Adobe is stupid.

[higashi]

It has come to my attention that adobe is an extremely stupid company.

First of all, they make all these products and give them stupid names, as if they're TRYING to make everything confusing.

Second of all, they put high prices on all their products, so they obviously want money... and yet they dont make any products for linux.
Not only do they not make any linux-compatible programs, but they declare copyright infringement on clones such as f4l. Its like they dont want linux users making flash videos/games/etc at all.

Its really a shame because i dont think they realize how many more customers theyd get if only they made it available for linux.

Also, they dont even make the flash PLAYER work properly! Us linux users are forced to play games with delayed sound, we are unable to upload a regular-sized file to a flash application, we are unable to do as we please on the internet!

I'm not sure why, but it seems that adobe is trying to get people away from linux. They do all they can to make sure their software works properly for windows (and probably mac, i havent looked into that) and they treat linux as the middle child (no offence to you middle children.. you know what i mean tho.).

I think its about time that we do something about this. Whether its something as simple as signing a petition, or as crazy as picketing in front of their HQ.

I would appreciate any support and ideas you can post on this thread. Linux could really use an animation tool / game creator etc like flash. It's not fair that we're limited because of them. Linux deserves to be unlimited.

[binbash]

Flash player on linux is totally crap.You can see the performance while playing games easily.It took 4 or 5 years to publish a 64 bit flash player...

[bruce89]

It's not Flash Player that's useless, it's the whole concept of Flash itself (yes and Silverlight, JavaFX).

[Sand & Mercury]

The biggest problem is that the Linux market on the desktop is so small right now that Adobe could simply care less for it. They're a company that relies on revenue for their products, and Linux is a small market. They don't strike me as being stupid, just perhaps a bit lazy and not allocating their resources as well as we'd hope.

As a Windows user though I had a big problem with them too, as all their apps install in such ways that you see their name everywhere on your computer.

[bruce89]

The biggest problem is that the Linux market on the desktop is so small right now that Adobe could simply care less for it.

Quite clearly they do care less for it.

[pol666]

well, Flash 10 is not so bad. But i'm agree, Adobe is a stupid and monopolist company and his products are useless, for example, Photoshop CS4 it's a good product, (I would say that is the best...) But Wait!, 2gb of memory RaM only for edit images? When Gimp or, even photoshop 7 , only need 128mb? it's Understandable!

[glotz]

Adobe is stupid and far worse, evil.

Steer clear of them and their products.

[Sand & Mercury]

Quite clearly they do care less for it.
That's what I meant :lol:

"I could care less" and "I could not care less", both of these phrases actually mean the same thing. I never really understood how that makes sense but I keep saying it anyway.

[chucky chuckaluck]

Adobe is stupid and far worse, evil.

Steer clear of them and their products.

evil?

[howefield]

evil?

English may not be his/her native language......

[geoken]

Not only do they not make any linux-compatible programs, but they declare copyright infringement on clones such as f4l. Its like they dont want linux users making flash videos/games/etc at all.

Its really a shame because i dont think they realize how many more customers theyd get if only they made it available for linux.

That's strange. Last I checked I've been using a free Linux version of Flex Builder for about a year and have been happily designing all the flash content my heart desires. Did you actually research any of your claims before you made them?

"First of all, they make all these products and give them stupid names, as if they're TRYING to make everything confusing."
Yeah, Photoshop, Illustrator, SoundBooth, After Effects, Reader. You need to be a genius to figure those out. Why can't they be more like the open source community and give them names like Evolution, Fire Fox, Thunderbird, Banshee, Evince and Gimp. Those names obviously tell you exactly what the app does.

[mihai.ile]

Yeah, Photoshop, Illustrator, SoundBooth, After Effects, Reader. You need to be a genius to figure those out. Why can't they be more like the open source community and give them names like Evolution, Fire Fox, Thunderbird, Banshee, Evince and Gimp. Those names obviously tell you exactly what the app does.

+1 on this, what about the adobe names? they seem ok to me too. And what about adobe being stupid if they don't spend so much on linux development? it's THEIR choice.

[Skripka]

It has come to my attention that adobe is an extremely stupid company.

First of all, they make all these products and give them stupid names, as if they're TRYING to make everything confusing.

Second of all, they put high prices on all their products, so they obviously want money... and yet they dont make any products for linux.

Really? You're aware companies exist to MAKE MONEY, aren't you?

Flash10 is done right and works (even the 64bit alpha release for Linux).

Really, if you're going to criticize Adobe-do it on something-call them on something concrete and actually stupid....such as Adobe's refusal to hire programmers who care when they use the shift key.

[geoken]

well, Flash 10 is not so bad. But i'm agree, Adobe is a stupid and monopolist company and his products are useless, for example, Photoshop CS4 it's a good product, (I would say that is the best...) But Wait!, 2gb of memory RaM only for edit images? When Gimp or, even photoshop 7 , only need 128mb? it's Understandable!

It uses a lot of ram because it loads the entire pic and much of it's functionality into RAM. Photoshop is a pro app and optimized with the high end workstation users in mind. As a result it allows users to take that 8gb ram workstation they're using and utilize it to it's fullest. If you don't want any of CS4's performance enhancements then just keep using 7. Flash also uses more resources because the entire stage is a running instance of the Flash player. For pro users with decent hardware (where it causes a .5-1% cpu usage increase) this is a great feature because there is never any difference between stage elements and finished products. If the extra performance used by the new features is a big deal to you then don't use the new features (aka. don't get the latest version). Give inkscape to a pro user, let them load in a 200dpi 4 foot by 2 foot project, and tell me how well it runs.

Also, for a 'monopolist' they sure act weird. They submit PDF as an open standard and allow anyone to read/write it at a time when that format has complete market dominance. They open source the Flex compiler, allowing anyone to make an app that publishes swf's at a time when 99% of the market is using Adobe app's to publish SWF's. They give their actionscript virtual machine to Mozilla, allowing for huge strides in javascript to the point where it can begin to rival Flash when 99% of people have Flash installed.

[glotz]

evil?
Proprietary software.


English may not be his/her native language......
Ha ha.

[geoken]

Proprietary software.



So are you evil if you don't let me come to your house and use your car for free?

[glotz]

So are you evil if you don't let me come to your house and use your car for free?
You don't have a clue, do you? :lolflag:

[Dragonbite]

At least Adobe doesn't name everything with an "a" in front of it like KDE does/did with their "k".

Seems to me that Adobe isn't totally stupid. While everybody has had to reduce the price of their applications over the past few years Adobe has held onto their obscene pricing and still gets it!

So when revenue drops and they have to drop the price of things they can tap into the Linux market to make the difference, but why blow all your options at once?

Proprietary Software =/= Evil. It just means the companies making it have different priority than granola-eating open source fanatics! :lolflag:

[geoken]

You don't have a clue, do you? :lolflag:

You don't have an answer, do you?

Thanks for the insult though. It really solidified your position on that moral high ground.

[chucky chuckaluck]

nevermind.

this all reminds me of a friend who compared her ex-husband to hitler. he was an annoying jerk, for sure, but i think there was a difference in degree. she's a little dramatic anyway.

[glotz]

You don't have an answer, do you?

Thanks for the insult though. It really solidified your position on that moral high ground.Click the link in my previous post, there's your answer little troll boy.

[devehf]

The original post is such an imbecilic rant that it doesn't even deserve reading, much less replying to, but I am very interested in consumer perceptions of companies so I am going to chime in.

Items to consider:
1) Since stupidity literally means lack of intelligence, it is interesting that the original poster chose this descriptor. Adobe programmers are some of the smartest people I know. Unlike Apple or Microsoft programmers. So are the Adobe marketing people stupid?

2) I wonder what companies the original poster considers "Inteligent"? IBM? Yawn. Show me a company that is so successful and supportive of creativity. Every movie and TV show you watch is made with Adobe products in some way.

3) Lashing out at a company implies that the original poster has been hurt by them somehow. Is s/he offended at their success? can't get Flash sound to work in Firefox and is boohooing about it? Can't afford their products? That's like saying, "Rolex is stupid because their watches cost a lot and who needs that when a Timex is just fine." If people are willing to pay the prices then Adobe is solving a problem worth the cash.

[chucky chuckaluck]

Click the link in my previous post, there's your answer little troll boy.

i don't see a link, other than your sig.

[geoken]

Click the link in my previous post, there's your answer little troll boy.

That doesn't even remotely address the question I posed.

I'll ask again, are you evil if you don't let me come to your house and freely use your car? If not, why?

You really do everyone a disservice when the best you can do in response to my honest request for an engaging discussion is to direct petty insults at me.

[glotz]

i don't see a link, other than your sig.Yes, that's the one. Click it to open it.


That doesn't even remotely address the question I posed.

I'll ask again, are you evil if you don't let me come to your house and freely use your car? If not, why?

You really do everyone a disservice when the best you can do in response to my honest request for an engaging discussion is to direct petty insults at me.

Yes, I admit I was made angry by your crazy not-an-analogy. Try actually reading the link. I bet most people on this forum have.

[Sand & Mercury]

Adobe's practices are quite normal when it comes to large-scale proprietary software developers. Their products are SOLID. They are also very, very expensive. How much does Maya and 3DS Max cost you? They need to be activated too, and all that.

I really don't mind. I couldn't afford their stuff legitimately so I no longer use it, but I understand. They need to make profit. Their employees gotta eat.

[Martje_001]

It uses a lot of ram because it loads the entire pic and much of it's functionality into RAM. Photoshop is a pro app and optimized with the high end workstation users in mind.[blabla] . Give inkscape to a pro user, let them load in a 200dpi 4 foot by 2 foot project, and tell me how well it runs.

Vector != Raster

[geoken]

Yes, I admit I was made angry by your crazy not-an-analogy. Try actually reading the link. I bet most people on this forum have.

I didn't make an analogy. I ask a very direct, specific and completely un-ambiguous question.

[howefield]

Adobe is stupid and far worse, evil.

Steer clear of them and their products.

Why ? Because you say so, or do you have reasons ?

[chucky chuckaluck]

Yes, that's the one. Click it to open it.

i saw it. i think it's actually kind of fascist to insist everyone make their software free.

[Simian Man]

Proprietary software.


Ha ha.

Computers are tools and so are you.

[geoken]

Vector != Raster

I wasn't suggesting it did. I was trying to address all their apps and how the increased memory usage affects performance. The Inkscape example was meant to be compared against Illustrator in the same situation.

[geoken]

i saw it. i think it's actually kind of fascist to insist everyone make their software free.

Exactly. I'm trying to figure out why I'm evil when someone says "We know you'd rather be enjoying your life right now rather than writing this app, so we'll throw some money your way in exchange for your service" and I take them up on the offer.

[transgress]

Ok this has quickly becoming a trolling post (although there have been many polite and rational responses). So why not calm down a bit and put things into perspective.

First, a while back I posted an idea about this that I found interesting: if you owned Adobe would you opensource all of their products?

I brought up the fact that it is how they make a profit. I pointed out that it would decimate their profit.

Opensource mostly lacks a business model. It is difficult to make money off of it. Redhat and Novell do a decent job, but last I recall they were in the red. Sun opensourced a lot of stuff (like java) and look and what areas are getting hit first with cutbacks as Sun shrinks...

Also, let me point out that professional tools are always expensive. And I do not mean professional computer programs. If you are a chef, knives will run you hundreds of dollars into the thousands. If you are an artist, those brushes and paints are expensive. A plumber has a multitude of devices that are expensive... going all the way up to heavy machinery. This is not some demented computer trend. This is capitalism. The fact is that not many professionals use linux. Most of the people on this board are not professional art designers. They cannot afford to pay for Adobe products. Thus they are not even customers of Adobe. I am aware that this is a trap, as professionals won't use linux for their professional lives if the tools aren't there, but that is how it is.

You can see problems with free software all over the place... even software that is only free as in beer. Twitter is running off of venture capital for the most part. They have no business model and if they don't find one then the money will run out. There is a reason facebook is trying all types of methods (including giving out your info to advertisers) to get money.

This is not to say there isn't hope. If someone thinks up a fantastic business model that works that can change things. Or if professionals are driven towards linux for some reason or other. If government organizations start using linux, etc.

But the situation boils down to the fact that most linux users won't buy Adobe (piratebay isn't buying it).

And they do know we are here hence the purpose of things like Flash being available, air being available. But we are here as a target audience not a potential client.

[roshanjose]

hey here is an opportunity for everyone to think positively....

If the proprietary market is improper....it is we FSF and OSS members who have to find an alternative fore this....

Make a team and study on this flash...and if possible write codes and build one which can make it available for use....will that not be useful..

and you will gain a rich experience

[Simian Man]

hey here is an opportunity for everyone to think positively....

If the proprietary market is improper....it is we FSF and OSS members who have to find an alternative fore this....

Make a team and study on this flash...and if possible write codes and build one which can make it available for use....will that not be useful..

and you will gain a rich experience

Already been done. (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/) I've never tried it though because the official Flash plugin works great, and I'm not a zealot who would rather use a crappy product than something not FOSS.

[roshanjose]

well i am addressing the people with the zeal

[Sorivenul]

well i am addressing the people with the zeal
Some of the "zealots" are notorious GNU/GPL fanatics and nothing else seems to suffice. It does no use to address them, as they have made their choice - make yours and don't don't make the same "closed-minded" mistake.

As far as Adobe is concerned, I am displeased by their lack of support for Linux and the BSDs, but understand that they do not want to devote time and effort into systems with comparatively little desktop market share. I never used many of their products, and find myself being perfectly functional without any of them the longer I use Linux and the BSDs.

[higashi]

I find it quite hilarious how much bickerring i can cause when writing some stupid rant that i dont even remember the next morning cuz of how tired i was while writing it . xD

I am aware that adobe needs to make money, & i dont even rly care about the prices... but the least they can do is support linux as well as windows and mac.

& the names ARE stupid. i dont meant the basic names like flash , photoshop, etc. i mean like... Flash MX, flash CS4, etc. the version names are rediculous.

& yeah i said adobe is stupid. as in lack of intelligence. im not saying they lack of intelligence when it comes to programming.. but they can use a little more knowledge when it comes to marketting.

I didnt post this thread in hopes of an argument. I posted it in hopes that someone would say something like "hey, i have some free time, anyone wanna develop a flash creation clone with me?"

[dannytatom]

I am aware that adobe needs to make money, & i dont even rly care about the prices... but the least they can do is support linux as well as windows and mac.

That would take money, something they're not willing to spend on such a small platform.



& the names ARE stupid. i dont meant the basic names like flash , photoshop, etc. i mean like... Flash MX, flash CS4, etc. the version names are rediculous.

CS stands for Creative Suites, makes perfect sense.



& yeah i said adobe is stupid. as in lack of intelligence. im not saying they lack of intelligence when it comes to programming.. but they can use a little more knowledge when it comes to marketting.

See first answer ;D

[phrostbyte]

Adobe is far more Linux friendly then Microsoft. :)

But yeah they don't beat out Google or IBM in "Linux friendliness".

Also I wouldn't call them "stupid". Not even Microsoft is "stupid".

I think eventually they will release CS for Linux, but DO realize it's VERY HARD to port such a huge suite of apps. It's not like something a programmer can do in an afternoon. It could take a team of programmers a year or more, so it costs non-trivial amounts of $$$. They aren't sure if they will recover this investment.

[phrostbyte]

That's strange. Last I checked I've been using a free Linux version of Flex Builder for about a year and have been happily designing all the flash content my heart desires. Did you actually research any of your claims before you made them?

Yeah it's free because it's alpha. There is no "stable" Flex Builder for Linux.

Of course probably the only reason they are porting Flex Builder and not CS is because Flex Builder is built on Eclipse SDK and SWT so much of their cross platfrom support is already done for them. It will take a lot more for them to port CS.

[cardinals_fan]

Second of all, they put high prices on all their products, so they obviously want money... and yet they dont make any products for linux.
Not only do they not make any linux-compatible programs, but they declare copyright infringement on clones such as f4l. Its like they dont want linux users making flash videos/games/etc at all.

The immense effort required to port an app like Photoshop to Linux is probably not worth acquiring a relatively small number of users.

[smartboyathome]

By the way, Adobe DID commit a large number of patches to WINE to make Photoshop CS4 compatible with it. So they do care about Linux, they just don't want to put in the effort to make a full port.

[pirate_tux]

i saw it. i think it's actually kind of fascist to insist everyone make their software free.

I think it's actually kind of fascist to insist everyone make their books, music, paitings and sculptures free.

Hey, wait... everyone is already doing this since the born of homo sapiens...

I hope now you see how stupid your comment was...

You definetle don't know what "open source" means.

Thanks God Mozart, Beethoven, Beatles, etc, etc, didn't made their music closed source.

[cardinals_fan]

I think it's actually kind of fascist to insist everyone make their books, music, paitings and sculptures free.

Fail. Owning a painting costs money. Open source code is not owned by anyone. Only the brand is.

[bruce89]

"I could care less" and "I could not care less", both of these phrases actually mean the same thing. I never really understood how that makes sense but I keep saying it anyway.

Actually "I could care less" is a non-sensical addition to the English language. The reason being if you could care less, why don't you?


Fail. Owning a painting costs money. Open source code is not owned by anyone. Only the brand is.

"Open souce code" is actually usually copyrighted.

[pirate_tux]

Adobe is far more Linux friendly then Microsoft. :)

But yeah they don't beat out Google or IBM in "Linux friendliness".

Also I wouldn't call them "stupid". Not even Microsoft is "stupid".

I think eventually they will release CS for Linux, but DO realize it's VERY HARD to port such a huge suite of apps. It's not like something a programmer can do in an afternoon. It could take a team of programmers a year or more, so it costs non-trivial amounts of $$$. They aren't sure if they will recover this investment.

Oh, poor Adobe... They have a anual revenue of more than $3.158 billion dollars and they don't have the money to compile Photoshop for Linux...
Poor Adobe indeed...

Every week thousands of children die because they don't have food to eat.

Yet I feel sorrow for poor Adobe. We must take our time to defend Adobe, not to help those thousands of children.

What could happen to Adobe if they compiled Photoshop to Linux? Perhaps their revenue would be, in that year, only 3.000 billion dollars :( What a disgrace! Poor Adobe...

Let's all post many comments defending Adobe! Let the children die, they don't make any revenue.

[swoll1980]

i saw it. i think it's actually kind of fascist to insist everyone make their software free.

How free would it be if people were forced into it? Is that ironic, or what?

[cardinals_fan]

"Open souce code" is actually usually copyrighted.
Redistribution obviously depends on the "open source" license.

Oh, poor Adobe... They have a anual revenue of more than $3.158 billion dollars and they don't have the money to compile Photoshop for Linux...
Poor Adobe indeed...

Every week thousands of children die because they don't have food to eat.

Yet I feel sorrow for poor Adobe. We must take our time to defend Adobe, not to help those thousands of children.

What could happen to Adobe if they compiled Photoshop to Linux? Perhaps their revenue would be, in that year, only 3.000 billion dollars :( What a disgrace! Poor Adobe...

Let's all post many comments defending Adobe! Let the children die, they don't make any revenue.
How many starving children did you save with that post? If we really stood behind this, we would all be volunteering at the Food Bank or with UNICEF right now.

[bruce89]

Redistribution obviously depends on the "open source" license.

Well, I was saying that not all rights are released.


How many starving children did you save with that post? If we really stood behind this, we would all be volunteering at the Food Bank or with UNICEF right now.

Quite, I don't think saying that posting here causes kids to die is a very constructive thing to say.

[pirate_tux]

Already been done. (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/) I've never tried it though because the official Flash plugin works great, and I'm not a zealot who would rather use a crappy product than something not FOSS.

Flash is the most useless, meaningless and annoying pice of software I know, being it proprietary or not.

Read my lips: Flash is completly useless; it's a piece of bloatware and crapware, that turns the experience of accessing a web page a total nightmare.

[BuffaloX]

By the way, Adobe DID commit a large number of patches to WINE to make Photoshop CS4 compatible with it. So they do care about Linux, they just don't want to put in the effort to make a full port.

I think it was Google that financed the improvements for wine to enable Photoshop CS2 to work.


i saw it. i think it's actually kind of fascist to insist everyone make their software free.

It's radical but it actually makes sense.
Closed source is maybe not exactly evil, but carries a lot of problems with it, like vendor tie in, inability to customize, dropped projects can not be resurrected by users, and porting to other applications may be very very expensive.
He is also unhappy that it prevents poor countries from catching up, since the extra copies to those countries need not cost more than the few cents for a CD copy, and the vendor looses nothing, since they would not be able to buy it any way, thus we have piracy making ordinary people into criminals.

ADOBE...
Their product names makes a lot more sense than most.
Yes their products are too expensive I agree.
They do generally make good quality software, but I wish they had some more competition, like Corel in the old days.

[pirate_tux]

Redistribution obviously depends on the "open source" license.

How many starving children did you save with that post? If we really stood behind this, we would all be volunteering at the Food Bank or with UNICEF right now.

But I'm not stupid enough to come here and take the time to post ridiculous commentaries defending companies that have multi billion dollars anual revenues!

[smartboyathome]

I think it was Google that financed the improvements for wine to enable Photoshop CS2 to work.

Google might have funded CS2, but CS4 is officially supported on Linux, so I think they financed it (CS2 isn't officially supported under WINE).

[bfc]

But I'm not stupid enough to come here and take the time to post ridiculous commentaries defending companies that have multi billion dollars anual revenues!

I'm confused... who is defending them.

It's all about choice.
Adobe has the choice whether or not to support Linux
You/Users have to choice whether or not to support Adobe

It's as simple as that.

[cardinals_fan]

But I'm not stupid enough to come here and take the time to post ridiculous commentaries defending companies that have multi billion dollars anual revenues!
No, but you do come here to attack them. The only way to hurt a corporation is to hit what they understand - the bottom line. Don't buy their products if you don't like them.

[phrostbyte]

Oh, poor Adobe... They have a anual revenue of more than $3.158 billion dollars and they don't have the money to compile Photoshop for Linux...
Poor Adobe indeed...

Every week thousands of children die because they don't have food to eat.

Yet I feel sorrow for poor Adobe. We must take our time to defend Adobe, not to help those thousands of children.

What could happen to Adobe if they compiled Photoshop to Linux? Perhaps their revenue would be, in that year, only 3.000 billion dollars :( What a disgrace! Poor Adobe...

Let's all post many comments defending Adobe! Let the children die, they don't make any revenue.

Hey I didn't want to seem like I am defending Adobe, I am just explaining why I think CS isn't on Linux yet. Adobe is a business. They don't and probably shouldn't do things that make sense from a business perspective. And as I said, CS is a complex software package. Not easy to port. Maybe if it was written with Qt/GTK+ or something but it's too late for that. :)

[bruce89]

Hey I didn't want to seem like I am defending Adobe, I am just explaining why I think CS isn't on Linux yet. Adobe is a business. They don't and probably shouldn't do things that make sense from a business perspective. And as I said, CS is a complex software package. Not easy to port. Maybe if it was written with Qt/GTK+ or something but it's too late for that. :)

I was under the impression that Adobe already make use of Qt for stuff (don't know what though).

[pirate_tux]

No, but you do come here to attack them. The only way to hurt a corporation is to hit what they understand - the bottom line. Don't buy their products if you don't like them.

I don'y buy their products.
But multi-billion dollars companies do every sort of unethical and illegal tricks in order to maintain their monopolies, including vendor lock-in.

Their methods are very similar to the methods used by drug dealers...

Look at Flash, for instance... If we don't stop Flash someday all Internet belongs to Adobe or it will totally depend on Adobe...

If we don't stop this criminal company named Adobe, some day we can no longer access web pages without using Flash!!!!!

I don't wanna be a slave. I want to be a free man, using free and open standards to access information and culture!

[cardinals_fan]

I don'y buy their products.
But multi-billion dollars companies do every sort of unethical and illegal tricks in order to maintain their monopolies, including vendor lock-in.

Their methods are very similar to the methods used by drug dealers...

Look at Flash, for instance... If we don't stop Flash someday all Internet belongs to Adobe or it will totally depend on Adobe...

If we don't stop this criminal company named Adobe, some day we can no longer access web pages without using Flash!!!!!

I don't wanna be a slave. I want to be a free man, using free and open standards to access information and culture!
Then don't use Flash. It is still possible, though disturbingly difficult.

[phrostbyte]

I was under the impression that Adobe already make use of Qt for stuff (don't know what though).

I think they use it for Photoshop Elements (which is not Photoshop in anyway). Since Photoshop predates Qt I don't think it uses it. Adobe is porting Flex Builder to Linux so it leads me to believe the reason they haven't ported CS is because it's hard. Flex Builder is easier to port because it's built on the cross platform Eclipse SDK.

[bruce89]

Look at Flash, for instance... If we don't stop Flash someday all Internet belongs to Adobe or it will totally depend on Adobe...

If we don't stop this criminal company named Adobe, some day we can no longer access web pages without using Flash!!!!!


Even with Tony Blair's "law creep", I don't think non-free media players are illegal here (yet).

[dragos240]

Honestly, linux is a minority group. Big businesses like adobe are very buisy and want to make as much money as possible, the reason they make it for windows is because that the majority of computer users are windows users, so yeah, there lazy, they could make it for linux. And mentioning f4l, it's basicly a free clone of macromedia flash, adobe bought it out quite a few years ago. And the thing is, f4l is so outdated that present day flash makers barely can do anything in it. Also, technicly it was a reverse engineering project. And it was released for free which is illeagal. They do have the right to do that. Adobe flash player works just fine for me. Adobe just doesn't beleive in open source and free products. Also, yet another thing, they DID release a standalone player AND debugger for linux, and i didn't see a windows version for it. Perhaps they'll change in time, i don't know, it could be a sign...

[BuffaloX]

By the way, Adobe DID commit a large number of patches to WINE to make Photoshop CS4 compatible with it. So they do care about Linux, they just don't want to put in the effort to make a full port.

I wonder why I haven't seen this mentioned before? :confused:

That's a big step in the right direction, didn't see that one coming.
Now all they have to do is make an "unemployed edition" and sell it for 20 bucks and I'm in. :P

I don't like closed source software, but I have to admit Photoshop and that web-page thingy they make are pretty cool.

[saulgoode]

Then don't use Flash. It is still possible, though disturbingly difficult.
It's actually not that difficult. I have never installed Adobe's Flash player on any of my computers and considering the steady stream of grief being related by others, I do not consider myself to have missed out on much.

[dragos240]

I wonder why I haven't seen this mentioned before? :confused:

That's a big step in the right direction, didn't see that one coming.
Now all they have to do is make an "unemployed edition" and sell it for 20 bucks and I'm in. :P

I don't like closed source software, but I have to admit Photoshop and that web-page thingy they make are pretty cool.

Bah! Linux will catch up, and have an open source version in no-time.

[Rokurosv]

If we don't stop this criminal company named Adobe, some day we can no longer access web pages without using Flash!!!!!

I think Google has a better shot of conquering the web.

I think people are making too much fuss about this. You just gotta choose to use their products or not. I personally like Adobe's products, specially Photoshop I think it's the greatest image editor out there followed by GIMP. So far no problems with flash on linux and since the version 10 I've noticed a better performance.

[BuffaloX]

Bah! Linux will catch up, and have an open source version in no-time.

Yeah I'll stick with that for now, and laugh all the way to the social office whoops I mean Bank when Open Source beats Photoshop. :P

I just went to their site, seems they have replaced their web page thingy with dreamweaver, which I didn't like so much some 5 years ago...
I think Adobe had something called Go-Live???

[phrostbyte]

I wonder why I haven't seen this mentioned before? :confused:

That's a big step in the right direction, didn't see that one coming.
Now all they have to do is make an "unemployed edition" and sell it for 20 bucks and I'm in. :P

I don't like closed source software, but I have to admit Photoshop and that web-page thingy they make are pretty cool.

TBH, I'd like proof of that. I know Google contributes to Wine in more then one way but I never heard of Adobe doing that.

[BuffaloX]

TBH, I'd like proof of that. I know Google contributes to Wine in more then one way but I never heard of Adobe doing that.

http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=14514&iTestingId=33545

Doesn't look good. :^o

[cardinals_fan]

It's actually not that difficult. I have never installed Adobe's Flash player on any of my computers and considering the steady stream of grief being related by others, I do not consider myself to have missed out on much.
I happen to be browsing with links -g right now, giving minimal browsing a shot :)

[Skripka]

Bah! Linux will catch up, and have an open source version in no-time.

Uh-huh.

Remind me again, for how long has Photoshop completely dominated The Gimp in featureset and performance? Linux barely even supports (primitive) color management-THAT is how far behind Linux is and continues to be.

[smartboyathome]

http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=14514&iTestingId=33545

Doesn't look good. :^o

That is the creative suite, not Photoshop itself. Here is the page for Photoshop:
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=14318
Seems like there might be some distribution dependent bugs on OpenSUSE, but it got a gold on Arch Linux and (K)(X)Ubuntu! :P

[Martje_001]

Uh-huh.

Remind me again, for how long has Photoshop completely dominated The Gimp in featureset and performance? Linux barely even supports (primitive) color management-THAT is how far behind Linux is and continues to be.
This has nothing to do with Linux.

[phrostbyte]

That is the creative suite, not Photoshop itself. Here is the page for Photoshop:
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=14318
Seems like there might be some distribution dependent bugs on OpenSUSE, but it got a gold on Arch Linux and (K)(X)Ubuntu! :P

Yeah Photoshop CS4 kinda sorta works, sorta. But I think that's despite of Adobe, not because of Adobe. Actually the reason Photoshop work pretty well now in Wine is Google. Yes Google.

http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2008/02/google-sponsors-wine-improvements.html

Maybe if we complain enough to Adobe they will consider contributing to Wine or testing future versions of CS against Wine? I'll tell you what, it's far more likely then a native port will ever be. :)

[id1337x]

Adobe isn't stupid. Heck I wouldn't even say they are evil. Yes they want money but they take it from corporate professionals not from average citizens. As for GNU/Linux compatiblity look at Air and Flash I mean they just are compatible if the market for it is good.

Anyways I personally recommend that you never go near adobe programs. Use Canvas instead of Flash and the Gimp instead of Photoshop and hopefully Appcelerator Titanium instead of Adobe Air, etc.

[daverich]

Personally I dont understand why more focus isn't on extending .svg and it's capabilities,- seems like an open standard right there - especially as it has browser support already.

And as for adobe stuff being solid- tell that to my wife you regularly swears at her laptop for crashing and losing all her work in CS3.

Kind regards

Dave Rich

[3rdalbum]

Delayed sound isn't a problem with Flash, it's a problem somewhere else as it happens in some other games on Ubuntu.

I've uploaded 100MiB files with Flash applets on Linux; you shouldn't really be using a web browser for 100MiB let alone any bigger?!

At least 64-bit support is on Adobe's radar with Flash. Most other software companies treat it like a passing fad, and don't even bother testing their 32-bit software on a 64-bit operating system. Flash's main competition, Silverlight, has no 64-bit version nor even a Windows Mobile version!

Adobe puts high prices on its products because they are aimed at professionals. Flash is not made for the man on the street to make stick-figure animations, and Photoshop isn't made solely so that people can declare GIMP's interface to be "crap" and "confusing". Photoshop is probably the most pirated program of all time, closely followed by Flash; you can't blame Adobe for putting the price a bit higher considering that many of the Photoshop or Flash pirates would pay for it if they had to.

Photoshop actually comes as a two-user license as well - you can use each serial number on two computers, which is something not a lot of companies will do without charging you for a site license and subjecting you to some annoying site license terms.

Yes, Photoshop is expensive, but it's a professional level program for professionals who are making enough money to afford it. Flash isn't really expensive on its own.

[yse]

It has come to my attention that adobe is an extremely stupid company.

I stop reading here.

Good luck!

[techmarks]

Indeed...they're not stupid at all.

They are quite clever and a bit cunning.

What better way to market than for your product to become a de facto standard?

So why get upset with Adobe? Don't use their product.

You should get upset with the authors of the Flash web site you are trying to access and stop carrying on about how you can't get your hands on an Adobe product to create yet more Flash websites.

Flash is not an open web standard.

I'm not saying it's all bad or stop using it, just that web authors still need to remember that.

[geoken]

Yeah it's free because it's alpha. There is no "stable" Flex Builder for Linux.


I've been using it for a long time, it's more stable then Gnome itself in my experience.

Adobe has also released the Flex compiler for free (it's actually open source) and that can be used with any text editor. I was writing flash code in Scite for a while (before I got Flex Builder). The Flex SDK allows you to embed svg's in your code and use them as native drawing objects so once you have a Inkscape/Flex workflow set up it becomes a complete drop-in replacement for Flash.

[forcecore]

i think that adobe uses very stupid installers on their cs products beginning with cs3 they use installer system that do not work on wine and causes terror problems on windows, atleast portable (nsis launcher) rips made by some x guys works very well on wine.

[geoken]

I don'y buy their products.
But multi-billion dollars companies do every sort of unethical and illegal tricks in order to maintain their monopolies, including vendor lock-in.

Their methods are very similar to the methods used by drug dealers...

Look at Flash, for instance... If we don't stop Flash someday all Internet belongs to Adobe or it will totally depend on Adobe...

If we don't stop this criminal company named Adobe, some day we can no longer access web pages without using Flash!!!!!

I don't wanna be a slave. I want to be a free man, using free and open standards to access information and culture!

Am I missing something or did Adobe not release the specifications for the SWF format thereby allowing anyone with the desire to create a complete replacement for the Flash player to do so?

If flash became as pervasive as your completely unrealistic post suggests, a company with some funds (likely Mozilla since they already posses the JIT compiler used by actionscript after Adobe donated it to them) will pump some money into a project developing a free player.

[geoken]

I think it's actually kind of fascist to insist everyone make their books, music, paitings and sculptures free.

Hey, wait... everyone is already doing this since the born of homo sapiens...

I hope now you see how stupid your comment was...

So let me get this straight. Your argument is that a lot of people do something therefore it's ok to force everyone to do it and suggesting otherwise is stupid?

So do you agree with forcing a common religion on people? I mean we've had religions since the "born" of homosapien's so I guess you think it's OK to force atheists to acknowledge a religion? Perhaps we can send atheists to re-education camps?

[Skripka]

This has nothing to do with Linux.
In the 1st case, I believe dragos240, who I was responding to-intended to say "FOSS" not "Linux".

Anyway, it has everything to do with FOSS "catching up" with professional softwares in functionality and usability. Which has yet to happen, or be close to happening for the most part. Linux can *barely* color manage, ergo it will not "catch up" and have "an open source" version of Photoshop "in no time".

The Gimp has been around for over a decade of development....and the authors only in the last year or so started fixing it's painful to use interface....even then it is still no photoshop-and won't be for a long time.

[chucky chuckaluck]

I think it's actually kind of fascist to insist everyone make their books, music, paitings and sculptures free.

Hey, wait... everyone is already doing this since the born of homo sapiens...

I hope now you see how stupid your comment was...

You definetle don't know what "open source" means.

Thanks God Mozart, Beethoven, Beatles, etc, etc, didn't made their music closed source.

i think you're a little confused. check out this wikipedia article on copyright - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrights
it's astounding you should mention the beatles as their music was all published and recordings released under copyright. surely then, you must be unaware of michael jackson's purchase of the copyright to the beatles' songs that theoretically required mccartney to get permission from jackson to perform songs he himself had written.
and still related to the beatles is the infamous legal trouble former beatle, george harrison, had with his[sic] song "my sweet lord" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Lord
copyright is also the law behind all the riaa suits (if you want to call someone evil, the riaa might meet the minimum requirements, as some of their suits have been disguised ambushes of actually innocent people).

copyrighting the arts is tricky. it's probably easiest in literature in which the widest audience is capable of spotting plagiarism. it's probably most difficult in visual arts like painting and sculpting in which the 'art' is inherently connected to an object that is sold. a painter is nearly helpless to stop someone who buys one of their paintings, alters it and then sells it under the original artist's name.

so no, i do not yet see how 'stupid' my comment was.



It's radical but it actually makes sense.
Closed source is maybe not exactly evil, but carries a lot of problems with it, like vendor tie in, inability to customize, dropped projects can not be resurrected by users, and porting to other applications may be very very expensive.
He is also unhappy that it prevents poor countries from catching up, since the extra copies to those countries need not cost more than the few cents for a CD copy, and the vendor looses nothing, since they would not be able to buy it any way, thus we have piracy making ordinary people into criminals.

i only use open source software (except for those weak moments when i go for an opera fix) and really like it. it does everything i need it to do. because of that, it is my belief that, for what i use a computer for, closed source software for the same tasks is not holding anyone back as there are open source alternatives available.
i'm not arguing that closed source software is better (i actually wouldn't know). i'm just saying that i don't think it is right to force someone to make their software free (in both senses).



How free would it be if people were forced into it? Is that ironic, or what?

exactly.

i don't think adobe is evil. 'selfish' might be a better word.

[yse]

i think that adobe uses very stupid installers on their cs products beginning with cs3 they use installer system that do not work on wine and causes terror problems on windows, atleast portable (nsis launcher) rips made by some x guys works very well on wine.

Really?

I have a question for you, did you paid for your Adobe license?

If you paid 4000USD how come you dont have 200 for his native OS? When you have buy did you have check the system requirements? Do you actually have read the EULA from Adobe?

If you didnt paid, and you are using a pirated copy, then excuse me, Adobe should dont give a sh*t because you cant install it on WINE. I wonder also how many laws you/WINE broke...

[Mohamedzv2]

The Gimp has been around for over a decade of development....and the authors only in the last year or so started fixing it's painful to use interface....even then it is still no photoshop-and won't be for a long time.

D: This pains me since I love the UI for The GIMP. I don't want them to change it anymore!

Anyways, I actually do like the program flash, while I think that needing a whole flash player for it sorta destroyed the web seeing as we have enough things that we try to load

[lyceum]

I would have to say that Adobe is one of the smartest companies out there, I think Adobe, Sun and Apple are the smartest.

Adobe focuses on what they do - make software for artists. Because of that now their programs work better together. CS4 is like the super OOo of the design world. All programs should work together like OOo and all packages should be as professional and well polished as Adobe's lineup. If FOSS projects could work together like this we would see Linux on more desktops. Why do we need to wait for Adobe to come to Linux? Why can't we focus on getting GIMP, InkScape, Bluefish and others to work together, not to clone CS4 or the next - CS5 - but to replace it all together with a real viable option, like OOo is to MS Office, only better. If I had the money I would fork the best art programs into one project and promote them as well as Apple does. I would work with Ubuntu Studio to make sure there was a designer version that maxed its potential. But, that is just me.

And for the record Flash works fine in Firefox on my Ubuntu and my Kubuntu machines

[pirate_tux]

So let me get this straight. Your argument is that a lot of people do something therefore it's ok to force everyone to do it and suggesting otherwise is stupid?

So do you agree with forcing a common religion on people? I mean we've had religions since the "born" of homosapien's so I guess you think it's OK to force atheists to acknowledge a religion? Perhaps we can send atheists to re-education camps?

No.
My argument is that Informatics shouldn't be different from literature, music, sculpture, etc.

Only in informatics (software) there is this stupid, unethical and illegal thing... I mean the closed code...

Thanks God the literature code (the words) are wide open.

Thanks God the music code (the notes, the sounds) are wide open.
We are all able to listen to the open notes and then play the song or musical theme by ear. We even have access to the notation (score, tablature, etc). And you can freely listen to the music, sing it in the bathroom, study it, play it for yourself or for your friends, etc! And you can listen to the actual and open words of the music and then sing the words yourself! All this because the code of the song is open! Always open!

And I could give so much more examples!

I repeat: only in informatics the code is (almost always) closed!

[pirate_tux]

@chucky chuckaluck

Please don't try to confuse the people...

Off course music is copyrighted, but it's code is open!

Also we have a lot off software that is copyrigthed and it is open!

As a matter of fact even the software released under the GPL license is copyrighted, and however it is open!!!

The code of music, sculputure, literature, etc, is always open!

Only in software we have this criminal thing... I mean the closed code!

Believe me: the people that close the code of software are criminals!

Disclaimer: English is not my mother language ;)

[techmarks]

Only in software we have this criminal thing... I mean the closed code!

Believe me: the people that close the code of software are criminals!

;)

Isn't that a bit strong?

Criminals?

The root problem is not closed source but rather software patents.

Software patents should not exist at all.

If that wasn't possible then closed souce is not really necessary.

Ultimately it is still up to the author to decide how to distribute the work.

But please do consider that, the root problem is that of software patents.

[cardinals_fan]

@pirate_tux: Your analogies to music and literature make no sense. For one thing, the syntax of programming languages is freely available, just like the tones in music and words in literature.

Open-source software cannot be sold in the normal sense. Instead, a developer usually sells one of three things:

1) Support services
2) The brand image
3) The right to code proprietary derivatives (non-GPL'd software only)

The code of software is like the lyrics of a copyrighted song in that it can only be reused with permission from the author.

EDIT: I agree with techmarks that so-called software patents are the real problem. If a developer wants to patent some lines of actual code for a scroll bar, that's fine. They shouldn't be able to patent the idea of a scrollbar.

[phrostbyte]

Well on the idea of liberty (or "personal freedom") it's very clear that copyright violates liberty. Restricting other people is not liberty, because the concept of liberty does not include the freedom to restrict other people. So in a sense copyright is an attempt to oppose restrictions on other people and is against this concept of liberty.

[chucky chuckaluck]

@chucky chuckaluck

Please don't try to confuse the people...

enough drama.


Off course music is copyrighted, but it's code is open!

it's code is open? wtf is that supposed to mean? as CF pointed out, the 'language' of music is open, but that's about it. some music is notated and some isn't (i guess notated music would be analogous to 'open source' while unnotated music would be analogous to 'closed source').


Believe me: the people that close the code of software are criminals!

even worse than people with secret barbecue recipes?

[Keyper7]

(...) Linux can *barely* color manage (...)

For the love of Holy Jesus Christ Riding a Pink Flying Elephant, stop saying "Linux".

Linux is a kernel. It has nothing to do with color management.

Linux software includes Krita and Cinepaint, which already support deeper color management.

My opinion is the same as yours: there's no free software as good as Photoshop. But you can present this opinion in a much less FUDish, hostile and over-generalizing way. It's not that hard.

[forestwalkerjoe]

many of the "SOLVES" i found.. didnt work.. but I did try these 3.. and the last one really Fixed it..
here is a link to MY SOLVE (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=6734814#post6734814) on Flash sounds.

In hopes this one works for you too.
FWJ

[chucky chuckaluck]

For the love of Holy Jesus Christ Riding a Pink Flying Elephant,

jesus switched parties?

[pirate_tux]

Isn't that a bit strong?

Criminals?

The root problem is not closed source but rather software patents.

Software patents should not exist at all.

If that wasn't possible then closed souce is not really necessary.

Ultimately it is still up to the author to decide how to distribute the work.

But please do consider that, the root problem is that of software patents.

I don't think it's a bit strong.

And I tell you more:

One of the reasons they close their sorce code is to hidde the gross copyright violations they are making!

If all software code was open it would be very difficult for someone to violate other people's copyright and not being discovered. Closing the code it's the better way to hidde copyright violations!

That's why I say they are full of hypocrisis when they say they are closing their code in order to prevent others to violate their copyright, when the simple fact that they are closing their code alows them to violate other people's copyright with impunity!

Also how can they say someone's else is violating their copyright if they hide their code????

The situation is like this:
Let's imagine I was a musician and I was accusing you of plagiarism...
You replied: "hey, ok, let me listen to your song or let me see your music notation in order to see if my song and yours and indeed similar".
And I replied to you: "No, I will not allow you that, cause this is my precious code, yes... precious....".

They are criminals and they are denying us the right to prove they are criminals!

[yse]

@chucky chuckaluck

Please don't try to confuse the people...

Off course music is copyrighted, but it's code is open!

Also we have a lot off software that is copyrigthed and it is open!

As a matter of fact even the software released under the GPL license is copyrighted, and however it is open!!!

The code of music, sculputure, literature, etc, is always open!

Only in software we have this criminal thing... I mean the closed code!

Believe me: the people that close the code of software are criminals!

Disclaimer: English is not my mother language ;)

Wake up mate, we don't want communism, we live in capitalism, food cost money, living cost money.

I dont want to share the code with you, ok? Go cry, but i will not share, hahah.. what a kid..

[pirate_tux]

enough drama.



it's code is open? wtf is that supposed to mean? as CF pointed out, the 'language' of music is open, but that's about it. some music is notated and some isn't (i guess notated music would be analogous to 'open source' while unnotated music would be analogous to 'closed source').



even worse than people with secret barbecue recipes?

wrong:

Off course notated music is open, but even the not anotated music is open.

If you know about music all you need to do is listen... You didn't know this?

Do you thing you must read the words on a paper to be able to know the music words? You can just listen to them.

Do you think you must see a notation (for instance a tablature or a score) in order to be able to know the music and be able to play it??? All you need to do is listen! Then, if you want, you can transpose the results of listening to a notation.

Also how do you thing plagiarism cases are decided? Comparing the notations??? All they have to do is to listen to both songs and to compare one to another.

All music is open. As a matter of fact only software is closed (when it is closed, off course).

[pirate_tux]

Also closing the code is not only the better way to hide violations of other people's copyrighted code but also the better way to:

a) hide bugs;
b) hide poorly written code;
c) hide security flaws;
d) hide attacks to your privacy;
e) hide possible spyware, adware, malware in general and also possible backdoors...

[BuffaloX]

If all software code was open it would be very difficult for someone to violate other people's copyright and not being discovered. Closing the code it's the better way to hidde copyright violations!

That's why I say they are full of hypocrisis when they say they are closing their code in order to prevent others to violate their copyright, when the simple fact that they are closing their code alows them to violate other people's copyright with impunity!

Also how can they say someone's else is violating their copyright if they hide their code????


I actually think you have a good point there.
But it could also backfire, because if you do something similar to what someone else has "published" before you, you are infringing his copyright.
If you do something today that someone else have done before you, it's perfectly OK, unless they have patented it.
You cannot as easily be accused of copying closed code.

Just a thought...

[yse]

Also closing the code is not only the better way to hide violations of other people's copyrighted code but also the better way to:

a) hide bugs;
b) hide poorly written code;
c) hide security flaws;
d) hide attacks to your privacy;
e) hide possible spyware, adware, malware in general and also possible backdoors...

Peoples decide whats better for them to buy.

Nobody from end users dont give a sh*t how the code is writed, they want their job to be done fast and good with the software.

What you say about closed code, and all stuff you have write, force me to think that what will you like next to share? wife? house? maybe bank accounts? what?

[Sephoroth]

Well Adobe is part of the Linux Foundation meaning they atleast acknowledged the community's existance. I seriously find most arguments used in this thread to be rather counterproductive. People rarely care about software licensing they use UNLESS it directly involves more work on their part (meaning some sort of malware is probably present). This sort of anti-closed source zealotry makes the Linux and FOSS communities seem to be comprized primarily of...well, zealots. Let software be closed and open, let the better model succeed through natural competition.

[ticopelp]

Oh, poor Adobe... They have a anual revenue of more than $3.158 billion dollars and they don't have the money to compile Photoshop for Linux...
Poor Adobe indeed...

Every week thousands of children die because they don't have food to eat.

Yet I feel sorrow for poor Adobe. We must take our time to defend Adobe, not to help those thousands of children.

Let's all post many comments defending Adobe! Let the children die, they don't make any revenue.

I laughed. Yes, there are only two worthwhile behaviors on the Internet: attacking corporations, or saving starving children.

Of course, Adobe porting Photoshop to Linux won't save the starving children either. Makes me wonder why they were brought up at all. And you chide others for trying to "confuse the people"?

[chucky chuckaluck]

Do you think you must see a notation (for instance a tablature or a score) in order to be able to know the music and be able to play it??? All you need to do is listen! Then, if you want, you can transpose the results of listening to a notation.

not to be too picky, but you meant 'transcribe'. transposing the music would put it in another key.

i agree that music can be notated from listening to it. it's the nature of music and musical notation that makes that possible. in that regard, the analogy of music to software is not a good one. where it is helpful to draw comparisons between the arts and software is in examining the rights of the creators of both. in both cases, someone is creating something and you're saying that the rest of us have a right to tell them what to do with their own creations, as if we're entitled to do so. when you begin insisting on what someone can do with their own creations, you are limiting their freedom. (the dealings shostakovich and prokoviev, among others, had with the soviet government comes to mind.)

[MikeTheC]

"Off course" ???

GPL is an option, not a mandate, for people writing new code. Nobody, not even RMS, would agree with, say, putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to GPL their code.

Putting code into the public square of open source is a benefit to everyone, even the inventor of the code itself. Have you folks no understanding of mass peer-review and it's attendant benefits? The thing is that there is a paradigm change at work here, and the paradigm is with regard to how one derives an income. The notion of GPL is that you make the program free, but charge for support. Just imagine how much better Firefox is than Netscape Navigator ever was, back when Netscape had not yet gone open-source. Imagine how much worse OpenOffice would be if it were still StarOffice. Imagine if none of the IM clients were open source.

Moreover, open source as a concept competes against proprietary products, and this competition spurs development and improvement on both sides. Where would IE be today if it weren't for Firefox? Would it have pop-up blocking? Would it have tabs? Would it have anti-phishing tools? Would it have numerous egregious bugs fixed?

So please, spare us with these notions of open source being some kind of bad thing for companies.

[JackieChan]

Imagine open source Adobe programs? Now THAT is something I'd love to see.

[yse]

"Off course" ???

GPL is an option, not a mandate, for people writing new code. Nobody, not even RMS, would agree with, say, putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to GPL their code.

Putting code into the public square of open source is a benefit to everyone, even the inventor of the code itself. Have you folks no understanding of mass peer-review and it's attendant benefits? The thing is that there is a paradigm change at work here, and the paradigm is with regard to how one derives an income. The notion of GPL is that you make the program free, but charge for support. Just imagine how much better Firefox is than Netscape Navigator ever was, back when Netscape had not yet gone open-source. Imagine how much worse OpenOffice would be if it were still StarOffice. Imagine if none of the IM clients were open source.

Moreover, open source as a concept competes against proprietary products, and this competition spurs development and improvement on both sides. Where would IE be today if it weren't for Firefox? Would it have pop-up blocking? Would it have tabs? Would it have anti-phishing tools? Would it have numerous egregious bugs fixed?

So please, spare us with these notions of open source being some kind of bad thing for companies.

Unfortunately, your Open Source ideas don't work for commercial companies, where is a REAL competition.

[BuffaloX]

Unfortunately, your Open Source ideas don't work for commercial companies, where is a REAL competition.

Thats a weird statement, how do you figure that?
Open source works fine for commercial companies like

Vendors:
Red Hat, Novell, IBM, SUN, Asus, Google, Mozilla.

Users/Customers:
Google, Peugeot, Daimler, Autozone, Lockheed, Exxon, Shell.

Of-course there are many more than I can post here, I just chose some that most people know.

[MikeTheC]

Unfortunately, your Open Source ideas don't work for commercial companies, where is a REAL competition.
Ditto what BuffaloX said. Clearly you don't understand what companies are doing.

Many companies actually pay their people to work on open source products because it's a benefit to them. It's in their own self-interest to be active participants. It makes them more competitive because it's usually cheaper for them to let their people work on existing open source solutions (or even create new ones, depending on the situation) than to buy into licenses for proprietary apps. Besides, when IBM contributes into open source, a company like Earthlink benefits from it, and when Earthlink contributes back to open source, then Foo down the road benefits, and so on.

It's a win-win situation, and it's how companies function.

[Erunno]

Thats a weird statement, how do you figure that?
Open source works fine for commercial companies like

Vendors:
Red Hat, Novell, IBM, SUN, Asus, Google, Mozilla.

Did you just add random names to the list? Google does not make money with open source software, almost 99 percent of their revenue is generated by advertisement and most of their software is not open sourced as well (e.g. Google Earth, Picasa, etc.).

IBM's closed source portfolio could fill pages after pages, they release only a fraction of the software developed under open source licenses.

Mozilla is pretty much dependent on Google's money. Should Google decide to stop paying Firefox for using Google Search as the default search engine in most FF versions than Mozilla will go down the drain as they lack a business model.

The rest of the companies sell services and customizations and not the software itself. This unfortunately is not a valid business plan for all kind of software companies, especially small ones which sell "finished" products. Think about games (not subscription based MMOs) and tax applications, where post purchase support is less likely required.

Oh, and what about Canonical? Last I heard that their support branch does not generate enough income to keep themselves afloat and it is still pretty much dependent on Shuttleworth's regular money injections.

[glotz]

What do you think google servers run on? Linux.

[lyceum]

I laughed. Yes, there are only two worthwhile behaviors on the Internet: attacking corporations, or saving starving children.

What is the difference?


Of course, Adobe porting Photoshop to Linux won't save the starving children either. Makes me wonder why they were brought up at all. And you chide others for trying to "confuse the people"?

Actually it could save starving children. If Adobe worked on an OS using the Linux kernel then the poor parents could buy an old PC, fix it up as they get the money and buy an older version of PS to run on the system that is otherwise free. (Free OS, paid for hardware & PhotoShop.) Will someone in the fam get a job manufacturing with that set up? (building a bike, etc...) no. Could one parent now work from home, saving on daycare, and do some design work? Yes. FOSS can do both things you see as worthwhile on the net, attack corporations, and save starving children. Could they just use GIMP? Not if they want to work for a design firm.

The miracle of FOSS ;)

I use to set up Ubuntu on $50 PCs for people that could not afford a new PC or a copy of MS for a cheap one. I watched them could go to college, put together their own resume and look for a better job etc... I have seen it work. PhotoShop on Linux would be a very good thing.

I also saw someone take money they got from a deceased relative and buy a Mac, a camera and PS quit their job flipping burgers so they could photograph weddings. She started off slow, making a mere $3000 a month, but now she is making really good money. Not everyone has a death in the family allowing them to buy the expensive stuff.

[ticopelp]

You're preaching to the choir, Lyceum... I work from home using FOSS, and have done plenty of design work in GIMP.

As for the rest of your argument, I can only say I hope you're making some kind of joke. "Hey poor people with starving children, just get a computer running Linux and start your own freelance business -- boom, poverty is over! Or it would be if only Adobe would play ball."

[Erunno]

What do you think google servers run on? Linux.

Yet their revenue is generated by the highly sophisticated advertisement software which is running on it and not by the Linux servers. I very much doubt that it is tied to Linux to an extent that Google could not switch the platform if their was some financial reason to do so.

[shwick]

Well, i just thought i could share some of my opinions on adobe and it's products.

The thing that hurt me the most was adobe's flash not working properly on linux a while ago. This was caused by a bug in adobe's flash player, causing firefox to close quite frequently, and me to lose a lot of nerves, and shout profanities related to adobe. From what i gathered this happened to a lot of people. Did windows or mac users have these problems? I don't think so. Well, i guess there's not so many linux users out there, so they can wait for the new version, right?
Aside from that flash is slooow, i've had to close a page because my computer couldn't handle all the flash more than once...

As for their other programs, they really are horribly overpriced, and their users aren't just professional designers, their software is taught in schools, forcing students to become pirates, because, really how many of them have enough cash to shell out for it?
This links to another issue i have, not necessarily caused by adobe itself. Their software is becoming VERY dominant. There aren't many programs able to compete with them in the market, and this gets them in a position to monopolize it. With people being taught photoshop in designer courses, this isn't likely to change soon, as adobe software is becoming a de facto standard, and new designers aren't likely to pick up another tool so easily. Being in a monopolizing position allows them to pump up their prices like this, too.

Also, I think it's a little shortsighted to shrug and say that adobe's a company, they need to make more money and it just doesn't pay for them to port it to linux. Linux really needs more hardware and software support. If they ported it, I honestly wouldn't use it (gimp gets the job done for everything I need), but a lot of people would - this means more linux users, and that means more recognition from hardware vendors, and I would really like better drivers for my video card :)
Also a larger user base would prevent things like the flash problem I had from happening.

[Skripka]

Did windows or mac users have these problems? I don't think so.

Flash on Windows was an exercise in frustration up to oh about Flash 9 or so...before then it was prone to freezing, crashing, hogging memory...you name it.

[cmat]

Adobe is generally terrible. How come Acrobat reader is a 50+ MB package on Windows and Linux?

[Skripka]

Adobe is generally terrible. How come Acrobat reader is a 50+ MB package on Windows and Linux?

Actually...on Linux the package Acroread from Medibuntu takes up 70MB, and the Acroread-plugins package is another 20MB. But, yes.

[shwick]

Flash on Windows was an exercise in frustration up to oh about Flash 9 or so...before then it was prone to freezing, crashing, hogging memory...you name it.

Could be, I never noticed it much while I used it, may have forgotten about it. Using it on Gutsy is when the fun started for me :)

Also, adobe acrobat's updater makes my blood boil when I install it in windows... never could make the damn thing stop checking for updates every 5 minutes.

[bruce89]

Adobe is generally terrible. How come Acrobat reader is a 50+ MB package on Windows and Linux?

Why you would want to use it (even on Windows) is questionable. Also, you can thank the fact Windows doesn't have proper shared libraries for the size issue.

[phrostbyte]

They are criminals and they are denying us the right to prove they are criminals!

Come on man, criminal is a very specific definition. You have to violate criminal law and I don't think Adobe is doing that by releasing proprietary software. :) You can say Adobe is working against liberty by releasing proprietary software and I would agree 100% (I'm sure like nobody else would though, that's just the nature of these forums). But use the right words man!

But anyway Adobe is really not an enemy to Linux IMO. They might do stuff that hurt the ideas of FOSS or Linux but they also do stuff to help Linux. Realistically Linux has one real (major) adversary and that's um, wait for it... Microsoft.

[BuffaloX]

Did you just add random names to the list? Google does not make money with open source software, almost 99 percent of their revenue is generated by advertisement and most of their software is not open sourced as well (e.g. Google Earth, Picasa, etc.).

IBM's closed source portfolio could fill pages after pages, they release only a fraction of the software developed under open source licenses.

Mozilla is pretty much dependent on Google's money. Should Google decide to stop paying Firefox for using Google Search as the default search engine in most FF versions than Mozilla will go down the drain as they lack a business model.

The rest of the companies sell services and customizations and not the software itself. This unfortunately is not a valid business plan for all kind of software companies, especially small ones which sell "finished" products. Think about games (not subscription based MMOs) and tax applications, where post purchase support is less likely required.

Oh, and what about Canonical? Last I heard that their support branch does not generate enough income to keep themselves afloat and it is still pretty much dependent on Shuttleworth's regular money injections.

The post I answered said:

Unfortunately, your Open Source ideas don't work for commercial companies, where is a REAL competition.

I then list some companies where in fact Open Source work well.
Thank you very much.

Then you twist everything around, saying those companies don't count because:

1: Open Source must be the only product.
2: You cannot be payed by other party than the user.
3: Servicing doesn't count.
4: It must not loose money in the projected startup phase.

No I guess you're right, open source is not a valid business model. =D>

[bruce89]

4: It must not loose money in the projected startup phase.

5 years is quite a "startup phase".

[BuffaloX]

5 years is quite a "startup phase".

It's not uncommon, when I went to business school, 3 years was considered normal.
And Ubuntu was not formed with the intention to make money right away,
but rather as a means to promote Linux.
Nonetheless Shuttleworth recently announced that Ubuntu is nearing revenues of $30mil which will make it self sustaining.

http://www.marklives.com/wordpress/?p=295