Adobe and Linux

EA
Posted By
eLeMEnTS ArTZ newbie
Nov 26, 2003
Views
2062
Replies
42
Status
Closed
Adobe has been using Win platform and Mac platform since the begining as far i as remember. but whith the increasing popularity of Linux platform why does Adobe not make programs complatible with the Linux platform. is it that the software programming is harder in Linux. or is it that Adobe has a commercial agreement with MS and Mac. Notice that Adobe has been marketing better use and integration with windows XP as a marketing agreement for the CS product range. it’s not a critic only a remark that Adobe has been making the integration with Win XP one of its argument for PS CS.

if it wasn’t for Adobe and 3D app, i would already have jumped in the Linux pool.

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

L
lkrz
Nov 26, 2003
Adobe has been using Win platform and Mac platform since the begining as far i as remember.

Photoshop was originally available only for the Mac. That’s why so many design shops/newspaper art depts, etc. bought Macs way back when. PS’s availability in Windows platform is fairly recent.

http://www.madmousergraphics.com
web design, print design, photography
N
nospam
Nov 26, 2003
In article ,
(LauraK) wrote:

Adobe has been using Win platform and Mac platform since the begining as far i as remember.

Photoshop was originally available only for the Mac. That’s why so many design shops/newspaper art depts, etc. bought Macs way back when. PS’s availability in Windows platform is fairly recent.

As one who has used Macs since the day they came out, I have to admit that I am now very comfortable with WindoZe XP Pro and Photoshop. I really like the fact that one can manage files from a save/open dialog, and XP’s OS thumbnails really fly and that native right-button rules. So, does PS/CS under OS-X have all that? I’ll go with OS-X if it does.
T
tacitr
Nov 26, 2003
Adobe has been using Win platform and Mac platform since the begining as far
i as remember. but whith the increasing popularity of Linux platform why does Adobe not make programs complatible with the Linux platform.

Money. Linux is popular in back-end and server applications; less popular in desktop and DTP applications.

Adobe made a Unix version of Photoshop some years ago. It didn’t make enough money to be worth the investment.


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 26, 2003
eLeMEnTS ArTZ newbie wrote:
Adobe has been using Win platform and Mac platform since the begining as far i as remember. but whith the increasing popularity of Linux platform why does Adobe not make programs complatible with the Linux platform. is it that the software programming is harder in Linux. or is it that Adobe has a commercial agreement with MS and Mac. Notice that Adobe has been marketing better use and integration with windows XP as a marketing agreement for the CS product range. it’s not a critic only a remark that Adobe has been making the integration with Win XP one of its argument for PS CS.

if it wasn’t for Adobe and 3D app, i would already have jumped in the Linux pool.

The graphical interface would likely have to be rewritten for linux as (I’m sure) it had to be rewritten for the Mac version.

But the problem is, I think, that most of the linux penetration into the market has been in servers, not in workstations. If the workstation sales of linux reach something like 4-5% of the market then it is possible that Adobe and others will pay attention to that market.

—- Paul J. Gans
W
Waldo
Nov 26, 2003
Increasing popularity??? Linux is still not used very much and if it is used, it is used for servers and some geeks at home, definitely not in the office. I run a few Linux servers and don’t have much work on them (I like that very much), but I wouldn’t want Linux on my desktop.

I know a few people here around that have a second desktop with Linux, but if I see the font rendering in normal applications, I’m happy that I’ve Windows. It looks horrible, even under KDE 2.

Adobe has written applications for Unix/Linux: Framemaker, Distiller, their RIP (they still do the RIP).

If you search the web, you’ll find that Photoshop 7 can be run (with much effort) in Linux, but it works. I dunno about the other applications.

The major reason for Adobe to stay at Win/Mac is money: there are not many Linux desktops. As soon as that will increasing rapidly, they might consider developing for that platform.

Waldo

"eLeMEnTS ArTZ newbie" wrote in message
Adobe has been using Win platform and Mac platform since the begining as
far
i as remember. but whith the increasing popularity of Linux platform why does Adobe not make programs complatible with the Linux platform. is it
that
the software programming is harder in Linux. or is it that Adobe has a commercial agreement with MS and Mac. Notice that Adobe has been marketing better use and integration with windows XP as a marketing agreement for
the
CS product range. it’s not a critic only a remark that Adobe has been
making
the integration with Win XP one of its argument for PS CS.
if it wasn’t for Adobe and 3D app, i would already have jumped in the
Linux
pool.

F
Faolan
Nov 26, 2003
In the writings of eLeMEnTS ArTZ newbie, the <bq1tlm$a8m$1 @news.intnet.mu> scrolls contained these prophetic words:

if it wasn’t for Adobe and 3D app, i would already have jumped in the Linux pool.
Photoshop 6/7 works under Linux using WINE. Read more here:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q252125A6

Frank’s corner also has a lot of other Apps running with WINE and Crossover office.

http://www.frankscorner.org/

Scottish Heritage:
http://www.CelticShadows.co.uk
MR
Milo Rambaldi
Nov 26, 2003
It might surprise and Shock(?) Linux users who have a twisted view of what makes the world go around and think anyone actually having the audacity to try and SELL software is a black hearted individual who ought to be burned at the stake… There is a quiet team of dedicated developers at Codeweavers who have an application called ‘crossover office’ which runs (amongst other things) Adobe PhotoShop under Linux. The package sells for about $55 US. One twisted individual suggested that "I wouldn’t pay for it, no matter how cheap it is" when I suggested ‘wine’ was an early developmental version of Crossover and he might benefit from the commercial product.

Such are the ways of people who use "free" software. MR.
——————————————————-

"eLeMEnTS ArTZ newbie" wrote in message
Adobe has been using Win platform and Mac platform since the begining as
far
i as remember. but whith the increasing popularity of Linux platform why does Adobe not make programs complatible with the Linux platform. is it
that
the software programming is harder in Linux. or is it that Adobe has a commercial agreement with MS and Mac. Notice that Adobe has been marketing better use and integration with windows XP as a marketing agreement for
the
CS product range. it’s not a critic only a remark that Adobe has been
making
the integration with Win XP one of its argument for PS CS.
if it wasn’t for Adobe and 3D app, i would already have jumped in the
Linux
pool.

DF
Derek Fountain
Nov 26, 2003
Increasing popularity??? Linux is still not used very much and if it is used, it is used for servers and some geeks at home, definitely not in the office.

You might want to update your facts. Last survey I saw had Linux desktop installations running neck and neck with Macs. That was a few months back.

I know a few people here around that have a second desktop with Linux, but if I see the font rendering in normal applications, I’m happy that I’ve Windows. It looks horrible, even under KDE 2.

KDE2 eh? You might want to update your facts. KDE3 was released over 18 months ago, and with it came the ability to use Windows’ TTF fonts.

If you search the web, you’ll find that Photoshop 7 can be run (with much effort) in Linux, but it works.

How much effort? You might want to update your facts. Crossover Office runs Photoshop out of the box. You stick the CD in and watch it install and run, just like in Windows.

The major reason for Adobe to stay at Win/Mac is money: there are not many Linux desktops. As soon as that will increasing rapidly, they might consider developing for that platform.

Well, at least you got that bit right.

The Linux desktop now has the infrastructure to run programs of the complexity of Photoshop. What still needs more work is the less technical stuff, like making a standard installation mechanism. Work on such standards if under way.

As far as applications are concerned, all that’s required is a company with the guts to stick its neck out. Sun did it with the StarOffice suite, and they’re converting corporate desktops from MS Office by the tens of thousands these days. Of course, tens of thousands isn’t much compared to the hundreds of millions of PCs out there, but the tide has turned. Given time, Linux will become a recognisable force on the desktop, just as it did on the server.
T
toby
Nov 26, 2003
(LauraK) wrote in message news:…
Adobe has been using Win platform and Mac platform since the begining as far i as remember.

Photoshop was originally available only for the Mac. That’s why so many design shops/newspaper art depts, etc. bought Macs way back when. PS’s availability in Windows platform is fairly recent.

Emphatically correct. The same is true of PageMaker (of course), Illustrator, ATM, most of the rest of the Adobe product line, Quark XPress, etc, etc.

In particular, Illustrator didn’t hit Windows until version 4.

Toby

http://www.madmousergraphics.com
web design, print design, photography
R
rubik{remove}
Nov 26, 2003
On 26 Nov 2003 02:05:55 GMT, (LauraK) wrote:

Adobe has been using Win platform and Mac platform since the begining as far i as remember.

Photoshop was originally available only for the Mac. That’s why so many design shops/newspaper art depts, etc. bought Macs way back when. PS’s availability in Windows platform is fairly recent.
if you call ten years recent yah
T
tacitr
Nov 26, 2003
The graphical interface would likely have to be rewritten for linux as (I’m sure) it had to be rewritten for the Mac version.

Actually, it had to be rewritten for the Windows version. Photoshop started out as a Mac-only application.

My understanding is that the code for Photoshop’s image-processing engine is divorced, as far as is possible, from the code for the user interface. This would make porting to a different operating system considerably easier; and in fact Photoshop is currently available for three distinct operating systems (MacOS, MacOS X, and Windows). One has to wonder whether or not there’s any financial justification for releasing a Linux version; I suspect the answer is "no."


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
R
Roberto
Nov 26, 2003
I think it has more to do with…

1. Linux is not a consumer operating system. Few consumers actually use it. It is doing well for servers and techno-geeks, but not for consumers.

2. There isn’t one single graphical interface for it. I don’t think Adobe wants to do a version for each interface.

3. Linux users because Linux is free expects all software for it to be free. This is in part the reason other companies have had problems.

4. The last company that wasted money developing for Linux (Corel) almost bought the farm for it. I don’t think you will find many companies in a big hurry to see if it will happen to them.

Linux has a ways to go.

Jerry

"eLeMEnTS ArTZ newbie" wrote in message
Adobe has been using Win platform and Mac platform since the begining as
far
i as remember. but whith the increasing popularity of Linux platform why does Adobe not make programs complatible with the Linux platform. is it
that
the software programming is harder in Linux. or is it that Adobe has a commercial agreement with MS and Mac. Notice that Adobe has been marketing better use and integration with windows XP as a marketing agreement for
the
CS product range. it’s not a critic only a remark that Adobe has been
making
the integration with Win XP one of its argument for PS CS.
if it wasn’t for Adobe and 3D app, i would already have jumped in the
Linux
pool.

EA
eLeMEnTS ArTZ newbie
Nov 26, 2003
i have already tried to use Linux to run some adobe PS and illustrator using the Wine emulator at a friend’s place. he gas a rather powerful processor an P4 2.6 or 2.4. the main problem is that with this emulator,adobe software required more processing power from the computer and a hell lot of memory. there was using PS 5 and illustrator7 and it seem that they needed the power of the CS range products.

"Milo Rambaldi" wrote in message
It might surprise and Shock(?) Linux users who have a twisted view of what makes the world go around and think anyone actually having the audacity to try and SELL software is a black hearted individual who ought to be burned at the stake… There is a quiet team of dedicated developers at
Codeweavers
who have an application called ‘crossover office’ which runs (amongst
other
things) Adobe PhotoShop under Linux. The package sells for about $55 US.
One
twisted individual suggested that "I wouldn’t pay for it, no matter how cheap it is" when I suggested ‘wine’ was an early developmental version of Crossover and he might benefit from the commercial product.
Such are the ways of people who use "free" software. MR.
——————————————————-

"eLeMEnTS ArTZ newbie" wrote in message
Adobe has been using Win platform and Mac platform since the begining as
far
i as remember. but whith the increasing popularity of Linux platform why does Adobe not make programs complatible with the Linux platform. is it
that
the software programming is harder in Linux. or is it that Adobe has a commercial agreement with MS and Mac. Notice that Adobe has been
marketing
better use and integration with windows XP as a marketing agreement for
the
CS product range. it’s not a critic only a remark that Adobe has been
making
the integration with Win XP one of its argument for PS CS.
if it wasn’t for Adobe and 3D app, i would already have jumped in the
Linux
pool.

E
erimies
Nov 27, 2003
On 26 Nov 2003 17:47:29 GMT, (Tacit) posted:

The graphical interface would likely have to be rewritten for linux as (I’m sure) it had to be rewritten for the Mac version.

Actually, it had to be rewritten for the Windows version. Photoshop started out as a Mac-only application.

My understanding is that the code for Photoshop’s image-processing engine is divorced, as far as is possible, from the code for the user interface. This would make porting to a different operating system considerably easier; and in fact Photoshop is currently available for three distinct operating systems (MacOS, MacOS X, and Windows). One has to wonder whether or not there’s any financial justification for releasing a Linux version; I suspect the answer is "no."

isn’t osx a unix variant?
N
nospam
Nov 27, 2003
In article ,
(someone) wrote:

fact Photoshop is currently available for three distinct operating systems (MacOS, MacOS X, and Windows). One has to wonder whether or not there’s any financial justification for releasing a Linux version; I suspect the
answer is
"no."

isn’t osx a unix variant?

Yup. BSD!
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 27, 2003
Milo Rambaldi wrote:
It might surprise and Shock(?) Linux users who have a twisted view of what makes the world go around and think anyone actually having the audacity to try and SELL software is a black hearted individual who ought to be burned at the stake… There is a quiet team of dedicated developers at Codeweavers who have an application called ‘crossover office’ which runs (amongst other things) Adobe PhotoShop under Linux. The package sells for about $55 US. One twisted individual suggested that "I wouldn’t pay for it, no matter how cheap it is" when I suggested ‘wine’ was an early developmental version of Crossover and he might benefit from the commercial product.

Such are the ways of people who use "free" software. MR.

That’s rather unfair. I’ve been using linux for years
and I’ve bought software. And I buy plenty of software
for Windows.

So those are not the ways of all who use free software.

—– Paul J. Gans
J
jayfar
Nov 27, 2003
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 04:30:19 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:
Milo Rambaldi wrote:
It might surprise and Shock(?) Linux users who have a twisted view of what makes the world go around and think anyone actually having the audacity to try and SELL software is a black hearted individual who ought to be burned at the stake… There is a quiet team of dedicated developers at Codeweavers who have an application called ‘crossover office’ which runs (amongst other things) Adobe PhotoShop under Linux. The package sells for about $55 US. One twisted individual suggested that "I wouldn’t pay for it, no matter how cheap it is" when I suggested ‘wine’ was an early developmental version of Crossover and he might benefit from the commercial product.

Such are the ways of people who use "free" software. MR.

That’s rather unfair. I’ve been using linux for years
and I’ve bought software. And I buy plenty of software
for Windows.

So those are not the ways of all who use free software.

Indeed. Heck, some of us even have 3 or 4 different releases of Mandrake shrink-wrapped Powerpack edition sitting on our bookshelf and have donated $ to other "free" software projects.

I wish I could say I also had the spiffy boxed edition of PS 7, but all I have is the CD I burned – after downloading at full list price from Adobe’s site (instant gratification got the better of me back when I sprung for it %-).

Cheers,
Jayfar

Netaxs
Network Operations Center
MR
Milo Rambaldi
Nov 27, 2003
Yeah….
I used to own a shop which for a while tried promoting Linux instead of MS stuff. Pardon me if I’m cynical. It comes from frequent exposure to Linux centric geeks who use Windows as their primary OS but spout off about being a Linux kind of guy.
MR
———————–
"Jayfar" wrote in message
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 04:30:19 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:.
That’s rather unfair. I’ve been using linux for years
and I’ve bought software. And I buy plenty of software
for Windows.

So those are not the ways of all who use free software.

Indeed. Heck, some of us even have 3 or 4 different releases of Mandrake shrink-wrapped Powerpack edition sitting on our bookshelf and have donated $ to other "free" software projects.

I wish I could say I also had the spiffy boxed edition of PS 7, but all I have is the CD I burned – after downloading at full list price from Adobe’s site (instant gratification got the better of me back when I sprung for it %-).

Cheers,
Jayfar

Netaxs
Network Operations Center
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 27, 2003
Tacit wrote:
The graphical interface would likely have to be rewritten for linux as (I’m sure) it had to be rewritten for the Mac version.

Actually, it had to be rewritten for the Windows version. Photoshop started out as a Mac-only application.

Sorry. I knew that but got carried away.

My understanding is that the code for Photoshop’s image-processing engine is divorced, as far as is possible, from the code for the user interface. This would make porting to a different operating system considerably easier; and in fact Photoshop is currently available for three distinct operating systems (MacOS, MacOS X, and Windows). One has to wonder whether or not there’s any financial justification for releasing a Linux version; I suspect the answer is "no."

I agree. If and when Linux becomes as popular as Macs perhaps then?

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 27, 2003
someone wrote:

On 26 Nov 2003 17:47:29 GMT, (Tacit) posted:

The graphical interface would likely have to be rewritten for linux as (I’m sure) it had to be rewritten for the Mac version.

Actually, it had to be rewritten for the Windows version. Photoshop started out as a Mac-only application.

My understanding is that the code for Photoshop’s image-processing engine is divorced, as far as is possible, from the code for the user interface. This would make porting to a different operating system considerably easier; and in fact Photoshop is currently available for three distinct operating systems (MacOS, MacOS X, and Windows). One has to wonder whether or not there’s any financial justification for releasing a Linux version; I suspect the answer is "no."

isn’t osx a unix variant?

Yes. The problems are with the graphical interface. The unix standard interface is X-windows, which, because it has to handle so many different types of hardware, is not terribly efficient. Apple used its own interface. Photoshop had to be rewritten for the Mac interface and would have to be rewritten again for linux.

If it were easy (meaning cheap) I suspect that Adobe would have a linux version out already.

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 27, 2003
Jayfar wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 04:30:19 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:
Milo Rambaldi wrote:
It might surprise and Shock(?) Linux users who have a twisted view of what makes the world go around and think anyone actually having the audacity to try and SELL software is a black hearted individual who ought to be burned at the stake… There is a quiet team of dedicated developers at Codeweavers who have an application called ‘crossover office’ which runs (amongst other things) Adobe PhotoShop under Linux. The package sells for about $55 US. One twisted individual suggested that "I wouldn’t pay for it, no matter how cheap it is" when I suggested ‘wine’ was an early developmental version of Crossover and he might benefit from the commercial product.

Such are the ways of people who use "free" software. MR.

That’s rather unfair. I’ve been using linux for years
and I’ve bought software. And I buy plenty of software
for Windows.

So those are not the ways of all who use free software.

Indeed. Heck, some of us even have 3 or 4 different releases of Mandrake shrink-wrapped Powerpack edition sitting on our bookshelf and have donated $ to other "free" software projects.

I wish I could say I also had the spiffy boxed edition of PS 7, but all I have is the CD I burned – after downloading at full list price from Adobe’s site (instant gratification got the better of me back when I sprung for it %-).

My collection is of SuSE linux full boxed sets. And I’ve got paid-for copies of everything from 5.5 to 7.

—- Paul J. Gans
N
nospam
Nov 27, 2003
In article <bq5e78$r0n$>, Paul J Gans wrote:

I agree. If and when Linux becomes as popular as Macs perhaps then?

Not in our lifetime.
SB
Simon Budig
Nov 27, 2003
Paul J Gans wrote:
someone wrote:
isn’t osx a unix variant?

Yes. The problems are with the graphical interface. The unix standard interface is X-windows, which, because it has to handle so many different types of hardware, is not terribly efficient.

I don’t think efficiency is the problem here. The main problem probably is, that it has been designed, with the capabilities of hardware from 1987 in mind. So alpha blending of windows over other windows just was out of sight of the developers. I believe it is astonishing, that X11 still is alive and kicking on a really wide range of hardware. Even the mentioned lack of capabilities is currently being adressed…

Apple used its own interface. Photoshop had to be rewritten for the Mac interface and would have to be rewritten again for linux.

Assuming that Adobe does proper software engineering they probably have introduced a portable abstraction layer for their user interface to avoid duplicating code and different appearances of the User Interface. Keep in mind that they also already have adressed the "typical" portability problems like different Endianess, 64 vs. 32 Bit architectures etc.

So the main thing to do would probably be to port their GUI toolkit (portability layer) to X11 or a GUI toolkit on top of X11 and they’re done. A little bit of extra stuff for the Filesystem (not too hard probably, since MacOS X already *is* a Unix) and you have Photoshop for Linux. I don’t think it’d be that difficult.

The other option would be to go Corels way and use WINE to basically run your windows executable on Linux. IMHO the wrong approach, because you still operate on the cruft-laden windows API and suffer from potential WINE bugs/incompatibilities…

If it were easy (meaning cheap) I suspect that Adobe would have a linux version out already.

As outlined above I don’t think it’d be that hard. But Adobe most probably does not see the market. Windows is an obvious market, MacOS is a historically grown market, but there are not that much professional-as-in-earning-money artists that operate on Linux.

They have a hard time to keep the Linux version of the Acrobat Reader and SVG-Viewer up to date (which kind of sucks), so Linux obviously is not very important to them – yet.

Bye,
Simon

DF
Derek Fountain
Nov 28, 2003
I agree. If and when Linux becomes as popular as Macs perhaps then?

Not in our lifetime.

How long are you planning on living?

"Global IT firm predicts Linux will have 20% desktop market share by 2008":

http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/08/13/1424212

Of course, it’s only a prediction. Just like "Linux on the server" was predicted. Just like "Linux on the PDA" was predicted. Just like "Linux on the mobile phone" was predicted.
E
erimies
Nov 28, 2003
On 27 Nov 2003 23:52:50 +0200, Simon Budig
posted:

Paul J Gans wrote:
someone wrote:
isn’t osx a unix variant?

Yes. The problems are with the graphical interface. The unix standard interface is X-windows, which, because it has to handle so many different types of hardware, is not terribly efficient.

I don’t think efficiency is the problem here. The main problem probably is, that it has been designed, with the capabilities of hardware from 1987 in mind. So alpha blending of windows over other windows just was out of sight of the developers. I believe it is astonishing, that X11 still is alive and kicking on a really wide range of hardware. Even the mentioned lack of capabilities is currently being adressed…
Apple used its own interface. Photoshop had to be rewritten for the Mac interface and would have to be rewritten again for linux.

Assuming that Adobe does proper software engineering they probably have introduced a portable abstraction layer for their user interface to avoid duplicating code and different appearances of the User Interface. Keep in mind that they also already have adressed the "typical" portability problems like different Endianess, 64 vs. 32 Bit architectures etc.

So the main thing to do would probably be to port their GUI toolkit (portability layer) to X11 or a GUI toolkit on top of X11 and they’re done. A little bit of extra stuff for the Filesystem (not too hard probably, since MacOS X already *is* a Unix) and you have Photoshop for Linux. I don’t think it’d be that difficult.

so adobe can’t just take the osx version and use it for bsd?

The other option would be to go Corels way and use WINE to basically run your windows executable on Linux. IMHO the wrong approach, because you still operate on the cruft-laden windows API and suffer from potential WINE bugs/incompatibilities…

does wine still need windows os?

If it were easy (meaning cheap) I suspect that Adobe would have a linux version out already.

As outlined above I don’t think it’d be that hard. But Adobe most probably does not see the market. Windows is an obvious market, MacOS is a historically grown market, but there are not that much professional-as-in-earning-money artists that operate on Linux.

if adobe is willing to look to the future, a possible migration of users to linux is inevitable. many legitimate small and medium businesses plus honest users are dissatisfied with the activation model. what’s holding them back from jumping ship? availability of their favourite apps on linux. I submit that the vendors who begin shipping product for linux sans activation will see an increase in their market share in the medium term.

They have a hard time to keep the Linux version of the Acrobat Reader and SVG-Viewer up to date (which kind of sucks), so Linux obviously is not very important to them – yet.

Bye,
Simon
T
tacitr
Nov 28, 2003
isn’t osx a unix variant?

Yes, but that would not help in porting Photoshop to Linux.

Photoshop is not written as a Unix program. Photoshop is written as a Carbon program; it uses Apple’s proprietary Carbon API, which is not available for Linux.


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
T
tacitr
Nov 28, 2003
So the main thing to do would probably be to port their GUI toolkit (portability layer) to X11 or a GUI toolkit on top of X11 and they’re done. A little bit of extra stuff for the Filesystem (not too hard probably, since MacOS X already *is* a Unix) and you have Photoshop for Linux. I don’t think it’d be that difficult.

You’re forgetting that the OS X version of Photoshop does not use the BSD API. It uses Apple’s Carbon API–an API built on the Toolkit from older versions of MacOS. So even though MacOS is built on BSD, Carbon apps do not use the BSD API, they use the proprietary Carbon API. You are no closer to getting an OS X app to run on Linux than you are to getting a Windows app to run on Linux.


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
T
tacitr
Nov 28, 2003
I agree. If and when Linux becomes as popular as Macs perhaps then?

"Becoming as popular as Macs" is somewhat ambiguous. It would be necessary for Linux to become as popular as Macs in desktop image-editing environments; if, for example, Linux were twice as popular as Macs but only in server or scientific applications, then it still wouldn’t be economically viable to port Photoshop to Linux.

I doubt a Linux version would ever become available unless Linux were to be adopted as a desktop operating system in the professional advertising or prepress industries, which is unlikely. In the professional community, where Adobe makes a great deal of money, Photoshop is only one part of the puzzle; the prepress and graphic arts communities won’t adopt Linux until systemwide color management, page-layout, vector illustration, page imposition, PostScript preprocessing, PDF preprocessing, trapping, and workflow software is available. Don’t hold your breath… 🙂


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
SB
Simon Budig
Nov 28, 2003
someone wrote:
Simon Budig posted:
So the main thing to do would probably be to port their GUI toolkit (portability layer) to X11 or a GUI toolkit on top of X11 and they’re done. A little bit of extra stuff for the Filesystem (not too hard probably, since MacOS X already *is* a Unix) and you have Photoshop for Linux. I don’t think it’d be that difficult.

so adobe can’t just take the osx version and use it for bsd?

Well, as Tacit already pointed out, there are a lot of proprietary APIs for MacOS X out there, and apps using them are not necessarily ported easily (However, since Adobe already covers two different proprietary APIs it might be easy to add a third, especially when they encapsulated the differences in their codebase properly [1]).

The other option would be to go Corels way and use WINE to basically run your windows executable on Linux. IMHO the wrong approach, because you still operate on the cruft-laden windows API and suffer from potential WINE bugs/incompatibilities…

does wine still need windows os?

No, you can run a lot of applications without an Windows install. But the coverage of the Windows API is AFAIK not 100% (I don’t have much experience with WINE).

As outlined above I don’t think it’d be that hard. But Adobe most probably does not see the market. Windows is an obvious market, MacOS is a historically grown market, but there are not that much professional-as-in-earning-money artists that operate on Linux.

if adobe is willing to look to the future, a possible migration of users to linux is inevitable. many legitimate small and medium businesses plus honest users are dissatisfied with the activation model. what’s holding them back from jumping ship? availability of their favourite apps on linux. I submit that the vendors who begin shipping product for linux sans activation will see an increase in their market share in the medium term.

[I am not sure if I got that right? Do you suggest that Adobe should ship a Linux version of Photoshop without their activation scheme? Does not sound very understandable, except when they want to promote Linux…]

I believe it is not easy to try to analyze companies strategies wrt to Linux. I certainly do not understand why Adobe ships a linux version of an SVG viewer, that crashes on a regular base with recent versions of Mozilla (because Adobe relied on a certain undocumented behaviour of the Netscape Plugin protocol IIRC). At some point I got the impression, that Adobe wants to push SVG, but this is kind of a slap into the face of a very tech-savvy, early-adopterish and open-standard-friendly community.

However, I have no doubt, that Adobe is able to produce a Linux Photoshop very quickly, when there happens to be a large demand for it.

Bye,
Simon

[1] I am involved in the development of the GIMP, which runs on various Unixes as well as on Windows. Our "compatibility layer" is glib and GTK+. There are very few points in the sourcecode where we have to take care about that.

JW
J Warren
Nov 28, 2003
In article <bq1tlm$a8m$ says…
Adobe has been using Win platform and Mac platform since the begining as far i as remember. but whith the increasing popularity of Linux platform why does Adobe not make programs complatible with the Linux platform.

-snip-

I have a couple of friends who are running Photoshop atop Windoze emulators on Linux systems. They report that it works fine.

Jason
N
nospam
Nov 28, 2003
In article ,
wrote:

I have a couple of friends who are running Photoshop atop Windoze emulators on Linux systems. They report that it works fine.

Oh yeah, the old "I have friends who" thing. Bullshit. Bite us.
E
erimies
Nov 29, 2003
On 28 Nov 2003 21:54:56 +0200, Simon Budig
posted:

someone wrote:
Simon Budig posted:
So the main thing to do would probably be to port their GUI toolkit (portability layer) to X11 or a GUI toolkit on top of X11 and they’re done. A little bit of extra stuff for the Filesystem (not too hard probably, since MacOS X already *is* a Unix) and you have Photoshop for Linux. I don’t think it’d be that difficult.

so adobe can’t just take the osx version and use it for bsd?

Well, as Tacit already pointed out, there are a lot of proprietary APIs for MacOS X out there, and apps using them are not necessarily ported easily (However, since Adobe already covers two different proprietary APIs it might be easy to add a third, especially when they encapsulated the differences in their codebase properly [1]).
The other option would be to go Corels way and use WINE to basically run your windows executable on Linux. IMHO the wrong approach, because you still operate on the cruft-laden windows API and suffer from potential WINE bugs/incompatibilities…

does wine still need windows os?

No, you can run a lot of applications without an Windows install. But the coverage of the Windows API is AFAIK not 100% (I don’t have much experience with WINE).

As outlined above I don’t think it’d be that hard. But Adobe most probably does not see the market. Windows is an obvious market, MacOS is a historically grown market, but there are not that much professional-as-in-earning-money artists that operate on Linux.

if adobe is willing to look to the future, a possible migration of users to linux is inevitable. many legitimate small and medium businesses plus honest users are dissatisfied with the activation model. what’s holding them back from jumping ship? availability of their favourite apps on linux. I submit that the vendors who begin shipping product for linux sans activation will see an increase in their market share in the medium term.

[I am not sure if I got that right? Do you suggest that Adobe should ship a Linux version of Photoshop without their activation scheme? Does not sound very understandable, except when they want to promote Linux…]

it did sound a bit convulated didn’t it? basically it meant, users and business users will shift to linux. these users are still stuck in windows world because the apps they rely on are only available in windows. but users are definitely migrating to linux in countries worldwide. the push factor is that several governments have began implementing it. therefore it is inevitable that linux will become the new standard in the middle term.

this is just like when wordperfect lost ground to word. everybody was using wordperfect, until suddenly the government issues the next version of wordprocessor to be used and it was word. everybody had to use it. schools did, ministries did, and the rest followed the standard.

so if adobe doesn’t want to end up like wordperfect, it had better adapt. two things. firstly produce linux version, because that will be where a huge market will be. secondly abandon activation.

I believe it is not easy to try to analyze companies strategies wrt to Linux. I certainly do not understand why Adobe ships a linux version of an SVG viewer, that crashes on a regular base with recent versions of Mozilla (because Adobe relied on a certain undocumented behaviour of the Netscape Plugin protocol IIRC). At some point I got the impression, that Adobe wants to push SVG, but this is kind of a slap into the face of a very tech-savvy, early-adopterish and open-standard-friendly community.

However, I have no doubt, that Adobe is able to produce a Linux Photoshop very quickly, when there happens to be a large demand for it.
Bye,
Simon

[1] I am involved in the development of the GIMP, which runs on various Unixes as well as on Windows. Our "compatibility layer" is glib and GTK+. There are very few points in the sourcecode where we have to take care about that.
N
nospam
Nov 29, 2003
In article ,
(someone) wrote:

it did sound a bit convulated didn’t it? basically it meant, users and business users will shift to linux. these users are still stuck in windows world because the apps they rely on are only available in windows. but users are definitely migrating to linux in countries worldwide. the push factor is that several governments have began implementing it. therefore it is inevitable that linux will become the new standard in the middle term.

Soon the USA businesses, in their pursuit of the Bottom Line will realize that their employees only skim the top 10% of Micro$oft’s software and they do an adequate job at that level. Being the capitalists they are, they will easily rationalize downgrading to the lowest common demoninator, possibly Linux, unless Micro$oft comes up with a Special Crippled Cheap-Ass Bizness Version. Don’t think they won’t. It’s all about money. After all, the reason most Biznesses have Micor$oft is it was once the very bottom dwelling, most-common-denominator. Linus has a shot! All that’s left of integrity is Apple.
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 29, 2003
jjs wrote:
In article <bq5e78$r0n$>, Paul J Gans wrote:

I agree. If and when Linux becomes as popular as Macs perhaps then?

Not in our lifetime.

Linux is already running on far more computers than OSX is running. Most of those computers are servers and not desktops. And on desktops linux is not that far behind Apple.

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 29, 2003
Simon Budig wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
someone wrote:
isn’t osx a unix variant?

Yes. The problems are with the graphical interface. The unix standard interface is X-windows, which, because it has to handle so many different types of hardware, is not terribly efficient.

I don’t think efficiency is the problem here. The main problem probably is, that it has been designed, with the capabilities of hardware from 1987 in mind. So alpha blending of windows over other windows just was out of sight of the developers. I believe it is astonishing, that X11 still is alive and kicking on a really wide range of hardware. Even the mentioned lack of capabilities is currently being adressed…

Apple used its own interface. Photoshop had to be rewritten for the Mac interface and would have to be rewritten again for linux.

Assuming that Adobe does proper software engineering they probably have introduced a portable abstraction layer for their user interface to avoid duplicating code and different appearances of the User Interface. Keep in mind that they also already have adressed the "typical" portability problems like different Endianess, 64 vs. 32 Bit architectures etc.

So the main thing to do would probably be to port their GUI toolkit (portability layer) to X11 or a GUI toolkit on top of X11 and they’re done. A little bit of extra stuff for the Filesystem (not too hard probably, since MacOS X already *is* a Unix) and you have Photoshop for Linux. I don’t think it’d be that difficult.

The other option would be to go Corels way and use WINE to basically run your windows executable on Linux. IMHO the wrong approach, because you still operate on the cruft-laden windows API and suffer from potential WINE bugs/incompatibilities…

If it were easy (meaning cheap) I suspect that Adobe would have a linux version out already.

As outlined above I don’t think it’d be that hard. But Adobe most probably does not see the market. Windows is an obvious market, MacOS is a historically grown market, but there are not that much professional-as-in-earning-money artists that operate on Linux.

They have a hard time to keep the Linux version of the Acrobat Reader and SVG-Viewer up to date (which kind of sucks), so Linux obviously is not very important to them – yet.

Bye,
Simon

Thanks. I tend to agree with you. I think that the underlying problem is both disrespect for and fear of linux. After all, Adobe Reader is free. All Adobe saves on not supporting linux is a few bucks in development costs — most of which are absorbed in the Windows version.

But that’s another (and off-topic) argument.

Of course, I haven’t seen the Photoshop code. But if it is as clean as you suggest it is, then Adobe is likely being silly for not producing a linux version. But perhaps it isn’t that clean…

—- Paul J. Gans

PS: I knew about the X problems but didn’t want to get into "arcane" details here.
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 29, 2003
someone wrote:

On 27 Nov 2003 23:52:50 +0200, Simon Budig
posted:

Paul J Gans wrote:
someone wrote:
isn’t osx a unix variant?

Yes. The problems are with the graphical interface. The unix standard interface is X-windows, which, because it has to handle so many different types of hardware, is not terribly efficient.

I don’t think efficiency is the problem here. The main problem probably is, that it has been designed, with the capabilities of hardware from 1987 in mind. So alpha blending of windows over other windows just was out of sight of the developers. I believe it is astonishing, that X11 still is alive and kicking on a really wide range of hardware. Even the mentioned lack of capabilities is currently being adressed…
Apple used its own interface. Photoshop had to be rewritten for the Mac interface and would have to be rewritten again for linux.

Assuming that Adobe does proper software engineering they probably have introduced a portable abstraction layer for their user interface to avoid duplicating code and different appearances of the User Interface. Keep in mind that they also already have adressed the "typical" portability problems like different Endianess, 64 vs. 32 Bit architectures etc.

So the main thing to do would probably be to port their GUI toolkit (portability layer) to X11 or a GUI toolkit on top of X11 and they’re done. A little bit of extra stuff for the Filesystem (not too hard probably, since MacOS X already *is* a Unix) and you have Photoshop for Linux. I don’t think it’d be that difficult.

so adobe can’t just take the osx version and use it for bsd?

No it can’t. The GUI is different. It is X11 in fact.

The other option would be to go Corels way and use WINE to basically run your windows executable on Linux. IMHO the wrong approach, because you still operate on the cruft-laden windows API and suffer from potential WINE bugs/incompatibilities…

does wine still need windows os?

If it were easy (meaning cheap) I suspect that Adobe would have a linux version out already.

As outlined above I don’t think it’d be that hard. But Adobe most probably does not see the market. Windows is an obvious market, MacOS is a historically grown market, but there are not that much professional-as-in-earning-money artists that operate on Linux.

if adobe is willing to look to the future, a possible migration of users to linux is inevitable. many legitimate small and medium businesses plus honest users are dissatisfied with the activation model. what’s holding them back from jumping ship? availability of their favourite apps on linux. I submit that the vendors who begin shipping product for linux sans activation will see an increase in their market share in the medium term.

Almost. What is also needed is no competing product already available for linux. In the case of Photoshop this is true. Same in the case of Dreamweaver.

Nevertheless, there are significant costs in getting a product out the door. I doubt that sales for linux would repay that at the start.

They have a hard time to keep the Linux version of the Acrobat Reader and SVG-Viewer up to date (which kind of sucks), so Linux obviously is not very important to them – yet.

Bye,
Simon

—- Paul J. Gans
N
nospam
Nov 29, 2003
In article ,
(someone) wrote:

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:35:33 -0600, (jjs) posted:

[…]
I never thought of it that way. why don’t IT depts ditch ms stuff in cost cutting? maybe their mostly ms certified and don’t know how to use other software.

That’s a point. I know that when I was in ITS we had all kinds of applicants with Micro$oft experience, and very few with U*x expertise. In fact, most of these Micro$oft server people don’t understand the virtues of the command-line, nor did they have significant progamming experience. And their whole paradigm was "nothing really works so why try?" Damn, that pissed me off. But they were cheap, so the department went all MS with the outcome that there are two _huge_ Sun systems sitting idle. Going all MS was the end of my 30 year ITS career and I’m far happier being out of there.
E
erimies
Nov 29, 2003
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:35:33 -0600, (jjs) posted:

In article ,
(someone) wrote:

it did sound a bit convulated didn’t it? basically it meant, users and business users will shift to linux. these users are still stuck in windows world because the apps they rely on are only available in windows. but users are definitely migrating to linux in countries worldwide. the push factor is that several governments have began implementing it. therefore it is inevitable that linux will become the new standard in the middle term.

Soon the USA businesses, in their pursuit of the Bottom Line will realize that their employees only skim the top 10% of Micro$oft’s software and they do an adequate job at that level. Being the capitalists they are, they will easily rationalize downgrading to the lowest common demoninator, possibly Linux, unless Micro$oft comes up with a Special Crippled Cheap-Ass Bizness Version. Don’t think they won’t. It’s all about money. After all, the reason most Biznesses have Micor$oft is it was once the very bottom dwelling, most-common-denominator. Linus has a shot! All that’s left of integrity is Apple.

I never thought of it that way. why don’t IT depts ditch ms stuff in cost cutting? maybe their mostly ms certified and don’t know how to use other software.
E
erimies
Nov 29, 2003
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:09:11 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
posted:

jjs wrote:
In article <bq5e78$r0n$>, Paul J Gans wrote:

I agree. If and when Linux becomes as popular as Macs perhaps then?

Not in our lifetime.

Linux is already running on far more computers than OSX is running. Most of those computers are servers and not desktops. And on desktops linux is not that far behind Apple.

apple has the wow factor. my girlfriend actually pulled me into an apple shop today to oogle at the cute little imacs. awww.

—- Paul J. Gans
E
erimies
Nov 30, 2003
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:08:22 -0600, (jjs) posted:

In article ,
(someone) wrote:

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:35:33 -0600, (jjs) posted:

[…]
I never thought of it that way. why don’t IT depts ditch ms stuff in cost cutting? maybe their mostly ms certified and don’t know how to use other software.

That’s a point. I know that when I was in ITS we had all kinds of applicants with Micro$oft experience, and very few with U*x expertise. In fact, most of these Micro$oft server people don’t understand the virtues of the command-line, nor did they have significant progamming experience. And their whole paradigm was "nothing really works so why try?" Damn, that pissed me off. But they were cheap, so the department went all MS with the outcome that there are two _huge_ Sun systems sitting idle. Going all MS was the end of my 30 year ITS career and I’m far happier being out of there.

I think the cs depts in unis are to blame. when I was an undergrad, they only allowed us to access their nt and mac boxes. they kept all the good stuff restricted to cs undergrads only. this kind of short term thinking needs to change.
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 1, 2003
someone wrote:

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:09:11 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
posted:

jjs wrote:
In article <bq5e78$r0n$>, Paul J Gans wrote:

I agree. If and when Linux becomes as popular as Macs perhaps then?

Not in our lifetime.

Linux is already running on far more computers than OSX is running. Most of those computers are servers and not desktops. And on desktops linux is not that far behind Apple.

apple has the wow factor. my girlfriend actually pulled me into an apple shop today to oogle at the cute little imacs. awww.

They are cute. My linux server stays up for months at a time and usually only comes down when I do a hardware
upgrade. It isn’t cute but it runs. I assume that Macs run too. Running is good. Crashing is bad.

— Paul J. Gans
E
erimies
Dec 1, 2003
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:33:11 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
posted:

someone wrote:

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:09:11 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
posted:

jjs wrote:
In article <bq5e78$r0n$>, Paul J Gans wrote:

I agree. If and when Linux becomes as popular as Macs perhaps then?

Not in our lifetime.

Linux is already running on far more computers than OSX is running. Most of those computers are servers and not desktops. And on desktops linux is not that far behind Apple.

apple has the wow factor. my girlfriend actually pulled me into an apple shop today to oogle at the cute little imacs. awww.

They are cute. My linux server stays up for months at a time and usually only comes down when I do a hardware
upgrade. It isn’t cute but it runs. I assume that Macs run too. Running is good. Crashing is bad.

— Paul J. Gans

I find that the only way for my windows 9x boxes to be stable, is to unload everything and only leave explorer and systray. then they will be very stable. actually I’m secretly hoping that she’ll get an imac next. always been intrigued by the mac architecture and os, but it was way overpriced.

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections