Would like to divorce myself from Windows and OSx entirely but I can't because CC only works with those OS interfaces. If CC can port the OSX version over to a gnome shell, we could build/buy more capable machines at a fraction of the cost to do some great things. Like get better lenses.
Why not say adobe to place a pre-order for photoshop for linux to see how many people would buy it, and if they see for example 100'000 people would buy it, after they can develop it and pay their cost.
What do you think ? A kind like the ubuntu-phone has done
That would be great, but i already pay 19,99 euro monthly for Photoshop and Lightroom and still cant install these apps on my favourite OS 'cause of Adobe politic. I understand that business is business, but how i can be loyal to Adobe company if they piss on my needs?
I use Aftershot Pro 2 instead of Lightroom 'cause Corel have made Linux version some time ago. If they port Paintshop on Linux i will drop Adobe products.
If PS were to port it might nip certain things in the bud (like the above) but they've likely got good reason to stall.
Well it might be bad reason to stall, I don't know, but it's something they'll have considered many many years ago (and doubtless will have implemented and tested before most people on here could even spell pc). Give it time, if you get your work done fine, if not go for an alternative. I like being native Linux so Gimp is good enough for me (and 99% of users) but what I use differs on different machines.
It would be nice to be seamless and I, with many others I know, would pay for PS on Linux no sweat (these are industry people and freelancers) but as long as the work is getting done then that's fair enough. I'm platform agnostic, gotta pay the bills, Adobe are pretty plugged in to all this (like I say they're members of TLF).
Oh and I do pay for software even though it is of course free in Open Source land. I use Linux Mint (and donate) as well as to Mozilla Blender and several plugins etc etc (some I no longer even use but they helped me out at the time). You'd be surprised how many people will pay even though open source can be looked down upon.
The smart money going forward is in taking care of open source. Valve havn't lost out put it that way.
"Now you want to believe that a Linux version, admittedly "more complicated" in your own words, will "prove profitable". That's insane wishful thinking by a Linux head, and it bares a wholly "weltfremd" world outlook."
There's nothing more complicated about Linux, it can be easily as simple to use as a mac and certainly more simple to use faster and more reliable than Windows (and mac). Also, Linux tends to be installed on regular hardware ("Windows hardware" if you like) and as such it gives the user the stability and ease of use as a mac but on the cost of way cheaper Windows type hardware. This is a match made in heaven.
Imagine a design office with Windows pc's but all running Linux instead. Nothing in that particular office would change, the same wiring the same setup the same appearance everything. It's the same hardware. The only difference would be the machine would boot quicker and be much more reliable (with FREE updates for life and no licensing issues). If that were the case then the firms involved would still pay Adobe the same amount for the same licenses etc but they'd get the benefits of another OS. In this fairy tale land this would be identically as profitable if Linux were ported and many firms would enjoy that switch.
Even 99% of supercomputers the world over use Linux. This "stamp of approval" has weight when firms are buying hardware but it's a chicken and egg situation. Firms can't jump because a port isn't available (likely due to lower Linux user numbers) but if a port were available, there'd be a flood of new Linux user numbers. It's a catch 22.
I know you quoted "more complicated" from someone else and these weren't your own words, and to anyone reading this it really isn't more complicated at all. In fact, the whole idea of it being more complicated is a myth of old and needs putting to bed. Sure, you can make it as complicated as you like (that's the beauty of Linux customisation), but most people certainly don't do this.
Beautiful Linux distributions like Elementary OS and Linux Deepin not to mention familiar looking alternatives like Linux Mint and Ubuntu have nothing complicated about them at all. Quite the opposite in fact.
But as for Linux adoption (acknowledging my post about the TLF involvement above) it's still a case of chicken and egg for most studios. The benefits of Linux are well known by most people in the know, but the availability just isn't there. Hence the frustration of many users.
Anyway, just trying to clear up the "more complicated" thing but in the process I've gone overboard.
It's always been my impression that Unix/Linux is rather undisciplined. But hey, if it's your thing, more power to you. You're just not interesting much of the rest of the world with it, and I'll wager it's not because of the high license cost.
The personal computing market is the thing that actually matters here, and even given Microsoft's Win 8 stumble with their jaw about to hit the pavement, Windows and OS X are the personal computing world right now, with Linux barely visible on the graph, notably ranking below "Other" and OS X (Unix under the covers) not showing terribly strongly... If you were trying to grow your business, what parts of that chart would you be looking at most enviously?
One other notable thing here: Adobe has already shunned Windows XP and Vista. Note how much bigger slices of the pie XP and Vista have than Linux.
Hey, Linux is now one of the most popular OS's in the world*
*thanks to Android
Anyway, this is the difficult thing with people that don't appreciate my prior post.
Besides you personally have nothing to lose if there was a Linux port? So there's no need to be defensive, but many people would have a lot to gain even if you didn't (the OS percentage share would shift even more quickly too if the software was available, it's the chicken and egg situation again). Plus more people would adopt Linux due to the announcement of the port alone hence the shifting of the percentages even faster and faster still, it's exponential over time). But it needs a first step. Windows is pre-installed on most systems too which puts Linux at a huge disadvantage.
Thankfully, some companies are bold however, Valve recently did this (and they haven't lost out whatsoever, in fact it even proves that Linux users are more than happy to pay).
The Linux desktop share is now over 5%, which is still small, but growing very quickly. From my one Linux Mint disk seven people have made installs from it, that's 7 installs on different machines from one downloaded disk. This alone skews many survey stats.
Mind you we'll see what happens, this alone shows that the demand for a port is promptly growing rather than shrinking, but even so. As long as the design gets done and the client is happy who cares.
The last available figures from Adobe and from MS for the Adobe Creative Suites show that sales usually run abut 50-50 Mac vs windows, with Mac sales outpacing Windows 60% to 40% from time to time.
The Mac shows that its popularity in this field has absolutely no relation to its installed based, simply because users prefers its ease of use.
Now you want to believe that a Linux version, admittedly "more complicated" in your own words, will "prove profitable". That's insane wishful thinking by a Linux head, and it bares a wholly "weltfremd" world outlook.
Nuts!
First of all - those stats just prove my point.
When you look at OS usage statistics, Mac usage is around 8%, while Windows usage is around 90%. If the difference between the adobe user-base of Mac vs Windows is 50-50 that's incredible, because it means that there's a a lot more designers using mac. That alone might seem obvious, but let's apply those numbers for a moment, shall we? - if we take the edge case where 100% of all mac users have photoshop - i.e. 8% of the entire OS userbase is half of the total photoshop users, then Windows users are also 8% as well, which translates to 11.25% of the entire windows OS usage (i.e., 11.25% of the 90%). That's a really low percent of users for that large of an OS usage (and remember, that's only if 100% of mac users have photoshop. The real numbers are probably lower).
And this proves my point - that the number of overall usage statistics don't mean it when it comes down to "who's going to buy adobe design products". even if only half the linux userbase is going to buy photoshop, that 1% will be at the very least around 6% of total adobe-users (and in the probable case where there are less than 100% of mac users that number will be higher). In other words, we're talking about a potential market of 5-10% which is getting larger every year. That's not a market you need to ignore. I made a small demonstration of this too.
To sum this up, I'm not saying Photoshop should have a port to Linux. I think it should, but my opinion doesn't matter, nor is the point. I'm only saying that Adobe needs to research the topic and not dismiss the entire idea (which I'm assuming based on the fact that there are little to no official announcements or talk about the subject by Adobe officials and developers, at least not to my best knowledge)
p.s.
I wasn't trying to be pretentious when I said Linux is more complicated. I actually see that as a negative point - it's very reliable, but you're still two clicks away from destroying your entire computer. So yeah, Linux users are still, even with Ubuntu, a community of people who are at least a tiny bit tech savvy. And the reality is that that's still the majority of the user base adobe should be seeking.
"How much money have you spent this year for software for your Linux system?"
That's written as if the more you spend the better? But only using money as the qualifier. Genuinely absurd.
How much on software or on hardware? Neither matters but if it's software then a lot less than you've squandered on Microsoft that's for sure. But several generous donations to Open Source projects.
Noel. Your profile ends:
"These awards and gifts in no way affect my being truthful or open in my postings here. I say what I think, I mean what I say, and I can back everything up with facts and experience."
I also say what I mean and I can back it up with facts and experience. You sell Photoshop plugins. No, you sell ordinary plugins that are available out of the box to no doubt an unsuspecting public.
Don't blame Linux (an OS) for competing open source software that threatens your plugins (that are fairly general anyway). Lense flares?! Puhleease.
Same question back at you, how much have you fleeced from a gullible public? Be honest.
I don't doubt your a nice guy among friends but on here it's hot air and worry but there's no need?
It's important to be charitable and look at things from your side, fair enough. It's actually not and Adobe (nor the public) owe you a living but like I say, let's be fair to your position.
This discussion shouldn't worry you but it does. This is strange as this thread is predominantly about choice for other users but this choice seems to be a bad thing in your book.
Here's why you might want to reconsider your position.
If PS opened up to another market and you're selling PS plugins, you're commercially demented for not pushing this entry into an even wider market. PS users are PS users regardless of platform. Your entire approach to this thread so far contradicts logic. If you were a microsoft fanboy then fair enough, but as someone with a commercial interest in PS and its user base you might benefit from revising your long term strategy here. It would be better for business, not worse.
And unfortunately the surveys on Linux haven't changed - while server usage is climbing, desktop usage is pretty stagnant, and the number of Linux desktop users willing to pay for software is miniscule.
LOL, Nathan, it might be a bit naïve if not to think a cultural unwillingness to spend money on software should influence the commercial development of software. Who is going to choose to develop expensive products for a market where people predominantly feel everything should be free? Have you looked at the price of a Photoshop subscription lately?
I'm a commercially successful software author commenting on why a commercial software company might not want to expand support to a realm where people typically do not expect to pay for software. Because my viewpoint doesn't match yours you assume I'm against you.
This discussion doesn't worry me, it interests me. I'm not arguing against Adobe developing for your favorite market, I'm arguing for them to concentrate their limited development capability on the commercial markets that they're already in where we could benefit from their not wasting time porting a UI but rather spend it wisely on developing substantive new features and functions. Trust me, just to keep up with Apple and Microsoft they already have to spend plenty of time on their UI already.
Oh and by the way, much as you might find it hard to imagine, and much as you seem to want to find an ulterior motive, I'm here on this forum just because I enjoy helping people.
You're all right and I'm going back behind the parapet. I'm more interested in Autodesk stuff anyway like I say and they have fewer open source rivals that are easily as good, unlike the product here, let's face it. All the best.
I have been a Windows user since 1984 or so. It is becoming unusable. I am actively looking at my options.
I am having too much of my time wasted by automatic updates and restarts at inappropriate times. I also have a fair amount invested in hardware, so don't see the Mac as an option.
I'm seriously considering GIMP if Adobe won't do Linux. All of this talk of OS share and capitalism is just silly. The only $$$ that I care about is my own. I'm done wasting it with Microsoft.
They have really blown it. I would have thought that was impossible. It may take a couple of more years to die, but I can't see the turnaround happening.
even if only half the linux userbase is going to buy photoshop
LOL, "only" half the entire user base? You must live in one of the weed-legal states.
I was thinking more along the lines that only half of one user would buy it.
How much money have you spent this year for software for your Linux system? Be honest.
-Noel
How much money?
First of all - the past month I spent around 100-200$ on games. Steam brought big gaming titles to Linux, something we never had before. So we started buying them. And the trend is growing.
Secondly - don't condensed. It's offensive, out of place, and irrelevant for the discussion. You're assuming all Linux users are pirates because... the OS is free? Ok, I get that (not really but whatever). But you're forgetting that most Linux users have Windows (that they bought) on dual boot for things that don't have a native version yet. Most people buy a mac or windows and install Ubuntu along side it. There's no Ubuntu hardware that comes for free. Also remember that most Linux users are, well... programmers and developers, a community that usually makes a decent living.
Thirdly - there are a lot of Windows pirates, what the hell does the OS you're using have to do with being a pirate? We're at an age where it's so easy. You don't need to be computer savvy to do it. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but that's the current reality. So there's no basis for thinking Linux users are different or more prone to it (it's completely ridiculous actually).
Linux users use linux becuse it's a better OS. Not because they're cheap. Get off your high tower. Give me a real explanation why this isn't a market (or rather, why no one at Adobe is considering it at all? Just y'Know, thinking about it as an option).
I'm NOT arguing against Linux. It may well take over the world. But it hasn't yet.
I'm merely stating why a commercial software development corporation would not take that market seriously today.
Regarding Linux users being cheap or pirates, I didn't say that either. I am merely pointing out that right now those who embrace it are a culture of folks who substantially believe what they need should be available freely (think Gimp), and thus are not used to spending big money on commercial software. Perhaps Steam will start to change that - and that's a good thing for those of us in the commercial software business. But beware - the gaming market has always been pretty much a separate entity from serious/business computing. It takes being the OS of choice in the business realm to take over the world.
By the way, "condensed" is not the same as "condescend", and I'm not doing the latter. I'm being honest and giving you my seasoned (by 4 decades of being in the computer industry) opinion. If you don't like it, as you already know you're quite free to disagree.
I have been a Windows user since 1984 or so. It is becoming unusable. I am actively looking at my options.
...The only $$$ that I care about is my own. I'm done wasting it with Microsoft.
They have really blown it. I would have thought that was impossible. It may take a couple of more years to die, but I can't see the turnaround happening.
By the way, I agree with you - to a point.
1. It actually IS still possible to turn Windows 8 into a workhorse desktop OS - I've done it, with an unprecedented amount of tweaking and augmenting with 3rd party software - which means that sooner or later business will probably embrace it, though not as happily and willingly as XP or Win 7. Win 8 is simply not better.
2. Microsoft continues to ride on the success of Windows 7 and will for some time. The market share of Windows 7 is still growing. Thus they are not doomed to fail just yet. This is probably why they did a bunch of silly stuff with Windows 8 - because conservative business continues to steadily finance them in the background.
That being said, everything I'm hearing about Windows 9 implies to me that they haven't really got the clue yet that the desktop is not dead (or "legacy"), and they are still forging ahead with their Metro/Modern big-font toy-oriented initiatives. That's a shame, because they're just not going to get a lot of traction with that until it actually IS better. I can only guess greed must be driving them. The prospect of selling all Windows software through their store, and taking their big percentage, is too juicy to ignore.
OS X and Linux may see upticks in popularity in the coming years, then be taken more seriously. But it's just too soon to say "will" instead of "may".
For sure keep your hardware and add an SSD if you haven't already.
Install Linux Mint 17 (or Ubuntu/ Deepin/ Elementary, see Youtube for what they look like) and run Gimp or Gimpshop. All Linux versions can be burnt onto a cd/pen drive so you can demo them before you install anyway.
You'll see nothing but performance boosts in all areas and kiss goodbye to blue screens. Also if you upgrade your hardware in future just plug the SSD into the new machine and Linux will recognise everything instantly and work flawlessly (never a need to do a full reinstall like with MS).
Sturdier, faster, safer, much better system control/software management (an "app store" style system) infinitely customisable and a joy to use. Great for eye candy too. Enjoy Linux jump in straight away, you'll never look back.
Also many superb open source programs may come included too, such as Gimp of course and Firefox, Skype/Jitsi/Linphone, Inkscape, VLC, Blender, Audacity, Aptana Studio, MyPaint, Ardour, Steam, Krita, LibreOffice, BlueGriffon, Adobe Reader (or Okular), Scribus, Avidemux, Jahshaka, Virtualbox etc look on www.AlternativeTo.net for others.
Below: the main "Categories" section from Software Manager (typical of most Linux setups):
Below, the "Graphics" section:
Edit: Note that some versions of PhotoShop work in Linux under a feature called WINE in case you wanted to use Adobe software you've already purchased - but CS5 didn't run well (the other versions are fine but of course nothing beats native). This way you have the OS upgrade whilst maintaining your exact PS workflow. One step at a time.
Linux can also be installed in VirtualBox and launched from within Windows, just like Windows can run from within Linux (or Mac) via Virtualbox too. This may be a good option for demoing different versions although a "proper" dual boot is recommended eventually as you'll spend so much time in the Linux side it becomes pointless waiting for Windows to boot.
I'm NOT arguing against Linux. It may well take over the world. But it hasn't yet.
I'm merely stating why a commercial software development corporation would not take that market seriously today.
Regarding Linux users being cheap or pirates, I didn't say that either. I am merely pointing out that right now those who embrace it are a culture of folks who substantially believe what they need should be available freely (think Gimp), and thus are not used to spending big money on commercial software. Perhaps Steam will start to change that - and that's a good thing for those of us in the commercial software business. But beware - the gaming market has always been pretty much a separate entity from serious/business computing. It takes being the OS of choice in the business realm to take over the world.
By the way, "condensed" is not the same as "condescend", and I'm not doing the latter. I'm being honest and giving you my seasoned (by 4 decades of being in the computer industry) opinion. If you don't like it, as you already know you're quite free to disagree.
-Noel
I know the difference between the words. I'm not a native English speaker so sometimes I misspell stuff (or not notice a misspelled word)
I also want to say that I agree with your other comment for @dahtse - Windows isn't going away, and Windows 9 is sure to be a very good operating system. How do I know that? Because they always come out in pairs of "a terrible version with a lot of new (mostly UI) changes" followed by "a good version with very little UI changes": NT - XP, Vista - Win7, Win8 - (presumably) Win9. If the new Windows 9 will be bad - then yeah, that's the begining of the end. But the last ten years suggest otherwise.
Ubuntu users are a free-software bunch (or so it seems). The way to you described it it sounded like you think they would all download it illegally and I got angry. Sorry about that.
However - I would like to point out that the user base for Ubuntu is changing rapidly. The last two years saw a rise where we almost doubled our user-base. It's a pretty clear trend. Yes Linux might have been a terrible OS for most of the last ten years, but it really changed in the past couple of years. And all I'm asking is you re-evaluate that market and see if it's really still not a profitable one, instead of just assuming that nothing has changed
It's not surprising Linux popularity should be increasing, given that people aren't liking what Microsoft is doing. Windows 8 adoption numbers are dismal. Whether Microsoft still has the talent to make the next one a resounding success... We shall see.
It's kind of a chicken and egg problem for Linux. Popularity has to grow before commercial entities take notice, and in order for popularity to grow more commercial entities have to take notice. So it's the right thing to do to petition Adobe to look into it. I just wouldn't hold my breath for results just yet.
But hey, slow and steady wins the race, right? Even back in the 1970s people said that Unix would end up being the one system that prevailed.
723
Replies
AdChoices