Re: Goodbye Linux
From: Robert Heller (heller_at_deepsoft.com)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:59:54 +0000
Nai Namae <email@example.com>,
In a message on Sun, 14 Mar 2004 21:03:05 +0100, wrote :
NN> Alan Browne wrote:
NN> > After one week of Linux, I have decided, with some regret, to return to
NN> > WinXP full time. I know that's heresy around these parts...
NN> welcome to the club :/
NN> i am also missing something as powerfull as photoshop in linux... it would
NN> be a great idea, if adobe could port photoshop to linux, as corel did with
NN> photopaint 9, some years ago :)
NN> i am really missing PS, because i often have to use it, just because i am
NN> also photographing a lot!
NN> but anyway! i am staying with my sweet 'lil gentoo-box :) i love gentoo, so
NN> i will never leave it.
NN> although i have to admit, that just because of photoshop i have to keep a
NN> parallel windows installation on another partition. but because it's very
NN> annoying to reboot just in order to use photoshop, and then for normal work
NN> to reboot again into gentoo... i am thinking about using vmware instead, so
NN> i can boot windows within gentoo and use photoshop whenever i want without
NN> the need of rebooting!
NN> that's the next step i will do, i can will just habe a windows-installation
NN> just with photoshop. there is no other program i need which only runs in
NN> maybe someone could now say: use GIMP. ok, gimp is a nice & maybe powerful
NN> tool, and it would be even more powerful if knew it as good as i know
NN> photoshop. but even then, it cannot compare with photoshop, although i have
NN> often read, that gimp CAN compare with it :/
Adobe is not likely to port PhotoShop to Linux anytime soon. GIMP is
pretty close to PhotoShop. It certainly does *everything* I've every
needed to do. *Maybe* what you should do is work with the GIMP
development team and let them know *exactly* what is missing from GIMP
that PhotoShop does. Maybe even (*gasp*) contribute a *small* amount
of actual money to the GIMP development team. After all if you are
willing to shell out something like US$500.00 for Adobe PhotoShop
(assuming you actually purchased a legal copy), contributing only a
1/10 that (US$50.00) is a really small price to pay for an open source
I'm guessing *most* of the problems PhotoShop users have with GIMP is
some user-interface issues and possibly with some documentation issues.
I *believe* that some PhotoShop plugins (pure 'script' ones) will run
under GIMP, although I have not actually tried this. It might also be
possible to 'port' (or re-implement) some of the popular PhotoShop
plugins to work with GIMP.
It is important to let the GIMP development team *know* about this.
'Silently' reverting back to PhotoShop is not going to improve GIMP to
*your* liking. I believe there are GIMP mailing lists. Visit
www.gimp.org and do some 'surfing'.
NN> just think about installing vmware workstation and inside of it windows &
NN> photoshop. if it's just because of this one program you need to switch
NN> i am so convinced by linux/gentoo, that i would never leave it if it's not
NN> really really necessary! so, if it's really the only thing you miss about
NN> linux, don't switch, just run vmware ;)
NN> but if there are a lot more aspects in linux you dislike/miss, then switch
NN> namae ga nai hito :)
NN> > I tried Linux under the assumption that some specific image editing s/w
NN> > would be free, and functionally as powerful as Photoshop 7 which I need
NN> > as my scanner produces 16-bits/color channel. (PS Elements works at 8
NN> > bit per color channel).
NN> > However, after trying fruitlessly to get my film scanner to talk to the
NN> > computer via firewire for several days; resulting in two re-installs of
NN> > Mandrake as I apparently did something naughty to the OS... I have
NN> > decided that the time lost is not worth it. The OS does recognize the
NN> > firewire interface, but getting some function sbp2 (sp?) to install was
NN> > not possible... and please don't waste keystrokes with help.
NN> > The whole Linux OS 'lingo' is completely new to me; very rich and
NN> > extensive, often arcane. Learning to do even simple tasks is very time
NN> > consuming.
NN> > Photoviewing programs crashed when I loaded large slideshows, w/o any
NN> > warning or message. They just disappeared. As a photographer I produce
NN> > and scan large numbers of photos, and I often look at large collections
NN> > as slide shows. There can be several thousand images in a single slide
NN> > show, and the provided programs were simply not up to it.
NN> > KDE is slow. File browsing is slow. Programs crash under Linux in a
NN> > heartbeat. Linux crashed (heresy?). Working in WinXP might not be
NN> > popular, I'm certainly no fan of MS, but the point is, WinXP does work.
NN> > Now I'm sure if I became more of an expert, requiring the time to do so,
NN> > I could come to terms with it. Point is I don't have the time to spend
NN> > on the learning, and if I did, the ROI is not apparent to me at this time.
NN> > WinXP, which I've had since Sept. has been stable and very easy to
NN> > maintain. No matter how hard I try to hate MS (and it isn't very hard),
NN> > the point is I am productive under WinXP and reaching that degree of
NN> > productivity under Linux will simply take too long.
NN> > I'll look into it in another 5 years.
NN> > Cheers,
NN> > Alan.