Google Funds Work for Photoshop on Linux

S point 2 writes "Google has announced that they have hired Codeweavers, maker of the popular Wine software to make Photoshop run better on Linux. 'Photoshop is one of those applications that desktop Linux users are constantly clamoring for, and we're happy to say they work pretty well now...We look forward to further improvements in this area.' It is unknown whether or not the entire Creative Suite will be funded for support, but for the time being it seems Photoshop-on-Linux development is getting a new priority under Google."

Wine

[Archangel Michael (180766)]

I suspect that as things start moving more and more in this direction, WINE will become the new "windows" API, taking it from Microsoft. If I were working on software, I'd write something platform independent as I could, and if I had to use Windows API, I work with WINE to make sure it ran flawlessly under that environment.

Imagine Windows API not in the hands of Microsoft.

Re:Wine

[icydog (923695)]

My life will be complete the day that WINE embraces, extends, and extinguishes the Windows API... ahhh, one can dream!

Re:Wine

[The Analog Kid (565327)]

If I were working on software, I'd write something platform independent as I could

There are plenty of open libraries and APIs that can be used to build native ports of software if the company wanted to do so, I'm pretty much sure most of them are either LGPL or BSD-like in terms of licensing. Not saying each platform doesn't have it's own quirks that needed to be ironed out, but a native port > wine emulation any day. Not saying WINE aspirations are without merit, but I see WINE as nothing but a crutch for developers who can say "This product runs on Linux" but skate around making a native port because WINE is there.

Cue piracy on linux

[Cryophallion (1129715)]

Finally, linux users can join in on the piracy of adobe products that the Mac and Windows people have been able to do. See, linux IS getting more like the other OS's every day! :^)

Why not port it to Linux they have a win and mac v

[Joe The Dragon (967727)]

Why not port it to Linux they have a win and mac version of it.

Linux is too commercial now man!

[Cathoderoytube (1088737)]

I predict if they get Photoshop running properly on Linux, Linux users will abandon the OS in favor of something even more obscure and difficult to use. Then they'll tote that operating system as superior to Windows and piss about how nobody adopts it.

Re:Linux is too commercial now man!

[Quiet_Desperation (858215)]

I predict if they get Photoshop running properly on Linux, Linux users will abandon the OS in favor of something even more obscure and difficult to use.

There is another theory that states that this has already happened.

WINE is an interesting strategy

[mlwmohawk (801821)]

With all the nonsense of Vista, a WINE porting strategy makes sense.

Think of it like this: Microsoft is trying to push a product (Vista) that its customers do not want. The *only* reason that any consumer would buy it is because they have virtually no choice because of Microsoft's monopoly.

Step in Google, fund WINE, work to create a Windows execution environment that supports many of those XP programs that will not work under Vista. Linux already supports many of the hardware devices that Vista does not. A working WINE may be able to eat away at Vista adoption.

What is needed is a smooth integration of Windows executables with Linux execution code. Conceptually, windows programs are nothing more than binaries that need their own environment, similar to the way one runs GNOME applications of KDE and vice versa, or better still Java programs. (Yes, I know that Java is a tokenized interpretive environment with a JIT, but this is a discussion not a compsci course.)

IMHO, the programs that should work out of the box on Linux with wine is quicken, quickbooks, peachtree, and photoshop. This would open up so many home and small business users who would love to use Linux but can't.

Wow, improvements really show

[by Anonymous Coward]

Preamble: I'm a photographer needing to process tens of thousands of photos relatively swiftly. The functionality I need isn't all that advanced (curves, levels, an occasional straighten horizon (measure + arbitrary rotate), crop, unsharp mask, and sometimes an action to find edges, feather and apply unsharp mask on that), but being able to access and apply this functionality swiftly is an absolute must because of the volume of photos I deal with. Photoshop is optimized to perfection to allow a swift workflow, while the gimp seems optimized to perfection to hinder it. Focus is never where I need it, shortcuts to access tools don't work depending on which sub-window has focus, etc. So yes, I really need Photoshop.

I last tried Photoshop 7 under wine about a year ago. It was functional to an amazing degree (for someone who'd never seen or used wine before), but the rough edges were slightly too rough for me to be able to switch to Linux fulltime. I could trigger a dozen crashes in Photoshop at will just by resizing panels and doing other simple things like that, the program didn't feel native (alt-tabbing would keep the panels in the foreground, obscuring other programs), and focus sometimes strayed, amongst other lesser (but still annoyingly noticeable) issues.

I just tried the latest wine with these Google sponsored improvements, and wow. This is an amazing difference. Every single issue I saw a year ago is gone. Photoshop feels as responsive as it does under Windows (perhaps even more so), and I went through an hour long editing session without being slowed down or annoyed even once.

As far as I'm concerned, Linux is now ready to become my main OS.

Google: I don't like your lack of respect for my privacy, but for this work on Wine, I can say from the bottom of my heart: Thank you!

Yay! Photoshop troll thread.

[serviscope_minor (664417)]

Dispite the many claims, I really doubt that photoshop is seriously hindering Linux adoption. I mean, really, what percentage of users out there are photographic professionals?

Listening to the comments, one could get the impression that the number was close to 100%, as opposed to something around 0%.

So, I have a few comments. Firstly, I've introduced quite a number of people to the Gimp, for photo editing.

1- Noone complained about the name or even mentioned it.

2- They're not photographic prefessionals, and GIMP has frankly more than enough functionality for them.

3- They're staying all digital (ie photos stay on the computer), so they do not need CMYK seperation. Actually, the first bit isn't strictly true, but since they're not photographic professionals, they don't even know what CMYK seperation is. If they did, they don't have the calibrated monitors and printers required to make it really useful. Same goes for spot colours or whatever non RGB space you're talking about. See point 2.

4- Their cameras save pictures as 8 bit JPEGs, so the poor high bit depth support of GIMP doesn't matter. See point 2.

5- They're all people with too much time on their hands to bother pirating software. Or they need it at work for the odd basic task, where piracy is not an option.

6- None of them got free photoshop with a camera/scanner.

7- None of them had in fact ever uesd photoshop, so having a non-photoshop interface didn't matter. See point 2.

Finally, I fit happily in to the categories above. I've never used photoshop, GIMP does pretty much what I need in an easy, simple manner. I have never needed CMYK seperation. And FINALLY, I have a proper window manager which supports sloppy focus and focus-does-not-raise, and you know what? GIMP's interface actually works really, really, really well. Oh, and by the way, see point 2.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[Cryophallion (1129715)]

For some professionals, there are tools that do not yet exist in gimp that they cannot be without (cmyk, layer grouping, adjustment layers, the list goes on).

However, gimp is good enough for many amateur and some professional uses.

While I like the gimp for what I do, my father who does photo retouching prefers photoshop.

If having photoshop work better(I believe it was bronze on winehq.com a little while back) helps make people make the move to linux, I'm all for it.

While we're at it... how about premiere too? Linux video editing doesn't even have a gimp equiv (kino doesn't give me enough control, cinelerra crashes, kdenlive has a few bugs and not enough effects yet...)

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[StevisF (218566)]

From your link. Yey for reading!

"Note that 'CMYK' colors are immediately translated into RGB when used; GIMP does not have any built-in support CMYK mixtures that cannot be represented in RGB, such as rich blacks, though they can be simulated to a limited extent with third-party add-ons.)"

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[fotbr (855184)]

Unless, of course, one of those "gadgets" or features that Photoshop has that GIMP is lacking, is needed. Then the price/performance becomes $0/unsuitable, which is very easily beat.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[RobotRunAmok (595286)]

It's called The GIMP! ...which is probably the number one reason so few digital art professionals take it seriously.

I love linux, and advocate for it ad nauseum, but the devs need to do something about the clever-only-to-the-AV-Club names with which they continue to burden their otherwise fine creations.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[Khaed (544779)]

As a huge Linux fan and user, I have to agree. The GIMP is just... it's a bad name.

I can tell someone I use Firefox, Ubuntu, OpenOffice, Pidgin -- that, not so bad. I can say I use Gnome or KDE (depends on my mood), or I can tell them I use Pan. But I cannot look at another human being and tell them to use "The GIMP."

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[DragonWriter (970822)]

It's called The GIMP! I use that program all the time, it does most of the stuff Photoshop does.

The GIMP may be great, but that's not really the issue. Getting Wine, etc., to the point where the most important popular Windows apps run on Linux reduces the perceived transition costs (including retraining costs or lost productivity during the learning curve) and risks to companies and individuals that are already strongly attached to particular software to breaking free of the MS operating system stranglehold.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[pembo13 (770295)]

Seems like a good reason to fund Gimp instead. Not that Wine is a project worth funding.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[avandesande (143899)]

Perhaps linux will be stronger if it learns to acknowledge the existence proprietary software vs remaining a religious movement.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[Curtman (556920)]

Perhaps linux will be stronger if it learns to acknowledge the existence proprietary software vs remaining a religious movement.

Perhaps you missed the point. It is to make proprietary software obsolete.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[mweather (1089505)]

"Sooner or later he's going to realize he's just Bill's bitch on his own." Yep. Any decade now they'll wise up. It's just a matter of time.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[civilizedINTENSITY (45686)]

The people that I know that do 3D animation do it for Computational Fluid Dynamics. They use OpenGL. They use Unix (or Linux). Depends on what you are doing which platform is a toy...

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[Curtman (556920)]

The religon behind OSS will keep those developers (and many investors) away.

It should. The religion behind OSS seeks to destroy their business model by making them obsolete.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[sentientbrendan (316150)]

>>The religon behind OSS will keep those developers (and many investors) away.
>It should. The religion behind OSS seeks to destroy their business model by making them obsolete.

Which is why that approach to open source can never succeed. The open source movement needs developers and software companies to succeed, and as long as the religious fanatics in the movement keep up their talk of destroying commercial software development, the majority of developers are going to put their effort into proprietary software.

Open source can be good for business, but businesses and developers want to see a model that lets them use both closed and open source systems together so that they can continue to make a profit on their specialized proprietary systems while cutting cost by using open source systems for things like kernels and compilers that they don't want to write from scratch. When fanatics talk about open source like it is all or nothing, that scares off developers and makes them think more about burrying open source than supporting it.

Be sure that the open source movement is all about developers, and scaring them off by threatening to put them out of work is the last thing you want to do.

Re:We already have Freedom!

[jeremie_z_ (639708)]

There isn't "no one" to use Free, Libre and OSS. As long as the people who use it continue to be able to be part of it by having the same freedom on it as the original author, and make it grow, it will grow, that's the point !

People who a few years ago were "achh! there is no decent graphical interface, it's pointless!" are now drooling using compiz-fusion... people saying "crap! there is no multimedia! it will never work!" now use vlc, mplayer, amarok, songbird, etc... (and gnash soon ;) people saying "merde! there is no game, it sux!" now use their proprietary game under wine, etc...

You can spend energy today telling everyone how it will fail, how it will never interest anyone, but someday it might be ready and comfortable enough for you.. and then you might realize the true value of Freedom. (hint: it has no price. ;)

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[Kjella (173770)]

I thought the point was to make closed source operating systems obsolete.

What the hell is the difference? An operating system is a collection of software.

Well, controlling the base OS is a very powerful and market skewing control, it's not without reason Microsoft has been in anti-trust suits over IE and WMP and whatever else technology they want to push. Nobody can deliver an alternative "distro" to Windows because it's owned by Microsoft. With everyone on the same playing field with no secret interfaces and each distro bundling what they want, does it matter if someone delivers proprietary alternatives? In good OSS rethoric a horde of volunteer developers will make a better open source application anyway.

I don't think that'll happen, I think there will be areas of software development where there's more people with money willing to pay for specific features than there are developers who want to do it for free. The open source development model has some serious shortcomings in getting cash from people willing to pay to people willing to develop, so why not let the free market have a go at it? Whichever combination of closed source, dual licensing, donations and volunteers or whatever that creates the best product wins. I think there are plenty reasons to want a free OS/kernel though, even if you don't want every application on your PC to be open source. For example, with an open shim between the hardware and the applications, you'll find it very hard to do any funny things in applications like DRM and such.

In short, I think Linux vs Windows will be more important for the long-term freedom of software than trying to take on every application battle. Obviously you need to get good applications running on Linux, but if you can get closed source ported instead of having to develop a Photoshop-killer and an Exchange-killer and every other big Windows lock-in, I'd say that's a win for open source. Once they're there you can keep eating away at them from the underside offering more and more with your distro, instead of offering some completely alien system which requires people to make this big switchover.

Re:Linux doesn't include Photoshop of Office.

[dgatwood (11270)]

You seem to be confusing a "distribution" with an "operating system," which is an easy mistake to make (at least for those not entirely in the know).

You obviously don't know who I am [mklinux.org] if you think I'm not "in the know". *rolls eyes*

Linux is an operating system, whether you like it or not. There's a generally accepted set of core pieces that are shared by pretty much all the usable distros that most people think of as being "Linux". Nobody uses the term "Linux" to refer to the Linux kernel. They call that the Linux kernel. I have never in a single conversation with anyone heard someone use the term "Linux" to refer to the kernel without adding the word "kernel" after it.

From a purely pedantic technological perspective, you are correct. However, language is defined based on how it is used, not based on how an academic says it should be used. As such, Linux is generally used to refer to the Linux kernel plus collectively your choice of Linux distro. See there? I called it a Linux distro. If it were not an operating system, I couldn't call it a LInux distro. I'd have to call it an Open Source OS Distro Based on Linux, or at best, a Linux-based distro. For that matter, you used the term, too.

That said, my primary OS hasn't been Linux-based for a while now, and to be fair, even it has a handful of pieces that my purist approach says should probably be add-on pieces (though it does provide the option to not install them, IIRC). It does not, however, provide a paint program....

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[paeanblack (191171)]

"Notepad" is not a part of the "operating system" just because it came on your XP disc.

Rule of thumb: If it runs in userland and not in kernel space, it's not part of the operating system.

Wouldn't surprise me if Notepad did run in kernel space.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[misleb (129952)]

Perhaps linux will be stronger if it learns to acknowledge the existence proprietary software vs remaining a religious movement.

Unfortunately, trying to coerce Photoshop into running well on LInux is not exactly the right path to go down. While it may be good for a few people who absolutely positively need to use Photoshop in short term, Linux needs more NATIVE software if it is to be stronger in the long run.

That said, I think it is important for Linux users to always try to look towards free software first. Even if that means being "religious" about it. I think this is more important, at least in principle, than having applicaitons like Photoshop. I think we'd see the spirit of LInux slowly leeched away by commercial interests if LInux users weren't passionate about Open Source Software. I'd like to see Linux stay "fun." Proprietary software is not fun, IME. It may get the job done, but it sucks to be dragged along by some corporate support line when things don't work the way they should.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[EvilIdler (21087)]

Krita has all the tools. Even tablet support.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[cbart387 (1192883)]

Adobe Photoshop is the standard for graphic designers for all intents and purposes. If they can get it to run on Linux then that's a solid reason for new users to consider using Linux. You can be as idealistic as you want about free software but until GIMP becomes as good as Photoshop then professionals won't use it. The only reason I still have Windows installed is because I have CS2 for some school-related projects.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[Lussarn (105276)]

Adobe Photoshop is the standard for graphic designers for all intents and purposes.

GIMP is good enough for the rest of us. I design a website, touch up some photos and GIMP i good enough for my needs. It's not like GIMP is an MS Paint competitor. For many purposes it's just as good as Photoshop. I don't think that many Linux users would buy or even pirate Photoshop even if it was native Linux. Most of us "regular" users just don't need it.

For me, even installing a program from CD seems like a hassle I'm not used to (except for base system). Add to that that I need wine. Keeping it up-to-date seems even worse. Do windows even have an update-manager for third party programs? Is that "emulated" in wine?

While I can understand some people absolutely need Photoshop I can't see it being a showstoper for most. I can also understand how GIMP gives a bad impression if you tried it on Windows, it absolutely needs virtual screens to be used. Windows traditionally uses MDI interfaces instead and some Unix programs just don't port that good to the platform.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[pressman (182919)]

You make PS look and behave like AfterEffects and you will have a massive amount of pissed off Photoshop users. AfterEffects is just Photoshop altered for linear, time-based compositing and the UI reflects that. Photoshop is designed to to alter static images and the UI reflects a workflow to accommodate that. AfterEffects is a screen real estate hog. Photoshop, on the other hand, allows you to manage your screen real estate in a manner more befitting of working with still images. The UI paradigms don't gel with each other.

As for GIMP, if you're happy with a version of Photoshop that is about 11 years old... more power to you. GIMP really is about on par with where Photosop was at version 4. That's not to say it's bad. Photoshop 4 was an amazing release, but a lot of the simplest tasks were cumbersome to accomplish. Sure, I can mask just about anything out with alpha channels, some patience and time, but now I have tools to HELP automate (not completely replace) some of these more mundane and time consuming tasks, so I can get my work done far more efficiently and recoup my investment in PS.

It seems to me the people who are most vocal about what needs to be changed in PS, the people who scream the most for it on Linux, are the ones who probably need the raw power of the application the least. Stick with GIMP. It's a good image editor. No competitor to Photoshop, but far more flexible than Paint.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[wall0159 (881759)]

While I don't agree with the GP that the GIMP is a Photoshop replacement, I think you're being pretty harsh. It's a damn powerful piece of software, and the fact that it doesn't do _everything_ does NOT make it a toy.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[Dogtanian (588974)]

While I don't agree with the GP that the GIMP is a Photoshop replacement, I think you're being pretty harsh. It's a damn powerful piece of software, and the fact that it doesn't do _everything_ does NOT make it a toy.

I think that the underlying point he was trying to make was probably quite legitimate, but the *unqualified* dismissal of GIMP as a "toy" did come across quite harshly.

I believe that he was basically saying that GIMP is missing features which would be considered essential by many professionals for medium and high-end graphics work. From their point-of-view, the fact that it lacks certain things like *proper* CMYK support and 16-bit colour are probably deal-killers, even if the rest of the package is good. (*)

OTOH, Photoshop CS is overfeatured for most people, and GIMP is still a powerful and economical tool that will meet their needs. It's certainly not a "toy" like MS Paint, but I can understand why a professional might see it that way.

(*) It reminds me of my film SLR camera. In a lot of respects, it was a good model for the money. However, IMHO the fact that it lacks depth-of-field preview or any form of remote shutter release (amongst other things) are serious omissions that can't be reasonably overcome, and count against it regardless of how nice the rest of the camera is. Stupid omissions that were rectified in the replacement model, but ones that rule this one out from being considered remotely "professional" or even "serious amateur". Not that I'm saying that GIMP is that hobbled (it's actually pretty good), but you see what I'm getting at.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[MobileTatsu-NJG (946591)]

"While I don't agree with the GP that the GIMP is a Photoshop replacement, I think you're being pretty harsh. It's a damn powerful piece of software, and the fact that it doesn't do _everything_ does NOT make it a toy."

I think before we let this line of discussion get too out of control, it needs to be brought up that there is such a wide variety of uses for photo editing that no two people are likely to come together to argue about using it for the same reason. I'll give you an example:

I work in Hollywood. I do a lot of texturing and matte work. I don't think there's a corner of Photoshop I don't touch in any given week. I've tried to use GIMP... Now, if you were to ask me what I thought of the GIMP, the first thing I'd do is call up in my mind the experience of using it. (In other words, context matters.) Then, without considering (or even knowing about) the point of view you're coming from, I'd respond with "The GIMP is totally useless." You'd think I was odd for having such a harsh opinion. Since I don't talk about my living much, you'd have little reason to know where I'm coming from. Given the harsh tone of my opinion, you wouldn't be too likely to ask me to clarify. Instead, you'd probably think I was a brand-biased jerk. (I don't say that to imply that you jump to conclusions, rather, I think you'd probably do that because I know *I* would probably do that and have done so in the past. I'm not proud.) And, from there, we'd argue. I wouldn't know how you're measuring the GIMP, and you wouldn't know how I'm measuring Photoshop.

There really is no baseline for comparing the two. Without out, this debate will endlessly circle the drain. I can honestly tell you that GIMP is not even in the ballpark of being a useful replacement to Photoshop with me. The $600 price difference doesn't even slightly narrow the gap. (I make money from Photoshop work, so if I can't work with the GIMP, it's not free, it's actually expensive.) I can also tell you that I don't think a lot of people commenting on Slashdot are in a similar field of work, so most would not see where I'm coming from. And frankly, they'd be right. Who am I to judge an app as versatile as the GIMP or Photoshop for their use? It's like arguing about whether a hammer or a screwdriver is a better tool. An IT guy would think a carpenter's a fucking idgit.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[pembo13 (770295)]

I never said it was a Photoshop replacement. Was trying to suggest that putting money into Gimp to get things that "professionals" want might be better in the long term.

Re:We already have Photoshop!

[Pseudonym (62607)]

It's the things that the GIMP doesn't do that relegates it to toy status.

I smell the burning tinder of an approaching flame war, so let's get this straight.

GIMP does most things that Photoshop does, and does it fairly well. It does do a few things differently, and the cost of relearning is significant, so there is a high barrier to switching.

Having said that: There is one thing that GIMP really doesn't do that Photoshop does, and that is print. I don't mean "dump it to your colour postscript". I mean all of the stuff that you need to get your images faithfully reproduced on your offset printer as well as they are reproduced on your calibrated monitor. (Replace "offset printer" with whatever output device your printer/publisher is using.)

So in conclusion: The GIMP is not a toy. However, if you are working in print, then the GIMP isn't even close to being the right tool for your job.

Re:Forgive my ignorance...

[dgatwood (11270)]

Off the top of my head, GIMP needs:

• 16-bit-per-channel color
• Native CMYK
• Better floating palette support for users who don't want to enable focus-follows-mouse.
• Adjustment layers
• Free transform tool
• Recordability of action scripts
• Better scripting language
• Full support for all PSD files (e.g. supporting adjustment layers, for example)
• Human interface cleanup---organize menus more logically, make tools more visually distinguishable at a glance, etc.

Re:They are fixing Wine, not Photoshop

[croddy (659025)]

Why, the GIMP Toolkit, of course... or would that just be too confusing?

This is not a troll: GIMP is hard for newbies

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

Parent is largely right.

The GIMP might be very powerful and feature packed, but the learning curve to get into it is cliff shaped. That makes for a vey significant barrier for newbies.

Most people don't want to do hugely complex photoshopping, just remove red eye from phots and a few other simple effects.

I've tried to use GIMP a few times, without using the manuals, but after a few minutes of getting nowhere I've fired up a Windows box and used photoshop (also without a manual).

Perhaps this exercise will give the GIMP people a bit of motivation to make the software more newbie-friendly.

We're getting to the stage where Linux is almost simple to use. "It was hard to write, so it should be hard to use" no longer cuts it.

Re:This is not a troll: GIMP is hard for newbies

[Mr. Underbridge (666784)]

The GIMP might be very powerful and feature packed, but the learning curve to get into it is cliff shaped. That makes for a vey significant barrier for newbies. Most people don't want to do hugely complex photoshopping, just remove red eye from phots and a few other simple effects.

GIMP isn't a program designed for people who want to just remove some red eye from photos. For that matter, Photoshop would be exceptionally overpriced and overly complicated for that as well. Photoshop is a tool designed for professionals and highly skilled amateurs, and the GIMP replicates many of those features.

People who want to mess with simple stuff can get Picasa for free, from Google.

I personally think that the GIMP's major problem is that it's interface is different from Photoshop, which is a problem given its target audience is Photoshop users. I would claim that it's not more complicated than Photoshop, just different. I learned GIMP first and found Photoshop awkward to use.

Re:This is not a troll: GIMP is hard for newbies

[sunking2 (521698)]

So here's some irony. Many on here would argue that the piracy of photoshop does not hurt Adobe because it wouldn't be bought anyway. However, it is hurting Gimp by reducing the number of users looking for something free.

And yes, I do think that photoshop piracy is a HUGE. As mentioned, hardly anyone would shell over $600 bucks for casual use. I bet it's pretty high on the piracy list, especially for those people who normally don't pirate but are willing to take that PS cd home from work and install it on their home computer.

Re:Let's get it out of the way...

[hotdiggitydawg (881316)]

The GIMP sucks!

Only if you open the zip on his leather hood...

Re:minor nicks in the armor

[PhxBlue (562201)]

Yes. It makes the sound of a chair being thrown through a window.

Re:wut?

[jeremy_white (598942)]

We're the largest single contributor to Wine. We host the Wine web
site, employ the Wine maintainer, and do much of the 'heavy lifting'
required to keep Wine moving. Of course, many others contribute as well,
so we're certainly not the sole maker, but we very much play a vital
role in the making of Wine.

Re:wut?

[HappySmileMan (1088123)]

As far as I know Codeweavers sell a version of Wine, so is this deal going to mean Photoshop will work better on Wine that I have installed for free, or the version that you sell.

Re:wut?

[kripkenstein (913150)]

As far as I know Codeweavers sell a version of Wine, so is this deal going to mean Photoshop will work better on Wine that I have installed for free, or the version that you sell.

The patches are to Wine itself, i.e., upstream. The free version you use benefits from them.

On that note: thank you to Google and to Codeweavers.

Re:wut?

[fgouget (925644)]

Both of course!

All the work we did for Google was committed straight to the Wine repository. But that's just business as usual for us: we already submit 99% of the changes we make to Wine. The remaining 1% are those hacks that are rejected as too ugly by Alexandre (the Wine leader) but which we keep as a temporary fix / workaround.

See, the thing is that improving Wine is so central to our business that it's just part of our mission statement [codeweavers.com]:

Mission
To transform Mac OS X and Linux into Windows®-compatible operating systems.
To help our customers leverage Windows technology on non-Windows operating systems.
To promote the growth of Free Software by supporting and extending the Wine Project.

Re:Wine support for 99% win programs should be foc

[garett_spencley (193892)]

Allow me to introduce you to the Paragraph [wikipedia.org] and the Full Stop [wikipedia.org].

That is all. Carry on.

Re:Stop this, stop this now Google

[Eravnrekaree (467752)]

I think this has value if it will help improve Wine so it can run all Windows programs. That really should be the focus here. I do think funding Wine would really help along Linux adoption and help end the dreadful Microsoft monopoly. So, this is not necessarily just about photoshop, but making all Windows programs run on Linux. and it is the fact that so many programs run only on Windows, which keeps Windows dominate. If we have millionaires reading this who would like to speed up adoption of Linux, funding work on developing a way to run windows hardware drivers on linux would also be a huge help. There is always a lag between hardware being released and running on Linux because companies always spend less time on Linux. While open source or native windows drivers are best, it is not realistic to expect Linux to be adopted when people cannot run their hardware for years perhaps because there is no driver. This would allow as well the hardware to be used with Windows drivers until a native linux driver is produced.