What the hell is wrong with Adobe?

[Sutur]

Seriously.

It's been years. They have a Mac version, they're half way there already! As if there aren't enough people to merit a Linux-native port, imagine the money they could make!

People have been trying to get Photoshop working through wine for what seems like (excuse my French) a f*cking eternity.

The entire forum is saturated in posts from users that refuse to rid the scourge of windows from their miserable computers because Adobe is still twiddling it's thumbs over making a Linux port.

It's not even like they would have to make it open-source, I mean really what's the reason they're using to refuse a port? Honestly I am completely stumped by this, is it that there still aren't enough Linux users to justify a decent profit margin?

Before anyone gets the idea - please leave your comments about GIMP out. It seems like every time Photoshop is mentioned someone desperately blurts out how much better GIMP is.

How can a company as great as Adobe have such a tremendous flaw?

[aysiu]

I can understand why they wouldn't bother porting CS3 to Linux.

Here are two reasons:

• No increase in income. Pretty much those who find a need for CS3 use it on Windows or Mac, or they find some way to install it through Wine or Crossover Office. Those same customers won't be giving Adobe additional funds just because they buy a native Linux version instead of a native Windows version run through Wine.
• Extra Trouble for Adobe. That means more testing and more developing in order to make a stable Linux port.

The truth is that there are not any Linux users who currently do not use Photoshop but who would pay for Photoshop if it had a Linux port.

I'd say Linux users generally fall into one of these categories, when it comes to Photoshop:

• Perfectly fine with GIMP. Absolutely no need for Photoshop.
• Needs Photoshop but runs a pay-for version in Mac, Windows, or Wine.
• Needs Photoshop but runs a pirated version in Mac, Windows, or Wine.

There is no

• Needs Photoshop but refuses to use it until Adobe makes a native Linux port, at which point, will pay for the native Linux port

segment.

[smartalecks]

linux users dont have a big reputation as being designers, either xD
If you are really desperate and dont mind moving backwards a bit, the CS series works pretty much perfectly with wine.

I wouldnt say that the GIMP is better than Photoshop, but it is very usable and can be used reasonably well if you just learn the basic techniques, which are very different from Photoshop. for instance, to make a drop shadow, in Photoshop one would use a layer's blending options. In the gimp, however, shadows are either brushed or the layer is Right Clicked > Alpha to Selection > New Layer underneath > Fill with Black > Gaussian Blur and play with the opacities. Though there are more steps, it doesn't take any longer than it would in Photoshop, if you just remember how to do it.

One thing I like about the GIMP is the advanced features of the filters. For instance, to render clouds you can select noise, detail, amount, etc, whereas it doesnt really have any options in Photoshop.
I dislike that there are no folders in the GIMP, the layer structure can get pretty messy. Also, blending options really are very useful... layers can be very complex but well organized in Photoshop. For example



a chrome effect like this takes 10-20 layers in the GIMP, whereas in Photoshop it is really only one layer. this can get pretty darn frustrating. I made this in the GIMP for a website but I've pretty much forgotten how I did it, I will go back and try and find out later...

So yeah. In my mind there isn't really much debate when you think about it practically. Although the GIMP can be pretty powerful, Photoshop is just alot easier to use and is more organized, so one can make more complex images etc. I can't wait until the 3.0 release of the GIMP, I want some new features!!

I'm also watching Pixel image editor, it looks pretty promising, but at the moment it isnt really useable because some of the basic stuff such as text and brushes are buggy... but for the most part, all the features are roughed out and its being refined at the moment. If you want to encourage the sole developer you can buy it for $32, get updates up to and including version 2, which will be $89... I'm looking forward to it . It is very fast and runs pretty well under Gutsy, it also has versions for mac, windows, etc...

[jrusso2]

Most commercial software vendors will not port to Linux because of two reasons.

1. There are too many distros, meaning they would have to test it on multiple versions and platforms.

2. Linux users are seen as unwilling to pay for software.

[gruvsyco]

2. Linux users are seen as unwilling to pay for software.

sadly, I think this is the main reason here. The developers of Artrage flat out stated this on their forum. Fortunately, with more of the high end graphic studios adopting Linux more and more this might be slowly changing. I know XSI and Maya are both available on Linux and I believe Cinema 4D is available through some type of special contract with Maxon.

Some developers are, while not claiming Linux compatibility, working to keep their software working in Wine. XSI appears to actually use Winelib (or something similar) in their Linux version.

It's just going to take time.

[BradwJensen]

It is possible though that if Adobe opens up to Linux, designers will move to Linux for the cheapness in cost and security / stability..

Designers like Openness (imo), and if the OS is free, heck they'll have more money for Photoshop and so forth.

[Ralphie]

Fortunately, with more of the high end graphic studios adopting Linux more and more this might be slowly changing.

I am really hoping this will push adobe and other companys as well.

I bought CS3, before i got into linux, now i vow to never buy another adobe product until it is ported. i refuse to go back to windows and i just plain don't like macs.

as far as people not wanting to pay, i think one optimistic thing is that people are willing to DONATE to get CS2 working, so far codeweavers has $7081.80 in donations for CS2 alone. if this many people are willing to donate for a 3rd party port or whatever it is they do, then adobe better realize people are willing to pay for the real deal.

i know i am, and i know im not buying another adobe product till its officially ported.

maybe if there were enough paying customers who made this same vow, they would be more encouraged to help us out.

i have also read of many people saying that they would "make the switch" as soon as adobe ported.

[Sutur]

I know XSI and Maya are both available on Linux and I believe Cinema 4D is available through some type of special contract with Maxon.

That's right, Autodesk and Alias before them offered a linux-native port of Maya. But then Linux is often used in the 3D industry to work through batch renders so it's no surprise.

I suppose it's just like every other instance where a company/developer decides to not offer a Linux port. Games are another great example, there are so many awesome games that work beautifully with Linux - it's not much to ask programmers to work in OpenGL instead of DirectX anyway is it? I'm so sick of DirectX and it's frameskipping issues - and no-one seems to notice! Don't even get me started on DirectX 10 only working on Vista - as if XP wasn't bad enough.

Perhaps I've missed every negative point the world has about Linux, but I just can't forgive the everyone for being so ignorant. People continue to bend over and let Microsoft maintain their grip, while the big Linux distributions of today offer an operating system I see as almost entirely flawless. What do people want? As an example Ubuntu offers an advantage in almost every area of Windows:

Graphics: Vista versus Compiz - Is it even a competition?

Security: Vista's Answer to this is to just continue locking areas of the system away. Every release of Windows I find more stuff locked away, and yet people are STILL experiencing security flaws, viruses taking over etc. With the new added annoyance of the system asking you if you're sure about EVERY SINGLE OPERATION.

Ease of Use: Windows can be easy to learn & use, I won't take that way from it. But what happens when something goes wrong? After a crash we're given a thousand-page document containing information that the vastest percentage of us can't make heads nor tail of. Some of it in Hex, for Christ sake what were they thinking?
Linux on the other hand has an endless array of commands to diagnose and display logs for every area of the system, no matter how minute. It's also presented in a format that can be understood - and if it isn't you have manual pages, and one of the most helpful communities on the Internet - ubuntuforums.org. BTW has anyone spoken to Microsoft tech support? They employ people to search the Microsoft "knowledge base" - something you might as well have done yourself.

[B]Program Availability[/B:] I'm no expert, but I wouldn't feel guilty for saying that almost every program out there built for Windows or Mac, will usually have a Linux alternative. If there isn't, we've been given Wine. What a marvel that is.

Cost Most distributions are free. Almost every application, game, utility etc in the repositories is also free. What does Microsoft offer? We all know the answer.

Sorry, I suppose this turned out to be just another rant from a disgruntled Linux user. Does anyone else feel this way?

[TRStealthX]

Personally, the only reason I still have Vista installed is because of the Master suite that I need for my job. The day that I get to have Photoshop, After Effects, Dreamweaver and inDesign on Ubuntu - is the day I stop giving Microsoft money =)

[oedipuss]

The developers of Artrage flat out stated this on their forum.

I'm a linux user, and I paid for their software =(

It's just going to take time.

Is it me or is there an increasing amount of linux coverage in the last, what, six months ? Perhaps commercial app ports are not as far as we think.

Also, a bit out of topic, I don't think adobe is that concerned about piracy. Photoshop is a very adequate, very complete piece and rather expensive piece of software, needed by many professionals (who undoubtedly pay for it). I think all those pirated versions ultimately have created an immense, already trained user base for adobe, many of which wouldn't ever buy photoshop (if they hadn't have the option to dowload it) and the few of which that will actually need it, will actually buy it eventually. It hurts the competition too.