Adobe, Linux Support, and the Linux Foundation.

[gai.ra.III]

While generally I've only lurked the Adobe forums I've finally worked up guts to post this. I also know that about every 1-2 months this question is asked but I think it deserves a another go around.

My premises is this:

Adobe joined the Linux Foundation in 2008 for a focus on Linux for Web 2.0  Applications like Adobe® Flash® Player and Adobe AIR™. Currently Adobe holds a silver membership status with the Linux Foundation. So why in the world do they not have any Creative Cloud Programs available in Linux without the need for WINE and other such workarounds. I think it's a sucky move to support the Linux Foundation and use Linux in the back-end while not doing anything to support actual Linux users who have for at least a decade requested Adobe desktop products on Linux. Sure it's going to take a lot of manpower, financial resources, etc. But to truly support Linux and the Linux Foundation I think it's necessary that y'all do make things like Photoshop and Lightroom available for the Linux desktop. In any regards the wider Linux community would most likely help with testing and debugging programs. We're used to it.

[TRAlencar]

I'm no longer an Adobe user, after being so for a decade. As I said, we've replaced all Adobe software gradually, by software made by companies that listen to their userbase. With $2000 for each Nuke license and $4000 for Houdini, I can say we offer a very good incentive for them already. Why should the OS developers fund them? But they didn't really need it, since the software performs better on Linux anyway. We've got a 30% decrease in rendertime when rendering in Houdini/Mantra on Red Hat, compared to Win7. Red Hat by the way, is a commercial Linux distribution, probably running this very website.

The software that we couldn't replace commercially we could replace with the help of the very accomplished open source community. Krita, for instance, is leaps and abounds ahead of Photoshop for digital painting.

You said earlier that only hobbyists use Linux. My point is that, for VFX, only hobbyists don't use it.

[Coby Randal]

Keep asking them for it. Use your Twitter powers: Adobe Creative Cloud (@creativecloud) | Twitter

[Coby Randal]

Also, let them hear it via Facebook: Adobe Creative Cloud

[ramm001]

I think you have no other point than mocking about Linux users. You have said two mixed things thar are absolutely incompatible: One, that Linux users are just a waste of money since Adobe wants to make their products profitable, and two, that the Universe of Linux users is so small that it is not worthy to pay developers in order to make CC (and for sure other Adobe products) for them. How could these both statements be jointly true?

• If Adobe wants to make their products profitable.... well.... they already did it!! Since the most of the users everywhere are running Windows/MacOS, and since Adobe is a paid product (as some products for Linux are) and since Adobe has a "leadership" in the market of flash, pdf's, image management, etc since it is the official provider for google and other companies that make platforms that use Adobe products, and moreover, since very probably, as many other paid software, the most of the incomes are from the enterprise licensing... why are they looking at Linux users as a waste of money, whether they owned a ridiculous amount of money from enterprises, and also, whether Linux or not, the Linux users will need to pay for it anyways? Then, whether we pay or not is not the reason, because we need to do it anyways, the point is the supporting/developing. This part is also connected with the second point...
• If we are a so small market that if Adobe hires a bunch of guys to develop software for them is a "waste of money" (will Adobe be broken if it hires a bunch more of people? Will it mean the 50% of the total budget Adobe has? 20? 10? 5?..... ), then, why not considering to put Linux developing under the budget of "extras" on any division of Adobe? Following the original statement, the Linux users are not a large number... but in that case, Adobe as a big business should be pointing towards Linux-based enterprises, which are few but for sure they will pay a lot more than the sum of the individual Linux users will. It is hard to believe that hiring a bunch of guys surpasses the cost that enterprise licensing has. Is that paying to that bunch of programmers will send Adobe to bankrupt. If that is the case, the most of the software companies will be broken since they hire huge teams of programmers, and making software would not be a profitable business at all.

      A question that comes into my mind is: Taking into account that MacOSX is the nice-and-beauty sister of Unix's (so developers are forced to use gcc, and related tools), and Linux uses the same basis (although Linux is not Unix, as it is commonly known).. why do you need to hire so much more people to develop software for Linux, whether the source should be very, very, very similar? How many programmers are needed to do  tarball instead a dmg package? (well... obviously this is an exaggeration). Moreover, since a couple of years ago, MacOS is using intel based hardware (not one of their own, as they did for many time), so the configuration of the hardware should not be so hard to adapt (as many other teams did/do, for instance the people of videolan, from inkscape, from DaVinci.. etc etc, which are by far smaller than Adobe as a number of workers).

      Conclusions: Adobe has no reason to not to develop software for Linux based on those arguments, therefore, the underlying reason is quite different. Mi personal impresion is that Adobe has no intention since they do not want to deal with GNU licensing, which will anyways will make them to loose a ridiculously reduced amount of money. In such case, why not to support the devolping in MacOSX and taking a piece apart of it for Linux? Because they do not want to loose a goddamn nickle...

[Coby Randal]

As media changes and platforms evolve, porting Creative Cloud to Linux only makes sense. We already have Steam, Unreal4, Unity3D etc. YES it is going to happen. We need Adobe tools for VR / AR too!

[mytaxsite]

Coby Randal wrote:

As media changes and platforms evolve, porting Creative Cloud to Linux only makes sense.

Except that it doesn't make business sense.  Making something should result in profits and nobody has come out with any justification to waste time on Linux.  Linux is not the mainstream operating system and unlikely to become one in the near future.  So why bother with it.

I repeat, if you guys are  serious about your operating system, then why don't you approach crowd sourcing websites and secure some capital to finance development for Linux operating system.  Adobe can't take risks with stock holders money because people's jobs are in line for bad business decisions.  Always be prepared to put your money where your mouth is.

We need Adobe tools for VR / AR too!

Well you need to hire some good programmers to make it for you and you can then sell licenses to other users.  How about that?  Don't think this is what you should be thinking about rather than crying here for not getting any products for Linux system.

Nobody makes any applications for Linux.  It is not a suitable platform for day to day usage for such things.  Linux has made its mark in data centres and web servers and it should develop it further rather than trying something that is not going to be successful.  In fact desktops are declining and even Microsoft is developing applications for mobile devices so this is where Adobe should be investing, not on Linux products.

[ramm001]

mytaxsite.co.uk wrote:

...  Making something should result in profits and nobody has come out with any justification to waste time on Linux.  Linux is not the mainstream operating system and unlikely to become one in the near future.  So why bother with it.

       So now, if you are not mainstream you don't deserve respect as user. In the end, you will have to pay for Adobe products anyways, so that you will have your investment back anyways. Moreover, since Adobe makes makes the most of the money by selling enterprise licensing regardless the OS they use. then that claim is pointless.

       Have you made statistics about how much money are you loosing by means of piracy on Windows/Mac for single users? For sure the piracy makes you loose money, so, if your investment on Windows/Mac are nor warranted to be back, and following you way of reasoning, so why bother on keep doing products for Windows/Mac whether the piracy eats a not-so-small piece of the cake, even with the most recent products?.. Easy, because, money does not come from single users, it comes from enterprise licensing, so again, that claim is pointless at least for single users.

mytaxsite.co.uk wrote:

I repeat, if you guys are  serious about your operating system, then why don't you approach crowd sourcing websites and secure some capital to finance development for Linux operating system.  Adobe can't take risks with stock holders money because people's jobs are in line for bad business decisions.  Always be prepared to put your money where your mouth is.

        As you said, if Linux is not mainstream, how much money could it be? How many enterprises which are powered by the Linux of products wouldn't pay for Adobe products whether they are the only developers of flash, and many other products? I think it is the contrary: people was getting away from Linux since you, the developers, were unfair by not doing products/support for Linux since they saw the GNU/GPL licensing as a danger for the industry (error, since the enterprises will need to buy some of the software they use). How much money could you loose since Linux is not mainstream OS for enterprises? Again, these 2 argument are not compatible, since on the one hand you say "Linux users are too few" and on the other you say "we cannot afford to loose money"... It is better to say "even though we have so much money, we don't want to loose a nickel by supporting an OS which is mostly for single users not for enterprises which is the place where our money comes."... It is very hard to believe that hiring a bunch of people to support a non-mainstream OS could put in danger an enterprise to the edge of bankruptcy.

mytaxsite.co.uk wrote:

Well you need to hire some good programmers to make it for you and you can then sell licenses to other users.  How about that?  Don't think this is what you should be thinking about rather than crying here for not getting any products for Linux system.

Nobody makes any applications for Linux.  It is not a suitable platform for day to day usage for such things.  Linux has made its mark in data centres and web servers and it should develop it further rather than trying something that is not going to be successful.  In fact desktops are declining and even Microsoft is developing applications for mobile devices so this is where Adobe should be investing, not on Linux products.

         As i said, it seems that who is crying is Adobe, not Linux users, since they don't see market for enterprise licensing with Linux, and they do not want to loose a nickel by doing stuff for single users, not enterprises. So they are crying for nickels. "Nobody makes any applications for Linux"... well, Ok, so VLC, MPlayer, GIMP, Inkscape, FreeCAD, Hydrogen, DaVinci etc etc etc are what? Also: "Linux has made its mark in data centres and web servers and it should develop it further rather than trying something that is not going to be successful.".. that is not an argument, since success in this case means "non-mainstream = not successful" Did you ask Adobe how many of those licenses come from single users alone, not when buying a PC from a multistore/multimarket/PC store and how many of them actually renew their licenses and how much money come from them?... i could ask back: How many programmers/people in Adobe use a Linux/Unix machine in order to develop a code? to storage data? to run servers?

         "In fact desktops are declining and even Microsoft is developing applications for mobile devices so this is where Adobe should be investing, not on Linux products."... But here you need to do it for Android/iOS, which is... guess what... a miniaturized version of a Linux, so in fact you perfectly COULD do Linux supporting without loosing a nickel..... Notice that Windows 8 is in the rear of mobile markets when compared to Android/iOS, so, i could ask you back: Why bother on Windows for mobiles? Why are you loosing money on Windows 8 and why don't you start focusing on Linux?... sorry... on Android?

[shawnk17193288]

Again. There is a huge misconception that the only software available on Linux is FOSS. This is absolutely untrue, and in the high-end market Linux is already well-supported. Major commercial products products from Autodesk, The Foundry, Toon Boom, Side Effects, TVPaint, Pixar, Solid Angle, Fabric, Guerrilla are a few software publishers that already develop products for Linux.

In fact within the high-end content creation industry Adobe is an exception.

[mytaxsite]

the_turnips wrote:

Again. There is a huge misconception that the only software available on Linux is FOSS. This is absolutely untrue, and in the high-end market Linux is already well-supported. Major commercial products products from Autodesk, The Foundry, Toon Boom, Side Effects, TVPaint, Pixar, Solid Angle, Fabric, Guerrilla are a few software publishers that already develop products for Linux.

how many ordinary users can use these products?  Any ideas?  Adobe products are used by ordinary users for their photos, websites and videos.  You mentioned some high end software packages that might have cost quite a lot.  Now if this the case then Linux Industry that is crying to get Adobe products should put up some money and approach Adobe to make bespoke products for them.   Somebody has to pay for the setup costs.  Microsoft paid for the setup costs when it started developing Windows in the 90s.  Not sure if you are aware but Microsoft didn't have its own applications in those days.  It was only a DOS/Windows company and the operating system alone is no good to make any money.  It needed applications so it went to WordPerfect - a Canadian Corporation and Lotus to write the applications for Microsoft Operating Systems (DOS and Windows).  Microsoft didn't have any money in those days and Bill Gates was only 19 and a Harvard dropout but he knew there is some money to be made from DOS and Windows only if people can do something on these operating systems.  Linux is quite rich and as you say people are prepared to pay for some tools for it so Ubuntu or somebody should capitalize on this.  I am sure somebody must have thought of this but they realised that there is no money in it.  So back to the drawing board.

Linux in those days was for hobbyists, academics and jobless kids.  It should have concentrated developing something for it but because of its Operational model it failed.  Anything that relies on volunteers never succeeds.  even now I visit some Linux Newsgroups and they are shouting and swearing at each other rather than solving any problems that are asked there.  Do you think Adobe wants to be part of that future?

[ramm001]

mytaxsite.co.uk wrote:

...  Adobe products are used by ordinary users for their photos, websites and videos. 

       That is not true, since it has been becoming a standard that applications are not .doc files anymore, instead they are .pdf's that you could edit with a .pdf reader... guess what... with Adobe Reader. I live in Spain right now, and applications to ask for/renew your citizenship cards use this as a standard. It is hard to believe that Spaniard government is doing such thing just paying single user lincenses, so Adobe products are not just for "ordinary users". The same happens with Universities, they only install Adobe Reader on the desktop machines whether they have the license. Photoshop is used for advertising agencies, in the same foot as other image managers. Nowadays, web-based enterprises do their applications to be run with Flash, it is hard to believe that they are paying single user licenses instead paying the enterprise license. And so on, and so forth...

mytaxsite.co.uk wrote:

You mentioned some high end software packages that might have cost quite a lot.  Now if this the case then Linux Industry that is crying to get Adobe products should put up some money and approach Adobe to make bespoke products for them.   Somebody has to pay for the setup costs.  Microsoft paid for the setup costs when it started developing Windows in the 90s.  Not sure if you are aware but Microsoft didn't have its own applications in those days.  It was only a DOS/Windows company and the operating system alone is no good to make any money.  It needed applications so it went to WordPerfect - a Canadian Corporation and Lotus to write the applications for Microsoft Operating Systems (DOS and Windows).  Microsoft didn't have any money in those days and Bill Gates was only 19 and a Harvard dropout but he knew there is some money to be made from DOS and Windows only if people can do something on these operating systems.  Linux is quite rich and as you say people are prepared to pay for some tools for it so Ubuntu or somebody should capitalize on this.  I am sure somebody must have thought of this but they realised that there is no money in it.  So back to the drawing board.

        The story about how Microsoft started is just an elegant way to say "shut up and let me live my life", since Adobe is not a starting company, and  and even farther from making small amounts of money, you cannot afford to have huge inversions if they surpass your incomes. This becomes better: now the point is that users have needs, the users need to invest money, in order to make another company to make money with their needs, not to solve them, so that the users (here, the Linux-based companies) pay doubly for a solution. It is not worthy if they pay just for the solution....

         It is hard to believe that naive way of thinking ("I am sure somebody must have thought of this but they realised that there is no money in it") is the underlying reason, since to me it is more like a "you Linux users that have no money in the mind are guilty of having no Adobe on your machines". Let me say this clear and loud first: Linux has no companies behind it, has no spokesmen, has no investors, has no staff boards whatsoever ("Linux Industry that is crying to get Adobe products should put up some money and approach Adobe to make bespoke products for them"). So, Linux-based enterprises work in this way: there is paid software to do a task, Ok, we pay for it, otherwise, we use the alternative, and insofar is possible, we contribute to it. Once said this, the point is that the way the GNU/GPL licensing is built is what makes everything a shared effort, and even you could do money of it, although this is not the purpose of that kind of licensing. The purpose was to make a collective OS, and a community interested on the well performance of it. If you go out of the limits of GNU/GPL licensing you will be doing something that is not Linux anymore (as it was with Macintosh/Apple who developed an OS based on a "free OS", Unix, and also, they put a price for it, and so MacOS began), so indeed, it could become a huge money-machine as Apple is. Notice that kind of licensing does not forbid to pay for some external software if there are no alternative tools for it.

mytaxsite.co.uk wrote:

Linux in those days was for hobbyists, academics and jobless kids.  It should have concentrated developing something for it but because of its Operational model it failed.  Anything that relies on volunteers never succeeds.  even now I visit some Linux Newsgroups and they are shouting and swearing at each other rather than solving any problems that are asked there.  Do you think Adobe wants to be part of that future?

        Well, nope, even though Linux,as the name says, is not Unix, the history of Linux has been always tied to the history of Unix, and this latter was in the 80's for software developing, researching and many other stuff, as it is even nowadays. Linux follows the same steps. "Hobbyists and jobless kids" is a very unjustified cartoon of what Linux is, since from the very beginning it was conceived to work by using windowed file explorers and software, in the same foot as MS Windows was. So everything, and the most obvious tools have been at the reach in the menus and Desktop, exactly in the same foot as MS Windows. In the past it could have been difficult to solve internal problems as configuration of drivers, and sometimes, with software installation, but those problems are in the far past with the aid of many marvelous tools for software installation (just to name 2, YaSt for opensuse, and synaptic for the Debian family). "Anything that relies on volunteers never succeeds"... so then why is that Ubuntu is now on the point of bringing out a OS for mobiles? Why are so many Linux versions? Why is paid software being benefited from the open source software and this benefit is not backwards? Why now Libreoffice is the best software for work in offices rather than MS Office (and the last version, by far)? Why are you using VLC/MediaPlayer Classic/MPlayer to watch a movie on your computer instead using QuickTime/MS Mediaplayer XX? And i could do examples out of the world of software but they fall out of the scope of this discussion, but i think i have stated very clearly my point.... "even now I visit some Linux Newsgroups and they are shouting and swearing at each other rather than solving any problems that are asked there", is that too much different about what happens on any other software forum?? Even in this one?? or those of Microsoft??.... I can't see why this is so only for Linux users. Probably in Microsoft, since they pay for their software they never have problems, for instance, blue screens... blue screens happen only to people that did not pay for Windows, or for those who did not renew their MS license. No one else has ever had this problem on Windows, nobody!! The money solved that problem!!.. Nope...

[kdebruine]

I need an OS that is flexible, customizable and powerful.  With all the changes to the latest version of Windows (Win 10) that leaves me with Linux.  I need my Adobe products for work.  This is the only software I use that has me tied to Windows.

Please expand to offer Linux.

Thanks!

[mytaxsite]

Kris.DeBruine wrote:

I need an OS that is flexible, customizable and powerful.  With all the changes to the latest version of Windows (Win 10) that leaves me with Linux.  I need my Adobe products for work.  This is the only software I use that has me tied to Windows.

Windows 10 is highly flexible, customizable and powerful according to the market share shown in this picture:

However, It is difficult to get your head round windows because you don't like anything from Microsoft.  Therefore, I can only say that you have to remain tied to Windows for quite a few years (I would say decades) as Linux community is fractured and still deciding among themselves which distro is better than the other.

Just dream on and one day your wishes   might be fulfilled.

[andy_bob_newton]

‌hhow does market share show wibdows X being powerful or flexible and customisable. You say we don't like anything Microsoft? i do appreciate some of the things that Microsoft has done, previous versions of Windows had been great when I used them (xp and 7) but the current direction of Windows is one we do not like. Windows ten does not allow for changing desktop environments, runs slower than Linux (in my experience) seems to break itself regularly each time I've tried it. And Windows 7 and 8.1 are now being forced into upgrading which has in some cases bricked devices. You say our option is to stay with Windows but I beg to differ. I'm cancelling in September when my year is up and leaving Windows behind and Adobe with it until they come to Linux

[mytaxsite]

I'm cancelling in September when my year is up and leaving Windows behind and Adobe with it until they come to Linux

So I take it that for you creative Cloud is not a necessity, is this correct?  The reason I ask is because you have decided to cancel the contract in 7 months time after which you won't have CC at all because, you don't like Windows!!  This sounds bizarre to most of us but hey there are peo9ple like you who make bizarre decisions purely out of dogma.

hhow does market share show wibdows X being powerful or flexible and customisable

When so many people are using a product then it must be powerful, flexible and customizable.  Windows 10 can also be used on some mobile devices as well and this is wonderful for some of us who have familiar UI on devices we like to use.

Windows ten does not allow for changing desktop environments

Not true.  I have changed my desktop without any problems. It looks li8ke you need to learn something about windows before you go any further.  Windows is pretty much customizable.

So it looks like we won't see you here for some time because Linux version is unlikely to materialize for at least 10 years minimum.

Have fun with Linux.

[ramm001]

mytaxsite.co.uk wrote:

Windows 10 is highly flexible, customizable and powerful according to the market share shown in this picture:

       If you drown the market with your products, clouded the fact that there are many more alternatives to Windows on top of Linux, and during the years you blinded people almost saying that the only option you had to but was Wndows, i found hardly to believe that a marketing study could say something different (Operating system market share). Market space is absolutely far from confirm the advantages/disadvantages of the operating system itself as a tool so to show this pie chart created by people that is in love with windows... so by 100000000th time, your claim is pointless.

      But hey! even Linus Torvalds, who is a fan of open source, he does not see paid software as the evil since open source is not "free software". GNU/GPL softwre is free software (although the word free could fall into misinterpretations). Thus... Hey! many Linux users in fact do pay for their software, since open source is not a synonymous of free software whatsoever.

     Windows, since it does not allow to take full control of the operating system, since it is closed source, you as user cannot explore what is happenning inside, and therefore you will run the wheel of the business since you will need to call someone who is "Microsoft certified" in order to solve your problem (... Blank screens after installing windows 10.... now there is a bugfix for that issue, but how much money was spend in order to examine that bug?), and since it is infested with viruses for which, you need to install a plethora of Anti-Viruses which, on the one hand, eat resources as popcorn, and with the installation of silly firewalls which in the end will eat your RAM and CPU as popcorn i cannot see how Windows is so powerful and flexible.

mytaxsite.co.uk wrote:

However, It is difficult to get your head round windows because you don't like anything from Microsoft.  Therefore, I can only say that you have to remain tied to Windows for quite a few years (I would say decades) as Linux community is fractured and still deciding among themselves which distro is better than the other.

Just dream on and one day your wishes   might be fulfilled.

     So, you (not me), need to keep being tied to Widnows for ONE software that MUST be paid regardless the operative system....  Oh! I see! That is the business: you keep paying for software that probably it may take not too much coding, something that you could do for your homework, in the same foot as a good MP3 player which can be programmed even with that "Visual Studio c#" tool by Microsoft (which also eats resources as popcorn), in order to make a big fat amount of money for Microsoft people. is that the way Adobe thinks of its products? I find it very hard to believe. Again, by 100000001th time, your claim is pointless.. and so on.. and so forth...

     Probably, that day will come earlier than the day where business pie charts tell something about the performance of Operative Systems.... Sad but true...

[andy_bob_newton]

‌cc was essential, it's not anymore. i will admit it's easier to work with as far as the software itself goes compares to what I now use but getting Linux to work flawlessly with that software is easier than to get Windows to work at all. It's not that I simply dont like Windows, its that it cauuses more problems than cc solves. Microsoft recently made Windows 10 a recommended update, that means it will install itself unless you disable updates, including security updates. So the option is to be more vulnerable than Windows would be or put up with Windows 10 which just doesn't work for me, since it bricked a previously fully working Windows install which then needed a complete reformat. I Like premiere, photoshop and other parts of the suite but I can accomplish the same results using software on Linux now, so if cc was on Linux then it would make sense to keep using it but when im spending as much time getting the OS to work as i am actually working, there's a serious problem. when I say changing desktop environmen, I don't just mean changing the wallpaper and colour scheme, I mean use KDE with cadence audio system and low latency kernel on my studio rig, Ubuntu with unity on a laptop and a stripped back xfce system with nothing more than lamp stack, terminal and Firefox on my home server.

win 10 on mobile devices isnt really relevant here when we're talking about having professional software on professional desktops, especially when that version of it (at least last time I heard) could not run any desktop applications (by which I mean full 64bit architecture software such as cc)

marketshare speaks more more about the advertising ability, number of old oem contracts and presence of a few exclusive softwares than it does of power, efficiency and cudtomiastion options.

also, I will have fun on Linux since I can actually work without having fix it every time I try to use it. I haven't even booted Windows at home at all this year, and have just in case I need to reopen a project from before transitioning to my new software.

for anyone interested, kdenlive, blender, pixeluvo, ardour and inkskape are what I now use. I'm looking into bmd davinci resolve to see if 12 can be bought for Linux to run without the control interface but I'm not sure this is possible to run as stand alone software without it

[shawnk17193288]

cc was essential, it's not anymore. i will admit it's easier to work with as far as the software itself goes compares to what I now use but getting Linux to work flawlessly

It really depends on what you are doing. Notably, prepress is not practical using Linux-based software. Adobe likewise has the 2D Motion Graphics industry pretty well cornered. In fact, After Effects is a significant barrier that holds me back from switching to Linux.

I realize you CAN do a lot of what AE does in Blender, but for doing very basic typography AE, is still very fast and has much better type control.

[andy_bob_newton]

‌yes AE has easier typography but I'm getting used to the way blender does it. It too some time but for me it was easier than keeping with Windows. Up until recently I used after effects for a regular video which needed animated text over edited video and it was a lot of work to get the assets moved over and working the way I needed them to but it did work in the end, where as I still haven't got Windows to work properly. That's why I said I'd use cc if it was on Linux because it's something I know find easy to work with. Maybe there are things cc can do that the alternatives can't but I haven't come across anything important being missing from what I use

[shawnk17193288]

Blender is very capable and can do more than AE can in general and  Blender Internal is probably faster than AE Raytrace. BI Shaderless renders nearly as fast as AE Standard. However, working in AE is generally faster for simple to moderately complex things, and I prefer AE's java-like Expressions over Blender's Python expressions - though that's probably just a preference.

Overall, yes, Blender probably can replace AE.

That said, for offset print production I have not found a suitable set of tools on Linux.

[chrisbrearley]

Why are people comparing Blender to AE? They are two completely different

applications and one could never replace the other. Yes there is some

slight overlap but it's like saying you don't need Photoshop because you've

got Illustrator.

Right now there is nothing else on the market that gets close to AE's

speed, ease of use and it's huge 3rd party plugin library. Until this gets

addressed then ditching Adobe is not option for hundreds of thousands of

motion graphic artists. Ideally we won't need to because Adobe will pull

their head out to their arse and build us a Linux version.

[shawnk17193288]

Well. You CAN essentially do most of what AE does well in Blender and it will render out nearly as fast. It's not really a matter of overlap, more just a different way of getting the same result.

The thing is though it's not going to be nearly as efficient to set up. I've looked into using Blender for bread-and-butter 2D motion graphics, and yeah, it's possible (very much so), but my conclusion is that it's not very practical.

[Peferling]

I can feel the love on this thread.  I'm not a fan boy of anything in particular.  In fact, I use everything.  Yes, Windows 10 will track you, so will practically everything else you do on-line.  Do nothing online that you don't want to be tracked or feel sorry for later.   I stick with Windows 7 and the 2014.2 version of the suite because it works and gets the job done.  When I retire, I'll see little need to use CC for my personal needs.  There's plenty of free options on Linux to get the basics done so I can edit photos and videos of the family, etc.  The likes of CC would be overkill.  Then again, the way things are going Adobe will have a solution.  Let me explain:

Personally,   I think something like a desktop version of Android or similar on an appliance will be the next big thing.  From the days of old, the average person expects two things:  To know whats happening (news), and to correspond with others.  What is the single most easiest platform to meet that challenge today?  I have five kids, all whom have access to laptops and yet they can't live without their phones!  Interestingly enough, I've found an Android equipped phone to be quite a useful tool.  I've already shot, edited and posted a 4k video without leaving the scene! 

We're all beating a dead horse here.  Interesting times for a guy whom used one the very first commercial computers every produced, a Xerox 860.  All it did was word processing and required two 8" floppy disks and several minutes to boot it.  It had a mouse, keyboard, and ethernet printing.  I've seen what drives the market over the years and the popular vote always wins, and currently mobile is it, which both Mac and Google are well rooted.  Windows 10 is MS' way of trying to catch up. We know that Android has Linux roots, (though it's proprietary and closed within Google).  Adobe may see the light, eventually, a port may be possible but only when it becomes popular.

[Reptille]

Hallo i use adobe premiere cc for video editing, visual studio for C++, Fruity loops as a DAW. i have a PC but i go to school and want to use these software witch surprisingly (being i'm Swedish American) i have legal licenses to i wanted to use them on my Ubuntu Laptop and for what ever reason i can't get wine to install be it through  the software center or the terminal but none of if works if anyone else have had this problem or have a solution to the problem  

[mytaxsite]

Reptille wrote:

Hallo i use adobe premiere cc for video editing, visual studio for C++, Fruity loops as a DAW. i have a PC but i go to school and want to use these software witch surprisingly (being i'm Swedish American) i have legal licenses to i wanted to use them on my Ubuntu Laptop and for what ever reason i can't get wine to install be it through  the software center or the terminal but none of if works if anyone else have had this problem or have a solution to the problem 

Please note Adobe products are not designed to run on Ubuntu or any Linux distros.  You either need to continue using a PC or buy an Apple Mac machine.

If you are using Visio C++ then clearly you must be using a Windows based PC.   Is this not so?

I use Visual Studio for Web Applications when I am doing something in ASP/C# and find it absolutely wonderful to use it.  For web Applications VS 2013 and 2015 uses Bootstrap as its template and this is the best move made by Microsoft.

Good luck in your studies.

[Peferling]

Forget wine.  Have you tried/experimented with Virtualbox?  You'll need to install a win7 OS within it.  Be sure to check the settings so it correctly mimics an actual environment that Adobe likes to see, (I've read some had success going that route).  I use Virtualbox (currently in MInt 17.3) to run outdated 32bit games in an XP SP2 environment.  No guarantee.  Some work, others require tweaks, etc.  If you want to experiment, it's worth a shot.  I would install as trial, first.