Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Funds Work for Photoshop on Linux

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the good-friends-to-have dept.

Google 678

S point 2 writes "Google has announced that they have hired Codeweavers, maker of the popular Wine software to make Photoshop run better on Linux. 'Photoshop is one of those applications that desktop Linux users are constantly clamoring for, and we're happy to say they work pretty well now...We look forward to further improvements in this area.' It is unknown whether or not the entire Creative Suite will be funded for support, but for the time being it seems Photoshop-on-Linux development is getting a new priority under Google."

cancel ×

678 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

We already have Photoshop! (1, Insightful)

Doug52392 (1094585) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492696)

It's called The GIMP! I use that program all the time, it does most of the stuff Photoshop does. First post :)

Re:We already have Photoshop! (3, Insightful)

avandesande (143899) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492740)

It's the things that the GIMP doesn't do that relegates it to toy status.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (5, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492764)

Seems like a good reason to fund Gimp instead. Not that Wine is a project worth funding.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (5, Insightful)

avandesande (143899) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492874)

Perhaps linux will be stronger if it learns to acknowledge the existence proprietary software vs remaining a religious movement.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (5, Insightful)

Curtman (556920) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492930)

Perhaps linux will be stronger if it learns to acknowledge the existence proprietary software vs remaining a religious movement.

Perhaps you missed the point. It is to make proprietary software obsolete.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (3, Funny)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493044)

Which is why many developers will steer clear of it... you pretty much can't make OTS software with that view.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (3, Insightful)

Curtman (556920) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493266)

Which is why many developers will steer clear of it.

Who exactly is it that is supposed to be driven to try and bring them into the herd? Why should I care if John Q Public prefers to write applications for Windows? How does that have any bearing on my preference to write applications targetting Linux?

Sooner or later he's going to realize he's just Bill's bitch on his own.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22493182)

Perhaps you missed the point. It is to make proprietary software obsolete.


I thought the point was to make closed source operating systems obsolete.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (2, Insightful)

Curtman (556920) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493306)

I thought the point was to make closed source operating systems obsolete.

What the hell is the difference? An operating system is a collection of software.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (3, Insightful)

Moonpie Madness (764217) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493274)

That's the point... to you. You aren't in charge. Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with making money by selling Linux apps and proprietary stuff. There is an enormous monopoly in computing, and I would prefer to focus on that.

And yeah, you have to choose. You can't hope to compete against windows if the very best kinds of software really need windows (though Pshop obviously is also on macs). You either go nuts with every bit of information being free, of we give everyone an open set of basically strong tools, and let them buy professional level stuff, games, media, etc if they want it.

Gimp, openoffice, mozilla, ubuntu (or whatever) makes a nice level of stuff, but I need photoshop, I need VIZ, I need Autocad. And for CAD, there are free solutions, but they just aren't going to do. So I use Windows 2000, still the best version for me. I can boot into ubuntu, and would like to be able to use Wine, but we're about to buy Vista instead. How annoying.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (2, Insightful)

Curtman (556920) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493362)

That's the point... to you. You aren't in charge. Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with making money by selling Linux apps and proprietary stuff.

Nobody is in charge. I have no problem with people making money selling Linux and services for Linux (or any other piece of software) either.

My question was: Who is it that is supposed to care what the proprietary world does? The GIMP developers aren't interested in making a Photoshop clone. They enjoy coding their application the way they think it should be coded.

Exactly how is "Linux" supposed to learn to acknowledge proprietary software without emulating it?

Re:We already have Photoshop! (2, Insightful)

Solra Bizna (716281) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493258)

I run Linux on a PowerPC, you insensitive clod! How much good is proprietary software running on WINE going to do ME?!!

-:sigma.SB

Acknowledge or bow to... (3, Insightful)

psherma1 (1082607) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493268)

Linux is not just about having "another" system -- it is about open source, and for several legitimate reasons... though admittedly, sometimes the arguments come off sounding and being carried to the extremes of religious zealotry. But why Google would choose to fund a proprietary piece of software, when funding GEGL would help propel GIMP to the functionality inherent in Photoshop, as well as enable other parties (such as Google) to create offerings utilizing that codebase (GEGL stands for Generic Graphics Library), strikes me as a bit foolish. I think their monies would be better spent on GEGL/GIMP -- but the funding for Photoshop on Linux is still a good thing. But here's to looking a gift horse in the mouth! :)

Re:We already have Photoshop! (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493366)

It's not proprietary software that's the problem here, it's windows software. If Photoshop was open source, it still wouldn't run on Linux without Wine.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (0)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492878)

Good point! I wonder why photoshop- it's really not that excellent, it just has some powerful plugins that should be ported to GIMP instead of unnecessarily porting the entire program. Also I wonder how Adobe's macrovision DRM services are going to be ported to an open operating system?.. I mean, the code would port, but unless they start rolling out free will inhibitors, no project group would EVER allow it into their repos...

Re:We already have Photoshop! (3, Interesting)

avandesande (143899) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493070)

I think the photoshop interface is horrible. If you want to look at a powerful image editing paradigm check out Adobe After Effects. Although a video editing/special effects package it could apply directly to photo/print editing.
The endless levels of composition and the post-rendering are incredibly powerful.

If they built an AE interface on top of the gimp engine we could have a truly special piece of free software.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22493318)

"If they..." What's stopping you?

Re:We already have Photoshop! (5, Insightful)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492942)

Adobe Photoshop is the standard for graphic designers for all intents and purposes. If they can get it to run on Linux then that's a solid reason for new users to consider using Linux. You can be as idealistic as you want about free software but until GIMP becomes as good as Photoshop then professionals won't use it. The only reason I still have Windows installed is because I have CS2 for some school-related projects.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492980)

I hate to respond to my own post but I worded that poorly. I DON NOT consider myself a professional. The last two sentences are not directly related to each other.

Forgive my ignorance... (1)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492938)

But is there a list of these somewhere?

Re:We already have Photoshop! (1)

Yoik (955095) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493138)

I was pretty satisfied by Gimp, but if there is something missing you feel you really need it would probably be easier to get it added to GIMP than added to Photoshop. Even starting from scratch now to learn how to code would be easier than motivating corporate policy, but a donation as big as a license fee in the right place might do the job.

My biggest complaint though, is the extra click to gain focus in a window on a Mac. If I forget about it, I think a control has been activated when it isn't and cause myself momentary confusion. Maybe, someday, I will look more closely at whether that is fixable, or just inevitable with X11.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (5, Insightful)

wall0159 (881759) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493226)

While I don't agree with the GP that the GIMP is a Photoshop replacement, I think you're being pretty harsh. It's a damn powerful piece of software, and the fact that it doesn't do _everything_ does NOT make it a toy.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22493388)

While I don't agree with the GP that the GIMP is a Photoshop replacement, I think you're being pretty harsh. It's a damn powerful piece of software, and the fact that it doesn't do _everything_ does NOT make it a toy.
Yeah, just keep telling yourself that you little linfag. Gimp is a toy. Let me know when it supports layer styles.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (0)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492758)

Which is why I doubt Linux users are exactly "clamoring" for it.

Why doesn't Google aid with some already free software to make it better in this case? Did they make a deal with Adobe now?

Re:We already have Photoshop! (5, Informative)

Cryophallion (1129715) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492794)

For some professionals, there are tools that do not yet exist in gimp that they cannot be without (cmyk, layer grouping, adjustment layers, the list goes on).

However, gimp is good enough for many amateur and some professional uses.

While I like the gimp for what I do, my father who does photo retouching prefers photoshop.

If having photoshop work better(I believe it was bronze on winehq.com a little while back) helps make people make the move to linux, I'm all for it.

While we're at it... how about premiere too? Linux video editing doesn't even have a gimp equiv (kino doesn't give me enough control, cinelerra crashes, kdenlive has a few bugs and not enough effects yet...)

Re:We already have Photoshop! (2, Informative)

BStocknd (762377) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493080)

The Gimp DOES have CMYK support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMP#Color_support [wikipedia.org]

Re:We already have Photoshop! (4, Informative)

StevisF (218566) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493222)

From your link. Yey for reading!

"Note that 'CMYK' colors are immediately translated into RGB when used; GIMP does not have any built-in support CMYK mixtures that cannot be represented in RGB, such as rich blacks, though they can be simulated to a limited extent with third-party add-ons.)"

CMYK is in (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493172)

CMYK plugin has been around for over a year now. It works about as well as Photoshop did in version 6 though.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22493174)

Tell my why you don't just keep using Photoshop on Windows. Keep your proprietary shit off of Linux.

Speaking of opportunistic scum, nothing could prove more conclusively that Google could give a shit about open or free. They are no different than any other money grubbing corporate Wall Street whore. "Do no evil" my ass. Google is just the same old shit dressed up in a new suit. I thought they were different. I was within a hair's breadth of turning off my corporate email servers and turning it over to Google. No f'ing way. What a disappointment Google has become.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22493300)

Damn right, f'n a'holes. May as well fire up the crematoriums the way Google is headed, buncha goose-stepping cock bags. How dare they, ya know?

Don't mind me, just troll baiting. (1)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493340)

It's, " couldn't give a shit" meaning that they value, "open and free[sic]" less than fecal matter. Otherwise you are saying that they value it as much as or more than shit; Which, in most contexts I'm aware of, is saying some value above zero.
Don't see how spending money to offer people the choice of supporting someone you don't agree with is evil, but, it takes all kinds.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (1)

savuporo (658486) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493228)

Regardless of the gadgets that Photoshop has, if you condsider Price/performance ratio of GIMP, its unbeatable.

Im more of a ImageMagick type of guy, myself. Cant beat
#mogrify *.PNG -resize 10%
and simple stuff like that with any mouseweaning.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (4, Insightful)

fotbr (855184) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493276)

Unless, of course, one of those "gadgets" or features that Photoshop has that GIMP is lacking, is needed. Then the price/performance becomes $0/unsuitable, which is very easily beat.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22493280)

Remind me again how you do a ratio of something with 0. On one side, it would essentially mean the ratio represented 0 and on the other side it would essentially be NaN. I have to concur with OP that Gimp has uses but it isn't perfect and there are plenty of people who need the features (and hell the support) that comes with Photoshop.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (4, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492804)

It's called The GIMP! ...which is probably the number one reason so few digital art professionals take it seriously.

I love linux, and advocate for it ad nauseum, but the devs need to do something about the clever-only-to-the-AV-Club names with which they continue to burden their otherwise fine creations.

Re:We already have Photoshop! (5, Insightful)

Khaed (544779) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493252)

As a huge Linux fan and user, I have to agree. The GIMP is just... it's a bad name.

I can tell someone I use Firefox, Ubuntu, OpenOffice, Pidgin -- that, not so bad. I can say I use Gnome or KDE (depends on my mood), or I can tell them I use Pan. But I cannot look at another human being and tell them to use "The GIMP."

Huh? (-1, Flamebait)

Orig_Club_Soda (983823) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492698)

Google is hiring someone to fix and Adobe product? Isn't there some kind of rights infringement here?

Re:Huh? (1)

pyite (140350) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492974)

Google is hiring someone to fix and Adobe product? Isn't there some kind of rights infringement here?

Apparently... you... don't... read.

Re:Huh? (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493032)

Google is hiring someone to fix and Adobe product? Isn't there some kind of rights infringement here?
They are not going to fix Photoshop, but they will enhance Wine so it handles Photoshop better.

Re:Huh? (1)

Khaed (544779) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493046)

Is your reading comprehension that bad? Even if you read the summary, it's pretty clear that they're going to be working on making WINE run photoshop, not actually doing any work with photoshop code.

There's nothing wrong with what they're doing, because they're making one product (WINE) more compatible with another (Photoshop). It would be like Microsoft/Apple including a compatibility layer to help run legacy programs on a new version of Windows/OS X.

Let's get it out of the way... (3, Insightful)

Octos (68453) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492706)

The GIMP sucks! Stop bringing it up in every discussion about Photoshop.

Re:Let's get it out of the way... (2, Insightful)

chilvence (1210312) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492918)

Well done, you have now further guaranteed that the remainder of the discussion will be all about The GIMP. Everyone, start digging your trenches!

This is not a troll: GIMP is hard for newbies (5, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492936)

Parent is largely right.

The GIMP might be very powerful and feature packed, but the learning curve to get into it is cliff shaped. That makes for a vey significant barrier for newbies.

Most people don't want to do hugely complex photoshopping, just remove red eye from phots and a few other simple effects.

I've tried to use GIMP a few times, without using the manuals, but after a few minutes of getting nowhere I've fired up a Windows box and used photoshop (also without a manual).

Perhaps this exercise will give the GIMP people a bit of motivation to make the software more newbie-friendly.

We're getting to the stage where Linux is almost simple to use. "It was hard to write, so it should be hard to use" no longer cuts it.

Re:This is not a troll: GIMP is hard for newbies (5, Interesting)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493042)

The GIMP might be very powerful and feature packed, but the learning curve to get into it is cliff shaped. That makes for a vey significant barrier for newbies. Most people don't want to do hugely complex photoshopping, just remove red eye from phots and a few other simple effects.

GIMP isn't a program designed for people who want to just remove some red eye from photos. For that matter, Photoshop would be exceptionally overpriced and overly complicated for that as well. Photoshop is a tool designed for professionals and highly skilled amateurs, and the GIMP replicates many of those features.

People who want to mess with simple stuff can get Picasa for free, from Google.

I personally think that the GIMP's major problem is that it's interface is different from Photoshop, which is a problem given its target audience is Photoshop users. I would claim that it's not more complicated than Photoshop, just different. I learned GIMP first and found Photoshop awkward to use.

Re:This is not a troll: GIMP is hard for newbies (2, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493108)

Agreed, no one in their right mind would spend 600-1000$+ for photoshop to remove red eyes. If they did, they are morons. There are a vast number of cheaper or free programs out there that can do the same thing without the bloated price tag. Both Gimp and Photoshop are professional tools and they both honestly have a learning curve that makes them pretty darn unfriendly to a lay person for anything beyond "hey look what I can do!" I mean, does the average person need 5839 different types of gaussian blur? No, I don't think so.

This is trying not to be flamebait. (2, Insightful)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493156)

...

I've tried to use GIMP a few times, without using the manuals, but after a few minutes of getting nowhere I've fired up a Windows box and used photoshop (also without a manual).

...
Funny, I've had pretty much the opposite experience. What sort of stuff were you doing where photoshop was intuitive? My experience with Photoshop is tantamount to my first experience with vi: "wtf? Normally when I type/move the mouse and click stuff happens. OK, this was a bad idea I should've stuck with emacs/psp, how do I close it?" I guess it has more to do with what your previous experience prepared you for than anything else, but I find the idea that photoshop is easy to use quite novel.

wut? (1)

SkunkPussy (85271) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492730)

Codeweavers doesn't make Wine!!

Re:wut? (1)

aotas (1131027) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492958)

They do make a proprietary version of it. It's called CrossOver.

Re:wut? (2, Informative)

Curtman (556920) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493010)

Codeweavers doesn't make Wine!!

They sell a version of Wine. They are also company that will gladly take Google's money to do work on Wine. They are the same ones who helped [desktoplinux.com] make Google Maps and Picasa run on Linux.

Re:wut? (5, Informative)

jeremy_white (598942) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493022)

We're the largest single contributor to Wine. We host the Wine web
site, employ the Wine maintainer, and do much of the 'heavy lifting'
required to keep Wine moving. Of course, many others contribute as well,
so we're certainly not the sole maker, but we very much play a vital
role in the making of Wine.

Re:wut? (5, Interesting)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493206)

As far as I know Codeweavers sell a version of Wine, so is this deal going to mean Photoshop will work better on Wine that I have installed for free, or the version that you sell.

Re:wut? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22493270)

and thank you for your support.

we really enjoy your product and own a few licences.

Wine (4, Interesting)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492738)

I suspect that as things start moving more and more in this direction, WINE will become the new "windows" API, taking it from Microsoft. If I were working on software, I'd write something platform independent as I could, and if I had to use Windows API, I work with WINE to make sure it ran flawlessly under that environment.

Imagine Windows API not in the hands of Microsoft.

Re:Wine (5, Funny)

icydog (923695) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492872)

My life will be complete the day that WINE embraces, extends, and extinguishes the Windows API... ahhh, one can dream!

Re:Wine (3, Insightful)

The Analog Kid (565327) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492910)

If I were working on software, I'd write something platform independent as I could

There are plenty of open libraries and APIs that can be used to build native ports of software if the company wanted to do so, I'm pretty much sure most of them are either LGPL or BSD-like in terms of licensing. Not saying each platform doesn't have it's own quirks that needed to be ironed out, but a native port > wine emulation any day. Not saying WINE aspirations are without merit, but I see WINE as nothing but a crutch for developers who can say "This product runs on Linux" but skate around making a native port because WINE is there.

Re:Wine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22492932)

There are already very high-quality cross-platform toolkits to use, that are FAR nicer than the Windows API. Qt, for example, is much simpler to code in, whereas the raw Windows API is not. As the lead Wine developer has said, "It's a huge piece of crap and we find more crap every day".

Also, the Windows API is, naturally, very Windows-specific. Wine programs will never really become first-class citizens. They often have to do hacks to map the semantics of the two platforms.

So, no, things probably will not move in that direction. Wine is really only useful for migrating existing code. New code should be written with higher quality tools in the first place.

Re:Wine (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493208)

Except that MS is replacing the "Windows API" with the .Net framework.

Gimp. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22492744)

Gimp does not hold a light to photoshop, end of story.

Re:Gimp. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22492824)

Heretic! Get the ropes, gasoline, and matchbooks! Burn the heretic!

Re:Gimp. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22492904)

Candle. Doesn't hold a candle.

Actually, GIMP is more powerful, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22493320)

What you say used to be true, but now after the major 2.4 internal revamp, GIMP *does* hold a light to Photoshop, and in many areas surpasses it.

Unfortunately, its menu system is such utter crap that using it is for masochists only. It's utterly beyond belief. After years of using it, I still can't find the things I need from day to day just because the menu layout is so utterly illogical. Navigating GIMP menus is one of the most tiring and infuriating and unrewarding activities found in any FOSS software. It's just a waste of precious hours of life.

What GIMP needs is someone with a streak of violence to string up GIMP UI devs by the balls until they scream 10 times that they understand that GIMP's UI is not great just because they say it is great. It could hardly be worse.

Their perpetual excuse that "you'll love it once you understand the model" is sheer bollocks. I know the model, and it's not for want of working with it, for ages. I still have the very first book on GIMP that was published, and that was a loooooong time ago, and I've been suffering ever since, just because of the appalling UI.

The interface doesn't have to be like Photoshop, it just has to be LOGICALLY grouped by function (not by the details of implementation), and without repeats all over the place that just confuse. Who cares if something is a script or a filter or a tool or a transform or whatever? It's the FUNCTION that matters. Jeez.

Of course this will never change, since only a million people have requested it already, and GIMP devs won't be swayed until at least 10 times the population of the Earth require it.

I just give up. (But still have to use it, unfortunately.)

For what reason? (2, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492762)

What does Google get for this? Is this just a shot at Microsoft because Microsoft has been taking shots at Google?

Re:For what reason? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492966)

Other than the fact that Wine is not an emulator of Windows, I don't see how Microsoft comes into play here. Maybe Photoshop is the only Windows app that they still need.

Re:For what reason? (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493028)

Presumably, they want to get rid of their Windows machines and Macs as much as possible.

Re:For what reason? (1)

Zach978 (98911) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493146)

We're going to see a linux based google OS one of these days....move most apps to web, release OS, then take on microsoft!

Re:For what reason? (2, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493272)

I've thought that, but I think they won't and that it'll be for the same reason why they probably won't bring out a Google phone - they don't need to. Why bother putting the effort into stuff like that (especially selling physical hardware - I know they provide search appliances but that's not quite the same as selling to the great unwashed as Apple etc does)) and dealing with customer support etc, when they know they can provide the tools, APIs etc and let people get on and do it for them. As long as they're providing the service(s), they're in business. There might be a preferred Linux distro used internally, but..well, who cares what they use internally!

They are fixing Wine, not Photoshop (1, Redundant)

hellsDisciple (889830) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492774)

They aren't fixing Photoshop itself, they are making Wine better able to run it. Personally I don't know why adobe don't just go ahead and release it, although which toolkit they'd use for the graphics is probably an open question.

Re:They are fixing Wine, not Photoshop (4, Funny)

croddy (659025) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492802)

Why, the GIMP Toolkit, of course... or would that just be too confusing?

Re:They are fixing Wine, not Photoshop (1)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493278)

I'm assuming they have their own toolkit for graphics, and the interface is as far as I know made with QT, which obviously runs fun on Linux, so only small changes to most of the code would be needed. The only problem I'd see with it is if they use libraries from 3rd parties and for some reason aren't allowed port them.

Or more likely, they don't think they'd make much money, so just won't ever bother.

Re:They are fixing Wine, not Photoshop (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493336)

I was going to ask if this mattered at all without proper color management software and drivers for Linux, but I was apparently mistaken about that. Pleasently mistaken I should add.

I don't think that I'm alone in thinking that it isn't really in the best interests of end users to have to deal with multiple graphics libraries because of one or two applications.

The main reason why Adobe isn't fixing it is that there isn't yet a market for it. Windows is probably supported primarily due to the sheer volume of installations rather than it being a prefered platform. Sure, it's profitable, but it probably still sells fewer licenses per Windows installation than the Mac version does per Mac installation.

I'm not really familiar with winelib or the Photoshop code, but it might not be a reasonable endeavor for a market which may or may not develop. Perhaps in the future, if the wine fixes manage to attract an audience, but not right now.

Google owns a photo editor... (1)

t33jster (1239616) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492812)

That runs on Linux! http://picasa.google.com/linux/ [google.com]

Not that I've tried it in Linux, but this is not what's keeping me from making the switch - DirectX is.

Re:Google owns a photo editor... (2, Informative)

cerelib (903469) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493342)

The linux release of Picasa is how Google got into the Wine game in the first place. Picasa for Linux is simply the Windows version packaged with a custom build of Wine.

minor nicks in the armor (1)

gearloos (816828) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492834)

If a brick falls in redmond... does it make a sound?

Re:minor nicks in the armor (3, Funny)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492976)

Yes. It makes the sound of a chair being thrown through a window.

Screw that... (0, Offtopic)

coolhaus (186994) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492846)

What I want is Steam to work correctly under Linux. And yes, I threw away $5 on Cedega, and no, it doesn't work.

Cue piracy on linux (5, Funny)

Cryophallion (1129715) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492850)

Finally, linux users can join in on the piracy of adobe products that the Mac and Windows people have been able to do. See, linux IS getting more like the other OS's every day! :^)

Re:Cue piracy on linux (2, Insightful)

swb (14022) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493324)

I think its less hassle to buy an academic copy of creative suite than to pirate it. All the apps work, take updates and the licensing snoop doesn't deactivate them.

I kind of wish Adobe and/or other app vendors would sell the same app for cheaper but lock out the number of hours per month or something you could use it; unlocked for business would cost the usual outrageous prices, but time-locked to 10 hours a month or something would cost much less.

Re:Cue piracy on linux (1)

|Cozmo| (20603) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493386)

If you're not a student that isn't any more "license compliant" than just stealing it in the first place.

Adobe products already coming to linux (via AIR)? (1)

TheRealZeus (1172755) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492882)

it makes sense that if most of the coding for the AIR programs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_AIR [wikipedia.org] will be online then it will be a lot easier to code what is left on more operating systems. either was this is a nice move by google, its just another show of their affection for OSS.

Stop this, stop this now Google (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22492908)

Google is spreading itself too thin. FOCUS. FOCUS.
 
I could give a rats ass about Photoshop crap on Linux.
 

Re:Stop this, stop this now Google (4, Insightful)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493282)

I think this has value if it will help improve Wine so it can run all Windows programs. That really should be the focus here. I do think funding Wine would really help along Linux adoption and help end the dreadful Microsoft monopoly. So, this is not necessarily just about photoshop, but making all Windows programs run on Linux. and it is the fact that so many programs run only on Windows, which keeps Windows dominate. If we have millionaires reading this who would like to speed up adoption of Linux, funding work on developing a way to run windows hardware drivers on linux would also be a huge help. There is always a lag between hardware being released and running on Linux because companies always spend less time on Linux. While open source or native windows drivers are best, it is not realistic to expect Linux to be adopted when people cannot run their hardware for years perhaps because there is no driver. This would allow as well the hardware to be used with Windows drivers until a native linux driver is produced.

Why not port it to Linux they have a win and mac v (3, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#22492990)

Why not port it to Linux they have a win and mac version of it.

Re:Why not port it to Linux they have a win and ma (1)

zalas (682627) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493190)

Not enough return on investment... (at least in the near future)

Re:Why not port it to Linux they have a win and ma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22493302)

Furthermore, they used to have a IRIX and Solaris port (back in the Photoshop 2 and 3 days, I believe), so it's not like they don't have the UNIX experience.

Wine support for 99% win programs should be focus (2, Informative)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493036)

I can see this as valuable if it will allow a greater number of Windows applications to run on Linux and improve wine as a software program. Wine itself needs more funding since currently it does a dismal job of running many Windows programs. But the focus needs to be on improving compatability with all programs. If all this is going to do, is make Photoshop run better, it would be better to spend the money improving the performance of the Gimp and other open source programs. But making all Windows programs run on Linux, over 99%, would be a major accompishment that would hurry up the acceptance of Linux as a complete Windows replacement. There will also be those who say that it would be better to get people to use open source alternatives to windows programs than to use windows programs on linux, although, while we should improve open source programs, since having windows programs run on Linux would help many people move to Linux and would eliminate the main thing that keeps microsoft dominate, I think that improving wine to 99% compatability would also be very valuable as well. Remember as well, that a large number of Windows programs are custom apps for very specific purposes. I used custom windows only programs used by a company I worked for. These are not general purpose programs that I can just replace with open office. So its not necessarily just word processing programs and general windows programs one may need to run on linux that one can just get an open source replacement for, but highly specialised programs for which there is no Linux replacement and might only be used inside a company and no where else. I have had to have Windows XP in addition to Linux because of these custom special windows programs. I would just love to get rid of XP and run them all on Linux. The other major area that would be very useful is funding a compatability layer to support Windows hardware drivers on Linux, if we have millionaires reading this that want to fund something that would speed up Linux adoption, that would be the surest way of getting hardware support on Linux. I agree that open source drivers are always best but still this layer would be essential, especially until open source drivers are written, There is always a long lag between hardware becoming avialable and driver avialability on Linux because the drivers have to be written through back engineering and it takes quite a while, and there is always more resources put by companies on Windows. Linux is always on the back burner. This layer would also make it much eisier as well to backengineer hardware protocols by watching the communication between proprietary drivers and the hardware, a compatability layer for hardware drivers could speed up open source driver development

Re:Wine support for 99% win programs should be foc (5, Funny)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493092)

Allow me to introduce you to the Paragraph [wikipedia.org] and the Full Stop [wikipedia.org] .

That is all. Carry on.

Re:Wine support for 99% win programs should be foc (1)

Curtman (556920) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493188)

Wine itself needs more funding since currently it does a dismal job of running many Windows programs.

For some values of dismal maybe. In my experience, most things work out of the box these days.

Colour Management (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22493118)

But please, do not forget that we'll need proper tools and device support for colour management. The only reason for me having Windows on my PC is that there aren't good enough tools colour management. Without calibrated colours you can not do anything even if you had the best tools in the universe to alter your images.

Sketchup (1)

Qfour20 (181633) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493160)

Why is google worrying with Adobe's products? Why not start closer to home and get sketchup to wrok properly on linux?

-q

Re:Sketchup (1)

Albert Sandberg (315235) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493196)

that would rule totally, but we have to be happy for every step taken to close integrate common desktop tools in linux :-)

vmware (1)

nyzapatista (1031338) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493168)

It's certainly not the solution for everyone, but what I always do is run Photoshop within VMWare. It's cleaner and probably quicker. For some reason I feel icky when using Wine for native Windows apps, it feels like I'm using a ndiswrapper network card ::shudder:: ... but for some it is the only option. I am also wondering what if any compatibility problems Photoshop in Wine would have with pressure sensitivity with, for instance, Wacom tablets. Any thoughts?

not as good as it looks (4, Insightful)

Fenice (1156725) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493178)

The wine project had always been a double-edged project and it seems to me that google is using the bad edge.

1. One of the arguments that wine devs had is that not every compagny have the ressources to port their applications under *nix, but Adobe certainly doesn't fall in that category.

2. The picassa road is not definitively the best one : just bundling wine to a windows application and label it linux (or other unix) compiliant is near anything but nonsense. We choose unix because of freedom, but also because we believed in its superiorical technical merit (*be it true or not*), not to rely on some win32/directX implementation. We don't eat that food (oh, and if we could forget about this mono thing, many people would sleep better).

Even if i'm amazed by the work done by the wine team, and I'm thankful to them for allowing me to play some games under linux, I don't see them taking more importance as a good thing. This is not this kind of solution which will improve our systems.

Linux is too commercial now man! (5, Funny)

Cathoderoytube (1088737) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493212)

I predict if they get Photoshop running properly on Linux, Linux users will abandon the OS in favor of something even more obscure and difficult to use. Then they'll tote that operating system as superior to Windows and piss about how nobody adopts it.

Re:Linux is too commercial now man! (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493334)

You can already see that happening. We call them "BSD users" :P

(Disclaimer: this post is an attempt at humour, not a troll. We all love you BSD)

WINE is an interesting strategy (5, Interesting)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493216)

With all the nonsense of Vista, a WINE porting strategy makes sense.

Think of it like this: Microsoft is trying to push a product (Vista) that its customers do not want. The *only* reason that any consumer would buy it is because they have virtually no choice because of Microsoft's monopoly.

Step in Google, fund WINE, work to create a Windows execution environment that supports many of those XP programs that will not work under Vista. Linux already supports many of the hardware devices that Vista does not. A working WINE may be able to eat away at Vista adoption.

What is needed is a smooth integration of Windows executables with Linux execution code. Conceptually, windows programs are nothing more than binaries that need their own environment, similar to the way one runs GNOME applications of KDE and vice versa, or better still Java programs. (Yes, I know that Java is a tokenized interpretive environment with a JIT, but this is a discussion not a compsci course.)

IMHO, the programs that should work out of the box on Linux with wine is quicken, quickbooks, peachtree, and photoshop. This would open up so many home and small business users who would love to use Linux but can't.

Adobe should... (1)

Hymer (856453) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493316)

...try to release a version of Photo Shop for Linux...
...but they are probably afraid of chairs flying in their general direction.
--
sig. has left... may be back later.

Wow, improvements really show (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22493322)

Preamble: I'm a photographer needing to process tens of thousands of photos relatively swiftly. The functionality I need isn't all that advanced (curves, levels, an occasional straighten horizon (measure + arbitrary rotate), crop, unsharp mask, and sometimes an action to find edges, feather and apply unsharp mask on that), but being able to access and apply this functionality swiftly is an absolute must because of the volume of photos I deal with. Photoshop is optimized to perfection to allow a swift workflow, while the gimp seems optimized to perfection to hinder it. Focus is never where I need it, shortcuts to access tools don't work depending on which sub-window has focus, etc. So yes, I really need Photoshop.

I last tried Photoshop 7 under wine about a year ago. It was functional to an amazing degree (for someone who'd never seen or used wine before), but the rough edges were slightly too rough for me to be able to switch to Linux fulltime. I could trigger a dozen crashes in Photoshop at will just by resizing panels and doing other simple things like that, the program didn't feel native (alt-tabbing would keep the panels in the foreground, obscuring other programs), and focus sometimes strayed, amongst other lesser (but still annoyingly noticeable) issues.

I just tried the latest wine with these Google sponsored improvements, and wow. This is an amazing difference. Every single issue I saw a year ago is gone. Photoshop feels as responsive as it does under Windows (perhaps even more so), and I went through an hour long editing session without being slowed down or annoyed even once.

As far as I'm concerned, Linux is now ready to become my main OS.

Google: I don't like your lack of respect for my privacy, but for this work on Wine, I can say from the bottom of my heart: Thank you!

Codeweavers isnt free as in no money, right? (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493326)

Why would somebody want to pay MORE for a photoshop that isn't going to run as well? I'm assuming they already own a Mac or PC with a perfectly cromulent OS installed.

Want my Linux Illustrator NOW (1)

bamwham (1211702) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493358)

The only program I miss on my linux machine is Illustrator. The sole reason I keep a Mac account at work is to have access to this program. Yes in principal it should be the same as some combination of Xfig and Gimp but in practice the figures I make with AI have a professional appearance that I just can't duplicate with those other two. I'm not insisting it be free, but I want a version of it for my linux machine and I would gladly pay above the Mac price.

Why use the Windows API? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 5 years ago | (#22493372)

Since PS already runs fine on the Mac, wouldn't it be a lot easier to port that version to linux? It's my experience that nearly anything that runs on linux can be easily built to run on OS X...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?