Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe Lightroom on Linux?  (Read 61575 times)
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


WWW
« on: January 27, 2006, 12:43:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Is there a possibility that Adobe will port PS and Lightroom to the Linux platform?

Linux is gaining marketshare on the desktop and I would love to have the Adobe products on my computers. My current tools is Bibble and gimp for image prosessing, but I would love to have PS and Lightroom. PS is one of the few applications I miss after tossing out windows a few years back from an old PC that was running windows.
Logged

LiorT
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2006, 03:26:17 PM »
ReplyReply

No, as of now it doesnt seem that adobe will port much to linux...

you could anways use wine/crossover-Office and try to install it... there will probably be some articles/guides floating about it over the internet soon enough....

or use vmware/qemu (virtual machines) and install windows (and then photoshop/lightroom) on them, then run them under (more or less) linux.

or keep using gimp (worst alternative im my opinion)

LT

Quote
Is there a possibility that Adobe will port PS and Lightroom to the Linux platform?

Linux is gaining marketshare on the desktop and I would love to have the Adobe products on my computers. My current tools is Bibble and gimp for image prosessing, but I would love to have PS and Lightroom. PS is one of the few applications I miss after tossing out windows a few years back from an old PC that was running windows.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: January 29, 2006, 03:45:07 PM by LiorT » Logged
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2006, 01:12:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I have tried vmware and other solutions, but it's often a pain to keep things working.  

Orderd a new computer today to use for this, an AMD 64 with dual core and a dual head graphics card.

So Adobe had better come out with the windows version of ligthroom fast so I have somthing to use on the machine.  
Logged

dot-borg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2006, 12:03:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is there a possibility that Adobe will port PS and Lightroom to the Linux platform?

Linux is gaining marketshare on the desktop and I would love to have the Adobe products on my computers. My current tools is Bibble and gimp for image prosessing, but I would love to have PS and Lightroom. PS is one of the few applications I miss after tossing out windows a few years back from an old PC that was running windows.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bibblegimp shrimp co... er... I mean Bibble + Gimp is the only real solution at the moment and I have serious doubts that Adobe even knows what Linux is. Maybe after Google releases Goobuntu then software companies will wake up and see that many people desire to not be locked into the Windows collective.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2006, 12:39:05 AM by dot-borg » Logged

Whoever said "a picture is worth a thousand words" was a cheapskate.

http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg
Steve West
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2006, 10:47:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is there a possibility that Adobe will port PS and Lightroom to the Linux platform?

I wouldn't hold my breath.  I was beta testing adobe's port of FrameMaker to Linux.  They had it completely working, and then decided not to market it!  Very frustrating.  I had boycotted adobe for many years after that, but now I run PSE3.  I find vmware a pretty good solution to working a mixed windows/linux environment.  I ran linux for 5 years, and developed software on that platform, but I have given up on it due to the lack of applications.  It's a great way to go if you do your own development.  I can't live without Qimage, and linux will never have it.   Things are just too easy in XP Pro.  Load CD, install, and cruise.  Linux is getting more like that, but there still aren't the apps.  I'd happily pay for them, but most linux users don't want to pay anything for software.  So I now live in the rotten world between the 2 OSes.  That means twice the frustration and twice the learning curve.  It sure would have been nice if Gates put XP on top of Intel Linux.  I'm just not an apple user either.  They put their windows on top of BSD UNIX, and still no Qimage, doesn't run the optical design program I use nor the CAD program we use...  Did I mention that I hate wine--I'd rather just run directly on XP.

JMHO

Steve W
Logged
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2006, 01:54:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess I moostly agree woth you Steve. I'm a sw deveoper and sw-architect and does almost all my work on Linux, and while tings on linux is mostly free, I miss some application, such as PS, and I would be happy to pay for it.

I'm simply bying another computer to run win XP on to get the applicatyions.

To bad Adobe won't support linux, it's not that hard to do if you choose the rigth architecture, but I guess Adobe have made som implementatiuons choises that can make it somewhat expensive to support. I would guess that PS and Lightroom is written in C++? If they had used Java, Ligthroom would probably have been available on win already, and for using legacy code from PS etc. they could have used JNI to save development time.
Logged

Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2006, 06:47:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks like I'm not the only one missing PhotoShop etc. on Linux:

Why Photoshop tops most-wanted Linux app list
Logged

jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2006, 09:16:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
To bad Adobe won't support linux, it's not that hard to do if you choose the rigth architecture, but I guess Adobe have made som implementatiuons choises that can make it somewhat expensive to support.
From what I gather, PS contains heaps of ancient code from at least version 5, possibly 4.

This is one of the reasons why 16 bpc support was only partially available for what, five years, before CS2 finally clinched it.

And still Adobe seems to be struggling to allow Photoshop to utilize large amounts memory efficiently.

So "ancient codebase" seems to be the better explanation.

Quote
I would guess that PS and Lightroom is written in C++?
Or maybe just plain C.

Quote
If they had used Java, Ligthroom would probably have been available on win already, and for using legacy code from PS etc. they could have used JNI to save development time.
Yes, but PS would also probably have been lots slower, and we'd have learned to use Java debuggers to reverse-engineer the code and create third-party patches.
Logged

Jan
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2006, 03:04:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
From what I gather, PS contains heaps of ancient code from at least version 5, possibly 4.

This is one of the reasons why 16 bpc support was only partially available for what, five years, before CS2 finally clinched it.

And still Adobe seems to be struggling to allow Photoshop to utilize large amounts memory efficiently.

So "ancient codebase" seems to be the better explanation.
Or maybe just plain C.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thats what i politly was hinting at with "implementations choises that can make it somewhat expensive to support."  

But Java would make it possible to use this "ancient codebase". And at the same time making support of many and new platforms easier.

Quote
Yes, but PS would also probably have been lots slower, and we'd have learned to use Java debuggers to reverse-engineer the code and create third-party patches.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That Java is slower than native code is old myths. The overhead theese days is minimal and the speed of your disk will probably impact the speed of PS and Ligthroom an order of magnitude more.

But as you say, Adobe is probably implementinmg this the expensive way.  
Logged

jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2006, 09:55:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But Java would make it possible to use this "ancient codebase". And at the same time making support of many and new platforms easier.
Uh, how exactly would they go about doing that?

Java doesn't solve the problem of interoperability. It's not a magic bullet.

Quote
That Java is slower than native code is old myths. The overhead theese days is minimal and the speed of your disk will probably impact the speed of PS and Ligthroom an order of magnitude more.
Java proponents have been saying this for seven or eight years. It wasn't true that it was old myths then, it wasn't true two or three years ago, and I have sincere doubts as to it being a myth now.

Java proponents usually use examples of complex, well-written code being faster than complex, bad-written "native" code, just as the C or C++ proponents would use compact and elegant code compared to Java exception hell.

The overhead is there yet, even though it's "minimal" and the speed of the disk always impacts the speed more. How much this impacts performance depends on your code, what your code does, etc. But do you see lots of technical computing applications being written in Java, or are the faster mathematical manipulations still done in C or FORTRAN?

But that's a sidetrack from the point I was making, which is that PS would have been slower, if it had been implemented in Java already.

The reason for that is that if it had been implemented in Java already, it would most likely be using old libraries and interfaces for graphics handling anyway.

(Of course, you have to know that graphics handling in Java has improved a lot over the years in order to get that particular point, but still ...)
Logged

Jan
DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2006, 02:40:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is there a possibility that Adobe will port PS and Lightroom to the Linux platform?

Linux is gaining marketshare on the desktop and I would love to have the Adobe products on my computers. My current tools is Bibble and gimp for image prosessing, but I would love to have PS and Lightroom. PS is one of the few applications I miss after tossing out windows a few years back from an old PC that was running windows.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is highly unlikely to happen.

The demand for Photoshop on Linux is driven more by Geeks who have purchased low end DSLRs and realised that Gimp is not the Photoshop slayer that it was once hyped up to be. From the other perspective someone whose primary business is photography or creative arts is very unlikely to touch Linux with a barge pole. So, from a commercial perspective - Linux is pretty much non existent within the professional imaging market and, therefore, not a likely platform on which Adobe will deliver photographic products.

As to writing Photoshop or Lightroom in Java would be so that I could run it on my mobile phone  
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2006, 03:52:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Uh, how exactly would they go about doing that?

Java doesn't solve the problem of interoperability. It's not a magic bullet.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/jni/spec/jniTOC.html]JNI[/url]

It's not perfect, but solves most of the problems of being abel to use an old codebase without having to rewrite it all in Java. Java is probably one of the easiest languages to interface to ancien code.  

Quote
The overhead is there yet, even though it's "minimal" and the speed of the disk always impacts the speed more. How much this impacts performance depends on your code, what your code does, etc. But do you see lots of technical computing applications being written in Java, or are the faster mathematical manipulations still done in C or FORTRAN?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But that's ofen done in C or FORTRAN becuse that is the language that is used and published in papers, not always because of the need for the speed difference.   Many proffesional will learn one language and anything new is scary. Just as many photographers will use one brand of camera and be insulted if someone suggest that another brand also makes good cameras.  

But I guess we are far off topic now so I'll stop with this.  
Logged

jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2006, 06:51:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is highly unlikely to happen.

The demand for Photoshop on Linux is driven more by Geeks who have purchased low end DSLRs and realised that Gimp is not the Photoshop slayer that it was once hyped up to be. From the other perspective someone whose primary business is photography or creative arts is very unlikely to touch Linux with a barge pole. So, from a commercial perspective - Linux is pretty much non existent within the professional imaging market and, therefore, not a likely platform on which Adobe will deliver photographic products.
That is a circular argument, Descartes would be proud of you; Linux is a non-entity within the professional imaging market because it's a non-entity within the professional imaging market.

Windows was in a similar position not too long ago, yet Adobe clearly wants to put their money into developing for the various Windows platforms.

It's just a SMOP.
Logged

Jan
Rudhach
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2006, 06:27:13 AM »
ReplyReply

You could try 'LightZone ' for Linux, available at - http://sonic.net/~rat/lightcrafts/

It's free and a labour of love, maintained by Anton Kast, one of the 'LightZone' developers.
Logged
photourist
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2006, 03:52:53 AM »
ReplyReply

A new killer app is emerging rapidly out of the dark:
Krita
If its development will continue with the same speed as it showed recently, there won't be a need for Photoshop on Linux anymore.
There is full 16-bit support as well as the possibility to use pressure-sensitive tablets. It even offers color management.

And furthermore, there is digiKam, a photo management application for the KDE Desktop. It has 16-bit support too. Its first official release (still under its way) will incorporate a raw converter, based upon dcraw, as well.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2006, 04:02:04 AM by photourist » Logged
kal
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2006, 04:46:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A new killer app is emerging rapidly out of the dark:
Krita
If its development will continue with the same speed as it showed recently, there won't be a need for Photoshop on Linux anymore.
There is full 16-bit support as well as the possibility to use pressure-sensitive tablets. It even offers color management.

I've missed the last few minor releases of krita, but the last time i tried it, I found it was quite good for images up to 640x480. Any complex operation was based on CImg/greycstoration, and CImg/greycstoration performance is (was?) a joke. Has this changed in any meaningful way? (i.e. can you work on an 8MP image without an enterprise-grade 16-ways/16GB machine?)

Piero
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7674


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2006, 04:44:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I would like to run Lightroom on Linux buy I think there is a major issue, namely that you need monitor calibration. AFAK there is only one hardware calibrator for Linux (from Kodak) and I assume that it is far to expensive for common users. I wouldn't consider using Lightroom on uncalibrated hardware.

Other than that I have been an enthusastic Linux user, that is until Lightroom arrived, but now I have succumbed to "The Evil Empire". Although I still love Linux!

Erik

Quote
Is there a possibility that Adobe will port PS and Lightroom to the Linux platform?

Linux is gaining marketshare on the desktop and I would love to have the Adobe products on my computers. My current tools is Bibble and gimp for image prosessing, but I would love to have PS and Lightroom. PS is one of the few applications I miss after tossing out windows a few years back from an old PC that was running windows.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

nma
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


« Reply #17 on: December 01, 2006, 06:09:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is there a possibility that Adobe will port PS and Lightroom to the Linux platform?

Linux is gaining marketshare on the desktop and I would love to have the Adobe products on my computers. My current tools is Bibble and gimp for image prosessing, but I would love to have PS and Lightroom. PS is one of the few applications I miss after tossing out windows a few years back from an old PC that was running windows.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It is a great pity that Adobe cannot be persuaded to offer a Linux-build.  For those that don't know, Linux is in many ways superior to Windows. Fewer know that Linux has offered a fully functional 64-bit operating system for a couple of years now. In my opinion, 64-bit address space is a necessity for working with the large images produced by today's digital cameras. I am very tired of waiting for PS to page.  Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not see any suggestion that Vista supports 64-bit computing.    

64-bit Linux is so good as a personal computing platform that the only things that keep me with Windows are the lack of color-management and a good PS-like application. Of course I would pay for that. Perhaps the general public will not embrace Linux, but this would be a no-brainer for photographers.
Logged
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2006, 07:48:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It is a great pity that Adobe cannot be persuaded to offer a Linux-build.  For those that don't know, Linux is in many ways superior to Windows. Fewer know that Linux has offered a fully functional 64-bit operating system for a couple of years now. In my opinion, 64-bit address space is a necessity for working with the large images produced by today's digital cameras. I am very tired of waiting for PS to page.  Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not see any suggestion that Vista supports 64-bit computing.   

64-bit Linux is so good as a personal computing platform that the only things that keep me with Windows are the lack of color-management and a good PS-like application. Of course I would pay for that. Perhaps the general public will not embrace Linux, but this would be a no-brainer for photographers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88026\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This my view as well,  I use windows because i need monitor calibration, but since my main RAW-sw is Bibble I can do much on Linux and only have to resort to windows when correcting colors and contrast etc. Cropping, sorting and generating jpgs can be done on Linux as all my machines use the same netwoked filesystem, and I can use bibble from any os to fix the images.

But having color management and the adobe sw (LR and CS2) on linux would be far better for my use.

With any luck a 16-bit color version of gimp will be available, and hopefully Linux will get colormanagement some day.
Logged

jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2006, 06:15:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
With any luck a 16-bit color version of gimp will be available, and hopefully Linux will get colormanagement some day.
http://www.cinepaint.org/
Logged

Jan
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad