[theedudenator]

I need to do some reading on how to install stuff.

I can't seem to figure it out.

I am also not sure what the best directory structure is yet.

[bogdanb]

@morfic
I will probably do that. All I hope is I won't mess with mandriva's update routines.

[theedudenator]

I tried to install UFRAW but I get an error message

[ennoia]

I use Gentoo, and dualboot to windows for Lightroom

I've not found anything close to Lightroom in Linux, one day I'll replace my PC with an Mac and get the best of both worlds.

LightZone looks like a nice piece of software (for windows, mac, and linux) , but doesn't have much in the way of organization - if you are ok with using something else (fspot is decent) for that, you might want to look into LightZone

[theedudenator]

I am currently using downloader Pro (Breezesys)
It will download from my memory card, create and archive by the image creation date, then delete the card.

That is all I need for linux.

[GregK8]

It looks like that software needs KDE.
I am running Ubuntu with gnome... so I guess I cannot install it?

IIRC, amarok is the default music player in ubuntu, which means most of the kdelibs you need for digikam are already installed. Just do 'sudo apt-get install digikam' and you should be good to go.

Running Archlinux Testing here on my main workstation and Mandriva 2008.1 Spring on my laptop.

I use rawstudio to work with my RAW images and then digikam to organize and store.

[benplaut]

I've been using Linux for a few years by now (mostly Arch, Debian, and Ubuntu), but for the last few years my main box has been a slimmed down XP--Lightroom is just that good of a program that I'll sacrifice my OS for it!

RAW in Linux: UFraw, Bibble (my fav), RawTherapee

[joefru]

I need to do some reading on how to install stuff.

I can't seem to figure it out.

I am also not sure what the best directory structure is yet.

Installing software is one of those things that's just completely different in Linux. To install almost any open-source package in Ubuntu, fire up Synaptic from System, Administration, Synaptic Package Manager. You can search for whatever you want from there.

If you want to play around with the command line, it's even easier. Open a terminal window (Applications, Accessories, Terminal) and type

Code:

sudo aptitude install name-of-program

Note: you'll want to do a

Code:

sudo aptitude update

first to download the latest package lists. Also, a lot of directions that people post mention apt-get rather than aptitude. Aptitude is better at uninstalling (sudo aptitude remove name-of-program), and pretty much leaves no traces of the software behind.

So this should get you started...

Code:

sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude install ufraw gimp-ufraw rawstudio digikam qtpfsgui cinepaint

Raw Therapee's not open-source, so you'll have to download that separately, but there's nothing to install with it, just unzip it and run it from the directory.

[morfic]

I've been using Linux for a few years by now (mostly Arch, Debian, and Ubuntu), but for the last few years my main box has been a slimmed down XP--Lightroom is just that good of a program that I'll sacrifice my OS for it!

RAW in Linux: UFraw, Bibble (my fav), RawTherapee

Will the OS sacrificing hold true if Bibble 5 is as good as it promises to be?

[bjsmith]

I've been using Linux for a few years by now (mostly Arch, Debian, and Ubuntu), but for the last few years my main box has been a slimmed down XP--Lightroom is just that good of a program that I'll sacrifice my OS for it!
RAW in Linux: UFraw, Bibble (my fav), RawTherapee

People use applications, not OSes. I've been using Linux for home and work for over a decade now, constantly. But if there is an application for Windows that does the job best, I'm likely to just run Windows.

[Russell-Evans]

For any Linux/Unix folks who are also forced to use Windoze in their daily routine because you're application-straitjacketed (like me,) consider installing Cygwin on the Windows box

You might be interested in CoLinux.

Thank you
Russell

[bjsmith]

You might be interested in CoLinux.
Thank you
Russell

There are advantages/disadvantages to each.

E.g., the nice thing about Cygwin is that it's a Win32 DLL and binaries built against it. Windows administrators can lock down usage a bit more, limiting what is installed and available in standard packages. CoLinux is virtually running a full blown Linux, and requires them to then manage Linux, which most Windows administrators do not want to do.

Everywhere I've gone where Windows desktops have been standard, I've pushed a subset of Cygwin as part of the standard Windows desktop build, to address this. CoLinux would be far more of an adoption and support issue, as would VMWare, etc... as well.

[bjsmith]

I need to do some reading on how to install stuff.

Understand how Windows "installs stuff" is the exception, not the rule. In "real OSes" where we care about security -- especially authenticity and non-repudiation -- we only use a pre-installed tool on the system to install "packages" that are "digital signed" with pre-installed keys on the system. We never trust

The most Microsoft provides is a "right-click" on an .exe file to inspect any optional signature. If someone doesn't do that, it will straight-up install. On the .inst/.msi "packages" (which is an insult to the term "package" ), digital signatures are still optional and you won't get a warning unless you change defaults. It's rather pathetic and a joke to anyone who maintains any number of systems on a corporate network.

Because of this "automation by default, overriding security," it's how the overwhelming majority of Windows systems are infected in the world. Even when you turn off various features in MS IE, some capabilities are left on because it would break Windows automation. It's part of the core Windows executive in the kernel. If Microsoft turned those off, it would utterly render most features in Outlook and other programs useless. They've tried private Alpha tests.

I can't seem to figure it out.
I am also not sure what the best directory structure is yet.

POSIX (UNIX) and GNU (UNIX-like) systems have a mandatory filesystem hierarchy standard. Under Linux, this is the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS), which is recognized by Linux Standard Base (LSB) and most others. NEVER DEVIATE FROM FHS, PERIOD!. If you do, you deserve what you get.

Programs provided by the OS distributor install under /usr.
Programs provided by third party distributors (such as software vendors) install under /opt.
Programs built by a site, or possibly community distributed, install under /opt or /usr/local.
Standard subdirectories are ./bin (binaries), ./doc (documentation), ./lib (libraries, possibly ./lib64 for x86_64 on Intel/AMD), /sbin (superuser binaries), and several others.

Yes, this means different programs are "mixed" under those directories. The packaged program is managed by the package management system -- every file for every package, to a scientific singularity. We don't have all these "rogue" files and non-sense like in Windows systems. It may seem "stupid" to home users, but when you're managing 15,000 Linux systems on Wall Street versus 7,000 Windows systems, you can do the former with 1/10th the staff because of strong package management (even before looking at system integrity/security ).

System-wide configuration files drop in /etc.
User configuration files always go in the user home directory ($HOME).
Those should be the only variations from the package software.

And problem the #1 biggest difference (especially security wise) is that only Windows requires a "start-up" directory, which many Windows programs (including ones built by MS tools in Visual Studio) assume it has "write access" to. In the POSIX/GNU world, we never require a "start-up" directory, and it's definitely never the directory "where the binary/app is" because POSIX/GNU systems [b]assume you a user cannot write anywhere exept their home directory and/or /tmp by default

Remember, Linux is not Windows. Linux is not trying to "be like Windows" either. Even MacOS X, based on Darwin (a lineage to the NeXT which was based on BSD/UNIX) does not attempt to be like Windows either. The Windows model is not a good one to follow. Even when Microsoft tried to make NT better, their own app and tool developers ignored the APIs and security standards because "they got in the way" (long story, I saw it happen first hand).

[Russell-Evans]

Everywhere I've gone where Windows desktops have been standard, I've pushed a subset of Cygwin as part of the standard Windows desktop build, to address this. CoLinux would be far more of an adoption and support issue, as would VMWare, etc... as well.

If that is your goal, you might as well run Unix Services for Unix 3.5 for the Interix package.

Thank you
Russell

[joele]

You may want to try bibblelabs, I used this for a fair while under linux (gone back to vista recently). Sorry to sound like an advert but it worked great for me and was nice to see commercial support for linux from a good graphics application developer.