Graphics and photography have been Apple's chasse gardee for years but for quite some time, MS Windows is on par with the Mac and the system of choice for photographers boils down to personal preferences more than anything else. But what about Linux? "My goal with this entry is to brush a big picture of where Linux stands as far as photography is concerned," Joel Cornuz explains, "What are the achievements, where improvements are needed and being worked on, and which pieces are still missing."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-03-06
Don't fool yourself: most users are cheapskates, and that has nothing to do with whether they use linux or not.
Going with linux at home is not really about saving money, as most linux users probably have at least one or several windows licenses already.
Regarding buying software, there aren't that many titles worth their price compared to free alternatives from the repositories (talking about home users here), and I'd say most users would rather give blender a try than pirating maya (much unlike the windows pals, IMO).
Software that really adds some value over what's available for free does get used and paid for, but most of it is expensive profesional software (smoke, houdini, maya...).
Member since:2006-11-24
Except for games, I don't use paid for software - although I do have a bunch. I stopped using Nero, too bloted, too buggy, even though I bought it for Linux but don't use it there either. I bought an FTP server but since it hasn't got free updates I went with Filezilla after a while with my basic needs, etc... Maybe I bought like 20 apps, but I don't use any of them anymore, except Winrar, which has life time updates. For the home user, there is loads of stuff; sometimes I get a cover mount magazine, e.g. for an older QuarkXpress version, etc...
This hasn't to do with being "cheap" - should I pay hundreds only to pay someone's lunch and for not being called cheap..? There is no added value in most apps. I could call most commercial proggers 'crap' in turn... maybe they offer me something above and beyond free software for not being called that anymore..? 
Member since:2005-07-06
http://linux-foundation.org/weblogs/press/2008/03/30/adobe-joins-li...
Member since:2006-12-16
Member since:2005-11-12
Some would say that makes Windows and Mac users are sucker then, if I had the money I wouldn't buy a Mac or spend £200 on Vista.
I think it's just a matter of time before Adobe port Photoshop, lightroom, Maya has been ported for years now and it maybe Adobe are just to tight, stuck up to port it.
Linux doesn't have to be your choice of platform for professional photography apps, this sort of thing takes years to get together and develop for a platform.
Member since:2006-12-16
Member since:2006-12-16
You are 100% correct, but sadly, the Linux lovers here will NEVER admit that. Let's look at Nero for Linux - dead. LinDVD? dead. No CAD products for Linux. Adobe would be idiots to develop Photoshop for Linux - there just isn't the demand. A recent article in an Australian paper cited a report that had just been completed, that showed (at least in Australia) that Apple's OS X had reached 10% of the market, with practically the rest Windows. Those that were going to OS X were doing so cos they were not happy with Windows Vista for a variety of reasons. They're not going to Linux, they're going to OS X.
The writing is on the wall for Linux and independant application developers can see it, plain & clear. Linux will become increasingly marginalised and I firmly believe that hardware support will actually dwindle over the next 5 years for Linux. 3rd party applications for Linux will not take off, developers will run like hell when the hear the word "linux".
Linux isn't bad - it just doesn't, and will never, suit the needs of the average user. And that's what hardware developers and software developers work for. That's where the money is.
I do wish Adobe would release Photoshop for Linux, and for those that need CAD, that similar would happen, but I'd be dreaming.
Dave
Member since:2005-11-18
Actually, that is 100% incorrect. Disney and some other major studios use Photoshop on Linux. How? They hired Codeweavers to make it run with CrossOver:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Penguin-Moves-to-Dis...
http://ftp.codeweavers.com/pub/crossover/case_studies/WaltDisney.pd...
The average Linux home user is just as likely to pirate Photoshop as a Windows user. But the usual customers (such als movie studios) are happy to pay for it.
No, the average user does not pay ~1000 Euro for Photoshop and alike. The home user market was never attractive, unless you can move ten thousands or hunderd thousands of boxes. The enterprise market is different, companies are happy to pay hundreds of dollars for a product if it makes they employees much more productive. And it doesn't matter much if it's on Linux, OS X, or Windows.
Edited 2008-08-23 09:43 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
That's because they weren't good enough to compete with existing solutions, not simply because they where closed source. No one is going to buy your closed source app when there exists a better or just as good app for free. If you want to sell your app it has to be better than what is already out there. Nero wasn't, Photoshop would be.
People still buy Maya for Linux, despite the existence of Blender, simply because Maya does what they need while Blender doesn't.
Pro/ENGINEER
Member since:
2006-02-16
It's universal truth that commercial products for linux never does well and very rarely pays itself off.
Most linux users are cheapskates.