Photoshop in Linux Thanks to Disney 812
miladus writes "eWeek
reports that Walt Disney's feature animation unit (along with 2 other
unnamed studios) are using Adobe's Photoshop in Linux. They use the Wine emulator
to run the software and the 3 studios 'not known as team players, all
three agreed that a project that would benefit the entire open-source
community while delivering a technology they needed--was worth their cooperation'."
Also ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Also ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still a Windows application running on an implementation of the Win32 API. Which means it's not a Linux application, it's a Windows application that runs in an emulator. So what?
Re:Also ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Also ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Also ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just incase you did mean what you said - wine doesn't need a copy of windows installed.
Re:Also ... (Score:5, Insightful)
WINE Is Not a win32 subsystem Emulator (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Also ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting more apps to run on Linux (even if through Wine) gives a path to follow to wean a company away from Windows slowly instead of the daunting all-at-once switch that they aren't willing to go for. It's much like the inverse of installing Unix Services for Windows. The purpose of that isn't to help unix - it's give companies using unix a path to leave it slowly.
If Windows as a platform is no longer needed because it's apps can run elsewhere, then companies can start using linux for everything, and THEN native ports become economically feasable after the install base is there.
Re:Also ... (Score:5, Funny)
so it might not suck
Re:Also ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd better tell Adobe (Score:4, Insightful)
"I already have a CPU in here, why would I need another one?"
I guess you've never edited a 200dpi poster
Haha! (Score:4, Funny)
Haha, yes!
Re:Haha! (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, wait, why are you guys suing me? I didn't do anything wrong. What about those MP3s? Those are songs written by my friends. Belittled_Mermaid.mp3 has nothing to do with The Little Mermaid movie and Beauty's_Swan_Song.mp3 was also written by one of my friends. Stupid Disney...
Re:Haha! (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you,
Mao Che Minh
CEO
Your Mom
Disney supporting open-source? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Disney supporting open-source? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought the joke was... (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought the joke embedded in the acronym was that it stood for BOTH of:
- WINdows Emulator.
- Wine Is Not an Emulator.
Because it DOES provide a Windows API (which is one of the definitions of "emulator") but DOESN'T software emulate the machine itself (which is part of the USUAL definition of "emulator"), instead running the application's executable code "directly on the metal" - avoiding the massive speed penalty - and doing as much as practical of the API emulation by leveraging Linux native services rather than replacing them.
But I don't actually KNOW how much of that is true. If one of the WINE core group can confirm or correct this post I'd appreciate it.
Re:Disney supporting open-source? (Score:5, Insightful)
as it has always been.
Now, instead of using, and helping
improving The GIMP, "linux people"
will just run their pirated Photoshops
and be happy, as oftenly such users
do not know the difference between free
and proprietary software.
Photoshop is a killer ap. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Photoshop is a killer ap. (Score:4, Informative)
I know many people who use the GIMP for great results. I personally use it for menus for VCDs quite a bit, as well as web graphics. Perhaps you are simply not aware of all of it's features?
In scriptability, when we have a large site to build, we define standard button types, and I make scripts to generate them, and then we just do them in batch, and then as-needed. These are complicated buttons/headings that Photoshop actions don't do well enough for. But with GIMP, it's easy.
There is one place that GIMP falls flat - print. The lack of CMYK really hurts it for print. Other than that, I can't think of anything really missing from it. Well, maybe PS has better dynamic text support, but that's usually not too big of an issue (GIMP's is definitely good enough).
Re:An application doesn't bestow one with talent.. (Score:5, Insightful)
But it can be a tool that makes a talented person's life a hell of a lot easier.
A talented carpernter may be able to build a house with a Bowie knife and 20 acres of forest, but its not exactly the quickest and easiest way of doing it, especially if there are commercial demands and deadlines to meet. Sure, you're pure "artist" could render Finding Nemo with a #2 pencil, but how long would it take him.
Personally, for the amount of PSing I do (bad Fark contests) the gimp and PS (or PS Elements) is a wash (mainly because I suck eggs). BUT... from the folks who do some sort of graphic design for a living almost all of them swear by PS, and quite a few of them have dicked around with the GIMP as well. To a (wo)man they all say it just isn't as good of a tool to get the type of work done in a timely manner.
Re:An application doesn't bestow one with talent.. (Score:4, Informative)
This is the thrust of the entire article. Disney's (and the two other, unnamed companies') workers use Photoshop. Moving PS from windows to linux obviously saved more money from ditching Windows licenses over time than the investment they put into tweaking WINE. Save $$$ = good. But, as the article stated, GIMP and CinePaint didn't meet their requirements. Thus, there was no saving of $$$ since the time and effort needed to bring GIMP and CinePaint up to the level of PS (not to mention training) would cost more than the savings they would have gotten from tossing the Adobe licenses. One day this *may* happen in the future, but obviously it wasn't a good business decision now.
Just because it doesn't meet some zealot's political muster doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
Re:An application doesn't bestow one with talent.. (Score:5, Insightful)
CYMK (Score:4, Informative)
It's not legal for them to implement.
Re:CYMK (Score:5, Informative)
This is not the one-click patent. This is a lot of of very smart people spending a lot of time working with spectrophotometers and linear algebra text books.
Re:An application doesn't bestow one with talent.. (Score:4, Insightful)
What a pompous load of shit. This is like arguing that artists who buy ready-made oil paints are just hacks and real artists gather minerals in the field and grind their own pigments by hand.
Yes, you can do in GIMP most of what you can do in Photoshop, but the simple fact of the matter is that you can do it more quickly and easily in Photoshop. If you're a prima donna fine artist (or fancy yourself one, which sounds like the case here), then you can afford to screw around with whatever tool floats your boat. If you are a commercial artist, you are generally producing "art" to satisfy the specifications and budget constraints imposed by a client who doesn't give a rat's ass what tool you use as long as the end product is on time and under budget.
Which is why commercial artists tend to have mortgages and car payments and fine artists tend to have attitude problems.
The GIMP is on a par with Photoshop 3 or 4. Those who say otherwise need to become more familiar with the current Photoshop featureset. This is all painfully familiar of the whining I used to hear from TeX users about how Word didn't do such-and-such that TeX did, when in actual fact Word did have the feature in question.
Definition of fanatic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Disney supporting open-source? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Disney supporting open-source? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Disney supporting open-source? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Disney supporting open-source? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Disney supporting open-source? (Score:4, Interesting)
I dislike the company, but there are some really cool, nifty, interesting things, technologically, that disney does.
One of my favourite examples - The core development team of Squeak smalltalk [squeak.org] is resident at Disney. Smalltalk hackers are a cool bunch. And yes, Squeak is open source.
Anyway, I'm sure there are many cool nerds at Disney.
-Laxitive
Re:Disney supporting open-source? (Score:5, Insightful)
Disney is just doing what it has always tried to do: Increase shareholder value. If they had decided that it was more cost effective to run all of their workflow on windows they would have done it. Linux is the best of the money according to them so they use it.
Tea! (Score:4, Informative)
so they have configured wine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so they have configured wine (Score:5, Informative)
Re:so they have configured wine (Score:5, Funny)
What about when you tried it on Linux though?
Re:It was horrible (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It was horrible (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would Adobe even consider getting out of the market that they earn most of their money in? For the first time ever their sales between Win and Mac were even last year... a year in which NO major version of any Mac software came out..
I have not taken many business courses, but abandoning half your revenue does not seem like a course of action they are likely to take.
ARRGHH!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ARRGHH!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh, but you're missing the point entirely. This is one of the major strengths of open-source from a corporate perspective. If there is something in an open-source package that does almost what you need, you pay a development team to add the feature in, then you "contribute" your changes back to the open source project, and they maintain it, at no cost to you. Developing software is relatively cheap when compared to maintaining it over a long period of time. So Disney was smart, and they got a feature they needed for relatively little money, and will continue to get it, and updates to it, for free.
Evil or not, they're not stupid, and it perfectly illustrates why open-source is a good investment for companies.
So how long (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So how long (Score:5, Funny)
Note: Any attempt to use an image similar to Tucks the Penguin (TM) will result in swift legal action. Have a nice day
in a somewhat-related vein (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:in a somewhat-related vein (Score:3)
I just don't like their interface, and I think it could be much better. But, I think graphics people are so used to it that it will probably never change.
speed (Score:4, Interesting)
I've done it (Score:4, Informative)
Re:speed (Score:5, Insightful)
The actual execution of Photoshop has been perfect so far. I have used various builtin filters (but not all) with no problems. Saving files is quicker on Linux than it is on Windows, but then again, I have my drive hdparm'd to the max
Oh, btw, I'm running this on a PIII 500mhz w/ 128 meg of ram... not really a high end machine. Again, I have had no real performance issues with running Photoshop under Wine.
BTW, I am using wine-20030618
Re:speed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:speed (Score:4, Informative)
b.c
Make Photoshop Open Source! (Score:3, Funny)
The Linux platforms is an untapped market for Adobe and by making Photoshop Open Source, not only would the community forgive them for the ElcomSoft lawsuit but would also create a new revenue stream by offering support and consulting for Linux adopters.
Only when we free the works of Milne from the clutches of depraved millionaires will we be able to entertain our children.
Which is nice.
Re:Make Photoshop Open Source! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Make Photoshop Open Source! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's great to do a original USENET-style "don your radioactive fire control suit" flame.
It really releaves stress
performance (Score:5, Interesting)
Excellent Performance! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:performance (Score:5, Funny)
Re:performance (Score:4, Insightful)
Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Funny)
Cool!! (Score:4, Funny)
This has been possible for a while now. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This has been possible for a while now. (Score:5, Informative)
numbers (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently Photoshop on Windows costs $50K+$40K support == $90K
Photoshop on linux costs $15K.
Last I checked, Photoshop was around $600 per workstation. XP Pro is $200/station, and I think licenses for NT/2K/2K3 server are around $100/seat. So really, Windows ended up being the cheaper part of of the equation, at $300 per station.
Support? How is it that Windows support is $40K/yr but linux support is free? There's just as much free Windows support out there as linux.
I applaud the effort to move off Windows, and I'm glad to see that WINE is of this caliber quality, but don't justify your switch with a bunch of nonsense numbers.
Re:numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Also remember that disney is editing 35MM film, 24 frames per second, at ungodly resolution. They probably have this stuff running on a 4 way or 8 way workstations. Multi-head licenses for windows are STEEP. Microsoft also takes you out the ass for large-scale file storage. The cost per workstation probably includes the cost of the server divided over the number of users.
With Linux you are paying for the hardware and the photoshop license.
Re:numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:numbers (Score:4, Informative)
Last I checked, Photoshop was around $600 per workstation. XP Pro is $200/station, and I think licenses for NT/2K/2K3 server are around $100/seat. So really, Windows ended up being the cheaper part of of the equation, at $300 per station.
Start here:
So we're talking about 200 times whatever you get hit with under their licensing agreement (Licensing 6.0, anybody?)...
So, any way you look at it, they're site-licensing Photoshop, so take it out of the equation. Once you do that, this makes sense. 200*250 = 50,000 in licensing per year (let's hear it for subscription software!) and the 40K is presumably for the highest available level of support straight from MS.
On the other hand, $15k was kicked over to CodeWeavers (along with whatever the other two 'mystery studios' kicked in) so they would focus on Photoshop support in Crossover Office. Presumably, the actual licenses and support deals came out of the same bucket. This is quite likely, as Codeweavers offers terrific support with any purchase, let alone 200 licenses!
I applaud the effort to move off Windows, and I'm glad to see that WINE is of this caliber quality, but don't justify your switch with a bunch of nonsense numbers.
The nonsense numbers are purely your own, I assure you.
CrossOver Office has been doing this (Score:3, Informative)
I installed PS 7 on my P4 2.4Ghz and is ran quite nicely. It's amazing how far Wine has come.
Me too... (Score:5, Funny)
[Yikes - who threw that?!]
Cool article (Score:5, Interesting)
On a related note, I'm still kind of surprised that Adobe wouldn't port Photoshop over to Linux even for a company with as much clout as Disney. Seriously, I realize it's a LOT of work to port an app that massive, but if basically every animator who runs linux wants it, why not? Catering to your customers is definitely part of a good business model. Since Adobe's management switched over not too far back though, I think some of the crazy innovations might be slower-coming these days. Guess that's what happens when you replace someone with vision (Adobe founder) with a Marketing drone (current CEO, IIRC).
Damn you Disney... (Score:3, Funny)
ARGH!!!
CrossOver Office + PS7 (Score:5, Informative)
Puzzled (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Puzzled (Score:5, Informative)
Confusion (Score:5, Funny)
SCO is still bad right?
What about color calibration/colorspace mgmt? (Score:5, Interesting)
-Isaac
Applications applications applications (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting popular applications like this running on Linux is the single most important thing to get Linux on the desktop.
Note that Adobe could probably release a native version of Photoshop to run on Linux fairly easily. They had a Unix version, and also of course it will run on OSX, so going native to Linux can't be that big an issue.
Everyone who wants to see Linux on the desktop should be pestering the companies of the software they use to release a Linux version. For me, the important one is Macromedia Flash, so I've been emailing Macromedia asking when they are going to port it. If you want to see Linux on the desktop, start pestering!
So? Its a windwos binary.. (Score:5, Interesting)
While using it in wine may be nice, and shows wine is improving, ( hats off to their team ) it really doesn't mean THAT much in the grand scheme of things.... we don't want to be relegated to just be an 'emulator' ( yes i know its not 100% accurate to say emulation, but you get the point so its close enough )
Re:So? Its a windwos binary.. (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, if enough people start using Photoshop in Linux via wine, it might create a critical mass of users to compel Adobe to do a native version.
Old Timer (Score:5, Insightful)
But then, something strange happened. I had been using Linux (Redhat) as my OS-of-choice at home and would switch to my laptop (running 2k) to do Photoshop work. Out of the desire to use my mouse, I went and sunk a few bucks and bought the crossover application [codeweavers.com] (commercial version of wine) and whalla! Photoshop 6 runs on my linux box, and faster!
So, now I can use Photoshop with my mouse (instead of that annoying touch-pad). The only thing that is a little annoying is that the focus of the tool bar and the other pallets take away from the canvas, so if you click on the marquee tool, you have to "double click" on the canvas to get the focus where you need it. Not a big deal, just a "thing."
If Adobe, Quark, and Macromedia (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course there is a 99% chance that will NEVER happen, and even if I use Wine or (insert YOUR favorite Crossover app) I still have to have windows on a partition - hence I still am supposed to buy/pay for a copy of windows - so why not just have Windows....
Now, what about this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Contact Adobe (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.adobe.com/support/feature.html [adobe.com]
Re:Whaaaaaaaa? (Score:3, Informative)
"The project has paid off tremendously for Disney this year alone. Development of the porting solution, including site licenses, cost Disney less than $15,000. Had he opted to run Photoshop on Windows machines, it would have cost upward of $50,000 just in annual licensing fees, said Brooks. He estimates support would have been an additional $40,000 a year."
CB
Re:Thank goodness (Score:4, Informative)
If Gimp was working satisfactory for you until now, then you don't need CMYK. Which is the only fine line difference between them, and user interface, yes.
I really need only RGB and pictures are not that big. During my tests Gimp proved to be more usable than Photoshop in my range of usage. But there's a clear line, printing professional usage can't include use of Gimp, except in some small cases where illustrations come in question.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:3, Insightful)
It's true; I could typeset my documents with Emacs and LaTeX. That fact doesn't stop me from using Word though.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I much prefer vim and LaTeX. Word doesn't do typesetting btw, you'd be better off using Adobe InDesign/FrameMaker, quark xpress or even Microsoft Publisher(!)(an almost forgotten product, but even the windows 3.1 version was a whole lot better at typesetting than word is).
Word's market isn't typesetting (or even DTP) or complicated document management; it's general use word processing
Re:Thank goodness (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thank goodness (Score:4, Informative)
- Added naive RGB CMYK conversion routines [Sven]
- Generalized paint tools [Mitch]
Re:Thank goodness (Score:5, Funny)
This will go nicely with their naive user interface.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:3, Insightful)
CMYK is only a small part of the story (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yeah, my biggest pet peeve, when you dynamically transform a selected area that stupid grid pops up instead of a more interactive live preview transform. I wish the gimp developers the best, but the gimp is years behind photoshop.
Stil Not Free (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stil Not Free (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stil Not Free (Score:3, Informative)
If you'd pay for Photoshop on Linux, then have you paid for Crossover Office, which runs Photoshop on Linux?
It seems to me that, if Codeweavers has done a good enough job of making a complex application like Photoshop run on Linux, why should Adobe throw huge amounts of money at it, only to appease a small fraction of a small market?
Just the start (Score:3, Insightful)
Using Wine will nodoubtedly help many companies using linux. And it will make the decision easier for many companies that want to use linux, but are worried about compatability issues.
My hope is that Win will carry us through the transition phase until software manufacturers just compile a linux version of their product.
The problem now is that companies won't switch to linux
Re:Cost innefective (Score:3, Interesting)
What stability benefits are you referring to? I use Windows Media Player under Wine all the time, and it's never crashed. People play video games under Wine. Wine usually runs those annoying proprietary installers for odd software I need to get things done (like Palm application installers that spend 3MB to extract a 60KB .prc file for me to upload).
In your experience,
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:WINE (Score:5, Funny)
Hard to replace some userland apps (Score:3, Insightful)
When an app gets sufficiently complex, learning to use the app effectively is like learning another language. Knowledge of all the app's functions, their associated menu items, options UI and keyboard shortcuts --
Re:Why is this news? Why is anyone saying it's goo (Score:4, Informative)