"Macromedia will begin experimenting with Linux support, releasing versions of its development tools that work with the open-source operating system, a company executive said on Thursday. Depending on developer interest, the next step would be to produce Linux-native versions of Flash MX and other applications."
This is major news. One of the single most critical reasons for choosing any platform is application support. No applications, no platform. While Linux is well supported with a sizable library of open source software (which I don't find very well designed), it has very few commercial applications available. I use Macromedia software as the tool set for my work, on both Mac and PC. This may actually give me reason to explore Linux. I am a strong advocate of consumer choice, and although I really do like Microsoft's products, and admire the company, I always want the end user (especially myself) to have choices.
MM is wise. I went to buy a PC mag this week and could not believe how many Linux mags there were, so I actually counted them.
-6 mobile computing magazines (Laptop/PPC/Cell Phones)
-3 Mac mags
-7 (SEVEN!!!) Linux mags
Of course there were tons of PC mags, but Linux is obviously getting more and more popular.
I use MM products myself and not being able to use them (among others) with Linux is what always stopped me from even remotely considering at least trying out Linux. Hopefully, if MM does really well, other companies, like Adobe, will follow their example. I am a little scared of Longhorn and all its implications for the user, so by the time it comes out (end of 2005?) maybe enough companies offer a Linux version of their products to ease the switch.
Linux is still too primitive for my tastes. Just having access to Studio MX would not win me over. The GUI still needs major improvements, as well as the underlying OS. Gnome and KDE are trying to catch up to where Windows and Macintosh have long since been and gone. And we have not yet seen what Longhorn will offer.
As much I like the concept behind the OS, I just don't see Linux as innovative and in my opinion, it offers nothing "new" or much of else of real value. It's a wonderful server platform, and it fills the roll of high-end workstation quite well in certain markets. But I suspect the primary reason why most adopt Linux is purely out of hatred for Microsoft, which I believe is a foolish reason to choose a platform
As much I like the concept behind the OS, I just don't see Linux as innovative and in my opinion
Oh man, I am a big time Windows user as well, but I am afraid for you. With this scathing review of Linux, I think that some of those Linux fanatics will come after you . In fact, if you had posted this on Slashdot, I think you would be moderated down faster than you could hit that Submit button ;-).
It is interesting that MM is going with supporting Linux. It will be interesting to see benchmarks of their software running side by side on Linux and Windows.
Hah! I like to live dangerously. :wink: Actually I speak from experience, so let the penguin heads say what they will. I've given Linux a thorough review, and frankly I am not very impressed, overall. As I said earlier, I like the idea behind this platform, but I like innovation more. And Linux is not innovative. Far more advanced technology is being introduced with OSX (such as Quartz) and Longhorn (even XP to a lesser extent) than anything I have yet to see with Linux. Gnome and KDE are equivalent to Windows, circa 1998-2000. Thanks, but....been there , done that, not impressed, moving on.
Part of the problem is that there is no money to be made developing Linux, since there is little to no capital return. Hardware vendors such as IBM and HP make profitable business out of bundling Linux with their server hardware, but neither will commit to investing in its usability. So open-source is responsible for creating a graphical interface, and usability experts don't work for free. Frankly the open-source community's idea of innovation seems to be copying Microsoft. Now, if Microsoft is attacked for this shameless practice, why should Linux be held any less accountable?
But I suspect the primary reason why most adopt Linux is purely out of hatred for Microsoft, which I believe is a foolish reason to choose a platform
I think that's actually the vocal minority of Linux enthusiasts. Most adopt it for its stability, cost, and lesser hardware requirements. My personal server runs Linux, and is extremely flexible, stable, and does exactly what I need. Mind you, I personally run XP on my desktops and laptops... but I had a slower laptop for a while, and Linux served the purpose perfectly.
My personal server runs Linux, and is extremely flexible, stable, and does exactly what I need.
Of course, Linux is a fabulous server OS, that's what it does best. I've managed a couple Linux servers myself, it has everything you could possibly want and runs like a champ.
However, I'm talking about its use as a DESKTOP client. Which is where it comes up VERY short.
However, I'm talking about its use as a DESKTOP client. Which is where it comes up VERY short.
Agreed -- except for "limited-power" hardware or for developers. In those two cases, it can be pretty useful -- and a lot of the "vocal" desktop Linux users fall into one of those two camps. But if I really needed a desktop UNIX, I'd go OS X anyway. Much better application support, fast, beautiful UI, etc. Still, it's more expensive.
Macromedia Considers Porting Software To Linux
Linear Mode
