Adobe Discontinues FrameMaker for Linux

Stef Hoesli writes: "Adobe, who gave us a smoothly working beta version for Linux of their fine word processor, will not release FrameMaker commercially on Linux. They sent out an e-mail to beta testers with the sad news. "

Comments

Re:Not the Only Problem with Adobe

[Watts Martin]

Um, no. :)

PostScript wasn't designed for onscreen output, it was designed for resolution-independent printing, in effect moving the equivalent of MetaFont (and more) into the printer, so application programs--in theory--shouldn't have to worry about what they're printing to, as long as it's PostScript compatible.

And in practice, PostScript has done tremendously well. HP succeeded in fending it off from the low end of the market when they brought scalable fonts into PCL, but any laser printer that's more than $600 or so is going to be using Postscript or a compatible interpreter. (If it's a higher-end printer or typesetter, it's virtually guaranteed to be real Adobe Postscript.)

PDF was basically designed as a special application Postscript; a primary point was that it stores font metrics even when it doesn't store fonts, so a PDF reader can use a "master font" to recreate the document in a reasonably correct facsimile even if the fonts aren't available on the reading end. The bitch someone had about Adobe PDFs not embedding the fonts in them now is a valid complaint in one sense, but utterly misses the point in another--embedded fonts are supposed to be optional.

Also, PDF is not PostScript. PostScript is a programming language; PDF is a document format, with no support for programming constructs but with support for hyperlinks, bookmarks, and so on. It's more accurately compared to TeX's DVI format.

And, lastly, if people don't like PDF--hey, this is the open source world. Make your own alternative. But it better do everything that PDF 1.3 does, at least everything that people actually use, or it's not going to go anywhere. Of course, the PDF spec is open and fully documented--so, hell, make your own PDF writer that doesn't have an option for not embedding fonts. If XPDF doesn't handle master fonts, add handling for 'em, or make your own comparable solution--the PDF file won't care how it's getting rendered, after all.

Re:Why? Simple. They are making a BSD version

[mr]

Mac OS X.

Back when Adobe made Solaris versions of thier programs, Desktop publishing shops, all wanting faster machines, didn't want to get Solaris boxes.

Why?

A lack of other tools they are used to. No powerGoo, etc la.

If you are feeding a 10 million dollar press a $150,000 print job, and are paying someone $60,000 a year, is the price difference between a Mac VS a Open Source Unix OS a worry? No.

If Apple is able to keep its user base on the move to BSD unix, eventually code will slide sideways to X86 based BSD, then X86 based *linux. So, just un-bind your underware.

Sense

[buttfucker2000]

Just think about it.

* How many dtp people use Linux? These people are not, in the main, technical types into kernel recompilation. So no market for the product. Simple economics - I have graphics dudes around me, and they like Apple Macs, and, in a few cases, Windows - they don't like Unix, and couldn't use it.

* Inferior architecture - I've used Corel Photopaint on Linux, and it looks very ugly because of the lack of things like anti-aliasing (in the OS, not at a user level - the program looks ugly).

This is a *good* and brave decision - it's better to write the money off than to pour money into the Linux blackhole of giveaway software (Photopaint, etc.) - we don't want Adobe going the way of Corel.

Not the Only Problem with Adobe

[AdrianG]

This is not the only thing Adobe has done wrong. They've stopped including fonts in their PDF files whenever those fonts are normally included with MS-Windows. This means that those PDF files are not viewable under Linux. I used to try to view PDF files under Linux on a regular basis, but I find that it is getting harder to do all the time. These days, most of the PDF files I try to view cannot be rendered properly under 'acroread' (Adobe's own viewer) or under xpdf.

My take on this is that Adobe's attitude toward Linux is becoming more callous all the time, so I recommend to anyone who will listen that they try to avoid using any Adobe product. I can't even count the number of online companies that have lost any chance to get my business because their online catalogs are amoung those PDF files that I can't view under Linux.

Repeat after me: PDF is bad.. Adobe is bad..

Adrian

Pouring Money???

[Bilbo]

> This is a *good* and brave decision - it's better to write the money off than to pour money into the Linux blackhole of giveaway software (Photopaint, etc.)

Why?

I don't get it. They already have a Solaris/X11 based product. The Linux version looked exactly the same as the UNIX version, so you can't bitch about the UI. (Correct me it I'm wrong, but Solaris is still using X11, and doesn't have anti-aliasing either.) In the case of Photopaint, is it a matter of bad architecture, or of trying to simply shoe-horn an application from one architecture into another, without trying to understand the fundamental differences?

I don't discount the fact that there isn't a lot of money to be made off the Linux market, but I can't imagine that they are pouring vast amounts of money down a black hole in order to port FM from Unix to Linux!

--

Re:Framemaker

[kyz]

Framemaker is an SGML editor. What this means is you can create structured documents, like TeX and LaTex, using a wysiwig interface. You can also create unstructured documents, a poor man's MS Word (but it runs on UNIX too).

If you want DTP, you want Pagemaker. Framemaker itself has competition on linux from the office packages, Lyx and obviously TeX/LaTeX + text editor of choice.

Re:Competition

[Watts Martin]

Ultimately FrameMaker's "competition" in the Linux market isn't another program, it's an attitude--that there's always a free alternative, and that the free alternative is always preferable. In point of fact, there are alternatives but there is nothing similar to FrameMaker in the free software world. The closest to it is LyX. I like LyX (although after playing with it I decided I liked straight LaTeX better), but there are things FrameMaker can do that will always be difficult or even impossible for LyX to do, because TeX's concept of a document doesn't include frames. (KWord's concept of a document does, but it doesn't include everything else that FrameMaker does.)

This isn't terribly surprising--FrameMaker may not quite be in a vertical market, but it's close. The front page article describing it as a "word processor" is perhaps the biggest hint as to why Adobe gave up--it's not a word processor, it's a book publishing system. There are a lot of companies using it internally for documentation and technical manuals. Many of O'Reilly's books are produced with FrameMaker. Could you do all those things with LaTeX? Sure, given enough time--but this is one of those fields where a good GUI saves you an immense amount of work. I've done layout for magazines in the past, and I can assure you that even something like LyX would be an utter nightmare compared even to Microsoft Publisher, let alone PageMaker or Xpress.

I know there are Linux fans who won't use any non-free software on principle; while I'm not one of them, I respect that. But I'm sure Adobe knew about them and obviously wasn't targeting them. If they've backed away from this it's because, I would surmise, they feel that the people who are using Linux who aren't gung-ho "free as in speech" types are "free as in beer" types. They've adopted the rhetoric of the free software movement mostly because they like the idea of having a lot of software they don't have to pay for. I can't be too critical of this--I like the idea of having a lot of software I don't have to pay for, too.

But I don't think that the perception of a "we won't pay for it if there's a free alternative that's kind of close" attitude being rampant in the Linux community is a harbinger of the impending death of shrinkwrap software. But it might be a sign of why commercial companies doing personal and "workstation" software probably aren't going to get real enthusiastic about Linux. We'll see commercial offerings from companies that expect to be selling support contracts, or that are looking at their Linux products as loss leaders; beyond that you see companies expecting to make money entirely from services (like Eazel and Helix Code, who despite being "partners" seem to be developing the same service model, which could lead to much hilarity down the road--but we digress).

There's a couple exceptions out there, like ApplixWare, and of course Night Of The Living Corel. But they're going to have to not merely be better than their free counterparts, they're going to have to virtually blow them out of the water, with reasonable pricing and enough unduplicated features that a reasonable percentage of the audience wants them. And that'll be increasingly difficult. (I'm more impressed by AbiSource's ambition than their product, but Ted--which doesn't get the recognition it deserves--absolutely rocks.)

This does beg a question. How does a company that's selling personal software, rather than the support for the software, make money in the Linux world? This isn't just an idle curiosity; some people think Linux is going to lead the world into a software renaissance, and while that's not impossible, there needs to be space for cottage software companies to actually make money and take off. So far the only ones that have done that seem to be ones that are selling Linux itself. Will AbiSource, for example, ever make money? That seems to be their goal, but nobody needs a support contract for a spreadsheet program--and by choosing to be GPL, they can't take the Ghostscript route of being "free for non-commercial use" and charge business licenses. (This would seem to me to be a workable approach, but some would argue--with justification--it's not in the spirit of open source if you have a commercial limitation like that.)

Gee I'm so glad I went for LaTex!

[Eg0r]

You know when people tell you to go for opensource software and stuff? This is especially true for word processing. See what happens when you don't? Just imagine you started to write documents on the beta and now you're stuck because they're not going to release the software in the end. The beta runs out, and You Are Stuck In Your Shit.

2-3 years ago, I was facing this difficult choice for writing my thesis: LyX wasn't quite there yet, staroffice (still from stardiv at the time) looked good but wasn't quite there yet either, and everybody else in the lab (99.9% of the people) were complaining about all kinds of problems in office97, or from migration to one system to another (one guy managed to go nearly all the way through from 2 to 2000, but it took him a lot longer than anybody else to get his PhD ;)...

WYSIWIG is great for short documents... something you manage to write in a few minutes and can still handle the layout of.

Anything bigger than a few pages, a few dozens of cross-references to sections, equations, figures, citations and word pukes. It doesn't do it straight away, though... but slowly at first and giving-up more and more errors as the document grows.
Then when you want to print to another printer that isn't the one you wrote your document for, the layout and page breaks go all over the place. This Isn't Normal.

I remember having had this discussion on /. at the time and several people advised me to move to LaTeX.

Sure I was shit scared to do anything the size of a thesis in TeX... need to compiling documents before you can see them, limited xdvi viewer, no spell checker... all in all LaTeX isn't very appealing for the new user.

But think about it this way: A 200page document is quite a big project. If it were a big programming project, would you rather rely on a limited point and click tool somebody who doesn't understand shit about the stuff you're really doing, or would you rather do it yourself with a powerful language like c, c++... insert your favorite language here.

There you go! and you don't expect the learning curve to be easy either, do you?

So yes, it was quite a difficult move for me, but fortunately, there are good documents on the net... just grab a copy of epslatex.pdf from a CTAN mirror and The not so short introduction to LaTeX 2e.

The most amazing thing about LaTeX is very simple: It's Open. This means that any part of your document, you can generate yourself from your programs. Need to generate a table with figures? just do it.

The same thing goes to two other programs I extensively used: grace and xfig. Yes they have somewhat limited interfaces, but you can generate the data from your own programs, so who cares about the interface?! they have open and well documented formats, it's the only thing that should matter.

For spell checking, I used aspell, again, who cares about real-time error correcting when you can do it in one go near the end?

For the editor, I don't know what you usually use, I use vi (improved :) and it works great. Use whatever you want.

Okay, I probably should stop being a LaTeX zealot, just think about it. Okay, you wouldn't start writing c++ code to just rename a few files... that's why bash is here for. The same way, to quickly produce a dirty document, wysiwyg is handy... but anything bigger than a few lines of code and you'll start to feel limited if you stay in bash instead of going for c/c++... same with documents... And when the program you're using is Trully Open, then you don't depend on The Big Corps who don't give a shit about you, just your money...

---

This is not a tragedy, its an opportunity.

[crovira]

In fact its a challenge to the open source community. A FrameMaker clone outputting PDF. Lets merge it into the StarOffice suite.

Okay. E-mail me and we'll start drawing up specs. My forte is 3D visualization so I'm not the best person to do this but its got to start somewhere.

Lets take Frame Maker apart "at face value," list every presentation (aka: window, dialog box,) every button (aka: gadget, widget,) every menu item, draw up dialog descriptions (I have a diagramming technique to do this, I can email a copy of the article from the January 1990 issue of Computer Language Magazine, [it'll be on my site ASAP,]) and factor out an object structure to support all of the functionality.

By the way: PDF Good, closed spec.s BAD.