Linux Version?

[ebinrock]

Will there ever be a Linux version (preferably Ubuntu/Debian Linux since that's the most popular) of Adobe Premiere Pro, and also the entire Production Premium Creative Suite?  At my workplace I already made the decision to go on the PC platform for our edit systems, and am regretting it because Prod. Prem. CS4 is ALWAYS crashing (particularly Premiere and After Effects) on the Windows XP OS (also using Matrox Axio LE hardware).  My co-worker wanted us to go with the Mac platform (when we were pitching considerations to our boss), but I didn't listen.  So it doesn't look like we'll be able to justify a whole other hardware investment, so if Adobe's CSPP were to be ported to Linux, that would be a win-win (no pun intended with Win-dows!) for us where we would just buy the Linux version of the software.  I know no OS is perfect, but from my experience Windows is a horrible OS that should die.  When it crashes, it crashes nasty - it hangs for a long time before quitting.  Linux, from my experience, performs much faster on the same machine, and when it crashes (less often), it lets you quit immediately.

As for the argument I've read that it's not worth it for Adobe to port their programs to Linux because it has "only 1% market share", where does that info come from?  How can you accurately measure Linux's usage when it's a free download and there are so many distributions of it?  Besides, it's a Catch-22: if Linux is so small in market share, it's because (1) there aren't a whole lot of mainstream applications that run natively on it (as for Wine, forget it, I've had horrible problems with it), and (2) Linux isn't pre-installed on a lot of machines for the majority of computer users, who are relatively non-technical.  No. 2 is something companies like Canonical is trying to change by arranging partnerships with Dell, HP, etc.  No. 1 is something that guys like you, Adobe, can change.  (How much can the development costs be, anyway?  You already make Linux versions of Flash player and Acrobat Reader.  All these programs are written in C or Java, right?)  Believe me, people will buy a Linux Production Premium.  We'll buy 3 licenses up front.

Dale Cornibe

Electronic Media/Video Producer

Travis County Media

Austin, Texas

[ebinrock]

jeremy d. wrote:

Ugh, aesthetically pleasing. Fisher-Price Easy Bake iOven.

Now you're "dissing" the Mac??  That coupled with your reluctance to port to Linux will really reduce choices for a reliable platform to work on.

[mikep-bluefish]

jeremy d. wrote:

Ugh, aesthetically pleasing. Fisher-Price Easy Bake iOven.

There's no question that Linux isn't capable of the type of work that the Creative Suite allows you to do

Please clarify that for me -- I'm assuming you mean that Linux is capable

Of course it is capable.

Linux is capable of running Softimage XSI (personal experience), Maya, Flint, Flame, Smoke...

These software are much more "complex" and "heavy" than Adobe's products.

Plus, by being able to function on Linux/Unix platforms, these software also benefit from high-performance clustered environments.

Linux is by far the best OS when it comes to cluster computers.

[jeremy d.]

The fact that Linux is cabable (it is) has nothing to do with the development cost, and the cost is the issue.

We've stated that over and over. The functionality of Linux is not what's keeping us away from it.

[Conan_Kudo]

The fact that Linux is cabable (it is) has nothing to do with the development cost, and the cost is the issue.

We've stated that over and over. The functionality of Linux is not what's keeping us away from it.

I'm guessing you mean "capable"... It seems everybody trips up over saying it

Anyway, do you have any data to show us that proves that there isn't demand for a Linux version of the Creative Suite? Because I've certainly not seen any such data.

I'd like to see some data, maybe a poll of some kind taken in the last year or two. If you can't provide something like that, perhaps you should have your twitter and facebook pages have such a poll, and see how the response goes....

[mikep-bluefish]

jeremy d. wrote:

The fact that Linux is cabable (it is) has nothing to do with the development cost, and the cost is the issue.

We've stated that over and over. The functionality of Linux is not what's keeping us away from it.

Yes bro, I know, and I completely understand (so as all of us here).

I also know that in the case of opening a project for Linux support, Adobe's return of investment will go down (not much though... I think... ) for the next say, 2 years.

But! the possibilities that can be opened for Adobe after porting to Linux are limitless and prosperous in the (not too far) long-term...

After all let's not forget that Adobe has also released the Flex SDK as Open Source and with a Linux version as well.

Now, a few years later we see Google including Flash as a standard component of Chrome and ChromeOS.

Google Android also supports Air.. there - there! Flex Builder is now a Mobile Apps IDE as well now without too much effort.

Now Flash will be a part of the very popular Android mobile OS. And that is a great thing for the Flash technology, because it instantly ensures that Flash and Air will be amongst the major players of the mobile technology (and any other Android driven embedded technology that pops along the way). The only thing that Adobe had to do was to port the Flash player on Linux... hmmm...

If we take my work experience as an example, (I do application development for internal company processes, servers automation and system administration user interfaces in Java and C# mostly and my main workstation OS is Ubuntu.) I see a great potential in enterprise use for ActionScript 3 (which has been very helpful for me mostly on producing report UIs and monitoring panels) and for Flex Builder (if it was to be ported to Linux and enabling me to use it in almost the native kernel environment of my jobs application servers, then that would be a life saver for me).

Porting to Linux is a good thing.

The only thing that your managers need to do is to just realize it.

[phillennium]

Jeremy, thanks a lot for your answers, they're very informative. But I still have a couple of questions:

1. You've said that developing a Linux version of CS would upset the shareholders. But Adobe develops some software for Linux such as Flash player. Why aren't the shareholders unhappy with that?

2. You've mentioned a possibility of developing a cloud version of CS. How high are the chances? Do you think it's already the time for Adobe products to go cloud or the web technologies aren't there yet and we need a few more years for them to catch up with our expectations? Is Adobe satisfied with the public reception of Photoshop Express Editor and does it plan to improve it in the nearest future? It's generally considered that while the "light" applications like task managers all go web the "heavy" ones don't fit there at the moment and their web-based versions can't be very useful, but nevertheless Autodesk has developed web-based Autocad WS (based on your Flash technology) - what do you think of it? And what's your general opinion on the web/cloud-technologies and operational systems: is it possible that in a few years time most of things will be done inside the browser window (instead of external applications) so it just won't matter much for the most of users if they're using Windows, Linux or something else?

(sorry for my English, it's not my native language)

[jeremy d.]

1. You've said that developing a Linux version of CS would upset the shareholders. But Adobe develops some software for Linux such as Flash player. Why aren't the shareholders unhappy with that?

If we had been developing Premiere for Linux all along, then that would not be a problem.

We have, though, 15+ years of Premiere for Mac and Windows, and moving development to Linux at this point would cost lots of money.

2. You've mentioned a possibility of developing a cloud version of CS. How high are the chances?

This is what I said: "I'm all for a cloud version, and more power to Linux users if they can make Linux take off." I am not in a position to speculate whether that would happen or not.

[paulo_miguel_dias]

Jeremy, just for once, get out of your windows world, and do some little research. Maybe you can take some examples from a "small" internet company, its called Google, ever heard of it?

They ported a "little" program called picasa to linux, and with low cost.

How? One word, WINE. Porting CS5 or any other suite would be extremely cost friendly to ADOBE, since CS5 already works (more or less with wine), it just isnt polished.

Is it a native port? NO!, needs to be? HELL NO! If it works well and is well integrated (menus, .debs, copy/paste, etc) it doesnt matter if its native windows running like native ELF, the only thing it matters is that it would be well supported by ADOBE.

Pros:

- same code, its windows

- wine gets better visibility and code (you prolly would have to send  some changes to wine upstream (BUT YOU DONT HAVE TO)

- you can use it as runtime or as a compilation, and you can distribute it with wine included (like picasa does), so you keep the maintenance to a minimum.

Cons:

- the only i see is that its not native code as perceived by the community.

Think about it, there are many paths to the linux world.

Just my 2 cents

[Jeff Bellune]

paulo,

Welcome to the forum.

I don't know what (if any) forums you frequent, but around here sarcasm and insults won't get you the results you want.  Those things will most likely get you ignored (or worse).

We often have serious debates about issues and features without demeaning the other folks participating here.  On those occasions where things get too heated, your friendly neighborhood moderators are here to try to calm things down, like I'm doing with you right now.

-Jeff

[paulo_miguel_dias]

HI, jeff, first and foremost, if my post above was considered insulting i apologize. Next, yes i used a little sarcasm in the first paragraph, but i couldnt see where i insulted anyone. Anyway, im going to reedit my original post to remove the first sarcastic paragraph, and to keep the message i wanted to pass through. which was: photoshop can be ported via WINE with little cost, and it would be as useful as a native port to the linux comunity.

again, if someone felt insulted it was without intent.

best regards

UPDATE: aparently i can only edit the last post, so the sarcasting part remains.

So please community, this part is sarcasm and should be ignored:

Jeremy, just for once, get out of your windows world, and do some little  research. Maybe you can take some examples from a "small" internet  company, its called Google, ever heard of it?

sorry for the disturbance it caused.

Message was edited by: paulo_miguel_dias

[jeremy d.]

I think we've beaten the Shareholders argument into the ground in this thread -- however complicated the port would be, we'd have to hire more people to write and test it. That leads directly to the Money argument, which then gets nervous and lashes back at the Shareholders argument, and the two become intertwined.

I have said already that I have nothing against -- or for, I suppose -- Linux. I am not The Decider. I am likewise not the researcher, nor should I be.

Don't worry about your post, but puh-lease, mine is not to be mistaken for a Windows world.

Them's fightin' words.

Nice to see this thread again.

[paulo_miguel_dias]

Hi jeremy, nice to know you didnt get offended, since it wasnt my intention in the first place

I agree with you, shareholders get nervous with the words "investment", "cost" and anything in between.

I also know you are not the Decider, since deciders usually only read nice income reports and latest best seller on how to be a good manager and go to the top, not forums where users and possible users actually express their desires from ADOBE.

What i wanted to make clear here is that the WINE port would be cheap compared to the size of Adobe and the possible market (linux) that it would unveil, but like you said, ADOBE is renitent at best in investing in other platforms, not to mention that ADOBE as good ties with MS and prolly doesnt want to upset its partner.

That said, and since technical arguments were proved moot at this point, we can then come to the conclusion that the port wont happen because of the lack of vision/will or any other political reason.

A pitty but...

Tks for the answer and keep up the good work.

[outwirednet]

I was actually curious if a legacy port would be easier?  I don't know enough about the programming structure or code base of lets say, Photoshop, to know if doing a port of Version 7.0 or CS would be easier than CS5?  If doing a legacy port is a more viable option, then would this be a better request than the entire current Creative Suite as a future platform for adobe developers to maintain?  Just an idea... considering Photoshop CS is the last stable version IMHO.  Every version thereafter has been buggy, at least on Windows.  I do know if you were to do an entire port of all your modern products to Linux, it wouldn't be cost effective.  The only route you could take would be to get the help of the LSF (Linux Software Foundation) or a partner company to help ease the development burden and even then the chances of making a profit from the resulting software would be up in the air.  I know alot of people are under the illusion that Mac OSX is just a fork of BSD or OpenStep, but this is only half true, its actually a jumbled mess of mach, bsd, cocoa, and carbon.  Their X Windowing system integrates differently (and I mean its like comparing Chinese to English differently) than any windowing system GNU/Linux has to offer.  So even if you took the backend and anything that could be run from a CLI, all Adobe Products are heavily visual so that would mean rewriting the bulk share of the code.  I'm far and away a supporter of Microsoft, but honestly porting from Windows to Linux seems much simpler than Mac to Linux, which is a tragedy, but its not Adobe's fault; they're just developing for the largest market share.  Seems like the best options at this moment would be either 1.) Adobe team up with a Linux company to produce a port of their products (legacy or not) or 2.) Do what google did with Picasa.  In any case when you look at the coding aspects of such a large undertaking, it truly is a mess. For the record I only use Windows for Photoshop / Cubase work, I spend most of on my time working in Mandriva Linux.  I'd also like to note I would be working with Autodesk applications in Windows but they ported Maya to Linux a program thats neither cheap or "free" (free as in Freedom, not free beer).  I'd love Adobe to release something similar, where you purchase the product and its available to you for any OS, so you're not locked into using it for one platform.  Just my 2 cents.

[Jim_Simon]

Do you think it's already the time for Adobe products to go cloud

Considering the sluggishness of having just the Help file online, I can't even imagine trying to work with the whole program online. 

[JaysonM-Y]

JSS1138 wrote:

Do you think it's already the time for Adobe products to go cloud

Considering the sluggishness of having just the Help file online, I can't even imagine trying to work with the whole program online. 

here here.

Sharing my 1 cent, I'm an end user who'd prefer to have someone put what I want in a program to the best of their know how with as little backlash to them and myself, that being said..... you cant bite the hand that provides your creative apps for you, they're not your slaves but mostly dedicated people trying to bring the best they can to your table. If you find anything that you can do to help them in this endeavor then buckle down and do it... which the most I think Linux users can do is either start a poll or offer to do a port free(LOLOL free port LOL).

I wouldn't mind giving the ubuntu experience a shot, but currently I don't see what it has to offer me. It would be like getting a Lambo out here in Jamaica where your only choices for support and parts are Toyota, Honda, BMW and barely any other with the exception of the lamborghini(which has none). What are you going to do? Make the parts and perform support yourself? There's a reason why you spend money for pre-made equipment; so you don't have to make it yourself.

Definitely not to say that I wouldn't like to see a Linux version of the suite(as a matter of fact I'd love to try it out) but there's only so far that a company can go to it's hopeful customers, for greater progress the hopeful customers will have to come to the company. BTW isn't there usually meeting places and such that Adobe officials are able to meet with the general public and such?

I try to keep myself active on such events but being so far away usually makes my efforts a big waste of time.... as I can't attend any....

[Jeff Bellune]

And Ubuntu is getting prettier! So, the "Mac is the only aesthetically pleasing OS" argument is disappearing!

I installed Ubuntu via the Oracle VM VirtualBox just to take it for a test drive.  And you're right - it is getting prettier.  Much prettier.

But it still falls far short of OSX's or even Windows' "ease of use".  Don't get me wrong - it's getting much better in that department, too.  But for creative types who want to produce, even Ubuntu is far too "techie" for most of them.  Ask someone who's never used Linux before to install a new program, then sit back and watch.  Even for packages included in the Ubuntu distro, it will be a frustrating experience for anyone who's not very computer savvy.  Ask them to install a package that's *not* included in the distro, and you'll be able to go get a couple of beers, and maybe a whole six-pack, before they've sussed it.

Linux has improved its look, feel and operation by leaps and bounds in the last few years, but it's not yet a viable "artist's" OS.

-Jeff

[the_wine_snob]

Jeff,

Considering the base of users, who flee in tears from Windows, back to their comfortable Mac's, I'd say that a very large number are just as you describe - not technically oriented, and only wanting instant gratification and production.

Heck, at one time I loved tearing into the guts of my PC's and into the OS. In time, I got so busy that I only wanted things to install smoothly and be put to work instantly. Now, even with more time, back on my hands, I have become complacent and just want to be creating, and not troubleshooting "stuff." I don't even build my own boxes anymore, though do heavily oversee the operation. I just cannot stay current on the advances, and do not have the time to learn - heck, that would be time taken away from my Lounge visits!!!!!

Hunt

[Jim_Simon]

Ask someone who's never used Linux before to install a new program, then sit back and watch. 

That, I feel, will forever be the largest single inhibitor to widespread Linux adoption on the desktop.  Until Linus and crew sit down and come up with a way to make installing a program in Linux as easy as it is in Windows - one single file with all dependencies checked and provided for if any are missing - Linux will be a "techie" OS.  Even if major software companies like Adobe did step up and port their entire catalog to Linux, the installation scene there would discourage more than a few from using it.

Hell, even I'd rather pay for Windows in this regard, and I spent three years using Linux.

[Conan_Kudo]

Ask someone who's never used Linux before to install a new program, then sit back and watch. 

That, I feel, will forever be the largest single inhibitor to widespread Linux adoption on the desktop.  Until Linus and crew sit down and come up with a way to make installing a program in Linux as easy as it is in Windows - one single file with all dependencies checked and provided for if any are missing - Linux will be a "techie" OS.  Even if major software companies like Adobe did step up and port their entire catalog to Linux, the installation scene there would discourage more than a few from using it.

Hell, even I'd rather pay for Windows in this regard, and I spent three years using Linux.

Well, Linus has nothing to do with package management. And package management works quite well, the problem is that the interfaces for the package management system are not very intuitive (though Ubuntu 10.04 LTS has made great strides there).

Actually, nearly all Linux distributions that depend on either Debian or RPM packaging systems have a "double click to install" method for packages downloaded from the internet. Fedora was one of the first distributions to offer this sort of capability, and it does dependency resolution and installation from repositories if the dependencies are missing but available. Ubuntu added support for it two years ago.

And there are software packages that let you have traditional Windows-style installers that let you have self contained applications. BitRock's InstallBuilder is one, and Icculus' MojoSetup is another.

The biggest weakness in Linux software installation now (at least on Ubuntu) is repository management. However, I think Canonical is planning on fixing that in Ubuntu 10.10.

[Jeff Bellune]

And there are software packages that let you have traditional Windows-style installers that let you have self contained applications. BitRock's InstallBuilder is one, and Icculus' MojoSetup is another.

The biggest weakness in Linux software installation now (at least on Ubuntu) is repository management. However, I think Canonical is planning on fixing that in Ubuntu 10.10.

Well, we have AIR - Adobe Integrated Runtime - to facilitate content development on multiple platforms.  Maybe we could get ARM - Adobe Repository Management - to put a pretty front end on it and facilitate app installation and platform adoption for Linux.

-Jeff

[Conan_Kudo]

Well, we have AIR - Adobe Integrated Runtime - to facilitate content development on multiple platforms.  Maybe we could get ARM - Adobe Repository Management - to put a pretty front end on it and facilitate app installation and platform adoption for Linux.

That's not a bad idea. It'd be kind of cool to be able to use that for creating good self-contained installers as alternatives to InstallBuilder and MojoSetup... And it'd be even better if that supported skinned installers. Currently nothing I'm aware of does yet, and that would be something to set it apart from the others...

[Jim_Simon]

Linus has nothing to do with package management.

I didn't necessarily mean him personally.  I use Linus as the figure head of all Linux development.

it does dependency resolution and installation from repositories if the dependencies are missing but available.

That's close (and new, it wasn't like that last time I used Linux), but no cigar.  The installer package needs to be largely self-contained, including everything that might be needed to install the program, excepting only KDE and GNOME.  This, I believe, is the only way the average current user would have it.

[Conan_Kudo]

it does dependency resolution and installation from repositories if the dependencies are missing but available.

That's close (and new, it wasn't like that last time I used Linux), but no cigar.  The installer package needs to be largely self-contained, including everything that might be needed to install the program, excepting only KDE and GNOME.  This, I believe, is the only way the average current user would have it.

Self contained RPMs/DEBs are possible, but that is totally up to the creator of the RPM/DEB package. Most opt not to do this, but some have done so (see Opera's packages, they have a static bundled RPM/DEB and one that relies on system libs dynamically). The technology is there, it is just up to the packager to make it work that way.

Wow, it looks like the "switchboard" is lighting up here on this topic.  This is good...healthy open discussion going on here.

Yep. It is a topic that people are interested in, so of course there is going to be a good discussion! Plus, I'd like to think that nobody here are n00bs and fools....

jeremy d. wrote:

Ugh, aesthetically pleasing. Fisher-Price Easy Bake iOven.

Now you're "dissing" the Mac??  That coupled with your reluctance to port to Linux will really reduce choices for a reliable platform to work on.

This, I'm surprised about. Also, that was a rather good way to combine insults for both Mac OS X and Windows XP visual styling.... Nevertheless, that is very surprising from a design guy...

[jeremy d.]

Me or him?

My point is that I don't necessarily find the Mac OS any more visually appealing than Windows. Both are boring, by design, as they should be. I don't have to defend that opinion.

As for my "reluctance" to port to Linux --  don't mistake my disbelief that it will happen anytime soon, for any sort of reluctance on my part. I even said that it would be a great day when it happens. Besides, my reluctance in this case would make little to no difference.

jeremy d. wrote:

Ugh, aesthetically pleasing. Fisher-Price Easy Bake iOven.

Now you're "dissing" the Mac??  That coupled with your reluctance to port to Linux will really reduce choices for a reliable platform to work on.

This, I'm surprised about. Also, that was a rather good way to combine insults for both Mac OS X and Windows XP visual styling.... Nevertheless, that is very surprising from a design guy...

[Jeff Bellune]

  Besides, my reluctance in this case would make little to no difference.

Dang, Jeremy.  You mean your promotion to Senior VP of Marketing got held up *again*?  I just don't understand what the board is thinking about!

-Jeff