Right now the only thing keeping me from running linux full time is the Adobe Master Collection (PS AI LR ID AE...)
The one thing that keeps me from using Linux exclusively are pieces of software that I use to make music but are only available on Windows (e.g. Guitar Amp Plugins by LePou or various processors by Variety Of Sound). I don't see those coming to Linux anytime soon, sadly.
If Reaper would come out in a native version for Linux and someone invented a way to use Windows VST plugins in it without a performance hit, I might dare switching.
You might also want to check out the Linux Musicians forum [2]. Most of your itches are probably already scratched by someone.
I would say that GIMP is in top 5 of worst software ever made, what made me think of that is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_music_considered_the_wo...
I quote:
Paradoxically, a piece of music needs to have been noticeable, popular or memorable to be deemed the "worst ever." A piece that was unpopular and quickly forgotten is unlikely to top all-time public polls a few years after it was released. A piece usually needs to have had a high profile at the time of its release, such as an unexpected hit that was highly disliked outside of its fanbase.
I think Gimp is enough of both, to call it that.
Also, OP, I've heard that the CS works quite well (the original, not the pirated) in wine, I haven't tried it myself but maybe it's worth the shot.
Note: I don't like to criticize FOSS, since I'm sure there are intentions are always good, but it's just that it's so bad :(
I'd call it PS-incompatible. Would be nice to see a study on two control groups who each either start learning PS or GIMP for a few weeks and see how they get common tasks accomplished and how they feel about their control group software.
I mostly see PS damaged people with bold statements of it's superiority and the rubishness of GIMP. I never seen anyone getting good with GIMP first and then ditching it for PS.
Can any of you give some personal anecdotes?
While I think gimp has the potential to be great, the UI and workflow is painful in comparison to PS. For instance, take creating a rectangle with a gradient on it (with curved corners), and a border that fades from one color to transparent (thinking a rectangular button here). Photoshop: Choose foreground colour and bg color to be the two points on your gradient. Pick curved rectangle tool. Drag rectangle, and change fill type in the top bar to be radial gradient. Click Stroke, and change fill type to gradient. adjust the color.
GIMP. Select the selection tool(why???) Drag the selection to your desired state. Apply a gradient to the stroke by... I don't know actually. then go to slect, and choose rounded rectangle, and choose the border radius (in %??? what the hell sort of measurement is this). Click Ok. Go to edit, and choose stroke selection, and choose stroke with Paint Brush. (This creates an empty border with a stroke around it). Use Gradient fill tool to create the centre of the rounded rectangle, then resize to fit within the border because I can't figure out how to not apply the gradient to the border which is in the selection.
In the end, you get the same result. But PS's workflow makes more sense. to draw a rectangle, you use... a rectangle tool. In gimp, you select the shape you want and draw a stroke around your selection. I also find gimps export a pain in the ass. Why can't I click save as, and save as a PNG rather than having to export? It's clunky, and a pain to use. No matter how powerful a tool is, it's useless if the interface is non-intuitive. I know they don't want to go the adobe route, but they may consider taking some inspiration from one of the most researched products in the world.
Mainly because 99% of learning Gimp is learning how to use selections properly. Gimp is for image manipulation, not drawing buttons.
If that's the kind of stuff you're doing, use Inkscape. Do the Tutorials under the Help menu. They're really excellent and it sounds like exactly what you're looking for.
God bless your special breed.
If I want a high-resolution vector button with the modified picture of a face on it, I know which program I'm choosing.
Was I that unclear?
> Gimp is for image manipulation, not drawing buttons.
> (implied) Inkscape is for drawing buttons, not image manipulation
Photoshop is used for both image manipulation and for drawing vector buttons, in its modern incarnations. That was my point.
We were talking about Photoshop replacements. Despite the name, it's very much a hybrid raster/vector tool now, unlike how the GIMP was described above.
I can't think of a decent looking button (even for very loose definitions of "decent") that couldn't have been done with vectors. Can you give me a good example?
Then, Inkscape was proposed for its vector support, but it neglects raster support.
Why use two solutions when Photoshop offers both capabilities?
Once you strip away specialized tool suits and programs that actually sit on top of the OS, most users just need sound, mouse, keyboard, and monitor support so they can run chrome or firefox. Most OSs handle this just fine, so the real deciding factor in your OS should be the tool chain you need to run.
It's so backwards and kludgy to pick your os then try make your toolchain work on top of it.
Lightroom felt too sluggish and I didn't even bother trying Premiere, but at least having Photoshop available kept rebooting to Windows to a minimum.