what's stopping Adobe from distrubuting their own Linux OS and porting the whole line of Apps to their own brand of Linux after droppping Mac versions?
what's stopping Adobe from distrubuting their own Linux OS and porting the whole line of Apps to their own brand of Linux after droppping Mac versions?
Fear and Loathing in a Photoshop-less world.
I'm not sure I understand. There's really no way for Adobe to keep an app only compatible with their own distribution of Linux. People will find a way to run it on every other distro. Plus, nobody really runs Linux. If you count all the people who dabbled with Linux down the line, then that's a high percentile because Linux is largely free. Linux cheerleaders would love for us to think their marketshare numbers are as good as they say, but in reality most of those people counted probably don't use Linux day-to-day. Furthermore, where's the advantage when Windows x86 is a good combination. Why would Adobe want to enter the OS market anyway?
This comes up every so often on this board, and unless it is qualifed as "Nobobdy really runs Linux (as a desktop machine to do the things *I* do with my computer)" it is total nonsense.
The topic is adobe apps so that qualification may have been implicit.
But to recap, Linux has totally overran the webserving sector, supercomputer clusters and the embedded OS market. It is currently demolishing the datacentres, renderfarms and kiosks. It will soon be making big strides in phones and managed desktop environments (corporations, universities etc.)
This is hardly nobody.
On a more constuctive note, Adobe *is* alledgedly looking into porting its software to Linux. If it does so, it will A) not drop the Mac and Win versions actually be good for the Mac as it shares so much of its underpinnings with Linux.
As far as having its own brand of Linux, many companies do this, though it mostly involves little more than rebranding an existing distribution and giving it away for free so that their apps can have a specific OS to target. It doesn't really make sense unless Adobe plans to release dedicated Adobe workstations.
Stupider...that's precisely what I meant, nobody runs Linux...not no company runs Linux. As a personal computing operating system, it's immature beyond belief, and yes I'm aware of Lindows, Lycoris, Mandrake, and all the other novice friendly distros.
And I'm not sure what you mean by Mac OS X and Linux sharing a lot of underlying code...In the context of Adobe, this is irrelevant. Yes, much of the software that runs stuff behind the scenes in OS X is found as basically POSIX compliant source code, but that really doesn't have any significance. The way OS X handles threads, addresses memory, etc. is different enough.
Many companies rebranded distros. Many companies also aborted those initiatives.
I thought you might be referring to the desktop, it gets confusing with some people using Linux to refer to the kernel, or the OS or just the sever/desktop distributions.
You're also right about many companies branding their own Linux then dropping the idea, but the ones that make the whole widget (hardware, OS and software) generally get more benefit so it depends on the companies business plan.
As for Linux/Mac OS X not being alike, it really depends on what layers you are talking about. The Mozilla projects got a boost in speed and reliability when they shifted from carbon to unix though they are a strange projet in that they re-invent a lot of wheels rather than use the features of the OS.
I would, however, expect a hypothetical Linux build and a future Mac OS X build to share a great deal of code. The rumour I referred to above was talking about Adobe investigation the QT widget set for creating its cross-platform apps.
But to recap, Linux has totally overran the webserving sector, supercomputer clusters and the embedded OS market. It is currently demolishing the datacentres, renderfarms and kiosks. It will soon be making big strides in phones and managed desktop environments (corporations, universities etc.)
You're also right about many companies branding their own Linux then dropping the idea, but the ones that make the whole widget (hardware, OS and software) generally get more benefit so it depends on the companies business plan.
Sun.
Quote:
As for Linux/Mac OS X not being alike, it really depends on what layers you are talking about. The Mozilla projects got a boost in speed and reliability when they shifted from carbon to unix though they are a strange projet in that they re-invent a lot of wheels rather than use the features of the OS.
Well Mozilla isn't a very good example. The CFM version is generic source --> Classic --> Carbon. The Mach-O version is generic source --> Mach-O. There's one whole layer of abstraction missing. Mozilla's no speed demon anyway.
Photoshop's source probably isn't anywhere near as versatile anyway.
Do you think Corel Linux is not enough? You might as well suggest Quark, Inc. to make their own Linux which runs only QuarkXPress.
Corel release their own Linux because their "Linux apps" are actually the Win32 codebases (verbatim) running on a carefully tweaked and enhanced WINE, running in turn on a carefully tweaked Linux, so that the whole thing doesn't come crashing down. Corel didn't port to Linux, strictly speaking. They figured customizing Linux/WINE would be easier(!).
If Adobe decides to go Corel's route, they'll probably release their own distro just because there's no other way to go. If they actually take the OS X code and port it to Linux/KDE or what-have-you, you'll be able to run the apps on whatever distro you prefer. My guess is that Adobe — which unlike Corel actually has money — will go with porting their codebases to Linux if they go through with this.
Only WordPerfect Office used WINE and it was embedded, not part of the Corel Linux package. Corel Linux didn't ship with WINE either. WordPerfect Office ran just fine on pretty much any x86/Linux.
Well Mozilla isn't a very good example. The CFM version is generic source --> Classic --> Carbon. The Mach-O version is generic source --> Mach-O. There's one whole layer of abstraction missing. Mozilla's no speed demon anyway.
The reasons you give for it being a bad example are why I thought it was a good one. It used to have a forked codebase with Carbon and Unix versions. It's let the Carbon slide and moved to a Mach-O version that is much more in line with the Unix one.
This gives them less code duplication and access to some cool unix technology. Why would Adobe want to pour effort into Linux and maintain a legacy-ridden port when it can easily leverage this new work in a Mac OS X version.
Also, saying Mozilla is no speed demon misses the point in many ways. It is a cross platform toolkit that manages its own UI (amongst other things). There is a difference between being slower and doing more that is often overlooked in computing.
Finally, if Adobe goes with the QT widget set then the same code will control the appearance on Win, Lin and Mac which is true of Mozilla as well, but not all cross platform development.
Only WordPerfect Office used WINE and it was embedded, not part of the Corel Linux package. Corel Linux didn't ship with WINE either. WordPerfect Office ran just fine on pretty much any x86/Linux.
I could have sworn I read a post to the contrary from a Corel engineer. I could be misremembering.
Clarification: it sucks for desktop users who can't find the Start button in OS X. That's 95% of users last time I checked. The rest use Macs. Linux is server-only. For anything else there's OS X.
nobody really runs os x or mac classic either. at least if you look on the % .. so, before i became a nobody who use os x, i was a nobody using linuxes. and would have really enjoyed photoshop on linux, GIMP had 2 really annying bugs.
but that's the beauty of it. apple at least, controls the hardware so (and i am not going to say this would never happen) the user does not have to experience horror stories with OSX, we know are all to true on the linux platform. (i can vouch for the horrors of a linux install first hand. wasn't fun.)
that's part of the extra cost for a mac.
people seem to look away at issues such of these when comparing prices...
This gives them less code duplication and access to some cool unix technology. Why would Adobe want to pour effort into Linux and maintain a legacy-ridden port when it can easily leverage this new work in a Mac OS X version.
Because they can't. Photoshop isn't designed to be buildable on every platform under the sun, and shouldn't be...
Photoshop isn't designed to be buildable on every platform under the sun, and shouldn't be...
This makes absolutely no sense. Photoshop runs on Windows and the Mac, both OS 9 and X. That's three very different OS's right there.
If they were to add a Linux version (and rumours suggest they are investigating moving to a x-platform development solution to include Linux for all their apps) then the OS X version would certainly benefit, especially going forward, from sharing Linux code over sharing OS 9 code.
Comments
Originally posted by bluesigns
well, not as far as i know but...
what's stopping Adobe from distrubuting their own Linux OS and porting the whole line of Apps to their own brand of Linux after droppping Mac versions?
Fear and Loathing in a Photoshop-less world.
I'm not sure I understand. There's really no way for Adobe to keep an app only compatible with their own distribution of Linux. People will find a way to run it on every other distro. Plus, nobody really runs Linux. If you count all the people who dabbled with Linux down the line, then that's a high percentile because Linux is largely free. Linux cheerleaders would love for us to think their marketshare numbers are as good as they say, but in reality most of those people counted probably don't use Linux day-to-day. Furthermore, where's the advantage when Windows x86 is a good combination. Why would Adobe want to enter the OS market anyway?
Originally posted by Eugene
Plus, nobody really runs Linux.
This comes up every so often on this board, and unless it is qualifed as "Nobobdy really runs Linux (as a desktop machine to do the things *I* do with my computer)" it is total nonsense.
The topic is adobe apps so that qualification may have been implicit.
But to recap, Linux has totally overran the webserving sector, supercomputer clusters and the embedded OS market. It is currently demolishing the datacentres, renderfarms and kiosks. It will soon be making big strides in phones and managed desktop environments (corporations, universities etc.)
This is hardly nobody.
On a more constuctive note, Adobe *is* alledgedly looking into porting its software to Linux. If it does so, it will A) not drop the Mac and Win versions
As far as having its own brand of Linux, many companies do this, though it mostly involves little more than rebranding an existing distribution and giving it away for free so that their apps can have a specific OS to target. It doesn't really make sense unless Adobe plans to release dedicated Adobe workstations.
And I'm not sure what you mean by Mac OS X and Linux sharing a lot of underlying code...In the context of Adobe, this is irrelevant. Yes, much of the software that runs stuff behind the scenes in OS X is found as basically POSIX compliant source code, but that really doesn't have any significance. The way OS X handles threads, addresses memory, etc. is different enough.
Many companies rebranded distros. Many companies also aborted those initiatives.
You're also right about many companies branding their own Linux then dropping the idea, but the ones that make the whole widget (hardware, OS and software) generally get more benefit so it depends on the companies business plan.
As for Linux/Mac OS X not being alike, it really depends on what layers you are talking about. The Mozilla projects got a boost in speed and reliability when they shifted from carbon to unix though they are a strange projet in that they re-invent a lot of wheels rather than use the features of the OS.
I would, however, expect a hypothetical Linux build and a future Mac OS X build to share a great deal of code. The rumour I referred to above was talking about Adobe investigation the QT widget set for creating its cross-platform apps.
But to recap, Linux has totally overran the webserving sector, supercomputer clusters and the embedded OS market. It is currently demolishing the datacentres, renderfarms and kiosks. It will soon be making big strides in phones and managed desktop environments (corporations, universities etc.)
You sound like a Larry Ellison follower.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
You're also right about many companies branding their own Linux then dropping the idea, but the ones that make the whole widget (hardware, OS and software) generally get more benefit so it depends on the companies business plan.
Sun.
As for Linux/Mac OS X not being alike, it really depends on what layers you are talking about. The Mozilla projects got a boost in speed and reliability when they shifted from carbon to unix though they are a strange projet in that they re-invent a lot of wheels rather than use the features of the OS.
Well Mozilla isn't a very good example. The CFM version is generic source --> Classic --> Carbon. The Mach-O version is generic source --> Mach-O. There's one whole layer of abstraction missing. Mozilla's no speed demon anyway.
Photoshop's source probably isn't anywhere near as versatile anyway.
Originally posted by costique
Do you think Corel Linux is not enough? You might as well suggest Quark, Inc. to make their own Linux which runs only QuarkXPress.
Corel release their own Linux because their "Linux apps" are actually the Win32 codebases (verbatim) running on a carefully tweaked and enhanced WINE, running in turn on a carefully tweaked Linux, so that the whole thing doesn't come crashing down. Corel didn't port to Linux, strictly speaking. They figured customizing Linux/WINE would be easier(!).
If Adobe decides to go Corel's route, they'll probably release their own distro just because there's no other way to go. If they actually take the OS X code and port it to Linux/KDE or what-have-you, you'll be able to run the apps on whatever distro you prefer. My guess is that Adobe — which unlike Corel actually has money — will go with porting their codebases to Linux if they go through with this.
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
You sound like a Larry Ellison follower.
Actually, Larry has been a bit behind the times on this one, but he's getting up to speed now.
Originally posted by Eugene
Well Mozilla isn't a very good example. The CFM version is generic source --> Classic --> Carbon. The Mach-O version is generic source --> Mach-O. There's one whole layer of abstraction missing. Mozilla's no speed demon anyway.
The reasons you give for it being a bad example are why I thought it was a good one. It used to have a forked codebase with Carbon and Unix versions. It's let the Carbon slide and moved to a Mach-O version that is much more in line with the Unix one.
This gives them less code duplication and access to some cool unix technology. Why would Adobe want to pour effort into Linux and maintain a legacy-ridden port when it can easily leverage this new work in a Mac OS X version.
Also, saying Mozilla is no speed demon misses the point in many ways. It is a cross platform toolkit that manages its own UI (amongst other things). There is a difference between being slower and doing more that is often overlooked in computing.
Finally, if Adobe goes with the QT widget set then the same code will control the appearance on Win, Lin and Mac which is true of Mozilla as well, but not all cross platform development.
Originally posted by Eugene
Only WordPerfect Office used WINE and it was embedded, not part of the Corel Linux package. Corel Linux didn't ship with WINE either. WordPerfect Office ran just fine on pretty much any x86/Linux.
I could have sworn I read a post to the contrary from a Corel engineer. I could be misremembering.
Clarification: it sucks for desktop users who can't find the Start button in OS X. That's 95% of users last time I checked. The rest use Macs. Linux is server-only. For anything else there's OS X.
Linux Story
Originally posted by Eugene
nobody really runs Linux.
nobody really runs os x or mac classic either. at least if you look on the % .. so, before i became a nobody who use os x, i was a nobody using linuxes. and would have really enjoyed photoshop on linux, GIMP had 2 really annying bugs.
No one really buys software on the linux.
Multithousand dollar Dbs and 3d type apps are bought buy companies for linux yes...
Adobe products are bought to a large extent smal firms and individuals.
Those are the type of people needs to sell its apps
those types of people are not on linux IMO...
most of them think _EVERYTHING_ should be free...
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
Here's a typical Linux on the Desktop story:
Linux Story
I'm sure installing Mac OS X or Windows XP onto hardware that isn't supported would be a swell experience too.
that's part of the extra cost for a mac.
people seem to look away at issues such of these when comparing prices...
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
This gives them less code duplication and access to some cool unix technology. Why would Adobe want to pour effort into Linux and maintain a legacy-ridden port when it can easily leverage this new work in a Mac OS X version.
Because they can't. Photoshop isn't designed to be buildable on every platform under the sun, and shouldn't be...
Originally posted by Eugene
Photoshop isn't designed to be buildable on every platform under the sun, and shouldn't be...
This makes absolutely no sense. Photoshop runs on Windows and the Mac, both OS 9 and X. That's three very different OS's right there.
If they were to add a Linux version (and rumours suggest they are investigating moving to a x-platform development solution to include Linux for all their apps) then the OS X version would certainly benefit, especially going forward, from sharing Linux code over sharing OS 9 code.