Picasa for Linux released!

[michaeljb2005]

Hey recently Linux today posted an announcement about Picasa being released to linux using manipulations of wine.

http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2006-05-26-010-26-NW-SW-RL

I was just wondering if anyone knew if ubuntu was going to be supporting this release by putting the manipulated version of wine in the repositories?

[Sheinar]

It wont "depend" on a manipulated version of Wine, it uses code from Codeweavers version of Wine which will come with the Picasa binary, so there's nothing that needs to be put in the repositories for it to work.

[michaeljb2005]

It wont "depend" on a manipulated version of Wine, it uses code from Codeweavers version of Wine which will come with the Picasa binary, so there's nothing that needs to be put in the repositories for it to work.

Thanks for the clarification and in that case will they release something in the repositories at all, or will I just have to download the binary and install it through that?

[jasay]

.deb file:
http://picasa.google.com/linux/download.html

It's as easy as
$ sudo dpkg -i picasa_2.2.2820-5_i386.deb

[michaeljb2005]

.deb file:
http://picasa.google.com/linux/download.html

It's as easy as
$ sudo dpkg -i picasa_2.2.2820-5_i386.deb

Dude you guys so rock! Thanks.

[mrgnash]

Meh. It's a dreadful program from a dreadful company... I'd be just as excited if MS announced a Linux port of IE7.

[LMP900]

Meh. It's a dreadful program from a dreadful company... I'd be just as excited if MS announced a Linux port of IE7.

I suppose everyone has their own likes/dislikes, but I personally think Picasa is one of the better photo managers out there---free or not. I used it for a while on XP and I used iPhoto on my Mac. I prefer Picasa over iPhoto and I'm pretty excited about this news:D

[futz]

http://picasa.google.com/linux/download.html
Dead link.

[Sye d'Burns]

That's odd, the link works for me. Try this one -

http://picasa.google.com/linux/thanks-deb.html

[ronlybonly]

How I waited and waited for Google to release Picasa on Linux... then I found f-spot. I still might grab Picasa though. Thanks for the news!

[RAV TUX]

Edit: I have Picasa2 working on my Ubuntu, I don't care for Google as a company or search engine but this is a decent program.


also when using GDebi Package Installer, you don't need to enter any command lines in the terminal seperately, a lot easier for a newbie like me.













.

[JoshHendo]

Dead link.
Same here (from Australia). It works in the US though, as I have managed to download it using a proxy :)

[zAo]

Lol, my post deleted?

Can anyone tell something about the speed? I find F-Spot real slow with Cannon RAW files.

[FISHERMAN]

Probably a stupid question, but will this leave my Wine installation alone?

[zugu]

So this can be downloaded from the US only? Or the beta was scheduled for a limited amount of time?

[FISHERMAN]

So this can be downloaded from the US only?
Yes, but just use a proxy if you don't live in the US. It worked for me.

[helpme]

Someone already posted a direct link that should work from everywhere:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1054018&postcount=25

One thing I especially like about this is that google contributed a lot of patches back to wine:
http://code.google.com/wine.html

[mtron]

Link for Non - USA: http://dl.google.com/linux/deb/pool/non-free/p/picasa/picasa_2.2.2820-5_i386.deb

[zugu]

Thanks a lot.
The link provided seems to point to a mighty repository hosted by Google. I wonder what other goodies lurk in there? Trying to "shorten" the URL returns 404 errors.

[graabein]

What are the main differences between Picasa and F-Spot for those who have tried both?

I have briefly looked at (a probably dated version of) F-Spot and I found managing the photo collection a bit difficult.

[FISHERMAN]

I've just tried and I'm rather disappointed:( (No full-screen slideshow, No difference between the Windows version I runned with Wine and this Picasa with wine-parts,...).
I think I'll just stick with gThumb.

[Super King]

Good news. While I like F-Spot it still has a very "beta-ish" feel at the moment (it's quite new after all). I actually know several Mac-heads who much prefer Picasa to iPhoto, which I think says something about the software (haven't used it in a while myself).

[an.echte.trilingue]

All I want from them is google earth.

Anybody know anything?

[michaeljb2005]

All I want from them is google earth.

Anybody know anything?

I don't know anything about a specific release date but the article did state they intend to come out with it and that they just finished picasa first and that's why it's the first one available.

[RAV TUX]

All I want from them is google earth.

Anybody know anything?

google earth is somewhat ok I guess.

[michaeljb2005]

google earth is aweful, cute for kids I guess.

I find it extremely useful for the stuff I do at work. I use it to create maps and show overhead views of properties I research. Plus it is very helpful in that you also have access to their database of commercial businesses and other such locales.

[DigitalDuality]

Honestly.... picassa is the only piece of google software for the desktop that isn't a pointless gimmick...

that's my opinion though.

[RAV TUX]

Honestly.... picassa is the only piece of google software for the desktop that isn't a pointless gimmick...

that's my opinion though.


I somewhat agree.








.

[alphaomega]

save some bandwidth for me...please
I loved picasa when i was young, dumb and full of windows and I like fspot too, so I will give it a try.

edit: finally got it to download. at least they ported it to linux. Message to macromedia/adobe: get with the program huh!

[RAV TUX]

I only have one question about Picasa now....

how do I remove it?











.

[IYY]

Honestly.... picassa is the only piece of google software for the desktop that isn't a pointless gimmick...

that's my opinion though.

What about the desktop search, that finally makes it possible to actually find things on Windows? And the "gadgets" that are just as good as gdesklets? Google brings great things to the Windows desktop.

[RAV TUX]

I only have one question about Picasa now....

how do I remove it?











.


Can someone please help me remove Picasa .

[helpme]

Can someone please help me remove this bloated Picasa it's slowing my whole system down.
I doubt it is, as programs that don't run tend not to do this.

Anyway, just remove it like you would remove any other deb.
sudo apt-get remove picasa

[commodore]

They should have programmed it normally so they could make a real Linux port.

Why everyone likes it so much? It's crap! It's not native Linux and it's not free software either!

[helpme]

They should have programmed it normally so they could make a real Linux port.

They bought picasa so they didn't program it in the first place.



It's not native Linux
How is it not native?
Please define native?

[GarethMB]

They bought picasa so they didn't program it in the first place.


How is it not native?
Please define native?
Its using wine binaries therefore its running using microsoft windows API rather than linux.

I'll try it and see what its like. I really like the windows version. But i'm expecting to be disappointed by this.

[tseliot]

They should have programmed it normally so they could make a real Linux port.

Why everyone likes it so much? It's crap! It's not native Linux and it's not free software either!
I find it nice though.

[Kimm]

Its using wine binaries therefore its running using microsoft windows API rather than linux.

I'll try it and see what its like. I really like the windows version. But i'm expecting to be disappointed by this.


No... its running Wine API. What so bad about using Wine API? Its no less Linux than GTK or Qt.
Wine includes tools to compile natively (winegcc amoung others), who knows? maby picasa for Linux is using this.

[Iandefor]

I like F-Spot better. Picasa on Linux just isn't that impressive to me.

[DigitalDuality]

d

[IYY]

They should have programmed it normally so they could make a real Linux port.

Why everyone likes it so much? It's crap! It's not native Linux and it's not free software either!

This kind of ungrateful attitude is what keeps Linux from mass adoption. You can't expect all companies to release their code under the GPL. For many companies, it's not profitable. Others just don't want to risk it. If you want Linux to be mainstream, you'll have to accept that some programs will be closed source and some will not be programmed for Linux from the ground up. Imagine for a moment you're in the shoes of a company that makes some program. Here's the message you are giving them:

"There is a tiny fraction of computer users who use an OS called Linux. They want you to port your program for them. And not only that, you'll have to code it for Linux from the ground up, none of that Wine ********. But wait, not only that, but you also have to release your entire source code from which you make profit. Only then will the Linux user thank you."

Now... What kind of sane company would even consider porting software to Linux?


It is quicker than Microsoft's search..but.. Google Desktop Search is a security problem, not only that but it's useless.


It's useless to you. I know many people for whom this thing is a huge time saver.

[RAV TUX]

Picasa another nice product by Google.

[helpme]

Picasa another worthless product by Google.
Thank you for your interesting, insightful and well argued opinion...

[asimon]

This kind of ungrateful attitude is what keeps Linux from mass adoption. You can't expect all companies to release their code under the GPL. For many companies, it's not profitable. Others just don't want to risk it. If you want Linux to be mainstream, you'll have to accept that some programs will be closed source and some will not be programmed for Linux from the ground up. Imagine for a moment you're in the shoes of a company that makes some program. Here's the message you are giving them:

"There is a tiny fraction of computer users who use an OS called Linux. They want you to port your program for them. And not only that, you'll have to code it for Linux from the ground up, none of that Wine ********. But wait, not only that, but you also have to release your entire source code from which you make profit. Only then will the Linux user thank you."

Now... What kind of sane company would even consider porting software to Linux?

Well, evidently not everyone want (or cares about) companies port software if the result is not free. Don't forget that there are many who want a complete Free Software stack and not a cheap mainstream base for wet corporate dreams of propritary software.

[IYY]

Well, evidently not everyone want (or cares about) companies port software if the result is not free. Don't forget that there are many who want a complete Free Software stack and not a cheap mainstream base for wet corporate dreams of propritary software.

No everyone, but many. Today the operating system GNU/Linux is ready for the desktop. The reason that so few people want to use Linux is that it doesn't have many applications for it. This is no surprise, since very few people are willing to develop professional software licensed under the GPL for no profit. People do it, and we get some amazing programs, but this will never be enough. I myself support Free software, but the future of Linux on the desktop is in closed source apps, and we need to learn to live with it.

[helpme]

No everyone, but many. Today the operating system GNU/Linux is ready for the desktop. The reason that so few people want to use Linux is that it doesn't have many applications for it.

I don't think that's really true. There's already a host of applications available, at least enough for me to do all the stuff I want to do.



This is no surprise, since very few people are willing to develop professional software licensed under the GPL for no profit.

Developing under the GPL (or an other free license) does not mean your are doing it for no profit.



People do it, and we get some amazing programs, but this will never be enough.

Why not and see above.



I myself support Free software, but the future of Linux on the desktop is in closed source apps, and we need to learn to live with it.
I for one don't want to learn to live with it, as this would be the death of free software at least on the desktop. Also, I see no reason at all why what you say should be the case. I've been using Linux for several years now and if anything it's amazin what free software has achieved when it comes to the desktop.

[RAV TUX]

I like F-Spot better. Picasa on Linux just isn't that impressive to me.

I will try F-spot out.


(also, I have changed my mind about Google, prehaps they are not half-bad)

[asimon]

No everyone, but many. Today the operating system GNU/Linux is ready for the desktop.
There is no "the desktop". Many desktops, many different requirements. Linux was ready for my own desktop in the mid 90s. It's already usable by many people but there are still many for whom it is just no option. And also we speak here more about a whole software stack, operating systems alone are pretty useless .



The reason that so few people want to use Linux is that it doesn't have many applications for it.
How many applications do people use on average? 20? 30? I think this is not about numbers but quality. Am I able to fullfill my wants and needs with Free Software?



This is no surprise, since very few people are willing to develop professional software licensed under the GPL for no profit.
Very few? Hm, I see it as many many people who develop free software and their number seem to grow. Just look at the great software which gets written everywhere. Of course many more would be better.



People do it, and we get some amazing programs, but this will never be enough.
Yes people's needs are endlessly. The goal to do all computing needs with Free Software may not be reached any time soon but much is already archived. The stuff the typical home user for example does, email, instant chat, office, web browser, photo management, etc. can all be done in Free Software.



I myself support Free software, but the future of Linux on the desktop is in closed source apps, and we need to learn to live with it.
No, that's not what Linux is about at all. Maybe that's the goal for some company who want's to make money with Linux. It surely is not the goal of the Free Software community. Linux itself has no goal.

[IYY]

There is no "the desktop". Many desktops, many different requirements. Linux was ready for my own desktop in the mid 90s. It's already usable by many people but there are still many for whom it is just no option. And also we speak here more about a whole software stack, operating systems alone are pretty useless .

When I say "the desktop", I mean the desktop of the average user. It does not mean "my desktop", as I've been using Linux for years.


How many applications do people use on average? 20? 30? I think this is not about numbers but quality. Am I able to fullfill my wants and needs with Free Software?

Not quantity, and not even quality. It's all about having a specific application avaliable. For example, a web designer may want to convert to Linux but wait... No Macromedia Flash, or any of those other nifty programs he is used to. Or how about the designer who works with photoshop. He comes to Linux and hears people tell him to use the GIMP, which is a great app but not suitable for professionals (it doesn't even have a built in CMYK option, which is a must for anybody who wants to create works for print). Or people who need to talk to their boss through Skype (luckily there already is a version for Linux, but it's also not open source) and would be fired if they can't do it?


Developing under the GPL (or an other free license) does not mean your are doing it for no profit.


It doesn't. But it does mean you have to change your entire business model, and not many companies will do this for such a tiny target audience.


I for one don't want to learn to live with it, as this would be the death of free software at least on the desktop. Also, I see no reason at all why what you say should be the case. I've been using Linux for several years now and if anything it's amazin what free software has achieved when it comes to the desktop.

It would not be the death of free software on the desktop, but the birth of free software on the desktops of the masses. Once people start using Linux, they will start seeing the alternative software and start using it as well. More users is a good thing for Free software.

[helpme]

It doesn't. But it does mean you have to change your entire business model, and not many companies will do this for such a tiny target audience.

Another false assumption I think. Just because you release your app under a free license does not narrow your target audience to only linux users, let alone linux users who care about such things.



It would not be the death of free software on the desktop, but the birth of free software on the desktops of the masses. Once people start using Linux, they will start seeing the alternative software and start using it as well. More users is a good thing for Free software.
Oh, I tend to agree. I think some closed source apps can are a good thing for the adoption of linux and will ultimately benefit free software, however that's a far cry from claim that "future of Linux on the desktop is in closed source apps".

[IYY]

Another false assumption I think. Just because you release your app under a free license does not narrow your target audience to only linux users, let alone linux users who care about such things.


That's not what I said. I said that the company would not change their license and business plan just to expand their target audience by a tiny margin.


Oh, I tend to agree. I think some closed source apps can are a good thing for the adoption of linux and will ultimately benefit free software, however that's a far cry from claim that "future of Linux on the desktop is in closed source apps".

Ok, that phrase I'll take back. But if desktop Linux becomes popular enough for software companies to consider releasing software for it, this closed source software will be part of the future.

[asimon]

Not quantity, and not even quality. It's all about having a specific application avaliable.
It's more about having a good (good in the sense of how good it solves the task at hand, that was what I meant with quality) solution for your problem, and when it comes to the Free Software movement this solution should be free.



For example, a web designer may want to convert to Linux but wait... No Macromedia Flash, or any of those other nifty programs he is used to. Or how about the designer who works with photoshop.
He comes to Linux and hears people tell him to use the GIMP, which is a great app but not suitable for professionals (it doesn't even have a built in CMYK option, which is a must for anybody who wants to create works for print). Or people who need to talk to their boss through Skype (luckily there already is a version for Linux, but it's also not open source) and would be fired if they can't do it?


Well, don't use software which doesn't fullfill your requirements. If you need one of your mentioned applications then pay for it and use it. Easy. But the Free Software movement (which Ubuntu is commited to) doesn't want a port of these things. They want free alternatives.

Of course companies can and some do port their stuff. Of course some people are happy to use propritary stuff on top of Linux. But don't expect everyone to be gratefull for this or that everyone sees this as a good thing. Propritary software (even on top of a free operating system) is in many eyes a bad thing.



But it does mean you have to change your entire business model, and not many companies will do this for such a tiny target audience.
The Free Software people don't care about those propritary software companies and the companies are not forced to change business models or offer Linux products, they usually do whatever gives them the most profit.



It would not be the death of free software on the desktop, but the birth of free software on the desktops of the masses.
We already have free software on the desktops of the masses. And it's growing.



Once people start using Linux, they will start seeing the alternative software and start using it as well. More users is a good thing for Free software.
They use alternatives only for a reason. It has to be better, the license has to be more in line with them, it has to be cheaper, more secure, nicer icons, whatever. People usually don't switch software randomly.

Anyway the Free Software movement is not about getting Linux on every computer at the cost of having people depend on propritary apps. Let me quote Mark Shuttleworth (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/39): "And we’re committed to reinventing everything we need until the free software stack is a genuinely complete computing universe. We’re already pretty far along."

[Cariboo1938]

.deb file:
http://picasa.google.com/linux/download.html

It's as easy as
$ sudo dpkg -i picasa_2.2.2820-5_i386.deb
Hi jasay,
do you know how easy it is on a Ubuntu AMD64 installation?
Or is there somebody who installed on 64 bit Ubuntu?
The reason why I'm asking is, that I downloaded the .deb file and tried to insall it with
sudo dpkg -i --force-architecture </location/*.deband it didn't work. It showe up under -->Applications -->Graphics, but I was not able to start it. What went wrong? or what is missing?

[Cariboo1938]

Hi jasay,
do you know how easy it is on a Ubuntu AMD64 installation?
The reason why I'm asking is, that I downloaded the .deb file and tried to install it with
sudo dpkg -i --force-architecture </location/*.deband it didn't work. It showed up under -->Applications -->Graphics, but I was not able to start it. What went wrong? or what is missing?Hello all Picasa Users! I need help!
Can somebody tell me how to install Picasa on Ubuntu 64- bit architecture?