digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Google Releases Picasa For Linux

picasa.google.com — Goggle is further embracing the open-source community by developing one of their most popular applications, the Picasa picture organizer, for the Linux platform. Way to go Google!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • owine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8they seem to have taken down the page. its still linked from the google labs page.
  • sastian, on 10/12/2007, -23/+15Just one question now.

    "When does the mac version come out?!?"

    btw i thought there were more of us then there were of the linux users anyway!
    • sastian, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9ive tried both and dont think i can agree with you, and ive used iphoto for mch longer that ive ever used picassa
    • tabledesk, on 10/12/2007, -11/+37iPhoto is pathetic in terms of performance. Ridiculously unnecessary anti-aliasing, which only slows down the entire application. It does not scale well in performance -- when they show off these applications in the store, you'll be able to note that the images in the library are not taken with a 7+ megapixel camera, so the speediness won't apply to you when you try it at home with your modern camera.

      Anyway - Picasa is much more responsive and lightweight than iPhoto and has much lower requirements for acceptable speeds. (AND IT KEEPS THE PHOTOS IN A SANE DIRECTORY STRUCTURE)
    • adinb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Amen to the directory structure. iPhoto doesn't seem to pay *any* attention to the meta-data it could get from a directory structure when importing.

      Picasa for OSX!
    • NicP, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3adinb: if you drag folders into iphoto individually you get an album for each folder (obviously this is a pita if you have lots and lots of folders)
    • Tommstein, on 10/12/2007, -28/+22But, but, I thought you Apple fags and your third-place operating system could run everything that Linux people can just fine? Or is that only when you're trying to evangelize people into paying like $3,000 for your piece-of-***** operating system? Quit your whining, bitches. Add this to the ever-increasing list of things that run in good-old, free (in two senses) Linux but not on a Macintosh.
    • MrSpontaneous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"btw i thought there were more of us then there were of the linux users anyway!"

      nope. Linux is ranked second in terms of market share.
    • ketsugi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How does Picasa compare to F-Spot, then?
  • gstuartj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15This. Is. Wonderful. It's very stable and works surprisingly well for such an early release.
    • bradr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Awesome. I can't wait to get set up in linux again. This was, believe it or not, one of the main reasons I was not able to stay with linux once I switched. I got so fed up without having a solid photo management / simple editor program. I had to switch back to windows *shudders*. Linux zealots will tell you there's alternatives, but it's only once you've tried those other programs like digikam, gphoto, etc that you realize how amazing this software really is (I haven't tried iPhoto but it sounds really similar). A great addition the linux desktop! Thanks google!!
    • firstlast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Worked fine for me too. Also try this http://www.kanzelsberger.com and you'll find out that Linux is a good thing with right tools.
  • eklitzke, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38I love Google so much right now. I don't even like Picasa, but the fact that a major company would release their product on Linux, for free, just makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

    EDIT: damn, it uses Wine.
    • sastian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42you act like getting free software on linux is a new thing : )
    • eklitzke, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12@sastian
      It's the goodwill that makes me happy. There are so many companies that make major $$$ off Linux, and never give back to the community. Even though the release is binary only, it's nice to see Google releasing a product to the Linux community that they won't make money from.
    • burke, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29Seriously? It uses wine? That seems like a pretty huge cop-out.
    • flake, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6Lol, so it's just as much of a "release" as word perfect suite for linux. No digg
    • brentcore, on 10/12/2007, -14/+28i actually see this a slap in the face to linux users. I actually hate it more when vendors "release" software for "free" under linux, yet refuse to open source it. Then everyone talks about how they reach out to open source and "embrace the community". beh, this is just like java.

      I'll stick with F-spot thank you very much.
    • cphuntington97, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21wtf? wine? seriously!? no digg! bad goggle!
    • ArthurSucks, on 10/12/2007, -18/+18"slap in the face to Linux users"

      What the hell?! Don't like it, don't use it.
    • brentcore, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18believe me, i'm not using it. call me crazy, but why even bother releasing this? a) it runs in wine, which it already did anyway, b) it's still not free, and c) it's crap compared to F-spot. Which is free. And native to linux.
      I have to agree with DiggDuality below, this is gimmicky crap. Ask yourself why Google has even a single good reason for keeping Picasa and all it's other software closed? This "release" just reinforces the idea it's ok USE open source for profit and pretend like your giving something back by making software free as in beer. Bury me for being an OSS snob, fine.
    • kingofearth2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@brentcore: While I do agree that they should open source some more of their programs, you can't say that Google doesn't do anything for the community. You have to remember that they sponsor the Summer of Code, and I'm pretty sure that they gave Jabber VoIP capabilities with libJingle.

      And it did say that they had to make some improvements to Wine in order to get it to work properly, which they gave to Wine.
    • brentcore, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6@kingofearth2:
      You're right. I got a bit overzealous there. Google actually does do alot for the community peripherally, but I just feel constantly let down by their failure to open up their software. And that's the real issue here. Like I said below, Google has plenty to gain by stimulating the open source community from the outside, but that still doesn't cut it. Sometimes it seems like its more of a getting-the-foot-in-the-door than a true commitment to opensource. I think their online services are great (gmail and google maps) but frankly I just can't understand why they won't open source their downloadable programs! And to release them under Linux! Sorry I just got myself all pissed off again! Its just absurd! Are they afraid someone will rip google ads out of the software and recompile them and release them under a new title? THAT is the kind of distrust for the opensource community that gets everyone pissed at microsoft yet google seems to have some kind of reality distortion field that creates their image of "doing no evil". THAT is why I call it a slap in the face.

      I challenge ANYONE here to give me ONE GOOD reason why google shouldn't open source their downloadable apps! Bury me if you find yourself stumped.
    • jzimmerman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14@brentcore

      Why is it a requirement to be open source if your application is going to run on linux.

      There are markets for both closed source and open source apps.

      Seriously think about what it takes to release an application open source. If the application wasn't open source from the start it is a pain in the ass, especially if multiple developers, and in this case companies, have worked on the closed source code. The IP path is not clear.

      They are letting you use it for free, on linux, via WINE.

      Open source is not the "holy grail" of computer programming. It is one piece to the whole picture.

      Be grateful for what is made available to you. If you don't like it program something similar yourself, release it open source, and give it away for free. (or after you have put all that time and effort into it would you feel so generous?)
    • brentcore, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4@jzimmerman:

      you seriously think that keeping it closed source is less of a pain in the ass than keeping it opensource? a) google owns the IP to picasa, b) think of all the money you save opensourcing your app for improvement by the community.

      You could maybe put up an "its a hassle" argument if google was charging money for it, but if its already free as in beer, and they own the IP to it, why not open it?

      btw, you say "be grateful what is given to you", which are very wise words to live by. I wish Google took a page out of your book, i do, and I say that with no antagonism whatsoever.
    • jzimmerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@brentcore (again)

      Here is one answer to your "challenge".

      Google makes money by offering __services__ and selling advertising on those services. There are other things, but that is what we are going to talk about here.

      They buy and build applications that can tie into those services and offer the end user a richer experience, collecting data about their usage, offering great functionality in some areas, and selling targeted add space to advertisers.

      If they open source these things how easy would it be for a competitor to pick up the source code and either user Google's own services to add value to theirs. How easy would it be to take the source code and setup their own services independently from google's, in direct competition with Google, with the source code that Google released.

      Open source in this specific instance is not feasible. And would probably be a pain in the ass without a clear IP path on the code in Picasa's case (this is speculation on my part, but feasible speculation).

      They are letting you use it for free. On linux.

      Stop whining.
    • jzimmerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@brentcore (again)

      Just because google own's the rights to the program doesn't make ALL the IP clear for open sourcing. Open source licenses have requirements too.

      And a business will have to justify the time spent on open sourcing the application vs the benefit.

      Do you honestly think that with the programmer's they have access to that they will benefit from the open source community having access to their code?
    • brentcore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@jzimmerman:
      let's get the facts straight: google owns the IP to picasa. There is nothing complicated about opensourcing that in terms of legality. Let me quote google directly: "When Google wanted to port Picasa to Linux, they faced a problem: the Picasa team was busy working on new projects, and having them also do a native port would have taken a while." That sounds like the perfect oppurtunity to open source it. The arguments you make sound like the same arguments we've heard over and over before about opensource not being commercializable (because you can't trust what people will do to it) or about how releasing APIs for online services will only result in diminishing returns. Look at all the press google got after releasing the API for google maps! Look at all the mashups! That was a stroke of genius. It all comes down to weighing your decisions, and unless you're stuck in the old dotcom-market way of thinking, you'll realize that openness is a GOOD thing if you are primarily a services company. An open Picasa could have the same effect that an open google maps did.
    • brentcore, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@jzimmerman:
      "justify the time spent on open sourcing the application vs the benefit"

      You can't be serious. The benefits of opening it are potentially infinite given the architecture of creating a platform that can be built upon longer than the lifetime of the development of a closed source app. And your argument about competing services-centered companies stealing google's code is bunk. If google is primarily a services company (which we both agree on), then isn't the focus on the IMPROVEMENT of those services which may potentially hook in to downloadable apps (like google earth)? Name one rougue pirate company that, when even given source code to google earth, could create something as robust and useful as google earth? You can't, because google beats them all when it comes to services. Google still wins in the end because their services are still better than any potential competitors.

      My point? If google opened up picasa, and one day had it hook into other google services (like gmail, etc.), then there exists the possibility that the community will come up with amazingly creative "mashup"-like software which builds upon picasa, and promoting the use of google services. Imagine a gimp/picasa/googlephotos/flickr type thing. But by keeping it closed, picasa is all it will ever be. Think of all the google maps mashups, all 10000 of them. Could google have done that on their own, despite the money and manpower? No. Moral of the story: you can't own the power of the community. You can't game or train the power of the community. You have to give it the respect it deserves. And it always gives back. Google of all companies should know this the best.
    • jzimmerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@brentcore

      An API to use an application (i.e. Google Maps) and an actual application (i.e. Picasa) are two very different things.

      I am in no way basing open source. I would advocate both open source an closed source given the right circumstances.

      My comments are in no way "stuck in the old-dotcom way of marketing".

      Google is in now way required or obligated to open source their application. You are not entitled to demand that they do so.

      And if you believe that just because they own Picasa that their IP path is completely clear to open source it then you are naive. I am sure that you (and I for that matter) have not looked at any of the legal agreements and otherwise that were generated during the purchase of Picasa. To open source something like that they will need to hire legal aide to review it as well.



    • jzimmerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@brentcore

      Again...

      Open sourceing an API to use a service or application is very different than open sourcing a complete application or service.

      Please point me in the direction where I can download an open source version of the actual source code that I can compile and run my own service with for GoogleMaps.

      Please point me in the direction where I can download open source code for GoogleEarth that I can modify compile and change to my hearts content.

      An API is not an Application or Service. It is a way to use that service or application that extends functionality.

      The example with GoogleEarth and GoogleMaps do not hold. It is a different situation.
    • proidiot, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1quite a setback that it uses wine, i agree
      however, according to wine's front page, google contributed, also
      so not all is lost...
      but now they definitely owe us something that is actually open
    • jzimmerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@proidiot

      Why do you think they __owe__ it to you to open source their application?
    • jethro1010, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Yes, you can just use wine, and this Picasa comes with wine(ish), but there is also more work done to integrate the style of it with linux and some other things.
      so Picasa+wine != Picasa4Linux
    • brentcore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@jzimmerman:

      again, I don't buy it. Google owns the IP to picasa. But i guess we won't agree on that part. And I disagree with you that releasing the API for an online service is so different for opensourcing downloadable software that it negates the potential benefits.

      "Please point me in the direction where I can download an open source version of the actual source code that I can compile and run my own service with for GoogleMaps"

      I'm not going to go to the trouble of it, but why don't you google "google maps api sign up"(actually i just did go the trouble. first entry)? There ya go. See? Its free for you and me to tinker with. This is the online analogue to opensource software. And I don't really need to point you to independent projects using the google maps api do I? Go google "google maps mashups".

      You said: "An API is not an Application or Service. It is a way to use that service or application that extends functionality. The example with GoogleEarth and GoogleMaps do not hold. It is a different situation." Actually the analogy absolutely holds. If the point of offering online services is to provide extended "functionality" to normal web browsing, and if this can be functionality can built on top of a service like google maps that is open to people like you and me to use as a tool, then that is extremely analogous to the way open source works.

      I think the difference here *is* in fact the way we perceive the market. As the CEO of google, I would be doing things way different then how you would be doing things. And in my opinion, you would be doing things in the old dotcom ways (or even the old UNIX ways). My criticism of google is actually a bit of tough love for a company that I see as making a huge mistake amid many past successes.

      btw: I'm not sure how you got the idea that I feel like google owe's anyone anything in terms of opensourcing picasa. I just think it's an awfully bad idea on their part given the tremendous potential. Especially when looking on their past decisions to open up some of their services.
    • jejones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@brentcore: When I tried f-spot, it sucked up all available RAM and CPU cycles, and then hung itself before it made it all the way through the initial import of images. I hope it (or maybe Mono, since I think f-spot uses Mono) has been improved since then. I'll be giving Picasa a try.
    • skabber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I really wouldn't call this "porting to Linux" when it uses wine. Plus if I were to use this I would have 3 versions of wine on my system. Regulare Wine, Cedega and then prepackaged version that ships with this "port". Not to mention that there is no AMD64 binary and this is not open source so I cannot compile my own. I think I will stick with F-Spot, thank you.
    • jzimmerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3brentcore stated:
      "I'm not going to go to the trouble of it, but why don't you google "google maps api sign up"(actually i just did go the trouble. first entry)? There ya go. See? Its free for you and me to tinker with. This is the online analogue to opensource software. And I don't really need to point you to independent projects using the google maps api do I? Go google "google maps mashups"."

      -----
      What I asked for:
      "Please point me in the direction where I can download an open source version of the actual source code that I can compile and run my own service with for GoogleMaps.

      Please point me in the direction where I can download open source code for GoogleEarth that I can modify compile and change to my hearts content."

      -----

      Those are NOT the same things. I am well aware of the API and have used it myself.

      And your original statement....
      "i actually see this a slap in the face to linux users. I actually hate it more when vendors "release" software for "free" under linux, yet refuse to open source it. Then everyone talks about how they reach out to open source and "embrace the community"."

      Does seem to imply that you feel that they owe it to you and the "community" to release software as open source.
  • CptnObvious, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4actually looks pretty good for a GTK application under KDE except the menus. Not sure if this is going to replace Digikam for me....
    • ahawks, on 10/12/2007, -26/+6It's NOT GTK or Qt. It's the Windows app running through Wine. That means you need a windows partition installed, I believe.

      This sucks, and I agree, it's kinda a slap in the face.
    • celerate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I haven't needed Windows to run it's apps in Wine before, although I have heard of people installing the apps in Windows first and then copying the program files to their Linux partition in the case of software with uncooperative installers.
    • sp0rk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yeah, Digg the guy up that blindly assumes Wine requires a Windows partition, because he's obviously used Wine before.
  • Inhibit, on 10/12/2007, -17/+8Wait a minute. They're embracing the open source community by (err...) making an aplication available for Linux. That's closed source.

    Wouldn't that be embracing the Linux community? Or is it an open source app and I missed something.
    • jayKayEss, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6That's a good point, but I think Linux users have the right to choose between closed source and open source apps, too. There should be some closed source apps on Linux.
    • wampl3r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20No, they're embracing the open source community by submitting over 100 patches to the wine project in order to run picasa on Linux.. (see my comment below)..
    • mkoko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22225 patches, to be exact :)
      http://code.google.com/wine.html
    • brentcore, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3@wampl3r

      Is that a contribution or is that Google trying to get it's foot in the door?

      Google has plenty to profit from a program like wine. It gives them an excuse to stay closed.
    • Flooq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9What exactly is the problem with staying closed? I'm not trying to complain or stick up for Google here I'm geniuinely curious about why people think that everything on Linux has to be in tune with the FSFs ideas about how things should be. There seem to be a lot of fundemental economic problems with that view when expanded to the entire industry unless I'm missing something.
    • alloneword, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I use Linux, and I prefer open source apps. Even when in windows I use gaim for IM, gimp for photo work, and of course FireFox and thunderbird. I also use OpenOffice.

      But that doesn't mean I wont touch closed source programs. I play games, and i play them in Linux. Just because open source is 'better' (well I prefer it), doesn't mean all closed source is evil, granted a lot of it is :)

      But to ignor an application because it is closed source, and that be the only reason is not the best course of action. Ignoring it because it is a crap program, and is closed source that is OK.
  • thechitowncubs, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3so close but yet so far
  • jvux, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0google is trying to dominate its presence onto other operating systems
  • short_man, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2'bout time.
  • burke, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Odd how this has made it to the frontpage even though very few people have actually seen the page for it.
    • webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How often do the words "Google" and "Linux" appear together?

      I'm surprised the title wasn't appended or prepended by "Amazing!!!" :)
  • Cinder6, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6This is a waste of time if you already have WINE installed, because Picasa already runs fine "natively" on it. I had expected this to run better, somehow, but it is exactly the same (for me, at least), with a larger download size. While I appreciate Google at least making the effort, this would be *really* cool news if it were a native Linux application.

    At least it is a bit easier to get this running if you don't have/want WINE installed globally (but really, WINE isn't hard at all to set up).
    • wampl3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I read that google provided over 100 patches to the wine project as a result of releasing picasa for Linux using wine. There has to be some benefits of using their packaged version of wine over the regular release unless you're currently running from cvs.. (although i don't know what the specifics are) Hopefully other apps will see benefits from these patches as well!
    • rincebrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@wampl3r:
      Dude, they're shipping wine 0.9.10 in this, and wine 0.9.14 was released a day or two ago - if you've run any wine in the past two months, it should work sanely in that.
    • greensky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I just got picasa up last weekend in wine. The only issue I had was I couldn't get it to play .avi files. I hope that's fixed. Either way I think it's cool that Google is making an effort to support Linux even if it isn't a native app.
    • wampl3r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@rincebrain:
      Thnx, didn't see that. I wonder if all of google's patches are in 0.9.14. It would be cool if the picasa installer would auto detect if you had a compatible version of wine and not waste the space by duplicating their own install.
    • nacs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Actually wampl3r is correct.

      As a result of Google using Wine to get Picasa on Linux, a whole LOT of patches were made to Wine. Here's the list of patches from Google itself:
      http://code.google.com/wine.html

      ^^ That's why recent versions of Wine work so well with Picasa--because Google already worked with Wine developers to make sure those things were fixed. If Google hadn't done this, Picasa sure as hell wouldn't be running as smoothly as it is now.
  • monofonik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Picasa for Linux? Cool. Linux desktop apps are something that's coming together really well, with AmaroK, this and OpenOffice.
  • ShaDoWwork, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1prorps for this i am not a big linux user but i love pisca had it before google got it and always find it to be sweet and easy to use my whole family can do everything with it kids included.
  • analogAI, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I have not tried installing it myself, but looks like it's using Wine. I wonder what the gecko engine is for?

    size info from the Picasa Linux download page:

    "Total size: 24MB. Picasa software (9MB), Wine (12MB) and Gecko engine (3MB)."
    • jzimmerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The gecko engine might be there to render HTML in some parts of the application.

      It might also use that to make sure it has a useable interface to communicate with webservices (like sending photos through gmail)
    • Ensnared, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Since Picasa for Windows is using IE, I assume the Linux version uses the Gecko-engine for those same things. Chances are there's some HTML rendering involved in some parts of the application GUI.

      I just installed it (Ubuntu Dapper) and it seems to work nicely. However, I don't bother running Wine-applications if there are native alternatives that works just as good, so I uninstalled it again. I wish Google would make a native port instead, but the work they've done with Wine (for which they've submitted patches to the main Wine project) to make this work is a good thing, so all in all it's good.
  • DesiVideoGamer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I just installed it on to my Ubuntu AMD64 (6.06) machine. Works perfectly!
  • Highborn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2What is a Goggle? Isn't that what you wear when you go swimming?
  • rincebrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Why the hell do people complain about Wine usage?

    At least find out if it merely is compiled against wine and is statically linked against some of those libs, or if it just uses wine on the Windows picasa.

    Sheesh.

    Edit: Why hello there wine 0.9.10. How annoying.
    • jejones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Here's the problem with WINE: it encourages people to not write Linux versions of programs. Remember OS/2? For some time, you could run Windows programs and OS/2 programs... until MS started changing WIN32S.DLL to break OS/2 compatibility. IBM kept up for a while, until MS added a very peculiar function call (and made sure its apps all used it). It allocated memory from the heap... at an address >512M. If you need memory, you don't care where it is--it's just that OS/2 virtual DOS sessions had an address space of, you guessed it, 512MB, so that new function broke a sufficiently fundamental assumption of OS/2 that IBM gave up on the perpetual catchup game.
  • shergill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3works great on Kubuntu.. Thanks google!
  • DigDuality, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Well now that i've waded through the trash comments of Linux, Mac, and Google fanboys pissing all over themselves.. i'll drop my 2 cents.

    Google's size scares me.. but beyond that they've proven a trust worthy company, with a great business model, they've shown the world what you can do with a couple of linux clusters, and they offer some damned great online services..Gmail, all of their searching, their ad program (though that's being tainted with images and video.. but still less intrusive than others.. so i can't complain too much), Gtalk is a great chat medium, their Calendar is wonderful.

    Now that i'm done kissing their ass... i've never seen a practicle use for a single piece of software they've written for a PC on any OS. Their Google Desktop for windows is pathetic. There's nothing it does that i can't do in Windows. Picassa... what can i do with this 10,000 other applications can't? What can i do with this that even some tools in most operating systems can't?

    They're desktop software for the home PC i feel is just.. useless, gimmicky, trivial crap.
    • tvgm2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Google Earth?
    • dustinhoffman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'm going to have to plead ignorant on this one... What Free app (built-in or downloadable) for windows does what Picasa does without loading a bunch of other junk on the system? And while you're at it, with your list of 10,000 similair applicaitons; could you name an application that is free, has a pretty darn clean and snazzy UI as picasa, and once again... doesn't load a bunch of other junk on the system?

      I have been suggesting Picasa to the people I help for as long as it's been out. Granted, Picasa is not a "Feature Packed" application... I'm not going to be doing professional touchup or any of the millions of unrelated things that most companies stuff into their apps which make them slow and junky...but it can be a one stop shop to manage, view, share (via email, blog, website,CD), or have pictures printed at one of many online services.

      From my encounters, every single application that has come bundled with the users cameras are terrible, some are locked down to a brand (c'mon people plug in more than one camera to their systems), The UI is not friendly... either fugly, unintuitive or both.
    • bradr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'd agree that Google Desktop is pathetic but if you don't know what Picasa will do that "10,000 other applications can't" I have a feeling you've never actually used it. It's one of the most user friendly photo management programs I've used. It has all the right features to just get photos off a digicam, touch up, print, and email - without being so feature heavy that it becomes unusable. If you hear all those mac 'fanboys' praising iphoto...that's why - it's pretty much the same program from what I hear. It's something I recommend to most people that aren't computer literate but have a digital camera (like my mother), but yet it's advanced enough that I use it too!

      Maybe this only further validates your point - but it's worth noting that google didn't really write picasa. It was a startup they bought and all they did was touch it up!
    • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4well to be precise google did not create picasa or google earth, i know the latter was from keyhole.
    • jzimmerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It is only trivial if you don't use it.

      I use Picasa. It is a great application. I have no use for anything else really for photo management.
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@DiggDuality

      Um, where the ***** have you been?

      I agree Google Desktop is *****, but Picasa is awesome. Sure, you can find 10,000 other photo management apps. But none of them as slick and easy to use as Picasa (not to mention free.)

      And what about Google Earth?

      As for you fanboys bitching about Wine ... get over yourselves. Without Wine there'd be a whole lot less (decent) software for you.
    • DigDuality, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I dunno man. My folder on my computer in Ubuntu, OS X and Windows all display my photos for me just fine. Gimp and Photoshop, or even at times something as simple as gPant or mspaint, can do the trick for editting.

      I really don't see what i'm missing.


      As for the person who said Google Earth, that's a pure gimmick. Sorry.
  • vwgtiturbo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Geez, just when I was excited to see this, I look on the page, and see that WINE is required. Yeah, that's what I want to do... deal with getting WINE running properly, just to use a photo organizer. Is there something that this does better than digikam?

    NO DIGG.
    • MrSpontaneous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Here's a novel idea - you could try something before panning it. Its not in google's best interest to make the program (with wine bundled in the package) hard to install.
    • Trekkie101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Actually, the Picasa installer deals with wine for you.
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Another ***** whiner who obviously hasn't tried the RPM?

      You don't even see Wine, let alone "have to deal with it."
  • allarise, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2About the OSX port, does this mean that an X11 port couldn't be far behind? I'd be down with that - I'm not terribly happy with iPhoto since getting a Mac a few months ago.
    • webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In theory, you could use Darwine and get this running pretty quickly.
  • kleedrac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Where is everyone getting this from?? I'm still getting a 404 on http://picasa.google.com/linux/ ... or is there a mirror?
  • matid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I don't think it'll be worth installing, because there already is a very nice application like this called F-Spot: http://f-spot.org
    And it doesn't require wine ;)
    • lampshade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Does F-spot auto update the thumbnails and remove the thumbnails of files you delete manually outside of f-spot? That was my biggest problem when I played with f-spot. It didn't do that and that was annoying
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dude, F-Spot sucks ass. Compared to Picasa.
  • jefferson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3i agree with the above get f-stop i just started using linux FedoraCore5 and i got f-stop love it

    yum install f-stop

    and your done

  • robbyt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5so tell me linux fanboys, what's wrong with wine?
    • pairanoyd, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3It makes it simple for idiots to run closed source malware on their nix box.
      I don't like EULAs. Anything that requires you to get a lawyer to translate gobbletygook to English is suspect. EULAs are NEVER to your advantage. You always give up some rights, privledges, and privacy when you click through them.
      If everyone actually read the damn things I would bet 90% of people wouldn't accept them.

      I consider ALL closed source to be potential malware. The one exception I can make, but regretfully, is Nvidia drivers. There are no alternatives to Nvidia drivers, you accept and use them or you run a very suck ass system. In my heart I don't think there is anything evil in the drivers, I think they are only trying to protect their trade secrets. But, what choice do you have? Use them or don't use them..

      As for Google, I consider Google to be the ultimate EVIL, as evil, if not more evil than M$.. M$ controls only those that submit to M$.. Google is the largest data mining operation on planet and no one escapes the evil grasp of Google.

      Besides, I hate corporations, big businesses, neo-cons and republikans.

    • Ragzouken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Google is the largest data mining operation on planet and no one escapes the evil grasp of Google."

      Unless they have robots.txt maybe?
  • pairanoyd, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Open Source? Not.. Bad Google... Google Evil. Die Google, die..
    Phone home? Spyware? Malware? What evil lurks inside this closed source googleware??

  • Tommstein, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3They didn't release ***** for Linux. They got it to run in WINE, and called it a Linux release. ***** Google.
    • noneloud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17***** Google? They contributed over 200 improvements to the open source Wine and you're saying ***** Google? Sir, I'm pretty sure that qualifies for a '***** you' instead.
    • Tommstein, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Hey stupidass, we're talking about the Picasa release, not what was or wasn't done to get it to run in WINE. If the news was simply "Google provides 200 patches for WINE," I wouldn't especially care. But that's not the headline, now is it. So ***** you and your (lack of) reading skills.
  • danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I like Picasa a lot and I'm glad it's available for Linux.

    However, I do see the point people are making about Picasa not being Open Source. As for those who say "it's fine to have some Closed Source apps for Linux": Well, sure. But do you want code running on your computer that you can't examine and look at? Do you just trust all these companies that offer closed-source apps?

    Of course, I know most people will never look at the code of Open Source apps anyway, but as a community, someone will examine the open code, and will report any foul play.... with Closed Source we don't get that assurance.

    • lampshade, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"But do you want code running on your computer that you can't examine and look at?"

      I dunno, I find arguments like this dumb because I'm sure you didn't go through all of the linux kernel code. I'm pretty sure you trusted someone else to do it. If you happened to go through all the kernel code and make sure that was ok, did you go through all the code for Gnome, Fluxbox, KDE, or whatever else you might use as a window manager? Did you check the code of ls to make sure it was secure?

      You admit in your post that __someone else__ will check the code

      so you are blindly putting your faith in some guy anyway. Why not just blindly put your faith in a company whose motto is "Don't be evil"?

    • brentcore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@lampshade:

      That's a pretty bad argument as well. I think the point here is that it's all about trust. From what you know from news articles, friends, technical knowledge, etc., are you going to trust a corporation whose sole purpose and means of existence is profit or are you going to trust a community of kernel hackers? People miss the point about that all the time when talking about "opensource". That's actually a bad name for what should have been called something else like "socialware" or "grassroots-ware". The fact that the source code is open or close is secondary to the question of whether or not a community can improve the source code or claim foul intentions.
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@lampshade

      Agree 100%. If even a fraction of these ***** whiners examined even a portion of the amount of source code they claim, they'd never have any time to use any software.
    • sastian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@ lampshade

      welcome to the world of computers outside of your linux-t-shirt-wearing-wannabe-powered closet. (heh, wants to see the source for all apps he uses, buwahhahahaha!)
  • dexta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Email re the reasons why this was done with wine and the improvements to wine and what is missing.
    http://www.winehq.com/pipermail/wine-devel/2006-May/047806.html

    True it aint open source - but they just pumped a whole lot into open source - the improvements to wine will help everyone.
  • pairanoyd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@lampshade - No, most of us do not examine all the code in our nix boxes.
    But, we know that there are a lot of other people out there that DO examine ALL the code and that if there is any foul play that it will make the headlines in the nix world.
    With closed source, NO ONE can examine the code. NO ONE can examine the code, even if they want to. So that means that everyone that uses closed source is totally at the mercy of the coders and if something bad is lurking in the shadows no one will know it until it rears it's ugly head and has already begun to do damage.

    Think about it.

  • Sh|fty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2But it needs alot of gtk-sharp libs which some of us running a "light" desktop dont want.
  • E@zyVG, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Where is IT for LINUX ... they removed it or what!
    • zolookas, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1maybe they understtod that non-wine release will be better. Actually google announced that they are working on a wine version of picasa long time ago.
  • obey43, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1installed it...

    started using it...

    liked it...

    saw what it did to my pictures folder structure...

    drank a beer to recover...

    wtf, just wtf.

    i wouldn't install it if you have a somewhat organized picture structure
    • E@zyVG, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1:)

      I am then sticking with my DigiKam app on SUSE 10.1 x86_64
    • cassens, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0What did it do? I'm happy with Gwenview/Digikam, so if Picasa changes the folder structure, I'm sure I'm not gonna try it.
  • silverash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I've used Picasa on linux using wine. it's crap compared to how it works on windows. I liked it on windows and to have a version for linux would be great. google must now get there act in gear they have all these great products for windows only. I'm a linux/mac user and there is nothing for me from google.
  • brentcore, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1posted in wrong place
  • Saoshyant, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Google, don't be evil. Seriously.
  • gummijoh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Know we just need Picasa for the mac. I find Picasa to be much more powerful, snappier and better as a photo library program than iPhoto.
  • oboreruhito, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Flagged as inaccurate, as this is not Picasa for Linux. This is Picasa for WINE, which is a.) for more than Linux, and b.) an implementation of the Windows API.

    Specifically, the "Picasa for Linux FAQ" on Google's site makes this headline inaccurate: "It uses a carefully tested version of Wine to run the current Windows version of Picasa."

    An accurate headline would be, "Google releases Picasa for WINE APIs", or "Google releases Linux-friendly version of Picasa".
    • Bjurr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3As a end-user, I:
      - Have a linux box (Fedora Core 4)
      - downloaded the picasa rpm
      - Install it
      - Run it

      Therefore, if the whole packaging let's me run it under my distro, it should be enough to be called a "linux version". Runs flawlessly btw.
  • welshie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I noticed that it ran perfectly under Wine on FreeBSD, so it's not surprising that they release a "Linux" version. Still a little clunky having to emulate the Win32 API rather than have native code, but I guess it gets a shipping distribution quicker.
  • Kwipper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Even though I am not a Linux user (yet) I am glad to see that more and more software is being made for the OS. Now if only some more PC games would get ported to Linux (as well as good ATI driver support) I would gladly switch from Windows XP to Ubuntu Linux.

    GO LINUX!
  • subhuman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Well the /linux page seems to be down. And there is no mention of linux system requirements.
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Thanks a lot, Google. It took you f***ing ages. And all you've done is compile it with Wine. Yes, that's right, it's still running bloody Windows code. Not a true Linux port. Gawdaweful.

    Picasa was the one thing that I really missed when I made the switch from Windows XP to Linux permanently, but eventually I realized that DigiKam is pretty sweet in its own way and works perfectly fine for me, although it's lacking in the fancy UI department, which doesn't matter much anywho.

    I'm not switching back for you, Google. You made me wait too long. I've met someone new. I don't love you anymore.
  • macewan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3thank you for recognizing Linux with this software release

    Please continue with the release of Google Earth for Linux.
    • weissed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree.
      This is a big step, wine or no wine. It tells me that some people don't think Windows only. How disappointing it is to find out of some great new software called XYZ, go to the download website, and find there only a link to "setupXYZ.exe", like Linux or Mac OS don't even exist...
  • ramunas, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Awsome
  • pussfeller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is one of the first times I can think of that a big big company has released its program with wine.

    I am sure there are others, but this is great.

    Also, digikam has gotten alot better. Try an svn sometime.
  • berberrama, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2The "release" for Linux is NOT a linux version or even a port to a linux version. Read here: http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS9556554213.html where it says:

    "...It is not, strictly speaking, a port of Picasa to Linux. Instead, Linux Picasa combines Windows Picasa code and Wine technology to run Windows Picasa on Linux..."

    So this appears to me to be a "cheap" way of trying to garner support. I thought Google was about quality? This kind of bums me out.
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You obviously have no ***** clue what it takes to develop a piece of software of this magnitude. I'd like to see how fast you'd get a "native" Linux version of Picasa out the door when presented with the big heap of Windows code...

      It isn't the perfect solution, but it is AWESOME to have Picasa on Linux. F-Spot and DigiKam both suck donkeys IMHO and Picasa is a welcome addition, WINE or not.
  • linuxos77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm a huge Linux fan (I run it exclusively) and have grown quite accusomed to "This is the Linux equivalent to........" whenever I show someone a program. Sure, I'd love to have a native Linux Picasa (or Google Earth :) ), but who really cares whether or not it runs in wine on the backend? For Google (and us Linux users) it's a compromise, we get a well known and decent program, and they get to test the waters of a new user base. I'd rather run Picasa via wine (if it's exactly the same as the Windows version), than a stripped down native Linux version missing some features (as some vendors do). They made the install very simple (RPM) and it performs about the same as it does in Windows. Maybe if the response is strong for this version of Linux Picasa they will develop a native one. I enjoy the addition of another software title and think you should stop complaining....
  • myleftfoot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Sweet Google! Keep on porting stuff over. I'll use it all! And don't forget my Mac friends too. :-)
  • anjinash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"i actually see this a slap in the face to linux users. I actually hate it more when vendors "release" software for "free" under linux, yet refuse to open source it. Then everyone talks about how they reach out to open source and "embrace the community". beh, this is just like java."

    I don't see it as a slap in the face. Hey, not everything can or should be opensource. When Doom 3 was released for Linux, did you piss and moan that the source code wasn't made available? It's whining like this that keeps more developers away from Linux, which cripples it in the long run.

    I love the opensource philosophy, and I think more should be done with it. But if Linux wants to thrive, it has to welcome proprietary software into the fold as well. Imagine if Adobe were to release Photoshop for Linux.. what a coup that would be. I doubt anyone would bitch that they didn't release the source code.

    In the case of Google releasing Picasa for Linux, I think it's a VERY good thing. I'm no fan of the actual software, but in releasing it they created over 200 patches for Wine. Having Google contribute to Wine like that can't be seen as anything but positive in the long run, as Google has the resources that nobody in the opensource world has.
  • trekerboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I posted about how to run Picasa 2 within OSX. Hopefully all those searching through google for a solution to this problem find this helpful:

    http://trekerboy.blogspot.com/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.