Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Software Ubuntu Linux

Ubuntu Replaces F-Spot With Shotwell 361

climenole writes "Finally! The much discussed F-Spot vs. Shotwell battle is over. The new default image organizer app for Ubuntu Maverick 10.10 is going to be Shotwell. This is a much-needed change; F-Spot was simply not enough. Most of the times when I tried F-Spot, it just keeps crashing on me. Shotwell on the other hand feels a lot more solid and is better integrated with the GNOME desktop. Shotwell is also completely devoid of Mono."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ubuntu Replaces F-Spot With Shotwell

Comments Filter:
  • Shotwell on a other hand...

    For fuck sake, editors.


  • Stupid remarks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by akanouras ( 1431981 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @09:57PM (#32560476)

    Most of the times when I tried F-Spot, it just keeps crashing on me.

    Do we need such silly commentary?

    I'm using Kubuntu btw, so I couldn't care less about F-Spot.

  • by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <skennedy&tpno-co,org> on Sunday June 13, 2010 @10:01PM (#32560492) Homepage

    Shotwell is also completely devoid of Mono.

    I take issue with this last line. I LIKE c#/.net. If I get to use it in more places, this is a good thing.

    Isn't the whole shtick about open source the fact that we get more options?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 13, 2010 @10:13PM (#32560562)

    Nobody cares whether you like programming in C#.

    The question is whether people like having Mono installed on their system, and the answer is no. It's like requiring Java or Flash. Besides which, Mono will never be anything but a half-arsed implementation of what's available on Windows. We already have enough lame-duck copies of things on the Linux desktop. We don't need another one in Mono.

    F-Spot was a pathetic attempt to justify the existence of Mono, and it failed miserably. Nothing else of any relevence uses it, so now we can move on. :-)

  • by slimjim8094 ( 941042 ) <> on Sunday June 13, 2010 @10:18PM (#32560604)

    The concern is not so much about the language itself as with Microsoft. They've *said* they won't sue anyone using/writing for Mono, but since they've threatened to do some very similar things and I'm not so sure I trust them.

    In any case, the intensity with which Icaza has been pushing Mono, plus his ties with Microsoft, scare the crap out of me.

    So please, feel free to develop with it. But I'm not so sure I'll be installing Mono to run your app, because I try to keep it off otherwise.

  • by Abcd1234 ( 188840 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @10:22PM (#32560628) Homepage

    Meh, as long as F-Spot and Mono remain in the repository, I have little issue with them moving to Shotwell if they feel it's the better product (for whatever reason, be it phantom legal issues, or legitimate stability issues).

  • Re:Stupid remarks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by anethema ( 99553 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @10:25PM (#32560642) Homepage
    Especially the weird shift between past and present within the same sentance.
  • Curing Mono (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Improv ( 2467 ) <> on Sunday June 13, 2010 @10:28PM (#32560650) Homepage Journal

    I'm always glad to hear about mono being used less on Linux.

  • by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @10:33PM (#32560674)

    I take issue with this last line. I LIKE c#/.net. If I get to use it in more places, this is a good thing.

    Isn't the whole shtick about open source the fact that we get more options?

    Open source is about options, true. So you're saying that Mono should be included as a required dependency in the base system of Ubuntu because you like it, but fuck all the people who don't like Mono for various reasons? This clearly isn't about more options. Leaving Mono "optional" is about more options.

  • by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) * <jmorris@[ ] ['bea' in gap]> on Sunday June 13, 2010 @10:42PM (#32560718)

    > I LIKE c#/.net.

    Someone always pops up saying something like this anytime Mono is mentioned. But if C#/.Net/Mono is so great why hasn't anything really great been created with it in all the years it has existed? Remember when Microsoft was going to recode pretty much all of their userland? yea right. Reminds me of when belief in the Java hype pushed Corel under as they thought they could write a cross platform office suite with it. So show me something Mono/.Net based that that is awesome and where the choice of platform was something more a technical than a political/religious decision.

    But beyond that, the fact is we are talking about a technology controlled by Microsoft. Many people simply do not trust them, and for good reason. So using Mono to allow otherwise foreign code to run is unobjectionable. Creating core subsystems of the Free Software/Open Source environment isn't. Any distribution that breaks if Mono is removed is going to be unacceptable to a large enough subset of users that it simply isn't likely to happen in any of the top ten distros.

  • Re:Curing Mono (Score:0, Insightful)

    by tick-tock-atona ( 1145909 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @10:53PM (#32560778)

    I'm always glad to hear about mono being used less on Linux.

    Yup. I've got nothing against people using it, but I completely agree with the FSF [] and would never use or install Mono myself.

    We've still got people like Horacio Gutierrez (Corporate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel) making statements like this []:

    ...smartphones are a product of the ‘open innovation’ paradigm – device manufacturers do not do all of their development in-house, but add their own innovations to those of others to create a product that users want. Open innovation is only possible through the licensing of third party IP rights, which ensures that those who develop the building blocks that make a new technology possible are properly compensated for their investments in research and development. After all, technology just doesn’t appear, fully-developed, from Zeus’s head. It requires lots of hard work and resources to create. the industry is in the process of sorting out what royalties will be for the software stack, which now represents the principal value proposition for smartphones. In the next few years, as the IP situation settles in this space and licensing takes off, we will see the patent royalties applicable to the smartphone software stack settle at a level that reflects the increasing importance software has as a portion of the overall value of the device.
    (16 March 2010)

    Do you still think Microsoft will allow competitors like Google (Android) and Nokia/Intel (MeeGo) to use Mono's .NET implementations for free?

  • by bmo ( 77928 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @11:01PM (#32560820)

    >For fuck sake, editors.

    "Trolling is a art" - Anonymous


  • Shotwell is beta (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EEPROMS ( 889169 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @11:11PM (#32560870)
    As much as I like having one less set of libs to install I have to say shotwell is way behind F-Spot on the usability front. I would say Shotwell needs another year to mature before it gets even near what F-spot is "now". Ubuntu is a key representation of Linux on the desktop and if users have to deal with a very beta experience of shotwell I dare say it wont reflect positively on Linux as a whole (I personally prefer Digikam over F-Spot).
  • Features (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lahvak ( 69490 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @11:28PM (#32560940) Homepage Journal

    I have never heard about shotwell, so I went to its website (it would be nice if the article actually included a link to that). As far as I can tell, there are some important features missing from shotwell. Namely, there is no information about raw, integration with ufraw or another raw developing software, editing photos in external editors (GIMP), or running external filters on photos.

    Also, it does not seem to have as many export options as f-spot.

    I am definitely not happy with f-spot, and always keep looking for a replacement, but so far I was unable to find one, and, as far as I can tell, shotwell with its current set of features is not going work for me.

  • Re:Curing Mono (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Seth Kriticos ( 1227934 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @11:57PM (#32561060)

    Yup. The first thing I usually do when installing Ubuntu now a days is:

    sudo aptitude purge mono-gac libmono2.0-cil -y

    This also removes F-Spot, Tomboy and Gbrainy, none of which I particularly miss.

  • by kuriharu ( 756937 ) on Monday June 14, 2010 @12:23AM (#32561166)
    F-spot makes duplicates of my photos. Good riddance! One copy of each pic is enough, thank you!
  • by datakid23 ( 1706976 ) on Monday June 14, 2010 @12:39AM (#32561240)
    +1 for digiKam over either F-spot or Shotwell - one of the first things I do on a new machine for the relatives is to install digikam.
  • Re:Features (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 14, 2010 @01:16AM (#32561388)

    DigiKam is amazing. Best photo manager I've ever used, regardless of OS.

  • Re:um who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Yfrwlf ( 998822 ) on Monday June 14, 2010 @01:44AM (#32561476)
    It's news for Ubuntu users, which comprises probably most Linux users, so it is relevant and is news for them, just as major Fedora changes are news-worthy as well but less so since Fedora is less used, at least for desktops I would argue, but who knows, maybe it's equal or more, that's besides the point that they are both news worthy IMO.

    Ubuntu bashing is amusing, but pretty infantile. Fedora uses pretty much the same programs, with a different non-universal package manager, just as DEB isn't universal (a major gripe of mine about Linux standards and software accessibility on Linux, but off-topic).

    Now, it shouldn't matter to any distro users, and none of this should be news worthy, because users should be able to get the latest version of any program easily without relying on someone to create a PPA (which still haven't been made ultra-easy to deal with, and confounds new users), but again, that's going back to the above off-topic point. The sad reality is the default apps that distros ship does matter to distro users users because they will most likely not get the new version, and many not even know Shotwell exists until they install or upgrade to the newer distro version.
  • This is the single biggest failing of the FOSS ecosystem.

    Someone starts a piece of software and gets some of the desired features working. Shortly after that, someone else, either working on the project or using it, decides one of several problems plague the program. Either it's development is too slow, it has crummy architecture, someone else thinks they can do better, philosophically or technically, or they are half-baked programmers who look at existing code, can't figure it out, and decide to start over from scratch. Or maybe the project's lead(s) decide that their way of doing things, technically or philosophically, is the only "right" way, and hit would-be contributors over the head with attitude (I'm looking at for example developers of VLC and cdparanoia, not to mention the issue of Linux kernel schedulers and sound subsystem).

    So we end up with multiple half-baked programs all doing sort of the same thing in different ways but none of them doing the whole job. Naturally, when someone sees the situation, the first reaction is "All this mess! I'm going to start a NEW project and do it RIGHT this time!"

    If we FOSS users and developers are lucky, eventually there will be a tipping point when a majority gravitate to one project and things get more or less sorted out. If not, well, we can always use ANOTHER, say, media player; some college CS major can tackle it as a senior project, release it, and then forget all about it. If Amarok, Audacious, Beep, BMPx, Banshee, Kaffeine, Miro, Rhythmbox, VLC, Winamp, XMMS, xine and whatever else I'm forgetting don't offer enough choice for you.

    Glad to see that yet another category of software is joining the party.

  • by sohp ( 22984 ) <.moc.oi. .ta. .notwens.> on Monday June 14, 2010 @02:22AM (#32561642) Homepage

    They don't do PNG? What, are they writing their own image handling codecs from scratch? What kind of half-assed project doesn't build on the existing available libraries to handle low-level things like image formats? Even the first draft release of an image app should be able to just collapse all the format stuff behind an abstraction and get all of them in one swoop. Sure, they might not handle at the application user's level all the odd bits and extensions and tricky stuff (alpha transparency comes to mind, for example) but to just not support it? Sounds like someone needs to review a college first year CS textbook.

  • Re:Curing Mono (Score:5, Insightful)

    by devent ( 1627873 ) on Monday June 14, 2010 @02:40AM (#32561754) Homepage
    ECMA 334 and CLI is a small subset of what you call C# and what Mono is implementing. What about .NET,, Windows Forms, which make C# any useful in the first place?

    If you want a managed and widely available language and framework, why you don't just use Java, Python, Php, Perl, Ruby and so on, which are completely free, which out any patents and are community controlled? There are available today, well tested, have a lot more tools and libraries as C#/Mono. In addition, you are not using a tool that is constantly behind the one company that is controlling all aspects of C# and .NET.

    The other question is, why anyone should even use Mono in the first place? The only reason for what Mono is good, is a replacement for .NET. But that's not going to happen, because MS have no interest in making C#/.NET available to other platforms than Windows.

    You are right, MS is interested that anyone using C#/.NET everywhere; but only if they are using it on Windows.
  • by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Monday June 14, 2010 @03:20AM (#32561968) Journal

    The question is whether people like having Mono installed on their system, and the answer is no. It's like requiring Java or Flash.

    ... or Perl, Python or Ruby. When did you last excise those from your system? Do you avoid using GUI apps written in Python as a matter of principle?

    Besides which, Mono will never be anything but a half-arsed implementation of what's available on Windows.

    Well, no, not really. Gtk#, for example, is available on Windows, but only as part of Mono.

  • by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Monday June 14, 2010 @03:22AM (#32561974) Journal

    I'm all for competition, and if the CLR is superior to the JVM, let it win! I just don't understand why it hasn't been pushed into the Unix space. Are IBM, HP and Oracle wrong?

    No, they just don't want to embrace a competing technology, especially the one where design choices are by and large made by said competitor.

    And Microsoft isn't exactly interested in providing first-class CLR experience on Unix for obvious reasons.

    So you end up with Mono, which is largely volunteer-driven. Of course that is going to lag behind a major commercial project such as Sun JVM.

  • by timbo234 ( 833667 ) on Monday June 14, 2010 @03:54AM (#32562118) Journal

    Why try to re-invent the wheel at all with Shotwell, what's wrong with digikam? The disk space required for KDE libs is insignificant on modern computers (especially compared to the size of the average person's photo collection).

    Is it the irrational fear that non-technical people will be confused by a GUI interface that looks slightly different? Because that's what they get in Windows all the time and they seem to cope.

  • Wrong criteria (Score:3, Insightful)

    by frisket ( 149522 ) <[peter] [at] []> on Monday June 14, 2010 @04:56AM (#32562386) Homepage
    Who gives a tinker's spit about "managing" your "photos"? I want to edit images, so I'll install GIMP and set all the filetypes back where they belong. Iff I connect my camera, then perhaps I want to invoke something to offload selected pix and file them by date. F-Spot was about as useful as a wet paper bag at managing photos, with an incomprehensible interface and no editing.
  • by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Monday June 14, 2010 @09:54AM (#32564410) Homepage

    > I would assume the purpose of the application is to handle the user's own photo library, and how many digital cameras store photos in the PNG format?

    Why just limit this to JPEGs? People have a lot of images from a lot of different
    sources. It's foolish just to restrict an image manager just to one class of images
    or a very narrow use case. This is especially true on Linux where you could have
    all sorts of oddball end users all doing their own thing.

    Any "manager" should handle everything and make that management as free of bother
    as possible.

  • by Dr.Dubious DDQ ( 11968 ) on Monday June 14, 2010 @11:47AM (#32565868) Homepage
    If they didn't seem to have such a hatred of KDE, they might consider digikam, which reportedly also has native ports to OSX and Windows now.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 14, 2010 @03:54PM (#32569684)

    Ditto for digikam. Swapping out f-spot for digikam is one of the first things I do on a new Ubuntu install.

    As a rule, I don't use any media manager that "imports" my media into its own database or filesystem structure (I'm looking at you, iTunes, f-spot, and rhythmbox). Digikam respects my directory structure. It does basic editing, tagging, organization, and easily exports to external editors. It's fast, it's clean, and it's mostly stable. If it dies, it doesn't take my photos with it. It sounds like Shotwell is just more of the same.

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.