×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe Forming a Linux Strategy?

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the bet-hedging dept.

Graphics 336

rocketjam writes "According to cnet, Adobe Systems, the 800-pound gorilla of commercial graphics software is looking to become more involved with desktop Linux. The company has recently posted two new jobs, one for a director of Linux market development to 'identify and evaluate strategies for Adobe in the Linux and open-source desktop market', and one for a senior computer scientist who will 'become maintainer and/or architect for one or more Adobe-sponsored open-source projects.' Additionally, Adobe has joined the Open Source Development Labs and is active in the desktop Linux working group. A company spokesman said they are not currently looking to port any of their flagship products such as Photoshop to Linux yet, as they currently don't see sufficient numbers in the platform to make a good business case for it."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

336 comments

m$ (0, Redundant)

torrents (827493) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710307)

m$ is gonna love this...

Re:m$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710406)

Why's that then?

Why so? Re:m$ (0, Redundant)

gmac63 (12603) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710442)

How is MS going to love this? I don't understand. What effect really does this have on anything Microsoft? I would be more affraid if I were Steve Jobs.

Re: Why so? Re:m$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710541)

We don't need Creative Suite for Linux

But InCopy and Adobe Server SW powered not by MS W2K and MS SQL - that would be nice

Arg matey (-1, Troll)

booyah (28487) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710314)

Besides, with the GIMP, who needs to pirate photoshop? Finally a platform that I dont need to steal software to use :-)

Flame bait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710348)

Newsflash... the GIMP doesn't hold a candle to Photoshop.

Re:Arg matey (2, Informative)

Milo of Kroton (780850) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710365)

The problem be that you have an inferior project. Why is not GIMP used professionally? At many companies the tech departments have heard of GIMP, but the design departments prefer Adobe Photoshop. Why? Simple quality issue. Nothing more. The GIMP must be the furthered develop before gained market share.

Re:Arg matey (4, Insightful)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710402)

It isn't? Do you doubt that the GIMP is used professionaly in non-print graphics (web design, games)? Even if GIMP isn't used Cinepaint sure is.

Re:Arg matey (2, Informative)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710553)

Web and video graphics are ALOT different from print media which is where Adobe shines.

If you're making a spread for a magazine, it _has_ to be in PDF/X-1a format which Gimp doesn't do.

Gimp is starting to get into color seperation with CMYK support but it isn't there yet.

Adobe Illustrator is the leader for SVG. The Linux alternatives aren't as good yet for print output. As far as usability and making a cute web graphic, sure Inkscape is fine.

Finally, Adobe InDesign is starting to replace the cumbersome Quark. There is NO layout tool for Linux for print. Again the support for PDF/X1-a goes without saying.

The only program I see that has support for PDF/X1-a on Linux is the libraries that come with PDFlib

Re:Arg matey (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710549)

Gotta Agree with you.
gimp is great (i've used it at work actually) for simple use or if you need to do something graphical for a one time thing and don't want to buy Photoshop for it, but don't like to use paint.

Adobe is king when it comes to heavy graphics usage in the workplace though.

Re:Arg matey (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710540)

Mentioning The GIMP on Slashdot ? How it is, down to the oblivion ?

Re:Arg matey (2, Informative)

ralphart (70342) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710551)

Sorry, this is going to be highly redundant, but sadly I must weigh in on the side of those who say Photoshop STILL beats GIMP.

I am a graphics professional turned web guy, have used various versions of Photoshop on PC since 1995. Believe me, I really WANT to like GIMP. I've installed it on Windows and Linux over the years, and tried it....but I agree with those who say Photoshop still rules.

GIMP, as good as it is (and it has gotten MUCH better over the years) still feels like a knockoff. Photoshop feels much more intuitive, as it should, given the years Adobe has used fine-tuning their interface, which, incidently, they stick with on all of their graphics products. Part of the appeal (I'm guessing) with the Graphic Professionals is that ability to jump from app to app without a lot of re-learning of the user interface.

Type handling in Photoshop has always felt easier, which for someone making web graphics is a big deal.

Again, much as I love the idea of GIMP, I still shell out money for Photoshop. But your mileage may vary, and to each his own.

Dont need photoshop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710315)

when we have GIMP. $600.00 vs. free. No brainer IMHO.

Re:Dont need photoshop (3, Interesting)

Chicane-UK (455253) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710371)

Sorry but like the Open Office vs Microsoft Office debate.. for free products they are astoundingly good, and given the choice between not using office and graphics tools and using OO / GIMP then i'd use the free software in a second.

But if price were no issue, the commercial applications would rule the roost! THATS a no brainer... IMHO of course.

Re:Dont need photoshop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710467)

then you obviously don't do any professional graphics editing

Re:Dont need photoshop (1)

antiMStroll (664213) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710505)

In business price is always the issue. Plus there's a huge low to middle range of applications, things like touching up photos for the company newsletter or internal technical reports, for which the Gimp is a perfectly viable solution. Not every edited graphic is destined for a magazine cover.

Re:Dont need photoshop (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710552)

Exactly. For a lot of professional work I'm sure that Gimp doesn't have the tools you need, but it does everything I want for the uses I have... and it seems to get better all the time.

Re:Dont need photoshop (2, Interesting)

jsebrech (525647) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710558)

But if price were no issue, the commercial applications would rule the roost! THATS a no brainer... IMHO of course.

That's because of the inherent problem with software GUI development: it can not be parallellized to a great degree. There is nothing comparable to a central knowledgeable UI tzar or core team when you need a mainstream usable environment. Most open source projects still let just about anyone who has submitted more than a few lines of code to the project tinker with the UI, and as a result most open source projects have UI's that are horrible compromises and seem designed by committee.

Re:Dont need photoshop (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710410)

You only get what you pay for. $600.00 for a software package designed for graphic designers is a steal. You think a plumber or mechanic skimps when buying his tools? Please.

Chess_the_cat. Banned. Again.

Re:Dont need photoshop (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710436)

The kind of people who spend $600 for photoshop want quality. GIMP is Free Software[TM] and a great program, but it's not what professional people prefer. My brother is an industrial designer and has used grahics programs from the microcomputer era and he finds GIMP's UI to be really bad. People say it's just a matter of getting used to it... dunno

IRIX (2, Interesting)

vasqzr (619165) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710318)


Aren't there quite a few Adobe programs that run/ran on IRIX?

This would almost be a way for SGI to re-enter the market, with Linux/Adobe workstations. Out-Macintosh the Mac, I guess.

Don't get excited! (1)

datbox (800756) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710330)

Before everyone gets excited, I doubt this will result in brining photoshop over to linux. I see them going real small with this, such as Adobe Acrobat Reader, or some other smaller apps. Fear not gimp!

Re:Don't get excited! (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710395)

There already is Adobe Acrobat Reader for Linux.

Re:Don't get excited! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710419)

Not an up-to-date version.

Re:Don't get excited! (3, Informative)

atomic-penguin (100835) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710424)

There is an adobe reader for linux. I just can't read Adobe E-books in Linux.

Re:Don't get excited! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710475)

From TFA "In one more limited area, Deziel said, customers are interested, though: an updated Linux version of Acrobat Reader, which is used to view Portable Document Format (PDF) files. "We would like the version of the Linux reader to be updated from 5.0, and we're working on that," she said. Adobe offers version 6.0.1 for Windows users today."

at least they could make it wine compatible (4, Insightful)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710331)

they could spend a little more time developing/testing their wares so they run fine in wine/cedega/crossover just like corel did once.

this would help creating market to an eventual native port.

Parent links are NSFW (Troll) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710387)

The parent post is NSFW content of a shit covered woman and a bouncing javascript window.

AC because mods have their heads in their asses and modded me Troll last time.

PARENT IS A TROLL, DO NOT CLICK (4, Informative)

spuke4000 (587845) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710403)

I fell for the parent's trick yesterday. If you click the links your browser window will reduce to a smaller size and bounce around the screen, and an audio clip will play saying "I'm looking at gay porno", and because your browser window is dancing around it's hard to close. Really, it's a pretty nicely crafted troll. But a troll nonetheless.

Re:PARENT IS A TROLL, DO NOT CLICK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710527)

Its interesting that people think they are helping by posting these warnings. All you are doing is causing more people to click on the link due to the immense curiosity you just created.

This is great news (3, Interesting)

Robert M. Wales (827012) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710334)

Hopefully, Photoshop and Illustrator will be ported. If they are, Linux can count me in as one of their users. My Adobe applications are the only reason I still use Windows.

Photoshop runs on Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710399)

I've gotten Photoshop to run under wine, and Crossover Office [codeweavers.com] lists it as Silver, which means there may be some bugs, but it runs for most purposes.

Re:This is great news (1)

ratbag (65209) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710456)

Ditto (PS port-> Linux => another converted user). Although PhaseOne's C1Pro would need to work as well to drag me away from Windows completely. Converting 1D MkII RAW files is all my computer really does at home, now I've stopped bringing programming work home.

acroread is here already (3, Funny)

agent dero (680753) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710337)

With how (seemingly) easy they ported Acrobat Reader to Linux, I can't imagine Photoshop being too much different.

The only difficult part would be the GUI stuff, all the underlying code is just C++, which, IIRC is pretty portable ;) (unless you're writing with evil compiler-specific hacks)

Funny story my friend bill told me about WWDC (refrencing Photoshop's portability)
Apparently Apple gave free t-shirts if you have a project with over 5000 lines of code that you compiled with XCode. Some really dorky guy quietly walks up, writes down "Photoshop"....the apple guy looked at him for a second...and then just handed him a shirt, no questions asked :-P

Re:acroread is here already (4, Informative)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710369)

The newest version of Acrobat Reader is not available for linux. Only the last version is.

Re:acroread is here already (3, Insightful)

Noksagt (69097) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710455)

Yup. I also find acroread to be slow and bloaty. I am happy with xpdf [foolabs.com].

It'd be nice if Adobe ported the full verion of Acrobat over. It doesn't work well in Wine (even in commercial products like Crossover Office) & some of the features for editing/marking up PDFs are useful.

Re:acroread is here already (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710534)

XPDF doesn't support DRM docs while the newest Adobe version does.

That makes it very difficult/impossible to view some PDF's.

Re:acroread is here already (1)

vasqzr (619165) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710471)

I'd rather much use XPDF or other programs anyway. Acrobat Reader on Linux is very, very slow, and with a non-Adobe program you can do things (such as print pages) that the Adobe version won't let you do because of security 'features'

Re:acroread is here already (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710536)

The newest version of Acrobat Reader is not available for linux. Only the last version is.

Some would say that's a good thing. Acrobat Reader 6 is slow and bloated. Version 5 is ten times better, IMO.

Re:acroread is here already (3, Informative)

say (191220) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710379)

The hard part is the color management. Linux/X is far behind on color management compared to MacOS and Windows.

Re:acroread is here already (1)

ValuJet (587148) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710404)

Yea because the difficulty in porting a program that reads a standard document format(pdf) and displays it to the screen is on par with the same porting a graphical design editor.

/sarcasm

Re:acroread is here already (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710459)

I can imagine it being very different.

Acrobat reader for linux was derived from existing motif versions already written for other unix systems. Acrobat reader on other platforms was required to market the format as Adobe wanted ('portable document format'). Porting from, say, motif on solaris to motif on linux is, well, essentially free, relatively speaking.

The other Adobe products are written against Cocoa, Carbon, and/or MFC/win32, all of which are significantly different from linux/whatever toolkit. True, OSX versions for non-graphical tasks may be potentially similar to common linux APIs, and maybe, just maybe, leveraging GNUstep they could have very similar APIs overall to OSX,
(which would be a nice boost to GNUstep, but I'm dreaming), but the reality is a serious port would probably need to use something more mainstream, GTK or QT.

well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710338)

there goes the primary mac/linux/windows argument. For years adobe programs have defined aspiring web/graphic designers' choices. Here comes alot more noobie installation hell.

it's about the $$$, baby (1)

hype7 (239530) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710347)

going by google's old zeitegeist (sp?), which is a much more accurate indicator of machines people use (as opposed to servers, or single-process machines) Apple was up by a few % to Linux. And remember, Apple's is a platform with a disproportionate number of graphic artists, many of them rusted on to the Mac.

It's a good move for Linux to get Adobe behind them, but I wouldn't be sacking your GIMP just yet.

-- james

I use photoshop in Linux... (1)

philipacamaniac (672995) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710353)

Thanks to WINE, anyway! :)

But a real photoshop user, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710417)

...you are not.

Sorry, PS over Wine/Xover is NOT acceptable for those of us using PS to its full extent and abilities. And before you ask, yes, i've tried it...many times...on 3ghz machines sporting 2gig of ddr - not going to work. Need it native...plain and simple.

Photoshop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710355)

If they port photoshop, I'll give a guarentee that I'll pirate it!

They don't think we've forgotten . . . (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710358)

. . . about Sklyarov, do they? They can port Photoshop to Linux; I'll stick with the GIMP, thank you very much.

Why did it take so long? (5, Insightful)

overbyj (696078) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710362)

I really have to wonder why it took so long for Adobe to jump on the Linux bandwagon. Sure, everybody and their mother will say that there is the GIMP and I agree, it is a great program and ver powerful. However, that being said, it is no Adobe Photoshop.

In the election spirit, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen

"I have used Photoshop. Photoshop is my friend. Mr. GIMP, you are no Photoshop." (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

Seriously, if Adobe moves into Linux with Photoshop and the other heavy hitters from their lineup (e.g., Illustrator) it will do two things. The first is truly and absolutely, positively legitimatize Linux (but honestly, it didn't really need it but this is a true stamp of approval). Second, they will just further extend their lead in the computer graphics market because it would be hard not to believe that a Linux-optimized Photoshop would do well in terms of marketshare. Also, just as important, when does Macromedia jump into the deep end of the Linux pool? They would almost for certain have to make some kind of move.

Sure, it would cannibalize some of their Mac and Windows market, but I feel pretty confident that there is a significant number of people that are waiting for this offering. While we can argue all day about some of Adobe's policies and other doings, I tip my hat to them on this one.

Re:Why did it take so long? (2, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710497)

I always find comment like this retarded.

Photoshop is a COMMERCIAL package. Gimp is a FREE package. Likely if you're in the business of doctoring females and selling product you can afford a Photoshop site license.

Gimp is more for say "the rest" of us who just want to be able to "manipulate" an image without forking over $$$ or pirating a copy.

They're not intended for the exact same audience.

Tom

Re:Why did it take so long? (1)

Pengo (28814) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710522)

"Sure, it would cannibalize some of their Mac and Windows market, but I feel pretty confident that there is a significant number of people that are waiting for this offering. While we can argue all day about some of Adobe's policies and other doings, I tip my hat to them on this one."

How so? I would believe it would have the opposite effect. If they can get people onto linux to use Photoshop, that means that people can run other tools that they have on linux, where their competition is late comming to the game on the linux desktop. Sounds like they could get some tie-in across multiple products this way, not canabalize their windows market.

If they where giving away photoshop for free this might be the case, but I would bet this won't be the case.

Port from Darwin? (2, Interesting)

PateraSilk (668445) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710366)

A company spokesman said they are not currently looking to port any of their flagship products such as Photoshop to Linux yet, as they currently don't see sufficient numbers in the platform to make a good business case for it.

How hard would it be to port the kinda-sorta BSD code from Photoshop CS (or the entire Creative Suite, for that matter) to Linux?

(Actually, this is question is not facetious--really, how hard would it be?)

Re:Port from Darwin? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710449)

This comes up time and time and time again. It needs to be addressed once and for all.

The GUI applications on OSX have /NOTHING/ to do with the BSD subsystem that the whole OS runs on. Nothing. Nada. Nil. PhotoshopCS for OSX doesn't "run on BSD" in any way at all. It's linked against several frameworks (libs, if you like), which are exclusively Apple, such as Cocoa (Apple's implementation of OpenSTEP), and possibly Quartz, and other things which have nothing at all to do with Darwin, the BSD core that lies underneath OSX.

There is no "written for BSD code" in any Photoshop (as far as anyone can tell, it IS closed after all). GUI (Cocoa) apps for OSX are as different from Linux programs as different can be. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Re:Port from Darwin? (1)

lisaparratt (752068) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710508)

It wouldn't be too hard.

It's a shame Photoshop CS on OS X isn't "kinda-sorta" BSD code, but Cocoa/Carbon code. Neither of these would be an easy porting job, unless Adobe wanted to make GNUstep somewhat more functional.

Re:Port from Darwin? (3, Insightful)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710529)

Virtually everybody who makes GUI apps for Mac OS X uses either Cocoa or Carbon (which both use the other one in their respective implementations) and Quicktime. At least those frameworks would have to be ported first.

They had a pretty good strategy (1)

shoppa (464619) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710378)

  1. Relatively open standards for postscript, PDF
    • True freeware tools (ghostscript, xpdf, OpenOffice) to read and generate according to the open standard
    • Many commercial softwares that read and generate too
  2. Adobe-supplied free reader for most common Unices and Linux
Really, what else is needed? There are a bazillion companies out there with "Linux strategies" but no products or open standards.

i sure fucking hope so. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710382)

i've been waiting to dump Windows for a loooooooong time. Games do not matter to me.

Photoshop and only Photoshop is the reason i've not dumped Windows.

...and NO Photoshop over Crossover is NOT going to work. It's "good enough(tm)*, but not for those of us that know PS inside-out - it just doesn't cut it. i hope i get PS for linux soon.

Adobe, if you are reading: i will plunk down anything under $500 for a copy of PS for linux....now, get to it. :)

QT (1)

datadriven (699893) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710383)

I thought I remember reading that Photoshop Elements was developed using QT. Can anyone confirm or deny this? If that's the case then they could release their low cost entry on to the linux platform easily.

Slowly but surely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710389)


Linux is gaining ground, think about the tortoise and the hare story

Linux will win because it is cost effective in the long run to do so, the price for 100k desktops is the same as 1 desktop and as a manager you cannot ignore that forever, you owe it to your investors to maximise YOUR profit not MS's
thanks to *NIX and OO.org they are becoming "good enough to do the job" and thats what matters

Re:Slowly but surely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710537)

That's what we said about Kerry. Nobody in their right mind would give that other guy four more years.

Just because it's "better" won't make it more popular. Slashdot's most recent poll, along with the national poll yesterday, has proven that this community is significanlty out of step with the mainstream. *shrug*

Sucks, doesn't it.

What was it Gandi said? (1)

nels_tomlinson (106413) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710394)

What was it Gandhi said? [quotedb.com] ``First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.''

We're definitely past the first stage, and it sounds as if we've skipped right over the second and third stages with Adobe.

Seriously, we're on the radar screen of a company which has never shown any interest in anything which wasn't strictly proprietary. This isn't even the beginning of the end, but it's a big change in the right direction.

Chicken and Egg? (1)

razmaspaz (568034) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710397)

they currently don't see sufficient numbers in the platform to make a good business case for it.

Isn't this a chicken and egg thing for Adobe? I can imagine there are several people who use Photoshop who are unwilling to switch to Linux because it has no Photoshop. I mean the GIMP is there, and it is a great product, but it is not Photoshop anymore than OO.o is MS Office. (It might work just as well, but it is still a whole new piece of software to learn the quirks in)

So what I am wondering is, does it make sense for Adobe to take the plunge and see what customers are out there?

Adobe already has a head start (1)

swotl (24969) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710415)

Their popular "Photoshop Album" digital image management for home users, uses QT. It's very probable that Adobe already has in house expertise with this cross platform development library, and will use it to port Photoshop itself.

Photoshop is already on UNIX... (4, Insightful)

gmac63 (12603) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710416)

IIRC, back in 1997, I was running Photoshop 3.x on an SGI O2. Gee, don't they have Photoshop for Mac OS X? I think porting to the Linux platform would be one of the killer apps we've all been looking for. Now, I'm a big fan of Macintosh in the commercial graphics industry, but I've been saying for years, besides a great office suite (see OpenOffice), good image editing and manipulation software would plant Linux right in there as a great desktop alternative.

Yes, this is open for great debate, but the fact is, many companies that can't afford the great Macintosh (no disprespect intended) would gladly plop Photoshop on Linux. But that's my opinion.

The hen and the egg! (1)

weirdal (127848) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710418)

"...as they currently don't see sufficient numbers in the platform to make a good business case for it."

Is this the hen and the egg all over again? I mean... the only reason why I havent made the complete shift from Windows to Linux is the fact that then I cant run Adobe software - thats it.

A good sign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710425)

Well the fact that they are not rushing to port Photoshop to linux is probably a good thing, as they are aware of gimp, and know there may not be much of a market. The fact that they are taking notice of linux as a viable Desktop OS could mean new innovative product possibilites.

I have always thought of Adobe as a high quality software manufacturer.

It will be interesting how they assess this market and proceed.

Yawn. Another non-announcement (1)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710434)

OK, so they are not looking to port the big apps over to Linux. So what are they looking at?

An improved Acroread.

The only thing I use Acroread for is to view and fill in my tax forms once a year. Other than that, I'd far rather use GGV to view a PDF file - it is a cleaner, better app. If GGV allowed me to fill in the blanks on the 1040 forms I'd drop Acroread in a heartbeat.

So, how is Adobe going to improve acroread enough that I care about it?

Other than that, what other little apps do they have - Distiller? Nope, don't need that, I can already tell the system to make a PDF from a print job.

Seriously - other than the big apps, what does Adobe bring to the table?

Re:Yawn. Another non-announcement (1)

yrch93 (15190) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710502)

> Seriously - other than the big apps, what does Adobe bring to the table?

Well, gee, besides all their industry-leading software, they don't have much to offer.

"Yeah, besides running water, sanitation, education, stability, and public safety, what have the ROMANS ever done for US??!!"

- Reg, "Life of Brian".

stuck with windows until then... (2, Interesting)

to be a troll (807210) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710441)

they are not currently looking to port any of their flagship products such as Photoshop to Linux yet, as they currently don't see sufficient numbers in the platform to make a good business case for it.

WTF??

Of course not!! i believe the very act of porting the software to a linux machine would create the numbers they need!!!i don't think i only speak for myself when i say it feels like i am stuck with windows as long as i am trying to stay marketable in the graphics design world. Sure those of you Linux people might say, "Linux has a lot of software that acts like Photoshop..." But thats just not good enough... i promise, i for one would reformat this weekend if i could use the same graphics software on a Linux machine...

Postscript... (2, Interesting)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710446)

Most viable project that Adobe can open source is Postscript above all else.
Postscript is not a end product thus no real self threat, it can however very much gain a large programmer pool and a good image.
Their image currently is one of being very hostile towards the community.

Create the momentum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710457)

"A company spokesman said they are not currently looking to port any of their flagship products such as Photoshop to Linux yet, as they currently don't see sufficient numbers in the platform to make a good business case for it."

I just don't think this is entirley true. Maybe the numbers are quite small now, but there already is a lot of momuntem behind Linux on the Desktop and I think it would already make sense to port these aps to Linux. However, if Adobe decided to port them, this would even increase the momentum so that the bussiness case would even get better.

Adobe, take the "little" risk, I think it's worth it!

Desktop Software ISN'T What They're Interested In. (4, Interesting)

VE3ECM (818278) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710460)

What a lot of people don't realize is that a big big BIG chunk of Adobe's market ISN'T commercial desktop software... it's e-paper solutions, workflow management, document management solutions... lots of back end stuff.

It's obvious why Adobe is now thinking about building some leverage here:
With Linux making considerable inroads in the server market, Adobe needs to ensure their backend products are still going to be available.

Of course, tying in with that is Adobe's total dominance of PDF as a standard and their stranglehold on fonts... If Adobe can get a toehold in how things like PDFs and fonts are displayed on the Linux desktop, they can push out the little Linux PDF players and retain dominance.

From there, if Adobe makes some serious impact, THEN we'll probably see desktop apps starting to port to Linux.

If you see Acrobat as a Linux app, that's your first step.

Protection against Microsoft (1)

csoto (220540) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710462)

They're dreadfully aware that the moment Microsoft wants to forcefully enter the "pro graphics" market, they will be hurt.

Smart move, IMO.

Bush wins (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710465)

hooray for america

HA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710468)

The only reason I have one legal copy of Windows is on an Adobe Premiere box. If I had Premiere for Linux, it's bye-bye Windows forever.

PS on Linux? (3, Insightful)

Andr0s (824479) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710470)

Well, contrary to some oppinions voiced, I must admit that Adobe might be aiming at deploying its more sophisticated tools such as Photoshop and Illustrator on Linux platforms. Why? Well, after various goverments on local and national levels, such as Germany, France, UK, Indochina, Brazil, even Basque Parliament [a42.com] and more have started migrating to Linux en masse, it is not even a matter of when but now that Linux users' market will develop serious need for Adobe's products. Thus, I'd dare say Adobe knows damn well what it's doing, and might well hit a platinum vein in this little undertaking.

realistically (1)

Exter-C (310390) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710479)

Linux/Opensource software has been getting alot of good press in relation to the graphics and image processing functions. Companies using linux clusters to process massive cgi arrays etc. Its only a logical area for adobe to want to tap into.

I personally have been now using Slackware + KDE for well over a year as my pure solution. it works.. its reliable and im yet to have a crash.

Why wouldnt adobe want to open up more business chanels. from the other side of the table it also raises the linux / open source publicity and it works best for both players.

Its not about killing microsoft its about giving the consumers more options and a better level of freedom. Hopefully OpenSource can remain free for the long term as these big companies get involved.

Offtopic: sure. Truthful: YES (0, Offtopic)

slashdot_punk (813387) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710482)

I bet there's a whole bunch of you 4-eyed NERDS crying in your breakfast cereal this morning.

LOL

It's not there yet but its happening... (1)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710484)

Stuff like Photoshop and 3ds max will be ported to Linux eventually. Companies like Adobe just can't afford to avoid the Linux market. Also, by not porting them to Linux the companies would be encouraging people to switch to Open Source alternatives like GIMP and Blender. Once these Open Source alternatives develop enough they will starting coming into Windows (as these two already have) and will start cutting into the market share of Photoshop et al. IIRC, PowerDVD has already been ported to Linux.

Built-in good will (2, Insightful)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710501)

It's always struck me as odd that Adobe, known initially for Postscript and then its compressed offspring PDF, is not a big FOSS player. Their model for the free Acrobat Reader versus the full version of Acrobat was risky, but strangely enough Microsoft never included a PDF print driver in Windows, assuring Adobe of some revenue there.

They claim they don't see a market for Linux products, but what they really mean is they don't see a way to sell a Linux PhotoShop when the GIMP is Free. They've got good name recognition and well-developed good will with most computer users (ever since they quit making you register to download acroread :-).

I'm not a big graphics user, so under Windows I use PaintShopPro v4, which is uncrippled shareware, and the GIMP under Linux. For the casual user who just needs to crop an occasional picture from the family trip to Wallyworld, I don't see much difference in usage. I know the GIMP is scriptable and has an Open library, but I'll probably never use it that way.

Not to start a religious debate, but is there a huge gap in functionality between the GIMP and Adobe's PhotoShop? Would Adobe be able to take market share away from the GIMP, which is bundled with a lot of distributions?

They could start with (1)

Star_Gazer (25473) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710518)

finishing FrameMaker for Linux, which was nearly finished at one point some years ago and then dropped.

And while they are at it, they could port it to MacOS X as well.

There is simply no program available that is working so good and stable for large structured (scientifc) texts (and, no, the TeX family isn't always a viable option).

someone needs to break the ice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710519)

" A company spokesman said they are not currently looking to port any of their flagship products such as Photoshop to Linux yet, as they currently don't see sufficient numbers in the platform to make a good business case for it."

One of the things that hold people back from linux, is the lack of commonly known softwares such as Photoshop, InDesign etc. Even if there are alternatives to these softwares on linux. (scribus/gimp/Blender/etc)

Linux Destop Dev (1)

srock2588 (827871) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710526)

Forget the graphics apps, what are the chances Adobe is interested in helping develop something like KDE or Gnome? If I remember correctly, OS X desktop is somehow based on PDF which would be right up Adobe's ally as far as domain knowledge. My point is I want a nice clean, fast, stable, feature rich front end for X11 before I want Photoshop for my Linux box. No version of X Windows I have seen is even close to OSX in these departments.

Photoshop isnt the only Tool Adobe Sells (2, Insightful)

haute_sauce (745863) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710531)

In addition to the threat that GIMP might pose to the sales of Photoshop, dont forget Scribus, a competitor with InDesign (and the old FrameMaker) product. With tight integration (via XML docs, KDE, etc), these could be a real threat down the line, especially at a savings of (over) USD$500 per ! and when people say GIMP is not Photoshop, what percentage of the people even use 30% of the capabilities ?

Will Autodesk/Autocad be next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710538)

If my wife could run autocad on my linux box, then I could completely dump Windows from my system. Autocad started life on AIX so it shouldn't be that hard of a port.

photoshop album written with Trolltech QT. (2, Informative)

perler (80090) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710545)

adobe already checked out what's possible by using Trottlechs QT for their windows version of photoshop album. they made the design mistake to enable cleartype antialiasing - so the interface looks quite fuzzy - but the overall design is quite a success IMHO.

PAT

Day Late and a dollar short... (1)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710562)

They have always been slow to updated their moneymaking software, they are slow on tech support. The only thing they are not slow on is price increases. Most of the shops that "need" them are going to use their products no matter the cost, but with the tools available scribus, the gimp, et al, I don't need their crap offending my linux boxen. I installed the TANK Acrobat Reader and was a) appalled at the size, and then it won't close properly. They should maintain their current status as an app that is used with wine.

File formats (2, Insightful)

Frobozz0 (247160) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710567)

Well, it seems as if Adobe will want to maintain dominance ffor SVG and PDF standards in Linux. Obviously, they won't port creative software to Linux. Maybe Elements or something, but who on earth would use Linux for Illustrator or Photoshop?

sell photoshop PCs! (1)

perler (80090) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710572)

for years now, i wonder why graphics/audio software manufactures never came up with the idea to port their software to linux, put it on top of a rudimentary desktop and sell boxes, taylormade for one specific purpose - like the AVIDs in video postproduction. they would avoid the huge overhead of windows and had total control over the hardware so huge performance optimizations (especially in audio production) would be possible. MHO..

PAT

Adobe a major proponent of outsourcing to India? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10710578)

If you have Adobe Acrobat Reader 6.0 installed, take a quick glance at the credits. You will see Indian name after Indian name. Considering the pooer quality of Acrobat Reader 6.0, it is quite conceivable that it was written by cheap foreign labor rather than properly designed and implemented by educated, experienced and accountable software engineers.

Tail meet Dog, Dog meet Tail (1)

sjbe (173966) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710579)

...they are not currently looking to port any of their flagship products such as Photoshop to Linux yet, as they currently don't see sufficient numbers in the platform to make a good business case for it.

The funny thing is that a tool like photoshop could actually get people to use linux. Abobe would likely lose money for a few years on it until linux captures more market share but they can accelerate the process. The tail wagging the dog if you will.

I understand the finances and strategy of it all, but I've always been a little surprised that Adobe, Intuit, and similar companies to be almost completely uninterested in reducing the threat Microsoft poses. Sure, they've been able to outperform the big gorilla for quite some time, but it only takes one screwup to get squished. I guess Adobe doesn't feel enough pressure from Microsoft or other competitors.

They don't do more because there is a a free rider problem if they promoting linux. If they are successful, other companies get the benefits without the cost while they may or may not recoup the cost of pushing the platform. I'm guessing they see IBM and Novell as absorbing the cost of putting linux on desktops and are just waiting. But if I were them I'd probably see having my products available on linux as like having fire insurance. You might not need it but if you do, you REALLY need it. Photoshop is a great product but there are competitors out there. Adobe is gambling they have the mindshare to come late to the party and still win. And they might, but it is a gamble and possibly an unnecessary one.

If I were them I would make the Mac version easily portable to linux. Underlying technology is similar but the cost isn't as bad. It essentially gives them a Real Option (in the financial as well as strategic sense) they can exercise when they want on porting to linux. Cuts time to market to weeks/months should a linux version be necessary but there is no cost to support it unless linux really takes off.

Competition (2, Interesting)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 9 years ago | (#10710583)

I wonder if the existence of Scribus [scribus.org.uk] is giving them reason to wake up and realize that eventually (maybe not today, but eventually) they're going to be facing some real competition in the DTP universe. If so, I have to applaud Adobe for being proactive about it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...