Google Funds Work for Photoshop on Linux 678
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."
Let's get it out of the way... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a troll: GIMP is hard for newbies (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is not a troll: GIMP is hard for newbies (Score:5, Insightful)
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:This is not a troll: GIMP is hard for newbies (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I learned GIMP first and found Photoshop awkward to use.
I could not agree with you more. I NEVER used photoshop when i was younger. I got a bootleg of it once, but had been using the Gimp for so long that photoshop just felt "weird" to me.
Now I do graphic design for a living. The tools that I use are: Scribus, Inkscape, and the Gimp. Honestly, I've been told by the boss that I can, but i have absolutely no desire to, switch over to Adobe products. In fact if i was forced to switch, the quality of my work would most certainly go down.
I've been given the ble
This is trying not to be flamebait. (Score:3, Insightful)
...
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).
Funny, I've had pretty much the opposite experience. What sort of stuff were you doing where photoshop was intuitive? My experience with Photoshop is tantamount to my first experience with vi: "wtf? Normally when I type/move the mouse and click stuff happens. OK, this was a bad idea I should've stuck with emacs/psp, how do I close it?" I guess it has more to do with what your previous experience prepared you for than anything else, but I find the idea that photoshop is easy to use quite novel.
Re:Let's get it out of the way... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps what you mean is:
Don't bring up the Gimp every time someone mentions the lack of a native Photoshop on Linux, and then claim the Gimp is not a Photoshop competitor when someone then cites a difference between the two.
Wine (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine Windows API not in the hands of Microsoft.
Re:Wine (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wine (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I wouldn't. I think that UNIX (and specifically Linux) is a fantastic platform to work on. By coding up something platform independent, then you loose all of the really cool features of UNIX.
For what reason? (Score:3, Interesting)
Cue piracy on linux (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I kind of wish Adobe and/or other app vendors would sell the same app for cheaper but lock out the number of hours per month or something you could use it; unlocked for business would cost the usual outrageous prices, but time-locked to 10 hours a month or something would cost much less.
Why not port it to Linux they have a win and mac v (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the simple answer, and what Adobe would say to their stockholders.
The correct answer is this: It's impossible to estimate the return on investment and so they're erring on the side of not doing anything - since it's hard to blame someone for *not* taking an action that could be portrayed as risky.
When it comes to raw return on investment, a Linux port of the Adobe creative suite would probably pay for itself pretty quickly - porting i
Re: (Score:3)
Photoshop is not, and was never intended to be, sold as a consumer application. It's market is professionals. At the moment, if you are a professional in one of a number of fields you use Photoshop. If you don't use Photoshop, you can't do professional work if only because you can't open the files your collaborators are sending and can't send the ones clients are expecting.
So, what is the market for Photoshop on Linux? Professionals who are m
Wine support for 99% win programs should be focus (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wine support for 99% win programs should be foc (Score:5, Funny)
That is all. Carry on.
Colour Management (Score:4, Insightful)
not as good as it looks (Score:4, Insightful)
1. One of the arguments that wine devs had is that not every compagny have the ressources to port their applications under *nix, but Adobe certainly doesn't fall in that category.
2. The picassa road is not definitively the best one : just bundling wine to a windows application and label it linux (or other unix) compiliant is near anything but nonsense. We choose unix because of freedom, but also because we believed in its superiorical technical merit (*be it true or not*), not to rely on some win32/directX implementation. We don't eat that food (oh, and if we could forget about this mono thing, many people would sleep better).
Even if i'm amazed by the work done by the wine team, and I'm thankful to them for allowing me to play some games under linux, I don't see them taking more importance as a good thing. This is not this kind of solution which will improve our systems.
Linux is too commercial now man! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Linux is too commercial now man! (Score:5, Funny)
WINE is an interesting strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Same old story... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a professional photographer, meaning, I make a living of it.
I use Gimp on Linux for this, and I'm just fine with it. Especially since version 2.4 I haven't thought once of going back to PS. On the rare occasions I need to convert an image to CMYK for offset printing, I use Krita to do that. For other things I need workarounds, but I'll live.So, that's my choice.
But:
I happen to be lucky enough that, apart from being an artist, I also understand computers, meaning I could figure out on my own how the Gimp works.
Most professional photographers I know aren't. They get taught to use Photoshop when they are just starting out, and I'm sure everyone agrees that that the Gimp interface is quite different from the Photoshop interface, and also that re-learning always is harder than learning something new.
So, if the less tech savy people choose to use Photoshop because they know how to do that, what's wrong with that?
And if improvement for Photoshop on Linux is being worked on, Linux can only benefit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you missed the point. It is to make proprietary software obsolete.
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:4, Insightful)
Who exactly is it that is supposed to be driven to try and bring them into the herd? Why should I care if John Q Public prefers to write applications for Windows? How does that have any bearing on my preference to write applications targetting Linux?
Sooner or later he's going to realize he's just Bill's bitch on his own.
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Makes no difference if they don't. They'll just be stuck with Vista, and that won't bother me at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Who if not a Google/Codeweavers combo is going to be motivated to port Photoshop to Linux? It's exactly what should be happening, and the GIMP project will continue to do things that are good for the GIMP project.
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Insightful)
It should. The religion behind OSS seeks to destroy their business model by making them obsolete.
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:4, Insightful)
It should. The religion behind OSS seeks to destroy their business model by making them obsolete.
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Insightful)
>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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Try reading what I wrote; I didn't say "prefer writing for Windows" I said "creating off-the-shelf software." The religon behind OSS will keep those developers (and many investors) away.
But there isn't really a vast number of "I only write proprietary code" developers. Most major open source projects include some developers who work on closed-source applications during the day and write OSS in their off-time. There are even open source projects that include people who work at companies like Microsoft.
I can think of several developers right now work for a company called UGS who write OSS projects in their spare time.
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:4, Insightful)
And yeah, you have to choose. You can't hope to compete against windows if the very best kinds of software really need windows (though Pshop obviously is also on macs). You either go nuts with every bit of information being free, of we give everyone an open set of basically strong tools, and let them buy professional level stuff, games, media, etc if they want it.
Gimp, openoffice, mozilla, ubuntu (or whatever) makes a nice level of stuff, but I need photoshop, I need VIZ, I need Autocad. And for CAD, there are free solutions, but they just aren't going to do. So I use Windows 2000, still the best version for me. I can boot into ubuntu, and would like to be able to use Wine, but we're about to buy Vista instead. How annoying.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody is in charge. I have no problem with people making money selling Linux and services for Linux (or any other piece of software) either.
My question was: Who is it that is supposed to care what the proprietary world does? The GIMP developers aren't interested in making a Photoshop clone. They enjoy coding their application the way they think it
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly.
We aren't really talking about Gimp so much as we are talking about Wine, but if you really believe that Gimp isn't following the proprietary world and trying to be a nice photoshop alternative by going for things the photoshop customers get from photoshop, well, then we disagree. Of course Gimp developers should look to Photoshop and mimic much. I know it's not the cool answer, but it's true. Of course, I think there is plenty of room for innovation and to do a better job, as Ubuntu does in many areas vs. XP. But that has nothing to do with the price of tea in china. We're talking about Wine, which quite obviously has to follow the Windows API, etc.
Linux is kinda dealt a bad hand. I don't really see why we don't see Adobe and others specifically tailoring software for Ubuntu. Support costs, I bet. Photoshop (or whatever) on Wine with 100% support is precisely what a bunch of folks would need to get rid of their bloated OS.
Can you see a world where Wine is not needed by the serious Linux user? Of course you can, if you rule out a ton of useful software. In other words, if you rule out Linux as a serious OS choice for tons of folks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean like Maya?
P.S. I hate the Motif toolkit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What the hell is the difference? An operating system is a collection of software.
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:4, Insightful)
My operating system doesn't include Photoshop or Office. An operating system should not contain applications, generally speaking. It should contain utilities that perform administrative tasks... maybe a few tiny applications for things like migration, disk partitioning, and other very basic tasks... but it should not contain what would be considered non-administrative applications. That's outside the scope of an operating system.
Re:Linux doesn't include Photoshop of Office. (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:We already have Photoshop! (Score:4, Informative)
Open source != developers working for free.
Quite a large number of developers writing OSS software are paid to do so by companies who use the software. And the reverse is also true, a number of closed source freeware applications are written by developers who are not paid in any way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Good show. Glad you're on the team. Now make us a list of all the projects that make up the operating system of each distribution, and all the ones you figure are userland. We'll contact each contributor to those projects, and organize some kind of understand with each of them that the userland people are to do their own thing, but the operating system people will be hell bent on destruction of the pro
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And how the hell does that work anyway? the file bzImage and the contents of
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I feel better just knowing it, even if I do think its wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I run Linux on a PowerPC, you insensitive clod! How much good is proprietary software running on WINE going to do ME?!!
-:sigma.SB
Acknowledge or bow to... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll stick to Gimp, with its limitations. For the price difference I can buy another computer!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The real solution here is to license the IP and create non-free plug-ins for GIMP. As a result the GIMP will continue to develop without resources going on a Wine Photoshop abomination. This is not necessary anyway, photoshop supports enough architectures to make an X native port trivial.
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:4, Interesting)
The endless levels of composition and the post-rendering are incredibly powerful.
If they built an AE interface on top of the gimp engine we could have a truly special piece of free software.
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Interesting)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
Off the top of my head, GIMP needs:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Informative)
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! (Score:5, Informative)
"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! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We already have Photoshop! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:They are fixing Wine, not Photoshop (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With their acquisitions (Macromedia, et.al.), and having to convert their applications
Re:minor nicks in the armor (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They sell a version of Wine. They are also company that will gladly take Google's money to do work on Wine. They are the same ones who helped [desktoplinux.com] make Google Maps and Picasa run on Linux.
Re:wut? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:wut? (Score:5, Informative)
On that note: thank you to Google and to Codeweavers.
Re:wut? (Score:5, Informative)
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]:
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:Stop this, stop this now Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)