[Desktop_architects] The reason Adobe does not want to port Photoshop?

[Jeremy White]

> Judging by the developer's comments it is more likely intentionally spreading 
> misinformation.
> 
> However, my experience with corporate developers, even a couple of those I 
> know personally, is that they are quite undereducated regarding the state of 
> Linux/free software desktops.

I disagree, and I disagree pretty violently, at least for
the perspective of a typical ISV.  (I won't speak to in house corporate
developers, I do agree that they may well be undereducated as to
the role that the Linux Desktop could play in their organizations).

I think that most Linux developers and advocates have a rose colored view
of what the Linux development process and market really is, at least for a
an ISV that wants to create a Desktop application for sale.

Chris Cox, apparently of Adobe, writes an opinionated
and frustrated response to a request for Photoshop on Linux.
I suspect it isn't the corporate line, but it quite clearly
demonstrates the incredible frustration that an ISV can feel when
confronted with the Linux space.

Another great read, along those lines, is the experience of the Flash team:
  http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/

As far as I can tell, the Adobe Linux Flash team is a bunch of
competent developers, working their hearts out to do a port to Linux.
And their blog reads like people riding across the wild west,
harried by wild animals (read:  "Linux Zealots") along the way.

I wrote a much longer rant, and then deleted it; I think that
blog contains enough food for thought by itself.

But my summary was this:

   It takes a lot of hard work to create a Desktop product for Linux
   The Linux Desktop Market, such as it is, is tiny
   Even worse, that market is highly fragmented
     (Yes, it really does matter to an ISV that there is
     Ubuntu, Red Hat, SuSE, and on and on; yes, they are
     'close', but this isn't horseshoes).
   It's virtually impossible to do a credible QA job
     on a Linux Desktop product, because there are too many
     different configurations of Linux 'in the wild'.
   Similarly, it's very difficult to provide credible customer
     support to the Linux Desktop market.
   And all that for a market full of people who would really rather
     your product was Free, and in the final analysis, are rather
     reluctant to part with cold, hard, cash.

So I think it's wrong to call Adobe programmers 'undereducated' -
they're telling it like it is.  And the sooner we face that truth
and get on with doing what we can to improve the situation (yay for xdg-utils!),
the better.

Cheers,

Jeremy