Lightroom: Provide support for Linux

  • Idea
  • Updated 1 week ago
  • (Edited)
Lightroom for Linux - is it possible? Most my friends and I need it, because of not using Windows and current Linux tools can't get so great instruments for raw preprocessing and organizing...
Photo of penguinolog

penguinolog

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 5 years ago

  • 147
Photo of PECourtejoie

PECourtejoie, Champion

  • 706 Posts
  • 260 Reply Likes
Hello!
It's a question that has been asked many times in other venues about Photoshop, and the message I always heard is that the market research hinted that there might not be enough Linux users that would want to pay for the software. Not enough versus the cost of porting, and maintaining a Linux version (Quality Assurance, for instance), and also that the linux market is too fragmented, and that the necessary groundwork might not be there. (color management, etc.)

But I guess that we'll hear from engineers.
Photo of Dan Tull

Dan Tull, Employee

  • 171 Posts
  • 31 Reply Likes
I work on the LR team and actually tinkered a bit (back in the 1.4 - 2.0 timeframe) with making some tweaks to LR and Wine to make it run that way, but never had enough (personal) time to throw at the job.

Lightroom probably has a lower porting effort than (say) Photoshop since it is smaller in general and many of the pieces are very portable (the Lua interpreter, SQLite, and much of the app is already in platform agnostic Lua scripting code), but it's still a pretty big undertaking.

My home laptop is dual booted with Windows 7 now for Lightroom and Netflix watch instantly...

P.S. I'd encourage your friends to cast their votes as well. If there's any way to ensure it doesn't happen it'd be for this post to have only a couple of votes!
Photo of Kevin Chamberlain

Kevin Chamberlain

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
it has my vote. I have been an adobe customer for a very long time and am very disappointed that none of my apps run properly under Linux. I am 100% Linux now on all my machines at home and work, and miss the features of Lightroom and Elements for Photo editing. I hate to think of looking at other products, but Adobe doesn't work well in wine.
Photo of Pascal Obry

Pascal Obry

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Count me in as disapointed. I'm a Lighrroom customer since version 2.0 and keep a Windows partition just for handling my pictures. This is just bad as it break my workflow, each time I want to handle my pictures I need to reboot!!!! I've been asking about a GNU/Linux Lighroom version, always the same answer not enough potential client... I just bet this is wrong and reading post from different forums it seems that the port should not be that hard and that many people are asking for it.

So yes count me in! I've even said that I'm ready to pay twice the price for Lightroom on GNU/Linux, I'm not joking, I'd pay that and right away!
Photo of Stefan Kaiser

Stefan Kaiser

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Another vote from me too.
I have paid for my home banking application on linux and I would pay for Lightroom too.

Best regards
Stefan
Photo of Pascal Obry

Pascal Obry

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Right, I do think many people are ready to pay... Not sure Adobe seems to be interested though :( I've never read a NO or YES from Adobe, seems like they are just ignoring this from years now!
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 721 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
Adobe would be interested if "many people are ready to pay". Does 6 comments in 6 months indicate that many are?
Photo of Keith Morris

Keith Morris

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
You can't go by "6 comments in 6 months". Many people sitting and wishing for a Linux version don't sit around and post about wanting it.
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 721 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
Well, it says a lot if they can't be bothered, even when an Adobe employee shows the door is open....
Photo of Pascal Obry

Pascal Obry

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Exactly, there is many people on my photo club ready to buy a GNU/Linux license. Of course GNU/Linux is a smaller (far smaller) market now, but well why should I be forced to use Windows!
Photo of Dan Tull

Dan Tull, Employee

  • 171 Posts
  • 31 Reply Likes
If you know folks that would be interested in a Linux version, I'd really encourage you to have them jump on this thread and at least add a vote for it. I subscribe to all replies on this thread and read all of them. See my post above, I'm a developer, LR team member, and home Linux user myself.

I can't speak for how many votes it'd take to inspire action for a full native port (that decision is not mine to make), but if I saw the vote count on this thread start climbing enough (lets say 50+, enough to get it in the top 5 most popular Lightroom requests), I might be inspired to resurrect my personal side project of getting LR to work respectably under Wine as a starting point. Since I have access to the code, I may even be able to make tweaks that make the app more portable if time permits, especially if it turns out the misbehavior under Wine turns out to be an Lightroom side bug that Windows just handles more gracefully.

The testing and development cost of a full port would be high enough that it'd be hard to make a business case for it. However, if getting it operational under Wine could build some momentum and demonstrate a paying customer base, it might give me more to work with to make the case.

Just my 2 cents.

DT

P.S. I've also purchased all the Humble Bundles as my own personal way of supporting developers that support desktop Linux, too. Well, that and there have been some really nice indie games that have participated that I was thinking of picking up anyway.
Photo of Pascal Obry

Pascal Obry

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I've passed the message to some folks I know but maybe a french forum would be better...

Please folks pass the message to photographers you know, maybe a GNU/Linux port of Lighroom is something we will see at some point!
Photo of Vincent Haverlant

Vincent Haverlant

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Voted, thanks to Pascal !
I've been a linux advocator long enough to be interested and willing to purchase a linux license if available, even though I now own a Mac license. I like the idea to be able to have a free (like in freedom) OS to fallback to just in case OS-X goes worse in the future.
Photo of Dan Tull

Dan Tull, Employee

  • 171 Posts
  • 31 Reply Likes
Interesting. This has been ramping up in votes a bit. Seven more and it'll be on the first page of requests...
Photo of John Monteiro

John Monteiro

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I have used LR since v1.0, skipped 2.0, then continued from 3.0. I have also purchased LightZone for my Linux box. LR does most things faster!

I would willingly pay again if LR was ported to Linux or at least stable under Wine.

John
Photo of Brian Stempien

Brian Stempien

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Me too. I have used LR since the 1.0 Beta. I would pay for a Linux version to get rid of my cursed VirtualBox XP setup.
Photo of Olivier Rogers

Olivier Rogers

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
I'd be happy just being able to run Lightroom through wine. Ridiculous that I have to use Vmware + Windows just for one program.
Photo of Vincent OZON

Vincent OZON

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I'm using GNU/Linux (and only that) since more 10 years. So, I can't use LightRoom for my Photo processing. And I dont want to buy a Windows license for only that.

I vote for a GNU/Linux version of LightRoom.

I just notice that BibbleLabs (a little bit smaller than Adobe) edits a GNU/linux version of Bibble. Why Adobe can't do that ?
Photo of kai.behrends

kai.behrends

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I think the reason we won't get many comments here is because the majority of linux users has already lost hope. Adobe never gives a direct answer just a lot of hot air.
Photo of Pascal Obry

Pascal Obry

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I feel the same but I don't want to believe that :( I hope Adobe will at some point give us GNU/Linux users the opportunity to avoid messing with dual-boots!
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 721 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
That's a bit of a limp excuse, isn't it?
Photo of j-g m

j-g m

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I just want to weigh in here, I've been following this thread for some time now but never wrote. Now I finally decided to write here, just so I won't angry with myself, when I read again that there aren't enough people who can even be bothered to write here.

I'm a linux user for several years now, I got really in to photography this year and I would be willing to buy Adobe Lightroom in the blink of an eye if there was a linux version. I was tempted to buy a windows version but decided against, it simply because I don't want to support Adobes negligence of the linux community (e.g. not even bother to optimize lightroom to run in wine or creating a native linux version). And for the moment i can make due with the alternatives. I do realise however, that there are many people who would like to use linux but don't have this choice, since they earn their living as photographers.

But I am also quite sure, that there are a lot of linux users like me who would be willing to pay, but who don't need lightroom urgently enough to get the windows version. Let's face it linux users tend to be a bit geeky or just plain nerds. And those two share at least one characteristic; they are passionate about there hobbies. Therefore I assume quite a lot of them would be willing to spend the money on Lightroom, since it really isn't that expensive compared to other photo gear.

I hope I can encourage others to join in and help Adobe convince there is a market for their products in the linux community. We are willing to pay!
Photo of Nigel Drego

Nigel Drego

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I'll admit that I'm one of those who have searched and found "many" posts of Lr users wanting/wishing for a Linux version. I fully understand the difficulties in porting and more importantly supporting the application to a potentially large number of Linux distros. Nevertheless, I still hold out hope that I will one day be able to get rid of my Windows VMWare install when I can pay for a Lr linux version.
Photo of p.nieuwland

p.nieuwland

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I already have a windows version but would immediately buy AGAIN a license for linux as it's the only showstopper for me to switch to ubuntu.
Photo of Henri Turpeenoja

Henri Turpeenoja

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
One vote more for Linux must have lightroom!
Photo of Henk Janssen

Henk Janssen

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
For me, Linux support would allow me to get rid of my Windows licence and buy an Adobe licence instead!

So, please port your products to Linux!
Photo of Jakob Hansen

Jakob Hansen

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
One more vote to lightroom for linux. As others, I keep a windows partition for the sole purpose of handling my pictures in lightroom, everything else I want to do, I can do in linux.

If available, I'd pay for it
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 976 Posts
  • 125 Reply Likes
Something interesting to note in this thread. More than half of those that want a Linux version already own a Windows version. With Linux adoption at something on the order of 1%, and so many Linux users buying a Windows version anyway, I think what Dan said above might well be true. Namely, "The testing and development cost of a full port would be high enough that it'd be hard to make a business case for it." If that is indeed the case, that's why there isn't a Linux version already - Adobe is a business.
Photo of Nigel Drego

Nigel Drego

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Ah, I see the point. And I do agree that it's quite the chicken and egg problem. I feel like this is where the open source model has a particular edge (not that I'm suggesting Lr be made an OSS project): if someone wants to see something happen, they have the ability to make it happen themselves and others can join in as they see fit. Nevertheless, hopefully this thread (and additional supportive posts to it!) will help convince the business-minded at Adobe...
Photo of Jakob Hansen

Jakob Hansen

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Of course you're right, the bottom line is "will a Linux version bring us additional money?" and almost equally of course the answer is no. Lots of photographers are already using Window and Mac, Linux users are still the minority. And furthermore, *if* a linux version became available, I think that most people, myself included, would not buy two licences but rather replace their windows version with a Linux version. Thus it would not bring any extra income to Adobe. It would simple by a poor business model.

Nevertheless, still I can't stop dreaming about a Linux version :)
Photo of Pascal Obry

Pascal Obry

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
A poor business model? With such arguments everybody should develop exclusively for Windows then! Let's forget about Mac and Linux, Windows is more than 90% of the market. Great argument!

And BTW, why do we have cars in Red, Green, Blue, Marron or whatever, let's have only Black cars. That's costing a lot to have multiple line of color.

And why...

No seriously! Some people not using Lightroom today will probably be tempted to buy it if they are using GNU/Linux daily.
Photo of Mike Murphy

Mike Murphy

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
The whole point of my posting further down is that there are two sources of additional revenue from making a Linux version of any product. Firstly, people such as myself who aren't prepared to buy the product and run it in a VM - the same goes for PSE, by the way, and there may be people who would buy CS5 ...

Secondly, there are people, such as myself, who are prepared to pay for an expensive version of a software license so as to ensure ongoing compatibility of the purchased product with whatever computing platform (physical machine, as well as OS: you get to run bibble5 on all your machines, as long as you only use one of them at once). I bought the pro license for VueScan for the same reason.

But in the end, Adobe has a duty to its stockholders to maximise its profits by investing in versions and products that will likely be profitable. All we can do in this forum is to provide some evidence that there would be a real income stream.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 976 Posts
  • 125 Reply Likes
"A poor business model? With such arguments everybody should develop exclusively for Windows then! Let's forget about Mac and Linux, Windows is more than 90% of the market. Great argument! "

Actually, that is a good argument and it's why many applications are Windows-only. However, the photography/graphics arts/animation and so on communities tend to be disproportionately Apple relative to the general population - more like 50/50 or so. Given that, it makes perfect sense that Adobe would take the effort to provide Mac versions. However, as you can see by all the Lion-related threads, there is a cost to doing that. One might assume a similar cost for Linux support.
Photo of danfiru

danfiru

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I for one would also like to see this. A lot of people are moving from Microsoft OS products simply because they are fed up with all of the bloat. Transitioning to Ubuntu for example has been a very positive experience. In the mean time Ubuntu can do everything I need an OS to do EXCEPT for handle my RAW library. Please add support for linux. (at least debian based systems)
Photo of Mike Murphy

Mike Murphy

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I own a license for Bibble5, not because I especially liked it but because it runs native on Linux. And it is the more expensive Pro license because it will also run on OS/X if I win the lottery and decide to buy an Apple laptop. And because it supports colour management. Which is emerging - at least in Gnome.

As things stand today, I would buy an LR license for Linux.
Photo of Nigel Drego

Nigel Drego

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Probably the wrong place but...How would you compare Bibble5's feature set and workflow to Lr? This is the first I've heard of it and I briefly checked out the page, but my mind is always thinking "but you know how to do everything in Lr"...
Photo of Mike Murphy

Mike Murphy

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
First thing to say is that you need to check the camera support ... including the announcement in the forums regarding the release candidate for 5.2.3 - the latest Sony DSLT and Nex-5N but not AFAIK the NEX7.

I bought a manual on handling RAW, because I felt that my previous methods (developed when I used to use PSE on the JPEG that came out of my Coolpix 990) were not methodical enough. This highlights two areas you should consider before jumping from LR to bibble. The first is that (in my understanding) LR has a slider control for brightness (the manual was in French, but the word the author used was luminosity - as opposed to luminance) as well as for exposure. In bibble you can control brightness by playing with the input/output sliders on the Curves control - if you know gimp you would be familiar with these. Secondly, LR seems to have an edges preview for sharpening (I confess I read about this, but having already decided against LR in VM, my knowledge remains entirely theoretical). Bibble does not have this.

One last observation. Although LR can be used as a standalone product, it does seem as though it was developed to go hand in hand with Photoshop. That would allow you to stay in 16-bit. You can't do that with the current release of gimp.

Now I have dealt with the negatives, the fundamentals of RAW development to JPEG or TIFF are very good. To the naked eye, with no stopwatch, they seem faster than the virtualised LR. The batch application of a set of adjustments seems at least as good as anything I could do with LR. But anyone who is coming from the LR side could well find the opposite.

Bottom line: you get a 30 day trial on any of the platforms (XP, Vista, W7, OsX, and Lx) and you can make up your own mind.

HTH

M
Photo of Mike Murphy

Mike Murphy

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Nigel

One other thing I forgot: your LR plugins won't work in Bibble. The plugins page at bibblelabs will tell you which plugins you CAN get, although those by Thomas Baruchel seem to have fallen off the web,

M
Photo of paul archer

paul archer

  • 28 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I'm in the same boat as most posters here. I run Linux exclusively (home and work, desktops and servers). At work I have to run Windows in a virtual machine for some business requirements. At home I have to run Windows in a VM for Lightroom. It's the only program I ever run in that VM, and if I could run it in Linux, I'd dump Windows entirely.

BTW, I have gotten Lightroom running under wine, but the graphics performance leaves a *lot* to be desired. I think that if Adobe were to concentrate its efforts on tweaking LR for wine instead of porting it outright, they'd have better luck. (This is what Google did with Picasa--on Linux it's a Windows executable running under wine and packaged so you don't notice.)
Photo of Mike Murphy

Mike Murphy

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yes, I would go along with this; although I am not sure tweaking LR is the correct way to go about it. Putting some resource into wine (or codeweavers) might give a better graphics face for all their apps - and there must be many of us who would like to be able to run an up to date CS5 (or, according to rumours I read on the French Alpha sites, CS6) in wine/Crossover.

M
Photo of paul archer

paul archer

  • 28 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
yeah, I'd say it's a problem that probably needs to be attacked from both angles: Lightroom gets tweaked to run better under wine, and wine gets tweaked to run Lightroom better.
Photo of John Yates

John Yates

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Lightroom is now the only application I use for which I need Windows. I'm thinking ot trying Bibble, since I'll soon have to replace the old XP system that I use to run Lightroom, and I'd rather spend the money on something besides a new version of Windows.
Photo of Marian Driscoll

Marian Driscoll

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Count me in.

But until Adobe decides to get around to supporting Linux, there is darktable and Bibble to take away from Adobe's potential profits.