Skip navigation

PhotoShop For Linux ?

Sep 5, 2009 6:04 AM

  Latest reply: c.pfaffenbichler, May 14, 2011 1:06 AM
Replies 1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 23, 2010 11:37 AM   in reply to Chris Cox
    But the Linux community, as a whole, doesn't seem as organized as you might think.

     

    If you guys decide to propose us a deal, you would be more than surprised how organized this community is.

     

    In fact i never seen one as organized and ambitious.

     

     

    Oh, and we've been asking the same thing for a while.

     

     

    When was this? in the 90s ?

     

    I've migrated from windows for quite sometime and i havent heard anything, maybe you guys need to ask for real this time. Its as easy as making 1 post in your official blog for a deal/proposal to the community. How much would that take? 10 minutes?

     

     

    No one is going to lose anything by doing this, in fact there's a lot to win by both parties.

     

    But we're not going to beg for too long and we're not going to accept a rip off deal either. Because lets say you ask for 10, 15, 20 mill ... one would question if we can use that money to better use, like making the linux base better or enhancing some of our own inhouse growned solutions....

     

    But like you've suggested in earlier comments, might be better to spend those resources in making it a better platform for ALL commercial apps, not just Photoshop.

     

     

    Anyway, i dont want to get you fired or anything and do appreciate your feedback and suggestions.  Thanks.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 23, 2010 11:07 PM   in reply to Manny B.

    If you guys decide to propose us a deal, you would be more than surprised how organized this community is.

     

    In fact i never seen one as organized and ambitious.

    So in response to Mr.Cox advice to approach Adobe with a business proposition (or contact a VP) you ask Adobe to propose a deal to you?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 24, 2010 5:16 AM   in reply to c.pfaffenbichler

    No, he said that adobe has proposed the deal to the community "many" times over and over, but i suspect thats not entirely true...  Who did they ask and when? sources?  If they really wanted to propose to the community (for real this time), then they should start by making an official PUBLIC statement first on their blog, the proposal should be to the entire public community (the real interested party), not one or two individuals.  Takes a few minutes and is risk free, both parties can gain a lot.  But i suspect they're all talk and they wont go ahead and do it, not even propose it.  So the only thing we need is to Make widely used distros like ubuntu more commercial friendly for all apps not just photoshop. Canonical already began creating a base and framework for this, just a month or two ago, so a lot of good changes are to come.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 24, 2010 12:34 PM   in reply to Manny B.

    It is not Adobe's place to offer a "deal" to the Linux community.

    If someone wants to fund a port of our products, they need to approach Adobe.

     

    But it sounds like you don't really have a feel for the size of the effort, or the realities of business.

     

     

    Making Linux more friendly to applications is a start, and that should help lower the cost of porting software.

    But the bigger issue remains:   the lack of customers willing to pay for that software.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 26, 2010 5:19 AM   in reply to Chris Cox

    [quote]Linux users are still not willing to pay for commercial software.[/quote]

    It sounds like Linux users are using linux simply because it is free.

    Certainly, Linux users are not willing to pay for commercial softwares when there is (if not better) open source alternative.

    I'm not going to pay for Dreamweaver, if I'm going to hand code my web pages.

    I'm not going to pay for Phtoshop, if I only need croppping and things like that with my photos.

     

    Now, Who uses Photoshop?

    People willing to pay for commercial software? or who want the features of Photoshop?

     

    [quote]most of them already do pay for Photoshop on a different OS.[/quote]

    As you said you may not be going to make more sales. But it results less sales for Windows or Mac.

     

    Is Adobe aware of the fact that when there is an alternative comes for Photoshop, then they are going to loose a lot of customers?

    For a simple reason that its not available in their favourite OS though it has great features?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 26, 2010 5:30 AM   in reply to CodingGeek

    As you said you may not be going to make more sales. But it results less sales for Windows or Mac.
    So Adobe should increase its investment in programming time without any prospect of increasing Photoshop-sales?
    That would probably have to mean raising the price per unit, wouldn’t it?
    Which would not at all endear Adobe to its current customer-base.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 26, 2010 9:32 AM   in reply to c.pfaffenbichler

    The reasoning behind the assumption that a Linux version wouldn't increase sales is incorrect; there are Mac/Windows Photoshop customers who are actively not upgrading because a Linux version is not available.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 26, 2010 9:48 AM   in reply to fantasticfoxmr

    The reasoning behind the assumption that a Linux version wouldn't increase sales is incorrect; there are Mac/Windows Photoshop customers who are actively not upgrading because a Linux version is not available.

    And the evidence of this is.... ?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2010 2:04 AM   in reply to fantasticfoxmr
    The reasoning behind the assumption that a Linux version wouldn't increase sales is incorrect; there are Mac/Windows Photoshop customers who are actively not upgrading because a Linux version is not available.

    I was quoting and concluding from CodingGeek’s earlier statement.

    I assume you personally know such designers, but their number may simply not justify the expenditure as of this time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2010 3:28 PM   in reply to Chris Cox

    And the evidence is I know I'm not the only one who has zero enthusiasm for upgrading.  I didn't mean to imply it was the single-day 19% drop in share value in September.  That was due to people not upgrading for a lot of reasons, not just the lack Linux support.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 6, 2010 4:08 PM   in reply to SAFAD_Soft

    They'll never port it to linux.  They've already determined its not "profitable" based on data collected by marketing companies.  Adobe doesn't care about the FOSS market, unless you're Google.  Its probably for the best, their port would be buggier than anything Microsoft could produce and its the main reason I stopped using any version of Photoshop after CS (ver 8.0).  With each new version stability has become an issue, so much in fact that when doing graphics work the "save" button becomes your best friend. I currently work in Windows for any Photoshop related task, I've purchased Photoshop 7, CS, and CS4 and I've tried every version thereafter or inbetween.  I always return to CS; everything afterwards is bloated and buggy.  If I'm not working in Cubase or Photoshop, I'm on my Linux partition and I would glady pay for a native port of Photoshop CS, Dreamweaver, InDesign or Illustrator.

     

    A legacy port of CS would be ideal for my situation, its a pipe-dream, but we're all allowed to wish for a better world.  Until then, theres always GIMP and Inkscape.  To be fair, Adobe at least releases their products on multiple platforms and the linux market share for professional graphic applications is dwarfed by Mac (whose total end-user market share closely resembles linux).  Think about it, Mac built a loyal fanbase of Photoshop users, thereby negating the niche market Linux would've / could've attracted.  This all comes down to money and in their defense I'd have to agree its probably a 50/50 chance that they'd even see profits from a linux port without the help of dedicated coders who'd be willing to work for scraps.

     

    I'd gladly pay for a legacy port, but how many other people would be willing to shell out hundreds of dollars?  Finding someone willing to pay $50 for a game is alot different than finding a professional graphics artist / developer / designer who happens to enjoy penquins and is willing to shell out a few hundred for a port of their favortie application.  Its probably the most requested application for linux (with the exception of maybe steam or anything gaming related) but request don't equate to sales.  If you're emphatic about using Photoshop on linux and you're dying for a native port why not get a group of linux users together and address the issue with a large supporter of the Linux Software Foundation I'm sure with enough incentive they could possibly open talks with adobe and dedicated resources to the project.  A dozen or so request on Adobes forums will have little to no bearing, but a large consortium with resources could.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 14, 2010 7:43 AM   in reply to outwirednet

    Autodesk, The Foundry, Imagineer - all huge players in the vfx and design world who seem to think that developing for Linux is more than viable, why do Adobe continue to think that it isn't when these companies have shown that it is?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 14, 2010 11:42 PM   in reply to Chris_Brearley
    why do Adobe continue to think that it isn't when these companies have shown that it is?

    Do you have any numbers for the companies you mentioned regarding their revenue for the respective platforms?

    What are their products anyway (I only know of Autodesk’s 3D software) and are they all available for all three OS’?
    Adobe’s market research may be flawed, but do you honestly think the company would turn down an opportunity to make money, well, serious money at least?
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 27, 2010 1:50 PM   in reply to Chris Cox

    Hi Chris,

     

    First of all thank you for replying so frankly to this discussion. I've been keeping tabs on the whole "PS on Linux" situation for years now, and your responsiveness is greatly appreciated.

     

    As a developer with 5/6 of the computers in my life being Linux based, I have run the gamut with WINE and even got CS4 working great for a while before it gave up. I understand, from a business perspective, Adobe's apprehension to expend resources without probable return. I even get your references to the often sporatic nature of Linux in general; however I do think there are a few things Adobe can do:

     

    01.

    A simple blog post / poll, somewhere prominent on your site, with an accompanying tweet.

    Someone else already mentioned this, but - yes you have your big third party R&D companies doing market analysis, but the one thing they're not able to quantify is how many people are on the fence, ready to switch to Linux. My coworker for example is always jealous of my dev machine, but he's forever tied to a dual boot. Anyway, this would just give you a feel for the buzz and the interest people have in such an idea. I really think you'd be surprised.

     

    02.

    Crowdsource. Ask for free developers.

    No, I'm not joking - there are so many groups of people who already work on Linux for free, who would donate their time to get a real, enterprise class graphic design program on Linux. It seems like a stretch, but really, you make them sign a scary NDA to protect your code, and/or you make a public API, and I guarantee you'll soon be swimming in bug fixes, patches and new features. Your cost to port would be subsidized. Hell, I'd learn some more C++ and help out for a cause like that.

     

    Lastly, saying Linux is fragmented is an excuse, I'm sorry. Android is fragmented. iOS is fragmented. MSWindows breaks backward compatibility constantly. What you're really pointing at is that Linux is very open and diverse - this is never going to change, because it's the nature of the platform. What you can do though is focus on the obvious: you have Debian, which is (to my knowledge) the most popular desktop/consumer level distro, and it's derivetaves (Ubuntu x 100), and you have RedHat (Cent, Fedora, Suse, RHEL, etc.). These two distros are extremely stable, well polished, and all of those "command line tutorials" you spoke of are moot now. Yes I'm an admin and I prefer the terminal, but I've been using LinuxMint 10 (Julia) for a month now (fresh install) and haven't had to type a single command. That old addage "Linux is for geeks" is no longer valid. I know kids who are using it on netbooks.

     

    Linux is a real OS and I don't think you guys see that. Google sees it - in fact, they encourage their employees off Windows and OSX and on to Ubuntu. Most of their products start out on NIX based systems. Even Microsoft realizes it, and has contributed code to helping facilitate compatibility. Granted it's a bit out of date now, but they're even trying to contribute to WINE http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2008/02/google-sponsors-wine-imp rovements.html

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 27, 2010 4:05 PM   in reply to CorporalMaxSterling

    01) We've asked.  Once some desktop Linux market started to develop (thanks to the film/3d community), we added a lot of questions to our marketing surveys about Linux usage, plans, etc.  And the suites and other groups at Adobe have done the same.  Personally, I'm surprised at how little interest there is outside of the FX houses (who already have licenses for our products).

     

    02) ROFLMAO.  That would actually drive the cost of the port UP, not down.  The time to oversee inexperienced developers, review their submissions, test all the changes, etc. would be prohibitive.     Many of us already work with open source projects outside of Adobe.  We know the state of open source development quite well.

     

    Fragmentation is a real problem.  The Linux platform has to understand that, and make changes to become a real platform, before it can attract many professional developers.  Linux really, really needs some standards if it doesn't want to fragment into oblivion.  But  I don't see much understanding of the problem, much less any internal attempts to fix it.

     

    Google is trying to help guide Linux into BECOMING a real OS.  They know that Linux is not ready for most users.  Google is helping set some standards, but there is resistance to adopting the standards.  I hope Google will succeed in their efforts -- but I doubt that it will get too far.

     

    Yes, some distributions are improving things for some classes of user.  But the user experience on Linux is currently nowhere near the experience on Windows or MacOS.

     

    And all the problems I've brought up are still very real.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 5, 2011 5:28 PM   in reply to SAFAD_Soft

    I'm not an application developer either,  although I do see Chris' point on Linux needing to standardise things before  any serious commercial software is developed for it.  In the mean time there are applications such as Wine (I think thats what its called on Linux) which allow you to run windows programs on linux.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 5, 2011 5:58 PM   in reply to fantasticfoxmr
    And the evidence is I know I'm not the only one who has zero enthusiasm for upgrading.  I didn't mean to imply it was the single-day 19% drop in share value in September.  That was due to people not upgrading for a lot of reasons, not just the lack Linux support.

    this may be true,  I for one would happily switch to ubuntu if there was a creative suite port to that platform,  BUT just because you and I may not be the only ones who would be willing to make this switch, that doesn't that there are enough other people to make it worth while to adobe,  I think the point someone made about it quite possibly forcing a price increase to their current support OS versions is quite valid. I for one dont want to pay anymore for photoshop than I already do now.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 6, 2011 5:42 PM   in reply to Chris_Brearley

    Number of VFX companies have moved over to Linux. Artists have 2 computers. Windows box for Photoshop and Linux for everything else (Maya, Houdini, Nuke). What a waste of money and electricity.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 6, 2011 11:21 PM   in reply to minemagama
    Number of VFX companies have moved over to Linux.

    And what is the rationale behind this?

    The in-house 3d-department at the company I work for use Maya on Windows machines, so that program at least should not necessitate a switch to Linux in and of itself.

    Does Linux offer a significantly better performance?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 7, 2011 1:40 AM   in reply to c.pfaffenbichler
    And what is the rationale behind this?

     

    Not sure why. Weta, AnimalLogic and few other shops I worked for have this setup. Maybe if company employs 200 artists only 10% use Photoshop then savings on OS outweigh support and spendings on Photoshop workstations. Maybe infostructure was built when 3D software was limited by Windows 4GB memory cap.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 7, 2011 1:48 AM   in reply to minemagama

    With hundreds of employees cost-calculation probably does get a bit more intricate than at smaller companies.

    And I’ve just heard that while the individual 3D-stations here are Windows the render farm is Unix …

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 7, 2011 9:57 AM   in reply to Chris Cox

    The day Photoshop for Linux is released, I will contact my preferred resellers and ask for a quote for 50 licenses.  I'm not holding my breath, though.

     

    It seems only small companies are able to allocate the resources necessary for truly cross-platform software development.  Large companies spend their money on marketing.  Perhaps if Adobe carved out a small percentage of their marketing budget for Photoshop, they'd find the money to fund linux development.  Really, how much effort is required to market a product that has already attained the holy grail of brand recognition?  (ie. the product name is used as a verb... "to photoshop" something.)

     

    The notion that all linux users are generally unwilling to pay for commercial software is complete BS.  Any market research that comes to that conclusion is completely flawed.  In the last 3 years, my company has spent in the range of 150K on linux software for END USERS on the DESKTOP.  Relatively speaking, we're not even that big a company in our industry.

     

    In the consumer space, the cross-platform game developers behind the Humble Indie Bundle have proven that while sales to Linux users are smaller in number, the Linux users are WILLING TO PAY MORE.  (On average almost 2x the amount a windows user).

     

    I'd certainly be willing to pay a premium for a Linux version of Photoshop.  I'm equally certain that the vast majority of my colleagues at other similar companies around the world would be as well.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 7, 2011 1:44 PM   in reply to jbklug

    Perhaps if Adobe carved out a small percentage of their marketing budget for Photoshop,

    Are you kidding me?  We have next to no marketing budget.

    It's all on engineering.

     

    But, again, to work on a port to a new platform, there has to be some sign that the new licenses would cover the cost of the port -- and for Linux, it's not even close.

     

    You may not like the market research conclusions, but they are quite clear -- Linux users are not willing to pay for commerical software.

    Yes, there are some niche markets that do pay for Linux software (3D, FX), but that's not much, and again, most already have a license.

     

    And yes, we've looked at charging a premium for Linux licenses -- the necessary increase in price (just to break even) would be pretty extreme.

     

     

    Please stop blaming the messanger.

    If you want real change, develop the Linux platform and market.  Then there would be a reason to make a port.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 7, 2011 3:19 PM   in reply to Chris Cox

    Are you kidding me?  We have next to no marketing budget.

    It's all on engineering.

     

    Eh?  Adobe's operating expenses are published for investors to see and  according to that data, Sales and Marketing accounts for almost double  that of Research and Development.  Perhaps your idea of "next to no marketing budget" is quite a bit different than mine.

     

    But, again, to work on a port to a new platform, there has to be some sign that the new licenses would cover the cost of the port -- and for Linux, it's not even close.

     

    And yet other smaller companies producing software even larger and more complex than Photoshop have reached an entirely different conclusion.. and have remained profitable by selling Linux versions.  I'm sure glad they didn't waste any of their money on bogus market research before deciding that Linux customers do, in fact, matter.

     

    Yes, there are some niche markets that do pay for Linux software (3D, FX), but that's not much, and again, most already have a license.

     

    Yes, most of them have a license.  I'd wager that most of them, like us, hesitate (or completely neglect) to pay for updates when new versions are released.  If it was available for Linux, we'd be paying for updates with every new release.  As it stands now, we just keep a few copies of Photoshop around on machines for people to use like it's a "necessary evil."  A linux version would be kept up to date and installed on every single workstation.  Don't tell us that we don't matter because you think that you've already taken all the money we're willing to give you.  Especially when it's not true... we'd gladly give you more if you showed any willingness to cater to our interests.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 7, 2011 10:16 PM   in reply to jbklug

    Nobody said you don't matter.

     

    But on the whole, the Linux "market" doesn't exist - there are not enough Linux users willing to pay for commercial software to make a port profitable.

    That's simply a fact.

    Unless you change the market, or do something to drastically lower the cost of the port, then nothing will change.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 8, 2011 1:35 AM   in reply to jbklug
    The notion that all linux users are generally unwilling to pay for commercial software is complete BS.

    Is this a general statement?

    Because Mr.Cox’s statement »very few Linux users are willing to pay for commercial software.« (post 6) seems somewhat different in tone.

     

    As for his remark »We have next to no marketing budget.«:

    I wonder if he was talking about the Photoshop-team’s budget, because in a company the size of Adobe »we« might mean many things?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 8, 2011 2:26 AM   in reply to jbklug
    And yet other smaller companies producing software even larger and more complex than Photoshop have reached an entirely different conclusion.. and have remained profitable by selling Linux versions.  I'm sure glad they didn't waste any of their money on bogus market research before deciding that Linux customers do, in fact, matter.

     

    Thats probably due to competition. Autodesk or SideFX take the risk in fear of missing out on potential market. Even if market research indicates a loss. Photoshop has no real competitor and Adobe doesn't have to take that risk. I think once someone develops Photoshop equivalent for Linux (Foundry?), Adobe will most likely jump on board as well.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 8, 2011 5:27 AM   in reply to Chris Cox

    But on the whole, the Linux "market" doesn't exist - there are not enough Linux users willing to pay for commercial software to make a port profitable.

    That's simply a fact.

     

     

    Chris, how much would it cost to do the port?  I believe in an earlier post, you yourself said that the C++ code is quite portable, alluding to how easy it would be to do. 

     

    How many people are needed?  My company is willing to buy enough licenses right now to probably cover the cost of a programmer's salary for entire year.  I can think of a few other companies who would be willing to buy even more than us.  EACH of them could cover the cost of 2-3 MORE programmer's salaries.

     

    Sales to the animation and vfx community alone might be able to cover the cost.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 8, 2011 5:31 AM   in reply to minemagama
    I think once someone develops Photoshop equivalent for Linux (Foundry?), Adobe will most likely jump on board as well.

     

    Agreed.  It's only a matter of time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 8, 2011 5:51 AM   in reply to c.pfaffenbichler

    As for his remark »We have next to no marketing budget.«:

    I wonder if he was talking about the Photoshop-team’s budget, because in a company the size of Adobe »we« might mean many things?

     

    The published numbers indicate that the "next to no marketing budget" statement is very likely FUD and I called him on it.

     

    I don't care what the "Photoshop team's" budget is.  I didn't suggest taking money from one department.  My suggestion was for carving out from ADOBE's marketing budget.  They clearly have enough money.  According to the published numbers, the company as a whole spends more money on marketing the products than they do making them.

     

    Adobe's revenue for fiscal 2010 alone was 3.8 BILLION dollars.  Somewhere in there is enough money to do one little port of one application.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 8, 2011 10:48 AM   in reply to c.pfaffenbichler

    I wonder if he was talking about the Photoshop-team’s budget,

    Yes, I was referring to just the Photoshop team.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 8, 2011 10:49 AM   in reply to jbklug

    Sales to the animation and vfx community alone might be able to cover the cost.

    Nope, we've looked into that multiple times.

     

    If your company really wants to fund a port:  come to Adobe with a proposal.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 8, 2011 10:53 AM   in reply to jbklug

    Somewhere in there is enough money to do one little port of one application.

    But no company that wants to remain profitable would make a port to a platform that shows no signs of being able to recoup costs of making the port.

     

    Beyond the cost to convert the code, there is cost to test the product (and combinations of hardware, drivers, etc), cost to provide support, etc.  Those are ongoing costs, not one-time costs.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 8, 2011 11:13 AM   in reply to outwirednet

    Amiga is too a viable platform!!!!!   Last year they sold $23 in games!!!!!!

     

    And I'm sure the other guys in my hgihschool class would pay for the port!!!
    It can't be that hard, it's got all the graphix and printers and mice and stuff.  Could we help?  Is it written in BASIC?   We already got GIMP, but you have to save every 3 seconds or lose the image when it crashes..

     

    And if you don't do it, we'll just keep buying DELUXE PAINT cuz it does everything PhotoShop does, so there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 8, 2011 11:42 AM   in reply to AmigaRulz

    OK, that's some funny $h+ right there! Thanks for lightening things up. Now if we could just get pong as a

    Photoshop plugin.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 8, 2011 11:53 AM   in reply to Michael Lamy

    Ok, on a day with bad news, that still made me laugh.

    I'm not sure it's helping, but at least it's funny.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2011 4:17 PM   in reply to Chris Cox

    Oh, c'mon folks, don't bash Chris. Adobe probably has back stage agreements with Microsoft and Apple to do not port Photoshop to Linux. It would be a killer App in a Killer OS, and Microsoft and Apple would see their costumers jumping in droves in the Linux wagon. Simple as that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2011 11:48 PM   in reply to RuyBlanco
    It would be a killer App in a Killer OS, and Microsoft and Apple would see their costumers jumping in droves in the Linux wagon.

    I’m a career-long Macintosh-user and most of the graphic designers, photographers, illustrators I have contact with are Macintosh-users, too.

    And while I can’t vouch for those I can state that I myself am highly disinclined to switch OS unless absolutely necessary.

    As regards those people I work or have contact with: Some still work with CS3 or CS4, some work with CS5 but haven’t bothered reading the »What’s New«-section of the Help … so the idea that they would take enough of an interest in OS-matters to switch »in droves« seems somewhat unlikely to me.

     

    But, once again, I am aware that my observations do not represent a statistically relevant sample.

    How about the sample of PC-users you base your surmise on?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 12, 2011 10:21 AM   in reply to c.pfaffenbichler

    I can only answer with that quote from the movie "Field of Dreams" - "If you build it, they will come."

     

     

    There´s no way to know for sure, but something would happen. One of the highlights of Linux is you can make it work with your inhouse IT crew. As many high profile FX companies do.

     

    But only making it to see it happen. Autodesk is already there. Adobe could step in too.

     

    Best regards

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2011 9:22 AM   in reply to Chris Cox

    Although I don't agree, I accept your arguments about the customer base (as this is not really exact science, its arguable). I do not understand though why do you complain about the technical base (the 'standardized platform' as you call it).

     

    You are missing a point here. There is no one standard linux desktop and there never will be. Standard apis and subsystems, except for POSIX etc, are those that are being pushed by developers and used by the users. The proliferation of some basic subsystems (and the lack of a dominant solution) used to cause pain in compatibility and has been sorted out projects like http://www.freedesktop.org (which "is building a base platform for desktop software on Linux and UNIX"). For the high-level parts there is usually more than one popular and well supported solution. You have to choose. Whats wrong with having Gnome competing with KDE? Whats exactly is wrong with choosing either GTK or QT as the toolkit? They are equally supported on all linux desktop installations. QT is even truly cross-platform.

     

    Color management. Seems it's been there for a while.

    http://www.linux.com/archive/feed/43337 (an article from 2005!)

    "Right now, color management on Linux and other free operating systems is usable for those people who care about it, and, like font support just a few years ago, it is on the threshold of widespread adoption, lacking only a push from major vendors to really take off. The technical work is done, but it is left to the enterprising user to activate it and take advantage. "

     

    Recently a gui for color management has been added to gnome for easy access for ordinary desktop users.

     

    Fonts and printing? I have no idea what the problem is. And I've been using linux for several years now (yes, I used fonts and printers quite a lot). Maybe you can help here. Those who are 'occasional users' and complain about lack of this kind of 'standards' must have even less of an idea what they are talking about.

     

    Do I have to mention: if you feel like something is not quite right, you are free to contribute to the community with a concrete discussion about improvement and possibly a solution.

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)