On Dec 23, 2007 3:38 PM, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Debian (which is the distro I suspect you were misspelling) is pretty > unsuited for desktop use. Nice server OS though. Ubuntu is a better > choice on the desktop.
Yep. Ubuntu made my 2000 vintage HP laptop live again. I don't use it much, but it's nice for watching DVDs from time to time and for guests to have a way to get online. > No Linux OS is suitable for a > professional-grade imaging workstation, and won't be until X acquires > proper colour management (And there's a decent 16-bit image editor). Not to nitpick, but I've been working on cg animated films using Linux since 1999 or so. On properly calibrated monitors, using commercial calibration tools (of which I know little--lately at Pixar, the Systems guys come by a couple of times per month in the morning, before I even show up, to calibrate my monitor.) So it *is* technically possible to have proper color management on Linux. Your point involving Gimp is very valid though, although one could use Shake or something like that--crazy, I know, but I do have a friend who uses use Shake for his photography. > For those of us who want actual control over their workflow, and > repeatable results from multiple printing options, Linux is Not There > Yet. I do agree with that. Funny that someone who refuses to use a lossy compression format would process his images in an 8-bit program. That point made me smile. j -- Juan Buhler - http://www.jbuhler.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
