What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
85 Comments
- geminitojanus, on 10/17/2007, -8/+19Because the Gimp sucks?
- rekka, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Ah, Photoshop on Linux; then I can leave MS behind and run free through the fields without a care in the world!
- inactive, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Photoshop for Linux would help Linux more than Adobe.
- clintcan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sorry guys,
Have to agree... Photoshop is better than gimp in useability. In fact, some simpler photediting programs are better in the gui department than gimp. I can use them almost immediately, as for gimp... I have to swim around at first.
Aside from the dreamweaver, fireworks, etc. (now adobe owned) I can say, there are huge gaping holes in the field of productivity apps in linux. Don't start on nvu, or bluefish... I've tried that, none can match in those features and ease of use of those apps for now.
As for me, I'm running dreamweaver, fireworks and flash in wine (I've been using linux for four years now, but have to work in windows because the tools are there). I totally agree with timmarhy - people care about things that get the job done. I'd use the right tools for the job, and sadly, some windows applications fit the bill better than the linux ones. - rtfx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My main problem with Gimp as a PS replacement has been the lack of layer effects. While one can "bake in" effects - and that's a very flexible and powerful solution - most of the time you're using the same effects frequently for a text splash or something. That's a case where you just want them sitting there to be turned on/off and played with.
- andrewvc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@sundroid
I could all that in 10 minutes in photoshop with layer styles
Texture Overlay, Gradient Overlay, Drop Shadow, outer / inner glow, bevel and emboss. It'd be very easy. And totally scriptable with action script. - skunkman62, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"Because the Gimp sucks?"
@geminitojanus
omg, i'm not alone! - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5im sorry, gimp does suck. It just has to be said. Photoshop CS is a great program and if it were ported to linux I could see many graphic developers moving away from windows.
- overshard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Lorian, That is one of the most ignorant comments I have ever seen someone make. Just because we use Linux doesn't meant we don't like paying for stuff, I have a Windows Machine with Dreamweaver MX and Photoshop CS2 which I paid for both and the only reason I do use windows is because I need those programs and play games on it. I am willing to pay for software its just I like the configure ability I get with Linux and the stability unlike Windows which I tend to get crazy problems on.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Photoshop 7.0 works fine with Wine, but not CS2 on my Linux boxen.
- robertojdohnert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Adobe did a UNIX port of Photoshop years ago. It wasnt profitable, they did Framemaker for Linux and nobody wanted to pay for it. I doubt we will see it. We have a better chance of Apple porting iWork to Windows than we do of Adobe porting to PS to Linux
- jpyun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Saying the GIMP is comparable to photoshop is like saying Matt Hasselbeck is comparable to Steve Young.
- lozadaj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes, photoshop is the best photo editing software out there. I use is everyday. But to say Gimp sucks is just wrong. Gimp supports layers and has a lot of other features that you will not see in a product for less then $100. Gimp is free. It will run on Linux, Windows, and Mac. I have actually used it on my Dell laptop running Linux(Fedora Core 4).
- barium, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3More like port _games_ to linux.
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1GIMP is great for a free Open Source Application. But it's still a far cry from Photoshop.
The bottom line is, graphic artists don't give a hot wet ***** about what OS they use. Neither does anyone else who is not a die hard computer geek.
It's the APPLICATIONS that sell computers. No one on Earth has ever bought a computer because it runs Windows. They bought it because WINDOWS runs (Place your favorite application there.)
As to the nay sayers that say it won't sell, I have $1000 saved up for the day the Adobe Suite is avilable for Linux. I won't grumble about the frice until it hits $1500.
Those who say "M3 w@ntz g@m3z!" Well guess what buck-o. GAME DESIGNERS use the same high end graphic tools as everyone else. Maybe you would get those games if they were designing on a linux box. You should pressure Adobe to get ther shiznit on the *nix. - uplink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd say that one of the largest differences is Photoshop's ability to adapt to so many different areas of image editing. Photoshop can be a print designer's, a web designer's tool, a professional photographer's tool, a casual touch-up tool, or really anything because of it's vast full-feature base. Gimp *could* be used for the same reasons, but is not really specifically proficient at any of them, and as such is lacking in focus. I don't think it will progress very far until it has been given a focus.
- Scottamus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh and personally I'd rather have all my games ported to linux.
- stimpack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Aint gonna happen. If Adobe cant be arsed to make an intel Mac version until 2007 we got no chance.
- jaredvolkl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@mirunit - that is if they use windows to begin with, I'd say given a choice a graphic designer will choose the Mac platform over Windows most often
@bieber - You sort of have it, but you're a little off. I think what people want is a choice. If someone wants to develop a OS equivalent to Photoshop, great. In fact, if it was comparable I'd probably dump PS for it because I like to support open source. Frankly, Gimp is not there yet. I've used both quite a bit (probably more PS than Gimp though) and based soley on features, I'd still choose PS right now. Maybe down the line Gimp will improve, but right now, it's just not there.
The article also brings up the fact that PS is more of a platform than a program. If Gimp were to support these additonal plugin type features, more people would likely use Gimp. It'd at least be a start. - TommyH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2As much as I like The Gimp it simply doesn't "rival" Photoshop. It rivals programs like Paint Shop Pro.
- tadelste, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, I understand the sentiment. But I've used GIMP for three years now and go back to like version 3 of PS. About two years ago, I started really liking GIMP. Now, I say that it's my preferred graphics & image editor.
I will say that Photoshop on OS X is a dream productivity wise. On Windows, I don't like photoshop at all. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this is the age old fact RMS has never been able to grasp.
people don't give a flying ***** about licenses, what rights it gives them, or who it's from. THE ONLY THING people care about is if the software can get the job they need done. and photoshop falls into the catagory of "nothing is better". if PS gets ported to linux it'll be a big step, because that just leaves ms office out there, and there ARE things that are as good - delvach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I will concede, Photoshop has more features than Gimp. But not to the point where you really need Photoshop to do things you can't with the Gimp; it's just a little trickier with Gimp.
Exactly. I spent three years as the primary website and graphics developer at a company which, because of the open source culture within the organization, flat-out refused to buy me a copy of Photoshop. The fact that things are trickier is a BIG deal; when you're in a crunch and the time it takes to do things impacts your job, you need the best tool. Gimp is a great alternative to PS, but despite the hard work of the developers involved, it's not as good.
I'm actually not trying to argue with anybody here. But as a Mac user in an open-source environment, I used to get nothing but crap for being a zealot from people who were bigger zealots than me. Ultimately, open source has some great offerings, Gimp among them, but you really get what you pay for. - TheCardinal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Gimp needs a Photoshop mode for adjusting shortcuts and menu locations before I give it another shot.
- clintcan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@dusingaz:
I would pay for it; I bought licensed versions of the Macromedia Studio, Visual Basic (Studio) and whole lot other stuff. I believe if the product is good enough and useful for my work (job), it deserves getting paid for. I however agree that some of those prices set by adobe are waaaaaay too high for ordinary people. Lowering the price would make it more accessible and people (professionals who need some tools) would have the tendency to buy them too since it's in their budget. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Saying the GIMP is comparable to photoshop is like saying Matt Hasselbeck is comparable to Steve Young."
A sports analogy on digg? holy cow! me likey. - ELWOOD_BLUES, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To use Photoshop on Linux we would also need good color management. For my work I need to profile my monitor.
- Sundroid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I use GIMP exclusively.
Here is a demonstration of how easy it is to use GIMP: I created 10 graphical images using GIMP's “Script-Fu” feature and made a 44-second video with them. I did the graphic part in 30 minutes (even including syncing them up with the music in the video form, the total effort took less than an hour). Here is the clip on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6560896446665054224
I challenge PhotoShop fans to show us they can produce similar graphics in 30 minutes, and then put them in a video, and post it on Google Video to prove it. - TheAttacks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"For Linux to be taken seriously in design shops, Adobe needs to start moving its entire creative suite of software to Linux."
I agree with that statement, he makes a valid point. - HvitRavn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The GIMP: 12MB download (including GTK2+ run-times), free, almost as much features as Photoshop except all the extras like brushes and whatnot.
Photoshop: 180-something MB download (or is it more these days?), not free at all, crashes more often than gimp, takes quite a while to boot up, uses tons of resources.
The GIMP is only odd if you're used to other graphics programs, and even at that it only takes a few weeks to figure out. It's not comparable to Paint Shop Pro, The GIMP has way more powerful features. Come on guys - it's free, it's almost as good as Photoshop, and it only takes a fraction of the resources to run it. Unless you have some very high demands (something which 99.99% of people who work with graphics DON'T have, even if they may think so), the GIMP is what you should be running. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1[quote]Would you actually pay for Linux Photoshop? Or would you cry that it's not free and open source, boycott it, and then download a warez version instead?[/quote]
Windows users do that anyway.
On the Linux side, all the web development and movie people would probably like a Linux Photoshop. Not only should Photoshop be ported, but everything related to web development especially.
One thing to possibly throw a monkey wrench into this potential Linux revolution is the Intel Macs. If OS X is going to run on low-cost PC hardware, the same as Linux, all the creative people will use that instead of Linux and Windows. - ramsinks.com, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0DreamWeaver and Photoshop - I'd never boot into Windows again.
- gnatinator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Those who say "M3 w@ntz g@m3z!" Well guess what buck-o. GAME DESIGNERS use the same high end graphic tools as everyone else. Maybe you would get those games if they were designing on a linux box. You should pressure Adobe to get ther shiznit on the *nix."
Tru dat. - jpesicka2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah, comparing matt hasselbeck to steve young is like comparing jesus to a terd
- MilesTeg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0like s.o. said above gimp is still only competing with Paintshop Pro and is still far away from Photoshop.
The biggest Problem imho is usability (and: yes, I´ve tried the gimpshop hack...).
The no1 on my Gimp wishlist:
- the layer effects menu from photoshop! Well, it´s nice gimp supports layers but that´s just not enough.. - mazzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0COME ON EVERYBODY! I'm growing tired of shallow easy pick comments from OS religious fanatics. Fact is that GIMP is an excellent for web in some respects, but it does require existing PS users to restructure old habits because its a new GUI. It's main shortcomings are:
- No CMYK support for print
- No option for layer effects
- No feature equivalent to ImageReady (for web optimizing images)
On the other hand: PS tends to be bloated, huge installationproces, huge filesize and yes - it still crashes. I find GIMP an excellent tool that equals PS in most areas except those above.
HOWEVER; few responds to the fact that seveal posts mentions wine or crossover office as ways of porting PS to linux. i.e. you CAN in fact use PS on linux. Furthermore, nobody takes notice of the post by Bigfat mentioning Pixel which is a downright crossplatform port of Photoshop (supported by Adobe and Microsoft- whether u like it or not). It's not a free OS project - application is in beta development stage and costs $32 - according to the develper(s) I'll be $100 in its final release. Find Pixel here: http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12
I've tried Pixel unregistered in a Windows environment - a simplified PS clone in terms functionality it seems, but still highly unstable (that why its a low intro prize apparently) and currently too unstable for my needs. However, in German engeneering I trust ;-) and I think this might be one option for leaving MS and for good!
Evidently more I hope the GIMP will move on to integrate the features above, in that case PS fanatics may consider trying GIMPshop (a patch for GIMP which to some extent emulates the PS gui/menu option order). - herrin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I spend about 5-6 hours a day with Photoshop open on my PC. I use it every day. I'm a windows / linux user with a desktop for each on my desk. If I could use Photoshop on Linux that would put me on my linux desktop another 5-6 hours a day. GIMP is ok, but it's more of an attempt to match something great that be something great. I've tried it numerous times, even GIMPshop, but none even compare.
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As I stated. I would BUY the Adobe Suite for Linux. As I would every other ported mainstream application that I currently pay for. Lightwave 3d, Poser... et all.
Linux is not an operating system for cheap and poverty stricken users. It's for people who belive that Control over the hardware they paid for, with no help from Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA, or the Government, belongs under the absolute control of the person who paid for it, and not under some corporate monopolies (Plural).
Quite honestly, I would love too see Linux and Open Source only advertising agencies, and Temp agencies. I would love to make my living with Gimp, Inkscape, NVU, Blender, etc. But until that happens the ability to run Adobe Photoshop and it the other Adobe products is also my requirement to live and eat indoors.
The catch is. I don't give a rats ass what OS the damn thing runs on. Mac, PC, or an old Brother word processor running on an Z80. What matters is that when I get into the program it works like Photoshop, and that the guy who hired me to work there gives me a check that doesn't bounce.
I can't "learn something new" because even if I do, the other guys who works on the same documents I do won't know it.
"Adobe did a UNIX port of Photoshop years ago. It wasn't profitable,..." Of course not. They made a Unix Version that only ran on $7000 and up SGI machines and was 2 generations behind the PC version. Plus they charged about 3X more than their PC counterpart. It was cheaper to buy a PC just to run Photoshop.
And about a year later that PC began to outperform that SGI box, and the SGI with their PS 4.0 went the way of the Dino.
" they did Framemaker for Linux and nobody wanted to pay for it."
Again... Who was begging for Framemaker? They made their competitor for a platform that no one using wanted. Framemaker was NEVER on the level of Photoshop, but a knockoff designed to compete with Dreamweaver.
If GIMP, which IS free, and good, can't lure me away from Photoshop, what made Adobe think Framemaker, which was only OK, was going to lure me away from the tool I already used when it wasn't as good, and cost money?
Plus it was going after a feircely independant market that can write their own code. - zonk3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the only reason why gimp exists is because photoshop isn't on linux and if it was linux wonks wouldn't buy it because they are steeped in a culture that doesn't like to buy anything...
- dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0About the "GIMP can do the same thing in Photoshop"
I tried GIMPShop yesterday, the UI is horrible.. Photoshop has gone though a hell of a lot of versions/revisions.. It's similar to the Windows/Linux thing, Windows has been around a long time, as has Linux, but Windows has a huge team of full-time developers, where as linux by the fact it's free, obviously can't afford as big teams..
Not saying GIMP will never catch up or beat Photoshop, and if it includings things like a node-based view, I'd use it, but even still it'd not replace Photoshop for professional-level use.. And if it was ported to Linux, GIMP would be used a lot less I'm sure..
- Ben - geniium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0because we, on Linux, need stable application too.
not wine. not crossover office.
just the real tool. and that's why I miss the Adobe suite. And I'm talking about all the adobe products (macromedia tools they acquired as well).
let's fight for this to happen. sooner the best! - ManiacPC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Photoshop CS 2 it's an incredible tool... Pretty expensive but 100% professional... The GIMP it's an option if you want to migrate from Photoshop 5, but even with Photoshop 7.0 The GIMP it's not rival... But we must really aprecciate the work of the developers of Gimp, it's the only advanced GNU Image Retouch program... And it's a very good work tool for free, it's fighting with Paint Shop Pro, and in my opinion... the GIMP it's the best second image retouching program.
Great Work Spencer Kimball and Peter Mattis, i dream that in a few years the GIMP will be the best program for image retouch.
PS: Excuse my english - mandowoodie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Advanced Photoshop users can zip around (zoom, pan, sample, change tools) without touching the menus or tool palette. I tried for add a few of these short cuts to Gimp, but it was hopeless.
I've been running Photoshop with CrossOver for years. My biggest issue is that the ALT key does not work correctly:
- CTRL-( /-) to zoom in and out, ALT will also wrap the window to the image
- When you have the brush or pencil, ALT will turn it into the dropper (sample)
- When you have the rubber stamp, ALT-click to define the clone area
- When you have the lasso, ALT will turn it into a polygon tool (on demand)
Even is this broken state (on Linux under wine), Photoshop blow away Gimp. - diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, I would think iTunes would be first but I guess its mostly a mac and windows user thing.
- mazzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0P.S. I dunno crap aboy the developer's nationality - just that kanzelsberger sounds kinda German;-)
- the8thbit, on 02/09/2009, -0/+0VB and Java both suck.
- blueskip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm sorry but that just isn't that impressive as far as graphix go. It is impressive for 30 min. tho. I use PS for quality however not quantity.
- Bigfat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Come on guys, no one has heard of Pixel?
http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12 - blueskip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0THANK YOU!! I couldn't possible agree more with that comment. Linux is a better platform and whether it will be pirated or not isn't the issue. MY GOD it's pirated to death on windows does anyone in their right mind think that going to Linux will be any different...be it better OR worse??? Pirating has NOTHING to do with the issue. People who won't pay aren't necessarily Linux users and people who pay aren't necessarily Windows users. How stupid can you be not to understand that?
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is