'd certainly consider buying Photogenics if it gave me enough over and above what I've already got. The feature list looks good, but not enough to make me rush out and buy it... or am I missing something?
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
... but there are some other reasons why I think Photogenics for Linux is a Bad Thing (tm), for instance the bad integration with desktops: Gnome and KDE seem to have agreed on some protocols, and now another program comes with another toolkit. The Gimp now has drag'n'drop support, I doubt Photogenics will ever have it.
Also, did you notice the guy who took the screenshot was doing everything as root ?
Sam.
God, root, what is difference ?
Only because you, the fascist Gimp Overlord, demanded it.
I second that and will submit this story to BeOS news sites in the hopes that people will be interested in a BeOS port.
---
Oh, we already have a Lens Flare plugin for the gimp.
Tig
(yes. this was a joke.)
Good one, zeno :)
Tig
The Gimp is unlikely to face serious competition from this software. Open Source, free software trumps $99 proprietary software any day. Let's face it, how many of us are willing to shell out $99 for whatever difference exists between this and the Gimp? The only people who might consider this worthwhile are graphics professionals, and if they're willing to spend that kind of money, they've already bought PhotoShop, thank you very much. Pshop might not run under Linux, but the ability to work in Linux isn't worth that much, esp. to someone doing something so OS-independent as graphics.
Besides, give the Gimp another major version number or two, and a slightly bigger Script-fu development community, and it'll outdistance Pshop, Photogenics, or any proprietary software, and be the best choice on grounds of both price and quality. Anyone excited about Photogenics for Linux is backing the wrong horse. The most worthwhile thing about this is the fact that it will give the Gimp designers another source of inspiration (besides Pshop).
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
I'll agree with you that the gimp doesn't compare to Photoshop or anything by metacreations, but Paint Shop Pro?!?! Come on man! Lets get real here!
Have you even tried wine?
Wine has two sides, the set of win32 libs,
"wine is not an emulator", and the win32 executable loader/executor. Wine is both not an emulator AND a WINdows Emulator. If you use wine to run solitaire, it certainly doesn't magically become a native app, but it does run.
Hamsters are at least as feathery as penguins. HamLix
As someone who owns Linux, SGI and BeOS machines, I'd like to second this motion.
For graphics stuff, BeOS just feels better than anything, Linux or Windows or even Mac, aside.
D
----
He seems like a nice guy, and I can't help but notice that people who have tried his product love it.
Before we flame him for not being open source, I think we should give the product a chance to prove itself. It sounds to me like it's shaping up to be a modest success, maybe more than that if it gets some buzz.
I like open source too, but I hate the level of hostility I see on the subject. Paul Nolan is a real person, with real feelings, and since he has worked very hard to create a good product, I think he deserves some respect.
As I said in another thread (replying to someone who felt the same way), I think he should port to BeOS as well. Be users seem to be used to paying for software, and don't seem to have the ideological baggage of many Linux folks.
D
----
Second problem: everyone is jumping over themselves to post quickly, and moderate quickly, so that the time taken to write a quality post gets lost in the noise.
That cuts both ways - for example, if nobody moderated quickly we'd all have to put up with a lot more "first post" type comments. The idea is quick, accurate moderation, not based on personal beliefs but based on objective assessment of quality.
I think Rob should consider preventing moderation on a new topic for the first thirty minutes or an hour. This allows content to filter in before the moderators jump the gun.
Please no! That would mean I (for one) would have to wait 30 minutes before reading the comments so I wouldn't have to wade through all the unmoderated posts.
Slashdot is getting badly broken lately.
If Slashdot is so badly broken, then why am I getting so much useful stuff from it every day?
BTW, someone should moderate your post up, if only for the interesting church & science analogy.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Each of your arguments are beside the point. It's the needs of the consumer that will drive the success or failure of a software application, whether it's free or not. There's no end to the kinds of things people want to be able to do, and each successive upgrade generates more ideas, and more ways to make the software do more than it did previously. So, to some extent, consumers are driving the poor quality of commercial software. Commercial developers are simply responding to what consumers want, and to some extent, what they're willing to put up with. Does this mean that buggy software should be the accepted norm? No. But consumers have to make a choice...that can have what they want *now*, under the premise that it will be reasonably functional (but not bug free), or they can wait just to the left of forever until every possible hardware/software configuration has been tested, and it has been determined that the application is 100% bulletproof. Of course, by then, it will be obsolete anyway. I'm willing to bet that the majority of consumers would rather pay $99, $129, or whatever for the next upgrade to their proprietary software, so that they can have the newest features *now*, rather than wait for the same feature to amble its way into a free software package - IF it even gets there.
Each of your arguments are beside the point. It's the needs of the consumer that will drive the success or failure of a software application, whether it's free or not. There's no end to the kinds of things people want to be able to do, and each successive upgrade generates more ideas, and more ways to make the software do more than it did previously. So, to some extent, consumers are driving the poor quality of commercial software. Commercial developers are simply responding to what consumers want, and to some extent, what they're willing to put up with.
Does this mean that buggy software should be the accepted norm? No. But consumers have to make a choice...that can have what they want *now*, under the premise that it will be reasonably functional (but not bug free), or they can wait just to the left of forever until every possible hardware/software configuration has been tested, and it has been determined that the application is 100% bulletproof. Of course, by then, it will be obsolete anyway.
I'm willing to bet that the majority of consumers would rather pay $99, $129, or whatever for the next upgrade to their proprietary software, so that they can have the newest features *now*, rather than wait for the same feature to amble its way into a free software package - IF it even gets there.
Y'know, I agreed with you post, and I thought it was well-written, too. On the other hand, the dig at "young men in their late teens and early twenties" was pretty unfair. I agreed with your gripe about childish posts being moderated up, bit I think you misidentified the cause. I'm a young man in my late teens, and I don't think I fit your description. I do care about intellectual content, and I care about diversity, and I care about grammar, syntax, and spelling. It's unfair to stereotype people like me.As an aside, I agreed with your proposed solution to the "second problem," and I think that perhaps another solution would be to require a karma above, say, 5, to moderate. Of course, it would take a while for it to become clear whether or not this was a good plan, because people with undeserved karma would screw things up a little to start with.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
(Ohmigosh, that last sentence sounds like such marketing drivel.)
You can make all the philosophical arguements you want, but when I take a look at the fact that Photogenics might be coming to my Linux box, I'm damned excited. Two of my computers running Photogenics instead of just one? Sweeeeeeet.
-DrPsycho - Coping with reality since 1975
You see, it is hard to be competition for something that a free and satisfactory for most of it's users (yea, boo hoo, some jerk wants to use gimp for publishing, but he's not most people). This is reality, not Open Source bigotry.
I am not saying it won't sell, but it is hardly competition unless it is free. Remember, almost everybody will take something free of lower quality over something expensive (at least to most) of higher quality.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
Most people do define competition in terms of functionality, not by license terms. Besides, I think you're being awfully petty by complaining about Hemos's use of the word competition just because this software isn't an option for you. I myself don't use page layout software, but that doesn't mean that I pretend that there isn't competition between Quark and Adobe.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Taking a look at his site, I'm pretty impressed with the work Paul Nolan's done with this, but I'm a bit skeptical that many Linux users will shell out $99 for this software -- that's the price for the Amiga version, anyway.
It looks like he's designed it to be pretty portable, so hopefully he won't be sinking too many resources into supporting any one platform, and hopefully it will help him to further expand the number of platforms as time goes by. Whatever the case, well done and best of luck to him and other entrepreneurs of his ilk.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I am an artist who is now making his living by slicing up psd's and producing web pages. So let me begin by saying that I use photoshop in my NT office everyday, multiple times, over and over again.
One day, I sat at home and began working with the gimp. If I could not code (yet), I could come up with a reasonable wishlist-- features that would make the gimp more attractive to those of us who do graphics production work all day. I could find nothing. The only complaint I could muster is that you have to declare all your keyboard shortcuts, instead of having a set of shortcuts to work from. Furthermore, I checked out the feature list and noticed that the gimp will be supporting some powerful features like the image hose from Fractal Design Painter. And on top of that, the gimp is certainly a zillion times more scriptable that photoshop. (yeah yeah, actions and paths, but have you ever heard of using photoshop to dynamically generate web graphics?)
Basically, INHO the gimp is as good as photoshop, with 10 times the potential. Just look at photoshop 5.5's hacked together mesh of image ready + photoshop, and you can tell that Adobe is having trouble with Photoshop's architecture.
So don't be dissing the gimp-- it's better than you think. Of course, it could use prettier file widgets...
Also, re: photogenics:
It may have some powerful layer channel operations, it seems (an alpha channel per channel, though that gets to be a mouthful..) I'd have to use it to sort out the real features from the screenfilling PR (a BLUR function! ooooo!)
But I still think development on the open source gimp can move at a much faster rate than any proprietary software. It's not just the plugin architecture, its the architecture + the GPL which is responsible for the growth of the GIMP
As long as he ports to Linux, I hope he considers a port to BeOS as well.
After all, it is billed as the Media OS, and considered very good for working with digital media...
...if only some APPLICATIONS would get written for it...
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Thanks for replying :-)
;-)
You've definitely got something there. Granted, GTK+ may be much farther along (nevermind the C++ Qt), but it doesn't aim for the same level of portability. Not to mention its syntax is (*ahem*) a bit on the heavy side. If Ng's portability can be extended to BeOS and Win32 (putting it on par with the previously mentioned C++ toolkits), and the syntax is more elegant than GTK+'s, it may very well be capable of a life of its own.
Even if you don't open the source to PG, it can't hurt to place Ng under LGPL. If it's really good, it'll take off. If not, well... should you ever release another Ng app, the binaries won't have to be statically compiled
iSKUNK!
Even if the app itself isn't open-source, I sure wouldn't mind having a look at Ng. Check out this little blurb:
Internally, Photogenics is based on
my Ng user interface toolkit, and avoids calling any OS specific
functions. Ng itself sits on top of a small OS abstraction layer, which
either maps directly to AmigaOS functions, or uses Posix for thread
related functions, and Xlib for display. With this abstraction layer in
place, Photogenics will soon become platform agnostic. With 99.9% of
the Photogenics source code remaining unchanged across ports, no
platform will get left behind when it comes to new versions. An Amiga
NG version should not be a problem, and QNX aficionados will be
pleased to know that Photogenics will port over with only trivial
changes
'Course, if this is a C++ show, it won't be anything new (cf. FOX, wxWindows et. al.) Still, that level of portability gives me goosebumps }:-)
iSKUNK!
"All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening."
Illogical morals, stupid laws and inadequate biochemistry.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
Crappy OS?
Photoshop on IRIX, even though it is one or two versions out of date now, is quite stable and much more powerful than the GIMP, imho.
It indeed does the job, any yes, better than other Office suites, but it still has many flaws. Standard text documents are converted fairly good, but it goes wrong when you used pictures, etc. in your documents. Also margins tend to get mangled. There are other things that go wrong, but these I encounter the most...
Again I am astounded at the if it aint free then it aint worth crap side of the house. You all do realize that your constant, repetitive litany sounds like nothing more than a 5 year old's incessant tantrums? If it is free then great! I intend on writing software for free too, but just because someone else wants me to pay for it doesn't mean I wont buy it. If I do pay for it then I will be less likely to be blaise about bugs, un-implemented features, and support. I will expect to be taken care of nicely and to have my questions answered when I have one. That's what I expect to get for $99. When something free breaks and I can't fix it, I dump it until something new comes out. I don't trash it, I don't slam it, I don't hurl insults at the authors like many people do. I appreciate anyone's effort.
The fact of the matter is that people who cannot or will not alter the free source of a program to make it do what they want are the people who will pay to get what they want. In other words, you get what you pay for it sometimes. If you pay for it then you may get what you want, though it is not a guarantee. If not then you don't buy the next one and you tell all your friends to stay away from it and the author goes out of business. Who goes out of business when free software goes bad? No one. That is probably why many folks simply try to shame the free author out of writing software. Face it, it doesn't matter how great the plaform is (beta max) nor how cool the OS is (Amiga) nor how better designed it is (G3/4) now how convienent (Palm OS over CE). Linux needs some forms of legitimacy and good software that is well supported and can be pruchased on a shelf at Best Buy will always help.
Linux has taken off because of good PR, not because of it's abilities. It has also gotten a boost from the anti-trust case. It has also gotten attention because of the anti-MS sentiment many have. And it has gotten attention because it is a decent OS that will only get better. Please remember this. We need both. If Photogenics cannot compete against the GIMP then it is because the GIMP is better AND free, not because the GIMP is just free.
----------
Twisted Little Gnome - The Podcasting Network http://www.twistedlittlegnome.com
In the good old days I used Photogenics 1.0 and 2.0 (I think it was) alot and I loved it! And still when I'm using GIMP and/or Photoshop I miss several very useful features of Photogenics. I find this very interesting. Even thoough I'm not a graphics person (more coder) I still want to be artistic and Photogenics might be my choice.
Of course since there are pros and cons with both photogenics and gimp, so I might use them both.
of course I mean "interesting"...
sorry about the typo
i've noticed a fair number of posts before me that are praising the gimp so much more over commercial software simply because it's free and you have the source code.
sorry, guys, just because you have the source code, you got it for free, and it IS a decent program, doesn't mean it can so easily replace a lot of comercial programs.
don't get me wrong, gimp is cool, i like it, it's got some fun stuff, but it's got quite a ways to go until it gets to the level of Photoshop, PaintShopPro, and it looks like even this Photogenics (though i admit i havn't used photogenics).
if nothing else, the plugins available for the other programs make them worthwhile. when i see metacreations putting out kia's power tools for the gimp, then i'll be impressed.
point is, these comercial apps do have something that gimp and some other linux apps don't: they are industry standards. as such, they have the add-ons and portability that simply aren't found in many linux apps.
until the day comes when the adobe suite is ported to linux, the metacreations products get ported, and several other high quality graphic apps get ported, i'm still going to need a windows or mac around. at this point, if i want a server, i set up linux. if i want to do graphics, sound production, and a few other things, i'll take mac or win. i may not like it, but it's what i have to do.
----------------
"All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening."
"All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening."
- Alexandar Woolcot
i notice on the screen shot of the linux version he's got the gimp running in the background..
trying to make a statement perhaps?
Looks like it will be shareware (or even commercial?) at $99. I doubt if he's selling it then it will be available as open source for anyone to compile for free.
>Remember these bad things about proprietary operating systems:
> The user is at the mercy of the vendor for bug fixes
> The user is at the mercy of the vendor for continued development
> The user is at the mercy of the vendor for support
> The user cannot use the software however he/she wishes; he/she must use it within the confines of the EULA
> The user cannot share the software with others
> Well, these all apply to individual programs as well as operating systems, folks.
You can cite real cases that prove and disprove these points, but this is about Photogenics, so lets talk about it. Considering it was started a long time ago and he still continues to work on it means that the man LOVES his work. This trait is very appealing in a software developer, and most likely means that he will be happy to appease the requests of his users. So frankly, saying that he keeps his users at his mercy is somewhat offensive. He's just a guy doing what he loves and would like a bit of compensation for his lifes work.
And at the end of the day its really just another option, and another way you can exercise your freedom of choice.
Is it just me or does Corel Draw crash every 5 minutes (windows version)? I'm afraid to use it, because I lose my work every time. Even saving after every operation doesn't work because somehow it manages to corrupt it's files. I've upgraded all the patches they have on their web site, but they seem to have no effect on it's stability.
Corel draw would be a wonderful program if it was more stable, but in it's current state it's very unusable. Anyone have suggestions for a more stable vector based drawing program?
-- Virtual Windows Project
frankly, there's no problem with that. I for one don't want a linux world domination. People who use proprietary software aren't forced to move to linux at all and that's fine as it is.
. . . . . . .
may u!sh 2 sm!le at dz!z bad nn.!m!tat!ion
WordPerfect 8: still unsurpassed (IMHO). No problems for MS->WP (at least for me); I can't say nothing for the contrary, WP->MS. (I am enough lucky.)
NExS and Xess spreadsheets: unsurpassed (IMHO); maybe gnumeric is nearing them
And: WordPerfect 8, NExS and Xess work nicely even with FreeBSD's Linux-emulation (my case, still; most best applications are for GNU/Linux: what I am making? Paris-Madrid via Zanzibar?
StarOffice: probably honest --if you like things a' la Swiss Army knive (not my case); StarOffice: for my taste is too much bloated: I also would use only a few items only out of too many
I don't know for the rest. Perhaps these URLs may help:
http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/linapps.shtml
http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/spreadsheets.html
I agree before the PC I now own I had an Amiga, well I've been thorugh at least 4 Amigas and I really loved DP IV for pixeling, and I used PhotoGenics a lot too! If it's better for _creating_ art with I'll probably buy it, since I find GIMP and PS5 to lack a bit of well.. usability and tools to easily create images from scratch (although it is possible..)
Anyway.. Will PhotoGenics on Linux have support for tablets (digitizers)?
But my almost 6 years of Photoshop experience is something I can't throw out unless there's a very compelling reason to do so.
Unlike Microsoft, I'm comfortable with Adobe's monopoly (Pshop, Illustrator, AfterEffects, Premiere) because their products are stable, even under WFW 3.11 and System 7 (circa. 1994). Unlike Microsoft.
For someone new to design and graphics, having a choice of tools is a Good Thing. And competition raises the bar for everyone involved in software development.
But Photogenics would have to have a conceptual advantage; playing catch-up is not good enough.
In a production environment, stability, speed, and ease-of-use are paramount. A mature product like Photoshop also has an extensive user base, a necessary asset for a complex product (cf. comp.graphics.photoshop). RTFM sometimes only gets you so far.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
This isn't about competition, it's about choice. I want to choose which operating system I use on my PC. Having a choice of Windows or Linux isn't much use if there's no applications for Linux. The more applications that appear for Linux, the more choice I've got. It would be great to have Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop for Linux (whatever happened to Photoshop for Unix/Solaris?). Open Source is about freedom and the more choice I have, the freer I am. Open and closed source software can (and must) exist together. Fundamentalism and bigotry are Bad Things whether religious or open-source.
Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.
She's just dressing, goodbye windows, tired starlings.
>Remember, almost everybody will take something free of lower quality over something expensive (at least to most) of higher quality.
no.
Someone who wants to get a job done, and done well, will use the BEST tool that they can afford.
Price may affect the decision a little, there would probably have to be a more signficant difference in quality between a free solution, and a proprietry one, than between two solutions of simmilar cost, but it is still wrong to say that just because something is free, that someone will not pay for a better product.
At the end of the day...most people just want to do what they want to do...software, and operating systems are just a means to an end, and if someone is serious about a piece of work, they will use the means that produces the best end.
Advanced users are users too!
I Want It. I've use this product on the Amiga before, If it has just kept up with current trends it will exceed both Photoshop 5 and Fireworks for windows systems and anything else I could through at it. I remember the code and interface were solid and it did what I wanted without my having to "outthink" the program. I'll buy it, it worked before and should work again.
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
Good ol' DPaint is an excellent program for fine pixel-level image editing (e.g. when creating pixel-perfect icons, animated 2D game characters etc. with a restricted palette). It would be very nice to have one real old-skool paint program amongst all these dumb-ass scanned image manipulators. Creating images by cutting and pasting scanned photographs and applying some filters to them does not IMHO require much talent. Hand-painting them pixel by pixel with a mouse when you only have some 32 colors available does.
Deluxe Paint was originally created by Daniel Silva and published by Electronic Arts. There was also an MS-DOS version available, but it was not a 1:1 port (there were some functional differences and for some reason, the integrated animator was released as a separate application called "Deluxe Animator"). A real DPaint port is unlikely to ever happen unless someone can persuade EOA to release the source. Well, who knows - it might just be possible, as nowadays EÓA only develops games... Maybe somebody should ask them?
And there ARE some add ons and such for the Gimp, and better yet, if one you want doesn't exist, you CAN make it yourself, and send it around to people who may be interested in helping you make it better.
And even if Photoshop is a little better by itself, remember that you'll be running it over a Crappy OS that is very likely to crash, especially when you're using a lot of memory (which is the case when you're doing image manipulation).
But in the respect of Photogenics, I'm not going to bash it for not being open source. Sure, I'd love it if the code was released, but it could be good to have an alternate to the GIMP, especially in the form of a new version of some great Amiga software.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
What is this insistence that everything be free(as in beer and thought)? I use Linux because it is powerful, free(in both senses) and I am anti-MS. BUT... I am willing to pay for a quality product that fills a need. Some companys are simply not set up to support an open-source business model, and some of them make an excellent product... Not every piece of comercial software is MicroTrash.
Are you exclusively using GNU/Linux because you hate Microsoft or you covet its power, or are you exclusively using it because for more idealistic reasons? If so, Photogenics is not competition, regardless if it *was* better than Photoshop. If I want proprietary software, I'll be happy to use a proprietary operating system.
This sort of open-source bigotry drives me crazy. "This sucks, it isn't free," seems to be a way to common attitude. How about, whoa... $99 bucks... that's peanuts compared to some other Image Manipulation suites. Add that to the $0 cost of my OS and it's a real bargain...
/* CDM */
The problem is that I need to be able to import and export Word/Excel to those people who don't/can't use anything else, and the few times I've tried this the results have been horrific.
I don't see any problem with this. StarOffice allows you to "transparently import and export Word/Excel documents," and "is more compatible with Microsoft Office than any other Office suite." Each of those quotes came from Sun's StarOffice FAQ.
As for those who don't care to use anything else, I know how you feel; I deal with them every day.
--
steve
C-x i ~/.sig
I like to see more programs ported from Amiga to Linux. Before I had my current computer I used an Amiga, I still love it. And it's still one of the best OS around, well at least better then Windows. Hopefully someone fill port Deluxe Paint to linux.. ;)
Why not take the features you like from Deluxe Paint and either suggest them to the GIMP team or implement them yourself? Just curious...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
But Photogenics is no more competition to Photoshop than the Gimp is. So why should Photogenics, just another proprietary program, be competition to the Gimp, unless you are loath to use another operating system? Are you exclusively using GNU/Linux because you hate Microsoft or you covet its power, or are you exclusively using it because for more idealistic reasons? If so, Photogenics is not competition, regardless if it *was* better than Photoshop. If I want proprietary software, I'll be happy to use a proprietary operating system.
I don't give a rip if FooSoft port FooWare Pro to GNU/Linux---if they don't share the source.
I didn't mean (despite my opinionated closing line, I think it was a valid opinion to express) start a flame war or attack Photogenic's licensing scheme, nor did I intend to insult Frank Brockway. All I meant was:
- Photogenics is not competition on par with Photoshop (I've never heard of it before, and I think it's safe to say that Adobe's radar people aren't too concerned)
- Photogenics is not competition on par with the Gimp, because the Gimp's attraction is that it is free software/open-source software (there, a painful attempt to use ecumenical nomenclature).
I realize that the idea is that it is now probably the only other image-manipulation program of this level of sophistication for Linux, however, I do not see it as competing with the Gimp. At least, the competition would/should be rather one-way.Thank you.
Nate
P.S. GNU/Linux does not include or refer to BSDish systems. GNU/Linux means an operating system based upon the Linux kernel and GNU system applications and utilities, as well as other software. You could say, GNU/FreeBSD, GNU/NetBSD, GNU/BSD, etc, however, the role of the GNU project is generally smaller (though still ubiquitous) in BSDish systems, though most at least have gcc.
Nate
Hmm, hopefully it'll be good at drawing rather than just modifying existing pictures. IMHO Photoshop and Gimp are still behind Paint Shop and other programs for that sort of thing...
BTW, anyone know of any groups working on a sound editor?
And actually the same holds for Photoshop, provided people still buy it, the company will still develop it. People stop buying it, Adobe go out of business. How is this different from GIMP?
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
I've never seen this app. But I used to use an Amiga around the turn of the decade. Some good apps for it's time. But sadly outdated..
Variety in any case will be a good thing.
Anyone know if it will be open-source?
-Jon
this is my sig.
"In the long run users would be far better off sending a $100 donation to the GIMP developers than paying this guy's lunch, no matter how well written is his software." How would users be better off not only using inferior software but even paying the developers for it? In the long run those users who pay Paul's lunch will have been reaping the rewards of having used the most productive of the two apps, while the donaters to the 'GIMP developers retirement fund' have been waiting for those developers to consider implementing their requests. Of course they will be able to console themselves with the thought that they are contributing to "an inherently stronger model for the creation, distribution and development of new ideas". Me? I'd swap attempted moral superiority for quality software every time.
Evidently someone who has never used any of the applications he presumes to rant about. I wonder if I could get a reply by calling him rude names and swearing lots in general. Nah, I'd have to lobotomise myself to get down to his level:)
- The user is at the mercy of the vendor for bug fixes
- The user is at the mercy of the vendor for continued development
- The user is at the mercy of the vendor for support
- The user cannot use the software however he/she wishes; he/she must use it within the confines of the EULA
- The user cannot share the software with others
Of course, given my title, I completely agree with your assessment. In the long run users would be far better off sending a $100 donation to the GIMP developers than paying this guy's lunch, no matter how well written is his software. The folks who complain about lacking features they want in GIMP, but who have never donated time or effort themselves, simply don't understand the point -- collective sharing of intellectual property across an open playing field is an inherently stronger model for the creation, distribution and development of new ideas. This is why science, using open data and publication among its peers, has flourished since the enlightenment. If the church had successfully maintained it's monopoly over ideas and content we'd still be driving horse and ox plows... and we'd all believe the Earth is the center of the universe under threat of excommunication and death.Today's intellectual monopolists lack that kind of centralized political power, but it's the same tools, the same goals, and the same short sighted gains which drive these monopolists. Their only weapon against Free Software proponents is communist propaganda... our best weapon is price and intellectual freedom.
To call the free software movement communist is to call the church, or any other non-political organization created for the primary purpose of sharing goods and services collectively, communist as well. Can you imagine the pope called a communist because he redistributed money collected from church donations to the poor? Yeah, that's the logic commercial propagandists would have us believe when it comes to giving away freedom with intellectual property. Don't buy it, write it!
Finally, concerning your lament on the quality of Slashdot moderation lately: I agree completely. I notice you have fairly high karma points, yet you haven't been moderated up at all. I bet this is a new trait... I've noticed many well written posts completely ignored lately while trite childish posts get moderated up to a five simply because they preset popular views. I think this is because Rob Malda has opened up moderation to the large community, and as it turns out, the greater Slashdot community is made up mostly of young men in their late teens and early twenties. These folks don't seem to care much for grammar, diversity, or even much about intellectual content. They do care about k-rad hackers, Mandrake, and "Buffer Overflows," but probably wouldn't understand a top down stack if it hit them over the head.
Second problem: everyone is jumping over themselves to post quickly, and moderate quickly, so that the time taken to write a quality post gets lost in the noise. I think Rob should consider preventing moderation on a new topic for the first thirty minutes or an hour. This allows content to filter in before the moderators jump the gun.
Slashdot is getting badly broken lately.
Xlib
Thank you for summing this up so eloquently and allowing me to get back to work quicker :)
I am going to buy a copy. The $99.00 price tag sounds fine to me. It's cool to see developers make money from their hard work. If The Gimp cost money and was around the same amount I'd buy it. Heck, I buy RedHat or download it from time to time. I see no problem with buying software. If it costs too much, I don't buy it.
-- to code or not to code