(Gadsden, AL - January 2, 2009) The following article is taken from GadsdenMetro.com publisher's tech blog, BrotherPhilTV. It is a new weekly feature for GadsdenMetro.com beginning today.

As promised, BrotherPhilTV begins its weekly series that features open source replacements for commercial software. And, today, I will present open source replacements for a very expensive piece of commercial software, Adobe Photoshop.

HISTORY OF PHOTOSHOP
Adobe Photoshop has been around since 1987. It began as a program called “Display,’ written by University of Michigan PhD student Thomas Knoll. Originally, the program would simply display grayscale images on his black and white Macintosh Plus computer. That program caught the attention of his brother, John, an Industrial Light and Magic employee, who recommended Thomas turn the program into a full-fledged image editing program.

Following a six-month break from school, and along with help from his brother John, Thomas developed a second version of Display, renamed ImagePro in 1988. Later that year, the program was renamed Photoshop, and a short term deal with image scanner manufacturer Barneyscan shipped about 200 copies of the program.

During that same year, 1988, John traveled to Silicon Valley and presented his program to engineers at Apple Computer and Adobe art director, Russell Brown. Both presentations were successful, and Adobe purchased the license to distribute Photoshop in September of 1988. Both John and Thomas continued work on the program, and Adobe Photoshop 1.0 was released in 1990, exclusively for the Macintosh computing platform.

Since that time, Adobe Photoshop has become the defacto standard for bitmap image editing, controlling the vast majority of market share, and being able to charge pretty much whatever they wanted to for the application. The current version, Adobe Photoshop CS4 can run between $350 and $450 online. To combat that “high ticket” image, Adobe eventually came out with a scaled down version called Photoshop Express that generally runs approximately $85 at most computer stores.

OPEN SOURCE (FREE) ALTERNATIVES
When open source programming became a viable option to programmers for program distribution, one of the first commercial software packages to have alternative offerings was Photoshop. Primarily because of its popularity and its expense, programmers saw Photoshop alternatives as both a way to reach a broad market quickly and to make a name for themselves in the computer programming market. Today, we will look at four open source alternatives.

There are several open source alternatives for Photoshop, but I have decided to limit my selections to the following criterion (this applies for all future articles, as well). The software must operate on a commercially viable operating system, it must currently remain in development.

GIMP
Gimp (GNU Image Manipulation Program) is the oldest surviving Open Source Alternative to Photoshop. I’ve tried Gimp a few times when I didn’t own a copy of Photoshop, or had upgraded my computer without checking to see if that upgrade would disable my current version of Photoshop. Gimp is currently in version 2.6.

Gimp began in 1995 and has grown into the most well-known open source graphics application in the world. It is considered a valid competitor to commercial programs in the world of graphics editing. Included among its features: powerful painting tools, layers and channels support, multiple undo/redo, editable text layers. Gimp as a plug-in architecture and a scripting engine that allow easy extension of it’s functionality. More than a 100 plug-ins and scripts are already available. Also Gimp imports files from Photoshop (psd) and can also read scalable vector graphics (svg) files.
Runs on Windows, Mac, Linux and Unix

CINEPAINT
CinePaint started as another version of the Gimp project. The developers of this program are aiming to create a more professional graphical editing application for the movie industry. CinePaint supports up to 32-bit colors, as well as several image formats that Gimp does not, such as: Cineon, DPX and OpenEXR. CinePaint deals with higher resolution images and produces higher resolution images to be used in cinematographic productions.

CinePaint is only in version 0.23, but it has been used (under its previous name Film Gimp) for films such as Scooby-Doo, Harry Potter and the Philosoopher’s Stone, The Last Samurai and Stuart Little, among others.

Features setting CinePaint apart from Gimp include a frame manager, onion skinning (based on old animation techniques) and the previously mentioned ability to work with 32-bit images for high dynamic range imaging.
Runs on Windows, Mac, Linux and Unix

GIMPSHOP
GimpShop is another hack of the original open source graphical image application, Gimp, as the name suggests. GimpShop is designed to more closely approximate the environment of Adobe Photoshop. The application basically rides on top of Gimp and changes all menus, dialogs, etc., to make them look as much like their Photoshop cousins.

For individuals who have used Photoshop previously, this is the best open source application because it reduces the “learning curve” of getting used to a new program. GimpShop is in version 2.2.11, mainly because it relies on the most recent versions of Gimp for its application source code. Since March of 2006, GimpShop supports Photoshop plugins through a host plugin that runs on Windows and Linux (sorry, Mac users – but you can always run Bootcamp and install GimpShop on your Windows startup!).
Runs on Windows, Mac, Linux and Unix

Seashore
Seashore is a Mac-only open source image editing package. And, as a Mac user, I must be honest – I didn’t like it.

This program is a basic image editing program that stands somewhere between Photoshop and the old (circa 1985) MacPaint that came with every Macintosh computer. If you don’t want a lot of bells and whistles to get in your way, and you use a Mac, Seashore will be a great application for you.

Based on Gimp (as all of the others have been), Seashore uses the same file format, and has enough options for the slightly advanced user, but not for the high-end users.

Seashore offers gradients and textures for both text and brush strokes, and supports multiple layers and alpha channel editing. Its layers offers more than 20 merging effects and plug-in filters are also provided. One huge benefit of using Seashore, however, it the fact that the application takes about 20 times less space on your hard drive, while it provides 14 basic painting tools and can correct things such as contrast, color hues and brightness.

Also, unlike any of these other programs, Seashore integrates very tightly with the Mac OS, while the other programs will approximate a Linux operating environment moreso than a Mac operating environment.
Runs on Mac

My major complaints about Seashore is the same complaint about most of the rest of them, however. Once you’ve become adept at using Photoshop’s tools, tricks and shortcuts, adapting to another program, which will inevitably have fewer features, you become slightly annoyed at its inconveniences. If, however, you need the power to edit photos and graphics easily and more powerfully than your basic drawing program provided by Windows, any of the programs listed above will do wonderfully – and they’re extremely easy on the pocketbook – they’re free!

(Gadsden, AL - January 2, 2010) GadsdenMetro publisher Phillip Swindall announces a new regular series of articles for the weekend. "Cool Tools" from BrotherPhil is a new regular article Swindall writes for his blog. It will feature "Open Source" (meaning free) software that will compare with high-dollar software people like to use.

The software might be programs you download and install on your computer, or it could be "SaaS" (Software as a Service), or "Cloud Computing" - that is applications that reside on an internet server somewhere that provides the ability of doing your computing from any computer at any time. Google Apps would be an example of SaaS.

So, if you're interested in a cheaper version of Microsoft Office, or Photoshop, or Adobe Illustrator, or even drafting (CAD) programs, send a request to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Later today, our new weekly article series, "Cool Tools from BrotherPhil" will feature a review of several Open Source replacements for a program he uses regularly - Adobe Photoshop. Stay tuned.

(Gadsden, AL - December 31, 2009) Etowah County EMA is distributing more than $5,000 to various fire departments in the county, as a result of the Tone Alert Radio (TARs) Recycling Program, according to EMA Public Information Officer Michael Amberson today.

The program, administered by the Alabama Emergency Management Agency, Gadsden/Etowah County EMA, and fire departments from Attalla, Glencoe, Hokes Bluff, Rainbow City and Southside, as well as the Etowah County Volunteer Fire Association. Large red dumpsters were placed at various fire departments to collect the old TARs radios to protect the environment from leakage from rechargable batteries used in the radios. Local first responders and EMA staff members also picked up TARs from individuals who might have been unable to take their radios to the recycling bins.

TARs were used in schools, churches, hospitals, nursing homes and by special needs individuals as part of the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) to notify users of local emergencies, including the potential of a chemical hazard during the chemical stockpile reduction incineration program at The Anniston Army Depot.

Those radios were officially deactivated in April, and replaced with emergency alert radios, which were freely distributed throughout the county earlier this year.

Amberson says "Each fire department was awarded an amount based on the number of units turned in at their location.  The box at the amphitheatre went to the Etowah County Volunteer Fire Association."

According to Amberson, the collection program took up 496 radios, each averaging more than $11 for the fire departments. The ECVFA received $1,645, while the remaining funds were dispersed as follows:

• Attalla-$800
• Glencoe-$720
• Hokes Bluff-$770
• Rainbow City-$815
• Southside-$730

(Montgomery, AL - December 31, 2009) Alabama Attorney General Troy King and 12 other state Attorney Generals are sending a letter to US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, asking that Congress remove the "Nebraska Compromise" and other similar deals from the current Health Care Reform Bill being considered in joint committee.

King says he is involving himself in this issue because "if the highest ranking members of the United States Senate were unwilling to respect their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution as they considered one of the most important public policy issues in generations, we (the Attorneys General) would."

In a press release issued today, King says that Alabamians should not be forced to pay for another state's Medicaid program. "Particularly," he states, "when our own Medicaid program is on financial life-support." He continues by explaining that the expenses of Nebraska's Medicaid program should not force Alabama's Medicaid recipients to suffer unnecessarily due to a lack of funds in our state being sent to another state.

Last week, Governor Bob Riley expressed his support of King's stand and asked that the Attorneys General expand their investigation beyond the one "Nebraska Compromise" into other potentially improper deal-making to get the Senate bill passed.

"After a week of researching and reviewing this issue we (Attorneys General) were all in agreement that the Senate's action likely violated some of the United State's Constitution's most important protections. In our view, any such provisions must either be removed or challenged," says King in his statement.

That original group of eight Attorneys General has since expanded to 13, each of whom signed a letter that was sent to Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, and US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "We did not do this because we are for or against the health care plan currently under review," states King. "We did it because we are unequivocally FOR the United States Constitution and believe it must be respected at all times and defended when necessary. Now is such a time."

The text of the letter follows:

December 30, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker, United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader, United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“H.R. 3590”). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.

It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees. In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590’s new Medicaid mandates. In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.

In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a "display of arbitrary power." Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious.

The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the Medicaid program. However, the power is not unlimited and “must be in pursuit of the ‘general welfare.’ ” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, “that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Id. at 207. It seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universal health care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of the increased Medicaid costs the bill will generate. The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.

The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the “Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs. Only the citizens of Nebraska will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.

We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issue is readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.

By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.

Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.

Signed by:

Henry McMaster
Attorney General, South Carolina

Rob McKenna
Attorney General, Washington

Mike Cox
Attorney General, Michigan

Greg Abbott
Attorney General, Texas

John Suthers
Attorney General, Colorado

Troy King
Attorney General, Alabama

Wayne Stenehjem
Attorney General, North Dakota

Bill Mims
Attorney General, Virginia

Tom Corbett
Attorney General, Pennsylvania

Mark Shurtleff
Attorney General, Utah

Bill McCollum
Attorney General, Florida

Lawrence Wasden
Attorney General, Idaho

Marty Jackley
Attorney General, South Dakota