Desktop, if that day isn't already here. Mark Warner helped me install
Kubuntu on my machine, and I love it! With that said, I feel that I am forced
to dual boot with Windows XP. The reason is that I *need* Adobe Photoshop.
"Why not Gimp" you may ask. Well have you ever compared gimp with Photoshop?
Gimp has one mildly annoying problem, which isn't too hard to get around and
one show stopper. The mildly annoying problem is that the tool sets can be
a little tricky to use. Aha, you say, but there is Gimpshop. But Gimpshop doesn't
work with Gimp 2.6, only with an older version (2.2 I think). Gimp 2.6 worked fine,
I installed Gimpshop, and then Gimp wouldn't even load: the mini gimp icon went
bounce, bounce, bounce and nothing ever happened. Sure sign of a dependency issue!
So I uninstalled gimpshop, and Gimp 2.6 worked fine again.
But this isn't the show stopper. The show stopper is the fact that Gimp does not support
more than 8bits per channel! I'm sorry but it is precisely this sort of shortcoming that
separates professional photo software from non-professional. If you tell me I can't have
smoother gradients, I'll go somewhere else where I can get the smoother gradients, and
that somewhere is photoshop. If only the Gimp people were as efficient at improving their,
software as the Ubuntu people are, maybe Gimp would be able to support more than 8 bits
per channel by now. And the day that they do, is the day that I blow away windows XP
partition. I don't need to wait for Adobe to jump on the Linux bandwagon, but this presumes,
that the Gimp folks get there act together. Now having gimpshop work with gimp 2.6 or later
would be nice, but as I say it is not a show stopper. Not having more than 8 bits per channel
really is!
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Steven Black <yam655@gmail.com> wrote:
This is really where I have to disagree on principle.
Why do I use Linux?
It isn't because some magical commercial package is available.
It isn't because it has the best hardware support.
I believe that the best open-source software is focused on serving the
user population before it is focused on serving commercial purposes.
(This is a problem I have with GNOME software -- the Human Interface
Guidelines are explicitly about providing disservice to all but the
newest of the user population.)
Hardware and Linux has always been about making sure the hardware is
compatible with the software and not vice-versa. This was the way
things were back in 1995 when I migrated to Linux and while things
have gotten better this remains the way things are. I was pleased that
when I migrated to Linux they had IDE/ATA CD-Rom support as that was
still relatively new when I migrated.
I am an open-source advocate as even when it doesn't focus on the
user-population the way it should (such as GNOME) if there's a great
fuss it can be forked and the new project can focus on the larger
user-population.
I use open-source software because it is superior to commercial
software, regardless of the features of the commercial packages. I use
open-source software because they focus on interoperating with other
applications, and that means interoperating with the favored programs
of people-other-than-me. I use open-source software because when I
decide to change programs for a task, I can be sure that the
file-format will be supported.
Commercial packages may appear to provide more software features, but
what you pay is far more than the $120+ for the download. You can't
send someone usable data files unless they own identical software.
(Usable does *not* mean flattening a multi-layer image!) You can't
change to competing software without risking loss of data. Shoot, you
can't even always use supplementary third-party products without
jumping through hoops using file-formats other than the native
application format that you so long for!
Then again, the whole point of this is that Adobe doesn't *have*
competition. Even though all evidence shows that a monopoly in the
market does *not* produce the best results for the end-user
population. This means they can fracture their product in to a dozen
smaller subprojects and charge you for each with the expected increase
in cost for "bundling" the product. They can do this at any time and
all you can do is pay more for the honor of using their product.
We don't need *any* Adobe product. It should shame the Linux community
that it was Steve Jobs saying they don't need Flash and not the Linux
community. The complaints that Steve Jobs has against Flash make
sense. It is buggy. It kills your browser. It has security holes. It
is closed software. There are open web standards which make it
unneeded.
As for Quickbooks, we need that even less than CS5 as there are
multiple accounting packages for Linux, many of which are designed for
small businesses. These are packages currently being used on a daily
basis by small businesses. (Shoot, there's even free Point-of-Sale
software for Linux!)
Cheers,
Steven Black
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Simón Ruiz <simon.a.ruiz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Mark Warner <mhwarner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David M. Moore wrote:
>>>
>>> Having said that, though, I will say there is one thing that could
>>> happen that could radically change that possibility over a very short
>>> period of time. If Adobe would release a version of CS5 Master
>>> Collection that ran natively on Linux, that could be the first nail in
>>> Windows' coffin. If you look at any poll on the most wanted commercial
>>> application for Linux, what ever the current version of Photoshop and
>>> Premier is when the poll is taken is the winner every time. That could
>>> be a serious game changer.
>>
>> Same for Quickbooks. That would make it a viable alternative in many
>> small businesses.
>
> While Linux uptake will increase because of Quickbooks and CS5, or
> just proprietary vendors in general, I don't think we'll get
> Quickbooks and CS5 until Linux uptake hits some magical money-related
> point where it's stupid for them *not* to support us.
>
> But, frankly, I feel that's almost inevitable.
>
> Simón
>
> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
>
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
No comments:
Post a Comment