Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Applications > There's no need to pirate Photoshop anymore

There's no need to pirate Photoshop anymore (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Amorya
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2007, 11:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
The main problem with MythTV on the Mac is not the lack of a decent interface; it's the fact that it doesn't work at all. I can hardly blame Mac owners for not using it for that reason.
I used the Myth frontend on my Mac for a bit. It worked for a week or so then mysteriously stopped. I never did work out why -- could have been a setting on my backend box, or someting I changed on the Mac, but now it will not start up at all. I have no time to delve into the MythTV code, fix a bug and recompile. Sadly, that means I lack TV on my Mac.

Amorya
What the nerd community most often fail to realize is that all features aren't equal. A well implemented and well integrated feature in a convenient interface is worth way more than the same feature implemented crappy, or accessed through a annoying interface.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2007, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Dude, if you don't value usability or quality beyond merely working, that's your prerogative. Insulting people who do care about it as being "a member of the Cult of Cocoa" is quite unnecessary.

There's always a shitty, cheap option for everything, and some people will like that cheap option — but there are definite benefits to using an actually good solution, especially if you actually make money with this program.

We haven't yet discussed the usability of GimpShop, although that would be a fun conversation to have...

As far as quality, it would seem to me that Photoshop performs several functions:

- color/print work
- image adjustments
- image stylizing/manipulation
- image conversion into different formats
- some vector artwork editing (a subset of what Illustrator will do)

*if* GimpShop will do some of this, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that GimpShop is incomplete or lacking features to be a drop-in replacement for Photoshop, moreso than lacking in quality?
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2007, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by wataru View Post
Making assumptions much? I wasn't talk about X11 apps to X11 apps. I was talking about non-X11 apps to X11 apps, such as, say SubEthaEdit to Gimp.app. I just copied and pasted text with no problems whatsoever. You may be right about non-text content; I've honestly never had the need for anything but text.
Then why don't you just try it before calling me a liar?!

Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Originally Posted by besson3c
Okay, there goes the thread. See ya - I'm not going to stick around to watch this.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2007, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Amorya View Post
I used the Myth frontend on my Mac for a bit. It worked for a week or so then mysteriously stopped. I never did work out why -- could have been a setting on my backend box, or someting I changed on the Mac, but now it will not start up at all. I have no time to delve into the MythTV code, fix a bug and recompile. Sadly, that means I lack TV on my Mac.

Amorya

Are you getting error messages about it not finding the backend?
     
Amorya
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2007, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Are you getting error messages about it not finding the backend?
Actually no, it just quit with no message.

Can't try anything now - the mythbox is at my parents' house and I'm not. But I did the usual basic diagnostics and had no luck...
What the nerd community most often fail to realize is that all features aren't equal. A well implemented and well integrated feature in a convenient interface is worth way more than the same feature implemented crappy, or accessed through a annoying interface.
     
awaspaas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 12:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Amorya View Post
Actually no, it just quit with no message.

Can't try anything now - the mythbox is at my parents' house and I'm not. But I did the usual basic diagnostics and had no luck...
The frontend and backend need to be EXACTLY the same version. When upgrading the Mac frontend, sometimes you have to delete the invisible .mythtv folder in the user's home folder to remove the old settings files. You don't lose any important playback-type settings because those are stored on the backend.
     
wataru
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 08:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Then why don't you just try it before calling me a liar?!


Okay, there goes the thread. See ya - I'm not going to stick around to watch this.
Hmm, well, I did try it, and it worked--with text. So who's the one who should have tried it before making unfounded statements? Hmm?

Seems to me like you're the one who's wrong here; clearly they share a clipboard, and clearly copy & paste works in some capacity, though obviously not as well as it should.

It's too bad you can't admit that you're wrong. And now that you've left the thread I guess you'll just go spread your misinformation elsewhere.

Keep on truckin', Cult of Cocoa.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 11:07 AM
 
Yeah, I can't imagine why somebody would want to paste something other than text to and from an image editor.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by wataru View Post
More bullshit from the Cult of Cocoa.

It works. It's free. If you can't spare enough brain cells to work the interface then you deserve to shell out hundreds of dollars on Photoshop.
If the criteria for things in your life are that they work and are free then why do you have a Mac in the first place? It's ease of use, elegance, speed (GIMP is slow), etc.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
If the criteria for things in your life are that they work and are free then why do you have a Mac in the first place? It's ease of use, elegance, speed (GIMP is slow), etc.
Wataru, I don't think people get it.

Sure ease of use, elegance, and Mac-yness are all desirable traits, and we should all buy what we feel is of good value. However, this unwavering rigidity is going to get you absolutely nowhere, as there are many great apps that are not poster child Mac apps - many of them being cross-platform apps that weren't originally designed for the Mac. In evaluating the best usage of development resources, these apps may never become bonafide poster child Mac apps...

So, what'cha going to do? Are you going to rant and rave and hold your breath about these apps not being very Mac-like? If the development effort to make the app more Mac like is simply not worth the time and money to a developer or group of developers, what good will this do? The entire world is not going to cater to Mac conformity, and it is totally unrealistic and illustrates a disconnect from reality to expect that every app do so.

So, in light of this, what are you going to do? Are you going to stick to your guns, or join the rest of the computing world?

There is nothing wrong with requesting a developer accommodate certain Mac things, as well we all should. However, writing software is a lot of work and takes a lot of effort. Adding Mac specific features is something that you might get added to their to-do list/road map, but these things take time. For many projects, these tasks may be near the bottom of their work queue.

So again, in light of this, are you going to wait patiently, or use what is available in the meantime, and if it is free, appreciate the development efforts of the developers who are developing with no monetary incentive?

There are a lot of neat open source apps that have not been ported to OS X yet, and a big part of this probably stems from the simple fact that many Mac users are quite whiny and snobbish. The latter being of particular detriment since there are some areas where the Mac software showings are quite weak.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 12:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Wataru, I don't think people get it.

Sure ease of use, elegance, and Mac-yness are all desirable traits, and we should all buy what we feel is of good value. However, this unwavering rigidity is going to get you absolutely nowhere, as there are many great apps that are not poster child Mac apps - many of them being cross-platform apps that weren't originally designed for the Mac. In evaluating the best usage of development resources, these apps may never become bonafide poster child Mac apps...

So, what'cha going to do? Are you going to rant and rave and hold your breath about these apps not being very Mac-like? If the development effort to make the app more Mac like is simply not worth the time and money to a developer or group of developers, what good will this do? The entire world is not going to cater to Mac conformity, and it is totally unrealistic and illustrates a disconnect from reality to expect that every app do so.

So, in light of this, what are you going to do? Are you going to stick to your guns, or join the rest of the computing world?

There is nothing wrong with requesting a developer accommodate certain Mac things, as well we all should. However, writing software is a lot of work and takes a lot of effort. Adding Mac specific features is something that you might get added to their to-do list/road map, but these things take time. For many projects, these tasks may be near the bottom of their work queue.

So again, in light of this, are you going to wait patiently, or use what is available in the meantime, and if it is free, appreciate the development efforts of the developers who are developing with no monetary incentive?

There are a lot of neat open source apps that have not been ported to OS X yet, and a big part of this probably stems from the simple fact that many Mac users are quite whiny and snobbish. The latter being of particular detriment since there are some areas where the Mac software showings are quite weak.
This is so weirdly unrelated to the post you were responding to that it kind of seems like you had already written an essay and just wanted to an opportunity to use it. Or are you trying to say there are no commercial alternatives to the GIMP?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 12:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
This is so weirdly unrelated to the post you were responding to that it kind of seems like you had already written an essay and just wanted to an opportunity to use it. Or are you trying to say there are no commercial alternatives to the GIMP?

I'm speaking to the broader picture, as I suspected the poster I was responding to was too.. I don't care about Gimp or GimpShop really. If it doesn't cut it for the content creators in here who rely on Photoshop, cool. There are many other examples I could use instead if necessary.
     
Amorya
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So, what'cha going to do? Are you going to rant and rave and hold your breath about these apps not being very Mac-like? If the development effort to make the app more Mac like is simply not worth the time and money to a developer or group of developers, what good will this do? The entire world is not going to cater to Mac conformity, and it is totally unrealistic and illustrates a disconnect from reality to expect that every app do so.

So, in light of this, what are you going to do? Are you going to stick to your guns, or join the rest of the computing world?
I'm going to use the most Mac-like app I can get in each category, thus putting my money where my mouth is.

Being Mac-like is not some incidental feature, for me... it is a core criterion for which app I should use. I am willing to pay for things that make my workflow easier, quicker, and more painless. If I used Gimp instead of PS, I would spend a lot longer on any design work I do, and come out of it in a bad mood. These are things I'm willing to pay not to have to experience!

Amorya
What the nerd community most often fail to realize is that all features aren't equal. A well implemented and well integrated feature in a convenient interface is worth way more than the same feature implemented crappy, or accessed through a annoying interface.
     
Amorya
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 12:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
There are a lot of neat open source apps that have not been ported to OS X yet, and a big part of this probably stems from the simple fact that many Mac users are quite whiny and snobbish. The latter being of particular detriment since there are some areas where the Mac software showings are quite weak.
As others have mentioned, it's because of the snobbish attitude that software on our platform is such high quality. If users were happy using mediocre software, there would be no incentive for developers to make good software!

There is an attitude going round that because something is free/open source, one must forgive it for failings in usability that commercial software would not be forgiven for. I can see no reason to do this. Yes, it's nice when people work for free, but I owe them no debt of gratitude, and therefore hold their software to the same standard to which I would hold any software package.

For instance, I completely refused to use OpenOffice (the X11 version) since it was too frustrating. NeoOffice is tolerable. It's still not great, but will do in a pinch to open a Word file that Pages chokes on. That's because some devs stepped up to the task and decided to work on a native interface, native fonts, printing and the rest. If they go a bit further and make the interface logical and intuitive, I may move NeoOffice from a "last resort" piece of software up to something I'd use by choice!

Amorya
What the nerd community most often fail to realize is that all features aren't equal. A well implemented and well integrated feature in a convenient interface is worth way more than the same feature implemented crappy, or accessed through a annoying interface.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Amorya View Post
I'm going to use the most Mac-like app I can get in each category, thus putting my money where my mouth is.

Being Mac-like is not some incidental feature, for me... it is a core criterion for which app I should use. I am willing to pay for things that make my workflow easier, quicker, and more painless. If I used Gimp instead of PS, I would spend a lot longer on any design work I do, and come out of it in a bad mood. These are things I'm willing to pay not to have to experience!

Amorya

Of course, this is perfectly sensible and reasonable. What about for people like myself that rely on software that in many cases does not have a strong Mac-centric solution? Not every area of software has a strong Mac covering, particularly outside of content creation.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 12:44 PM
 
To me, this thread seems kind of like this:

Poster 1: Now rather than a gentle massage, you can have a kick in the nads!

Poster 2: But I really prefer a massage to a kick in the nads.

Poster 3: But sometimes your only option other than a kick in the nads is a baseball bat to the forehead. When you think about it, wouldn't you really like a kick in the nads?

Poster 2: But I have the option of a gentle massage here. I think I'll take that.

Poster 3: I was once in a situation where I could either get kicked in the nads or have my throat slit with a piano string. Don't you think a kick in the nads was the right choice?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Amorya View Post
As others have mentioned, it's because of the snobbish attitude that software on our platform is such high quality. If users were happy using mediocre software, there would be no incentive for developers to make good software!

There is an attitude going round that because something is free/open source, one must forgive it for failings in usability that commercial software would not be forgiven for. I can see no reason to do this. Yes, it's nice when people work for free, but I owe them no debt of gratitude, and therefore hold their software to the same standard to which I would hold any software package.

For instance, I completely refused to use OpenOffice (the X11 version) since it was too frustrating. NeoOffice is tolerable. It's still not great, but will do in a pinch to open a Word file that Pages chokes on. That's because some devs stepped up to the task and decided to work on a native interface, native fonts, printing and the rest. If they go a bit further and make the interface logical and intuitive, I may move NeoOffice from a "last resort" piece of software up to something I'd use by choice!

Amorya

Everybody wants high quality software on every platform, and in many cases being a perfectionist and unwilling to tolerate poor software is a good thing, but this doesn't really touch on the areas in the software world where there isn't a strong Mac showing.

Mac users seem oblivious to the world outside of the Mac-centric apps available on Versiontracker (if that), and possibly hold up progress in rounding out the holes in Mac software offerings by being so whiny and snobby/impatient with connecting with the open source world who, in many cases due to resource allocation issues, have not prioritized Aquaifying and making their apps a poster-child Mac app. Perhaps they simply don't understand who to communicate with these developers, or how this community works? Perhaps they don't understand that a lot of small commercial software firms are being relatively scarce outside of niche products, and that a lot of slack is being picked up by the open source world, as well as self-employed developers? Perhaps these developers are afraid that Apple will render them obsolete in a future OS upgrade?

A lot of open source software relies on smaller tools working together in concert. It can take a while to really get an open source project to really sing. I believe that commercial software is usually developed faster, although at the end of it all it is hit and miss as to whether it is actually better than what the open source world is eventually able to put out.

If I'm developing a MS Office killer, I have some fierce competition. Users will compare my product to MS Office, and I should expect that. If my product doesn't hold up, people may not use it if they are willing to shell out for a copy of Office. This is all to-be-expected and reasonable. However, if I'm developing something in an area where Mac software showings are weak or where there is little to no competition, Mac users ought to be more receptive and patient. Like I said, there are several areas where there are weak Mac-centric alternatives, and in many cases this is because there isn't the manpower to Aquafy something. In this case, either participate and appreciate what does exist, or STFU. That's my point.

The very fact that we have an alternative OS section in this forum is testament to the fact that people are interesting in emulation and virtualizing and running apps designed for other OSes. Where is the Mac port of Wine? Xen? I don't believe that the interest is not there, but the number of developers that are interested in participating may be. Why would I devote my time to such a thankless task only for people to bitch and moan about the lacking details? How can momentum be built up so that there is a vibrant environment that inspires developers to want to work on these projects?

Look at MacPorts or Fink. These are very cool projects that attempts to bridge the gap between Unix and Mac worlds, but these too have had periods where they have had difficult recruiting help. Look at the Camino project... Look at the OpenOffice Aqua port, look at development of several console emulators if you are simply interested in using the computer for entertainment.... These are all examples of areas where there has been difficulty sustaining support and interest.

This is all sad and should not be simply blown off, because I don't want to live in a world where I have to pay $30 to do every little thing within a proprietary GUI that may not conform to standards, use open protocols and formats, and break across updates. We need open formats and open protocols, and need our connection to the Unix world, or else Mac apps will be very much like Windows apps in this respect, where data formats are inconsistent, there are a lot of proprietary binary formats, a lot of wheel reinvention, inconsistencies, and suckiness. Surely the Mac community would be whining up a storm if it came to this!

OS X is a bloody Unix OS, we should embrace these advantages rather than being so standoffish and difficult. We don't have it made as it is, unless you wish for the Mac to remain solely as a computer for content creators and a fun toy to have around at home.
( Last edited by besson3c; Mar 2, 2007 at 01:15 PM. )
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
OS X is a bloody Unix OS, we should embrace these advantages rather than being so standoffish and difficult. We don't have it made as it is, unless you wish for the Mac to remain solely as a computer for content creators and a fun toy to have around at home.
GIMP is a tool for UNIX nerds. Photoshop is a tool for people who want a refined interface that is Mac like. I don't think anyone is arguing GIMP is a bad thing to have on the Mac. I think people are saying that GIMP is not a Photoshop replacement because it doesn't do any of the things that make Photoshop so attractive.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
voiceofra
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scappoose OR, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 02:24 PM
 
Okay people, this thread is going nowhere.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 03:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
GIMP is a tool for UNIX nerds. Photoshop is a tool for people who want a refined interface that is Mac like. I don't think anyone is arguing GIMP is a bad thing to have on the Mac. I think people are saying that GIMP is not a Photoshop replacement because it doesn't do any of the things that make Photoshop so attractive.

Then, like I said, forget Gimp. My comments speak to the broader picture, not specifically to Gimp.
     
aristotles
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by cakey View Post
That's pretty sweet looking. It looks a bit nicer than GIMP. It still does not have the Apple style menu but it is definitely more native looking.

It could be a nice "Paintshop pro" type program for OS X and I see that they offer both PPC and Intel OS X versions.
--
Aristotle
15" rMBP 2.7 Ghz ,16GB, 768GB SSD, 64GB iPhone 5 S⃣ 128GB iPad Air LTE
     
cj opera viking
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2007, 03:34 PM
 
Wow, fellas. I usually just read these forums, but this hilarious thread moved me to register. This just might be the most drawn out yet very civilized opinion fight I've ever seen on the net. The sad part is I was drawn to read it all!...And I actually enjoyed what people had to say! Anyhow...

I think most hit it on the head..."why do you own a mac?" I feel everyone here has one, at least in part, because of the simple asthetic principle and it's okay to simply prefer something. The point of being open to alternate presentation methods to support function is very valid, while I tend to agree with most and wish my apps to have that mac flavor. I'm not, however, opposed to a different look if it really is cheaper and better. Getting back to the real point here, though...why do you own a mac?

I own a mac because it works and it's attractive. It functions higher, faster, and way more reliable than the others with the least amount of prior knowledge. Even greater, the more knowledge you obtain, the higher, faster, and more reliable it continues to function. While open source apps are essential and I applaud all those working on them, a majority of the time they do not fully support this model. Almost every open source app on mac falls short of the reliability mark and they are often slower, less attractive, and less useful. If money is the prime directive, they are a good alternative for many people, but they are very rarely "as good" as the commercial options.

To name some of the big ones...Open Office, Neo Office, Gimp, etc... None of them are without their faults, yet none of them are bad programs. It's great to have the option of using them, however, it is to be expected the majority will not tolerate anything but absolute solidarity in their mac programs...as that's why they have a mac. Spending a few hundred dollars on a program that gives this security is not out of line, especially for one who uses it for a profit. Tax deductions alone can balance it out for many. I think it's safe to generalize and say that mac users are missing out on the open source heaven that most consider linux to be, but they also don't have the patience or desire to become adept at troubleshooting and tweaking. Linux is great, but it confuses the hell out of me and, while I certainly feel I could handle it, I don't want to climb that learning curve mountain and have to tweak my computer that much. I want to put a disc in and see the magic, while still having the ability to push my machine to do some crazy stuff, like some open source apps, all while knowing it will WORK. Open source apps, while great in principle, often just take this ease and dependability away.

To wrap up this long post on topic...Gimp is not attractive, and far less powerful than photoshop. I am not a high end user, and there are functions even I use that you need photoshop for. Pasting images to and from as well as the CMYK use is pretty big, even for amateurs. While I applaud the option, I agree, it is a far cry from photoshop and not a feasible replacement. Top that off with the fact that all these open source programs just "don't work" sometimes. The developers don't have the manpower to ensure compatibility with all updates and they are often rife with bugs. I want it to work and Gimpshop just flat out doesn't all the time.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2007, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by cj opera viking View Post
I own a mac because it works and it's attractive. It functions higher, faster, and way more reliable than the others with the least amount of prior knowledge. Even greater, the more knowledge you obtain, the higher, faster, and more reliable it continues to function. While open source apps are essential and I applaud all those working on them, a majority of the time they do not fully support this model. Almost every open source app on mac falls short of the reliability mark and they are often slower, less attractive, and less useful. If money is the prime directive, they are a good alternative for many people, but they are very rarely "as good" as the commercial options.
Nobody has addressed the areas in which the Mac has no (or no decent) software showings at all. If you want to rah rah the Mac ideology, why glaze over these areas? Or, are you content with the Mac being a platform for content creators and a fun toy for the house?

As far as open source apps, you would have to carefully qualify this by saying "multimedia centric Desktop apps", because of course OS X is literally driven by open source software. However, I agree that many of these apps do not hold up to their commercial counterparts, this may be one of the weakest areas of OSS, but in many other areas of computing - particularly enterprise computing, networking, ISP infrastructure, etc. there is no contest.

I realize that making this argument here is difficult, because I suspect that when many Mac users think about the apps out there, they gravitate towards the ones within their area of interest, and glaze over entire categories of software in other categories.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2007, 03:57 PM
 
Also, it is important to point out the importance of protocols, and not only complete monolithic apps. We count on a countless number of open source protocols in our day to day:

- daap (iTunes sharing)
- BitTorrent
- HTTP
- TCP/IP
- CUPS
- IMAP

etc. (this is actually quite a long list)

This may sound like an obscure or far reaching argument, but when you think about it, perhaps we take this for granted - this is vital to our computing lives.

One of the reasons Windows sucks is because Microsoft often invents their own proprietary protocols which makes things difficult in stepping outside of Microsoft-land:

- Active Directory (which is Open Directory with some Microsoft modifications)
- MAPI
- data formats for apps such as Office

etc.
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2007, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Wataru, I don't think people get it.

Sure ease of use, elegance, and Mac-yness are all desirable traits, and we should all buy what we feel is of good value. However, this unwavering rigidity is going to get you absolutely nowhere, as there are many great apps that are not poster child Mac apps - many of them being cross-platform apps that weren't originally designed for the Mac. In evaluating the best usage of development resources, these apps may never become bonafide poster child Mac apps...

So, what'cha going to do? Are you going to rant and rave and hold your breath about these apps not being very Mac-like? If the development effort to make the app more Mac like is simply not worth the time and money to a developer or group of developers, what good will this do? The entire world is not going to cater to Mac conformity, and it is totally unrealistic and illustrates a disconnect from reality to expect that every app do so.

So, in light of this, what are you going to do? Are you going to stick to your guns, or join the rest of the computing world?

There is nothing wrong with requesting a developer accommodate certain Mac things, as well we all should. However, writing software is a lot of work and takes a lot of effort. Adding Mac specific features is something that you might get added to their to-do list/road map, but these things take time. For many projects, these tasks may be near the bottom of their work queue.

So again, in light of this, are you going to wait patiently, or use what is available in the meantime, and if it is free, appreciate the development efforts of the developers who are developing with no monetary incentive?

There are a lot of neat open source apps that have not been ported to OS X yet, and a big part of this probably stems from the simple fact that many Mac users are quite whiny and snobbish. The latter being of particular detriment since there are some areas where the Mac software showings are quite weak.
It looks like you are the person with "unwavering rigidity." We don't move to your ideal program and we're rigid, how about you seeing things from our perspective and understanding we like PS more then we like GIMP. Heck, I like Graphics Converter more than I like GIMP (yes, I use GIMP on my PC because I don't own a Windows license...or, using the logic from your initial post, because I haven't stolen or pirated PS for Windows).

Please disperse, nothing to see but a troll...
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2007, 09:25 PM
 
Let me make it perfectly clear for once and for all, I'm sure I've said this a few times in this thread already, but I guess it has gone unnoticed...

I don't care about Gimp. My posts are not about Gimp specifically, but about the broader picture. Not about Gimp.

Cool?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2007, 09:49 PM
 
So what are you getting at? You're pissed because all Mac users aren't doing boring-ass "enterprise" stuff or what? Like, of course they overlook apps that are outside their area of interest — that's why it's called an area of interest. I don't see what you're hoping to change here.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2007, 11:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
So what are you getting at? You're pissed because all Mac users aren't doing boring-ass "enterprise" stuff or what? Like, of course they overlook apps that are outside their area of interest — that's why it's called an area of interest. I don't see what you're hoping to change here.
There are a number of computing areas, enterprise being one of several, other than content creation. If posters here simply aren't interested in anything but content creation, cool, but realize that there are others (such as myself) who are interested in advancing the Mac in other areas. Realize that by being condescending and critical of open source apps and development in general (i.e. let's not fixate on the Gimp) in areas where Mac software showings are weak or non-existent, you may potentially have a detrimental effect on advancing the Mac in these areas by being overly, as wataru puts it, "Cult of Cocoa".

Realize that there are those who are not only ideological about the quality of GUI apps available on the Mac, but also ideological about the Mac penetrating new markets and expanding so that it is longer the niche player it pretty much is now. In order to do so, we cannot bite the hand that feeds us. Open source development is vital to the Mac, vital to the computing industry, and destructive comments and attitudes do not help this cause. This doesn't necessarily describe me, I'm not really the cult of Mac/Mac evangelist type anymore, but I suspect that many here are...

Yes, so long as there is competition and options we should push developers towards developing the best interfaces as possible, everybody likes nice interfaces. However, nice interfaces take time, and are superficial without something robust and stable to interface with. These will take time within the gaps of software offerings for OS X. In the meantime, I'm interested in bridging the gap between Mac and Unix worlds (where I exist) rather than trying to destroy it. There are apps and things I woudl like to do on the Mac, and I can't help thinking that an audience of whiny, snobby, impatient types would be a turn off to any developer. There are ways to be constructive, and there are ways to be destructive.
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 12:27 AM
 
I didn't realize I'd open up such a can of worms with this topic!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 12:29 AM
 
Better a can of worms than a can with one of those snakes that jumps out at you. I hate those things.
     
voiceofra
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scappoose OR, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 01:42 AM
 
Seashore
GIMP for OS X and NO X11.
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 01:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by voiceofra View Post
Seashore
GIMP for OS X and NO X11.
Seashore's an improvement but it is really a stripped down version of GIMP. GIMPShop is GIMP with a PS layout but it's still GIMP and not ideal unless cost is your only concern.

I think our point is "stop ramming your opinion of what constitutes good software down our throat."
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 02:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
Seashore's an improvement but it is really a stripped down version of GIMP. GIMPShop is GIMP with a PS layout but it's still GIMP and not ideal unless cost is your only concern.

I think our point is "stop ramming your opinion of what constitutes good software down our throat."

What gives you the impression that I'm trying to do this?

Really, the miscommunication that happens in threads like this always astonishes me. I can accept the fact that maybe I haven't made my point clear, but at times I have difficulty seeing how people can read certain things into what I've written.
     
cj opera viking
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 03:55 AM
 
I see your point, besson, but the open source coding and applications you are referring to is not third party wares. Most are incorporated by Apple as core level function. I still maintain that the stability and ease is what makes an Apple, well, Apple. The majority of users don't need the additional programming capabilities of these programs and certainly wouldn't sacrifice the comfort they've come to expect.

I agree that the mac is largely focused upon the creative arts, but isn't that why we have personal computers? Windows makes the mistake of trying to be the all encompasing machine and therefor everything takes a hit on performance. This combination of all that different source causes problems on a fundamental level. I would guess that most on mac don't care to have it like that.

As for the business model machine. If insurance companies or other businesses wanted to code their programs for os x, they can and they do. The fact that they don't do much is not a limitation on our machines, it is a post facto observation. There is plenty of software for real world mac business function, but as the machine is not designed for that, it does not fit the scheme that runs all electronics...money. Love it or leave it, even our beloved Steve Jobs is in the position of salesman. While the mac cult prides itself in inovation and such, the almighty buck is what rules it. It's clear mac doesn't focus on this. If that is your main beef, point well taken.

As for networking...have you set up networks for windows and then tried on mac? Maybe the options are there, but on a PERSONAL level...one seems to work and one doesn't. As an enterprise machine, mac makes a simple business model and it works. It's a different market and yes, I'm okay with the fact that oracle, sun, or whatever windows is serving my office building or whatever from three states over...I just care how MY machine at home works and most of this open source stuff, like Gimp, makes it work worse lol.

My argument is that half functional open source programs (namely GIMPShop) are great for the option, but not the answer to the original dilemma discussed here. There are definite limitations to the amount of "sanctioned" software I'm defending, but not really for me. So, yes, I'm happy with the creative arts centered experience as you call it. I've produced cd's, artwork, documents, spreadsheets, surf the net, video conference, networked my house, served music to my xbox, authored cd and dvd projects, researched business, done my taxes, kept my books, developed statistical analysis for work, professionally recorded audio, managed and edited photos privately and professionally, networked with pcs, etc. etc. etc. What more do most of us need?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 05:04 AM
 
CJ: I'm not entirely sure how to respond to your post. I'm not sure what you mean by Apple makes a simple business model in enterprise markets, and it works? It doesn't work... Apple doesn't focus on the enterprise, and it shows because their offerings and support are pretty weak. Maybe by enterprise you mean business? I'm fairly certain this is what you meant...

How Apple can get a better foothold in business is a whole other thread, I was speaking more to the lacking areas of OS X software (e.g. financial, CAD, a wide variety of tools for running OS X as a server, no Unix software installer ala FreeBSD ports, portage, apt-get, etc. meaning that we rely on some blogger's build of our favorite open source tools, building them ourselves, or relying on Macports/Fink, etc.). In doing so, I'm taking a consumer-centric point of view, as clearly it isn't Apple's responsibility to provide here.
     
sushiism
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 11:37 AM
 
if you ran a school you would be teaching students completely the wrong program to get a job in that area
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 02:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by sushiism View Post
if you ran a school you would be teaching students completely the wrong program to get a job in that area


These arguments always irritate me, no offense. These are the same arguments used to justify having PCs running Windows in the schools as opposed to Macs.

Teaching students the program of the day by rote is a bad idea, because software is a moving target. Teaching students the *concepts* of an application is far better. If a student knows that they want to change the margins around their document for instance, it is generally pretty trivial to find this option in a different menu location or via an icon that looks a little different. If all they know is "that spacing thingy is the third menu option within the 'document' menu", they are tethered to that particular version of that particular program.

A lot of schools are actually switching to running OpenOffice, including our local school. It has saved the school thousands of dollars in licensing fees. I fully support this effort, because there is absolutely no reason why our tax dollars need to support buying a copy of Microsoft Office so that students can receive so-called occupational training.

It's called teaching critical thinking.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 02:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
no Unix software installer ala FreeBSD ports, portage, apt-get, etc. meaning that we rely on some blogger's build of our favorite open source tools, building them ourselves, or relying on Macports/Fink, etc
I cannot for the life of me fathom what you're complaining about here. You say there's no installer a la FreeBSD ports or apt-get, and then go on to acknowledge that there are versions of both ports and apt-get, one of which is actually supported by Apple.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I cannot for the life of me fathom what you're complaining about here. You say there's no installer a la FreeBSD ports or apt-get, and then go on to acknowledge that there are versions of both ports and apt-get, one of which is actually supported by Apple.

It is not supported by Apple, Apple simply hosts their website, they do not help develop the software.

Macports and Fink are both lacking, they are unsuitable for production environments. I can predict that this conversation will now turn to how you guys aren't interested in compiling apps and all of the other stuff we talked about, but this is just an example...

Perhaps my mistake is in listing examples, because people just to pick them apart into pieces while glossing over my overall point. I'm definitely not the only one this happens to either...
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 02:38 PM
 
It would say your mistake is in pointing out a very vague "problem" and not offering a solution at all. After all your explaining, I reckon most people here still probably aren't sure what you're getting at, because it's still very hazy beyond the fact that you like OSS and you wish there were more of it for the Mac.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 02:45 PM
 
The bottom line is that it can be argued that the grand total of open source contributions amounts to more innovation in their respective areas than the total of Apple's innovations and contributions.

Being highly dismissive of open source software just does not work in our favor. You are right, a lot of open source software does not feature Apple-like GUIs, perhaps this is not a particular strength or interest of OSS developers as a whole. However, there are many other reasons why we should want to encourage development and growth on our platform.

GimpShop is an interesting example. Somebody took the backend code and wrote their own GUI replacement. Since GUI interfaces seem to be a sticking point among Mac users, bear in mind that many are abstracted so that it is possible to slap a replacement GUI on top of the backend. If the backend is any good (and I'm not saying that the Gimp's is, because I don't know, let's leave it at that), why throw out the baby with the bathwater?

Many people like Camino, it's the same sort of thing...
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 02:50 PM
 
Chuckit,

Maybe I'm over-analyzing. People will use whatever product is the best match for them, and they may not care whether it is open source or commercial.

What bothers me is simply the dismissiveness of OSS as a whole and the generalizations about quality based on checking out a few offerings. We need the development, we need and benefit from strong, open protocols, and we need the options. That is probably the essence of what I'm driving at, in a nutshell.
     
Amorya
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Of course, this is perfectly sensible and reasonable. What about for people like myself that rely on software that in many cases does not have a strong Mac-centric solution? Not every area of software has a strong Mac covering, particularly outside of content creation.
Oh, I'll use bad ports if there's nothing else out there. I'll still grouse about it but I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

My arguments are for categories (such as office software, image editors, DTP software and the like) where there are lots of Mac-like solutions and people insist on trying to convince me to use inferior open-source software for some ideological reason. That I don't like.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
As far as open source apps, you would have to carefully qualify this by saying "multimedia centric Desktop apps", because of course OS X is literally driven by open source software. However, I agree that many of these apps do not hold up to their commercial counterparts, this may be one of the weakest areas of OSS, but in many other areas of computing - particularly enterprise computing, networking, ISP infrastructure, etc. there is no contest.
Some open source is excellent. My Debian based web server is a testament to that. I think (and I'm generalising here) that open source often has wonderful technology but poor user interface. For a server, I don't care that the configuration files for my DNS server are abysmal, as I set it once and then tweak it every so often. But for desktop apps, where I interact with the UI with regularity, it bothers me more. I know there are exceptions to the trend, btw.


Amorya
What the nerd community most often fail to realize is that all features aren't equal. A well implemented and well integrated feature in a convenient interface is worth way more than the same feature implemented crappy, or accessed through a annoying interface.
     
Bob Marley
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2007, 08:12 PM
 
dammit macgregor get on that machine gun!
     
cj opera viking
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2007, 04:25 AM
 
Yes, I meant business.

Still...the real point of your argument may just be coming out now. You want better support and better tools to build with on apple. Well, that's understandable...

...but the argument is going to meet with stiff criticism, because most people look at that and see what happens on a windows pc. If you load any random program on a mac and see that trademark interface, it's almost always associated with that "okay, this is going to work." Apple has worked hard to maintain this. All I'm saying is that while I DO appreciate good OSS, most of it sucks compared to the real deal. I just don't think it's okay for Apple to make it easier to make material just so we get more of it. Quantity does not beat quality or else we'd all have windows machines already.

You're making the assumption that if there was more work done on Apple's part to make it easier to create open source programs that it means it would all be good stuff. I don't think this is the case. Those that can code well, do, and we get great products. These people are usually the really talented writers and know enough and take the time to match the graphic interface with the status quo.

I am absolutely not against open source programs. I view them the same as comercial programs and weigh them on function AND form. Form on a computer boils down to ease of use...and to many including myself, the mac form is just better.

I don't know the answer to this. It's a very valid desire for better tools, but I'm not convinced we need it and certainly not convinced with the crop of open source for mac as a whole. If you're saying that it's mac's fault for not providing good enough tools to make the programs...well, you may have a very good point...but bottom line is that most will not share this passion of yours, because they are content with what they have. That's the real issue here, isn't it. You want more and most aren't even concerned about it. Hey, if it means more awesome programs, I personally don't care what the damn things look like, bring em on. But I fear it actually means more mediocre stuff...
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2007, 06:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by aristotles View Post
That's pretty sweet looking. It looks a bit nicer than GIMP. It still does not have the Apple style menu but it is definitely more native looking.
Hmm, I see that app as one of the major flaws with OSS - the urge to copy another app instead of being original.

Pixel is a Photoshop rip off.
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2007, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by cj opera viking View Post
Yes, I meant business.

Still...the real point of your argument may just be coming out now. You want better support and better tools to build with on apple. Well, that's understandable...

...but the argument is going to meet with stiff criticism, because most people look at that and see what happens on a windows pc. If you load any random program on a mac and see that trademark interface, it's almost always associated with that "okay, this is going to work." Apple has worked hard to maintain this. All I'm saying is that while I DO appreciate good OSS, most of it sucks compared to the real deal. I just don't think it's okay for Apple to make it easier to make material just so we get more of it. Quantity does not beat quality or else we'd all have windows machines already.

You're making the assumption that if there was more work done on Apple's part to make it easier to create open source programs that it means it would all be good stuff. I don't think this is the case. Those that can code well, do, and we get great products. These people are usually the really talented writers and know enough and take the time to match the graphic interface with the status quo.

I am absolutely not against open source programs. I view them the same as comercial programs and weigh them on function AND form. Form on a computer boils down to ease of use...and to many including myself, the mac form is just better.

I don't know the answer to this. It's a very valid desire for better tools, but I'm not convinced we need it and certainly not convinced with the crop of open source for mac as a whole. If you're saying that it's mac's fault for not providing good enough tools to make the programs...well, you may have a very good point...but bottom line is that most will not share this passion of yours, because they are content with what they have. That's the real issue here, isn't it. You want more and most aren't even concerned about it. Hey, if it means more awesome programs, I personally don't care what the damn things look like, bring em on. But I fear it actually means more mediocre stuff...


First of all, again, you need to qualify what you are saying by being specific about discussing GUI Desktop application OSS, because in many areas, OSS is the real deal and vastly superior to many commercial offerings.

Secondly, and this is addressed to others interested in this thread too, the design of Unix is such that developers leave issues of policy up to interface developers and/or users. Unix (including OS X) is the gestalt of a bunch of small applications working together in concert. What you dislike about a piece of OSS may in fact be the underlying framework and the capabilities it provides, but it may simply be policy and the decisions involving the interface. You might absolutely adore the same underlying tools bundled in a different, more Mac-like interface.

It is important to remember that the interface is only a part of the application, and in OSS, because of its design and open-nature, interfaces can often be abstracted from the underlying bits so that they can be replaced, just like the Gimpshop devs did with Gimp, just like the Camino devs did with Gecko.

I understand your arguments stressing the importance of a consistent Mac interface, but again, there are areas of computing where you are not going to get commercial software that offerings a compelling Mac-like interface - PERIOD. In these situations, what is the harm in having additional options around, particularly given with an OSS solution, one is free to make decisions and do things with the product that they cannot do with a closed commercial product without being a VP or some sort of big wig of the company owning the product?

I's not as if we have all our bases covered and have more software than we know what to do with, so CJ Opera, I disagree with you rather strongly.
     
aristotles
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2007, 02:33 PM
 
Gimpshop is not a rewrite or a rewritten GUI layer for GIMP. It is GIMP with a few configuration tweaks and rewritten menu definitions, nothing more.

Seashore is a complete rewrite of the GUI layer encorporating some GIMP code.

But guys, if you really want a cheap alternative to Photoshop or even Photoshop Elements (which Adobe has not updated for OS X), take a look at Pixel serious. I bought it and so far I would rate it at least on par with Paintshop Pro if not Photoshop CS2.

The only problems I've seen with it so far is the lack of a view menu (the zoom is hidden in the bottom left corner of the window) and the non-native menu and widgets although it seems to mesh better than GIMP does with OS X.
--
Aristotle
15" rMBP 2.7 Ghz ,16GB, 768GB SSD, 64GB iPhone 5 S⃣ 128GB iPad Air LTE
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2007, 05:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
I don't know about that - Cyberduck seems pretty good to me.
Yes indeed. Also, Fugu is speedy and small. Both 4 free!
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:19 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,