Adobe Creative Cloud applications on Ubuntu/Linux

[KanikaS]

Adobe Creative Cloud does not support Ubuntu/Linux. 

Please see the minimum system requirements needed to use Creative Cloud:

https://helpx.adobe.com/in/creative-cloud/system-requirements.html

Thanks 

Kanika Sehgal 

[ebinrock]

You know, it's funny how every time an Adobe staff member or an MVP replies, it's always a trolling negative answer to this plea for a Linux version of Adobe software, in order to discredit, discourage, or otherwise kill this idea.  Well it's not going away, and we're not going away.  You assume that all of us here are geeks and code-heads, and that we're not really interested in using the products themselves, we're just wanting to get our hands on it to learn and get paid employment (presumably in software development, right? - like you're assuming we all wish Adobe would open-source the software, which is NOT what we're wanting here necessarily).  Yeah, the Linux community is largely made up of developer-types, sure, but I'm here to testify that there are also plenty of us NON-TECHNICAL types who are just trying to get a real alternative to crappy Windows (I was editing video the other day in Premiere Pro CC on Windows 7 and it kept crashing) and ridiculously expensive Mac.  We have basically found ease of use, rock solid stability, and snappy performance in Ubuntu and its derivatives.  Look, I'm not a geeky developer.  I couldn't write code to save my life.  I am a 25-year veteran of the video production industry, period.  And I would simply like Linux as a choice.  If you MVP's and Adobe staff members think writing for Linux is such a waste of time, THEN HOW TO YOU EXPLAIN LINUX VERSIONS OF DAVINCI RESOLVE AND MAYA - two key products used in MAJOR MOTION PICTURES and other top-end productions?  Are they wasting their time and other resources?  So stop trolling and please be more open-minded about the changing computing landscape.  It's no longer a Windows-based world, and it really never was in the niche creative professional industries which you target.

BTW, informal survey here, anyone who's not a software developer or mere Linux enthusiast/geek, but is actually a working CREATIVE professional who would like these Adobe tools in Linux, please reply to me here.

[andy_bob_newton]

My problem with mac is not the price of mac itself, a mac pro wouldn't have cost much more than my current workstation. the problem is that it would quite a lot slower since the mac pro in the same budget range has less ram, and less storage and still is more expensive.

My problem with windows is not that I just don't like it (though I do prefer Linux), its that it is far less reliable. several hours of updates before you can log in and start work, many crashes in various programs which includes the windows sound service and that I find Linux support for the hardware and peripheral set-up I have (audio interface and print server being prime examples) to be better in Linux than Windows. because of this, windows is only ever a last resort for running things and it is hard to edit a video when the windows audio service crashes repeatedly, a problem I've never had with the same hardware in Linux.

Don't bother with market share because niche software such as CC is wanted by a niche community, and you'd be surprised how much that niche lines up with Linux users. that's why there are multiple threads on multiple sites asking for it, some with thousands of supporters. CC is the best complete suite for media content creation, but that may not apply forever. resolve 12 is coming to Linux for video, ardour audacity and the hundreds of other plugins replace audition, Pixeluvo already serves pretty much as a drop in replacement for PS and runs on Linux and there are other examples that are close but are not able to be drop in replacements just yet. until they are ready to be full replacements and resolve no longer requires the control surface for Linux, CC is still the best suite and some of it will be required by us the users. We want to use it but are being stopped by adobe not supporting us.

If adobe fall too far behind in Linux support, many more users like myself and treszy will move to alternatives which are becoming more and more competitive with adobes CC.

Linux support should not only be thought of as a way to gain new customers, which in many cases it will, but also as a way to ensure that current users don't unsubscribe, which seems to already be happening

[ebinrock]

Well said!

[treszy]

FINALLY A SOLUTION that works! You had your chance Adobe but now it's too late. I moved to DaVinci Resolve 12 Studio! Byebye Adobe, byebye Windows! Welcome LINUX again!

[ebinrock]

I was looking at DaVinci Resolve 12 Studio Linux version but (1) even without the $30K console, the $1K price is a bit steep for just an editor/color corrector IMO (unless you consider that's a one-time cost and not a subscription).  (2) The documentation says you have to use either Red Hat or CentOS distros.  Have you successfully used DaVinci on any of the user-friendly Debian-based distros like Ubuntu or Mint?  And just curious, what do you use for graphics/logo creation?  GIMP and Inkscape, respectively?  For audio cleanup/sweetening, Audacity?

[treszy]

The Creative Suit is around 800EUR+VAT at the moment for a year so for a little more you get DVR for life. Best thing is though it comes free with the BMCC. Didn't use to much PS so Gimp is enough, also I used Audition for basic stuff which I'm doing in DVR now. CentOS is quite basic but rock stable. Of course you have to compromise but had enough of reinstalling windows and premiere every 6 month, copying 6TB of footage from here to there setting up everything (virus protection, office..etc.)  Tried dual system as well (ubuntu+windows), where I did all non-editing stuff in ubuntu but it was a p.i.t.a.

[ebinrock]

Also, it must so be an EMBARRASSMENT for Adobe not offering Linux versions, when a top of the line Hollywood-used software like DaVinci is offered in Linux!

[coil_cream]

Linux rocks, and it will always be around. I can't imagine it costing that much to have CC run on Linux.

[mytaxsite]

coil cream wrote:

Linux rocks, and it will always be around. I can't imagine it costing that much to have CC run on Linux.

Have you guys thought of contacting Canonical and other Linux distributors to contact Adobe to make CC for Linux versions?  Of course, they would need to contribute towards the cost of setting up the Linux department at Adobe and in return they get a share of profit from sales of Linux licenses!!!  I believe the figure starts at around £5 Million (GBP) renewable annually.  Alternatively, you guys can find enough people to start the project rolling by each of you contributing towards the project.  Your wishes would be met within next three years if you can take some positive action now rather than crying about it on these forums.  I doubt anybody of any significant influence at Adobe is reading these forums.

This way Adobe might be tempted to start the project knowing that they don't have bear any loses from this project.

True, Linux  will always be around as long as there are people prepared to dabble with it.  Linux and its predecessors has been around for nearly 40 years but there doesn't seem to be any visible progress towards wide adoption among consumer and business users.

[ebinrock]

Cry to Adobe or cry to Canonical - same difference.  And, as I've stated earlier in this forum, I'm not a programmer/developer, I'm a video editor ("Dammit, Jim, I'm a video editor, not a computer programmer!").  And even for the Linux developers out there, Adobe's code is closed source, so how could anyone "work on it" when only Adobe knows how??

BTW, right now I'm experimenting with Kubuntu and, aside from just a couple of technical issues I'm trying to get worked out, I LOVE it!  More beautiful interface than even Mac OS X, IMO.

[andy_bob_newton]

Canonical or any other distro maker backing Adobe cc on Linux would help greatly but that would only happen if they have financial capabilities to do so. if canonical has the money that would finance a Linux cc, wouldn't they be more likely to use that to finance their own development instead? Afterall, they have an OS running desktops, phones, tablets, servers and more that they're maintaining as well as developing Mir and taking care of their enterprise customers, and so they'll probably be spending their money on all of those. Also, the share of money from linux licences wouldn't recover any of canonicals cost because there are no OS specific licences, just cc licences, so Adobe wouldn't give a share of something that doesn't exist.

however if instead of canonical doing it alone, if the companies behind all the major Linux distributions were to jointly finance it together with each other and Adobe then that would be a more reasonable situation.

We know Adobe won't give code and aren't asking for it because it would be of little help to many of us, we want to edit our videos and animations and design our graphics using our favourite software on our favourite platform

[andy_bob_newton]

After speaking with adobe support staff about payment changes, I asked about the future of Linux support. Imran (the person I was speaking to) asked if I had posted in the forum to which I said I had as well as also submitting a feature request. eventually he said this "there is no way that we bring back Linux into action. However, we are trying to get this implemented." without seeming certain of the situation. whether that means they currently have a team working on it but finding it hard or whether that is just a way to say it isn't happening but might at some point if I'm very lucky. either way it isn't very promising.

[TRAlencar]

This dismissal of Linux is ridiculous.

Most VFX shops run on Linux boxes. My shop runs 50 machines with the most powerful 3D, texturing and compositing software there is. All perfectly available on Linux:

Autodesk Maya

SideFX Houdini

The Foundry Nuke

The Foundry Mari

Go check the license prices for those, if you think Linux users don't have any money. By the way, Nuke replaces After Effects entirely and makes a joke out of it. Mari has replaced half of Photoshop functionality already. Add to this that our programmers work on Linux and you will see why we have not renewed our subscription.

Adobe is becoming more and more irrelevant to VFX each day.

[mytaxsite]

tralencar wrote:

This dismissal of Linux is ridiculous.

Most VFX shops run on Linux boxes. My shop runs 50 machines with the most powerful 3D, texturing and compositing software there is. All perfectly available on Linux:

Autodesk Maya

SideFX Houdini

The Foundry Nuke

The Foundry Mari

Go check the license prices for those, if you think Linux users don't have any money. By the way, Nuke replaces After Effects entirely and makes a joke out of it. Mari has replaced half of Photoshop functionality already. Add to this that our programmers work on Linux and you will see why we have not renewed our subscription.

Adobe is becoming more and more irrelevant to VFX each day.

Which Adobe product are you interested in?  Have you thought of asking Ubuntu or whoever's  distro you are using why they are not prepared to contribute to the cost of developing Adobe products for their operating system?

Microsoft started by paying people to write software for their DOS and Windows OS and they weren't rich in those days. Very few people actually used a PC because they were too expensive and there weren't suitable programs to use.  Of course WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 spreadheet came out and Microsoft became very rich.  Why can't Linux do the same when you guys are prepared to bend over backwards to use it.

Have you bought Corel Aftershot Pro 2?  Apparently it is the best product for Linux!!  Try it and let us know about 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.

[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]

Let Adobe hear from you on User Research page: Adobe - Adobe usability research. We want it and it's gonna happen! Adobe, please give us creative cloud on Linux! I want to run CC apps on Ubunto for my professional work so there won't be distracting and resource-consuming background processes running.

[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

[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...