Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linux doesn't have Photoshop

hellozee.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 144 posts

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#41

Post by zozbot234 »

newnewpdro wrote: post #38

> The text tool is horrible, how could you even ship it? I haven't tried Krita yet, but recently had to do some text compositions in GIMP 2.8.18 (Debian 9.11) and the UX was absolutely awful . I don't remember GIMP's text tool driving me insane when I last did such things a decade or longer ago, but the on-canvas widget in 2.8.18 is quite bad.

Debian 9.11 is out of date and will soon be unsupported altogether. You should upgrade to Debian 10 (currently at 10.2) which comes with an up-to-date version of GIMP. If you can't do a wholesale upgrade for some reason, use the official backports channel to install an updated version of GIMP.

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#42

Post by errantspark »

grawprog wrote: post #26
errantspark wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly because this person is incorrect in their supposition that Krita competes with Photoshop. Gimp competes with Photoshop (extremely poorly), Krita is OSS Corel Painter and it's great at that. They're all image editing tools sure, but the focus is different.

Just curious, because i've never really understood, I see this a lot without much explanation. I've used gimp for years for various image and photo things and haven't used Photoshop since the mid 2000's, what's so bad about gimp in comparison, other than the ui(which to me seems much the same as old versions of photoshop), to Photoshop?

I haven't seriously taken a look at gimp in ages if I'm honest, but iirc it still doesn't have adjustment layers or support for more than 8bpp or color spaces other than RGB. The UI being awful is a major point against too, as is the poor performance. I'm sure there are use-cases where gimp is equivalent to Photoshop. I primarily use Photoshop in 16bit Lab color, so just off that it's a no-go.

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#43

Post by akersten »

> I started using Photoshop when I was in High School and obviously it was a ——- copy.

I can only assume the censored portion read "pirated." Is the author concerned they would be admitting to a crime had they left it in? I'm not sure there are any other interpretations to "obviously it was a [...] copy" either, so I don't see why they bothered. Probably should have left that out entirely if they were worried.

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#44

Post by bawolff »

hellozee wrote: post #13
rolltiide wrote: post #10

Nice post about Krita Anyway it would be nice if Linux had Photoshop, why haven’t they done this sometime over the last two decades when people first noticed

Porting to linux isn't worth it. Cause most of the people who would switch are existing customers. And with the CC model it is never going to happen

Fun fact though, photoshop used to be available for solaris http://www.erimez.com/misc/Photoshop_Sun_Brochure.pdf

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#45

Post by washadjeffmad »

hellozee wrote: post #27
grawprog wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, because i've never really understood, I see this a lot without much explanation. I've used gimp for years for various image and photo things and haven't used Photoshop since the mid 2000's, what's so bad about gimp in comparison, other than the ui(which to me seems much the same as old versions of photoshop), to Photoshop?

No non destructive editing available is one of the biggest drawbacks

Does the history or duplicating the working/background layer not cover that?

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#46

Post by cairo_x »

fbnlsr wrote: post #33

This has been my only argument for years for not switching to Linux. I've realized I haven't used Photoshop in more than two years now. I either work on projects where the designers provide me with already cut and ready to use props, or I work with people using Figma. My only argument now is that my Macbook is still working and I don't "have" to spend 2k on a Thinkpad. :)

Sweet jesus, don't get a thinkpad after having used a macbook. They are built of soft, grease-absorbing cheap plastic.

People say 'oh, but thinkpads are so rebuildable'. Yeah. Because they degrade easily and are made of such cheap materials, they have to be.

I bought a second hand dell laptop. Five years later bought a brand new thinkpad. Which do you think had to be repaired, and even with new parts still looks more worn out?

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#47

Post by akersten »

grawprog wrote: post #26
errantspark wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly because this person is incorrect in their supposition that Krita competes with Photoshop. Gimp competes with Photoshop (extremely poorly), Krita is OSS Corel Painter and it's great at that. They're all image editing tools sure, but the focus is different.

Just curious, because i've never really understood, I see this a lot without much explanation. I've used gimp for years for various image and photo things and haven't used Photoshop since the mid 2000's, what's so bad about gimp in comparison, other than the ui(which to me seems much the same as old versions of photoshop), to Photoshop?

Personal and strongly-held opinion follows:

The biggest drawback of GIMP is that it is the least intuitive software I or anyone I've asked in person has ever used.

Basic operations like making selections, cropping, and moving selections or layers are a chore. The keyboard shortcuts don't make any sense, and the tool icons all look the same, so I wind up hovering over each one to find the dang crop tool in the first place. Oh, it's the one that looks like an X-acto knife instead of the universal brackets icon for crop.

The selection tool is just weird. You can highlight a region of the image, but to manipulate or transform it, there's no "Control+T" equivalent as far as I've discovered.

The whole thing feels like a mess coming from Photoshop. Paint .NET has far and away better usability.

Sure, you can accomplish the same things, eventually, and I guess that makes them both capable image editors. But using GIMP feels like I'm interacting with a machination of Dr. Seuss if he had to draw a Whoville contraption that edited photos.

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#48

Post by pkaye »

bilal4hmed wrote: post #34

per the post, Krita has 5 paid developers and if you look at the front page, for the month of december they have received donations of about $2500. If donations are the major source of funding, they are severely underfunded. If some of us have budgets that allow for it, might not be a bad idea to send some money their way.

I think recently Krita got a Epic Games Mega Grant of $25k. https://krita.org/en/item/krita-receives-epic-megagrant/

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#49

Post by washadjeffmad »

Finnucane wrote: post #16

Linux doesn’t really have a good alternative to InDesign. For photo editing I find that Darktable & Gimp serve me well enough. Fortunately, I don’t need to worry about CMYK any more.

Scribus, and I'm DocBook/LaTeX junkie. Might not work for everyone, but I put out a lot of long forms and policy stuff.

I pipe through calibre for painless format shifting, as well.

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#50

Post by a1369209993 »

newnewpdro wrote: post #38

> The text tool is horrible, how could you even ship it? I haven't tried Krita yet, but recently had to do some text compositions in GIMP 2.8.18 (Debian 9.11) and the UX was absolutely awful . I don't remember GIMP's text tool driving me insane when I last did such things a decade or longer ago, but the on-canvas widget in 2.8.18 is quite bad.

FWIW, GIMP 2.6's text tool is solidly mediocre. I stopped updating because 2.8 broke Ctrl-S (vocally on purpose), so it wouldn't surprise me if they also ruined text compositions. Contra zozbot234, it is very unlikely upgrading to Debian 10 will improve anything.
Post reply on HN