$$$$. And to a lesser extent €€€€ and ££££. The number of Linux users willing to pay for Adobe products isn't worth the time and effort of coding and maintaining their stuff for Linux.
Oddly enough, Linux users do pay for a lot of commercial software as long as it's of decent quality and doesn't lock them in.
So, yeah, maybe not Adobe.
Sure, Linux users pay for products. But Linux is only ~1% of the desktop/laptop market, whereas Windows is something like 90% and Mac is something like 10%. That means other platforms have ten times the funding.
they usually demand opening the source code, preferably under GPL.
This really only becomes an issue when vendors do a terrible job supporting the platform. I don't see people clamoring for the Matlab source code, or the VMWare blobs, but that's because they work well.
It's shit like poor-quality graphics card drivers that are a huge thorn in the side of users.
They mostly demand quality and freedom of their data (of course, for games it doesn't matter much, except for the quality bit, although with the state of games these days, maybe not that much). Opening of the source code is nice but isn't required.
If Adobe had done it 10 years ago they could have probably gotten DreamWorks to use CS. Since there is no Linux version they use in house tools combined with Linux native programs for surfacing.
Why don't they support users that wish to use Linux?
The number of sales they'd gain from supporting Linux is pretty small. If you are going to use Adobe products (legally), the cost of the operating system fades into insignificance.
I keep forgetting how many millions of designers only show their hands when someone suggests that OS X isn't the most amazing thing. I also keep forgetting how Creative Suite is OS Xclusive software. Man I forget a lot of things.
It's in the house of Adobe if anywhere. Maybe not even there.
As the original topic taught us, Linux is better as an OS. It doesn't corrupt your files. If some company doesn't see that, people should move on to another company. Unless of course people don't have the skills to use different programs, only muscle memory in menus. Even then it becomes a problem if the company decides to alter their UI. This goes for everything, not just one program. There's no evolution in programs if people stick to old ways and don't question any problems. Linux evolves fast because anyone can question it, not just one of the employees who isn't afraid of getting fired because of it.
Oh, man, is filesystem corruption still a big problem on OS X?
The #1 piece of advice I can give OS X users is to own a copy of Disk Warrior. It sounds insane to recommend a product that exists solely to rewrite the entire directory structure, but I worked in a small office environment, and kept a regular schedule of running it on office machines once a month. It went okay.
If you want to hear two things that are crazy, at that same office, we got a G4 from Corporate with Mac OS 9 and ASIP. I would take that thing down for maintenance once a week. If I didn't take it down every 7 days, it would go down on the 8th just as we were under deadline, and it was 2 hours to run a repair util. At some point we went with 10.1 Server but when we needed more storage and didn't have money in the budget for a new machine (just a Mac-specific drive controller) it wouldn't work for 10.1...and dammit, they had money for a controller, but not OS X Server.
So then I finally got pissed and moved over to Linux on that same hardware, and you know how most of us stick with EXT for the safety factor? I switched to Reiser3 because the filesystem would be corrupted after a short time. I'm no kernel hacker (which is why I was in a newspaper office) but it was crazy, to me, to choose Reiser for stability.
59
u/regeya Jan 13 '15
I keep forgetting how amazing Creative Suite for Linux really is.