Adobe Photoshop developer talks about the linux desktop
A photoshop developer named Chris Cox over at Adobe had this to say (Bugmenot Required) about the linux desktop, in response to a user’s request for a linux port:
Is the time approaching when Linux has standards for fonts, color management, printing, etc.?
What’s all this then?
Is the time approaching when Linux has standard APIs beyond POSIX? (in other words: Linux is just the kernel, it’s all the other stuff that makes it useful. But all that other stuff varies from distribution to distribution.)
Hm, I count over 30 at Freedesktop.org, and don’t forget the work that is coming out of the Portland Project.
Is the time approaching when Linux has standards for a GUI? (anything based on X WIndows does not qualify… Been there, bought the T-shirt, still got the books, but ain’t goin back)
Sorry guys! You won’t see photoshop on linux until the Y Window System hits 1.0!
A few years ago there was this big movement started by a lot of people people who didn’t know what the hell they were talking about (me included, I admit) spreading the word that X windows had to go. Projects like Y and PicoGUI showed up and quickly faded away into vaporware.
Fortunately, some people stayed on course and forked the horribly mislead XFree86 project creating Xorg, which quickly reduced XFree86 into nothing more than a terrible repressed memory. Since then, the code has been refactored, and it is now much easier for the Xorg project to release updates (an updated driver doesn’t require you to rebuild the entire tree), and (they claim) easier for new developers to get involved.
More important to most users is of course all the eye-candy that X now supports thanks to the Xgl and AIGLX projects. Developers were able to implement effects that make both OSX and Vista feel old-fashioned — without major architectural changes. Remember that Vista has a completely new driver model.
And I have to throw this in .. X provides network transparency, meaning that an application can execute on one system but be displayed on another. This is very useful when combined with SSH (look up the “X11 Forwarding” section in the ssh man page), and has made projects like LTSP possible – something that has proved to be extremely valuable in the third world, where many new computers for a school is not financially feasible.
Like everything, X it has it’s downsides. But I think it’s future is bright, and there’s no reason to start over now.
Is the time approaching when Linux has real desktop applications and not just command line apps, one-off ports and server products?
Wow, nobody is going to take offense to this…
Some of my favorites:
And don’t forget…
- The 1500+ applications at GnomeFiles.org
- Adobe’s own Reader, which had an “overwhelming response from customers” when the version 7 beta for linux was launched
And most importantly: is the time approaching when Linux desktop users are willing to pay for commercial software?
Yes, here are a few examples:
- From a novell press release:
“During the third fiscal quarter 2006, Novell reported $12 million of revenue from Linux* Platform Products, up 30% year-over-year.” - I wasn’t able to find any numbers, but I know that many people have puchased VMware Workstation for linux
- Both CodeWeavers and Transgaming sell products that make it possible for users to run commercial windows software on Linux. C’mon guys, it’s not all piracy. People are buying stuff here.
Sure, there are people will will only use software that is both free as in beer and freedom, but there is a growing number of people who are just fed up with windows, and want something else, wither it be completely “free” or not.
Let me know when you have a serious answer.
Will do.
Certainly not all of the standards/specifications listed above at completely mature as of yet, but I think that seeing this reaction from someone at Adobe very clearly outlines the difference between traditional proprietary software companies and open-source friendly companies.
This developer claims that until they feel that the linux platform meets 101% of their requirements, they wont even consider porting Photoshop to linux. End of story. Forget what the market might say in a few years (I personally think the linux desktop will continue to gain marketshare at a faster rate than ever before), it still wont be ready!
In contrast, companies that develop open-source software are willing to contribute to the platform, and help get it ready for their application, and at the same time, improving it for everyone.
A few examples:
- Google contracted CodeWeavers to get Picasa running under WINE. This doesn’t mean that CodeWeavers hacked Picasa to death so it would work, but rather they fixed 255 bugs in WINE, all of which clearly benefit the community at large, as well as any other companies that might want to use WINE to bring their windows software to linux.
- Fluendo has contributed a lot of work to the Gstreamer project – which is very bleeding edge – and based several commercial products around it
- Imendio (GTK on OSX) and VMware (libview) contribute to the GTK and GNOME projects.
A friend of mine said “it’s like this guy is living 5-10 years ago”. So, in conclusion, Chris, I have to ask you….
Categorized as Open Source, Me, Rants, Technology
10 Comments
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
-
Linux, Python, and the Stars » Blog Archive » Adobe and Linux…
[...] I was reading an interesting blog post by FireRabbit concerning Adobe and releasing a Linux version of there popular Photoshop product, and had just a few comments after giving it some thought. I will reinterate that I agree with everything FireRabbit mentioned, but I think the points mentioned by a Adobe developer are simply minor secondary complaints rather than the main reason why there is no Photoshop on Linux. Sadly, Adobe looks at what benefits them first and foremost. I am sure they see contributing to an open source project an unprofitable venture that could allow competitors to eek out a tiny niche for a competing product. There is of course a few exceptions but during a time where digital photography is flourishing and Photoshop is generating large revenue they simply will not give any others an opportunity to break there monopoly, be it Elements or CS2. Adobe has no business reason to bring Photoshop to Linux for a small market that exists for such a product. They are willing to bring Adobe Reader to Linux for the simply reason it allows them to further reinforce there format (PDF) on yet another operating system, and given the closed source nature of it, gives nothing to the competing formats and said programs. [...]
I’m beginning to wonder if this guy has tried linux within the last ten years..
I wonder if anyone mentioned that Photoshop seems to work pretty well in wine these days.
From my experience, linux users often don’t pay for commercial software either because they don’t port things, or there are perfectly good (if not better) alternatives.
>>And most importantly: is the time approaching when Linux desktop users are willing to pay for commercial software?
[..]
>Sure, there are people will will only use software that is both free as in beer and freedom
Let me add this:
I would really like to pay for commercial software. I would even pay twice as much as the windows version costs. But only if it’s commercial Free (as in freedom) Software. I will not support proprietary software whether it’s commercial proprietary software or gratis proprietary software.
” I would even pay twice as much as the windows version costs. But only if it’s commercial Free (as in freedom) Software.”
When it is free software as in freedom, how would you expect a software company to make any money with it? Free as in freedom allows -any- user to distribute copies of it free of charge. So the software company would sell exactly ONE copy of their product, after that you would find it everywhere on the web, for free, including the source code. You could then call it a “fork”.
Do you get the idea why companies like Adobe are not at all excited about producing “free” software (as in freedom)?
And do you also get the idea why nobody out there would even have to pay for that software?
And this is exactly the reason why so many vendors will never go down the Linux alley. Unless you are in the services and support business, like IBM and Novell and many others in fact are, there simply is no business to be made with Linux or free (as in freedom) software.
And generating income via services, printed documentation and support is not everybody’s idea why the went into the software development business in the first place.
As for the “perfectly good or even better” alternatives: I have more than a dozen of applications on my Macs for which NO alternative on Linux exists that even comes close to what “the original” does.
And it will probably never happen, because there is a simple truth behind the development of free software: It’s either done because a sponsor pays for the development or it is done because the developer gets a kick out of writing it or because he simply needs it.
Developing software for professionals is cost-extensive and consumes a lot of time – and must meet customer demands. I honestly cannot imagine open source developers writing programs like PhotoShop, Aperture or Ableton Live in their spare time or because a corporate sponsor could be found for that.
Linux is great for developers, because mostly developers are using it.
Linux sucks for professional users, because none of the stuff they are looking for exists for it — unless they work for a company that has developed their own tools for that platform.
Anyway – I know that none of the Linux-geeks here seconds my opinion, but that doesn’t matter. ;-)
@Winni: I think you mixed many different things and forget some points.
Fisrt we have to know that more than 90% of the software market is selling and building software as service. That means someone needs special software, company A will build it and the customer will pay the complete development. So for over 90% of the market we don’t need any income through licensing.
Now look at the market which is smaller than 10%. Here we have to distinguish between to type of customers: 1. private persons and 2. companies and business people.
First take a look at the private person. Private person buying from time to time software and downloading software sometimes. This has absolutely noting to to with the license, you get also commercial non-free software in the internet and you will never be able to stop it because it’s the nature of software to be shared. But you earn still some money from private persons who prefere to buy a box.
The second group are the business people and companies. They prefer always to buy software. Look at the OpenOffice example. First Sun stopped StarOffice but than more and more customers demanded StarOffice. Why? Not because the like software they can’t change, they can’t share and they can’t study and not because the want to spent more money. It’s because they want software from a provider who is “responsible” for the software and a phone number they can call if they have some problems.
So look at the whole picture. We have over 90% of the market which is not influenced through licensing. From the rest of the 10% we have the market of professional customers. They prefere always a product from a comapny instead of something from the internet (the OOo example shows this). Finally we have a home user market which is by far the smallest part, probably under 5%. This users already copy their software completely independent from the license. This has probably two reasons: 1. often it’s to expansive for this users and 2. probably nobody of them really needs this (professional) programs they just have it that they can say “i have it”. But maybe this still helps companies. Because on this way you create people which are addicted to your software and maybe in the future they will work in this area and will than use and buy this software because than they are in the group of companies and business people who buy software, not because of the license but because of other practical values.
I think the problem is that Adobe is worried about timing: port to early, and you get what Correl got, ie no market. Port to late and you get what nero got ie a market saturated by free software solutions.
Adobe apparently still think they’re in the former. In their shoes (which I’m not obviously) I’d be more worried about ending up in the latter (gimp 3.0 seems promising).
OK, correction: the next gimp seems to be 2.4, but still seems very interesting since it has some features which PS lacks atm (the new selection algorythme for one) and is catching up on many other fronts.
Well written, factually article. Thank you!
Winni wrote: “I honestly cannot imagine open source developers writing programs like PhotoShop, Aperture or Ableton Live in their spare time or because a corporate sponsor could be found for that.”
http://ardour.org/
Not even written in the lead developer’s spare time (*), but written in his full time, because he wanted to and could. An exception? Perhaps. Relevant? I think so.
(*) err, that would be me.
I’m going to official stop using Photoshop and switch to Gimp. I was using CrossOver, but it looks like propriety dependencies hurt the progression of Open Source software. Regardless of what Apple/Microsoft fan boys think, it’s only a matter of time that Open Source really puts propriety out of business.