6 ms·

When this got released I really expected someone in the opensource community to run with it, but as far as I know no one has. Back around 1990 a Graphic designe

by ofalkaed 10mo ago

When this got released I really expected someone in the opensource community to run with it, but as far as I know no one has. Back around 1990 a Graphic designer that had his office n the same building as my mom worked in let me copy his Photoshop 1.x disks and nothing has ever compared to it for me. When will we get the linux port of Photoshop 1.0? I would love to see how it develops.

LollipopYakuza 10mo ago
I understand it was a very unique and powerful piece of software in 1990 but why would it be such a game changer to have the 1.0 running on Linux today?
delaminator 10mo ago
If they did, they can only send you screenshots > 2. Restrictions. Except as expressly specified in this Agreement, you may not: (a) transfer, sublicense, lease, lend, rent or otherwise distribute the Software or Derivative Works to any third party; or (b) make the functionality of the Software or Derivative Works available to multiple users through any means, including, but not limited to, by uploading the Software to a network or file-sharing service or through any hosting, application services provider, service bureau, software-as-a-service (SaaS) or any other type of services. You acknowledge and agree that portions of the Software, including, but not limited to, the source code and the specific design and structure of individual modules or programs, constitute or contain trade secrets of Museum and its licensors.
- ofalkaed 10mo ago
  I was talking about more than just a literal port, running with it is broader than just a literal port. I guess my general point is that I am disappointed that all these releases of historical code have so little to show for being released. Edit: Disappointed is really not the right word but I am failing at finding the right word.
  - pm215 10mo ago
    I think there's two parts to this: 1) these historical source code releases really are largely historical interest only. The original programs had constraints of memory and cpu speed that no modern use case does; the set of use cases for any particular task today is very different; what users expect and will tolerate in UI has shifted; available programming languages and tooling today are much better than the pragmatic options of decades past. If you were trying to build a Unix clone today there is no way you would want to start with the historical release of sixth edition. Even xv6 is only "inspired by" it, and gets away with that because of its teaching focus. Similarly if you wanted to build some kind of "streamlined lightweight photoshop-alike" then starting from scratch would be more sensible than starting with somebody else's legacy codebase. 2) In this specific case the licence agreement explicitly forbids basically any kind of "running with it" -- you cannot distribute any derivative work. So it's not surprising that nobody has done that. I think Doom and similar old games are one of the few counterexamples, where people find value in being able to run the specific artefact on new platforms.
  - delaminator 10mo ago
    you literally said: > When will we get the linux port of Photoshop 1.0?
  - ndiddy 10mo ago
    What would you expect to happen? Photoshop 1.0 is an almost unusably basic image editor by modern standards. It doesn't even have layers (they were introduced with Photoshop 3.0 4 years later). Even if the code was licensed in a manner that allowed distribution of derivative works (which it isn't), it's written in Apple's Pascal dialect from the mid-80s and uses a UI framework that's also from the mid-80s and only supports classic Mac OS. CHM didn't even release the code in a state that could be usable out of the box if you happen to have a 40 year old Macintosh sitting around. Here's a blog post showing how much work it took someone to compile it: http://basalgangster.macgui.com/RetroMacComputing/The_Long_View/Entries/2013/3/30_Building_Photoshop.html http://basalgangster.macgui.com/RetroMacComputing/The_Long_V... I think Adobe decided to release the code because they knew it was only valuable from a historical standpoint and wouldn't let anyone actually compete with Photoshop. If you wanted to start a new image editor project from an existing codebase, it would be much easier to build off of something like Pinta: https://www.pinta-project.com/ https://www.pinta-project.com/
- somat 10mo ago
  It would be trivial to distribute a patch and a link to the original source. The patch can be distributed under whatever license the author wants. The resulting binary then becomes an unlicensed derivative work, the person who compiled it can use it however they want but are not allowed to legally distribute it. My personal thoughts are: open-source software is great, probably the ideal condition, but I wish the general software distribution environment was not effectively all or nothing. open-source or compiled binary. I wish that protected-source software was considered a more valid distribution model. where you can compile, inspect fix and run the software but are not allowed to distribute it. Because trying to diagnose a problem when all you have is a compilation artifact is a huge pain. You see some enterprise software like this but for the most part it either open-source or no-source. I am a bit surprised that there is no third party patch to get photoshop 1.0 to run under modern linux or windows, not for any real utility(at this point MS paint probably has better functionality), but for the fun of it. "This is what it feels like to drive photoshop 1"
msk-lywenn 10mo ago
The source is now readable but it’s not open source at all.
- bromuro 10mo ago
  It is open source but not free software.
  - cgfjtynzdrfht 10mo ago
    It's "source available" [1], not open source [2]. Words have meaning and all that. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
    - geokon 10mo ago
      cant blame him. We're in a bit of a bananas situation where open source isnt the antonym of closed source
      - jefftk 10mo ago
        This isn't that uncommon: * If a country doesn't have "closed borders" then many foreigners can visit if they follow certain rules around visas, purpose, and length of stay. If instead anyone can enter and live there with minimal restrictions we say it has "open borders". * If a journal isn't "closed access" it is free to read. If you additionally have permissions to redistribute, reuse, etc then it's "open access". * If an organization doesn't practice "closed meetings" then outsiders can attend meetings to observe. If it additionally provides advance notice, allows public attendance without permission, and records or publishes minutes, then it has “open meetings.” * A club that doesn't have "closed membership" is open to admitting members. Anyone can join provided they meet relevant criteria (if any) then it's "open membership". EDIT: expanded this into a post: https://www.jefftk.com/p/open-source-is-a-normal-term https://www.jefftk.com/p/open-source-is-a-normal-term
ofrzeta 10mo ago
You could try having an LLM port it to Linux :) As an aside I was always (well, no longer) hoping that Photoshop gets ported to Linux because at least an IRIX port existed, so there has to be some source code with X11 or whatever library code. https://fsck.technology/software/Silicon%20Graphics/Software/Adobe%20Photoshop/Adobe%20Photoshop%203.01%20IRIX/ https://fsck.technology/software/Silicon%20Graphics/Software...
- robert-brown 10mo ago
  Photoshop was ported to IRIX using Latitude, Quorum Software's implementation of Mac OS System 7. Apple later acquired the Quorum's code and it became part of Carbon.
  - anthk 10mo ago
    There's System 7 for Unix 'natively', with either Executor (there's a fork under Github) or some other project: https://www.v68k.org/advanced-mac-substitute/ https://www.v68k.org/advanced-mac-substitute/ https://github.com/autc04/executor https://github.com/autc04/executor https://github.com/jjuran/metamage_1/ https://github.com/jjuran/metamage_1/
- jeffrallen 10mo ago
  As an experiment, I gave the source zip file to Claude and told it to make a WASM version of the app, by translating the Pascal to Go. It nailed it, first try. I cannot, unfortunately, share a link to the website it created because of the license. LLM translations of historical software to modern platforms is a solved problem. Try it, you'll see. I used https://exe.dev/ https://exe.dev/ and their Shelley agent to drive Claude. Give it a try, it is jaw dropping.
  - ndiddy 10mo ago
    Can you post a video demonstrating you using it?
    - 10mo ago
gwbas1c 10mo ago
What about GIMP or any of the other open source image editors? Just supporting a modern OS's graphical API (The pre-OSX APIs are long dead and unsupported) is a major effort.

LollipopYakuza 10mo ago

I understand it was a very unique and powerful piece of software in 1990 but why would it be such a game changer to have the 1.0 running on Linux today?

delaminator 10mo ago

If they did, they can only send you screenshots > 2. Restrictions. Except as expressly specified in this Agreement, you may not: (a) transfer, sublicense, lease, lend, rent or otherwise distribute the Software or Derivative Works to any third party; or (b) make the functionality of the Software or Derivative Works available to multiple users through any means, including, but not limited to, by uploading the Software to a network or file-sharing service or through any hosting, application services provider, service bureau, software-as-a-service (SaaS) or any other type of services. You acknowledge and agree that portions of the Software, including, but not limited to, the source code and the specific design and structure of individual modules or programs, constitute or contain trade secrets of Museum and its licensors.

ofalkaed 10mo ago
I was talking about more than just a literal port, running with it is broader than just a literal port. I guess my general point is that I am disappointed that all these releases of historical code have so little to show for being released. Edit: Disappointed is really not the right word but I am failing at finding the right word.
- pm215 10mo ago
  I think there's two parts to this: 1) these historical source code releases really are largely historical interest only. The original programs had constraints of memory and cpu speed that no modern use case does; the set of use cases for any particular task today is very different; what users expect and will tolerate in UI has shifted; available programming languages and tooling today are much better than the pragmatic options of decades past. If you were trying to build a Unix clone today there is no way you would want to start with the historical release of sixth edition. Even xv6 is only "inspired by" it, and gets away with that because of its teaching focus. Similarly if you wanted to build some kind of "streamlined lightweight photoshop-alike" then starting from scratch would be more sensible than starting with somebody else's legacy codebase. 2) In this specific case the licence agreement explicitly forbids basically any kind of "running with it" -- you cannot distribute any derivative work. So it's not surprising that nobody has done that. I think Doom and similar old games are one of the few counterexamples, where people find value in being able to run the specific artefact on new platforms.
- delaminator 10mo ago
  you literally said: > When will we get the linux port of Photoshop 1.0?
- ndiddy 10mo ago
  What would you expect to happen? Photoshop 1.0 is an almost unusably basic image editor by modern standards. It doesn't even have layers (they were introduced with Photoshop 3.0 4 years later). Even if the code was licensed in a manner that allowed distribution of derivative works (which it isn't), it's written in Apple's Pascal dialect from the mid-80s and uses a UI framework that's also from the mid-80s and only supports classic Mac OS. CHM didn't even release the code in a state that could be usable out of the box if you happen to have a 40 year old Macintosh sitting around. Here's a blog post showing how much work it took someone to compile it: http://basalgangster.macgui.com/RetroMacComputing/The_Long_View/Entries/2013/3/30_Building_Photoshop.html http://basalgangster.macgui.com/RetroMacComputing/The_Long_V... I think Adobe decided to release the code because they knew it was only valuable from a historical standpoint and wouldn't let anyone actually compete with Photoshop. If you wanted to start a new image editor project from an existing codebase, it would be much easier to build off of something like Pinta: https://www.pinta-project.com/ https://www.pinta-project.com/
somat 10mo ago
It would be trivial to distribute a patch and a link to the original source. The patch can be distributed under whatever license the author wants. The resulting binary then becomes an unlicensed derivative work, the person who compiled it can use it however they want but are not allowed to legally distribute it. My personal thoughts are: open-source software is great, probably the ideal condition, but I wish the general software distribution environment was not effectively all or nothing. open-source or compiled binary. I wish that protected-source software was considered a more valid distribution model. where you can compile, inspect fix and run the software but are not allowed to distribute it. Because trying to diagnose a problem when all you have is a compilation artifact is a huge pain. You see some enterprise software like this but for the most part it either open-source or no-source. I am a bit surprised that there is no third party patch to get photoshop 1.0 to run under modern linux or windows, not for any real utility(at this point MS paint probably has better functionality), but for the fun of it. "This is what it feels like to drive photoshop 1"

msk-lywenn 10mo ago

The source is now readable but it’s not open source at all.

bromuro 10mo ago
It is open source but not free software.
- cgfjtynzdrfht 10mo ago
  It's "source available" [1], not open source [2]. Words have meaning and all that. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
  - geokon 10mo ago
    cant blame him. We're in a bit of a bananas situation where open source isnt the antonym of closed source
    - jefftk 10mo ago
      This isn't that uncommon: * If a country doesn't have "closed borders" then many foreigners can visit if they follow certain rules around visas, purpose, and length of stay. If instead anyone can enter and live there with minimal restrictions we say it has "open borders". * If a journal isn't "closed access" it is free to read. If you additionally have permissions to redistribute, reuse, etc then it's "open access". * If an organization doesn't practice "closed meetings" then outsiders can attend meetings to observe. If it additionally provides advance notice, allows public attendance without permission, and records or publishes minutes, then it has “open meetings.” * A club that doesn't have "closed membership" is open to admitting members. Anyone can join provided they meet relevant criteria (if any) then it's "open membership". EDIT: expanded this into a post: https://www.jefftk.com/p/open-source-is-a-normal-term https://www.jefftk.com/p/open-source-is-a-normal-term

ofrzeta 10mo ago

You could try having an LLM port it to Linux :) As an aside I was always (well, no longer) hoping that Photoshop gets ported to Linux because at least an IRIX port existed, so there has to be some source code with X11 or whatever library code. https://fsck.technology/software/Silicon%20Graphics/Software/Adobe%20Photoshop/Adobe%20Photoshop%203.01%20IRIX/ https://fsck.technology/software/Silicon%20Graphics/Software...

robert-brown 10mo ago
Photoshop was ported to IRIX using Latitude, Quorum Software's implementation of Mac OS System 7. Apple later acquired the Quorum's code and it became part of Carbon.
- anthk 10mo ago
  There's System 7 for Unix 'natively', with either Executor (there's a fork under Github) or some other project: https://www.v68k.org/advanced-mac-substitute/ https://www.v68k.org/advanced-mac-substitute/ https://github.com/autc04/executor https://github.com/autc04/executor https://github.com/jjuran/metamage_1/ https://github.com/jjuran/metamage_1/
jeffrallen 10mo ago
As an experiment, I gave the source zip file to Claude and told it to make a WASM version of the app, by translating the Pascal to Go. It nailed it, first try. I cannot, unfortunately, share a link to the website it created because of the license. LLM translations of historical software to modern platforms is a solved problem. Try it, you'll see. I used https://exe.dev/ https://exe.dev/ and their Shelley agent to drive Claude. Give it a try, it is jaw dropping.
- ndiddy 10mo ago
  Can you post a video demonstrating you using it?
  - 10mo ago

gwbas1c 10mo ago

What about GIMP or any of the other open source image editors? Just supporting a modern OS's graphical API (The pre-OSX APIs are long dead and unsupported) is a major effort.