This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Feature

Review: Pixel image editor

By Nathan Willis on December 15, 2005 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Looking for an Adobe Photoshop replacement on Linux? If the GIMP doesn't cut it, maybe Pixel will.

Pixel is a raster image editing program that runs on more than a dozen operating systems, including Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux on i386, AMD64, and PowerPC.

Pixel's feature set rivals that of Adobe Photoshop and outstrips the GIMP in several key areas. Pixel supports CMYK and Lab color modes, 16- and 32-bit color depth, and chic new features such as adjustment layers. The application is low-cost but not free, with revenue supporting its creator and lone developer Pavel Kanzelsberger.

Kanzelsberger has been writing Pixel in his spare time -- and by himself -- for the past eight years. In a few months, he says he will officially release Pixel 1.0, quit his current job, and work on Pixel full-time. The first version of Pixel was written for DOS in 1997, and a version for Windows followed in response to user requests. Be then contracted Kanzelsberger to port the application to BeOS.

To mitigate the complexity of maintaining multiple OS builds, Kanzelsberger wrote an SDL-based toolkit called eLiquid, and rewrote Pixel using it. This design enables Pixel to run on more than a dozen operating systems today. Windows accounts for just over half the licensed downloads, but Linux comes in second.

Running Pixel

Pixel 1
Click to enlarge
A 30-day, watermarking demo is available on all supported Linux platforms. Both the demo and the full version depend on Freetype, LittleCMS, SDL, and the JasPer JPEG2000 library. Pixel's usage of Freetype and LittleCMS lets it integrate seamlessly with the user's system-wide font and color management installations.

Pixel uses the multiple document interface model familiar to Photoshop users and presents similarly laid out toolboxes and menus. In fact, only minor differences distinguish Pixel's interface from that of its more expensive rival -- filters are called "Effects" for example, and the menus are in a different order. But anyone used to Adobe's interfaces will have a smooth transition -- the same visual metaphors for tools, the same terminology for operations and options, and most of the same keybindings.

My only complaints with the interface are that several of the tool icons are too similar in appearance (slice, brush, airbrush, and eraser) and the low contrast of the toolboxes sometimes require a moment's distraction to ensure that I've selected the right tool or option. Pixel is by no means alone in this regard; it is common in graphics applications to have so many tools and buttons that you run out of distinct shapes that are visible at tiny dimensions.

Pixel supports grayscale, RGB, CMYK, and CIE Lab color modes at 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit color depths. Color management is available for all file types that support it. The image adjustment tools include the standard fare, such as levels, curves, and color balance, plus some bonuses like gamma adjustment, tone, and exposure control -- welcome additions for those used to working in the GIMP. TWAIN-compatible scanners are supported, as are pressure-sensitive tablets -- though not yet on all platforms.

Among the advanced editing features are both "adjustment" and "live effects" layers: image layers that modify all the content on underlying layers (to create drop shadows or make curve corrections, for example), but which can be turned on or off without altering the content of these other layers. Layer masks, transforms, channel splitting and combining, and some path operations are available. There is also a top-level Animation menu for creating basic animated images.

Kanzelsberger takes feature suggestions from his users seriously. One large group of Pixel users consists of Windows graphics artists looking to transition to Linux; it was their insistence that led to CMYK and color management. Indeed, many of the common complaints about the GIMP are answered in Pixel, including the aforementioned CMYK support and high-dynamic-range image editing.

Performance

Pixel 2
Click to enlarge
The current release of Pixel is Beta 6, and there is still some unimplemented functionality. Not all effects are available for all color models and bit depths, some menu items are greyed out in the build that I tested (including, regrettably, the built-in bug report tool), some TIFF compression is unsupported, and tablet support is still forthcoming for Linux.

Kanzelsberger says he regards the current feature set as frozen, and assures customers that all of these holes will be filled by the 1.0 release. Expansion of the feature set -- such as "natural media" effects and vector operations -- are earmarked for the 2.0 branch.

Experienced Photoshop users will miss certain features in Pixel. Pixel ships with just over 100 filters and effects; a subset of the more expensive program's offering, but -- as is analogous to the free-versus-Microsoft office suites situation -- the most useful subset.

The selection tools are also more modest; I missed the ability to expand or contract selections, which is present in Photoshop. Text tool operations are solid, but don't expect anything fancy, such as fitting text to a path. If you can do without these specific functions, however, Pixel may be just what you are looking for.

Exempting the disabled features, Pixel performs admirably on Linux. Effects and adjustment tools are full-featured, permitting precise keyboard-input parameter tweaking and the loading and saving of presets.

In one week of testing I experienced only one crash, which I was unable to reproduce. It occurred when working with a Lab color image. Pixel had no trouble opening 50-100MB image files, sizes that routinely segfault the GIMP.

Pixel and open source

Pixel is neither free nor open source. A license purchased now (during the beta phase) costs $32, but will remain good for all updates up to and including Pixel 2.0, and can be used for all available platforms simultaneously. After Kanzelsberger completes Pixel 1.0, however, the price for a license will go up to $100.

Kanzelsberger is by no means against open source, though; he is a Gentoo Linux user and Pixel links against several free libraries. He simply charges for Pixel as a means of supporting himself and continuing its development.

For the most part, Kanzelsberger says, Linux users have been positive in their comments on his work. There is the occasional gripe that he should release the project for free, but most welcome the alternative to expensive graphics suites from Adobe and Macromedia.

Kanzelsberger has expressed willingness to open source the eLiquid GUI toolkit in response to a growing number of programmers' requests. After all, it is fast, lightweight, and runs on a dozen operating systems. An eLiquid release definitely won't happen until after Pixel 1.0, though, as he wants to focus on completing his main project, and organizing and documenting the eLiquid code base will take time.

Wrap up

There is very little in the way of consumer-priced commercial software for Linux, particularly in the graphics arena. There are studio-level 3D and compositing applications bearing four- and five-digit price tags, but almost nothing in wallet range for the individual.

For photo editing and raster graphics, many users see running Photoshop under WINE as the only choice for tasks they can't handle with the GIMP. Certainly, if you already own a copy of Photoshop or one of the expensive bundles that include it, it is a reasonable option. But if you don't, you will find 90% of what you need running natively on Linux at a fraction of the cost by switching to Pixel.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Review: Pixel image editor

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Am I just not seeing it?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2005 05:43 PM
Or does this thing not support pressure sensitive tablets?

Otherwise, looks interesting.

#

It's in the Features list!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2005 07:42 PM
<a href="http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=9" title="kanzelsberger.com">http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=9</a kanzelsberger.com>

The features list includes: Pressure sensitive tables support.

#

unFree software

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2005 07:11 PM
too bad it isn't GPL<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(

the installer doesn't seem to work on my stations here and i won't be able to dig into the source to explain why...

it's really sad.

#

email the devs if you can't get it to install

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 09:12 PM
Instead of moaning about it not being open source, why don't you simply email the developers instead of making such a stupid comment like that?

I'm a fan of open source software myself (I have a game released under the GPL), but there's no need to be such a zealot with it like this. People like you are the reason why we don't have more games/software under linux... devs just get sick & tired of the whining.

#

Re:email the devs if you can't get it to install

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 09:38 PM
And calling people stupid, just because they're curious about how things work and whether they might be able to fix them, doesn't exactly help matters

#

Re:email the devs if you can't get it to install

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2005 08:48 PM
I didn't call him stupid. It was the remark he made. He goes out of his way to have a subject called "unFree software" & wishes it were gpl. Maybe if he checked the forum, he'd see that the developer does respond there. It only took me about 10 seconds to find this:


<a href="http://www.kanzelsberger.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110" title="kanzelsberger.com">http://www.kanzelsberger.com/forum/viewtopic.php?<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> =110</a kanzelsberger.com>


Granted, I've seen worse comments then his about this, but you know, there's only so much negativity one can read about it all regarding commercial software under linux. Maybe the link above will be a bit more useful & what I should have posted in the beginning.

#

Re:email the devs if you can't get it to install

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 10:44 PM
Why bother? I'm a developer, and happy to test, report issues, even submit patches. Most of my experience is not-invented-here attitude, or zero response. Open source community spirit is gone, it's all attitude and posturing. I don't even bother recommending people try linux anymore, far too many basic things break after upgrades, or don't function properly in the first place.

I would suggest OS X, but that has just as many bugs as windows and linux. And again, reporting them to apple results in no feedback and no fixes. Why bother.

#

Good luck to the fellow..

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 19, 2005 05:23 PM
This looks nice, but is far from usable or stable, and I'm not really interested in funding his company to produce a viable product.

I respect the work he has put into it, and Linux support in particular, but, at the end of the day, this is a commercial and proprietary project - so all the best - but I'll wait until it delivers a truely competetive offering & then I'll happily pay full price..

Note to Pixel Author:- If you offered an open-source prodcut, I would more likely than not pay you the full price right now because the product would have a reasonable chance of survival - but on your own, you are exactly that, on your own - & I am not prepared to stake my business or reputation on one single person (or company).

#

Wow

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2005 07:42 PM
I'd forgotten how annoying "shareware" was until I tried this.

It's really a shame too, because it seems like a relatively nice app.

I guess as an author you just have to ask yourself what do you want in exchange for your time and effort? The community could really benefit from an app like this.

Interesting app that I wasn't aware of, though. Thanks for pointing it out!

#

Re:Wow

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2005 08:31 PM
That's true.
I didn't even install it knowing that it was NOT free for use.
I think that it's getting more and more difficult to sell shareware specially independent software in times where opensource is developing so good applications. I don't know what the killer feature of this program is, but I can hardly imagine buying it having the Gimp which is free...

Greets
Merlin

#

Re:Wow

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 02:19 AM
Exactly, I wouldn't have tried it either, but it had been so long since I've seen shareware I thought I'd give it a whirl. Even though I would never consider using non-Free Software.

Was fun to remember why I made the decision.

#

Re:Wow

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 11:11 PM
Can I ask what part of shareware was annoying? The idea that you get to try it before paying for it, or the idea that you can't get the full version until you pay for it? Was it something else?

-someone interested in open source shareware development

#

Re:Wow

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 17, 2005 03:10 AM
open source shareware = does not compute!

#

Watermark? what a shame!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 01:11 AM
In one way it is good that this software exist, because it seems it is good so itis good that it is avaible for Linux.

But not only that it is a 30-day trials, it also has watermarks? what a shame!

There is a bug report function too. So to test their software that is not production-quality, you have to pay? Does not sound like a good deal to me.

And it isnt free software. Many people move away from Windows to Linux because of free software.
I think I wont ever touch Pixel, as it is not free software.

There are many other graphics tools avaible. Such as the GIMP, GIMPshop, mtPaint, etc.
Xara is going to enter with some products for Linux too.

#

Re:Watermark? what a shame!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 04:44 PM
It's not time limited, you can use it for few years without problems.

#

Re:Watermark? what a shame!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 11:15 PM
You can actually test the product without paying for it. That's what shareware means: you can try before you buy. And most modern software has bug reporting functions available, even if they are production quality, so it doesn't sound too different in this case.

Also, when you say free, do you mean Free or free? I agree that the fact it isn't open source puts me off paying for it as I would prefer to support open source/Free development rather than proprietary.

#

Nice application!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 03:09 AM
I think this app is better than Gimp from a usability standpoint. It feels very similar to Photoshop... maybe too similar! I will probably buy a license as I'm not that fond of Gimp although I will force myself to use it from time to time.

#

Re:Nice application!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 04:18 AM
If you don't like Gimp, then it might be worth trying Krita:

<a href="http://www.koffice.org/krita/" title="koffice.org">http://www.koffice.org/krita/</a koffice.org>

The videos on that web page are pretty impressive.

#

Re:Nice application!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 17, 2005 03:05 AM
I think this app is better than Gimp from a usability standpoint. It feels very similar to Photoshop.

Probably one of the most stupid comments I've ever read. Looks like Photoshop, so it is more usable.

Many people consider Photoshop as cluttered and Gimp as usable (and then again many people don't). You can't judge usability from your own preference point. I'm not saying Photoshop is not usable. It is, for anyone that likes that kind of application, but on the other hand so is Gimp where reason is the same.

One example where Photoshop is completely unusable. 3 monitor setup on Windows (not Matrox exteded 3to1 like, 3 separate monitors). You can use 1 and 1/2 at best.

Second thing using verbal tabs (on toolwindows) takes too much horizontal space so you can stack 3to1 at best.

Since I'm a ex-avid-Photoshop-user (about 5-6 years of use), now-Gimp-user I can only say I would never go back.

I could name more bugs, where I find Photoshop as completely unusable, but those two should be enough, they are infact the reason why I completely left out PS. And by the way, I don't need CMYK.

#

Uses MDI? Why? Written in 1995?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 04:12 AM
Pixel uses the multiple document interface model

You mean the MDI that Microsoft had to introduce for multi-windowed apps, because in early versions of Windows, an app could have only one top-level window? And that made Windows look lame, so Microsoft got rid of it as soon as that restriction was removed from Windows (way back in NT days IIRC)?


Ah, I see. That MDI.

#

Re:Uses MDI? Why? Written in 1995?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 17, 2005 01:24 AM
Yes, the one that PHOTOSHOP uses. That MDI, dumbass.

#

Re:Uses MDI? Why? Written in 1995?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 17, 2005 03:08 AM
Funny, accusing of being dumbass smoeone who pointed out that MDI is dying technology.

And by the way, MDI sucks.

#

Re:Uses MDI? Why? Written in 1995?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 19, 2005 07:38 AM
Not funny just true dumbass. having an MDI has nothing to do with any OS. Nobody has gotten rid of anything, just not used a lot. It means you have multiple child windows outside and seemingly independent of the parent window.

#

Krita is probably already better

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 04:27 AM
<a href="http://koffice.org/krita" title="koffice.org">http://koffice.org/krita</a koffice.org> is advancing quickly.

You could pay me (or any qualified worker) to add missing features instead of paying a usury fee to access a locked-closed tool.

#

Re:Krita is probably already better

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 05:12 AM
Frankly, Krita is far from being better. I don't care if it's opensource or not, I care about features and this is not only for Linux, you can use it anywhere.

#

Re:Krita is probably already better

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 10:25 AM
What specific features are you missing in Krita?

#

Re:Krita is probably already better

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 17, 2005 12:11 AM
Usury fee?!

Here you are wanting money to implement features (over a substantial amount of time), begrudging someone who's already done the work, and willing to sell it for a lot less than it would cost to hire you for patches...

Yeah... makes sense to me...

#

Re:Krita is probably already better

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 17, 2005 03:19 AM
Of course it makes it sense, getting money for workj your grandparents do does not.

#

An off-topic rant from a developer

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 03:25 PM

The author didn't use any of the existing toolkits (wxWidgets, gtkmm, qt, fltk,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>......). He wrote his own called eLiquid which he might release as open source.


In some ways I sympathise. With the exception of qt (which some people don't like for a variety of other reasons) the documentation of these toolkits ranges from dreadful to appalling. A programmer tends to see writing code as the solution to every problem. So if the existing libraries have unusable documentation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... write another one! You don't need docs for it because you wrote it!


And lo, yet another toolkit with crap documentation is born.

#

Re:An off-topic rant from a developer

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 04:43 PM
He wrote new toolkit because no other toolkit is available for all those platforms supported by Pixel. GTK is ported to some platforms but it's behaviour and stability is just funny there.

#

Re:An off-topic rant from a developer

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 05:32 PM
He wrote new toolkit because no other toolkit is available for all those platforms supported by Pixel

No, if that were the reason, he could just have ported wxWidgets or gtkmm to BeOS or whatever. Less work than starting from scratch. These toolkits are obviously not too difficult to port to other platforms because they are already multi-platform.

#

Re:Should be Open sourced

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 05:02 PM
I dont see why he doesnt release it under a open source license, this would allow quicker development. You could sell the documentation instead of the software and offer training services, by opening the code it would benefit from fast stable development as well as a larger user base. By not making it free software you are restricting your user base.

By the way the GIMP is a great tool, it serves me perfectly for web graphics. Most facilties in photoshop you dont even use anyway....

#

Re:Should be Open sourced

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 05:35 PM
If the GIMP serves you well, don't even bother with Pixel. You're not part of its target market.

#

Re:Should be Open sourced

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 18, 2005 03:55 PM
It is... rather hard to sell doc or training, when it is not popular, not even more than GIMP as a free alternative.

And you mean 'free software' as in price, the free as in price gets you more users, 'free as in freedom code' gets you more developers. Hope people don't get confused because always free software means more than one and people has one term for it.

And by making it free as in price, he won't be able to developt it full time, so for him, what's the point? Maybe he gets his job back, do it in his spare time about 10 times slower.

#

Re:really should be open source

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2005 05:33 PM
If you don't like the way he makes this available, fine. Just use GIMP, while other people are willing to pay for something this useful.

#

Re:really should be open source

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 17, 2005 03:15 AM
If you don't like the way he comments, fine. Just remember you don't have to reply.

#

Re:really should be open source

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 18, 2005 03:47 PM
if there's an objection... go for it...

#

Bravo for Pavel

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 17, 2005 12:36 AM
All the comments I've read here ignore the fact that this developer has worked *for 8 years* on software that rivals Photoshop AND that he's selling it for just $32.

C'mon - give some credit where it's due; that's less than date night at the movies. The guy's got to eat! It's easy to snipe from the sidelines, but I say nice job. I think Pixel was also just released for Linspire Linux, so it can be installed easily with their "click and run" system.

Anyway, not to sound too much like a cheerleader, but keep up the good work and best of luck with v. 1.0!

#

Re:Bravo for Pavel

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 17, 2005 03:29 AM
All the comments I've read here ignore the fact that this developer has worked *for 8 years* on software that rivals Photoshop AND that he's selling it for just $32.

I didn't ask him to do that.
C'mon - give some credit where it's due; that's less than date night at the movies.

Credit for what exactly? For making some proprietary software--ok, he get's some negative credit for that. For yet another toolkit that does not fit in anywhere--some more negative credit.
The guy's got to eat!

So does RMS.
It's easy to snipe from the sidelines, but I say nice job.

Yes, saying it's a nice job is much harder...

#

Re:Bravo for Pavel

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 18, 2005 11:53 PM
You're absolutely right. the guy's doing a nice job.

It's not open source, alright, but the developer seems to be very responsive on requests. Also, most great programs are still closed source. Don't think I don't like open source. Almost all software I use is open and I absolutely support it. However, I still believe that to be able to make something really great, you need money.

I really don't think the guy's asking too much for his product. I'll certainly buy it.

#

GIMP segfaults on large files?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 17, 2005 01:20 AM
Pixel had no trouble opening 50-100MB image files, sizes that routinely segfault the GIMP.

Most of the work I do in the GIMP is on images that when compressed are about 80MB, and anything from 300 -> 700 MB uncompressed. I've never seen it segfault on me over the last year or so.

Pixel looks nice but it also looks to be a Photoshop-clone. For those of us who grew up with the GIMP, all those extra fiddly windows are a pain! Still, competition is good. With GIMP, Pixel, Inkscape and Xara Xtreme, art work on the Linux platform is getting better and easier very quickly.

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

#

Dangers of closed source

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 17, 2005 04:30 AM
We all know the arguments of Photoshop vs GIMP; closed source vs open source. Although, who's willing to bet how many illegal copies of Photoshop are installed on the world's home computers?

But Pixel? For $100? Written by one guy, hoping to make it his day job?

That's a risky $100 bet. Who knows what will happen to the software in 1, 2 and 5 years' time. What if this guy goes bankrupt? What if he needs to hike the price again? How can he afford to support it so cheaply if the community can't access the source code?

Nobody's sure if closed-source has a future, but at least Adobe are big enough to stick around, change if necessary.

I very rarely pay for commercial software, but when I do I normally find bad things happen:

1. The price suddenly goes up
2. When I reinstall I have to go hunting for the licence key, maybe request it again (which can take days)

Is $100 a lot of money? No. Could I afford to risk investing hours learning this program, using it, evangelising it? Absolutely not.

Sorry.

#

Re:Dangers of closed source

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 18, 2005 05:37 PM
Then that's why GIMP is for you. Pixel is not for you since you're not the target market.

#

Good points

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 18, 2005 07:10 PM
You make a good point that the true cost of closed source is not the up-front license fee (which in this case is modest), it's all the nasties and risks that go along with the source being closed.

#

$ Linux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 19, 2005 03:34 AM
There's no room in GNU/Linux for a profit application. If he wants to get rich let him develop for Windblow$.

#

Re:$ Linux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 19, 2005 07:59 PM
I see you don't understand it. Try to install Pixel and you'll see what does it mean "8 years of effort". Pavel doesn't want to get rich - at least not more than anybody else does. He just wants some reward for his work. And as you can see, the price includes some kinda support etc...

And why there's no room for profit applications in GNU/Linux world? I use Linux because I like it - not as a lifestyle. People who want to have their system 100% philosophicaly clean won't use Pixel. People who want to see their work done and feel like Pixel would help them would buy it.

Whenever I choose software for a specific task, I decide on the basis of usability and productivity, not philosophy.

Sorry for the poor english, few months already since I left school.

#

Pixel

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 30, 2007 07:59 AM
Linux does not all need to be open source. Maya is not open source but people are more than happy to purchase it because it is a high quality application that has a strong user base and support from Autodesk. The fact of the matter is that you are getting the Operating System for free, that should save you money to be able to spend on things such as TOOLS that you will need to make more money, which is what Photoshop is. If you plan to just edit pictures then go bootlegg photoshop and run it in wine. Adobe has not put any effort into porting Photoshop to Linux and here we have Mr. Kanzelsberger who dedicated 8 years of his spare time to coding an amazing application and not Only including Windows, Mac and the Linux community; but he included the BSD/QNX/SKYOS/MorphOS and other communities into his development cycle even though they will not generate him almost anything. You will never find so many platforms for a commercial application. So be grateful Linux was his Platform of choice. Because choice is what linux is all about and you have the choice not to buy, and use the GIMP.

#

Anyone has it now? say in both platforms?

Posted by: Administrator on December 16, 2005 10:35 PM
If you have it on both platforms, can you comment from experience (and if you have used photoshop or other commercial package) how useful is and how well does it integrate in a multi platform environment?
anything they would like to see put in it which may prevent you from recommending it?

how was the purchase process?
TIA

#

really should be open source

Posted by: Administrator on December 16, 2005 03:21 AM
If this application is really that much better than the GIMP, he should take it to Novell and get them to fund it so he can release it for free as an open source application. Corporate sponsorship is a much better business model than commercial distribution for the Linux world.

#

Fantastic for Linux

Posted by: Administrator on December 17, 2005 07:47 PM

The GIMP is great for me. I prefer the interface to Photoshop's, it answers my limited design needs, and I have a strong preference for Open Source/Free software. And I run Linux.



But there was a time when I did more graphic design work and I simply couldn't get the GIMP to do what Photoshop could do, especially when it comes to designing for print. If you're a graphic design professional then the GIMP might not fulfill your needs, and that's why it's awesome to have an alternative that lets you stay on Linux.



Remember, for most people in the industry, Linux isn't even in the running. It's not a question of Linux with an Open Source graphic tool, or with a commercial one. Right now the question for most people is, "do I use Photoshop under Windows or the Mac?" It's great to have an alternative.



And to top it off, maybe a little extra competition will give the GIMP a boost.



<a href="http://www.byroniverse.com/" title="byroniverse.com">byroniverse.com</a byroniverse.com>

#

What a bunch, i the linux world.

Posted by: Administrator on February 12, 2007 12:23 AM
I have to say, that the Liux community is quit the bunch.
I've just recently decided to move from Windows to Linux, but i am having a hard time finding Quality Replacement programs for those i used in windows, Such as Photoshop.
Myself i am quit happy to pay for any software and those that dis people for trying to charge for their software are a bunch of idiots.
How else do you expect do get a good quality app if it is free, how do youo expect people to live, do you think everyone will survice on wellfare?.
No wonder their is not much good apps for linux, everyone whats everything for free. Why do you thik Adobe photoshop is so great? cause the charge for it and thus ables them to make it better, cause people who are not on wellfare do not work for free.
I am not saying that open source is bad, i beleive that with help from the programmers cumminity Distros should be free and if you would like to donate, then go ahead. But applications? i am glad to pay and help the developers live and work more and more on them to make them better.
As for Gimp (what a joke) if you are a real graphics designer, this thing is like trying to make an image on one of those little toys you used to by for your child (scribe) or something i think it was called. I am not syaing that all apps on the Linux os is bad, hey i am a daily user of CorelDraw and i have played with Inkscape, and man what an APP, great job, but for people who say (use Inkscape instead of Photoshop)! common give me a break, InkScape is Vector (LINE ART!!!!!!!) not a bitmap program, just as is CorelDraw it can do some bitmap, but that is not it's strong point nor it's main purpose.

So long story short, if more and more developers would charge for their apps, then perhaps they would finally get the chance to make them better.

If i cant find suitable apps, i am going to have to return to windows.

Other notes:
I read hear that most if not all people that move to Linux is cause of open source, well thats wellfare people, myself and i am sure the only reason most would move to linux is to run away from Viruses, Hijacks, Malware, Addware and so on. And not to mention being able to customize your OS the way you want.

Open source is good in some areas, but hey if your a carpenter, are you going to come over and build me a house for FREE?, well i don't thin so.

So hey, if you like the app and the guy wants money for it, well god dam darnit, can we not just feed him? give the man some food.

Thanks
Hope i did not offend anyone.

#

Review: Pixel image editor

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.245.212.159] on December 30, 2007 01:27 AM
This is a good application. I use gimp all the time on Linux and rather frankly it does not quite cut it. Close but no cigar though 2.4 definately had some improvements. Running photoshop under wine is good too but I'd preffer something thats more native and slightly better supported. Also stop whining about this not being opensource. The guy spent 10 years developing this, there is no reason why he could not sell his work. A lot of folks using open source seems to be suffering from something called "sense of entitlement", a syndrome of gimme now, gimme more, gimme for free. Majority of such folks have never contributed, on regular or even semi-regular basis to any such project. Those who have contributed know better. Most of them do not get paid to write open sourced code and have families and lives they need to take care off. So please unless you have contributed to open source projects for significant amounts of time, keep your yups SHUT!!!

#

Hot news

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 89.123.210.98] on February 13, 2008 08:07 PM
I'm brother's internity member of this forum http://www.pixelcommunity.com
My brother don't can post on this form, when internity user is logged he can see this message:
"This board has no forums.".
Why?
Why?
Because internity have two pixel image editor license?
The internity's account is blocked?
Big distress..........
By the way, message from internity:
I was sending more emails to Pavel and Pavel not responding and I don't can activate my Pixel Image Editor.
I have two Pixel Image editor license and I don't can activate my Pixel Image editor?
I was talking with ECC-Net.
What is the ECC-Net exactly?
The European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net) is an EU-wide network to promote consumer confidence by advising citizens on their rights as consumers and providing easy access to redress, particularly in cases where the consumer has purchased something in another country to his/her own (cross-border). The network has been created by merging two previously existing networks: the European Consumer Centres or 'Euroguichets', which provided information and assistance on cross-border issues; and the European Extra-Judicial Network or "EEJ-Net" which helped consumers to resolve their disputes through alternative dispute resolution schemes (ADRs) such as mediators or arbitrators.
ECC searching Pavel....
I must waiting for justice...
I don't want my money back, I want seriall code for activate my Pixel Image editor.
I will talk with an lawyer...
I must waiting...
I don't want miss or lost this war.
I will be a winner.
Good Bye all!

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya