I just wish somebody would make a replacement that made everybody want to switch away from Photoshop and all the other Adobe products and onto the replacement, and be satisfied with it.

Adobe is too comfortable. They have no reason to fix their software which is basically some of the worst software I have tried to use professionally. It's so bad that the reason I don't use Lightroom and Photoshop is not because of the subscription based pricing of Adobe CC, but because that even though Lightroom and Photoshop is more powerful than say Pixelmator, Gimp, Inkscape, Sketch, (Apple) Photos, Affinity Photos, and what have we, the rest of the software - and by that I mean the windows, the buttons, the settings, basically the UI and UX - everything except for the actual algorithms that alters your photos/videos/graphics - is awful. Complete shit. Oh, and don't get me started on the the Adobe update thing that sits and runs in the background of your Mac constantly which you have to install Photoshop and the rest of the family through.

Until a real contender threatens Adobe, they won't do anything about it because right now they can ship complete bullshit that runs on both Mac and Windows and make a lot of money doing that terrible job, which satisfies them because they can keep more money themself instead of on people that could make their products better.

Please, Adobe, make your software great again, and make it run on all the platforms. Right now it's utter crap. Fix it!

Actually Adobe's algorithms are substandard as well. For example, rezising algorithms are few and naive. Also, last I checked the higher bit depths don't work as well as 8bpc - only a limited subset of operations work. Almost the entirety of it is fool's gold.

That might be true. I dunno. Its just what I have understood from professionals that won't switch. If that is neither the case, well then I don't know why they are still hanging around. Might be UI and shortcuts familiarity, I guess.

It's complicated and interesting. Familiarity yes; Also I guess that people don't know that they can expect better. And maybe also that it is a whole workflow.

I've switched to pixelmator and affinity designer and I havent looked back.

I use Pixelmator, Sketch and Photos. It works well for me. What I hear from graphics designers and photographers though is that they are not powerful enough, and to get them to switch requires more powerful features.

Until the alternatives to Adobe products satisfies the professionals, Adobe will not have any reason to wipe up their crapware and instead release quality software, unfortunately.

> I just wish adobe would get their act together and release photoshop and friends for linux.

Never going to happen, there is no lucrative market on Linux for these kind of tools, Adobe isn't going invest millions for a handful of potential users. Even smaller players don't bother with Linux. MacOS is still where the money is for tools for creatives.

It also doesn't help that Linux is very fragmented. Supporting Linux means that you have to support your application for many different desktop environments, glibc versions, kernel versions, etc. They could require, say Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 and the latest Ubuntu LTS, but there would still be a large number of support requests from people who run some distribution forked from Ubuntu, etc.

Another problem is that a lot of Linux-related communities are very hostile towards proprietary software, let alone proprietary software with DRM that requires a subscription. So, they will run into anything from unwillingness to help with problems in base libraries to people who will sue them to show that they violated the GPL in some way.

Adobe will not go there unless they absolutely have to.

> It also doesn't help that Linux is very fragmented. Supporting Linux means that you have to support your application for many different desktop environments, glibc versions, kernel versions, etc.

This is often said, but rarely true; if you standardise on the latest Ubuntu LTS for example, other distros will be able to provide packages to make the app work there, see i.e. Steam or Swift.

> Another problem is that a lot of Linux-related communities are very hostile towards proprietary software, let alone proprietary software with DRM that requires a subscription. So, they will run into anything from unwillingness to help with problems in base libraries to people who will sue them to show that they violated the GPL in some way.

Again, not really true, see i.e. JetBrains, which is rather popular on Linux. Also the smear campaign around the GPL is getting rather old; it's simple, adhere to the license and you'll be fine. Adobe, Microsoft etc. also requires you to adhere to their license. Why is that fine, but complying with the GPL as per wishes of an author of software you're making use of, why is that not fine?

> Another problem is that a lot of Linux-related communities are very hostile towards proprietary software, let alone proprietary software with DRM that requires a subscription. So, they will run into anything from unwillingness to help with problems in base libraries to people who will sue them to show that they violated the GPL in some way.

DRM is in it self hostile to the user. Never seen anyone against subscription based software or willingness to pay for good software in those Linux-related communities that you describe. If anything, in those communities people wouldn't pirate you're software as much as Windowse users. In my experience Linux users are more understanding that making good software is hard work and they appreciate it more.

Why is okay for Adobe suing people for license violation and not vice versa?

I'm still not sure what's keeping them, do they think it's a waste of time or too little ROI?

Have you tried to calibrate a color profile on Xorg?

My friend uses Adobe products with WINE. Some plugins don't work but otherwise usable.