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

Paul Davis paul at linuxaudiosystems.com
Fri Oct 13 14:41:39 PDT 2006


On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 20:06 +0200, Tim Beaulen wrote:
> On 10/13/06, Segedunum <segedunum at f2s.com> wrote:
> > I mean, even if Adobe do create a
> > Linux desktop port, how does Adobe package it up and how on Earth is anyone
> > going to install it? Anybody think of things like that?
> 
> Why can some companies do this and Adobe not?
> What do they need? An "installer api" that is used by each and every
> linux/unix distro?
> 
> Why do people consider Windows the same as the whole of all linux/unix distro's?
> 
> One version of one distro is equivalent with one version of Windows.
> 
> What I mean is, each distribution is a completely different operating
> system but built with common parts like the linux kernel. Yet,
> conveniently, some think that everything that uses the linux kernel is
> by definition the same operating system.
> 
> That does not mean that it's not necessary to work together of course
> and make it more easy for software developers to deploy their
> products.

what so many linux users + developers seem to forget is that there are
sets of products that do *NOT* want to be distributed by distributions.
how would a commercial product ever be a part of the multiplicity of
linux package management systems? its an absurd goal. the fact that it
is a huge engineering project in itself to create an installer
underlines how hard it is for any ISV who wants to make a product that
they themselves distribute.

> Of course. One needs to write an install program, it's as simple as that.

yes, so simple that even on win32, companies make a living doing *just*
install programs. how simple is it to write the equivalent of
installshield for linux? 

> Or, you can link it in such a way that all the code needed is included
> and you do not depend on the system anymore. Disadvantage is size of
> course.

you can't do this easily. both the GTK and ALSA libraries require
dynamic linkage - it is essentially impossible to build them fully
static.

> A lot of libraries are fairly well documented.
> Usually searching for the library via google gives enough information.
> But not always.

as weak as the actual APIs are, the MSDN developer/tech docs make most
linux docs look like 5th grade work. even well documented libs under
linux lack the kind of in-line commentary you can see on MSDN.

> Microsoft does not provide everything though.
> On the other hand, it looks like some people become lazy and expect
> everything to be served on a dinnerplate.

not lazy! they are just totally occupied with the task of writing useful
application code and wish to avoid developing infrastructure that should
be present already.

> I want to write Photoshop:
> I need:
> - Graphics lib
> - Color management
> - UI
> - ...
> 
> And I just link one to another.
> That's not programming (at least for me).

this particular description is so naive, its really not even worth
commenting on.






More information about the Desktop_architects mailing list