P: Provide support for Linux

Just an idea for clearing up whether Linux people are willing to pay for the LR for Linux. There is http://www.kickstarter.com portal where you can describe your project and its budget. I believe "porting LR4 for Linux" is a creative enough :). If people like your project and the budget makes sense, they can donate to the project budget. This kind of actions show for the community that Adobe is at least considering the project.

Another clear sign would be if Adobe says on LR's FAQ page that: "there will never be a LR for Linux". People will not spend time for hoping and waiting.

"Watching, how will Valve's Steam project go" is not like serious policy ... if Adobe starts now I'm sure both projects will get stronger and get more attention.

Actually, we've worked with Codeweavers for several years to fix bugs in Wine and make our apps work better under Wine. But, of course we can't give them source code.

I imagine they've all but given up on Adobe. I bet CodeWeavers would *jump* on the chance to bring a big-name Adobe application to Linux. Adobe and CodeWeavers would both get my money.

Since I'm in the MN Adobe office and CodeWeavers is right in town, it has crossed my mind to drop them a line and ask about working together on getting changes into Wine and/or Lr to make it work. But I haven't yet. I always figured they're more focused on gaming. The Wine most requested apps leader board is dominated by games.

I'm not a programmer, but look....

If Adobe doesn't want to invest in making a version for Linux, can they not, at the very least, make enough of the source code available that a project group could make an interface for the Windows version to work properly in WINE?

I think I said Lr's core parts are reasonably portable, but that doesn't contradict Chris' point that porting to and fully testing a third platform would be a non-trivial effort (and thus, cost). Also, I said that about Lightroom 2 and Lr4 has added more components that may or may not be as portable...

Wasn't you or Dan (or another Adobe employee?) saying that most part of Lightroom was platform independent (core computing) and that the UI was on a technology that could be easily supported on Linux?

Yes, waiting to see if there is a market that all surveys indicate doesn't exist might be a very good strategy.

No, porting and supporting Linux would cost quite a bit - it is not the same as OS X, it is a third platform, with all the costs of a third platform.

Is waiting to see what's happening with Steam a good strategy? I mean Adobe is a strong company, Valve has stepped in, why not follow? Why not make this attempt stronger?

Also I'm a software developer and I pretty well know that if the software is properly developed, supporting another platform, especially Linux when Mac-OSX is already supported, should not be that difficult. So if it does not cost that much, won't it be a good move?

But I know I'm dreaming at this point, I see what people are responding on this forum and I see what Adobe as done with Flash on Linux! I've lost all hope about Lightroom on Linux. I'll continue to go here, but I'll spend more time to look at some alternatives.

Ok, you can follow the path you like... that's really sad!

Pascal - yes, we have lots of hard data on the Linux market.
It is not chicken and egg -- several companies have tried selling desktop software in the Linux market, and failed (some companies collapsed, some just left the Linux market after a year or so).
At this time, the Linux software "market" consists mostly of film studios who already have licenses for the desktop software on Macintosh or Windows. The single end-user market for Linux is tiny indeed.
Until a demonstrable market for desktop software on Linux appears -- most companies are not going to spend money on Linux ports or support. That's why everyone is watching the Steam port - to see if the numbers might really exist, and if they're willing to pay more than pocket change for software.