Linux - The Gimp - Plugins

[michael_peters1]

Many PS filters work in the GIMP on Win32 (or so I've been told) but

none work in the GIMP under Linux.

 

I'm curious as to how many photo nuts out there would actually

consider using the GIMP (free software) and possibly under Linux (free

software) if there were more quality commercial (not necessarily free)

plugins available for the GIMP that worked in Linux (or *BSD or

Slowaris or [insert favorite X11 *nix here])

 

I suspect currently the demand would not be *that* great, but I'd like

to check on what it is now, as the new Gimp is really very good - good

enough imho for many hobbyists - just lacking in some of the necessary

work flow plugins that some people really like.

 

I am not a GIMP developer, I do package (rpm) Linux software and

contribute to what gets into some distro's, and have built some custom

in-house distributions from scratch. But I would *really* love it if I

didn't have to boot Windows (or Mac OS) to use a $$$ product - when

the only thing the GIMP is missing for my level of photography is a

few plugins. I'm curious how many others are in my position (I'd

rather buy new lenses than new versions of PS :p )

[scott_eaton]

I'll use Gimp when it runs as well as Photoshop on *any* platform. Could care less about free plugins.

 

I'll even pay for it since it *should* be able to run more efficiently on Linux than PS does on the other platformd. Until it does, concentrate your resources on making it solid competition for Photoshop vs whining for us to use it.

[michael_peters1]

I'm not whining for anyone to use it.

I use photoshop because there are things the Gimp doesn't do, or doesn't do easily.

 

Please do not assume that because I'm a penguin, I'm whining.

 

-=-

What I am looking for is how many people are truly interested in the GIMP as an alternative to PS. If you had read my post you would have seen that. My primary reasons of interest are lower cost to me (Photoshop ain't free) and it runs on my favorite platform (I use Linux on the Desktop - Gnome to be specific). Linux market share on the desktop is small, hence there will be little demand for GIMP native plugins (when many win32 PS plugins work in win32 GIMP thus reducing demand for plugin developers to port to GIMP). But things are changing and usage of Linux on the Desktop is increasing.

 

This post was intended to try and get some feel of how many *photographers* are interested in native GIMP plugins. It was in no way a whine. So excuse the flame, but take your "stop whining" attitude and pipe it to /dev/null.

[mark_herring]

I agree that Michael was not whining.

 

Here's a different perspective: When will Adobe port photoshop to Linux?

 

I would give anything to become Microsoft-free. I do not, however, want to give up Photoshop. The conflict is unbearable....:)

 

If a significant number of Photographer/Computer nuts would jump on the Linux bandwagon, then the GIMP would fairly quicklymatch Photoshop and Adobe would have to do **something**.

 

With OSX now being Unix-based, Photoshop for Linux cannot be that big a deal.

 

Watch what Microsoft does when biggies like Adobe start supporting Linux....

[michael_peters1]

<i>With OSX now being Unix-based, Photoshop for Linux cannot be that big a deal.</i>

<p>

Photoshop in OS X uses the Aqua gui, not X11 - so some porting would need to be done. My understanding is that Disney has an in-house hacked up WINE that allows win32 photoshop to run very well in Linux, but they aren't sharing their patches (and are not required to)

<p>

Even that though is not ideal - I never liked running things under WINE

WINE is an implementation of the win32 API's for Linux allowing some Win32 apps to run under Linux. x86 Linux anyway (WINE requires x86)

[kirk_keyes]

Michael - I use Linux, but only for things like Samba servers and firewalls. For me to switch to Linux for the desktop, I feel that Photoshop for Linux would have to happen, or perhaps if the GIMP made it to the level that Photoshop is at. I don't really care about plug-ins.

 

One of my main concerns if color management. I haven't looked at the GIMP for several years now so I may be wrong in my next statement, but I'm under the impression that the GIMP is way behind Photoshop in color management - is this true? IF so, than that is one MAJOR hurdle that needs to be fixed.

[oskar_ojala]

I might consider it if it got the good stuff from Cinepaint (or Cinepaint's bugs were fixed) and the user interface wouldn't such a pain to use. The calibration issue comes to mind, but I also do work which isn't calibration critical (eg. web.)

 

I wouldn't mind Adobe porting PS to Linux or Solaris-x86, I have nothing against paying for good software. Emulators are a completely unsatisfactory solution, I might consider running PS under a virtual machine, but then I'd need Windows anyway...

 

So the answer to your question is that the plugins are not at the top of my list of deciding factors... :)

[karl_palsson]

Kirk: I'm not a linux zealot by any means, (my laptop runs windows, linux only exists on my gateway) but can you really talk about "a few years ago I looked at XX, at it didn't have YY so it must still suck" and keep a straight face?

[Karim Ghantous]

Michael, I for one would love to have the GIMP compete with PhotoShop. The problem is that Linux software tends to be less Mac-like than even Windows apps.

 

And I do not appreciate having to compile kernels. Sure, I like programming but only for *fun* - compiling kernels (and trying to make sense of woeful documentation written by people who can't communicate) is not fun.

 

However... I have been using Linux for a few years now and I'm impressed by the refinements.

 

Maybe... how about writing a PS-specific emulator that allows PS to run at top speed in Linux? Sure, the point of GIMP is that it's free, I understand.

 

So, yeah, please do what you can to make GIMP a serious application. I'd use it. Anything to make the world MS-free. ;-)

[oskar_ojala]

<i>And I do not appreciate having to compile kernels. Sure, I like programming but only for *fun* - compiling kernels (and trying to make sense of woeful documentation written by people who can't communicate) is not fun.</i>

 

<p>Compiling and programming are two different things - programming would be when you actually write some parts of the kernel yourself. Do what most people do - use ready-made kernels (hey, they're available, they work and both Windows and Mac users are happy to use ready-made kernels that come with the repsective OSs.

[Spearhead]

<i>When will Adobe port photoshop to Linux? </i><p>

 

Probably never. Mac and Windows control about 98% of the desktop market. About 75% of what's left is Linux, or about 1.5% of the desktop market. Of that, about 80% is government and software development. That leaves a potential market of .3% of the desktop users, and many of those probably aren't photographers. So let's be generous and say it's .1% of the desktop market. Now you have to factor in people like those above who say <i>primary reasons of interest are lower cost to me </i> and we're in the hundredths of a percent of the desktop market. <p>

 

Adobe would have to be run by nuts to spend their time developing and supporting a group that tiny.