What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
122 Comments
- Thorox, on 10/12/2007, -6/+84Why does everything have to be a "something-or-other" killer these days? Killing completing products is becoming a meaningless buzz word...
Does a dude trying to bang your wife become a briangoins pecker killer? He doesn't want to kill your pecker, he just wants HIS piece of YOUR pie.
Digg me down, but I am tired of the using buzzword to get Diggs *****. - thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+89"While Adobe continues to only support Windows and Mac OS X with most of its products for its own, unknown reasons"
it's own unknown reasons? are you mad?
say what you will about each operating system, it doesn't matter. the fact of the matter is that the linux market share is negligable to adobe. think about it, adobe sells photoshop standalone for $649. why would they invest in making a version for linux when linux users spend $0 on their operating system?
linux doesn't HAVE a market for photoshop, the few people that really want it will just use another operating system, anyone else will just use gimp for philosophical reasons. - thenonhacker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+48This is good news! I wish the Pixel team success, and I hope they make Pixel's UI very easy for those who are switching from Photoshop.
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -14/+58Software companies can ignore Linux on their own peril, if they continue to do that somebody will create a replacement for their products for Linux and when that will be ported to Windows they will see their own product threatened.
- xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27How dare anyone build on concept that work? You should never start from scratch if you can build on something existing that works great already.
NEW CAR COMPANY
Head engineer: "Hello fellow engineers.. Today we are making a new car but we're not going to borrow ideas from our competitors... instead we'll create everything from scratch. So let's start with something that could bring the car from one spot to another... like a round object of some sort... come back to me when you have something." - oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28so, you're saying all of this is just buzzkill then?
- TheWorkz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26@hosiah
Did you read the article? This is not free software... I agree with Webguy, at least if you are going to say HOGWASH to thewebguy, give a real reason! He makes a great point. Adobe really isnt missing out on too much by not having to support a linux version at this point. And if you are a professional and really want the REAL DEAL, you will fold like everyone else and use photoshop, illustrator, etc. and they know that. - starquake, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28I use the tools that do MY job best.
Why I use Linux? Because it's suits me better for Internet Stuff.
Why I use Mac OS X? Because it runs Adobe Photoshop and is also based on UNIX so not much needed to learn.
Why I don't use Windows XP? Because it does not suit my needs.
Why I would pay for a Linux version? Because I like it more than GIMP. - Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17I think people are missing the point. "Killer"? Probably not. A nice alternative to getting your wallet raped for buying Photoshop? You bet.
- TheSaladMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/
Direct link - akinder, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Thier own 'unknown' reasons? Like, that Linux only has about 5% of the market? And, their users' usually refuse to pay for software, so marketing to that userbase would be a huge waste of money.
- AdamWeeden, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16To be fair though, only a shameless copy has a chance of being accepted. The biggest complaint that GIMP gets is it doesn't look like Photoshop.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Shameless copies are a bad thing. That's why today, I'd like to request that Microsoft gives DOS back to IBM, Basic back to the hobbyist community, Internet Explorer back to Unix's Mosaic, Vista's transparent UI effects back to KDE, their trashcan and folder icon system back to MacIntosh, and the concept of a monopoly back to William Randolf Hearst.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18People pay for windows xp . .
- Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Main reason I would buy it, is because comparing $32 Pixel to $700+ Photoshop...
Easy choice if you're going down the "legal" path....
And no, I wouldn't even consider the GIMP.... :P - dscx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12As far as i know the full version is not free, and the demo watermarks your images.
- Noctem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Haven't they been saying this about The Gimp for, like, ever? Look how far that's gotten. At least 'Pixel' has a less offensive name, that might actually help.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22Tell this to us the graphic designers who have years of experience with Adobe and Macromedia...not to mention Quark
the chances of us moving over to a new product is barely slim to none.
It was hard enough to get most of us to move from film to digital lol - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Clearly MS Paint is today's premier image editing utility.
- FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11You're right, Quark proves that you have to completely screw up, implement assinine copy protection and do nothing new for a decade to lose the market. It's one thing to make something equivalent to Photoshop, but to beat it you have to make something much, much better.
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@yohan: Uh, not sure if you noticed.....but it's for both Mac, Windows AND Linux. Nice try, douche.
- dscx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10This project would progress a lot further with corporate sponsorship by a company like novell. If the developer was being paid wages then the project could become open-source/free and affiliated to a distribution or something. Its great software but appears to be too much for one man to develop single handedly, plus the only way it would have a fighting chance against the likes of photoshop would be if it was free! The GIMP developers are just as stubborn, again its great software, but such a crappy 90's interface and no 16bit support!
- nubtard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You have to pay for a beta?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12To Guy above Me ^
Is it really the year of the Linux desktop? I thought 2005 was the year of the Linux Desktop? or all those other "Years of the Linux Desktop"
Linux does not have enough General Mass Appeal to get....Mass Acceptance. - britkev1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Currently the price is at $32 for the BETA product that includes all updates through 2.0 release. This is a nice price and a good idea to get some early sales and a good user following. The other cool thing is, you can purchase one license and use on all platforms (Mac, Windows, Linux....).
Looks like there is also a demo that watermarks the image to try before you buy. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yeah, but compared to something like Macromedia Fireworks The GIMP is frustrating as hell.
- jkbrowne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I don't agree that Pixel is better than the Gimp. I think Pixel has the *potential* to be better than the gimp. But, as it's already been mentioned, it's very buggy. The gimp has a strange interface, and it's not very apparent on how to do some things, but it is a very good (and stable) image editing application.
- AngryBoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Read the article *****.
"It is available for Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, BeOS, FreeBSD and other operating systems, for x86 and PowerPC chips."
Meaning, it will run on practically *ANYTHING*. The author just focused on the fact that it runs on Linux as a potential selling point for those that run Linux and want a Photoshop-like application. The software writer is just looking to make as much money as possible by selling different versions that run on different architectures. - starquake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6No wait, Google Pixel :P
- felyduw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@akinder:
By your line of thinking I guess windows users must all legally buy their software then. Right? - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Pixel runs on almost _everything_. Not just GNU/Linux.
- hongkongjapie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Oops confused with Pixen (opensword.org), pixel is not free and haven't used that one.
- derkles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Pixel is just another tool one can use. The Gimp in not Photoshop and never will be. You just can't expect to match the years of development that Photoshop has been through. I see Pixel as a great app for those who cannot afford or don't want to steal Photoshop. It is already much better than the Gimp.
But I bet your next graphic design job won't be asking you if you know Pixel. - nubtard, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11People pay for windows betas?
- RevMark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Can you say iPod killer? hm
- AngryBoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5With open source free software, I'd say there's a slim chance of that ever happening, but since this guy is obviously out to make a profit, there may be a chance of that. If it were free software, I think Adobe would see it as flattering... but trying to make a buck off of it... that's stealing.
- fatnutz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I can't stand articles that are labeled like this.
You can't kill photoshop, I don't know if pixel could put a dent into photoshop.
It's nice to see I can edit pics in Linux, but come on, get real people. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@noctem
No, making a profit is not a foreign concept. I can design the same two-color web banner on Photoshop for $700 and charge $701 for it, or I can do it on Gimp for $0. and charge $10. for it. Neatly undoing the overseas competition. - thunderer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It doesn't integrate into OS X very well, with its single window instead of floating windows; use of Control instead of Command in keyboard shortcuts; drop-menus are in the app's window instead of the bezel...
But for $32 who cares? - Undertoad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Memetics, I think; a story is more likely to be shared if it has more serious implications for a wider set of people.
So if it's "This app might kill Photoshop!", that's considered important to share;
But if it's "Ulead Photoimpact/Photoshop Elements competitor under development will do CMYK, run on Linux, is not open source and will cost $79", well, nobody shares that story. - vinbob, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9"the fact of the matter is that the linux market share is negligable to adobe"
@thewebguy
You do realise that numerous sources state that both Linux & Mac OS are neck & neck with an estimated desktop market share of 4% each at the moment don't you?
Also Linux desktop usage is set to rise steadily during the next couple of years with the planned adoption of Linux desktops in many government & education authorities across Europe, China & Africa.
Many people forget... whereas Windows and MacOS started out as desktop OSs and then moved into the server sectors, Linux was predominantly a server OS which (due to it's flexability and choice of multiple vendors) is rapidly moving into the desktop market.
So the question is...
If the Linux desktop is already as popular as Mac OSX why have a Mac version and not a Linux version? I suspect Adobe are quietly working on it as we speak. - DnasTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You have to look at it from a native viewpoint. The GIMP was the first piece of real graphics software I used, and, to me, the interface is very intuitive and optimal. I know immediately where to look to find a feature I need. However, I am confused beyond description when I try programs with Photoshop-style UIs. To me, Photoshop is the one with the strange interface, not The GIMP.
It's all a matter of what you're used to. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Don't forget that It's one of the most pirated applications EVER
- Noctem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If it's a good enough piece of software, all it has to do is be *chaper* than Photoshop if it wants to compete. Believe it or not, some people actually like to make a profit on the things they create. I know it's a bit of a foreign concept to many Linux users, but it's generally the way things work in the real world.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5MS Paint fills my needs for writing "OMGZ JEWS" on every picture in existance.
- n1qaw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5as a long term Adobe user, I have seen many packages come and go that purport themselves as the replacement to Photoshop. Most are very good I will admit and Pixel on first glance looks very good. Easy tool and menu. However I have always said that I dont care how pretty they look, they have to load and run easy enough for the average picture taker to use. First off, I know this is a beta so give me a break. I loaded this on 3 different windows machines 1 failed to load and the other two would not load images. Now with some fine tuning, yes I did get Pixel to run. However these were not "fixes" that I would suggest my customers attempt. Pixel has potential, that's a given, but it needs work, lots of it if its to be adopted by the average user.
- Ayavaron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@thenonhacker,
I've been using Pixel for several weeks now, and I can tell you that the UI is very very close to Photoshop's. But as the article said, dodge and burn tools are still missing.
The program has a truly impressive feature set.
I was especially happy to find that there were lots of non-destructive editing features in it like layer glows and things. In almost every implemented feature, you have a lot more tools than Photoshop.
The article really understates the bugs though. The program is so unbelievably buggy at the moment, it's very close to unusable. However, I trust Pavel will be able to iron out the bugs by the time it hits 1.0.
ALSO: I don't think it's a team. I am led to believe that Pixel is developed exclusively by Pavel Kanzelsberger alone.
@thatsmyaibo
It is planned, though not yet implemented in a fully working way to import/export Photoshop files and even use Photoshop plugins and filters.
Pavel is extremely ambitious about his project. - bigtomrodney, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It sucks, but some people need others to make their mind up for them. This is why chart music sells.
- thescimitar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I definitely have to concur, even if not for develop-a-phobia reasons. Anyone who works in prepress, or photographers that do seperations for their prints (I'm in the latter), will immediately know why PS commands the professional market it does. It's not just a matter of "flash-and-dash" and UI, it's also critically important to be able to manage color with relative ease, especially for prepress.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 123 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is