Photogenics To Be Released For Linux 182
Frank Brockway writes "Photogenics, on of the best paint/image manipulation programs for the Amiga, will be available soon for Linux. Not much details as to which disto/cpu it works under, but this is definently a commericial program. The programmer, Paul Nolan, originally wrote this program in 1993 as a young teenager, and at the time, it was one of the best pixel pushers on any platform. Looks like The Gimp has some serious competition now. "
Quit using those formats (Score:1)
Re:Vector Graphics (Score:1)
I'd rate it at about the corel 3-4 stage, although it has some nifty features that I've wanted for Corel for a long time
Re:Corel Draw (Score:1)
I dont actually use CorelDRAW in windows, but I accept that my favourite app, CorelXARA will probably never make it to Linux
If you dont mind running windows, CorelXARA (aka Xara Studio) is really nice, see Xara.co.uk [xara.co.uk] for a feature list etc.
Vector Graphics (Score:3)
Re:Let me guess (Score:1)
I wonder what other features of ours they will steal next? ;)
Re:Competition? (Score:1)
These days I only need Windows for 1.5 really big reasons: Graphics and Games. I can now adays run Unreal Tournament and Quake 3A under Linux, so my FPS needs are taken care of (but see, we still need games like HomeWorld for Linux. FPS isn't everything) and I think in the next year it'll get to the point where I'll only have one really big reason I have to keep a Windows box around: Graphics.
Quite simply I need either the following tools or tools on their level to available on Linux before I can stop using MS Windows: Adobe PhotoShop, Adobe Indesign, Adobe Ilustrator, the Kai's Tools, 3D Studio Max, Poser, Bryce, and any of the random neato new entries in the drawing/design/photo/3D fields that get pumped out for Windows every month.
Looking at that list I see Adobe is weighing in heavily. They used to have PageMaker and PhotoShop for SunOS and other Unices. Maybe its time we let them know there would be paying customers that would rather use Linux than Windows or MacOS. (But that would mean we'd actually be willing to pay instead piss and moan about being charged for the best software in the industry.) Hmmmmm.
Re:The biggest hurdle (Score:1)
$99 seems an OK price to me. It's not cheap, but it's not a price that one looks at and goes "Yikes, I can't afford that!"
Re:Oh no, not another free or die argument (Score:1)
Except that money isn't good for motivating someone to do quality work. Money and quality don't correlate too well. Is there free stuff of high-quality? Yes: Linux, the *BSDs, Apache, the GNU versions of the Unix utilities, TeX. Are there commercial products of mediocre or lower quality? Yes:Microsoft Word (screwed up centering of figures, applied a character to text without asking me or allowing me to revoke it), Applixware 4.3.7, (the import of an Applix Spreadsheet into Applix Words simply failed), Corel WordPerfect 7 suite under Windows 3.1 (screwed up the import of graphics from Quattro Pro into WordPerfect).
"It has no, "DO THIS FEATURE" in 3months or die attitude. "
Actually, that attitude tends to both bloat software and reduce its quality. If you try to stuff 6 months or more of work into three months, you generally get slipshod work in which corners had to be cut to make deadline. Look at Fred Brooks's "The Mythical Man-Month". It talks extensively about this subject.
How quickly we forget (Score:3)
Some people feel that Linux is gaining popularity not because of its Freeness, but because of hype.
Others, who have adopted Linux because of its Freeness, have apparently forgotten why proprietary software is bad. That's not to say that it should never be used; it's simply to be avoided when possible and practical.
Remember these bad things about proprietary operating systems:
- The user is at the mercy of the vendor for bug fixes
- The user is at the mercy of the vendor for continued development
- The user is at the mercy of the vendor for support
- The user cannot use the software however he/she wishes; he/she must use it within the confines of the EULA
- The user cannot share the software with others
Well, these all apply to individual programs as well as operating systems, folks.So, the question isn't whether one should use proprietary software on a Free operarting system when it is most practical (i.e., if there were a proprietary Quicken for Linux, and one needed online banking functionality). The question is whether one should use proprietary software when a perfectly good Free alternative exists.
For me, the answer is no. I may not agree with RMS on everything, but I do think he's right about the direction we should be moving. And I'm never going to move back in the direction of proprietary software.
For a refresher: http://www.gnu.org/ [gnu.org]
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
Re:Looks good... (Score:2)
You know, I don't know of any carpenters who only use a chisel and no other tools. So why just use one computer tool? If Photogenics does something that Photoshop doesn't do, use it, and then use Photoshop for what it does well.
You do run in to the problem, of course, that unlike carpentry tools which all leave the wood as wood, computer tools output their own special "wood" -- different file formats. But I think
Re:How quickly we regurgitate (Score:2)
And if he gets hit by a bus tomorrow? (john Carmack talks about putting his life on the line when driving his F-50, one tire flaw at the wrong time and we might never have had Quake.) Of course, I hope Mr. Nolan lives a long and healthy life. But the only way the GIMP could die is if people lose interest in improving it.
This goes to the heart of why Photogenics isn't competition for the GIMP, although the reverse may be true. The GIMP doesn't need a huge pool of uses to keep going. The only thing the GIMP is competing for is developer mindshare, and Photogenics isn't likely to affect this.
Re:How quickly we regurgitate (Score:2)
Photoshop is looking for customers to continue, while the GIMP needs developers. The two sets overlap slightly, but not much. And the GIMP's required number of developers is much, much smaller.
Also, just having customers may not be enough -- look what happened to OS/2, for example.
Re:Looks good... (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I own more than one chisel...
Re:Competition? (Score:3)
There are plenty of people out there -- like me -- who would migrate to Linux in the blink of an eye if they could get all the necessary software, even if it is commercial. I need Photoshop (no, Gimp does not cut it), I need CorelDraw (the only version available for Unix is an antique v3.5), and I need something that reads and writes MS Word and Excel well. Until these materialize (and I expect it's only a matter of time), I'm stuck on NT.
There is no point to switching to GNU/Linux 'just because'. There are a bunch of good reasons to use GNU/Linux (or one of the other very good free OSs), like efficiency, stability or configurability (to name a few). You will either choose one of those OSs or you won't. But the real reason to use a free OS is freedom, which you don't seem to get (e.g., you want an MS Word reader).
Consider this. Your life's work (Word files, Excel files, Photoshop art, et c.) hangs on the thin thread of a vendor's whim. What if Corel goes out of business? What if MS decides to change the Word format, again, to force you to upgrade at a cost of $400? What if Adobe stops supporting your platform of choice (any lonely Irix users out there?)? You get the idea.
This is why some people don't want commercial software on otherwise free systems: they draw users and developer interest away from free solutions, and the network effect then locks out users of free applications ('Please send your resume in Word format.'). As everyone knows, the OS doesn't matter -- the applications do. Free applications are even more important than free kernels. This is what really matters, and userland is where the fight for software freedom is taking place.
More important than migrating to GNU/Linux is that you spend the 2 hours it takes to get the basics of (La)TeX down. (Try LyX, it's a WYSIWYG interface to LaTeX and very nice.) Ditching Word is more important than ditching NT.
Re:Competition? (Score:1)
I'm curious, specifically what do you need from PhotoShop that The Gimp doesn't do?
A more recent version of CorelDraw that runs under Linux should be released, but I wouldn't be too surprised if CorelDraw for Windows ran under Wine.
WordPerfect 8 and StarOffice are both free for non-commercial use, and do a pretty good job. I like WordPerfect better from a resource utilization standpoint, but StarOffice does a good job of replacing the Office suite of programs.
I wouldn't mind seeing more commercial programs for Linux, it's just more incentive for the free people to write free replacements, and the non-free people to switch to Linux.
I'd love it if The Gimp incorporated some of the functionality of Fractal Image Painter, which it looks like this Amiga program does. Maybe that's why it's $99...
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Re:the point (Score:1)
I'll grant that GIMP has weaknesses, lack of CMYK pretty much locks it out of publishing. If you're doing web graphics or dealing strictly with online stuff I have yet to hear a good reason why GIMP doesn't cut it other than the parochial "it's not from Adobe" line and if you're thinking that way then Linux isn't really for you in the first place, is it?
Please list the gimp short commings other than a brand name. So far you've said that Kai's plugin's aren't there.
Re:Oh no, not another free or die argument (Score:1)
Re: Comptetion --- Open Source Bigotry (Score:1)
Why do you want to muddle the distinction between Free and gratis like you do in the last paragraph?
"Open source" got nothing to do with price and still you are attacking "open-source bigotry" using price as an argument. Red herring.
Re: Comptetion --- Open Source Bigotry (Score:1)
Are you saying Linus Torvalds and/or ESR are bought? Is there a conspiracy you know and we should know about?
Lets have some facts or at least an explanation.
Re:GNU/Linux (Score:1)
Re:How quickly we forget (Score:1)
I wonder if Photoshop would even exist if you didn't pay for it (assuming that you did).
Re:How quickly we forget (Score:1)
Re:It's non-free, therefore it sucks ... (Score:1)
I don't care if it has yet another toolkit or set of protocols. I just want that the program works.
Okay, it's a bit confusing to use Yet Another New Toolkit. But it's just a matter of getting used to it, anyway. Take Blender's user interface - granted, it might have been cool and the executable smaller if it had used GTK+, but since it works, I don't care that it uses toolkit that's not used elsewhere.
I would, however, have flinched if they had said the program uses Athena widgets. But even then, I would have used the program. =)
Discriminating programs based on the widget set is just silly.
And what comes to Drag'n'drop, I'm sure they haven't come up with something silly like things that are completely incompatible with the status quo.
**bong** argumentum ad hominem. And our next contestant...
Looks promising... (Score:2)
BTW, when DeluxePaint will be ported to Linux? The local former Amiga users seem to really want that ported. =) I, too, have hard time 'cuz DeluxePaint 5 doesn't always run properly in UAE...
Re: Comptetition --- Open Source Bigotry (Score:1)
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Why photogenics over gimp/photoshop etc? (Score:2)
At $99, I'd certainly consider buying Photogenics if it gave me enough over and above what I've already got. The feature list looks good, but not enough to make me rush out and buy it... or am I missing something?
It's non-free, therefore it sucks ... (Score:1)
Also, did you notice the guy who took the screenshot was doing everything as root ?
Sam.
Re:the point (Score:1)
Re:Vector Graphics (Score:1)
Gill (GNOME Illustrator) [levien.com] is a vector drawing program currently in development, which will use the new standard for vector graphics on the web, SVG.
Re:methinks a Be port is in order (Score:1)
Re:the point (Score:1)
Tig
(yes. this was a joke.)
Re:the point (Score:1)
Tig
Unlikely (Score:1)
The Gimp is unlikely to face serious competition from this software. Open Source, free software trumps $99 proprietary software any day. Let's face it, how many of us are willing to shell out $99 for whatever difference exists between this and the Gimp? The only people who might consider this worthwhile are graphics professionals, and if they're willing to spend that kind of money, they've already bought PhotoShop, thank you very much. Pshop might not run under Linux, but the ability to work in Linux isn't worth that much, esp. to someone doing something so OS-independent as graphics.
Besides, give the Gimp another major version number or two, and a slightly bigger Script-fu development community, and it'll outdistance Pshop, Photogenics, or any proprietary software, and be the best choice on grounds of both price and quality. Anyone excited about Photogenics for Linux is backing the wrong horse. The most worthwhile thing about this is the fact that it will give the Gimp designers another source of inspiration (besides Pshop).
Re:Unlikely (Score:1)
I will concede your point: I have not seen or used Photogenics. Undoubtedly it is an innovative piece of software, and well worth that $99 for some people. You've convinced me that it may find a market in the graphics world, and I retract the claim that people who own Photoshop have no reason to buy Photogenics. My main point, however, has nothing to do with its quality as software.
I did not mean to suggest that Photoshop has nothing to fear from Photogenics. In absence of any knowledge of Photogenics, it is entirely possible that it is capable of outdoing PShop and becoming the premiere image-manipulating software in its class. There are, as you say, an appreciable number of people for whom a good piece of graphics software is worth $100. You are right, not all of them are graphics professionals.
However, there are an awfully large number of people for whom $99 is a lot to spend on graphics software, regardless of how good it is, and not all of them are impoverished college kids. Everybody who maintains a web page or two as a side concern, every hacker who has a page for her latest OSS project, needs a few graphics to liven things up. And, impoverished or not, for those people (like me) $99 is a lot to spend on those graphics, especially when nearly the same quality can be gotten from the Gimp for free, with only a little more investment of effort. Take a look at all the "graphics by Gimp" pages around the web and you'll see what I mean. Furthermore, all the hackers with an itch to scratch and a hankering to work in graphics software will be working on the Gimp, since the other contenders are closed-source. For these reasons, the Gimp has nothing to fear in terms of mindshare from Photogenics, no matter how good it is. (I say 'mindshare' because 'market share' is, of course, a meaningless term as far as free software is concerned)
Re:Would this replace ACDSee??? (Score:1)
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Re:the point (Score:1)
Re:Competition? (Score:1)
Wine has two sides, the set of win32 libs,
"wine is not an emulator", and the win32 executable loader/executor. Wine is both not an emulator AND a WINdows Emulator. If you use wine to run solitaire, it certainly doesn't magically become a native app, but it does run.
Re:methinks a Be port is in order (Score:2)
For graphics stuff, BeOS just feels better than anything, Linux or Windows or even Mac, aside.
D
----
Let's not be too hard on this guy (Score:2)
Before we flame him for not being open source, I think we should give the product a chance to prove itself. It sounds to me like it's shaping up to be a modest success, maybe more than that if it gets some buzz.
I like open source too, but I hate the level of hostility I see on the subject. Paul Nolan is a real person, with real feelings, and since he has worked very hard to create a good product, I think he deserves some respect.
As I said in another thread (replying to someone who felt the same way), I think he should port to BeOS as well. Be users seem to be used to paying for software, and don't seem to have the ideological baggage of many Linux folks.
D
----
Re: Second problem (Score:2)
That cuts both ways - for example, if nobody moderated quickly we'd all have to put up with a lot more "first post" type comments. The idea is quick, accurate moderation, not based on personal beliefs but based on objective assessment of quality.
I think Rob should consider preventing moderation on a new topic for the first thirty minutes or an hour. This allows content to filter in before the moderators jump the gun.
Please no! That would mean I (for one) would have to wait 30 minutes before reading the comments so I wouldn't have to wade through all the unmoderated posts.
Slashdot is getting badly broken lately.
If Slashdot is so badly broken, then why am I getting so much useful stuff from it every day?
BTW, someone should moderate your post up, if only for the interesting church & science analogy.
Re:Oh no, not another free or die argument (Score:1)
Re:Oh no, not another free or die argument (Score:1)
Each of your arguments are beside the point. It's the needs of the consumer that will drive the success or failure of a software application, whether it's free or not. There's no end to the kinds of things people want to be able to do, and each successive upgrade generates more ideas, and more ways to make the software do more than it did previously. So, to some extent, consumers are driving the poor quality of commercial software. Commercial developers are simply responding to what consumers want, and to some extent, what they're willing to put up with.
Does this mean that buggy software should be the accepted norm? No. But consumers have to make a choice...that can have what they want *now*, under the premise that it will be reasonably functional (but not bug free), or they can wait just to the left of forever until every possible hardware/software configuration has been tested, and it has been determined that the application is 100% bulletproof. Of course, by then, it will be obsolete anyway.
I'm willing to bet that the majority of consumers would rather pay $99, $129, or whatever for the next upgrade to their proprietary software, so that they can have the newest features *now*, rather than wait for the same feature to amble its way into a free software package - IF it even gets there.
Re:You're absolutely right (Score:1)
Yeah, baby! (Score:2)
(Ohmigosh, that last sentence sounds like such marketing drivel.)
You can make all the philosophical arguements you want, but when I take a look at the fact that Photogenics might be coming to my Linux box, I'm damned excited. Two of my computers running Photogenics instead of just one? Sweeeeeeet.
Re:Irrelevance:The biggest hurdle (Score:1)
Re: You don't understand (Score:1)
I am not saying it won't sell, but it is hardly competition unless it is free. Remember, almost everybody will take something free of lower quality over something expensive (at least to most) of higher quality.
Yes, Virginia, competition (Score:1)
Most people do define competition in terms of functionality, not by license terms. Besides, I think you're being awfully petty by complaining about Hemos's use of the word competition just because this software isn't an option for you. I myself don't use page layout software, but that doesn't mean that I pretend that there isn't competition between Quark and Adobe.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
The biggest hurdle (Score:2)
Taking a look at his site, I'm pretty impressed with the work Paul Nolan's done with this, but I'm a bit skeptical that many Linux users will shell out $99 for this software -- that's the price for the Amiga version, anyway.
It looks like he's designed it to be pretty portable, so hopefully he won't be sinking too many resources into supporting any one platform, and hopefully it will help him to further expand the number of platforms as time goes by. Whatever the case, well done and best of luck to him and other entrepreneurs of his ilk.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
From the horses mouth... (Score:1)
One day, I sat at home and began working with the gimp. If I could not code (yet), I could come up with a reasonable wishlist-- features that would make the gimp more attractive to those of us who do graphics production work all day. I could find nothing. The only complaint I could muster is that you have to declare all your keyboard shortcuts, instead of having a set of shortcuts to work from. Furthermore, I checked out the feature list and noticed that the gimp will be supporting some powerful features like the image hose from Fractal Design Painter. And on top of that, the gimp is certainly a zillion times more scriptable that photoshop. (yeah yeah, actions and paths, but have you ever heard of using photoshop to dynamically generate web graphics?)
Basically, INHO the gimp is as good as photoshop, with 10 times the potential. Just look at photoshop 5.5's hacked together mesh of image ready + photoshop, and you can tell that Adobe is having trouble with Photoshop's architecture.
So don't be dissing the gimp-- it's better than you think. Of course, it could use prettier file widgets...
Also, re: photogenics:
It may have some powerful layer channel operations, it seems (an alpha channel per channel, though that gets to be a mouthful..) I'd have to use it to sort out the real features from the screenfilling PR (a BLUR function! ooooo!)
But I still think development on the open source gimp can move at a much faster rate than any proprietary software. It's not just the plugin architecture, its the architecture + the GPL which is responsible for the growth of the GIMP
methinks a Be port is in order (Score:2)
After all, it is billed as the Media OS, and considered very good for working with digital media...
...if only some APPLICATIONS would get written for it...
--
grappler
Re:Unlikely (Score:2)
Well, I shelled out the bucks, and without hesitation. There's plenty of Gimp/Photoshop like programs, but I haven't ever seen anything else resembling Photogenics.
That is just plain wrong, unsubstantiated, and fabricated. I am not a graphics professional by any stretch of the imagination, but I still need/want to edit or create an image (for whatever reason) from time to time, and spending $100 on a good app for that just isn't a big deal. Maybe for college kids who depend on Free Beer, that's a lot of money. But in the real world, spending a hundred bucks here and there on good software isn't a problem.
Even if you already have Photoshop, that doesn't mean Phootgenics is worthless to you. I suspect that you have never used this program, or you would see that Photoshop is not a superset of Photogenics. There is a significant difference between the user interfaces of Photoshop (including all its attempted clones, like Gimp) and Photogenics. Paul Nolan has come up with something rather ingenious, and I recommend that you be careful about making claims regarding it, until after you've seen it.
Perhaps; that does indeed sound feasible, although whether the people doing Gimp (not the scripts, they are irrelevant) decide to go in that direction, remains to be seen. Maybe in a few years, Gimp and Photoshop will catch up. But until then, if you want a good image manipulation program instead of vaporous promises about how cool the next version of Gimp will be, then Photogenics is worthy of your attention.
---
Re:Ng looks interesting (Score:1)
You've definitely got something there. Granted, GTK+ may be much farther along (nevermind the C++ Qt), but it doesn't aim for the same level of portability. Not to mention its syntax is (*ahem*) a bit on the heavy side. If Ng's portability can be extended to BeOS and Win32 (putting it on par with the previously mentioned C++ toolkits), and the syntax is more elegant than GTK+'s, it may very well be capable of a life of its own.
Even if you don't open the source to PG, it can't hurt to place Ng under LGPL. If it's really good, it'll take off. If not, well... should you ever release another Ng app, the binaries won't have to be statically compiled
Ng looks interesting (Score:2)
Internally, Photogenics is based on
my Ng user interface toolkit, and avoids calling any OS specific
functions. Ng itself sits on top of a small OS abstraction layer, which
either maps directly to AmigaOS functions, or uses Posix for thread
related functions, and Xlib for display. With this abstraction layer in
place, Photogenics will soon become platform agnostic. With 99.9% of
the Photogenics source code remaining unchanged across ports, no
platform will get left behind when it comes to new versions. An Amiga
NG version should not be a problem, and QNX aficionados will be
pleased to know that Photogenics will port over with only trivial
changes
'Course, if this is a C++ show, it won't be anything new (cf. FOX, wxWindows et. al.) Still, that level of portability gives me goosebumps }:-)
Immoral, illegal or fattening (Score:1)
Illogical morals, stupid laws and inadequate biochemistry.
Re:the point (Score:1)
Photoshop on IRIX, even though it is one or two versions out of date now, is quite stable and much more powerful than the GIMP, imho.
Re:Competition? (Score:1)
Re:The biggest hurdle (Score:1)
Gee, I spend more on operating systems that
'look cool' and flashy 3D-games each month! A
graphical tool like that, though, is something I
(and quite a few friends) need.
The bang-for-bucks ratio is excellent
(I though this was sort of expensive back when I
had an Amiga - but was a student then
Re:methinks a Be port is in order (Score:1)
I get me another harddrive - I'd like to see
Photogenics ported to both, of course, but would
I then have to buy two licenses? Or would it be
possible to get a license to use many versions of
it on one computer?
Re:Ng looks interesting (Score:1)
I would definitely have use for parts of it.
Maybe it could be used in an unholy union with SDL?
Oh no, not another free or die argument (Score:3)
The fact of the matter is that people who cannot or will not alter the free source of a program to make it do what they want are the people who will pay to get what they want. In other words, you get what you pay for it sometimes. If you pay for it then you may get what you want, though it is not a guarantee. If not then you don't buy the next one and you tell all your friends to stay away from it and the author goes out of business. Who goes out of business when free software goes bad? No one. That is probably why many folks simply try to shame the free author out of writing software. Face it, it doesn't matter how great the plaform is (beta max) nor how cool the OS is (Amiga) nor how better designed it is (G3/4) now how convienent (Palm OS over CE). Linux needs some forms of legitimacy and good software that is well supported and can be pruchased on a shelf at Best Buy will always help.
Linux has taken off because of good PR, not because of it's abilities. It has also gotten a boost from the anti-trust case. It has also gotten attention because of the anti-MS sentiment many have. And it has gotten attention because it is a decent OS that will only get better. Please remember this. We need both. If Photogenics cannot compete against the GIMP then it is because the GIMP is better AND free, not because the GIMP is just free.
intersesting (Score:1)
Of course since there are pros and cons with both photogenics and gimp, so I might use them both.
Re:interesting (Score:1)
sorry about the typo
Re:Would this replace ACDSee??? (Score:1)
An not to mention the coder writing the assembly!
the point (Score:4)
i've noticed a fair number of posts before me that are praising the gimp so much more over commercial software simply because it's free and you have the source code.
sorry, guys, just because you have the source code, you got it for free, and it IS a decent program, doesn't mean it can so easily replace a lot of comercial programs.
don't get me wrong, gimp is cool, i like it, it's got some fun stuff, but it's got quite a ways to go until it gets to the level of Photoshop, PaintShopPro, and it looks like even this Photogenics (though i admit i havn't used photogenics).
if nothing else, the plugins available for the other programs make them worthwhile. when i see metacreations [metacreations.com] putting out kia's power tools for the gimp, then i'll be impressed.
point is, these comercial apps do have something that gimp and some other linux apps don't: they are industry standards. as such, they have the add-ons and portability that simply aren't found in many linux apps.
until the day comes when the adobe suite is ported to linux, the metacreations products get ported, and several other high quality graphic apps get ported, i'm still going to need a windows or mac around. at this point, if i want a server, i set up linux. if i want to do graphics, sound production, and a few other things, i'll take mac or win. i may not like it, but it's what i have to do.
----------------
"All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening."
gimp (Score:1)
trying to make a statement perhaps?
Re:guess this is a good thing (Score:1)
Re:How quickly we regurgitate (Score:1)
> The user is at the mercy of the vendor for bug fixes
> The user is at the mercy of the vendor for continued development
> The user is at the mercy of the vendor for support
> The user cannot use the software however he/she wishes; he/she must use it within the confines of the EULA
> The user cannot share the software with others
> Well, these all apply to individual programs as well as operating systems, folks.
You can cite real cases that prove and disprove these points, but this is about Photogenics, so lets talk about it. Considering it was started a long time ago and he still continues to work on it means that the man LOVES his work. This trait is very appealing in a software developer, and most likely means that he will be happy to appease the requests of his users. So frankly, saying that he keeps his users at his mercy is somewhat offensive. He's just a guy doing what he loves and would like a bit of compensation for his lifes work.
And at the end of the day its really just another option, and another way you can exercise your freedom of choice.
Re:Corel Draw (Score:1)
Corel draw would be a wonderful program if it was more stable, but in it's current state it's very unusable. Anyone have suggestions for a more stable vector based drawing program?
Re: stuck with NT? what's the problem? ;) (Score:1)
frankly, there's no problem with that. I for one don't want a linux world domination. People who use proprietary software aren't forced to move to linux at all and that's fine as it is.
Re:Would this replace ACDSee??? (Score:1)
It's in beta still, but it's very functional. It does crash occasionally, but hopefully they'll fix those kind of things soon. And it's free for use on Linux, with the addendum of 'buy me' banners popping up when you use gif's after the trial period is over. This is because of unisys issues.
All in all a nice program.
Re:Vector Graphics (Score:2)
It runs pretty smoothly, and it's quite powerful for everyday's needs.
Re:Competition? (Score:1)
WordPerfect 8: still unsurpassed (IMHO). No problems for MS->WP (at least for me); I can't say nothing for the contrary, WP->MS. (I am enough lucky.)
NExS and Xess spreadsheets: unsurpassed (IMHO); maybe gnumeric is nearing them
And: WordPerfect 8, NExS and Xess work nicely even with FreeBSD's Linux-emulation (my case, still; most best applications are for GNU/Linux: what I am making? Paris-Madrid via Zanzibar?
StarOffice: probably honest --if you like things a' la Swiss Army knive (not my case); StarOffice: for my taste is too much bloated: I also would use only a few items only out of too many
I don't know for the rest. Perhaps these URLs may help:
http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/linapps.shtml
http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/spreadsheets.html
Re:the point (Score:1)
If you haven't worked in "Lab Color" mode then you won't understand. Take an ugly washed out image, open it in LAB mode, tighten up your levels some and then start experimenting with curves. Just a gentle nudge somewhere along the A or B curve can bring many photos to life, especially nature scenes.
LAB also kicks ass for image sharpening. In RGB you can only sharpen an image a certain amount before the colors "pop" and the image becomes ugly. To sharpen in LAB select the Lightness Channel only (while viewing in LAB) & work on that with the Unsharp Mask. You can sharpen to your hearts content without popping colors this way. After sharpening the L channel you may want to blur the other two slightly. There, doesn't that look nice now?
Granted the GIMP is a wonderful thing, but It needs LAB capabilities before it will make me leave Photoshop.
Re:A good start.. (Score:1)
Anyway.. Will PhotoGenics on Linux have support for tablets (digitizers)?
Re:Oh no, not another free or die argument (Score:1)
2. The "normal menu system" of which you speak doesn't fit Gimp's way of working. Something like it MAY be an option in a later Gimp, but I for one won't be using it.
There's just no space on a 200x300 image to have a menu with 10 headings in it.
So that means either the menu shrinks/ is truncated, or it floats separately. That gets you MDI, which is probably the worst thing Microsoft ever gave the GUI.
KDE folks floated this when they proposed a Qt2.0-based Gimp. As expected they spent a week or so slagging of Gimp, then started a project (now dead) called KImageShop to prove us wrong. What a waste of everyone's time
PS No offense to KDE developers actually _developing_ something, it's the vapourware KImageShop people who annoyed me.
Looks good... (Score:1)
But my almost 6 years of Photoshop experience is something I can't throw out unless there's a very compelling reason to do so.
Unlike Microsoft, I'm comfortable with Adobe's monopoly (Pshop, Illustrator, AfterEffects, Premiere) because their products are stable, even under WFW 3.11 and System 7 (circa. 1994). Unlike Microsoft.
For someone new to design and graphics, having a choice of tools is a Good Thing. And competition raises the bar for everyone involved in software development.
But Photogenics would have to have a conceptual advantage; playing catch-up is not good enough.
In a production environment, stability, speed, and ease-of-use are paramount. A mature product like Photoshop also has an extensive user base, a necessary asset for a complex product (cf. comp.graphics.photoshop). RTFM sometimes only gets you so far.
k.
Re:Looks good... (Score:1)
True, but we're discussing bitmap editors here, not the whole box of tools (e.g., vector, 3d, video editing, page layout, batch conversion, etc.). Chisels only, in other words.
k.
Re:Looks good... (Score:1)
Hey, so do I! But like me, you must have a favorite chisel, the one all-around chisel that fits your hand well and always keeps an edge.
We're stretching this toolbox metaphor rather thin. Here's a new one: Photoshop is Larry Bird circa 1986. Can Photogenics be Dominique Wilkins? Furthermore, who is coding the next Michael Jordan of bitmap editors/chisels?
k.
Re:Competition? (Score:2)
Re:Would this replace ACDSee??? (Score:1)
Re: You don't understand (Score:1)
no.
Someone who wants to get a job done, and done well, will use the BEST tool that they can afford.
Price may affect the decision a little, there would probably have to be a more signficant difference in quality between a free solution, and a proprietry one, than between two solutions of simmilar cost, but it is still wrong to say that just because something is free, that someone will not pay for a better product.
At the end of the day...most people just want to do what they want to do...software, and operating systems are just a means to an end, and if someone is serious about a piece of work, they will use the means that produces the best end.
Gimps not the only thing with competition (Score:1)
Re:Unlikely (Score:1)
> number or two, and a slightly bigger Script-fu
> development community, and it'll outdistance
> Pshop, Photogenics, or any proprietary software,
I strongly doubt that. A good pain package is not just about scripts or features. Not by a long shot. Good user interfaces are pretty much essential.
And there GIMP falls down really really badly. Its UI is inconsistant and illogical (and has been for some time). No amount of scripts will fix that.
The latest version of Photogenics, incidentally, has a distinctive and by all accounts very effective UI.
Re:The biggest hurdle (Score:1)
If Linux really wants to get into the mainstream, as its supporters often say then this is a small price to pay.
I'd point out that even if Paul had gone open source, in order to earn a living he'd have to charge some sort of support fee anyway.
Life isn't free.
Re:DPaint port? (Score:1)
Good ol' DPaint is an excellent program for fine pixel-level image editing (e.g. when creating pixel-perfect icons, animated 2D game characters etc. with a restricted palette). It would be very nice to have one real old-skool paint program amongst all these dumb-ass scanned image manipulators. Creating images by cutting and pasting scanned photographs and applying some filters to them does not IMHO require much talent. Hand-painting them pixel by pixel with a mouse when you only have some 32 colors available does.
Deluxe Paint was originally created by Daniel Silva and published by Electronic Arts [ea.com]. There was also an MS-DOS version available, but it was not a 1:1 port (there were some functional differences and for some reason, the integrated animator was released as a separate application called "Deluxe Animator"). A real DPaint port is unlikely to ever happen unless someone can persuade EOA to release the source. Well, who knows - it might just be possible, as nowadays EÓA only develops games... Maybe somebody should ask them?
Sorry, but GIMP is good. (Score:1)
And there ARE some add ons and such for the Gimp, and better yet, if one you want doesn't exist, you CAN make it yourself, and send it around to people who may be interested in helping you make it better.
And even if Photoshop is a little better by itself, remember that you'll be running it over a Crappy OS [microsoft.com] that is very likely to crash, especially when you're using a lot of memory (which is the case when you're doing image manipulation).
But in the respect of Photogenics, I'm not going to bash it for not being open source. Sure, I'd love it if the code was released, but it could be good to have an alternate to the GIMP, especially in the form of a new version of some great Amiga software.
Re:Let me guess (Score:1)
Of course I've used Photoshop. Photoshop is easier to use than the GIMP, but that's actually about it. The GIMP can support a lot of things that Photoshop can do, if you are willing to take the time to learn them. Which of course, anyone who is named "Anonymous Coward" is probably isn't willing, since they aren't even willing to take the time to create a login for /. Anyway, most good artists I know (I do actually know some) don't overuse the many filters of Photoshop. To them, it doesn't really matter what they use, PS is just the "industry standard."
And the software is still half of the battle, when it is running over a crappy OS. Even if Photoshop is twice as good (which, IMO, it is not), I'm not going to boot Winblows just to use it. If Adobe wants to port Photoshop to Linux, I'm all for it, even if it isn't free.
Re: Comptetion --- Open Source Bigotry (Score:3)
Are you exclusively using GNU/Linux because you hate Microsoft or you covet its power, or are you exclusively using it because for more idealistic reasons? If so, Photogenics is not competition, regardless if it *was* better than Photoshop. If I want proprietary software, I'll be happy to use a proprietary operating system.
This sort of open-source bigotry drives me crazy. "This sucks, it isn't free," seems to be a way to common attitude. How about, whoa... $99 bucks... that's peanuts compared to some other Image Manipulation suites. Add that to the $0 cost of my OS and it's a real bargain...
Re:Competition? (Score:1)
I don't see any problem with this. StarOffice allows you to "transparently import and export Word/Excel documents," and "is more compatible with Microsoft Office than any other Office suite." Each of those quotes came from Sun's StarOffice FAQ.
As for those who don't care to use anything else, I know how you feel; I deal with them every day.
--
A good start.. (Score:1)
Why not... (Score:1)
Re:Vector Graphics (Score:1)
Competition? (Score:1)
But Photogenics is no more competition to Photoshop than the Gimp is. So why should Photogenics, just another proprietary program, be competition to the Gimp, unless you are loath to use another operating system? Are you exclusively using GNU/Linux because you hate Microsoft or you covet its power, or are you exclusively using it because for more idealistic reasons? If so, Photogenics is not competition, regardless if it *was* better than Photoshop. If I want proprietary software, I'll be happy to use a proprietary operating system.
I don't give a rip if FooSoft port FooWare Pro to GNU/Linux---if they don't share the source.
Whoops... where did I leave my asbestos underwear? (Score:1)
I didn't mean (despite my opinionated closing line, I think it was a valid opinion to express) start a flame war or attack Photogenic's licensing scheme, nor did I intend to insult Frank Brockway. All I meant was:
- Photogenics is not competition on par with Photoshop (I've never heard of it before, and I think it's safe to say that Adobe's radar people aren't too concerned)
- Photogenics is not competition on par with the Gimp, because the Gimp's attraction is that it is free software/open-source software (there, a painful attempt to use ecumenical nomenclature).
I realize that the idea is that it is now probably the only other image-manipulation program of this level of sophistication for Linux, however, I do not see it as competing with the Gimp. At least, the competition would/should be rather one-way.Thank you.
Re:Competition? (Score:2)
Of course not. Howeber, I do have plenty of reasons for switching over to GNU/Linux -- you listed quite a few of them -- but, because of those missing critical apps, I can't. Which annoys me. If there were Linux versions (or, better yet, free true equivalents) of Photoshop, CorelDraw and (ha!) Word/Excel, I could migrate and get the advantages of Linux.
In other words, a free OS with some closed software is better than a closed OS with lots of closed software. No?
But the real reason to use a free OS is freedom, which you don't seem to get (e.g., you want an MS Word reader). [...] More important than migrating to GNU/Linux is that you spend the 2 hours it takes to get the basics of (La)TeX down. (Try LyX, it's a WYSIWYG interface to LaTeX and very nice.) Ditching Word is more important than ditching NT.
I've been using LaTeX for over 5 years now. Rest assured, I don't want to use MS Word, the problem is that I need to be able to generate Word documents so others can read and modify them.
Cheers,
-j.
Re:Competition? (Score:4)
You should. There are plenty of people out there -- like me -- who would migrate to Linux in the blink of an eye if they could get all the necessary software, even if it is commercial. I need Photoshop (no, Gimp does not cut it), I need CorelDraw (the only version available for Unix is an antique v3.5), and I need something that reads and writes MS Word and Excel well. Until these materialize (and I expect it's only a matter of time), I'm stuck on NT.
Cheers,
-j.
You're absolutely right (Score:3)
- The user is at the mercy of the vendor for bug fixes
- The user is at the mercy of the vendor for continued development
- The user is at the mercy of the vendor for support
- The user cannot use the software however he/she wishes; he/she must use it within the confines of the EULA
- The user cannot share the software with others
Of course, given my title, I completely agree with your assessment. In the long run users would be far better off sending a $100 donation to the GIMP developers than paying this guy's lunch, no matter how well written is his software. The folks who complain about lacking features they want in GIMP, but who have never donated time or effort themselves, simply don't understand the point -- collective sharing of intellectual property across an open playing field is an inherently stronger model for the creation, distribution and development of new ideas. This is why science, using open data and publication among its peers, has flourished since the enlightenment. If the church had successfully maintained it's monopoly over ideas and content we'd still be driving horse and ox plows... and we'd all believe the Earth is the center of the universe under threat of excommunication and death.Today's intellectual monopolists lack that kind of centralized political power, but it's the same tools, the same goals, and the same short sighted gains which drive these monopolists. Their only weapon against Free Software proponents is communist propaganda... our best weapon is price and intellectual freedom.
To call the free software movement communist is to call the church, or any other non-political organization created for the primary purpose of sharing goods and services collectively, communist as well. Can you imagine the pope called a communist because he redistributed money collected from church donations to the poor? Yeah, that's the logic commercial propagandists would have us believe when it comes to giving away freedom with intellectual property. Don't buy it, write it!
Finally, concerning your lament on the quality of Slashdot moderation lately: I agree completely. I notice you have fairly high karma points, yet you haven't been moderated up at all. I bet this is a new trait... I've noticed many well written posts completely ignored lately while trite childish posts get moderated up to a five simply because they preset popular views. I think this is because Rob Malda has opened up moderation to the large community, and as it turns out, the greater Slashdot community is made up mostly of young men in their late teens and early twenties. These folks don't seem to care much for grammar, diversity, or even much about intellectual content. They do care about k-rad hackers, Mandrake, and "Buffer Overflows," but probably wouldn't understand a top down stack if it hit them over the head.
Second problem: everyone is jumping over themselves to post quickly, and moderate quickly, so that the time taken to write a quality post gets lost in the noise. I think Rob should consider preventing moderation on a new topic for the first thirty minutes or an hour. This allows content to filter in before the moderators jump the gun.
Slashdot is getting badly broken lately.
Xlib
Re:Ng looks interesting (Score:2)
Re:Ng looks interesting (Score:2)
Re:You're absolutely right (Score:2)