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. "
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
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.
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...
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
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.
(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
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
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
Well, I shelled out the bucks, and without hesitation. There's plenty of Gimp/Photoshop like programs, but I haven't ever seen anything else resembling Photogenics.
That is just plain wrong, unsubstantiated, and fabricated. I am not a graphics professional by any stretch of the imagination, but I still need/want to edit or create an image (for whatever reason) from time to time, and spending $100 on a good app for that just isn't a big deal. Maybe for college kids who depend on Free Beer, that's a lot of money. But in the real world, spending a hundred bucks here and there on good software isn't a problem.
Even if you already have Photoshop, that doesn't mean Phootgenics is worthless to you. I suspect that you have never used this program, or you would see that Photoshop is not a superset of Photogenics. There is a significant difference between the user interfaces of Photoshop (including all its attempted clones, like Gimp) and Photogenics. Paul Nolan has come up with something rather ingenious, and I recommend that you be careful about making claims regarding it, until after you've seen it.
Perhaps; that does indeed sound feasible, although whether the people doing Gimp (not the scripts, they are irrelevant) decide to go in that direction, remains to be seen. Maybe in a few years, Gimp and Photoshop will catch up. But until then, if you want a good image manipulation program instead of vaporous promises about how cool the next version of Gimp will be, then Photogenics is worthy of your attention.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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!
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
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
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.
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 */
Of course not. Howeber, I do have plenty of reasons for switching over to GNU/Linux -- you listed quite a few of them -- but, because of those missing critical apps, I can't. Which annoys me. If there were Linux versions (or, better yet, free true equivalents) of Photoshop, CorelDraw and (ha!) Word/Excel, I could migrate and get the advantages of Linux.
In other words, a free OS with some closed software is better than a closed OS with lots of closed software. No?
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). [...] 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.
I've been using LaTeX for over 5 years now. Rest assured, I don't want to use MS Word, the problem is that I need to be able to generate Word documents so others can read and modify them.
Cheers,
-j.
You should. 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.
Cheers,
-j.
- 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