On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 10:49 +0200, Tim Beaulen wrote:
> InstallShield for Linux exists.
> And if people can make money out of it on Windows and Mac, then they
> can on Linux too.
installshield makes money because of the dozens/hundreds/thousands of
applications developed by ISV's for windows and
On 10/14/06, Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why can some companies do this and Adobe not?Adobe *could* do it, but they don't want to because it's extremely
unpleasant and annoying.
I don't want to do the unpleasant things in my job either but they have to be done.
How did they start on
On 10/13/06, Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
what so many linux users + developers seem to forget is that there aresets of products that do *NOT* want to be distributed by distributions.
how would a commercial product ever be a part of the multiplicity oflinux package management systems? its
> Why can some companies do this and Adobe not?
Adobe *could* do it, but they don't want to because it's extremely
unpleasant and annoying.
> What do they need? An "installer api" that is used by each and every
> linux/unix distro?
Amongst other things, yes. They do exist. Autopackage is one, fo
Paul Davis wrote:
> ...
>> 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?
The short of it is that you
On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 20:06 +0200, Tim Beaulen wrote:
> On 10/13/06, Segedunum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 so
On 10/13/06, Segedunum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 "install
On Wednesday 11 October 2006 19:56, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> Eric Buttler posted a reply:
> http://eric.extremeboredom.net/2006/10/08/265
I found that reply positively embarrassing to anyone connected with Linux,
open source software, or even those of us who just use it to get stuff done.
It see
On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 07:54 -0500, Jeremy White wrote:
> We're trying to do a simultaneous release of a product for the Mac
> and for Linux. For the Mac it's pretty easy; we have a variety
> of Macs for testing just to be safe, but the truth is, once it
> works reliably on one Mac, we're pretty ce
> If I understand correctly the main problem is not the development itself but
> rather issues around deployment, correct?
Well, the main problem is market size. If there
was a huge market, ISVs would bitch and moan and gripe (like me :-/),
but they'd overcome the challenges and make Linux Deskt
On 10/12/06, Jeremy White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But my summary was this: It takes a lot of hard work to create a Desktop product for Linux
It doesn't and it has been proven a dozen of times.
Of course, if you expect the full blown professional version of Photoshop to be ported in under a
On 10/11/06, Jeremy White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Hear, hea
> 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 disa
On Wednesday 11 October 2006 20:56, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> Hi,
>
> FYI. Here is a thread started on Adobe Forums about Adobe Photoshop and
> Linux:
>
> http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.3bc1d4af
>
> It appears that some Photoshop developers are spreading some
> misinformation or are t
Dan Kegel wrote:
> With any luck, Wine will soon be able to run Photoshop well,
> and the number of people using that combination will
> make Adobe sit up and rethink their opposition to a native port.
It could also have the "OS/2 effect": it runs too well with the "windows
emulation" that no por
On 10/11/06, Hubert Figuiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.3bc1d4af
>
> It appears that some Photoshop developers are spreading some
> misinformation or are themselves misinformed. Notably the part where
> they compare KDE/Gnome to windows manager writte
Hi,
FYI. Here is a thread started on Adobe Forums about Adobe Photoshop and
Linux:
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.3bc1d4af
It appears that some Photoshop developers are spreading some
misinformation or are themselves misinformed. Notably the part where
they compare KDE/Gnome to wi
17 matches
Mail list logo
