Why don't developers develop for Linux?

[roxics]

What are the main reasons, is it cost, time, difficulty, no interest, a combination of all four? I don't really get it. Why doesn't Adobe release their software on Linux? Heck why doesn't Adobe release their own distribution? You'd think big software developers would be all about Linux for that very reason, total control of the system.

I'm a relatively new linux user and while there are certain things that aren't quite there yet, for the most part I could see myself using this system everyday if only I could get my iTunes and Photoshop on it. And if I could get some games and the entire Adobe library on it I don't think I'd ever have to use Windows again, besides at work.

So what is stopping these big developers? Linux is the new wild west of the computer world. Is it just too wild still?

[Anthem]

What are the main reasons, is it cost, time, difficulty, no interest, a combination of all four? I don't really get it. Why doesn't Adobe release their software on Linux? Heck why doesn't Adobe release their own distribution? You'd think big software developers would be all about Linux for that very reason, total control of the system.
Why on earth would Adobe want to release their own Linux distribution? They have exactly zero expertise in operating systems.

I think iTunes would make some sense for Apple, but Photoshop? No way. Look how long it took Adobe to support universal binaries on Mac, they're not about to add a third operating system to the mix. Their take is, if you can afford a thousand-dollar creative suite, you can buy a Mac to run it on.

Wine/Crossover is your best bet.

[rsambuca]

Windows is on 95 - 98% of all desktop computers. If you wanted to spend the time and resources to develop software for sale, where would you focus your efforts?

[DoctorMO]

I thought windows was on 97% of PC desktops and 93% of desktop computers.

Besides it doesn't matter because developers (the people who develop) do develop for linux all the time, producing a great range of software that you just don't want to use. It's the companies that won't support Linux, mostly because of market share and sometimes because they're development processes are wedded to the one system (i.e. DirectX, C#, WinAPI, ObjC, Coca etc)

If you really want the features your looking for then you better get writing code or paying some of the developers to write it; or at the very least providing some support to the development community around such projects.

[unbuntu]

Why on earth would Adobe want to release their own Linux distribution? They have exactly zero expertise in operating systems.


Well...it didn't stop Corel from developing their own Linux distro...although it died eventually.

[macogw]

Because it'd cost them more time and money to develop for Linux than they'd make on such a small group of users.

And Apple will probably never release iTunes for Linux. That would be admitting they're not the only Windows alternative. They want Linux to stay under the radar, so they get all the people who are frustrated with Windows. They want those who Linux exists to believe it is unusable for real people. As long as they can make Linux look like some weird geek OS that you can only use with the terminal and that has no functional software for real people to use, they can take all of the Windows-haters by scaring them away from Linux.

[rabid emu]

Amarok is a great iTunes replacement. It syncs with iPods perfectly fine afaik. Won't let you buy music from the iTunes store I suppose...

I think many devs don't support linux simply for lack of user base and lack of interest. They don't care about us because they make plenty of money on windows machines. They see us as a niche market, and for now they're mostly right. Hopefully it'll change someday.

[macogw]

rabid emu, it's exactly iTunes Music Store that they want to keep us from having though. A lot of people depend on that for getting music because they want it instant, not waiting for it to ship, not going to the store, and not paying for a whole cd when they want one song. If they can't get their fix through iTMS, they want nothing to do with Linux. How could they survive if they had to actually go to Best Buy when they want a cd? It'd be the end of the world! Joking aside, though, iTMS is very "user friendly" as far as they're concerned (not in terms of DRM, but anyway...), and it's a necessary service to some people. If Apple can block Linux from having that service, they can block a lot of people from using Linux.

[loell]

you single handidly pick adobe, i think it should be the main title, so, why did a graphics company not developed their software in linux, yeah primarily its cost and the market audience, and besides the initial development of adobe was meant for windows anyway.

[MrHorus]

I don't really get it. Why doesn't Adobe release their software on Linux?

Because so long as people are quite happy to pay £1500 a pop for their software packages on Mac and Windows, why would they bother laying out the millions of pounds it would cost in development time to create Linux packages when the majority of Linux users are somewhat opposed to the notion of proprietry, closed source software?

[samjh]

Because:

1. Producing software costs resources (ie. time, money, and people), and Linux users are very small in number compared to Windows users.

2. Many Linux users do not want to use closed-source or (gasp) commercial software they need to PAY MONEY for.

3. There are subtle differences between distributions that can make it difficult to make complex or mission-critical software perform reliably. Ongoing service and support can become more difficult also.

There is no such thing as a free lunch (even when lunch is free, there are costs involved behind the scenes). Businesses need to survive. Public businesses need to give shareholders reasonable returns for investment. Developing software is big investment. Notice how many of the successful open-source projects on Linux are sponsored by businesses. Completely free open-source projects with competitive success against commercial alternatives (ie. with no commercial sponsorship or interest) are few. It just goes to show the amount of investment - time, people, and money - that is needed for high-quality in-demand software. Given the massive disparity between the gigantic Windows market and shrimp-like Linux market, it is only logical that if a company wants best return for investment, they will probably go for Windows. The only companies that develop for Linux are the ones who are taking a gamble in order to establish a niche market share among the slowly growing Linux market. Hopefully as the Linux market grows, more companies will seek to establish their presence and invest in developing for Linux.

[tigerpants]

Well...it didn't stop Corel from developing their own Linux distro...although it died eventually.

Its not dead, it became Xandros.

[Adamant1988]

I thought windows was on 97% of PC desktops and 93% of desktop computers.



It's honestly hard to tell... Microsoft releases data saying "We sold this many copies of windows", but honestly most of those are pre-loaded and a lot of them get wiped for Linux. Not all mind you, but a lot. So any real statistics will be hard to prove...

[az]

Why doesn't Adobe release their software on Linux? Heck why doesn't Adobe release their own distribution? You'd think big software developers would be all about Linux for that very reason, total control of the system.

They would do it if it made sense. It would not make sense to release proprietary software for linux. If you are in business and are willing to pay 800 dollars for some software, you will be willing to pay an extra 200 dollars for an OS.

Now, if Adobe can come up with a business model that will allow them to make money by distributing a free product, then that would make sense.

It makes a lot of sense to migrate a great deal of workstations to free-libre software. You can probably install Ubuntu on (picking a random number from my head) 30 percent of workstations in a given workplace. The things that those workstations do are well served by what Ubuntu can do. In fact, the fact that they are not succeptible to malware and easily maintained makes that a good decision.

It is not, however, feasable to expect every company to do a full, 100 percent migration to GNU/linux. We are not there yet.



I'm a relatively new linux user and while there are certain things that aren't quite there yet, for the most part I could see myself using this system everyday if only I could get my iTunes and Photoshop on it. And if I could get some games and the entire Adobe library on it I don't think I'd ever have to use Windows again, besides at work.

So what is stopping these big developers? Linux is the new wild west of the computer world. Is it just too wild still?

Yes. There isn't enough marketshare yet. But this seems to be growing at a staggering rate.

But frankly, there will be some things that you will never see on a free-libre system. You cannot implement DRM and prevent people from listening to encrypted media in an open-source way. As well, Photoshop will probably never be seen on GNU/linux because it won't sell. It's not that it is too hard to develop on linux (hundreds of thousands of people find it easy to write the software as it is), there just is no market. Again, it's a niche market. If you are willing to spend that much on one product, you will probably be willing to run it on a proprietary OS.



Windows is on 95 - 98% of all desktop computers. If you wanted to spend the time and resources to develop software for sale, where would you focus your efforts?

I think the numbers are more like 90% Microsoft, 5% Mac and 5% GNU/linux.


Well...it didn't stop Corel from developing their own Linux distro...although it died eventually.


Its not dead, it became Xandros.

Although Corel was good for the ecosystem, it was doomed from the start. There was not enough marketshare and not any clear direction as to whether they were free-libre of proprietary. They eventually made the decision to be proprietary and have been mostly irrelevant since then.


The only companies that develop for Linux are the ones who are taking a gamble in order to establish a niche market share among the slowly growing Linux market. Hopefully as the Linux market grows, more companies will seek to establish their presence and invest in developing for Linux.

Actually, providing a free-libre product is an excellent way to completely obliterate your competition. You then follow-up on your product and make money providing services and support. That is the most common approach, AFAIK.

[roxics]

A couple of you have responded saying "if you could afford to spend $800 on Photoshop you could afford to spend $200 on a proprietary OS."

So is that how you guys look at Linux? That it's just some big free buffet and if something costs extra on the side then there is no market for it on Linux.

I'd gladly pay $800 for a copy of Photoshop that ran on Linux. Not because I couldn't afford to run Windows. Cost is the least likely reason. The big reasons for me would be, lack of viruses, better security, choice of distribution. I was under the impression that photoshop was the most demanded app from Linux users. Maybe I was wrong.

Basically though you guys are all making it sound like Linux is doomed. You're all being such naysayers.

If it doesn't get commercial software support it will never get bigger then it is right now. Shouldn't everyone want that?

[Anthem]

So is that how you guys look at Linux? That it's just some big free buffet and if something costs extra on the side then there is no market for it on Linux.

.....

If it doesn't get commercial software support it will never get bigger then it is right now. Shouldn't everyone want that?
The best way to get that commercial software support would be to invest in WINE. From a closed-source development perspective, Linux is a bottomless pit. Multiple distributions, multiple package formats, multiple toolkits, multiple architectures... you're never going to make everyone happy. And you won't come close to making back your investment. So why do it?

Google did some really good stuff with Picasa... they ported to Linux using some WINE libraries. That's reasonable for a lot of companies, but Google was roundly criticized in this board for using winelibs instead of GTK. Craziness.

[az]

So is that how you guys look at Linux? That it's just some big free buffet and if something costs extra on the side then there is no market for it on Linux.

No. Not at all. There is just no market for proprietary apps on linux.

If you want to run proprietary apps, you may as well run a proprietary OS. If you want the benefits of a free-libre system, you need to run a free-libre system from the ground up. If you want to run a whole bunch of closed-source binary-only apps on your linux box, how do you know you are not getting any malware installed along with that?

There are simply not enough users out there who would want to run photoshop on linux for it to make sense (or money).



I was under the impression that photoshop was the most demanded app from Linux users. Maybe I was wrong.

Maybe you are wrong. I never heard that.

And anyway, be specific. There is not only one kind of user. Whatever software you need depends on your needs. If you want to deploy Ubuntu on a thousand workstations in a hospital, you won't need photoshop on a single one of them,



Basically though you guys are all making it sound like Linux is doomed. You're all being such naysayers.

Not at all.GNU/linux does not need proprietary apps to become popular. It needs to continue on the path it's on and gaim more free-libre apps.



If it doesn't get commercial software support it will never get bigger then it is right now. Shouldn't everyone want that?

You really should do some research. Why don't you download a distro from two years ago and take a look at it. The go back another two years and then another. That will give you a good idea of where GNU/linux is going and how fast it's getting there,

[Magnes]

I know a lot of people who would switch to linux (or try to do it) if Photoshop was working on it. Because it's the only application they cannot abandon and find free equivalent of it on linux.

[frup]

It's honestly hard to tell... Microsoft releases data saying "We sold this many copies of windows", but honestly most of those are pre-loaded and a lot of them get wiped for Linux. Not all mind you, but a lot. So any real statistics will be hard to prove...

Snd thats why as many people as are willing should register at http://counter.li.org so we have a more accurate census/estimate of linux users.

[cowlip]

All I'm going to say is, poor Autopackage *sniff*

[DeadZedz]

There is no incentive for anyone.
Life is short and linux programming requires time and specialization, You get no profit developing linux (unless you sell Mandriva or Xandros or some other)

[Ultra Magnus]

Wasn't there a thing recently saying how more and more developers are migrating to linux - I think we have 12% of developers in the US working on programs for linux - thats huge given our market share, and I'll wager its way more than those developing for OS X

[LanDan]

what do you mean with "developers developers developers don't develop for Linux"

not all programs run under Linux and not all programs that run on Linux runs on the other OS'es, (eventhough photoshop will run under crossover, but this will cost you money you greedy ******* ;) )

actually i'm pretty happy with the weight of some companies as IBM and Sun etc.. putting their weight behind Linux, and for all programs to be found in any other OS i can find at least a decent alternative under Linux.

if i see the development on Linux the last few years i must say that i'm pretty impressed and very hopefull for the feature if it can keep that pace.

if enough people are willing to pay for a Linux version, even Adobe will not think twice

[BradwJensen]

The big problem is not that theres a little amount of people using Linux, but that LOTS of people still don't want to use Linux because they cant yet buy Adobe stuff for it.. Really if theres gonna be a nice market here for Adobe they have to make it themselves by porting to Linux whether theres a market here yet or not..

"If you build it they will come."
Esspecialy since Linux is typically free leaving more money to be spend on Adobe products.
Linux is safer from viruses than Windows.. Basically this is all good for Businesses and would attract them if they had the chance.
The more businesses that use Linux the more people at home would finally know what Linux is and how to use it.
Linux would then SkyRocket and would have more developers and software.. It'd be crazy.

Everyone would be porting their apps to Linux and helping develop it to be better.
Software patents would then hopefully start waring out and we'd be a bigger, Free'er world.

[bigbrovar]

ubuntu and linux is bad for business..many of these developers are out to exploit pple with their wears and there know that the last place to come to with that kind of intention is linux..we are just too smart and our goal and philosophy conflicts with theirs..and to be frank although having them would be cool..but we have been surviving without them and the linux community has done well in making programs that substitute these over priced softwares..even though they are not perfect..i would rather spend my money supporting project that would help make them perfect than blustering some stingy developer