Adobe on Linux

[WildWestDesigns]

Interesting this little thread here

Now, normally I wouldn't have paid much attention to something like that. After all, just because users want it, doesn't mean that Adobe will comply.

But then I saw the attached tweet which linked back to that request.

I have been a huge fan of Premiere (I can still use it in my VM of Win 7), I just have moved on to using Blender's VSE module to do my video editing.

I find it funny that the original poster to the link mentioned Da Vinci Resolve (which I have also used), but had wanted a version of Adobe for Ubuntu (something that Resolve doesn't even support, they support RHEL (or CentOS by extension of having RHEL support).

Really just create an AppImage (I doubt Adobe would do this as that is a portable version of the program), or a .run file and it should work on any distro (I hate the package managers, that's more for sysadmins needing control, not for desktop users).

Anyway, I know that there are some fans of Linux as I am that might want to upvote that (they do have Android versions of their software (albeit stripped down) and that is essentially Linux, as Linux is just the kernel and that's what Android runs on). I personally wouldn't just because it's subscription, but getting it on the platform would be good. Still a pipe dream, but one can hope.

 

[Bobby H]

I only see Adobe porting its software to Linux if a certain flavor of it turns into a mainstream success. That would mean casual Windows users dropping Windows for Linux. Google's Chrome books are about the closest thing there is to a consumer friendly version of Linux. Unfortunately most Chrome books are very stripped down in terms of computing horsepower. For the foreseeable future I think Adobe will just continue developing its desktop apps just for MacOS and Windows.

As for Adobe's iOS and Android "mobile" apps, they're very basic and only meant to compliment the desktop CC applications. I can sketch things on my iPad Pro in Photoshop Sketch or Illustrator Draw and then click one icon to send them to the computer desktop. The mobile apps are not fleshed out enough to function as replacements of the desktop apps. Not every Adobe mobile app is available for Android. For all the apps that are available for iOS they're really better to use with an iPad rather than an iPhone.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I only see Adobe porting its software to Linux if a certain flavor of it turns into a mainstream success.

Not necessarily. This main concern is more about if they want to get into a package manager system (which is more along the lines for sysadmin control really). They can easily do it as a .run file (which is akin to a .exe file in the Windows world(Nvidia drivers, VirtualBox, and Ardour are distributed this way as an option)) or they can do an AppImage (portable mountable ISO file (Krita (Painter alternative), Synfig (Flash Pro alternative)) and still have it linked to people's accounts as well, even despite it being portable. I don't necessarily see them doing AppImage or even just a binary archive (Blender's portable version and Inkscape's (for Windows) portable version has this for an option) even though both can be linked and controlled over an online connection. I just don't see that happening. The .run file would be really the only option.

Other then the programs that came pre-packaged within the ISO of the OS version that I'm using, all the programs that I get do not come from the package manager. And other then the Nvidia drivers, they are all portable programs, so I don't really have to deal with the messy uninstalling programs either.

To be truthful, there are only really 4 distros as it is (well maybe 3 depending on what IBM does with Red Hat): Arch, RHEL, Suse, and Debian. I was thinking there was a 5th one, but it isn't coming to mind. But every other fork/flavor is an offshoot from one of those (or an offshoot of an offshoot).

Google's Chrome books are about the closest thing there is to a consumer friendly version of Linux.

It's really not. What a lot of people are is stuck in the past as to what Linux on the desktop is. And that is a hurdle, but it's not the most consumer friendly one. But like with any change to a new OS, one has to be willing to do it. My dad tried to go from Windows to Mac and after 2 weeks he was back on a Windows machine. He hated it. One has to be willing.

Unfortunately most Chrome books are very stripped down in terms of computing horsepower.

The ARM based ones for sure. While there are lot of people wanting to have things go towards ARM, what most don't realize is that how they are now in consumer devices is more about electrical power efficiency, then computing power. Programs like this, unless they are re-written, are design for computing power and not really so much about efficiency.

For the foreseeable future I think Adobe will just continue developing its desktop apps just for MacOS and Windows.

I don't disagree. I just found it strange that there was a more of a possibility of this happening from their response for something like this.

The one thing that I would actually be worried about is just how close to parity would this be to the other system versions (Windows and Mac)? Even when Adobe started porting to Windows, there wasn't feature parity between the 2 until later. That would be to me, where the concern is and make it more of a flop.

As for Adobe's iOS and Android "mobile" apps, they're very basic and only meant to compliment the desktop CC applications.

Yes, I did note that they were already "stripped down" versions. That was less the point then it was they already had something that was using the Linux kernel. They already had their foot in the door so to speak.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Interesting, taking a look at it, over 6k up votes. Compare that to the paltry 400+ up votes for increased art board size in Ai, I would say that's a decent size demand. Now, of course, you have to factor in how many people don't actually know about this to up vote on either "issue". It could be greater.

Bare in mind as well, Win 10 hasn't quite been stellar, especially as of late.

As far as I know, they haven't fixed the map drive issue (which immediately would kill it for me as I deal with mapped drives all the time). And some still have the file association issues that also cropped up.

I do think it's under review though as that huge surge of up votes did trigger Adobe's spam filters (or so they say) and it's under review.

I only see Adobe porting its software to Linux if a certain flavor of it turns into a mainstream success.

I did think on this some more. If you do Ubuntu (or even just Debian, which Ubuntu is based on), you'll get a lot of the users that are migrating to Linux in the first place. As that one is incredibly easy to use. Anybody else that is using the more power user type of distros/forks etc would more then likely be savvy enough to add in support to use Ubuntu bits on their system.

Bare in mind to, it's been done in closed source commercial programs to be supported on all three platforms. Autodesk Maya is one. Now, they did go a different route as to distro they supported (which I can understand as this distro (and it's forks) have 10 yr support between versions) and that is RHEL (and by extension CentOS).

Now Corel did try to do the Linux thing with Corel Linux during the time of the Mac version, but they made their own distro so far removed from the rest of the Linux ecosystem that it was like it's own thing.

 

[brycesteiner]

I certainly agree that they should make a version of the apps for Linux. From Adobe's perspective they don't want to support for the exact reason you stated in your original post for you yourself not buying it - people on Linux are more reluctant to pay for software. Of course, not all.
As Adobe has moved to the subscription model they have made less progress in developing the software. It's why Affinity and others have so much better performance and are much lighter storage requirements. They don't have near the overhead of antiquated code.
You might have better luck getting smaller companies who are actually interested in design, such as affinity, to get a port of Designer on Linux rather than Adobe whose focus has been to increase profit and cut costs.
The longer term plan is to have the apps run cloud based. At that point it should not matter if you are running Mac, Windows, or Linux. That future may be closer than you think and if so, may be the reason Adobe is not planning to develop for Linux now.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I certainly agree that they should make a version of the apps for Linux. From Adobe's perspective they don't want to support for the exact reason you stated in your original post for you yourself not buying it - people on Linux are more reluctant to pay for software. Of course, not all.

I don't have a reluctance for paying for software, I have a reluctance for subscription software. There is a significant difference between the two. I would have no problem with paying for any of the CC suites if they have left the perpetual license in place.

You do have software on Linux that has paid for versions. Some do have a free version (that has limits), some are only free if you are willing to get a older version in the repo or are willing to compile on your own.

Autodesk Maya
DaVinci Resolve (does have a free version with limits)
Ardour (can get it for free in repos or build from source on Linux, build from source is the only option on Windows and Mac).
Caldera (only on available on Unix-like machines)

Bottom line is I'm pragmatic about it. I use the most efficient tool for the job. Paid or free, which ever is the most efficient.

As Adobe has moved to the subscription model they have made less progress in developing the software. It's why Affinity and others have so much better performance and are much lighter storage requirements. They don't have near the overhead of antiquated code.

Very true. However, to be fair, if Adobe did try to lighten up the code, some of that support for legacy file formats could very well be lost. There are pros and cons. It's the same thing that affects Windows as well.

Now, imagine if ~30 yrs down the road, is Affinity still going to have lightweight programs or is it going to be as bloated as Adobe?

The longer term plan is to have the apps run cloud based. At that point it should not matter if you are running Mac, Windows, or Linux. That future may be closer than you think and if so, may be the reason Adobe is not planning to develop for Linux now.

Some programs your going to have to have some assets on the local machine. It's easier to have a program "phone home" to see if the account is up to date versus having waves of people trying to access the same servers to do work at the same time. Especially for the more intensive programs.

However, I do agree that the web-browser for a lot of programs is going to be the most important program on the computer. Shoot, I have an emulation program (not to be confused with virtualizing, there is a difference) that I'm able to run Win 98 on any device whose browsers supports that code (most new browsers can).

The one down side to that, is "always connected". I know I'm sounding like a broken record here, but that's no bueno for production computers.

 

[Bobby H]

In the end it's all about profit. Not just for Adobe either. There's a number of developers out there who create plug-ins for Adobe software. As far as I'm concerned Adobe apps on Linux are worthless if they're not coded to run native in that OS environment and the hardware on which it runs. And the plug-in developers have to come along for the ride. All those companies aren't going to start coding for a third desktop platform unless it's going to give them a bunch more customers and be profitable. They're not going to do it if it just allows existing customers to jump from one platform to another. It might be great for certain customers. But it may be of zero financial benefit to the software developers. They're not growing their customer base; they're only growing their complication level. Ultimately the extra resources that would be spent on the Linux version would amount to a loss.

For a really long time, from the late 1980's to early 2000's, there was a pretty big difference in terms of plug-ins available for the Windows versions of Photoshop & Illustrator versus those on the Mac platform. MacOS definitely had a pretty big lead, especially during the days when the OS ran on Motorola CPUs. That's because the vast majority of Adobe's user base was using Macs. Plug-in parity between Win and OSX has really only been a thing over about the past 15 years since Adobe's customer base on Windows grew as big as that on the Mac platform.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

As far as I'm concerned Adobe apps on Linux are worthless if they're not coded to run native in that OS environment and the hardware on which it runs.

This is talking about native apps, not something wrapped up in WINE or something like that.

I do agree that this has to be done as a native app. However, the plugin developers aren't going to do it, if Adobe doesn't go along first. That has to be the first step.

Most of the hardware that Windows runs on, Linux runs on, so they hardware, to me, is far less of an issue then it is the software platform (OS).

Have to start somewhere. The question is, is that somewhere worth the effort, that is the big question.

To me, Adobe lost me when they went to subscription based. Linux, Windows, to me, I stopped with CS6. The supposed value added extras hold zero value to me. To others, subscription and those value added extras have actual value. And that's great.

The fact that Maya has a native Linux app (full blown app) and they charge a crap load for their subscription to that program, much more then the Adobe suite, has to show something. Your talking over $100 per month, almost $200 ($190 per month) a month if you do the month to month versus yearly ($120 per month if pay annually). That's just for 1 program and that program does have Linux support and has had that support for quite awhile as well and still does. All the same points that you made with Adobe (plugins, addons etc) all apply to Maya as well. I don't think that barrier is what it used to be.

They may never do it though, which is a shame, but the barriers aren't like what they used to be.

 

[brycesteiner]

Something to add here, possibly worthless:
It does appear that Microsoft is moving towards Linux.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/ms-linux-lindows-could-microsoft-release-a-desktop-linux/

This author previously stated they would not but the signs are indicative that is going to happen. Why? All you have to do is see how bad this latest 1809 roll out was. It is so complicated now that even on the Surface, MS's own hardware gets blue screens and reboots, not being able to test near everything. And it's not going to get easier for MS.

If they changed the entire foundation of the OS to Linux, put an interpreter in it for running older software for a couple years, and making an easier install process for applications it would work just fine. You might say there is no way a company would go to that extent. Apple did it - twice - successfully. I have no idea how they pulled it off but when they knew they needed to move off the primitive original Mac OS software to OSX they built in a "classic" environment on top of a new foundation, which was basically an app that allowed the programs to think they were running on OS 9.

Apple did this again when moving all of their code from the PPC to Intel using an app they wrote called Rosetta, while still having a completely new architecture. I was amazed at how quickly they pulled this off. The transition from the new to the old was supposedly an impossible task by analysts but they did in a year.

Both times it gave a deadline to users and developers to get their apps up-to-date. People were not forced to upgrade as they could stay on the older environment, but they just wouldn't get updates, which is fine. Not everybody needs to have the latest and greatest. More security holes have been found in Windows 10 than the previous Windows. Why? I assume it's because the code is getting bigger and bigger. Every time it adds more to the potential for a breech.

MS could fix the foundational issues by switching to Linux, but will they? Probably not.

I don't care for the subscription model either, in fact, I hate it. I don't have much of a choice (and Adobe knows this!) if I want to take people's files. Most people now send PDF's and that is good but there are times I need the original files to make corrections and adjustments.

The worst part of the subscription model is if you decide to not renew, it's not just a matter of not being able to make new files in the software, but that you can no longer open your old files up.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Something to add here, possibly worthless:
It does appear that Microsoft is moving towards Linux.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/ms-linux-lindows-could-microsoft-release-a-desktop-linux/

I saw that yesterday as well.

I don't know about that. The biggest thing are there any bits and pieces of it that they have used from elsewhere that they can't open source it and move to Linux? This is one of the biggest problems with open sourcing individual programs. There may not be, but that could be a concern.

I think we have a better chance of ReactOS (after 20+ yrs) being stable and ready to use before then. But I could be wrong.

This author previously stated they would not but the signs are indicative that is going to happen. Why? All you have to do is see how bad this latest 1809 roll out was. It is so complicated now that even on the Surface, MS's own hardware gets blue screens and reboots, not being able to test near everything. And it's not going to get easier for MS.

That's absolutely true. And for whatever reason, they have forced updates and have this ideal of having 2 big updates a year, when I don't recall in all my years of running MS (dating back to the DOS days) that updates having really gone off without a hitch. To much hardware/software combinations to support.

If they changed the entire foundation of the OS to Linux, put an interpreter in it for running older software for a couple years, and making an easier install process for applications it would work just fine.

They already have the beginnings of such a thing as it is (and I think that was mentioned in the article), WSL. Unlike WINE (which is the Linux/Mac version), MS does have full access to the APIs needed for the transition. So the ability to make a much more stable compatibility layer is greater.

You might say there is no way a company would go to that extent. Apple did it - twice - successfully. I have no idea how they pulled it off but when they knew they needed to move off the primitive original Mac OS software to OSX they built in a "classic" environment on top of a new foundation, which was basically an app that allowed the programs to think they were running on OS 9.

Apple has a much tighter grip on their software/hardware ecosystem then Windows does. I think that's the biggest advantage.

Apple did this again when moving all of their code from the PPC to Intel using an app they wrote called Rosetta, while still having a completely new architecture. I was amazed at how quickly they pulled this off. The transition from the new to the old was supposedly an impossible task by analysts but they did in a year.

Rumors abound that they may move to ARM now. Which probably explains why Adobe is playing with Ps from the ground up to get it to work on ARM.

Both times it gave a deadline to users and developers to get their apps up-to-date. People were not forced to upgrade as they could stay on the older environment, but they just wouldn't get updates, which is fine. Not everybody needs to have the latest and greatest.

If you are on a production environment, like most of us, really shouldn't be bleeding edge anyway. It amazes me how many people do go bleeding edge and then complain when things go bad. That's part and parcel with being bleeding edge. Why MS and production software vendors shouldn't be going in the direction that they are.

More security holes have been found in Windows 10 than the previous Windows. Why? I assume it's because the code is getting bigger and bigger. Every time it adds more to the potential for a breech.

It gets bigger and bigger and they still have the legacy code from previous versions. The joys of having a greater chance of being able to run an older program on a newer version of Windows comes at a risk and that is having those old APIs left in there that are still obsolete.

Also, that enables the programmers from those software vendors to keep targeting those APIs as well.

Even now, people (in here) still suggest running a program as admin. No modern program should have to be done this way. If the program is from late aughts to current and it still requires that, then in my opinion, that would be no bueno for security purposes.

MS could fix the foundational issues by switching to Linux, but will they? Probably not.

Not all of the issues. Some issues could possibly still exist (multitude of hardware/software combinations for instances), but it will be a strong base compared to what they have now, that's for sure.

I will say this, that despite that particular issue also being on Linux as well, I have had no issues with updates or even really thinking that an update would go bad after having done it. Can't say the same for Windows. Plus, I can pick and choose what is updated.

I don't care for the subscription model either, in fact, I hate it. I don't have much of a choice (and Adobe knows this!) if I want to take people's files. Most people now send PDF's and that is good but there are times I need the original files to make corrections and adjustments.

This is were I actually lucked out. My getting the vector files (even from those that I know have them) is less then 2% of the time. And I'm being generous with that figure. In all honesty, as long as the raster file is of a good resolution, my workflow between the 2 files doesn't change one iota. Everything is the same, the only advantage (in most instances, not all) is I don't usually have to worry about resolution quality on vector files. When I do, is usually when people embed crap raster files in a vector container thinking that somehow makes it a better file quality.

Of course, you can also change what file formats you do accept. Just depends on what delivers the best results for your needs. Most people don't like doing that to customers. But that is an option.

Shoot, even if I get a vector file, it doesn't automatically mean that it was designed in such a way that it would work for production. That's the kicker for me.

The worst part of the subscription model is if you decide to not renew, it's not just a matter of not being able to make new files in the software, but that you can no longer open your old files up.

Imagine if that applied to the OS? Even it was just for certain "modules" of the OS. I could imagine that there would be certain "modules" that would have to be subscription based for content/graphics creators to make their creations that much more efficient/easier/better/whatever crapola. But imagine if it was the whole OS? Talk about no choice there.

 

[Bobby H]

To me, Adobe lost me when they went to subscription based. Linux, Windows, to me, I stopped with CS6. The supposed value added extras hold zero value to me. To others, subscription and those value added extras have actual value. And that's great.

It's all a matter of perspective for each user and what he/she needs out of creative software. For one thing, Adobe's graphics software is not meant for casual, consumer use. It's meant for people who use the software in their jobs to make money. There's lots of other low-priced or free/open source alternatives for hobbyists.

I think Creative Cloud is worth the price. But then I use more than just Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop. The audio-video production applications are great. After Effects is outstanding for creating motion graphics work for either video projects or making custom designs to fit specific LED-based electronic variable message centers.

In the past I had to get a Master Collection level Creative Suite to get all that software. It cost a couple grand to buy outright. Upgrades averaged out to about $600 per year to stay current. Creative Cloud provides a bunch of extras that the Master Collection suite never had.

The Adobe Fonts service on its own is a huge bonus item (over 14,000 fonts from a bunch of different commercial foundries and they're adding new font families on a regular basis). That might not mean anything to the kind of sign designer who uses default fonts on everything, like squeezing & stretching Arial Black to fit any space. For designers who want a wide variety of fresh, cutting edge typefaces the Adobe Fonts service is worth a fortune.

The fact that Maya has a native Linux app (full blown app) and they charge a crap load for their subscription to that program, much more then the Adobe suite, has to show something.

Maya is a unique example. Like Adobe's graphics software, Maya is meant for professional use, with that emphasis on professional use going to an extreme. Firms that use it typically have some deep pockets and work on high priced, high paying projects. They're often running Maya on very high end hardware. It's interesting to note the 2 flavors of Linux supported by Maya require very expensive multi-user licenses (individual licenses available for OSX & Win7/10). Firms like visual effects companies often have their render farms running on Linux.

They may never do it though, which is a shame, but the barriers aren't like what they used to be.

One thing that does help is the online-only software delivery scheme gives Adobe more flexibility. They don't have to worry about inventories of boxed software and making a bunch of different product SKUs. They had to do that previously with Adobe Creative Suite. Customers not only had to pick the suite of their choice (or buy individual apps) they had to pick a platform and stay with it. Under Creative Cloud a user can decide to dump Windows for OSX or vice versa and they won't have to buy their software all over again. Just de-activate it on the old machine and install it on the new one. If Adobe decided to create a native Linux version of Creative Cloud the old retail boxed software SKUs would be one hurdle out of the way.

The worst part of the subscription model is if you decide to not renew, it's not just a matter of not being able to make new files in the software, but that you can no longer open your old files up.

You can still save files down to earlier "legacy" versions. But that can come at the cost of breaking new effects and features baked into those designs, such as the new free form gradient feature in Illustrator CC 2019. Illustrator files in particular can be saved as PDFs.

Any designer needs to pay attention to the "writing on the wall" regarding the long term viability of a graphics application being used everyday. Lots of Freehand users got burned. In addition to Adobe's software, I use CorelDRAW everyday in my work. I'm already pretty annoyed by them removing support for CorelDRAW files made in version 5 or earlier in their last couple or so builds of CDR. A "venture capital" company owns Corel. They've been on an acquisition binge for years. Their latest is the company that makes Parallels. With them handling applications like a collector buying baseball cards it makes me nervous about the future of CorelDRAW.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

It's all a matter of perspective for each user and what he/she needs out of creative software. For one thing, Adobe's graphics software is not meant for casual, consumer use. It's meant for people who use the software in their jobs to make money. There's lots of other low-priced or free/open source alternatives for hobbyists.

I think you would be surprised, I use graphics software for making money and I have since I started working for my mom in 1994. It's come along way, in the open source realm.

One thing, and this is in bold, open source doesn't in of itself mean free. In most instances, at least the software is free, but they charge for support. Red Hat does that, Canonical does that. Now, Ardour (a DAW program) does charge for the pre-compiled binaries, but it is still open source if you want to compile yourself.

I think it's erroneous to believe that just because it's open source and/or free that is only for hobbyists. I think that's a mistake to believe that. Not to say that there aren't programs that are lacking in that realm, but that's even the case in the closed sourced realm as well. I think that misconception is a huge hurdle that people have to get over as well.

I think Creative Cloud is worth the price. But then I use more than just Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop. The audio-video production applications are great. After Effects is outstanding for creating motion graphics work for either video projects or making custom designs to fit specific LED-based electronic variable message centers.

Ai, Fl, Pr, Ps, Au/Sb are the ones that I've had to use.

Every one one of those has an alternative that is just as good (in some ways even better, it just depends). Now, the workflow is different and I think that's what gets people is having to do a different workflow.

In the past I had to get a Master Collection level Creative Suite to get all that software. It cost a couple grand to buy outright. Upgrades averaged out to about $600 per year to stay current. Creative Cloud provides a bunch of extras that the Master Collection suite never had.

I've gotten the master suite, every new release and I typically didn't do the upgrade, but the outright purchase. Main reason is that when I did the upgrade, you had to have the 1st first full version that you paid for and then install the upgrade in order for it to work. I hated that, it was worth it for me to just purchase outright and not deal with the previous version.

I will say this, the Master Suite was cheap for the amount of programs you got. I've got one program that MSRPs for $15k. Just for one program. The Master Suite is cheap.

The Adobe Fonts service on its own is a huge bonus item (over 14,000 fonts from a bunch of different commercial foundries and they're adding new font families on a regular basis). That might not mean anything to the kind of sign designer who uses default fonts on everything, like squeezing & stretching Arial Black to fit any space. For designers who want a wide variety of fresh, cutting edge typefaces the Adobe Fonts service is worth a fortune.

I don't like to have to be online to get those services. I do not, in any way shape form or fashion, believe that it is good for a production rig to be online. I would prefer to pay (and I do) for my own fonts and be able to use them without having to have

It's interesting to note the 2 flavors of Linux supported by Maya require very expensive multi-user licenses (individual licenses available for OSX & Win7/10).

This I'm unsure about. RHEL on it's own (which is actually one of the main distros) does require a service contract (7 yr I believe) in order to run unless you build from source.

CentOS (which is the community fork of RHEL sans RH branding) does not typically require a license.

So it must be something that Maya is looking for when you install. Anybody can install/run CentOS without a service contract/license.

Unless, they are putting that on there, because CentOS is a fork of RHEL and they think it's the same in that way. Oracle Linux is a fork of RHEL as well and I think there are licensing there via service contracts with Oracle.

I'm wondering if that's why they have that. Not that CentOS does actually require licensing. Unless Maya is making it so.

 

[kcollinsdesign]

Man am I glad I don't have to worry about any of this stuff. I use up-to-date Macs and Adobe CC. Very few problems, and when there is one it is easy to figure out. Industry standard file types and a universal language that the majority of collaborators understand. I have nothing but admiration for you Linux users and those of you that mess around with Open Source programs and custom operating systems. My time is too precious to be playing around with that stuff when these industry standard off-the-shelf products work so well.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Man am I glad I don't have to worry about any of this stuff. I use up-to-date Macs and Adobe CC. Very few problems, and when there is one it is easy to figure out. Industry standard file types and a universal language that the majority of collaborators understand. I have nothing but admiration for you Linux users and those of you that mess around with Open Source programs and custom operating systems. My time is too precious to be playing around with that stuff when these industry standard off-the-shelf products work so well.

I have had far fewer problems with Linux then I have had with Windows. I'm personally not a fan of Macs, I have had them, once when I was really young (back in the 80s) and then again as an extra computer in the late aughts. The change in their direction, just not a fan of. The only reason that I had that extra computer is that my dad tried to change from Windows to Mac and after 3 weeks, he hated it. He was actually going to trash it.

If it works for you great, that's fine, more power to you.

Open source programs that I use work just fine off the shelf. What most people think of Linux is not the same as it was 10 yrs ago. I wouldn't be able to do what I do, if it still was.

I will say this, you do realize that some parts of Mac are open source do you not? The Darwin kernel that is used in OSX is based (in parts) off BSD and open source (what isn't is the higher level APIs that bind software to hardware)? CUPs (which is also Apple, and I actually do use it on my Linux rigs) is also open source?

Ironically, on Apple's developer page it says "Open source software is at the heart of Apple platforms and developer tools, and Apple continues to contribute and release significant quantities of open source code".

Most everyone here uses open source in some way.

Now Adobe, Autodesk, I could care less if they open source their programs. For most people, that means squat. I use DaVince Resolve at times, not open source (available on Linux though).

Industry standard file types and a universal language that the majority of collaborators understand.

Yep, same here too.

I would not have made it, if this conversion process left my customers in a lurch.

The biggest change is the change in workflow and how successful that is, depends on how willing you are to do the change.

Ironically, some of the programs that I have, actually have more functionality then the closed source versions. Now some of it may not be necessary, depends on what your needs are, but sometimes there is functionality that isn't available elsewhere. One of the joys of an open nature of development.

 

[Bobby H]

I think it's erroneous to believe that just because it's open source and/or free that is only for hobbyists. I think that's a mistake to believe that. Not to say that there aren't programs that are lacking in that realm, but that's even the case in the closed sourced realm as well. I think that misconception is a huge hurdle that people have to get over as well.

Misconception? When I look at the different categories of graphics software none of those categories is being led by an open source application. For example Adobe Illustrator is the leader in vector graphics software, with CorelDRAW (also a commercial program) being its most credible rival. Inkscape is probably the most popular open source alternative, but it falls terribly short in many areas.

I mention hobbyists in relation to open source graphics software because very few of them can justify buying a copy of CorelDRAW, must less subscribing to something like Creative Cloud. An application like Inkscape is better than nothing. They can spend a modest amount of money for something like Affinity Designer. But to be productive in a professional graphics work environment it's tough to do so without having at least one seat of Adobe Creative Cloud.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Misconception? When I look at the different categories of graphics software none of those categories is being led by an open source application. For example Adobe Illustrator is the leader in vector graphics software, with CorelDRAW (also a commercial program) being its most credible rival. Inkscape is probably the most popular open source alternative, but it falls terribly short in many areas.

Very rarely will you find an open source leading they way. It's very hard to get over the stumbling block of "you get what you pay for". Plus, they have had a lot of years (Adobe, Corel) to be on their own as well. First release of Inkscape is in 2003, first release of Adobe was what 1989 with Ps (I think the same with Corel)? They had a lot of time to be the "standard".

Don't get me wrong, the greatest advantage that Adobe has is interoperability between programs. I used to love that. That's, to me, the biggest advantage.

How many people, to this day, still think that "you" aren't kosher in this industry if you aren't on a Mac? Doesn't matter how much talent is there, if you aren't on a Mac, what you do isn't kosher (I'm not saying you say that or anyone in this thread has said that, I'm talking in general terms here)? Not that far of a stretch to extend that to programs as well.

I mention hobbyists in relation to open source graphics software because very few of them can justify buying a copy of CorelDRAW, must less subscribing to something like Creative Cloud.

Are you sure it's that? I can't possibly be the only one, but I don't get CC, because I'm firmly against a subscription based service and thus won't support a company that is in that endeavor. Not because I can't afford it. I can't imagine that there aren't others like that. I didn't go with DRAW, because I can't imagine them not following Adobe's lead at some point. They are already on the yearly release cadence, not to far fetch to think that it's going to be better all the way around to go subscription.

But to be productive in a professional graphics work environment it's tough to do so without having at least one seat of Adobe Creative Cloud.

Not as tough as you would think. When I'm dealing with vector files, the majority of the time, I'm creating them. When I do have to send them out, EPS and/or PDF and actually most are wanting SVGs now. Very rarely, with what I do, is there an issue of it not working in Ai if they choose to use that.

 

[kcollinsdesign]

The whole Mac thing for graphic design started back in the mid eighties with PostScript and the LaserWriter, which revolutionized the industry. It took a few years for the PC side of things to catch up, and by that time most graphic designers and print shops had invested in Apple equipment and PostScript fonts. There was no easy way to convert the fonts, so it was an economically sound decision to stay with Macs. Most of us had a whole lot more invested in fonts than computer hardware. So we stayed with Macs.

Now it doesn't make any difference. Use whatever OS is comfortable for you. Or go back and forth, like I do. I am familiar with the Mac interface and GUI conventions, so I just prefer Macs. I also appreciate Apple's design aesthetic; their products seem less "plasticky" and have fewer shiny parts and bling, and appeal to my taste for minimalist design. I like the careful and less abrupt transitioning between screens. I also like the way they "force" developers to obey their UI, making most programs easier to figure out.

If I were not a Mac fanboy, I would probably be using Unix (if only for the desktop). Cost is not a factor for me; I can make in a few hours enough to pay for whatever I want. "Wild West Designs" explains best why many shy away from Linux – I don't have to know about Darwin kernels, BSD, high level APIs, CUPs or anything else. I just plug my Mac in and it works. In the rare instance something doesn't work, I just call Apple or Adobe tech support. It's not that easy with Open Source software.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I am familiar with the Mac interface and GUI conventions, so I just prefer Macs. I also appreciate Apple's design aesthetic; their products seem less "plasticky" and have fewer shiny parts and bling, and appeal to my taste for minimalist design. I like the careful and less abrupt transitioning between screens. I also like the way they "force" developers to obey their UI, making most programs easier to figure out.

There are quite a few DE's that follow that KDE (my favorite), but as far as a fork, I think you would like elementaryOS the most. And they do that with developers as well, to provide a uniform aesthetic. KDE does as well. I just like the modular aspect of it versus elementary, but they are really like the Mac aesthetic.

"Wild West Designs" explains best why many shy away from Linux – I don't have to know about Darwin kernels, BSD, high level APIs, CUPs or anything else.

No, you don't have to know about those things to make it work. A lot of people that use it don't know about what applies to the Mac end of things anyway.

Just like you don't have to use CLI in Linux to make it work. It gives you more options (just like it does on Windows and Mac), but you don't have to use it. If I want the right click control panel back on Windows 10, I have to use a powershell script. Things along those lines.

I just plug my Mac in and it works. In the rare instance something doesn't work, I just call Apple or Adobe tech support.

I've rarely had things not work. It is not the same that it once ways. The only way to get it not to work out of the box is if one uses Arch or something like that. Stick with the "newbie" slanted forks and you'll be fine.

It's not that easy with Open Source software.

It's called Google and/or the support forums. Not all that unlike this forum right here.

 

[Bobby H]

Very rarely will you find an open source leading they way. It's very hard to get over the stumbling block of "you get what you pay for". Plus, they have had a lot of years (Adobe, Corel) to be on their own as well. First release of Inkscape is in 2003, first release of Adobe was what 1989 with Ps (I think the same with Corel)? They had a lot of time to be the "standard".

Illustrator and CorelDRAW have been around for nearly 30 years. Users of those applications have been creating and building large collections of files in those formats all those years. Any developer creating what they intend to sell as an "Illustrator-killer" or "Photoshop-killer" has huge challenges to overcome.

The new killer-app has to actually be a better application. The only valid reason to switch to a new graphics application is to be more productive, get work done faster, better and be more profitable. I haven't seen any open source graphics applications accomplish that feat. The main selling point for them turns into getting free or cheap software. But if that free or cheap software makes you less productive it actually ends up costing you. Even the lower price commercial applications like Affinity Designer have their own issues.

And then there's the issue of legacy files a potential customer created using Adobe or Corel software. A new upstart has to offer a long time Illustrator or CorelDRAW user a credible migratory path. The new app must be able to open/import those AI or CDR files properly. Right now I'm not satisified with the file import & conversion capabilities of any drawing application. They all miss the mark to some degree, which is why I have CorelDRAW 2018 and Illustrator CC 2019 on my computer. Maybe applications like Inkscape will get better in that department over time. But they have to cover more basic issues, like properly supporting other color modes than just RGB.

How many people, to this day, still think that "you" aren't kosher in this industry if you aren't on a Mac? Doesn't matter how much talent is there, if you aren't on a Mac, what you do isn't kosher (I'm not saying you say that or anyone in this thread has said that, I'm talking in general terms here)? Not that far of a stretch to extend that to programs as well.

There is definitely slaving to Apple-branded fashion present in various segments of creative industries. Back in the 1990's it made sense to buy Mac-branded hardware if you were working in a niche like print publishing. Many cross platform technical hurdles have been overcome (and Adobe CC has improved on that). Nevertheless the fashion trend still holds in many places. The sign industry is unique in that it was never dominated by the Mac platform. Lately it seems like the Windows platform is getting even more dominant. Flexi used to be available for the Mac but not anymore. Gerber's stuff is Windows-only. Popular large format RIPs like Onyx and VersaWorks are Windows-only. I can't think of any LED message center controller software available for the Mac. We sell a lot of Daktronics stuff and all their software is Windows-only.

I'm a big movie buff; I kind of laugh about computer use in that industry. On the surface it's all about the Mac. Screenwriters, actors, producers, etc all pimp Mac notebooks. But in places like visual effects studios you'll see a lot more hardware running Windows and Linux. You can't cram 2 or more $8000 video cards into an iMac or build a render farm with those things.

I can't possibly be the only one, but I don't get CC, because I'm firmly against a subscription based service and thus won't support a company that is in that endeavor. Not because I can't afford it. I can't imagine that there aren't others like that. I didn't go with DRAW, because I can't imagine them not following Adobe's lead at some point. They are already on the yearly release cadence, not to far fetch to think that it's going to be better all the way around to go subscription.

I really don't care about the principal, ideology or whatever anyone wants to call it regarding subscription based software. What I care about is being able to do my work productively and at a high quality level. When you're having to deal with things like brand assets and other materials from big companies it's nice to be able to open and edit that stuff without any hitches. The same goes for sending out files to other service bureaus. Someone can save $50 per month not buying Adobe software. But it might come at a cost of losing a lot of time trying to fix client-provided artwork that didn't open properly in an off-brand application.

Regarding SVG files, I have yet to receive a specific request from any client for logo files in that format.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Ok, your first and last points that you mentioned above.

Legacy files are very easily able to be opened. I have yet to have a problem with legacy files, either with Ai or CDR. Now bare in mind, I'm saying opening. I don't not need beyond that that what I do when I receive outside files. This is perhaps why I don't lose productivity. I'm actually able to do my designing and digitizing within one program. And I have features in that one program that would in the close source world mean that you would have to spend at min. of $3000 to get that I would need. Not everyone would need it, but I would.

Now newer files, I have had miss here and there. But with the infrequency that I get those files, that is a non issue.

When I receive files, I don't need to go in and tweak the file directly. I don't need that ability. I just have to open it up and I'm good to go. Any tweaking that I would do, wouldn't be within the file itself.

I miss zero productivity, yes, if I did, I would be more like you. I do have some pragmatist in me. Don't last for 24.5 yrs in any trade without that.

As far as SVG files, they are exceptionally big in the apparel world (which is where my creative field mainly is), if you don't deal much with that, I can see why you may never have that request. Also in apparel world, Windows has been the much preferred platform. I do know of a couple of Mac ports of fairly decent software, but both are below the $3k mark and won't give me some functionality that I would need. The basic are there (which is enough for 90% of the customer base), but some of the nitty gritty functionality is not on the Mac platform.