(stupid question) but do you think photoshop will be in ubuntu soon?

[EnGorDiaz]

it seems that support for ubuntu with flash and other adobe applications is becoming higher im just wondering do you think we might be able to get full access to there products soon

[jrusso2]

Adobe does not feel Photoshop is worth the problems.

1. Linux users complain about having to buy anything. See Nero.
2 Linux changes every six months would require constant updates.
3. Too many different desktops. libraries and package systems.

[Rokurosv]

I agree with jrusso, so no I don't think Adobe has any plans for a native PS or other Adobe product.

[MaxIBoy]

Unless times have changed, Apple has a majority ownership of Adobe. As far as Apple is concerned, there isn't enough room on this planet for another "rebel" OS, let alone a collection of at least two hundred active ones. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

[jrusso2]

It was a rumor that had Apple buying Adobe I don't recall them ever doing it and that was in 2004.

[MaxIBoy]

Hmm... I thought they had a 90% share back in the early classic Mac days...

Course, I could be wrong, or they might have sold their stock since then...

[HermanAB]

Photoshop works on Wine.

[jrusso2]

Photoshop works on Wine.

So does Office but I just spent two hours trying to get it to work. And it still not.

[EnGorDiaz]

Unless times have changed, Apple has a majority ownership of Adobe. As far as Apple is concerned, there isn't enough room on this planet for another "rebel" OS, let alone a collection of at least two hundred active ones. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

apple also have a high opensource usage in there os's

apache alot of other programs and some other stuff

[frup]

2 Linux changes every six months would require constant updates.
3. Too many different desktops. libraries and package systems.

I would think that for a corporate program like photoshop a company would support Corporate Linux. by this I mean

RedHat
SuSe
Ubuntu (LTS)

I do not mean Fedora, I do not mean openSuse, I do not mean 8.10. I do not mean every other distro under the sun. It seems logical to me. And would it really matter if Linux versions weren't available as soon as windows versions etc? At least there would be a version. I know those who are dependent on PS really are, same as AutoCAD. The F/OSS alternatives could catch up like they are always trying too... Maybe the F/OSS in this case needs some competition?

[gnomeuser]

No and I hope it doesn't. It is proprietary software, it has no place in the official Ubuntu repos. Even if a port ever came about it would not fulfill the requirements to be supported by Ubuntu. It could go into Canonicals repos of proprietary software but even then one might assume that adobe might want to get paid and letting anyone install it would be iffy (one could think of some kind of activation scheme maybe).

Not going to happen, nor should it, it is completely unsupportable for one. Improving GIMP and inkscape is one route, another might be hoping that there would be a version of photoshop which run as cloud computing (but really image processing in a webbrowser any scheme they select is bound to be really slow).

[Sand & Mercury]

No and I hope it doesn't. It is proprietary software, it has no place in the official Ubuntu repos. Even if a port ever came about it would not fulfill the requirements to be supported by Ubuntu. It could go into Canonicals repos of proprietary software but even then one might assume that adobe might want to get paid and letting anyone install it would be iffy (one could think of some kind of activation scheme maybe).

Not going to happen, nor should it, it is completely unsupportable for one. Improving GIMP and inkscape is one route, another might be hoping that there would be a version of photoshop which run as cloud computing (but really image processing in a webbrowser any scheme they select is bound to be really slow).
I think he was just referring to making it run natively in Ubuntu, not including it in the repos. Obviously, that wouldn't be happening under any circumstance.

[EnGorDiaz]

I think he was just referring to making it run natively in Ubuntu, not including it in the repos. Obviously, that wouldn't be happening under any circumstance.

exactly.

[gnomeuser]

exactly.

Well, Adobe traditionally has not considered Linux a platform worth investing in. I would wager the chances of a native port a being very low. I still think the best hopes for getting such functionality is either improving the gimp thus matching and surpassing photoshop or hope that adobe will create a web version of photoshop.

Given adobes other projects such as AIR and their buzzword web wordproccesor the latter doesn't sound to silly, just encumbered with a multitude of technical issues.

[Skripka]

it seems that support for ubuntu with flash and other adobe applications is becoming higher im just wondering do you think we might be able to get full access to there products soon


Nope. Not at anytime in the foreseeable future in our Universe. If Adobe cannot be bothered to write programs with appropriate use of CAPS in their code--why would they bother dicking around with our 1% marketshare?????

[Keyper7]

1. Linux users complain about having to buy anything. See Nero.

The problem with Nero Linux is that it didn't offer features worth the money for a community that already has programs like K3B. With Photoshop is a different story, as there's tons of people who agree that there's no worthy equivalent in Linux for professionals.


2. Linux changes every six months would require constant updates.
3. Too many different desktops. libraries and package systems.

Adobe's products are usually very standalone. I honestly doubt that a static compilation would make the binary much bigger than it already is. I can still use some old versions of Reader in Intrepid and ever since Feisty I can download the static, distro-independent version of Skype and have it working out of the box.

[intense.ego]

The best solution is to run it in a VM with XP. That's what I do, and CS4 works like a charm. I don't have anything too special either. I think all that is necessary is a decent amount of ram (I have 2.5gb)

[MikeTheC]

Well, Adobe does hire experienced Linux programmers from time to time. If you check their job postings, you'll see them periodically. Now, that being said, hiring a "Linux programmer" and "porting Photoshop to Linux" are really two very different things.

Adobe is in a really ideal position. They sell to both Apple's as well as Microsoft's platforms, and they are the creators and holders of several "industry standard" technologies, including PostScript and PDF, and thanks to their acquisition of Macromedia, they own Flash, which they have ported to Linux (lest anyone in this thread forget that fact).

I think the only way Adobe would ever port Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Dreamweaver or any of the rest to Linux would be if there was a substantial-enough migration from Mac OS X and Windows to Linux by their customer base. In fact, that might be something of a "milestone" if you will in the measurable success of the Linux platform, I suppose.

[jrusso2]

[QUOTE=Keyper7;6493287]The problem with Nero Linux is that it didn't offer features worth the money for a community that already has programs like K3B. With Photoshop is a different story, as there's tons of people who agree that there's no worthy equivalent in Linux for professionals.

Well Pixel is almost as good, better then GIMP and is only sixty bucks yet no one will buy it..


Adobe's products are usually very standalone. I honestly doubt that a static compilation would make the binary much bigger than it already is. I can still use some old versions of Reader in Intrepid and ever since Feisty I can download the static, distro-independent version of Skype and have it working out of the box.

Why not have more distro independent stuff like I would like to use Firefox 3 on some older distros? Linux has been very resistant to static stuff.

[Skripka]

Well Pixel is almost as good, better then GIMP and is only sixty bucks yet no one will buy it..



People are either fine enough with GIMP or want/need full out Photoshop-there is really a no man's land in between....especially when there are no trials available of payware software, which last I knew Pixel did not have a trial for linux available.

If Adobe would simply ditch it's PITA installer for something that would run under Wine, then Photoshop CS3 would run fine under Wine--that is the problem though the installer.

Adobe would be infintely more likely to tweak their installer than a native port(s) of CS software.

[powell]

Definably not, it's sad though, I used to you it on my XP.

[zmjjmz]

It's very unlikely that they'll make a truly native version, seeing as it would be much easier for them to make a winelib one.

[Keyper7]

Well Pixel is almost as good, better then GIMP and is only sixty bucks yet no one will buy it.

You're missing the point. Pixel might be good, but it's still a change from what professionals are used to. Every now and then I hear "No, I don't want an alternative, I want Photoshop. If Linux does not have Photoshop, I can't migrate." But I never heard anything even remotely like "What? Linux does not have my favorite CD burning software? I can't migrate!"

Commercial software will always be ignored or pirated by some, but if it's good enough, professionals and companies who need it will buy it.


Why not have more distro independent stuff like I would like to use Firefox 3 on some older distros? Linux has been very resistant to static stuff.

What "Linux" is resistant against is not relevant, because the company is free to compile and release their products like they want. For example, Windows does not include a Java VM by default, so some companies who sell Java software work around this by including a small, standalone JVM in the package.

There's no higher authority in Canonical, Red Hat or the Linux Foundation that can forbid them from doing so. That's why the Linux port of the Flash plugin is still going strong, despite the complaints of free software purists.

[Half-Left]

Adobe does not feel Photoshop is worth the problems.

1. Linux users complain about having to buy anything. See Nero.
2 Linux changes every six months would require constant updates.
3. Too many different desktops. libraries and package systems.

1. Since when do windows users buy photoshop, most of them torrent it
2. Since when do apps break because of kernel updates?
3. Choose a toolkit, make a rpm or deb, done, yes we expect apps to be upto date and not left to rot.

[Skripka]

1. Since when do windows users buy photoshop, most of them torrent it
2. Since when do apps break because of kernel updates?
3. Choose a toolkit, make a rpm or deb, done, yes we expect apps to be upto date and not left to rot.

One of the many fundamental problems with Linux is there is barely any color managing to be found-this pretty much means anyone serious and professionally using Photoshop will not use a Linux port of it.