Adobe Linux

Submitted by Ivan on Thu, 2008-08-21 10:40.

Opinion

Drovak speculates:
Adobe could port its Creative Suite...to Linux as a shot across Redmond's bow. Then the company should embrace Linux in-house and develop a complete, optimized Linux OS designed to run a high-performance version of its Creative Suite on Linux optimized for Adobe products, to be sold as a bootable bundle for multicore-workstation hardware.

The idea is to produce a near-dedicated Adobe computer designed to use all the power of the newest chips to run the Adobe software under Linux. Having complete control of a high-powered OS would make all of the performance-demanding Adobe software run rings around any other implementation, if engineered correctly. It would become the viable desktop alternative to both the PC and the Mac.

This is a similar strategy that Apple did to create a good Unix based platform (OS X) to run the Apple iLife and the pro-apps. So, it's a tried and working concept. I think Adobe should certainly go for it. I would even go a step further and suggest they should drop Windows support eventually and concentrate on their Unix based Adobe apps only to streamline their operations.

Ivan's blog
Login or register to post comments

Great idea, but...

Submitted by JimD on Thu, 2008-08-21 11:37.

I'm not sure that the 173 people in the world who actually use Linux on a desktop computer can sustain that business model for Adobe ;-)

-----------
Visit The Graphic Mac for graphics and Mac OS tips, reviews, tutorials and discussion.

good point

Submitted by Ivan on Thu, 2008-08-21 12:02.

but because Adobe doesn't run on Linux today is exactly why "nobody" in our filed uses it.

True, but...

Submitted by JimD on Thu, 2008-08-21 13:55.

Unless Microsoft stops making Windows and ports Office over to Linux, it'll never take off as a desktop OS. MS Office is the virtual key to any OS success (unfortunately).

-----------
Visit The Graphic Mac for graphics and Mac OS tips, reviews, tutorials and discussion.

eh, that may have been true

Submitted by Doug M. on Sat, 2008-08-23 23:38.

eh, that may have been true in the past, but iWork '08 could easily take over the need for office on any mac osx (if only people tried it), why can't adobe just create their own "office"?

iWork has no chance either

Submitted by JimD on Sun, 2008-08-24 05:38.

It all comes down to installed base. There are just too many people already using Windows and Office. The only thing that will even make a dent in their market dominance is if they royally screw up (which they're making a good effort at doing with Vista). iWork is nice, and certainly a replacement for home users - but it's simply nowhere even in the neighborhood of competing with Office.

-----------
Visit The Graphic Mac for graphics and Mac OS tips, reviews, tutorials and discussion.

Open Office

Submitted by natobasso on Sun, 2008-08-24 14:41.

People are definitely stuck in their ways. But for those who want something different, and free, they can go with OpenOffice.

----
Natobasso
dirtandrust.com
"Powerpoint is not a design application"

for those who want something

Submitted by Doug M. on Mon, 2008-08-25 22:37.

for those who want something cheaper than microsoft office and intuitive, with a nice interface (and it's simple to learn!), get iWork! I'd recommend iWork '08 for small businesses, and also big ones. It allows everyone to be more creative! I guess that isn't the goal of a corporation, but why can't it be? a more creative society would be good at this point in time, at any time really.

if in-house designers

Submitted by gwells on Sun, 2008-08-24 14:22.

if in-house designers struggle to get their IT departments to support a handful of macs, why would people think that companies will wholesale switch to OSX or linux?

corporations are not going to switch from windows any time soon. nor is the government.

Many governments in the

Submitted by Ivan on Sun, 2008-08-24 20:55.

Many governments in the world have. If the US government wanted to cut costs they would do it too.

shrug i'm not talking

Submitted by gwells on Sun, 2008-08-24 23:25.

*shrug*

i'm not talking about any kind of wishful thinking, i'm talking about the reality of what is.

much of the US government uses linux in places for server applications, but not on every desktop. linux just isn't meant for your average user, and upgrading non-power users to linux would *NOT* save money, since support costs outweigh software costs over time.

Even if they wanted to cut

Submitted by natobasso on Mon, 2008-08-25 03:02.

Even if they wanted to cut costs it would be like turning a battleship trying to get all those entrenched employees switched over. Change is not the US government's strong suit.

----
Natobasso
dirtandrust.com
"Powerpoint is not a design application"

no to mention up-front

Submitted by gwells on Mon, 2008-08-25 22:17.

no to mention up-front costs, both in infrastructure change and in training costs. the US govt is also not good at the concept of "up front costs to save long term costs."

and that's conceding that the long-term costs are actually cheaper.

removed

Submitted by king_zero on Thu, 2008-08-21 14:16.

removed

what's

Submitted by jozefk on Thu, 2008-08-21 14:40.

happened with you?
:))

Linux

Submitted by jozefk on Thu, 2008-08-21 14:38.

Hmm. To say few things also :)
First of all, JimD, where did you get that information about 173 people using Linux :))
Personally, I'm using Linux 6 years, maybe more, and I can tell you that openSuSE 11 64 bit is working far better then Vista for example. I don't know about other Linux releases coz I'm using SuSE from the very beginning.
Also, JimD did you ever heard about OpenOffice? I think somebody mentioned it here in CB few days ago. http://creativebits.org/free_office_suites_mac
I like Linux a lot and actually Adobe is the only one reason why I'm using Win and OS X. If I could run CS3 on Linux I would say good-bye to all other operating systems long time ago. Linux is my favorite. I like it even more than OS X! It's not that stable as Mac is but that's just because it's open source.
And the best thing about it is Unix :)

Jozsef,
Linux lover :)

LOL!

Submitted by JimD on Fri, 2008-08-22 13:02.

I was kidding about the 173 people. That was a comment made in reference to the fact that while Linux is quite popular as a server platform, it simply isn't heavily used on desktops beyond the most extreme "geeks" - which is a huge minority.

Yes, I've heard of Open Office, and I'm aware of all the open-source apps available to Linux. The problem is that companies have invested in Windows and they aren't going to toss that aside to install a completely new OS that is more difficult to train users on than Windows already is. The advantage to them is that they already know how to troubleshoot Windows, and users already know how to use Windows. Not to mention the heavy investment in MS Office already made, and everyone already knows how to use it as well.

If companies were willing to make a switch at all, they will most likely switch to OSX. It's more "familiar" of an environment, most of the same apps are available for a corporate setting, and it's a fully-backed commercial OS - unlike Linux OS and apps, which could disappear over night simply because they're open-source and nobody is financially tied to it.

For Linux to be taken seriously as a viable desktop alternative in a business environment, somebody is going to have to close it up, revamp it, put a consistent GUI on it, market it, sell it and fully support it. Then they'll have to pray that Microsoft releases Office on it, Adobe releases all their apps on it, and the indy developers release a ton of shareware/freeware apps for it that can replace everything already available for Windows and OSX.

While it's great that Linux is out there as an alternative, I think we know that there is really very little chance that it will take off at this stage of the game.

-----------
Visit The Graphic Mac for graphics and Mac OS tips, reviews, tutorials and discussion.

As soon as OS X servers are

Submitted by natobasso on Sun, 2008-08-24 14:43.

As soon as OS X servers are as stable as pc servers (most pc servers, if set up correctly can run for YEARS without crashing or restarting!) then we might see corporations switch.

Bottom line is corporations do what their IT dept.s and their fellow corporations tell them to do. It's called "keeping up with the joneses".

----
Natobasso
dirtandrust.com
"Powerpoint is not a design application"

ugh, I hate IT guys that

Submitted by Doug M. on Mon, 2008-09-01 16:48.

ugh, I hate IT guys that support windows. I feel like they are behind the times. Mac OSX is the way to go.

OSX is Unix

Submitted by Doug M. on Mon, 2008-08-25 22:40.

OSX is unix. :D (but it isn't open source of course...)

and it has a complete

Submitted by gwells on Tue, 2008-08-26 13:22.

and it has a complete user-friendly interface built on top of the unix shell. which is something no flavor of linux has. OSX is probably more "based on unix" than "actual unix."

true. hey, what happened to

Submitted by Doug M. on Wed, 2008-08-27 01:44.

true. hey, what happened to all the user avatars?

open source

Submitted by jozefk on Wed, 2008-08-27 07:46.

yeah it isn't open source :P

you know, it doesn't matter

Submitted by gwells on Thu, 2008-08-21 15:17.

you know, it doesn't matter how much some people dislike windows, it isn't going away. and even the vague notion that adobe should consider abandoning windows because a linux version might run better is foolish, at best.

look, even apple OS is a minority platform to adobe. the vast majority of adobe's software income is increasingly becoming corporate installations. and what OS do most corporations live on? windows. is that likely to change any time in the near or medium term? no. and not likely to change in the long term, either. at least not for a very long time.

so let's put this idea of abandoning windows to rest. it would be a terrible financial decision for adobe.

now it's an interesting thought about porting CS apps to unix, but the likelihood that it would bring any significant number of users from other platforms is slim, at best. while there are plenty of things to like about unix, the reality is that all flavors of unix right now (with the exception of what's been done in OSX) are incredibly user *un*friendly for your average computer user. even geeks have a pretty good learning curve when they're getting started. and things like driver support are *far* more difficult in unix.

and let's not forget that designers need more than just adobe apps. so your choices would be either finding all of those other programs in unix flavors (difficult and/or unlikely, depending on the breadth of what you need to operate) or running two different machines (maybe on a KVM switch with the same monitor(s)/keyboards). imagine selling that in a corporate environment? "yeah, mr IT guy, not only do i need a high-powered, custom box running on an OS you don't support, i also need a second computer running windows (or OSX) and a KVM switch."

this is something that could be interesting for a serious power user, but would probably be no more than a blip on the radar for the vast majority of adobe customers.

yeah

Submitted by jozefk on Fri, 2008-08-22 08:06.

you are right :)

Adobe needs to get a handle

Submitted by natobasso on Thu, 2008-08-21 16:34.

Adobe needs to get a handle on OS X first before it starts worrying about Linux. Is Dvorak unaware of this?

----
Natobasso
dirtandrust.com
"Powerpoint is not a design application"

Some people say that they live in Adobe, but....

Submitted by wbonner on Thu, 2008-08-21 22:59.

I think the only way that would really make sense was if Adobe was essentially creating an appliance. I know many graphic artists say that they live in Photoshop but what would they say if they couldn't use the same monitor for email, web browsing, and everything else that they really do.

Wim.

after the source

Submitted by Sasi on Fri, 2008-08-22 17:41.

I read the source article by Dvorak and I feel like you are talking about something different. Maybe I am not right, but the author just says Adobe should finally take it out on Microsoft. No word of multiple OS-s. The author says Adobe should stand up and fight. That's all, Microsoft tried to create their own font system and then their own flash player and now he says Adobe should leave microsoft and get onto another platform which it could make also as an own platform (-- yes, with all the OS stuff needed, browser, office suite etc.)

(Anyway I do not see any problem with Microsoft creating a font system different from Adobe's and using it on their system neither is that a problem them creating their own flash, the silverlight, Adobe could have used true type as well, without any problem and they had to buy macromedia, cause their trial with the svg stuff did not bring any success. So what now? It rather seems like Adobe is a kinda loser type.)

Anyway, changing to linux would be good for companies, they would save a huge amount of money, but not as much as they could save on a suite with the same qualities as the Adobe one for a much cheaper price. It's just not worth changing to linux. The big save is not on the OS. An Adobe linux is just not attractive enough. So, let's get it clear, a Vista ultimate costs at about 300 dollars, an Illustrator at about 600 dollars the CS3 suite 1200 dollars (well, in the US, in Europe much higher price for the Adobe suite, the Microsoft stuff much the same). So what? I would say MS should start its kickass creative suite for a cheaper price and finally hit Adobe on the face.

You're right in all points,

Submitted by Ivan on Fri, 2008-08-22 21:00.

You're right in all points, except the last. Who on earth would use s creative suite made by MS. They simply have no taste for anything design related or understanding of user interfaces. Imagine a complex application like Photoshop made by MS. ;)

I would argue with that

Submitted by Sasi on Sat, 2008-08-23 11:04.

http://www.microsoft.com/expression/products/Overview.aspx?key=design

You should take a look on that, I do not think it's so bad, I admit they copied several working solutions from other softwares, but who cares if it's cheap and does the job. I would like to see at least one working choice. The only problem is that neither coreldraw, nor MS does not have a mac version. I know all the prejudices about these companies and their softwares, but I believe for the real professionals there are no alternatives and that's bad for them, for us. The other alternatives are just too weak to say they are real alternatives.

I think MS bought

Submitted by Ivan on Sat, 2008-08-23 12:24.

I think MS bought Expression. They didn't develop it themselves.

Does that really matter?

Submitted by Sasi on Sat, 2008-08-23 13:21.

And do you think that really matters? They bought a good base to develop and brand, and if it works, if it's usable, who cares. Is a Skoda a Volkswagen if it has a VW engine in it? I'm just saying we would need an alternative, a competitor, something to threaten Adobe a bit at least. Just le it be usable and half the price or even less.

Yes, I agree with that.

Submitted by Ivan on Sat, 2008-08-23 21:26.

Yes, I agree with that. Competition is really needed.

Try this:

Submitted by Doug M. on Mon, 2008-08-25 22:46.

http://www.pixelmator.com/

I think this could become photoshop's main competition (because they're so similar, if only more people endorsed it.) No competition really for illustrator, flash, or any of the other adobe apps though.

Yeah

Submitted by Sasi on Tue, 2008-08-26 06:01.

Pixelmator is cool, but still, a real competitor should have at least a windows version as well.

That's not good enough.

Submitted by JimD on Sun, 2008-08-24 05:43.

Competition is great, and certainly welcome. But in the content creation business, "usable" just isn't good enough. It has to be rock solid, offer just as many or more features than Adobe, and must be widely adopted in relatively fast manner. Adobe has a lock on the market much the same as MS has with Office. It's just too big to overthrow.

The last time Adobe had any real threat from anyone, they just bought the company outright (Macromedia). That's pretty much what's going to happen to anyone else that tries to play in Adobe's sandbox.

-----------
Visit The Graphic Mac for graphics and Mac OS tips, reviews, tutorials and discussion.

pixelmator.... :D

Submitted by Doug M. on Mon, 2008-08-25 22:44.

pixelmator.... :D

I personally believe

Submitted by Doug M. on Mon, 2008-08-25 22:43.

I personally believe Pixelmator, or something like it, is the future. (I don't like the overall feel of Adobe's products. I wish they took a bit more time on the brush tools and borders and everything really. the next version looks like it'll be ok. Maybe I'll try to get into it then.

Wait til CS4...

Submitted by JimD on Tue, 2008-08-26 13:49.

DRAMATIC changes to all the apps in CS4. Actually, Photoshop has the least amount of changes, and it's still a lot. It's AWESOME!

-----------
Visit The Graphic Mac for graphics and Mac OS tips, reviews, tutorials and discussion.

I noticed all the apps are

Submitted by Doug M. on Mon, 2008-09-01 16:45.

I noticed all the apps are getting big changes in CS4 (which is what I thought CS3 was missing. its just so old looking). I might start using it then, but I'm happy with pixelmator at the moment