I am also an Ubuntu user. So are at least 5 other front-end developers in my immediate line of site. I work for a very large international company.
All our servers, like 99% of the rest of the internet, are Linux. For a front-end dev, that means Ubuntu has some advantages over PC when working with our teams. We all need/want Photoshop here, and our company would buy more PS seats (but not more Macs, hence why the Ubuntu user base is growing here).
So while Adobe doesn't need to make a Linux ver (hell, they don't even need to make a Mac ver), I do think they underestimate the actual demand for one. Also, I believe that they probably overestimate the effort in porting from Mac, a Linux distro itself, to a more traditional Linux environment like Ubuntu. Just my 2cents.
I'm a buyer. Even if it ends up being a PS that's a little behind the current versions, even it runs a little slower, and even if it's a little buggier.
I was looking at some old threads on the 'PS on Linux' conversations. I know some are old threads (years old) and you likely had enough of it but always wanted someone at Adobe to hear my cries. 8)
- PS was ported to IRIX back in the day, it was the second platform I used it on (mac being the first) - while I could be wrong I suspect you would sell more licenses for linux than for all the SGI ones ever sold, in your first year of offering it on linux. I know they don't exist today and that was a long time ago - Adobe was a smaller company back then and was likely more nimble.
- PS is done in C+, a port would be fairly "easy".
- I am willing to bet a linux port within Adobe already exists, as a result of an official mandate or skunkworks project. I worked at a few large software companies (Alias/Autodesk) and know this is how some ports of projects start their existence, as internal skunkwork efforts.
- A few years ago you said its too complex to offer on linux as the landscape isn't settled (which is still the case). At Alias we ported a few of our products such as Maya in the 90's, to both linux and windows, I suspect Maya has more lines of code and is more complex than PS. What we did to address the 'linux fragmentation' issue as many other vendors do who offer ports, is state the system OS/Distro requirements. Many list / standardize on RHEL as an example. If you are not using that, you are not using a supported configuration - support is off the hook (unless its Ford or a similar sized client calling you).
- effort vs cost. An interesting thing here is the amount of effort it took for the ports we did. 2 guys in the Seattle office ported the IRIX code base of Maya to Windows in 2 weeks during their off time! Every company/project is different, i understand it may not be the same at Adobe.
- another comment you may of made was 'linux users don't typically buy software'. I think things have changed here. I can say from my personal experience working in M&E studios for the last 15 years or so that Adobe would of had purchase orders for a few hundred linux cuts. That is from 2 or 3 studios here in Town that I've been at. How many cuts does Adobe have to think they need to be able to sell before the effort gets traction? In 3 studios there was an effort made to roll the desk tops over to linux, and its always the same road block which prevents many from doing so, Adobe Photoshop. Its used in almost every department so it makes it extremely difficult to move off of windows or mac. Every one of these studios would be more than happy buying PS for linux post roll over. If these 3 studios in town here would be good to buy 40-100 cuts each, we are only 3 of hundreds or thousands of studios out there.. The first release may not sell a bunch as it would take people time to realize the final road block has been removed, and plan for a migration, which typically have to be scheduled weeks/months in advance due to project schedules. But i'm sure with each quarter, sales would continue to climb. Aside from all that we spend _hundreds of thousands_ of dollars on licenses for products which will run on linux. the industry spends money.
- I ended up here on this page as yet again I find myself at yet another studio who wants to move off of windows to linux for the desktop, and we are seeing how/if the landscape has changed related to the Photoshop challenge. Perhaps its the M&E bubble i'm stuck in that makes be believe there is lots of potential for PS on linux - but man, everyone i've talked to in the industry (from ILM, Disney, Wetta, Arc and many others) for the last decade or so has always maintained a desire to see PS released on linux.
- I wonder who these surveys you state which indicated there is little opportunity are being completed by or what the target audience is. I've been in a management role for years and have never been asked by Adobe or anyone for that matter if I would like to see Photoshop ported, or any 'survey' related to Adobe for that matter. Who is being asked? There is a forum named "Studio SysAdmins", if one were to go to that list and prompt the question and I assure you, you would have several hundred purchase commitments. That forum is dedicated to people in M&E and many of them are chomping at the bit to migrate off of windows, yet the common show stopper continues to be Photoshop - for the last decade or so.
- Most of the open source flag wavers who state they won't buy commercial software are likely still stuck in their basements or just don't get it. A company who is out to make a profit will use the proper tools to achieve that goal, regardless if that tool is a commercial one. some PFY in the tech department refusing to use PS because there is a cost associated to it would/should be turfed. Some of the people piping up here probably have no decision making role, but unfortunately they tend to be the most vocal.
- If Autodesk can do it, Adobe can too!
- I'm being forced to consider some sort of remote to the desktop photoshop solution. its going to cost us more per workstation to use PS than the product itself. We have never had any luck using PS under emulation, such as Wine. it "works" but has many issues and i've never seen an Artist accept it. Wine is not an option for most professional applications I suspect.
- Adobe is out to make money, they have lots of money. I'm sure they could afford to test the waters without going under or pissing off the share holders. There is always a budget for projects when times are good.
- conspiratorial theories aside - M$ has been known (many times) to 'influence' vendors in ways which are attempts to maintain M$'s market share. They have been brought to court many times for related issues. Apple not so much, as far as I know. I mention this its not a far leap to make when someone says "M$ has a deal with Adobe". Personally I don't think this is the case in this particular situation but its plausible. Stranger deals have happened at the executive level in many companies.
not sure if you are trolling or not - but taking your question as it is, its obvious you don't have much insight to the industry. M&E is not the OpenSource community, i'm not sure how you came up with that relation.
we have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in licenses for products which run on linux, and woudln't think twice about dumping more money on PS cuts, as its the tool required. you doubt this because apparently you are ignorant to how things are done these days in our industry.
i'm not sure why so many people assume once you start using an open source OS, you no longer support the use of commerical products. Why is that doc?
DocPixel, have you ever priced a full seat of Flame on Linux? Or a Baselight? Or even something "cheap" like Maya/Nuke/Mari? Lots of people spend quite a lot of money for tools that run on Linux. Most big studios have very serious reservations about the implementation of the Creative Cloud stuff related to licensing being so much harder to manage than something like Flexlm floating licenses in a large organisation. But the few dollars a month for the subscription or fact that it isn't open source are very unlikely to be any sort of obstacle in the film/VFX/M+E areas if the tool works well and integrates nicely into the studio.
Woah! Sorry guys... I am NOT dissing Linux or OS, and do not for a minute think that those professional M&E houses don't spend literally 1000's on licensing.
I do think I may need to apoligize for bringing my rant and skepticism along for the ride, against those that don't see the benefits to CC now on Win and Mac. So I wouldn't expect any less moaning and groaning from the Linux crowd truthfully; and then I'm almost sure that the OS-Traditionalists would add a negative spin to the discussion. From Adobe's side: would it be worth it? From my skeptical side: could they even do it? Adobe's programming chops seem to have left with the last generation of retirees.
IMHO, the Linux community could and should do something about bringing a competitive alternative to Photoshop. Gimp doesn't cut it. As with Blender and assorted other "alternative" titles, develop something that is community-driven, expandable, updatable, and BETTER than PS. CHARGE for, or license it even, so that development and growth could be achieved, while at the same time giving users a peace of mind that their efforts and learning curve isn't a waste of time.
Which, speaking of learning curves, is the biggest detriment to Adobe, MS and a number of "commercially successful" and widely used software companies being able to truly innovate. Linux doesn't carry that baggage, and as soon as Adobe for example would bring anything out on Linux that doesn't emmulate 100% the software on other platforms: I foresee a big B*** & Moan Festival!
I personally believe (and for a long time) that PS should be torn down and rebuilt using modern API's, frameworks and code-compilers. Why shouldn't... or couldn't... the Linux community show them the way?
So you see... I'm not against "you guys" or P-ing on your dreams; I'm just hoping for something so much better... and I succumb as humans do once in a while to "generalized snarky comments"... Mea Culpa.
wish they would re-factor and update their corporate sand on this issue too once in a while. Seems like they are still stuck with a 1992 mindset/understanding.
It's funny to me because as of ~2007 Apple's OSX operating system has UNIX 3 certification. Just checked, and yep, Mountain Lion has UNIX 3 certification. It's why I can go to the command line and things work like they do in Linux, and why installing and setting up server stuff like Apache, MySQL, PHP and Ruby On Rails is identical to doing it on a linux box. IMHO linux has already proven itself; everyone on this board is using right now, you're using it everytime you get online, send/get mail, watch videos on youtube, blog on Facebook or turn on your Android phone. People are already making a ton of money running their services on Linux (including Google). And guess what? Even Adobe already devs for linux via Flash Media Server.
So the question is not do people use Linux, it's wether they do so in a desktop environment. I'm betting, like me, more and more people are doing just that. Additionally, very few designers these days can get by without knowing a little HTML, and increasingly many of them are learning to work with Linux servers and Linux tools at some level.
Note: Photoshop is built using modern APIs, frameworks and compilers. We constantly refactor the codebase and update it.
Also, nobody has retired from the Photoshop engineering team (and we keep adding new college hires as well).
Question: are your APIs and frameworks cross-application, or singular for example only Photoshop; the reson I ask because since Adobe sells the apps as a "suite", many dialogs and functions across programs (InDesign -> Illustrator ->Photoshop) are not synced, nor allow the same capabilities. Example: Scale dialog i.e. pop-up control panels.
Note: when I state "modern", I'm specifically talking about Adobe's very own stated desire from some 12-15 years ago when CS1 came into being, that they were working on a way to "modularize" the entire suite, rather than develop every program as an island. More or less a creative platform OS. Think iOS or Android, specifically built for creative programs, plug-ins and "apps". What ever happened to that "modern thinking and engineering"?
Question: ever? The original team is still intact? I'm impressed. So I assume they would know what I'm talking about, because I believe it was either before or shortly after "plug-ins" came into being and were the "first phase". Just curious.
The frameworks are hard to describe - they are shared, somewhat, but not by all applications.
Engineers with experience quickly realized that the "modular" approach was a disaster in the making -- that isn't modern, that's just something dreamed up by a computer scientist who never had to write or maintain code that gets used by real people.
People do leave the team for other jobs, or due to layoffs - but nobody has actually retired from the engineering team. Our people tend to take a lot of pride in our product, and stick with it.
Maybe you misunderstood what I was getting at. Because calling "modular based" software a disaster in the making, is the same as saying iOS, Android... and a number of your biggest plug-in developers (Nik and OnOne for example) ... well... disasters.
Modular the way I understood it at the time, is something that Adobe is doing as we speak with the Edge Tools and just yesterday with the PS 14.1 update. HOWEVER... IMO Adobe is still doing it wrong. Why isn't Adobe Generator being exposed for use in Illustrator or InDesign at the same time? These are also "web design and asset creation tools" are they not? And what about SVG assets? While being scalable vectors is their main usage, which will be more and more in the future, don't they also need to be exported? I'm thinking Illustrator with it's improvements to CSS exporting, why not Generator?
As an example of "modular", I'm talking about the simple and effective "plugin architecture" that is already in place in most of Adobe's products, but they use different plugin APIs and SDKs themselves, rather than be "cross-program". Adobe's job is to create a cross-app API and SDK for their own software plug-ins if you will.
For example: Character and paragraph styles and palettes. Why do these work differently across programs within the suite? Modular would mean that they would be synced across the suite and possibly even projects, and use the best developed panels in the arsenal, meaning those from InDesign. Two palettes with the most powerful functions that Adobe has already developed, available to ALL programs in the suite that use text.... RATHER than 6 (8, 10, 12?) palettes that do something just a little bit different to make them frustrating going from one program to the next.
It's also very user UNfriendly to expect a simple thing like character/paragraph styles to be re-learned in each program. There is so much to learn in the suite, why should we not expect that once you "get" a function in one program, it carries over to the next?
I know you're going to come back and say that certain functionality and user-defined features are not needed cross-program. But that's not what we're seeing is it, as design software evolves into uses that even Adobe itself never intended nor foresaw. Such as: Photoshop as a primary web design tool? As a content creation and editing tool for photos that would find their way to the web: yes; but I seriously doubt that any of your colleagues thought it would evolve into the "go to tool" for web layout, wireframes, CSS, and now, GUI and sprite generation.
While the tech is great for a subset of users that have chosen PS for unintended tasks, the photogs (majority use of PHOTO-shop) that I have as clients all went, "Huh?" yesterday when I told them about the update. Couldn't really get them excited about it, even if there are some under-the-hood advantages for them specifically.
That Adobe is taking notice of the wide and variable usage of PS is one thing, and I guess I have to compliment them on that at least. However to continue to develop isolated software solutions today for unforeseen usages of tomorrow, is to ME... a disaster in the making.... and we the users will be (are) paying for it. Adobe is still making "Silo Software" rather than a "Software Suite" IMHO.
NOTE: your quote, "write or maintain code that gets used by real people" struck me as especially odd. 1) a modular approach is far easier to maintain, or else Apple and Google are doing something wrong; 2) your code that is being used by real people every day is rather bug-ridden, quirky cross-program within the suite, and even exports differently to the point of importing into another program in the suite is many times a fatality... rather than an easy and problem-free click-to-open-in-xxx. We should talk cross-meta data problems within Bridge, Lightroom and Photoshop some day... this post is long enough.
Hello Chris. I am wondering where have you obtained statistics, that linux users wont buy licensed software? In real world any programmer can ask manager to buy any software, that he needs. 95% of web programmers needs photoshop. Why do people should suffer with windows virtual machine? [admin - pointless insult removed]
We do surveys of users, and prospective users, pretty regularly. Plus we get the results of larger surveys done by other companies.
But the numbers for Linux haven't changed much from year to year - it's still primarily used on servers and embedded devices. Linux desktop numbers are pretty tiny. There is simply not enough of a market in Linux desktop software to justify the cost of a port or ongoing support for a new platform.
not to go on, and thanks for removing those posts Chirs...
to which markets do you focus your surveys on? I've been having discussions about this topic in other non adobe forums on and off for years (yes specific to my industry, but it is a large one, M&E) and out of the hundreds of people on these, no one has received any sort of survey from adobe or any other entity asking about usage of linux machines and/or usage of adobe products within their environment. This is a sampling from all over the world. So who are we asking? which sectors does the survey make it to? how is it worded? can we see this survey or ask to be put on the list for the next round?
i think its more a matter of 'build it and they will come'. I'm not saying Adobe will sell millions of cuts, but for sure thousands, and that number surely will grow year by year. There is so much interest out there surrounding the desire for people to migrate off windows in our sector, but it comes down to P.S and the challenges of providing this tool on linux in an agreeable and workable state. (which today means investing 10x-20x times the cost of PS in methods to provide the ability to use PS over some sort of virtual or application server solution, which still doesn't suite eveyrone's requirements due to wacom latency/use issues).
The unfortunate reality is no one will likely try and develop anything on linux to fill this void as the fear is soon as they start selling volume, then Adobe will decide to release a port, and much money and effort will be lost.
Many of the surveys focus on "potential" markets - people who would buy Photoshop, but haven't yet.
And some focus on existing customers.
Yes, the surveys are world wide.
All the evidence says that the Linux market for (paying) desktop software is just too small.
Linux has to develop a real market, or at least lower the cost of entry (seriously: how long can they go without standardizing APIs?), to make it attactive to developers.
I am a linux user, switched my desktop to linux from windows around 2009. I now do pretty much everything on linux. I run windows 7 in a virtual machine under linux for 4 programs, one is photoshop.
The linux market is the fastest growing market. In 10+ years of photoshop use, I have only gotten one survey from Adobe; that was about CC and had no mention of linux. I have many colleagues who use linux and would gladly dump windows and purchase products for linux. There are many indications that the use statistics are skewed, e.g. web counts rely on paid sites. Here are my own usage statistics for people visiting my own, non commercial, photo web site, clarkvision dot com, a totally independent assessment and excludes my own use:
December December December
2010 2011 2012
Windows 87.2 % 81.1 % 77.0 %
Linux 1.8 4.9 8.1
Mac 11.0 14.0 14.9
Windows is dropping fast and linux and macs are increasing fast. But as soon as a good product for image editing comes out on linux with the tools I need, I'll dump the windows version, whatever that may be (e.g. photoshop). Adobe could be that best linux photo editor.
I find your survey answer incomplete, because just asking people if they would consider purchasing on Linux asks a pointed question about software that many (most?) people have never heard of. And if they have, it's only the old myths from many years ago.
Ask them the same question and insert (just to play dumb) "Android" or for "Google Chrome"... you just might receive a completely different answer.
I mention this because many people don't know that Linux is the underpinnings and base of a lot of the hardware they're using today, they just don't know it.
Maybe Adobe should consider working closer together with Google on technology that has a future, rather than Flash. Ask them about developing for Goobuntu (Google's inhouse baked Linux) or Chrome.
You might also ask them how many of their engineers use Windows at all these days, considering that already 2 years ago it was rumored they were trying to go 'Windows free" including in the admin offices. From everything I've seen of late in their conferences and YouTube presentations, they are using almost always Mac OS X... and their Goobuntu.
If Microsoft doesn't have the balls to move to a UNIX-based system (which they were also rumored to be doing with Longhorn)... then maybe Adobe should give them one more reason to take a look at that, amid their recent struggles.
I want to make "another" request for Photoshop in Linux, and I would be glad if you people could take it in consideration. First of all, there are some clear statements:
- Adobe will never port Photoshop to Linux natively.
- They would loose tons of money porting it for a very small amount of real customers (and for real I mean people who already bought the product and are willing to move to Linux), c'mon be realistic. When Chris Cox said that it wasn't without reason, there is a huge userbase in Linux, but no real profit in the short/mid term for Adobe (and I could cry out of shame by telling this, but it's true)
-It would require at least 1-2 years of work and testing, which maybe Adobe can't afford (I don't know)
So, I'm making my request based on those premises, you will never port Photoshop to Linux natively, BUT:
Could you make an internal study to see if it's affordable for Adobe to provide official support for installation through Wine? I mean, maybe you're doing it, but if not, could you just assign one or two people to make the Wine installers? (that shouldn't take too much time neither money) those people only need to allocate time when it's a new Photoshop release, and the rest of the time they can continue with their usual tasks.
Maybe I'm saying too much, but I think this could be a reasonable way to ask Adobe for some Linux support without asking them to invest tons of money.
EDIT
------
There are two questions that I left out of the box:
1) A very common response would be: "But the community is already doing the installers, why should we bother?"
It's true, the community are doing them, but they're not enough. There are some Photoshop internals that people miss to make the installers good enough, and a bit of help from the Photoshop team would be nice to solve those bumps in the road.
2) Another possible response: "But the Linux landscape is very fragmented"
True, that's one of the features of Linux, and one of the biggest disadvantages to make huge programs like Photoshop work properly. What I'm asking in this post is to make Wine installers, so the Photoshop team doesn't have to care about:
- Efficiency: Wine has it's own efficiency, if we hav to use a bit slower Photoshop we can bear with it.
- Fragmentation: Wine and the distros take care about the differences between linux distros, so the adobe team doesn't have to
- Support: We don't ask for application support. Just for installation, if for some reason Wine installs Photoshop OK but it fails during runtime it's not Adobe's fault, we're using multiple layers that are not meant to be there in the native product.
There are literally dozens of threads for this, many receiving hundreds and thousands of votes and responses on each. Forums have been closed due to high popularity of the threads.
This is getting absolutely ridiculous. Your fans in Linux, and your users who wish to switch dont even care if its native or emulated. Just make it happen.
I would like to use hundrends of insults to your comment, but I should consider you don't understand. We are serious Artists that would like to use a real Operating System using FULL FUNCTIONAL. Of course we need it native, How do I will use my Wacom? Your comment is cleverless and . . . just leave it in ignorant and cleverless.
723
Replies
AdChoices