Why isn't it yet coded FOR any UNIX-Like OS?

[Tashi]

Actually, I can't catch the reason why it's not yet ready to be really
operative from a pure Unix-Like OS, and only emulated for instance
with wine?
So many people don't want to pay to have an OS, and will NEVER pay
anything to use any so slow, virus-full and buggy OS like this crappy
Windows!
But could someone tell me if ever a pure ANSI-C version, so mostly
exportable, is scheduled to be realised once, or if ever no one did
yet think about it?

Thanks to tell me!, guys!

[Tamer Ziady]

not sure; but it is why I moved to digikam.

T

[R]

There is also a native MacOSX version of Picasa : http://http://picasa.google.com/mac

Why not a native Linux version of Picasa?

[Stephen]

It's hard to do Linux desktop applications due to the plethora of Window Managers available to the GNU user hence all the variables for the developers to code for. There is no one desktop as there is for MacOS and pretty much for M$FT Windows.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google-Labs-Picasa-for-Linux" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-labs-pi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-labs-picasa-f...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-labs-picasa-for-linux?hl=en.

--

[Brian Johnson]

Linux is third tier at best going just by numbers. I like Linux and have mostly moved to it from Windows but at times I am aggravated by the lack of drivers or applications for Linux.

As I found myself migrating towards Linux I was struck by all the FOSS flag waving then seeing Picasa was so widely used by the Linux community. Even with all the extra coding Google did to use with Wine it is still Windows. 

There is now a generation of users who think all software should be free.

Millions still pay for ".... slow, virus-full and buggy OS". Its personal choice right or wrong in your eyes.

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:28 AM, R <rzr...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google-Labs-Picasa-for-Linux" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-labs-pi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-labs-picasa-f...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-labs-picasa-for-linux?hl=en.

--
https://duckduckgo.com/

[R]

>It's hard to do Linux desktop applications due to the plethora of Window Managers available to the GNU ...

How about Google Earth for Linux?
Google Chrome for Linux?
......

Other Google products have a native version for Linux.

I don't think Google have problems to choose window manager for these
applications.

And for Picasa, I think if they port all code to MacOSX, a unix like
system, the logic/business tier don't change and only have to change
the view/presentation tier for Linux.

[Patrick Shanahan]

* R <rzr...@gmail.com> [02-24-11 15:43]:

> >It's hard to do Linux desktop applications due to the plethora of
> >Window Managers available to the GNU ...
>
> How about Google Earth for Linux?
> Google Chrome for Linux?
> ......

better look more closely. They *all* run under/via wine :^)

> Other Google products have a native version for Linux.

Please show me?

> I don't think Google have problems to choose window manager for these
> applications.
>
> And for Picasa, I think if they port all code to MacOSX, a unix like
> system, the logic/business tier don't change and only have to change
> the view/presentation tier for Linux.

more at the bottom!

> --

Please consider quoting a little more text :^)

--
(paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member
Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org

[R]

> > How about Google Earth for Linux?
> > Google Chrome for Linux?
> > ......
>
> better look more closely.  They *all* run under/via wine  :^)

These applications are native for Linux, take a look inside...

Google Chrome is in Gtk libraries:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev/msg/f3507e2ded99b354

And Google Earth is in Qt libraries:
http://qt.nokia.com/qt-in-use/story/app/google-earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_earth#Linux_version

> > Other Google products have a native version for Linux.
>
> Please show me?

Like for example Google Desktop: http://desktop.google.com/linux/index.html

> (paka)Patrick Shanahan       Plainfield, Indiana, USA      HOG # US1244711http://wahoo.no-ip.org       Photo Album:http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2http://en.opensuse.org                          openSUSE Community Member

[Stephen]

Arguably all these examples have a larger user base than Picasa. Picasa doesn't seem to have the uptake that say Google Earth or Google-Chrome have. Not sure why ...

So the effort put into porting doesn't have the same cost benefit is the argument here that I'm making.

[Ed]

Picasa is less popular with the general public for the same reason
that Windows is more popular than Linux. Every computer comes with a
"free" operating system (Windows) and every new camera comes with
"free" photo management software ( Consumers are used to always
inserting any CD that comes with any purchased hardware) - plus, and
even easier, Windows includes their "free" product "Windows Photo
Gallery", with NO installation necessary. John Doe consumer just wants
the simple or pre-installed solution and doesn't want to bother with
the hassle of downloading Picassa, even if they have heard of Picassa,
which most consumers have not heard of.

On Feb 25, 9:39 am, Stephen <stephen.d.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Arguably all these examples have a larger user base than Picasa. Picasa
> doesn't seem to have the uptake that say Google Earth or Google-Chrome have.
> Not sure why ...
>

...

[Patrick Shanahan]

* Ed <comer....@gmail.com> [02-25-11 11:48]:

Ah, "free operating system (Windows)"
Definitely NOT free
Debatable "operating system"

"Free photo management software"
Merely included in the camera purchase price. Try getting it w/o
purchasing a camera

"Free product 'Windows Photo Gallery'"
Another product merely included in the *original* purchase price.

Your John Doe consumer just wants to spend money.
--

(paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2

[Edward Comer]

No, Windows is FREE as far as the consumer is concerned. Joe consumer goes to the local big-box store and buys a computer. It comes with Windows, costs the consumer no extra money, time or energy, so to him/her it is the same as free. For joe consumer obtaining a computer without Windows already installed is very difficult and usually costs more (look at Dell's Linux pricing). All that joe consumer wants is a computer that will do what they want, namely browse the web, send/receive email and write a very word processing documents. They don't care about the OS - they just want to use the tool. To the consumer Windows IS free because to not have it is difficult and, in their mind, certainly not worth it. Remember, the vast majority of consumers do NOT subscribe to this email list because they are not like you and me - what comes from the store is their only option or at least the only option that they care about.

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Patrick Shanahan <ptilo...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Ah, "free operating system (Windows)"
 Definitely NOT free
 Debatable "operating system"

"Free photo management software"
 Merely included in the camera purchase price.  Try getting it w/o
 purchasing a camera

"Free product 'Windows Photo Gallery'"
 Another product merely included in the *original* purchase price.

Your John Doe consumer just wants to spend money....

[Patrick Shanahan]

* Edward Comer <comer....@gmail.com> [02-25-11 13:09]:

But you are now speaking of *perception*, not reality. When you make
these generality statements, it is necessary that they be put into proper
context.

There is NO free lunch and windoz is *definitely* NOT free any more than
the tank of gasolene the auto dealer may *give* you when you purchase a
new automobile. It wasn't free!

It is also a fact that the windoz version *included* in the sale of most
computers is by law a refundable quantity and NOT a condition of purchase
even thou it is not publicized and not explained at sale and *should* be
considered a fraudulent action.

Try using windoz on a new computer w/o agreeing to an unreadable ula.

[Edward Comer]

You are splitting hairs. Perception IS reality to the average consumer. Nothing in life is free but many things are perceived as free. The original topic was "why is Picasa less popular?" The simple answer is that the operating system that came with joe consumer's PC already has Microsoft photo management installed and most consumers will simply use that - OR the photo management that came "free" with their camera - again, not really free, but they can't get the camera without it so, to the consumer it is perceived as free. The fact that the cost of the software is bundled into mass market hardware is not important to the consumer - they just want it to work with minimal or no effort. Picasa requires (1) that the consumer be aware of it; (2) that they expend effort in what they consider arcane tasks, i.e., finding, downloading and installing web resident packages - too scary for joe consumer - thus Picasa lags in deployment versus the aforementioned alternatives.

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Patrick Shanahan <ptilo...@gmail.com> wrote:

* Edward Comer <comer....@gmail.com> [02-25-11 13:09]:

> No, Windows is FREE as far as the consumer is concerned. Joe consumer goes
> to the local big-box store and buys a computer. It comes with Windows, costs
> the consumer no extra money, time or energy, so to him/her it is the same as
> free. For joe consumer obtaining a computer without Windows already
> installed is very difficult and usually costs more (look at Dell's Linux
> pricing). All that joe consumer wants is a computer that will do what they
> want, namely browse the web, send/receive email and write a very word
> processing documents. They don't care about the OS - they just want to use
> the tool. To the consumer Windows IS free because to not have it is
> difficult and, in their mind, certainly not worth it. Remember, the vast
> majority of consumers do NOT subscribe to this email list because they are
> not like you and me - what comes from the store is their only option or at
> least the only option that they care about.

>...

[Brian Johnson]

Any opinions here might be taken a little more seriously if we dropped the infantile Windoz or attacking Microsoft and their system builders OS bundling. I suspect Microsoft has covered this with their 73 trade attorneys. Sure their software sales are aggressive, some say predatory but vendors are not forced to bundle Windows, they could bundle with Linux but that has never really materialized in any meaningful way.

After years with Windows I find myself using Linux more often, it suits me fine. My parents bought and it was bundled with Windows and thats good for them.My sister bought a new notebook and it was bundled with Windows, great for her.

Until vendors are pressed to offer PC's bundled with Linux, it will remain a 3rd tier OS (going by numbers). Actually before Linux pre-installed it would be nice to see hardware vendors offering more Linux support.

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Patrick Shanahan <ptilo...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google-Labs-Picasa-for-Linux" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-labs-pi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-labs-picasa-f...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-labs-picasa-for-linux?hl=en.

--
https://duckduckgo.com/

[Patrick Shanahan]

* Brian Johnson <johnson...@gmail.com> [02-25-11 16:10]:

Who really cares whether opinions/facts are taken seriously and is your
childish attempt at labeling actions any different than a widespread
recognition of a slang representation of a monopolistic enterprise? Are
you *really* sure they only have 73 trade attorneys?

Their software sales are not only aggressive, they are repressive and
criminal. Vendors/builders *are* forced via pricing to use *only* windows
and no other operating system. And *most* hardware vendors are not going
to offer Linux support for the same reason there will be no Linux based
version of picasa.

ps: Why do you answer questions before they are asked? Is it to be able
to include more quoted text?

Will you graduate High School soon?

[Brian Johnson]

Wow. Way to bitter for me. I cower back to my shell, licking my wounds and healing a crushed soul.

To paraphrase and truncate Tzu (Lao not Lieh) "accept disgrace willingly, accept being unimportant, humbly surrender"

 

 

--
https://duckduckgo.com/

[Stephen]

Actually one has to compare apples to apples. Picasa's competition is other online photo album sites <ie> Flickr.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google-Labs-Picasa-for-Linux" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-labs-pi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-labs-picasa-f...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-labs-picasa-for-linux?hl=en.

--

[caldercay]

On Feb 24, 12:20 pm, Stephen <stephen.d.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's hard to do Linux desktop applications due to the plethora of Window
> Managers available to the GNU user hence all the variables for the
> developers to code for.

Bzzzzzzt - rwong! [sic].

Programs aren't coded for all the
different windowing systems.

[caldercay]

On Feb 24, 2:54 pm, Patrick Shanahan <ptilopt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > How about Google Earth for Linux?
> > Google Chrome for Linux?
>

> better look more closely.  They *all* run under/via wine  :^)
>
> > Other Google products have a native version for Linux.
>
> Please show me?

Are you suggesting that Google does
not have any native apps for Linux?
If so, better check again.

[caldercay]

On Feb 25, 12:55 pm, Edward Comer <comer.edw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are splitting hairs. Perception IS reality to the average consumer. *
> Nothing* in life is free but many things are perceived as free. The original

> topic was "why is Picasa less popular?" The simple answer is that the
> operating system that came with joe consumer's PC already has Microsoft
> photo management installed and most consumers will simply use that - OR the
> photo management that came "free" with their camera - again, not really
> free, but they can't get the camera without it so, to the consumer it is
> perceived as free. The fact that the cost of the software is bundled into
> mass market hardware is not important to the consumer - they just want it to
> work with minimal or no effort. Picasa requires (1) that the consumer be
> aware of it; (2) that they expend effort in what they consider arcane tasks,
> i.e., finding, downloading and installing web resident packages - too scary
> for joe consumer - thus Picasa lags in deployment versus
> the aforementioned alternatives.

I agree wholeheartedly with this post
and your other posts. The average
Joe/Joan will most likely not use
Picasa, unless they know someone
who is familiar with and uses Picasa,
who would recommend Picasa to
their Joe/Joan friend.

Geez .... this thread gives me flashbacks
to the days when I participated heavily
in COLA.

[caldercay]

On Feb 25, 11:41 pm, Stephen <stephen.d.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually one has to compare apples to apples. Picasa's competition is other
> online photo album sites <ie> Flickr.

I'd qualify that statement by saying that
Picasa "Web Albums" is the Google
product that competes with other online
photo album sites ... for example, Flickr
doesn't have the native photo editing
application (i.e., "Picasa").

[Randy Arrowood]

I only buy Kodak and Nikon cameras but speaking for those 2 manufacturers you can download the photo management software that ships with the camera for free. Of course, they are Windows and Mac only, but they will both handle images shot with other cameras. I use Picasa because it is better than both for me. 

I'm new again to Linux after about 4 years away so it was a little bit of a letdown to see that the Linux version of Picasa was the Windows version.

[Tashi]

Hey, don't you think THE real trouble about it could more be the fact
than most of the people that uses computers DO prefer to pay an
awefully expensive Windows (or a Mac'in'toy) than simply use a quite
basic and standard Linux/BSD/Hurd... for instance?

And yes, "wine" does exist and is quite efficient. But however, I
believe the fact of being FORCED to use an UGLY emulated win32 binary
on a fully free OS is really aweful, and could be very easily avoided
if ever a men belonging to Google group could simply decide to compile
this program as an "ELF binary", for instance with gcc which fully
free too!

And moreover, wine is quite slowing the quickness of ANY Linux OS,
which are incredibly faster than those crappy Windows or mac's!

So, google coders, could you please think about realising it? ;/

Stephen a écrit :