DXO Softwares on LINUX ! (please .....)

(vinz giraudon) #1

Because Apple sucks so much now … i am not going to pay so much money for such an ordinary hardware … any more…

Because Windows 10 sucks so much now … (everything a software should never be)

I Beg you on my knees to make all your softwares Linux compliant !

This is the only way … i am moving to linux and will never come back
And I would enjoy so much meeting you again in this new world …

I hope to see you soon there

Thanks a lot …

Vinz

0 Likes

(Alec Kinnear) #2

I share your thoughts on current Apple (best OS X was 10.6.8, 10.8 was okay, 10.11 can be made usable after that good blood luck). On the other hand, I’m still on Apple. Linux will have to wait until more software buyers move over. For now, Linux users remain mostly programmers and freebie types (will never pay for software).

0 Likes

(Peter) #3

Yes maybe true, the fact is that Linux(users) is deeply involved in things which are aiming on no payment or small payment ,self programming (GitHUB) or people who got affended by the data Gorgolars (sucking metadata) as windows and his successors (Facebook, google) and the highhorsed Apple with there good but very expensive luxury appliances and the users want to get out and getting “free” of those global (personal)data sucking systems.
It’s a relative small group of tweakers but growing.
Most people who are working in the image industry are Apple adapted and Windows has a big home photo enthusiast users base.
So i don’t think DxO will step in the market to compete with the Rawtherapee and Darktable, Gimp digiKam.
Not enough profit i think.

1 Like

(Mark) #4

I understand a certain frustration with both Windows and iOS, but you are voluntarily cutting yourself off from thousands of great applications that run on those platforms and don’t run on Linux. Sounds like, for you, the operating system is more important than the programs that run on it. It certainly is a choice.

The number of users of DXO who use Linux as their platform would probably be minimal but, the effort to create a stable version of PhotoLab to run on it would be huge. And, in the meantime the developers would be redirecting their efforts from updating and enhancing the Mac and Windows versions for the vast majority of their users so that a few users like yourself could have what we have on a different platform, If you want DXO PhotoLab badly enough to beg for it, perhaps you should reevaluate your stance towards iOS and Windows 10.

Mark

0 Likes

(Alec Kinnear) #5

Part of the issue is that Linux users are pretty well served by the available applications like Darktable and RawTherapee. While they are available for at least Mac, those applications are no fun to use at all on Apple computers, as they are awkward ports and don’t comply with any Apple User Interface Guidelines at all. On Linux however, they behave considerably better and their interface is in line with Linux standards.

I would like to move to Linux myself but it would be too big a productivity hit - 50% for at least six months. I’m not on Macs for Apple any more (unreliable, intrusive and constantly changing pointlessly OS) but for the third party applications like DxO PhotoLab.

A Silver Tower Mac Pro can be had for as little as $400 now. I’d suggest to Vinz that he obtain one and use it offline just for photo and video applications. That’s my long term plan if I do manage to move my office and writing OS over to Linux.

0 Likes

#6

While Darktable and Rawtherapee are free and capable, the big difference is how oriented they are towards productivity. I’d say they’re not at all!

DXO is much better in this aspect with custom palettes and the presets etc, so I’d say there is a tangible difference for pros that need to process a lot of photos in a fixed amount of time - there is no viable linux alternative for that, so at least for me after having tried the Linux alternatives you mention, the productivity with DXO is much higher for similar results.

This together with Adobe increasing prices again and again, drives more people to other alternatives, and many abandon windows too for different reasons, so while I agree with your arguments, maybe it’s not quite as true as it was a few years ago?

Another semi-aproach could be to at least implement and document a not-officially-supported way to run DXO in wine. Linux-users are perhaps usually more computer-crafty so if it’s a simple fix, it may be worth it and result in a few more sales. I have tried and gotten it to install and a bit into the program start (using winetricks for .net 4.72), but no cigar, and I can’t tell if what’s left is a lot of work or just some detail they could easily fix. If wine-support is achieved, I don’t think a docker/snap should be far away so almost “anyone” could install DXO on linux, but I understand there’s still a huge gap from this to officially support it (QA nightmare if using wine etc…) so it would still be unofficial, but could attract some people, and if slowly working in that direction become a major player on linux over time. (DXO seems to be based on .net and Microsoft is working hard on the next major .net-variant, .net core, which runs on linux so it might not be that far-fetched).

1 Like

(Mark) #7

I’m not an Adobe fan myself, but what do you mean by “increasing prices again and again”? Here in the US the Lightroom/Photoshop download bundle is still $9.99 per month, which hasn’t changed since they started delivering their software this way around 5 years ago.

Mark

0 Likes

#8

Ok, I’m not using the adobe products, I just read that the creative cloud price recently was hiked, but as you say the PS+LR might still be the same, and I guess for most that is (more than) enough.

But nevertheless, from what I’m seeing, Linux becoming more user-friendly and working better “out-of-the-box” and to me it seems more people are migrating and staying while a few years ago they would try and return, but I haven’t looked for any proof, just a feeling from the talk on forums. At least for me personally DxO is almost the only thing making me still keep a windows system on a disk.

0 Likes

(Mark) #9

As I suggested earlier, regardless of the growth of Linux use that you see, the potential number of DXO users on Linux compared to the potential and actual user base on Windows and iOS would probably be minuscule. I am pretty confident it would not be worth the considerable time, effort and redistribution of DXO’s limited resources to port the application to that platform. There would have to be a really compelling reason to do so.

Mark

0 Likes

(Alec Kinnear) #10

Adobe started off by offering Photographers nothing at all - just pay $30/month for Photoshop (single app subscription) like everybody else. Then they backed off and came up with the Photographer’s Bundle, first at $20/month then $9.99. Read the comments to relive the confusion and pain.

0 Likes

(Mark) #11

Adobe has priced Lightroom and Photoshop at $9.99 a month USD for the last five and a half years. I do not think that qualifies as increasing their prices over and over again, which implies something ongoing and current.

0 Likes

(Alec Kinnear) #12

Trust Adobe at your peril. Adobe is owned by the shareholders, not the founders. Contemporary Adobe has nothing to do with creativity or community and everything to do with extracting maximum value and killing off any potential competition.

As soon as Adobe has killed off enough of the competition (killing competition is why the Photo Bundle suddenly leapt down in price, not because Adobe decided they cared about or wanted to help photographers), you can expect to see $15.99/month and then $19.99/month – for “improvements” for “serious” photographers who “care about their craft” and are “willing to make the monthly investment” in “quality tools”.

2 Likes

(Jim Scott) #13

Seems like this thread has decidedly wandered off topic, diluting a discussion of OP’s feature request.

0 Likes

(Mark) #14

I think it wandered off course because there is extremely little likelihood that DXO will take the time to even consider porting PhotoLab to Linux.

Mark

0 Likes

(vinz giraudon) #15

I understand the “size market” argument … that could justify no linux version
BUT here is my point.

I was using DXO PRO 9 on a Yosemite Mac mini .

I have bougth a 2800 $ macbook pro running High Sierra ( 64 bit bla bla bla ) because my company was working on macs.

First : i was unable to re-install DXO-pro 9 on it … it crashes every time … never runs …
Second : the GPU capabilities are very poor (intel hd graphics with only 1 giga byte of video RAM)

Imagine the kind of desktop computer i could have build with 2800 $
Having AMD VEGA GPU with 8 giga of RAM … intel i7 , with 32 giga of ram and 1 TO of SSD …and so on … and so on …

But i would definitively have install linux UBUNTU 18.4 on it …
Stable and reliable, you can install it directly with a bootable dvd …
It has quiet the same Graphical User Interface than mac os …
Even the NASA uses Linux because it is more Stable…

And finally … i am a software engineer, and developer, i like free stuffs but i am DEFINITIVELY ready to buy Dxo photolab 2 and i believe it would be a killer APP and a maxi winner against (Darktable or RawTherappee) on linux and Even a Lightroom killer on Mac osx, because it is so much ergonomics and beautifully designed.

People are buying macs because they believe it is quality … but actually they aren’t any more !
Why wouldn’t they pay also for a good software such as photolab on an even better computer = (a powerful hardware managed by linux) ??

I can tell you i will …
My next computer is going to be a linux one … i and i will pray for photolab being on it ! :wink:

0 Likes

(Mark) #16

I’m sure you could find lots of good reasons for porting Photolab, but the real question is if it is cost-effective to do so. DXO must decide whether the extensive time, expense and use of their limited resources will result in the significantly higher sales needed to warrant the effort. On top of that, reassigning resources to port the application to a different platform would mean there would be fewer resources updating the Windows and Mac versions and that would upset the users on those platforms.

Mark

2 Likes

(vinz giraudon) #17

You are right.

But let’s look at what Mac os is : basically a free BSD linux distribution that has been remastered .
if DXO has been programed in C … it just needs to be " recompiled" … to run on linux…
As mac Os does, it might need to use some openCL for graphic optimization in order to run extraordinary well under AMD GPU.

I don’t know if it is that hard to do. But look … Darktable and RawTherappee have done it !
it should be reachable for developers …

If you think about it … i don’t even understand why adobe has not gone to linux development yet … ?
they may have “commercial deals” with apple … not to do so ?
even after apple decided unilaterally to ban flash plugin form mac os …

And honestly, look how windows 10 and linux behave on exactly the same hardware !
there will be a huge “benchmark” difference … (not in windows 10 advantage)

but the truth is : linux is below 2% of market shares, apple is near 10 %, microsoft windows owns the nearly 88 %
because you still can’t buy a computer into a computer shop without windows being installed on it …

but if nobody starts to change … :wink:

0 Likes

(Mark) #18

Porting an application is time consuming. First a business case must be made for doing it. This means one or more resources need to be temporarily reassigned to analyze the effort involved and the benefits to DXO for doing so. That could take some time. If the decision is to do it, which is unlikely given DXO’s struggle to provide updates to the existing user base, a team must be formed and allocated to the task of porting and testing it, Even if the porting was straightforward, the testing can be quite extensive and very time consuming. Then there is the beta testing phase and implementation. All this, along with other tasks, can take months. And after all this is done, dxo will now I have to code, test and implement future changes to three separate platforms. If they think they will get enough new users, it may be worthwhile, but, it’s a gamble, especially for a company with financial issues.

It all comes down to the cost of the effort and the potential for enough profit to make the effort worthwhile. All this must be accomplished without any significant negative impact to the user base of the existing and far more profitable iOS and Windows versions.

Mark

4 Likes

(Alec Kinnear) #19

The next issue with Linux is that there isn’t one version but about three or four major distributions, all in continual revision. Most people I know on Linux (I know quite a few) are the type to never buy software “on principle”.

Much as I don’t like the direction of Apple and OS X since Steve passed on, it’s still a smoother OS on which to multimedia work than any other. If Apple pushes me hard enough, I’ll move my business computers to Linux but will still keep an offline multimedia machine with OS X.

DxO is not a market leader in terms of marketshare. It’s not really up to DxO to lead the commercial software market to Linux. Moreover the Linux crowd are pretty happy with DarkTable and RawTherapee (the interfaces make my skin crawl on OS X).

Apparently Adobe has had software like After Effects ported to Linux but only available for sale to corporate customers like Hollywood Studios and FX houses (probably suited to a specific version of Linux with paid support, not ready for general release across multiple distributions).

0 Likes

(Michael Murphy) #20

@uncoy
I must challenge the view that Linux users don’t pay for software. I bought the then Bibble 5 Pro because I wanted to develop RAW photos on Linux. I also own the excellent VueScan from Ed Hamrick, and a license for some CD, DVD, Blu-ray burning software (oh yes, Nero). Simply, if I find a product that is superior to the freeware, then I buy it.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the economic arguments against spending money on micro-niche products, but I am not sure that either Adobe or DXO has put any effort into deciding how big these niches would actually be.

0 Likes