Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gowator

Why is software missing from Linux?

Recommended Posts

OK here's my rant...

"Bonjour,

 

Nous n'avons pas l'intention de sortir une version Linux de Photomatix. Notre logiciel n'as pas ete develope avec des outils cross-platform, mais nativement sur Windows et Mac, ce qui veut dire qu'un version Linux reprensenterait un cout trop eleve. Il existe toutefois un logiciel HDR open-source nomme pfstmo qui tourne sur Linux.

 

Cordialement,

 

Geraldine Joffre

HDR Imaging for Photography

www.hdrsoft.com";

_______________________________________________-

My translation

_______________________________________________

We don't have any intention of releasing a linux version of Photomatix.

Our software is not developed with cross platform (dev) tools but natively on Windows and Mac.

Its perhaps said that a linux version would be too expensive...

 

There is already some software called pfstmo for linux...

__________________________________________-

My understanding....

They really have no idea wtf Linux or OS-X is... or how easy it would be to take the UNIX version for the Mac and add a gtk or qt interface... instead of Coco or perhaps they just don't like Linux????

Sadly in most cases like this I think they just don't like Linux....or the idea of Linux because they are pre-disposed to beleive that Linuxers won't pay for software... so they won't make it...

Personally I pay for my software... like bibblepro... so they just lost a sale since Im not buying a Windows version to run under wine...but I would have happily paid the $99 for a native version....

 

The whole point of this stuff is its standardised algorithms... anyone can write this and it just needs an interface so the whole thing is rather pointless to not do???

 

However once again OS software seems to cut its own throat....

http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net

In some ways the program is a opensource clone of Photomatix.

Qtpfsgui is available both for linux and windows, see Download below.

 

I'm really starting to think that we as OpenSource people should stop making ANY AND ALL software to run on ANY closed source OS.... because this is just getting to the point of pushig closed source OS's even more???

 

For instance my photo developing (raw file) SW comes with a Mac and Windows version with extra functionality... I pay for the SW and its very good and its not their fault... the part I can't use is the photoshop plug-in... by using OS I get less for my $$$

Another really good piece of digital photo SW is lightwave... runs on Java and the LINUX version is FREE....but unsupported... again the commercial company has promoted OS more than the OS movement???

To cap this off I downloaded a trial verison of Corel PSP ... and it won't even run under Wine???

 

More and more my digital workflow is being pushed into me having to run a native closed source OS... linux still doesn't have a decent image editor for 16 bit images... Even if GiMP did do 16 bit iots still not photoshop... and Cinepaint is still way behind in terms of functionality... and Corel have not even made an effort for PSP to run under Wine...

To top this off performance is pretty much needed for proper quality

time dcraw -o 4 -w -T /home/sl/RICO_PORTFOLIO/ORIGINALS/DSC_4616.NEF

 

real 0m5.363s

user 0m4.992s

sys 0m0.204s

but under Wine Photomatix takes about 10 minutes to Open the raw file... bibble takes milliseconds... but longer to convert than dcraw ... so if I do buy another PC to do photo editing its not going to be a cheap one.. I need something significantly faster than my present AMD64 3000+ and at least 2GB RAM... preferably 4GB...

 

the more I think about this the more I think its time OS projects stopped supporting Windows versions....

Antoher example is Joomla where a significant amount of the code is fsck'd just to cope with being able to run on IIS ... again this seems counter productive, the apache OS users take a hit because of this and its not even like the desktop world where 90% of people are using Windows, the IIS market share is pretty small to start off and out of this a significant part is using MS specific stuff like ASP.NET anyway...

 

I dunno... Im starting to think the open aspect of making Windows versions is becoming what is holding back linux?? Some projects like Gimp really need to die already... the devs have been firm about not supporting 16 bit color space... BUT the existance of Gimp is what holds back other image editing SW because Gimp is actually pretty good for many things... and so anyone thinking of image editing always runs up with "what's wrong with Gimp" ....

Edited by Gowator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, people shouldnt be forced into expensive and non-free software on windows too. People can rightfully choose that environment if they are more comfortable with it.

 

To say that we shouldnt make things cross platform, is restricting their choice/freedom.

 

I have windows dual boot here - for the practical reason that games, not only dont always run in linux, but often run far better in windows.

 

Take for example my brother, his laptop stopped POST'ing the other day. I setup him an account on my laptop, spent ages setting it all up to be fine, but in the end it didn't "just work" as needed. He wanted to play Warcraft 3, while using teamspeak -- and be able to alt-tab out to firefox. Any attempt to set this up, was simply a kludge at best.

 

Windows doesnt work for everyone, and often it's not their choice. Removing portability just punishes them. And regardless of someone's choice of OS, they should still have access to free software, otherwise they'll be forced to use Office.... and others, locking them further onto that platform.

 

I think your post was made spur of the moment. People lose sight, and say "oh no, linux won't make it", "oh noes, it will never be a desktop system". Things take time, and regardless of what you see in this moment, over the last few years GNU/Linux has increased in capability, recognition, awareness, and professionality. We're still learning to walk, and people are still just learning who we are. Running comes next. I frequently see more and more support, in terms of drivers and software. All this recognition will only increase with time.

 

James

Edited by iphitus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
or how easy it would be to take the UNIX version for the Mac and add a gtk or qt interface... instead of Coco or perhaps they just don't like Linux????
Actually, it's not always that easy. They could be using a lot of OSX-specific function calls that would need replaced, amongst other things - not to mention differences in libraries. Porting is not (necessarily) as easy as you might think ;) - it really depends on the program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, people shouldnt be forced into expensive and non-free software on windows too. People can rightfully choose that environment if they are more comfortable with it.

True but the question comes when its "native linux" SW being ported to linux... IMHO...

I'll explain my thoughts on this using your example...

Windows doesnt work for everyone, and often it's not their choice. Removing portability just punishes them. And regardless of someone's choice of OS, they should still have access to free software, otherwise they'll be forced to use Office.... and others, locking them further onto that platform.

Yes and No ... I think what Linux is missing is a complete workflow ...

If I want to play games and its something involved (not just tuxracer etc.) then its no big deal to dual boot...

Yep it can take a few mins but if your going to play a game for 3hrs the reboot time isn't so bad...

 

I think your post was made spur of the moment. People lose sight, and say "oh no, linux won't make it", "oh noes, it will never be a desktop system". Things take time, and regardless of what you see in this moment, over the last few years GNU/Linux has increased in capability, recognition, awareness, and professionality. We're still learning to walk, and people are still just learning who we are. Running comes next. I frequently see more and more support, in terms of drivers and software. All this recognition will only increase with time.

 

James

Well it was spur of the moment but I've been thinking about GiMP for quite some time...

The problem is GiMP is actually quite good in a very limited way.... but it just doesn't cut the mustard in other ways. Its useless for anything with 16 bit colorspace and lets face it you wouldn't think much of running your graphics card in 8 bit...

So the problem is its intrinsically limited... but very popular in OS circles...and from my perspective a lot of good OS graphics progs are struggling just because of Gimp's popularity...

The thing is there is loads of freeware, trial/nagware/postcardware on Windows already so diverting resources to porting Gimp is a bit pointless in many ways... meanwhile Linux still doesn't have a decent 16-bit raster graphics prog... it doesn't need to be photoshop but at least up to what PSP was doiung 5 years ago would be nice...

Meanwhile we have cinepaint, krita and a whole load of other stuff being developed at a snail's pace because the perception is largely "but what's wrong with GIMP" ... and its all very well adding new stuff and new ports to Gimp but its forever stuck in 8 bit...

 

So I'm talking here from a workflow perspective...

I can open my raw files in Linux, manipulate the processing etc. but any real editing and I need to use Windows... or I can boot into Windows and do the whole lot and even print which can't be done from linux (at least professional quality) ...

 

I realise this is in some ways my pet workflow :D but its not the only one... I scan stuff in linux and then need to boot Windows to OCR... unless its lots of text its usually easier to retype the damned thing...

 

Going back ... to what I said...

Sadly in most cases like this I think they just don't like Linux....or the idea of Linux because they are pre-disposed to believe that Linuxers won't pay for software... so they won't make it...

I know of lots of people who would pay for photoshop or Corel PSP under linux... OK I prefer FREE, who doesn't but when you have a job to do ... needs must but I really think Adobe think people won't pay and just use cracked versions... ??? They port FREE SW but not paid SW???

 

Actually, it's not always that easy. They could be using a lot of OSX-specific function calls that would need replaced, amongst other things - not to mention differences in libraries. Porting is not (necessarily) as easy as you might think wink.gif - it really depends on the program.

Fair enough but the basic algorithms stay the same .. the Windows version runs under Wine quite OK... its not completely stable and runs like a pig but :D it seems to run OK so changing the dialog boxes can't be that hard?

I think the bottom line is they don't see a market ??? Like photoshop ... ??

 

My specific prob is I need a whopper of a machine for this... if it was just basic stuff I'd buy a minimac but this is pushing it to the limit...

 

Again in many ways I think its workflow related... linux seems to just have missing parts and these missing parts seem trapped around the old-style 1990's linux? Imagemagick is quite capable but wrapped in a 1990's interface... etc. and the big put off for many people is that they can't move to linux completely ...so they stay trapped in the Windows cycle of new products needing version XX which puts more demands on hardware ??

 

I don't want to punish people for being stuck but equally the opportunties seem to be being missed for really good SW workflow in linux and if a few of these workflow holes were plugged then people would have a real choice...and there is still a whole load of free or nearly free (as in beer) Windows stuff...

 

One example I came across is clamav.... the windows version requires some MSSDK stuff and this depends on something else and ultimately on IE6.something ... I just gave up when trying to get the stuff needed because I really don't want to accept the MS EULA... and here is the big prob... A lot of the Windows stuff pre-supposes you already think the MS EULAs are OK or just don't care, even when they are ported linux apps.

 

Corel PSP again doesn't run under wine due to the windows installer wanting some stuff from MS... and being honest I just don't want anything to do with MS...

Its only <half because I don't like MS but mainly because I don't USE MS... I don't want to need a virus checker, and all that goes with it.. or MS Live etc. etc. nor do I want to be locked into connecting to MS if I change some HW... I don't really want my virtual Win machine in the internet at all ... but the main reason is I'm just not interested in keeping up with keeping it running and unless you do then it grinds to a halt...

 

I might consider Apple because its a different philosophy but I feel really bad to be considering having to use it just because some software I'd like to play with doesn't work on Linux or more liklely the SW manufacturs think Linux is not a market because we are all freeloaders...

Actually I kinda resent the implication we are all thieves as well... which is the inderect way of interpreting it.

 

When all I want is to scan and OCR a document or put a filter onto a photo I resent having to use Windows... (a bit) but mainly its just frustrating...

 

Linux is SO CLOSE... in many areas the SW is better than Win but the missing parts are what kills it and the missing parts are not plugged because of 2nd rate SW like GIMP*... and the perception noone will pay IMHO

 

 

 

*By 2nd rate I mean it lacks professional aspects... it works fine for basic stuff but its just unusable for some stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough but the basic algorithms stay the same .. the Windows version runs under Wine quite OK... its not completely stable and runs like a pig but :D it seems to run OK so changing the dialog boxes can't be that hard?
WINE isn't a good test of portability...and it's more than changing the dialog boxes. You have to know what libraries replace which, and how those libraries function, then you have to call them properly, you have to reprogram the front end to use the new widgets (it's not as easy as "oh, instead of this one, use this one!")...and basically go through the whole Q&A testing (one of the more time-consuming processes) all over again - for a system you may have no [significant] knowledge of to begin with. Believe me, just because OS X and Linux are *nix variants, doesn't make them instantly compatible - or even close to it.

 

I'm really starting to think that we as OpenSource people should stop making ANY AND ALL software to run on ANY closed source OS.... because this is just getting to the point of pushig closed source OS's even more???
If we don't make open source software for proprietary/closed source OS's, then open source will forever be confined to the more computer savvy amongst us (because joe blow windows user would never see it - and for OSS to get into the market, joe blow needs to see it). And besides, by not supporting closed source OS's, we'd essentially be doing the inverse of what you are chastising these Windows/OS X only apps for. And we'd be trying to force our ideals down someone else throat, which never works out to your advantage. And we'd be ignoring one of the chief tenants of OSS: choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough but the basic algorithms stay the same .. the Windows version runs under Wine quite OK... its not completely stable and runs like a pig but :D it seems to run OK so changing the dialog boxes can't be that hard?
WINE isn't a good test of portability...and it's more than changing the dialog boxes. You have to know what libraries replace which, and how those libraries function, then you have to call them properly, you have to reprogram the front end to use the new widgets (it's not as easy as "oh, instead of this one, use this one!")...and basically go through the whole Q&A testing (one of the more time-consuming processes) all over again - for a system you may have no [significant] knowledge of to begin with. Believe me, just because OS X and Linux are *nix variants, doesn't make them instantly compatible - or even close to it.

 

Even if the linux version is a complete rewrite it doesn't explain why this company and others see no market in linux...Why is adobe wiolling to wrote flash9 and other freebies BUT not release photoshop that I would buy?

I honestly can't see porting from OS-X as a huge deal once you get started... Ive been involved porting much more complex software from Solaris to IRIX and AIX and now the companies I worked with have mainly ported to linux...

Perhaps a 2nd issue is distribution.... ? how do you distribute a linux version .rpm or .deb? how do you handle deps? etc. etc.

I still think a major issue is we are regarded as thieves and freeloaders who wouldn't pay for say photoshop or this SW...

 

If we don't make open source software for proprietary/closed source OS's, then open source will forever be confined to the more computer savvy amongst us (because joe blow windows user would never see it - and for OSS to get into the market, joe blow needs to see it).

Not really there is plenty of OS software in Windows, but there is also nagware, trialware and postcard ware etc. etc. However I think you make a good point that the Av Windows Joe doesn't understand the difference between FREE and free....

And besides, by not supporting closed source OS's, we'd essentially be doing the inverse of what you are chastising these Windows/OS X only apps for. And we'd be trying to force our ideals down someone else throat, which never works out to your advantage. And we'd be ignoring one of the chief tenants of OSS: choice.

I think this is several issues and I agree somewhere between strongly and mildly with them all ... trouble is I also disagree based on different ones...

The truth is its a very complex situation....

I'll answer your points with counters.... EVEN though I don't disagree completely with any of them but ...

we'd essentially be doing the inverse of what you are chastising these Windows/OS X only apps for
True ... but lets move on...
we'd be trying to force our ideals down someone else throat

To some extent we are doing that anyway because even OSS for Windows is OSS... if its GPL its GPL etc. HOWEVER (this is where I see a difference) the difference is OSS on Linux != OSS on closed OS...

 

There are huge differences (and some similarities but I'll focus on the differences)

Linux SW is built on a OSS OS, Windows isn't... is probably the biggest but this has lots of implications...

OSS is meant to be better because of this and because the developers of SW A have access to the source code of the kernel and X ... unlike Windows where they are forced to develop against a SDK... whivhj in the case of windows is deliberatly limited anyway to prevent other companies making "better" integrated SW

 

The second way this affects development is because of the closed Windows model with only a SDK and a few common Dll,s which are shared for "look n feel' ALL Windows apps are essentially monolithic... whereas in Linux very few GUI apps are standalone .. because they share common code with others... so again in OSS you have devels working on what they are interested in and do well... if that happens to be writing a low level driver then that's it and if its writing codecs then you do that.. there is no need to package it into a GUI because someone else who is interested in GUI's will do that for you ...

An example is K3B.... its about 8MB (i18n is another 6) whereas Nero weighs in at a lot more...

 

The situation is almost one of the inverse of the workflow ones I mentioned...

Like I said Linux has great apps overall but there are gaps and these gaps are what screws it IMHO because noone wants to boot into Windows just to do one part of a 10 part workflow ... companies don't even want to switch platform even if the workflow is completely different people ... this is partly what killed Apples marketshare because drafting depts usually preferred Apples BUT the finance Depts wanted PC's and the IT dept really just wanted them to use one or the other :D

Anytway, in most cases the linux gaps seem to be due to 2nd rate software that became hugely popular like GIMP...

 

OSS software on Windows is hugely full of gaps even if we forget the OS itself isn't OSS because of the nature of Windows SW you can't really work only in OSS and plently of free but non-OSS and cheap SW plugs plenty gaps and the reverse situation exists... its very hard to have a workflow in Windows that's 100% OS...

 

The only real reason I can think of for using GIMP under windows is if you are a linux user on Windows.

Frankly GIMP by todays sofdtware is worse than pathetic, there are 101 better FREE programs in Windows for anything GIMP can do... but in 16 bit!

 

And GIMP is crippled by design.... it will never be fit for semi-pro or even enthusiast work for photo's or use in a company doing pre-press work because it is designed in a 8bit color space... it can't even address the parts it needs for pre-press because its 8 bit and its developers refuse to consider changing so its screwed.

 

So I still maintain GIMP needs to die or be killed....it is a 1980's app which has lived its natural life and needs to pass on and die.... (perhaps that word is too emotive but it doesn't need active retirement .. where it will continue to hold back other new 21C linux apps)

 

In many ways OSS projects are entities like a company or corp and the danger is GIMP is like a retured company president who is also the father of the present president. My father (who I love dearly is like this)...he's constantly meddling and distracting my brother who runs the company he built...but he's from a different age. My brother uses laser and plasma cutters, CAD/CAM and has an internet site.. my father see's no need for any of these yet this is what todays customers want in terms of finish and product information.

The product is essentially the same .. just sleeker, less obtrusive etc. and because its a 3rd party product that has to intergrate into someone elses product (in this case automobiles) it has to change with the auto industry...

 

In many way's GIMP is the same... its constantly there and anyone trying to make a decent 16bit+ colorspace graphics prog for linux has to justify this...

 

As an example, the product I wanted to buy for linux uses 48 bit color space, its the whole point of HDR (high dynamic range) since its blending/merging as a minimum 2x16 bit images to expand the dynamic range (bit depth) and even wroting the final back as a 16 bit floating point TIFF is a compromise...

 

However the OSS equivalent can only use JPEGS which are by definition 8 bit...

 

When Gimp was born graphics cards were pushing the limit at 8bit... today 24/32 is a norm... but today its holding back so many apsects.... The migration of printing services to Gimpprint is an example... how can we get decent 24bit color output from a printer from a 8bit app.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if the linux version is a complete rewrite it doesn't explain why this company and others see no market in linux...
Because, if you look at the market share, Linux is almost none existent in the desktop market. It's apparently not a cost effective option.

 

Why is adobe wiolling to wrote flash9 and other freebies BUT not release photoshop that I would buy?
Flash player is a much less complex program than photoshop, and would take significantly less time, money and knowledge to port. You'll note that Adobe does not make a flash creation program for Linux.

 

So I still maintain GIMP needs to die or be killed....it is a 1980's app which has lived its natural life
Actually, it's a 1990's app - 1995, to be exact ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if the linux version is a complete rewrite it doesn't explain why this company and others see no market in linux...
Because, if you look at the market share, Linux is almost none existent in the desktop market. It's apparently not a cost effective option.

 

Why is adobe wiolling to wrote flash9 and other freebies BUT not release photoshop that I would buy?
Flash player is a much less complex program than photoshop, and would take significantly less time, money and knowledge to port. You'll note that Adobe does not make a flash creation program for Linux.

Yep fair point but then they make that for no reward wheras they could make money back from photoshop... or a flash creator.... I honestly think they just think noone would pay???

Last time I looked Linux had a larger market shre in desktops overall.... than OS-X (although there is a fair weighting towards adobe in Mac use so that does distort it back... )

 

Like the HDR SW Photoshop is mainly just adding a GUI to math... when you scale it just does a mathematical algorithm (depending on method) and these are pretty standard in lots of other areas....

I'm not saying it would be easy but the parts of photoshop that make it photoshop are pretty much just math...

 

If you look at my photo development SW (bibblepro) its a similar thing (or subset) it works with plugins like photoshop etc. many of which are 3rd party and the plugins are OS independant... when OS-X went onto Intel it took a few weeks of tweakig and QA but then it worked... because basically the algorithms stay the same

 

So I still maintain GIMP needs to die or be killed....it is a 1980's app which has lived its natural life
Actually, it's a 1990's app - 1995, to be exact ;)

Even so and thanks for checking... it has already lived a useful life... the prob is its still limited to performing like 1995 graphics cards... and whilst it now does more stuff in terms of filters etc. it still can't do what almost any windows freeware can do and open a native 16 bit file...

I just checked and my TIFF files from processing are 48 bit...

PS opens them in 48 bit space even though my display is only 24 bit... but when I do a gradient its in 48 bit... and then operations on that take place in 48 bit space so even if I finally write a 8 bit file its much better quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep fair point but then they make that for no reward
Not quite ;) - the reward is that, if more people are able to view Flash animations, more people will want to make them - so more people will buy their creation software. It's pretty standard tactics.

 

Last time I looked Linux had a larger market shre in desktops overall.... than OS-X
I don't know what studies you've been reading, but OS X is definitely above Linux in desktop market share. Mac is around 6%, Linux is still trying to break 1%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...