Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Jul 2007 20:31 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Microsoft "In his keynote at OSCON, Microsoft General Manager of Platform Strategy Bill Hilf announced that Microsoft is submitting its shared source licenses to the Open Source Initiative. This is a huge, long-awaited move. It will be earthshaking for both Microsoft and for the open source community if the licenses are in fact certified as open source licenses. Microsoft has been releasing a lot of software as shared source (nearly 650 projects, according to Bill). If this is suddenly certified as true open source software, it will be a lot harder to draw a bright line between Microsoft and the open source community." In addition, Microsoft has launched a new website where it details its relationship with open source.
Thread beginning with comment 258599
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Yet another
by google_ninja on Fri 27th Jul 2007 04:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yet another"
Member since:

What I'd love to see is a white knight to come and challenge Adobe's monopoly in the graphics market - offering applications where by *NIX is a first class citizen and can out perform Adobe products in almost all respects.

You are going to be waiting a very long time. Adobe apps are not only top quality, but they arent doing the typical thing of just making it to the top and then sitting still. You still see really intelligent, innovative features coming out with each new release.

Now that they bought the macromedia stack (which was a fantastic move, makes everyones life alot easier), any professional web developement is done with at least some adobe products. With their absorption of freehand, there is now nothing else on the market that comes even remotely close to illustrator, and while Photoshop does have competition, they are still a few generations behind in virtually all respects.

For me, I don't hold out hope for Adobe - the simple fact is that they're unwilling to port their applications to *NIX due to, what I consider, their down right hatred of end users and their concerns - it has nothing to do with marketshare of *NIX at all.

Why does it have nothing to do with the marketshare? Desktop linux is typically put at between 1-5% of the market, is it really worth the overhead of porting all their apps to a system barely anyone uses out of the server room? You could argue that even 5% is pretty friggin big, but support costs on linux are a nightmare due to the lack of a standard platform.

Apple has a small marketshare too, but it is worth their while to develop for it. Commercial companies don't support linux because as much as it is a hackers wonderland, it is a very business unfriendly platform.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Yet another
by Jokel on Fri 27th Jul 2007 07:17 in reply to "RE[4]: Yet another"
Jokel Member since:

Hmm... There is a Maya for Linux. It has the same version as the windows version (8.5) and works very well the last time I saw it. Also Softimage XSI has a Linux version - and there are a lot more very, very professional software makers that are making Linux software for years now..

So - it IS possible to develop a expensive, very complicated commercial program for Windows and Linux. Also there seems to be a market for it, otherwise these company's won't bother to do it...

Then.. If Adobe won't make a Photoshop for Linux they are in essence admitting they are less capable in writing software than the above company's. Seems weird.. There IS a market and there is a lot of money to make there - otherwise the above company's wont bother to make a Linux version at all.

So - there must be another reason to refuse to make a Linux version of Photoshop. I wonder what it is?

Sorry about my English - it's not my native language..

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Yet another
by kaiwai on Fri 27th Jul 2007 11:31 in reply to "RE[5]: Yet another"
kaiwai Member since:

You're right; if I grabbed every MacOS X user who was willing to give up MacOS X if *NIX (be it Solaris or Linux) had Creative Suite, you would see a max exodus from Apple like you've never seen.

Adobe simply want to invest the *least* amount possible - and when their marketshare is erroded by a competitor like Microsoft, then run off to the DOJ demanding that Microsofts development to be castrated.

I can't wait till all these products from Microsoft coming out - you'll see Adobe gnashing of teeth but refusing again to port their applications to *NIX (Solaris and Linux) because it would actually require money to be spent on the business rather than inflated management salaries, bonus's and corporate jets.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Yet another
by google_ninja on Fri 27th Jul 2007 16:07 in reply to "RE[5]: Yet another"
google_ninja Member since:

Professional CG has a long history of using UNIX as a platform (SGI anyone?) Professional image editing and publishing really doesn't.

How about the gaming industry? Why is it that 90% of new games arent even ported to OSX, even though OSX has at least twice the desktop install base of linux?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Yet another
by SlackerJack on Fri 27th Jul 2007 16:01 in reply to "RE[4]: Yet another"
SlackerJack Member since:

Well it must be worth it because Lord of the rings films and alot of others used Linux to do the CG. When they started Lord of the rings they were on a budget, using linux was ideal with Maya/SoftImage.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Yet another
by google_ninja on Fri 27th Jul 2007 16:13 in reply to "RE[5]: Yet another"
google_ninja Member since:

CG has a long history of being developed on UNIX, as most desktop platforms dont do clustering anywhere near as well, and you need render farms for any serious work. If the publishing industry required HPC, then it would be another story, and it really would make no sense not to port to linux. However, that isnt the case, and most serious artists are on Mac and Windows, which is exactly what adobe supports.

As I said in another reply, the gaming industry is another prime example of the user base on linux being too small to be worth their while.

Reply Parent Score: 3